Hey,
They have not been unbanned, but will be on Tuesday at
the end of the
moderation-team agreed temp ban period, which they were informed of
by me within moments of the ban having been executed.
Apologies, I didn't quite understand what Jonas was talking about, I
understand now.
OTOH, they were specifically asked not to keep talking
about it here
on list as this is not an appropriate venue for appeal.
I think this is 50/50, mopar is arguing that the moderation action was
wrong. By appealing in private the case is not seen by other members.
The membership elects the board and the council, the board has elected
you (the moderation team) to moderate, if the conduct of moderator(s) is
to be questioned, then I don't see why there shouldn't be a case taken
to the membership on the mailing list.
On the other hand, the drama is undesirable.
If you want a chapter an verse from the Code of
Conduct for some
reason, the usually cited sections are "2.4 Be Respectful" and "2.5
Be Friendly and Supportive".
You don't need to justify your decision to me.
I also agree, he was not being respectful. However this is quite common
when discussions get heated, or when people get emotional. I myself
have lost my cool within the operators channel.
This is why assuming good faith is required, and I can't honestly feel
like any of the moderation staff involved in said incident assumed
any good faith. Sometimes discussions are hard to keep civil (especially
ones of a political nature), and its important that people take a step
back when that boundary has been crossed or are about to be crossed. A
mute would have been more than enough to satisfy this, mopar became
argumentative, he refused to take a step back, mute him.
It seems the actions taken from moderation was in bad faith and
that mopar is out to verbally abuse everyone, so he must be banned
asap. This is exactly how a heated argument blows up into this.
I will note I have been given two bad faith warnings for moderation in
the past. One of them was actually me trying to be productive but was
assumed to be insulting, and the other was issued for a discussion
between where me and someone else choose to spend our cash, in fact, we
were discussing an operator meetup. So I know first hand that at least
one of the moderation staff assumes bad faith, so this is a problem.
infomred their conduct was inappropriate by several
moderation team members
I am sorry but this is not entirely true.
Ge0rG said:
moparisthebest: please stop it now.
With mopar's response obviously being argumentative:
why? you gonna sue me ?
and then you responded:
That's really rather inappropriate
in which mopar stated directly after:
lol I'm done too
in which Ge0rG then replied:
moparisthebest: no, I would moderate you and then you
can sue the
XSF, me, or anybody else to get that lifted.
So observations:
1. Only one person pointed out that his comment was inappropriate
(singpolyma), with no threat of moderation or highlighting that it
violated the CoC, aka no due process.
2. There was at no point a warning of code of conduct violation and a
threat of moderation from Ge0rG.
3. Mopar actually finished only to be banned the moment he did.
(Obviously anything sent in private I can't see, and thus there could
be more to this)
I am sorry, as much as I would love to blame mopar, this entire drama
was caused through woeful moderation, no due process which you
explained to me was followed, no clear warning of moderation was
issued, and a ban issued after the drama had seemingly ceased.
(due to the temporary technical issue that
accidentally rescinded the
ban as has been described up thread).
As a result of this and the aforementioned moderator action, led to
mopar returning angered about the moderation action, and also the drama
on the list. Which all seemed avoidable with a simple mute, or just
letting it go and letting the drama cease for everyone's sake.
and continued even after a ban had been effected
I don't know what was said in private, but all I saw this morning was
mopar opposing moderator action, and if we get to the point where
someone is moderated for disagreeing with the actions of another member
then there's a problem.
The mod team has been discussing and is very aware
that communication
about this action was weak. There are a number of excuses here, but
no matter it has been resolved to communicate around these actions
more verbosely in the future to avoid misunderstandings.
I think this evaluation is severely lacking. Moderators were too heavy
handed (IMO) and I am not the only person who seems to hold this
opinion, on a heated discussion which started from what looked like a
legitimate question about the usefulness of the XSF having a legal
entity.
You can not throw petrol on a fire, and then take credit for putting
the fire out and ignoring the collateral damage caused. This has lasted
an extra day than it should have, spread to the mailing list because a
member complained about their treatment, which I don't entirely
disagree with.
No due process, no clear warnings, and moderation after the drama would
have potentially ceased. That's not just merely poor communication, that
is a total failure.
And mopar how hard is it to apologise for your conduct? A sure way to
get unbanned if you feel like you have been wrongly banned is to first
apologise, you don't even need to agree that your conduct was wrong,
just apologising that if you had offended anyone during your
discussion is the best way to de-escalate a situation.
This all was entirely avoidable (IMO), and you both (that being the
moderation team and mopar) are as bad as each other. So could the
bureaucracy be cut, and people accept the incident for what it is, a
discussion which got out of hand.
Please stop throwing mud at each other, and accept you both acted wrong.
For the sake of the mailing list and the other members in the community.
I hope the 2 hours I spent drafting this email might help avoid this
repeating all this drama the next time there is a CoC violation.
Take care,
--
Polarian
Jabber/XMPP: polarian(a)icebound.dev