@moonmehta @manton @jean @pratik and probably more who would be interested: perhaps there’s a way to meet in the middle when ruling on violations. Instead of making rulings public when accusations are public, an admin could message and rule on a private thread involving all parties, then interject on the main thread that they have done so while linking to guidelines. If the parties wish to state publicly what the ruling was, they can, but hopefully the discussion can continue without further violations, regardless. It would be analogous to an authority figure calling the parties over to a corner, having a quick private chat, then publicly saying they’ve chatted with the people and expect everyone to stick to the rules before walking away. Admins can archive these private chats as evidence against repeat offenders who need more attention and/or harsher methods. This isn’t perfect, but it think it combines the best of what both sides are expressing: handling violations sensitively while also making authorities present and involved in violations. I’m listening to what others think of this, and am prepared to be shown a flaw I haven’t considered.

pratik

@jasonekratz Agree about “bloody revolution” being politics too, except I was hoping we wouldn’t get there. I don’t think Andreessen-Horowitz just got this, but in light of DHH’s proclamations, at least we got them to explicitly and openly state that politics is essential to getting your way. Now they may have been already doing that in the shadows via PACs.

Re: my quote about Ben, I still don’t understand your point. It’s clear I was talking about him being a privileged (legacy/social capital) rich white man. I didn’t even think about his religion but yes, I would put an American privileged straight white rich Christian man at the top of the food chain. But unless Ben tells us more about how he is being misrepresented in this world, you and I can only guess. I don’t know about his family history and his Wikipedia entry is scant on details.

Re: NY resolutions, of course, people should do what’s best for their mental health, but some of us don’t have that privilege or the choice so I was just pointing it out. If they feel guilty about me pointing that out, well, I can’t dictate how they should feel.

2024-01-05 19:02

Embed

In reply to

splinter

@moonmehta @manton @jean @pratik and probably more who would be interested: perhaps there’s a way to meet in the middle when ruling on violations.

Instead of making rulings public when accusations are public, an admin could message and rule on a private thread involving all parties, then interject on the main thread that they have done so while linking to guidelines. If the parties wish to state publicly what the ruling was, they can, but hopefully the discussion can continue without further violations, regardless. It would be analogous to an authority figure calling the parties over to a corner, having a quick private chat, then publicly saying they’ve chatted with the people and expect everyone to stick to the rules before walking away. Admins can archive these private chats as evidence against repeat offenders who need more attention and/or harsher methods.

This isn’t perfect, but it think it combines the best of what both sides are expressing: handling violations sensitively while also making authorities present and involved in violations. I’m listening to what others think of this, and am prepared to be shown a flaw I haven’t considered.

2024-01-09 15:46

Embed

Micro.blog

Micro.blog