3 ms·

> The framing of “the moderation team” resigning when two of them aren’t One of those is resigning, but for other reasons. I don't know about the last one. >

> The framing of “the moderation team” resigning when two of them aren’t One of those is resigning, but for other reasons. I don't know about the last one. > some arcane art that only experts can truly understand the intricacies of I mean, it kinda is. It doesn't take long to get up to speed, if you have good teachers (I'd say 3 months), but I keep watching new moderators making the same mistakes over and over again, in a couple of online spaces. (The problem's greater in the space without a culture of teaching the newbies.) I know nothing about what's actually happening with NixOS, but I can imagine scenarios where the moderation team's in the right, the steering council is in the right, and where neither group is in the right, which would produce the observed evidence.

bbor 1y ago
I edited the part you quoted (sorry! You were quick), but no fundamental disagreement on either point. I’d just say this in response: 1. Yeah it’s confusing, but keep scrolling — the last one is staying. Also the first one said that they’ll try to do mod stuff in their spare time, which tells me they aren’t really resigning 2. Moderation is certainly a skill, no doubt about it — just as policing is IRL. I just find the idea that it’s such an arcane skill that others couldn’t possibly have opinions about it or critically assess instances of it to be… hubristic? 3. Yes, I totally accept that the mod team might be fighting some sort of good fight here that’s separate from the procedural debate (where they’re clearly in the wrong). Still, even if that is the case: they’re not making that point very convincingly, at least for this outsider!
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  Funny you should say that about the procedural debate, because I actually have the other opinion about that! The role of a steering committee is to make high-level decisions, and delegate delegate delegate: having direct involvement is a warning sign, and the few instances I've seen of that have gone really badly. (That said, I don't know what it's a warning sign of.)
zahlman 1y ago
> I keep watching new moderators making the same mistakes over and over again, in a couple of online spaces. Could you elaborate?
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  Making Hard Decisions to resolve larger disputes involving multiple people – this is usually a mistake because large disputes are often really hard to understand (so you usually end up picking a side, with that being the wrong side), and they normally fall into one of a handful of archetypes: it's better to analyse them from the archetypal perspective, then take action based on that. Believing that those who behave in Certain Ways have good intentions. (I've fallen afoul of this, too.) There are certain behaviours that, despite appearing benign or even benevolent (especially when considered together with the actor's explanations), have ime a 100% "actually that was malicious" rate. These are quite sophisticated bad actors, and I'd rather they don't know the tells I've identified, but one of the tells involves the charismatic weaponisation of "cancel culture" by abusers, with part of the tell being to wield "the people's" authority (for some value of "the people") to attempt to modify the composition of a moderation team. (I haven't seen the complete tell in this situation, so there are still benign explanations: this just explains my bias in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45403417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45403417.) An impedance mismatch between the behaviour of the new moderator, and the behaviour expected by the community. For example: erring too heavy-handed, or too hands-off; mistaking banter for abuse, or abuse for banter. Not speaking truth to power. In most BDFL-type collaborative projects, the founder guy turns out to be really ill-suited for the role, in one important respect. (Examples: Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Andreas Kling.) In many cases, an intervention can resolve this, and save the organisation for a time (e.g. the 2018 Kernel Maintainer's Summit: https://lwn.net/Articles/769117/ https://lwn.net/Articles/769117/); in other cases, the organisation heads down the road to irrelevance (e.g. the FSF). (This is of course not the only kind of situation where you'd want to speak truth to power.) Speaking truth to power undiplomatically. Power is still power: if you suspect the guy in charge is going to take your intervention badly, raise your concerns to the court jester. If you suspect the guy in charge is a bad actor, tread carefully. Attempting to use an ethical philosophy not conductive to moderation. These include "let's let everyone do everything not illegal!", "if you have anything good to say about bad people, you're a bad person!", "those who disagree with me are bad actors", "can't we all just get along?", "I want to make sure I'm temp-banning the right person before taking action", "it doesn't matter if I'm temp-banning the right person", "people should follow the rules", "people can ignore the rules if they have a good reason", "we don't need lots of rules", "we should design rules that work for every situation", and "we should rely on moderator judgement".

bbor 1y ago

I edited the part you quoted (sorry! You were quick), but no fundamental disagreement on either point. I’d just say this in response: 1. Yeah it’s confusing, but keep scrolling — the last one is staying. Also the first one said that they’ll try to do mod stuff in their spare time, which tells me they aren’t really resigning 2. Moderation is certainly a skill, no doubt about it — just as policing is IRL. I just find the idea that it’s such an arcane skill that others couldn’t possibly have opinions about it or critically assess instances of it to be… hubristic? 3. Yes, I totally accept that the mod team might be fighting some sort of good fight here that’s separate from the procedural debate (where they’re clearly in the wrong). Still, even if that is the case: they’re not making that point very convincingly, at least for this outsider!

wizzwizz4 1y ago
Funny you should say that about the procedural debate, because I actually have the other opinion about that! The role of a steering committee is to make high-level decisions, and delegate delegate delegate: having direct involvement is a warning sign, and the few instances I've seen of that have gone really badly. (That said, I don't know what it's a warning sign of.)

zahlman 1y ago

> I keep watching new moderators making the same mistakes over and over again, in a couple of online spaces. Could you elaborate?

wizzwizz4 1y ago
Making Hard Decisions to resolve larger disputes involving multiple people – this is usually a mistake because large disputes are often really hard to understand (so you usually end up picking a side, with that being the wrong side), and they normally fall into one of a handful of archetypes: it's better to analyse them from the archetypal perspective, then take action based on that. Believing that those who behave in Certain Ways have good intentions. (I've fallen afoul of this, too.) There are certain behaviours that, despite appearing benign or even benevolent (especially when considered together with the actor's explanations), have ime a 100% "actually that was malicious" rate. These are quite sophisticated bad actors, and I'd rather they don't know the tells I've identified, but one of the tells involves the charismatic weaponisation of "cancel culture" by abusers, with part of the tell being to wield "the people's" authority (for some value of "the people") to attempt to modify the composition of a moderation team. (I haven't seen the complete tell in this situation, so there are still benign explanations: this just explains my bias in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45403417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45403417.) An impedance mismatch between the behaviour of the new moderator, and the behaviour expected by the community. For example: erring too heavy-handed, or too hands-off; mistaking banter for abuse, or abuse for banter. Not speaking truth to power. In most BDFL-type collaborative projects, the founder guy turns out to be really ill-suited for the role, in one important respect. (Examples: Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Andreas Kling.) In many cases, an intervention can resolve this, and save the organisation for a time (e.g. the 2018 Kernel Maintainer's Summit: https://lwn.net/Articles/769117/ https://lwn.net/Articles/769117/); in other cases, the organisation heads down the road to irrelevance (e.g. the FSF). (This is of course not the only kind of situation where you'd want to speak truth to power.) Speaking truth to power undiplomatically. Power is still power: if you suspect the guy in charge is going to take your intervention badly, raise your concerns to the court jester. If you suspect the guy in charge is a bad actor, tread carefully. Attempting to use an ethical philosophy not conductive to moderation. These include "let's let everyone do everything not illegal!", "if you have anything good to say about bad people, you're a bad person!", "those who disagree with me are bad actors", "can't we all just get along?", "I want to make sure I'm temp-banning the right person before taking action", "it doesn't matter if I'm temp-banning the right person", "people should follow the rules", "people can ignore the rules if they have a good reason", "we don't need lots of rules", "we should design rules that work for every situation", and "we should rely on moderator judgement".