Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[desultory <desultory@gentoo.org>]

On 02/03/19 20:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Kristian Fiskerstrand schrieb:
> 
>>>>>> And parts of forums should rather go away sooner than later, given
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> moderators take part in highly questionable threads. That mess also
>>>>>> reflects on Gentoo as a whole.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be more concrete here if we want to put it on the agenda, we're
>>>>> talking about OTW only, or are there other categories etc that are
>>>>> non-gentoo-related on official communication channels?
>>>>
>>>> My main point is that OTW needs to be nuked from orbit.
>>>
>>> That seems to be a good place to start in any case
>>>
>>
>> What are the forum-mods thoughts (as a team) on the matter of non-gentoo
>> related, and seemingly inappropriate, discussion happening in the forums?
> 
> Those of you who are long enough with Gentoo might remember the drama
> around forum members' political user avatars and other forum members
> taking offense at those and demanding their censorship, which (iirc)
> ultimately lead to retirement of one or more Gentoo developers.
> 
> I suggest keeping this in mind before restarting the discussion of what
> is allowed on the forums and what not.
> 
> On the topic of "reflects on Gentoo as a whole", is there actual
> evidence of someone making negative remarks about Gentoo as a whole,
> pointing to an OTW threat for the argument?
> 
So far as I am aware, none worth noting, present or otherwise. (Those
not otherwise worth noting being disgruntled, former, users who were in
reality mostly just complaining that people had the temerity to treat
rules as though they applied to them; I can think of no reason to
consider their remarks to be useful or individually noteworthy.)

> A compromise / an alternative to removing OTW (if deemed a bad thing)
> would be to limit its public reach by allowing only registered forum
> users to access it.
> 
Barring objections from other moderators, I have no objections to that
compromise.

> 
> Best regards,
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>