From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E82E4138239 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 04:59:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D326E0AC7; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 04:59:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAB6CE0A85 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 04:59:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.16.0.17] (cpe-72-227-68-175.maine.res.rr.com [72.227.68.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: desultory) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71DFA33BE39; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 04:59:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <2beb3305-396f-8b10-e2a1-4008d8505fa9@gentoo.org> <2878606.mSfXTjG61N@porto> <2983640.de6YSfGzij@porto> <353de8d8-8928-3e31-3aaf-6f78ebe54fc8@gentoo.org> <4d147aaa-ce46-10aa-243c-7a84dfc40bc3@gentoo.org> Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ch=c3=ad-Thanh_Christopher_Nguy=e1=bb=85n?= , forum-mods@gentoo.org From: desultory Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2019 23:59:29 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4d147aaa-ce46-10aa-243c-7a84dfc40bc3@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 920ed886-98ae-4668-b9e3-cae3adaa78d4 X-Archives-Hash: 07797402f9f407521871140479d86b7f 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 >