Periodic reminder that has a Code of Conduct which we take seriously; all our users are expected to adhere to it, locally and across the fediverse.

Read it here:

Send clarifying questions to @ashfurrow.

Send violations to our mods using the "report" button.

@ashfurrow I have no plans to start challenging codes of conduct, but I'm curious what you mean by "across the Fediverse" there. Feel free to not answer, of course, I'm not trying to stir trouble up. :)

@tewha I mean, for example, that a local user breaking the CoC by harassing remote users on the fediverse isn’t acceptable. Does that make sense?

@ashfurrow Yeah, though it sounds like more than it means? Don't know how you would rephrase, though.

My thinking originally was it meant that Bob, having an account on m.t, couldn't also have an account on some sort of porn instance and post porn there.

That's probably a bad example, because that one might actually be reasonable. Other restrictions might. If a guy is swindling people from another instance and you knew, you wouldn't want him either. :)

@ashfurrow Again, this is meant more hypothetically than seriously, so if you feel I'm leading you into a trap (even unintentionally) feel free to ignore me. :) It's just an interesting problem that phrase made me think of.

@ashfurrow The whole point of this technology is that it's distributed, right? And yet as part of that I see no reason an admin would have to tolerate anyone they don't want to, even if that person is behaving for _them._ The user can just find another instance, after all.

@ashfurrow Sorry for rambling at you. Probably not something you wanted this morning. :)

@tewha @ashfurrow I think that we reach a very interesting topic on ruling here. Do we want to enforce *what* is done or *why* things are done? If users with unacceptable values for one instance were to comply with its rules... just apparently, we could have the "what" but not the "why". I think non violent communication can help us on this way. It can help reading how to make "requests" instead of "demands" (nvc lingo).

Banning is just use of force in self protecion after expressing some needs that are not being met.

@fadelkon @tewha to reply to your question, to me it’s the *impact* that a user’s actions have that matters. What they do, why they do it... doesn’t really matter if their actions cause suffering that’s prohibited. Hope that makes sense.

@ashfurrow @tewha However, the impact depends on each other person. If you like, we can look it though nvc as the responsability of own's feelings. If a trol starts posting shit that no one reads, it should be banned too... but I agree that could be less prioritary than a bigger impact misconduct. At the end, it's the combination of these 3 (maybe more). I just wanted to note that we usually just focus on the "what".

@fadelkon @tewha for sure. In _most_ cases I've come across while administering m.t, an empathetic approach has resulted in reported users saying "oh I didn't realize my words hurt this person, I'll apologize." Sometimes they pack up and leave, but a lot of the time they were just unaware of the impact of their words. I lead with empathy, but I'm also not willing to negotiate with trolls/etc.

@ashfurrow @tewha I definitely find this the way to go. Thank you for taking the time for doing it this way :)

@fadelkon @ashfurrow I think I agree with you for most cases, but I do see instances as something that admins are paying for (money, time, etc.) and I don't see any particular reason why they should carry someone that's a problem to them beyond (maybe) a reasonable warning. Hope that makes sense!

@fadelkon @ashfurrow (We're also in a world where the user can say "Yeah, okay, I'll move here," sets their forward, and announces it. Done!)

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!