Because @rtpg didn’t say they want to discuss, I won’t reply to them directly. But I gave their post a heart, because I did like it. Bluntly enough stated that even I understood the point
Which is well taken. I already spoke to it as best I can, and won’t repeat that. Already said that if I had it to do over again, ya, I’d post far less in the bylaws topic (essentially replying to only the replies from PSF representatives).
In the other topic that was obviously created to attack me, I’m not sure what I would have done different. That one was largely about “Uncle Timmy’s tongue-in-cheek posting style”, and it was at least ironic that I continued to supply examples of it there, largely the very thing they were objecting to. It took a loooong time for me to realize that. Mea culpa.
So long as @Rosuav and @dg-pb remain civil, I’m happy to hear their ideas too.
I appreciate you repeating this directly (hadn’t seen it directly), and your mea culpa piece.
I’m sure there are still very large gaps between us in our understanding of everything, but I think that the existence of this thread and it not getting entirely locked is some proof that there’s space to chat.
And, speaking as someone who likes to “reply to everything”, always worth taking a breath to think about whether we’re overwhelming a conversation. I have opinions on basically every line people have posted here, but I just wanted to shrink something down to something manageable, and not too glib. I think I’ve already reached my daily limit on how many times I should post about something I “am not particularly interested in” though
Yes, it’s an opinion, but even opinions need to have some justification. We’re talking about whether it is correct to punish someone for a specific action. For example, you can argue about whether the speed limit should be 30 km/h or 100 km/h, and that’s a matter of opinion [1], but if someone was driving at 50 km/h on a road with a clearly-posted 100 km/h limit, it is wrong to punish them. That’s not an opinion. That’s the application of a rule.
So, is it a ban-worthy offense to post too much? Is continued discussion “disruption”? Are you willing to yourself get banned for the same offense, should you respond too many times in this thread?
Think carefully before you respond.
and a whole lot of studies about safety, which make it pretty clear that 30km/h speed limits are better for the city as a whole ↩︎
Those may or may not be offenses under the Discourse Community Guidlines passed midstream, but I don’t see anything about posting frequency in the CoC…
These were advertised as CoC violations, so the distinction is of some interest. A ban from core development is a more serious matter than a temporary suspension on Discourse, and “mere” Discourse suspensions are typically either for just a few weeks, or permanent.
Which is another incongruity here: some people on tech-gossip sites’ comment sections looked at that list of offenses and went “wow! if that dude is that much a monster, why is he being banned for only 3 months?!”. Then they look into it.
Have to say, while I know you didn’t intend it that way, that can easily be read as a threatening tone. Take that or leave it - I won’t discuss it more. Just please consider it as a possibility that a friendlier phrasing could have been found.
True, that’s not how I intended it. Though there is the threatening nature of the current moderation team in that, if someone responds to my post, they could be banned for it.
If that seems ridiculous to you, it does to me too.
Are you speaking in general or about the SC/CoC board? If the former I disagree, you shouldn’t be forced to justify your opinion in general, but I can see why groups in a position of power should be forced to.
About the topic of bans and CoC and guidelines and moderation I think everything that can be said has been said, in every tone, multiple times, and I think it’s time for the community to move on. I urge the moderators, if they still read this thread, to close it. Nothing will come of it but anger and needless relitigation.
I don’t think that would be helpful, having this thread open prevents derailing the discussions elsewhere and actually helps stopping the endless discussions on the rest of the forum. It has already happened in few other topics where it gets sidetracked into this topic, then someone suggests moving the discussion here, and no one continues it.
That is all that is needed if someone else were previously offended. A clarification as to intent.
Tims alleged transgressions seemed to be easily verifiable if they gave quotes and the meanings they attributed to them; but this was not done, even when asked!
It could be so easy! Tim gave a quote and a possible interpretation then the quoted person gave a clarification. Bystanders such as I are informed - that’s transparency at work.
Ofcourse, it has been explained multiple times why this wasn’t given.
At some point you have to accept that this CoC enforcement functions differently than what you want from it. You can either accept that or request changes to the CoC, but I don’t think anyone will be able explain why Tim has been banned in a way that is going to satisfy you if it hasn’t already happened.
It is encouraging to note that even amongst all the current discord, it is still possible for people involved to cooperate in order to prevent serious harm to another individual.
Me asking the mods, who I don’t personally know and have no control over does not seem threatening to me, at least no more threatening than your response.
It comes from me having followed these discussions for 5 months now and there haven’t been anything new said in the last 2. People are free to feel different but I have to be able to ask, in public, for what I think is good for the community. You are free to disagree as well, but I don’t understand why you have to exaggerate and accuse of me threatening people instead of just saying that you disagree and topic should be kept open.
And if you must know I think that while the suspension was justified in terms of the CoC I don’t necessarily agree that his behaviour was particularly agregious nor that it was the right course of action and was fairly shocked when I realised Tim was the suspended. I just think it’s time to move on as a community.
Yes, people who haven’t personally been hurt by this would be VERY happy for those of us who have been personally hurt to “just move on” and pretend that nothing happened. It would be very convenient to just sweep it all under the carpet and ignore the pain that people have felt, and are likely to feel again.
I don’t know how you personally have been hurt by this as the only three people that publically had some disciplinary action taken against them were Karl, David, and Tim. If you want to share how you personally were hurt please tell me, either here or in a DM if you’re not ok doing so publically.
Me personally have been saddened (a kind of hurt IMO) by how these angry and infected discussions continue to drag on without anything useful ever coming put of them (except the thread in the committers topic regarding the SC and CoC enforcement).
Of the three people who I have seen publically being disciplined, Tim is the only one who’s welcome anymore and he has said he’s willing to move on, so why shouldn’t the community be able to as well?
There’s a difference between feeling as if something is resolved enough to move on from and being willing to move on from it.
I don’t see a conflict in words with actions here.
Tim is also not the only one who has expressed wanting specific claims to be backed up within PSF spaces.
If you look to how this has been discussed by people outside of PSF spaces, it is clear that there are reasonable people who disagree with what has happened, think many of the claims require twisting what was said to actually turn them into coc violations, and think there needs to be clarity on it, but are not willing to put themselves in the same position.
This has had a chilling effect specifically because many of the claims don’t match people’s perspectives on what they saw with their own eyes.
No, that is not what I am talking about. Transparency is not a real issue IMO - you just don’t understand/don’t want to understand the explanations given to you.
I had already started writing a long paragraph explaining this again, but I don’t think it would do any good.
As mentioned before, everything relevant has already said - now it’s just on you to actually read it and try to understand it.
