Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2017
Re: [perl #132594] BBC smartmatchda4e040f42421764ef069371d77c008e6b801f45
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Andreas Koenig
Date:
December 29, 2017 09:06
Subject:
Re: [perl #132594] BBC smartmatchda4e040f42421764ef069371d77c008e6b801f45
Message ID:
87373t52eg.fsf@k85.linux.bogus
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 12:46:59 +0000, Aaron Crane <arc@cpan.org> said:
> Andreas Koenig <andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de> wrote:
>> 5. A moderation system like on p5p where a single person can define that
>> certain phrases shall be punished with a life-long ban, is not one of
>> the better ones.
>>
>> 6. The incriminated posting was already rejected by yourself and several
>> others and Sawyer had answered in sovereignty (at least did I
>> perceive it as such) and there was already a chance that the
>> discourse could go on. No need for moderation at all.
>>
>> 7. We have to deal with a highly problematic blead branch with an
>> unprecendented level of breakage. I find it double problematic when
>> moderation kicks in while we have a huge mess to deal with anyway.
> Thank you for clarifying your position, Andreas, and for subsequently
> accepting a correction about the nature of the bans that moderators
> can impose.
You're welcome!
> I'm not seeking to continue "fighting over" this matter (as your
> subsequent message puts it), but I've spent the last day thinking hard
> about it, and you level some specific criticisms that I'd like to
> respond to. There are also some aspects of my views on the wider topic
> of moderation that I think it would be helpful for me to set out
> clearly.
Thank you for the effort.
> First and foremost, I stand by my reading of Peter's comments as
> uncivil and unacceptable, and by my decision to respond as moderator
> with a formal warning, in accordance with our standards of conduct.
> You describe our moderation system as one "where a single person can
> define that certain phrases shall be punished", and I read this
> description as a specific characterisation of my actions as moderator
> in this matter. I reject any contention that Peter's message required
> close textual analysis of individual phrases to reach a conclusion
> that it was uncivil; the entire tenor of it was fundamentally a
> personal attack.
> Your point 6 seems to be suggesting that, if any moderator replies to
> any message as an individual, rather than ex officio as moderator,
> that should automatically cause the message to be treated as
> acceptable.
No, this was not what I meant. What I meant was that there was some
level of rejection by several people and that this should be taken into
account, no matter whether a moderator was involved or not. I'd say in
this case Ricardo would not even count as a moderator because he did not
state that he was (and I did not even know that he was).
> I disagree strongly with that: one of the reasons we have
> a panel of moderators is so that no one person has to take
> responsibility for doing all the unpleasant work of moderation. In the
> specific case that you raise of Sawyer replying, I note also that
> there is a conflict of interest if someone bearing the brunt of a
> personal attack can also respond to that attack as a moderator.
When I go back and see the thread evolving, there were, according to my
newsreader, already 5 answers before moderation kicked in:
[24-Dec Peter Rabbitson ] Re: [perl #132594] BBC smartmatch da4e040f42421764ef069371d77c008e6b801f45
[25-Dec Karl Williamson ]
[25-Dec Tomasz Konojacki ]
[25-Dec Ricardo Signes ]
[25-Dec Sawyer X ]
[25-Dec Dave Mitchell ]
[27-Dec Aaron Crane ]
My critique was that calmness had already been achieved without
moderation. Please note also that in my time zone there was no posting
on 26th in this subthread, so the subthread was calm for more than 24
hours. And the incriminated posting was already about 62 hours old. I
think all these surrounding circumstances should be taken into account.
> You continue by saying that "there was already a chance that the
> discourse could go on". This suggests you consider that the motivation
> for having standards of conduct is merely to allow debate to continue
> somehow.
Quite so.
> A consequence of that position is that, as long as *some*
> debate continues, abusive and hurtful behaviour could or even should
> be permitted to go unchecked.
Not necessarily. That's why I said, "please learn to look away when you
are not needed". Implicit in that sentence, I would argue, is also:
please continue to look whether you are needed.
> Again, I disagree fervently. I consider behaviour of this sort to be
> unconditionally unacceptable, regardless of who displays it, the
> context of the discussion, and whether any other debate continues.
This is the point where we disagree. I want to have acknowledged that
people are different in their passion, their way to express their itches
and their ability to tie into the loose ends in ongoing discussions, and
many other aspects of communication. When a subgroup in a community is
able to deal with their dissonances, moderation can probably stay out of
the way. Finding the right measure then needs to be a matter of
intuition. I mean "intuition" as opposed to your words "unconditionally
unacceptable".
> The more general views I want to set out hinge on the reasons why we
> have standards of conduct, and moderators who attempt to ensure
> they're adhered to.
And I'm really very greatful for that, thank you!
> We hold ourselves to standards of conduct that allow us all to come to
> the best solutions we can, in an environment of mutual respect and
> assistance. This is especially true of problems without a single
> obvious right answer, and where a wide variety of options and
> perspectives are supported by experienced, passionate proponents.
> We hold ourselves to standards of conduct that allow us to contribute
> to the consideration of difficult problems without having to worry
> about whether we're going to bear the brunt of an unpleasant outburst.
> We hold ourselves to these standards of conduct partly to make it
> clear to people who are not (yet) active members of our community
> that, should they choose to take part, they will be welcomed and
> respected, and that they can expect to do so without having to absorb
> or defend themselves against hurtful comments — because *all* those
> who take part are defended by the structures and institutions we have
> put in place for that purpose.
No objection, Your Honor!
Thanks,
--
andreas
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next