# Why I'm leaving discuss.python.org **URL:** \ **Category:** PSF\ **Created:** [July 13, 2024, 4:18pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/why-im-leaving-discuss-python-org/58093 "2024-07-13T16:18:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 65
**Author:** ![kknechtel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47c2d/32.png) [@kknechtel](https://discuss.python.org/u/kknechtel)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2024, 4:19pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/why-im-leaving-discuss-python-org/58093/65 "2024-07-17T16:19:26Z")
> [@pf\_moore](#): > > Even innoccuous changes like fixing typos are problematic, simply because they undermine the trust that what I typed will remain what other people see > … > In the end, I decided the humour was too subtle, so I didn’t do that … are you sure? 🙂 Personally, I would prefer that objectionable individual word choices were edited out in a clearly recognizable way, if the alternative were deleting the post. But you’re free to disagree. > [@pf\_moore](#): > > I think it would be helpful if there were a channel for community members to raise concerns about moderation issues. In theory I agree. In practice I’m not sure that it would be used. Replying _in situ_ will, I think, always be instinctive. That said, are such posts in scope for #Discourse Feedback ? > [@pf\_moore](#): > > It would also be good to have some public clarity on how one becomes a moderator. More than that, a top-level overview of _what the org structure is_. I can think of many titles off the top of my head that connote some kind of authority or privilege in the Python diaspora, and I have very little idea how they actually relate to each other. > [@pf\_moore](#): > > I don’t even know how to find out who the moderators _are_! I could probably find a way to do so from the Discourse documentation I think Discourse should be held responsible for this rather than any individual instance. (And yes, it’s exactly as @hugovk says. Modern web design, you know…) > [@pf\_moore](#): > > Transparency is critical here. It’s clear from the discussions that the moderators are at risk of losing community trust (if they haven’t already done so) and once lost, trust is _really_ hard to regain. So stronger measures now will avoid worse problems in the future. 100%. I have seen far too many moderation teams fail to learn this lesson. > [@pf\_moore](#): > > I had intended to point out that “assume everyone is acting in good faith” was a core principle - and I was surprised to find that it’s not explicitly stated in the CoC (or if it is, I missed it…) One thing maintainers (not just moderators, but anyone with any kind of curation privilege, or who is consciously trying to set an example, or is just far above average activity) of any community need to understand is that the world is full of well-meaning people who simply will not read any kind of “documentation of the community” until a conflict arises. They expect to get by on the fact that they’re well-meaning people and have no interest in causing trouble with anyone. For the record, I tried actually searching. “Good” appears once, and “faith” not at all. > [@pf\_moore](#): > > the assumption that moderation is about prevention rather than cure, it’s very hard to read this discussion and come away with the impression that we’re a community with shared goals and a respect for everyone’s approach and attitudes I was once a moderator of an explicitly political space full of highly intelligent people with wildly opposing, fringe views. What I learned was that the only effective prevention is setting a good example; and the most important rules are to speak plainly (i.e., without irony in the broad sense), avoid expressions of anger (including profanity), be [intellectually honest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty), and be [charitable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity). --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/why-im-leaving-discuss-python-org/58093)._