Banned 1440000bytes for 1 day due to repeated off-topic comments in 32406

[willcl-ark]

@1440000bytes if you believe this decision is incorrect, please feel free to detail why below.

[ariard]

@willcl-ark You’re doing it wrong.

First, you should lay out the facts that you’re reproaching to @1440000bytes.

Then, you should point out to the rules in the MODERATION.MD that has to be applied.

Finally you should explain how the facts are applying to the rules in the present circumstances.

Then you should pronounce the decision.

Always wanted to be a lawyer to defend people unfairly accused when I was young 😄

[ariard]

Anyway, I’m not going to spend my time defending each banned contributor, as I’m in the process of leaving bitcoin core.

I would love to do so really - though time is limited.

Only advice for severe bans, it should be formalized for one being accused to ask a defender among regular contributors.

Otherwise, it’s just normalizing bans as some kind of public shaming process or "reverse harassment" 😒

[willcl-ark]

@ariard thanks for the input.

First, you should lay out the facts that you’re reproaching...

I disagree.

The moderation procedure here is not a legal process, and should not (and currently does not) require such a burden of proof to be presented to perform a simple moderation action.

From the current guidelines:

When moderators hide or delete a comment which does not add any value at all, they should not need to write any explanation as these actions should be self-explanatory. But they could choose to explain what happened if they think it would be helpful.

The comments in question are available for all to see, in the linked thread. If the user in question wants to dispute the decision then they can do so here.

Only advice for severe bans, it should be formalized for one being accused to ask a defender among regular contributors.

There is additional process for "severe bans" in the guidelines already, I'm not sure about having a "regular contributor" bat for someone when they can presumably speak for themselves here? I suppose the idea is to help break down an "in-vs-outsider" mindset when dealing? This could be an interesting idea, but I think it would only make sense in a very small number of cases, and not e.g. for the one in question in this thread.

[ariard]

The moderation procedure here is not a legal process, and should not (and currently does not) require such a burden of proof to be presented to perform a simple moderation action.

There is of course a sense of proportion here it’s only a 1-day ban. But, that’s where we’ll keep disagreeing…

It’s never been about legal process, in the sense of Cartman’s style “Respect my authoritah!”….It’s always been about the values and principles underpinning legal process or civic discussion: i.e the principle of contradictory, the emphasis on objective facts and proofs, the publicity of process to minimize the risks of hijack by pure private interests, the formal defense of the minority to avoid majority acting as a crowd, the necessity of impartiality and fairness for the ones in privileged roles, etc.

All values that you will have internalized if you have studied law in the past and which are really valuable in many walks of life. Not for the enforcing your will on other human beings through a legal process CSW-style., more for building sounds and healthy relationships among a group of human beings. Objective and impartial rules it’s the birth bed to canalize conflicts among a community and avoid it degenerates in raw power struggles by all means...

I have respect for you and @ryanofsky, if you wish to deepen your thinking on those subjects, I can only recommend you to read "The Rule of Law" of Tom Bingham and meditate on it. You’re both English speaking natives, so there shouldn’t be a cultural gap pointing you this book.

Anyway, I’m out of bitcoin core development process as said so few times and I’ll stand by that. Despite I have very very strong opinons on all those meta subjects.

[1440000bytes]

@willcl-ark You’re doing it wrong.

First, you should lay out the facts that you’re reproaching to @1440000bytes.

Then, you should point out to the rules in the MODERATION.MD that has to be applied.

Finally you should explain how the facts are applying to the rules in the present circumstances.

Then you should pronounce the decision.

Always wanted to be a lawyer to defend people unfairly accused when I was young 😄

I was banned for offtopic shitposting. I have deleted those comments.

@willcl-ark did the right thing to ban me for 1 day in this case.

[pinheadmz]

@1440000bytes 1 day ban for multiple off topic comments in bitcoin/bitcoin#32959

Take the day off

[pinheadmz]

blocking from meta/ as well, for a day

[pinheadmz]

I made a mistake, the block duration is supposed to increase based on prior behavior, so it's a week now.

[pinheadmz]

@1440000bytes permanent ban for rude comments on bitcoin/bitcoin#33106

I think you also blocked me so maybe I wouldn't be able to see your rude comments but I got several alerts from the moderator bot and had to go look at someone else's github account to see the messages for myself.