Three years ago… Two likes, 13 views.
Topic is still open. I just pinned it now.
1 Like
So I said;
The reply was;
Thanks for confirming that what I said was correct.
If this policy reflected the consensus of everyone participating here, or even a majority, there would be no need to threaten mass deletion of accounts for not submitting to it. So it self-evidently isn’t a consensus.
Which means we need to bin it, and start again. After seeking a mandate from the membership to create a new moderation policy, and drafting it in the open.
FWIW I really like the way the Recurse Center handles this. There is a Code of Conduct that addresses unambiguous cases of “being harassed, stalked, or discriminated against”. Violating this triggers mod intervention.
Then on top of that, there are a set of social rules. These cover more subtle and often unconscious things, which they expect people to do from time to time, as a consequence of being humans embedded in an intensely hierarchical society.
When this happens, anyone can name the behaviour and link to the social rules, and the expectation is that the person doing it will apologise for coming across that way, and everyone can move on. They don’t trigger mod intervention, unless the person escalates instead of accepting the correction gracefully.
1 Like
As a fellow member of this community I respectfully request people involved to please first give due attention to the member-only well-being discussion that @how started with @strypey before continuing argumentation around community policy. It may also be wise to do that on a clean thread, and with theme being a healthy continuation of the SocialHub developer community, taking lessons-learned.
In all my posting about SH governance, I have attempted to state facts (as I see them), and give my honest opinions. Either my post here inadvertently crossed a line and deserved to be hidden by the “wellbeing” system, or that system is being weaponised to silence inconvenient truths. I leave each of you to decide for yourselves which it is, and respond accordingly.
Either way, I encourage the fediverse dev community to move discussion about the future of SH to a neutral space, moderated independently of current SH governance. I no longer feel safe participating in discussions on SH under it’s current governance, nor would I feel right encouraging anyone else to.
Whatever the community decides, participating in SH has clearly become corrosive to my wellbeing. I’ve realised that I need to take a long break from anything to do with SH or its governance. I’ll reassess the situation when I’ve had a couple of months off. Good luck.
Whether or not your post crossed a line is the subject of the well-being procedure that has been started. No one is making premature judgment. A well-being procedure is started when two direct community members get into conflict with each other. In this case one member accuses you of defamation. As explained to you in the topic itself, a well-being topic serves as a reconciliation space where members take off the heat and reconcile, with help of their fellow community members and guided by the @well-being team, who have a neutral position and decision-making powers (and where if a @well-being.team member is directly involved, they are temporary left out of that decision-making process until resolution is found). The outcome of a well-being procedure should carry the consent of the community members.
You are free to make any decision, of course, but it is a pity that there is actual governance in place and well-being procedures to address issues of safety and you choose to ignore them. In any case I hope you are able to recuperate, regain energy and health and find uplifting causes to spend your time. 
1 Like