From 10d37b5589786379fcd31e4ebcacf6a45aaba9c7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Peters Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 22:49:52 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 01/10] Create ghide.md --- psf/ghide.md | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) create mode 100644 psf/ghide.md diff --git a/psf/ghide.md b/psf/ghide.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8b13789 --- /dev/null +++ b/psf/ghide.md @@ -0,0 +1 @@ + From ee6127937cd0a7daf3bb8e6326c3d906e4b33113 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Peters Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 23:00:32 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 02/10] Update ghide.md --- psf/ghide.md | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+) diff --git a/psf/ghide.md b/psf/ghide.md index 8b13789..8793a5e 100644 --- a/psf/ghide.md +++ b/psf/ghide.md @@ -1 +1,56 @@ +On the contrary. Do whatever you think is best with it including +posting it publicly verbatim. And please keep my name on it. In my +opinion the problem here is lack of public scrutiny and open debate. + +What are they going to do? Ban me from posting somewhere that I +already don't post? Prevent me from answering questions on the +python-help mailing list? Unilaterally revoke my status as a fellow? +I've been kicked out of fancier clubs. + +Here is the entire exchange: + +- **Matthew Dixon Cowles mdcowles Aug 28**

+Please tell me what rule Guido’s post violated.

+ +- **David Lord davidism Aug 28**

+Multiple people indicated they felt that post was inappropriate through flags and private discussion. The person was suspended in part because of their actions and statements about votes and the to ask about votes and the board is inappropriate. Especially in the midst of plenty of other people being able to speak to the nuances of voting just fine. And especially from the language author who wields a great amount of public attention and trust in anything said by them. Core team members are expected to act as role models for the community, and that post didn't match that expectation. + +- **Matthew Dixon Cowles mdcowles Aug 28** +> Multiple people indicated they felt that post was inappropriate through flags and private discussion. + +I asked about a rule. + +> The person was suspended in part because of their actions + > and statements about votes and the board. To turn around and + > suggest that they are the best person to ask about votes and the + > board is inappropriate. + +You seem to be saying that Tim was banned for expressing certain opinions and expressing respect for his knowledge on a related +subject is a satisfactory reason for you to cancel a post. Is that right? + + Matthew Dixon Cowles + + + David Lord davidism Aug 28 + + > I asked about a rule. + + You can find the guidelines we expect everyone to follow here: + Guidelines - Discussions on Python.org as well as here: Python + Software Foundation Code of Conduct - Python Software Foundation + Policies. We evaluate flags in the context of these guidelines in + order to come to decisions. + + > Is that right? + + No, your interpretation does not match our understanding of the + situation. If you’re concerned with moderation decisions beyond + this, please send a report to the Code of Conduct team: Python + Software Foundation Code of Conduct - Python Software Foundation + Policies + +Following David Lord's suggestion, I emailed the Code of Conduct +group to ask them to explain the situation since he wouldn't. They +were also unwilling to provide any clarification. + From 167668ce1a255567ca42acf35d89650c9fc3da55 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Peters Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 23:54:30 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 03/10] Update ghide.md --- psf/ghide.md | 90 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) diff --git a/psf/ghide.md b/psf/ghide.md index 8793a5e..15ff165 100644 --- a/psf/ghide.md +++ b/psf/ghide.md @@ -1,38 +1,76 @@ +--- +title: Moderation Insanity +--- -On the contrary. Do whatever you think is best with it including -posting it publicly verbatim. And please keep my name on it. In my -opinion the problem here is lack of public scrutiny and open debate. +On 25-Aug=2025, Guido van Rossum (Python's creator) posted some [very mild shade](https://discuss.python.org/t/should-we-consider-ranked-choice-voting-for-sc-elections/61880/6) at my ban, in a topic about moving to a different voting method for Steering Council (SC) elections. -What are they going to do? Ban me from posting somewhere that I -already don't post? Prevent me from answering questions on the -python-help mailing list? Unilaterally revoke my status as a fellow? -I've been kicked out of fancier clubs. +> I don’t know much about voting systems, but I know someone who does. Unfortunately he’s currently banned. Maybe we can wait until his 3-month ban expires and ask him for advice? -Here is the entire exchange: +That's all of it. After considerable time passed, his post was "hidden" by Discourse, due to "community flags". THat's a Discourse gimmick that lets anyone logged in click a button to indicate that a post should not remain visible. It's a complicated topic (ill-documented and subject to many administrator settings that are invisible to users) which I'll skip. Suffice it to say that I believe enough time passed that it really was the case that enoough random users clicked the button to trigger an automatic hiding algorithm. -- **Matthew Dixon Cowles mdcowles Aug 28**

-Please tell me what rule Guido’s post violated.

+When that flag is clicked, the user has a choice to make about _why_ they clicked. The reason is visible to mods and the original poster, but not to users. This is the reason given for Guido's: -- **David Lord davidism Aug 28**

-Multiple people indicated they felt that post was inappropriate through flags and private discussion. The person was suspended in part because of their actions and statements about votes and the to ask about votes and the board is inappropriate. Especially in the midst of plenty of other people being able to speak to the nuances of voting just fine. And especially from the language author who wields a great amount of public attention and trust in anything said by them. Core team members are expected to act as role models for the community, and that post didn't match that expectation. +> Your post was flagged as inappropriate: the community feels it is offensive, abusive, to be hateful conduct or a violation of our community guidelines. -- **Matthew Dixon Cowles mdcowles Aug 28** -> Multiple people indicated they felt that post was inappropriate through flags and private discussion. +That's it. Extremely broad, and in my experience impossible to guess _what_ was found to be "offensive", etc. -I asked about a rule. +Whenever I got one of these, I ignored it. Hidden posts sit in a queue waiting for moderator review, and for a long time mods always un-hid my posts again on their own initiative (although very late in my pre-ban life, that changed, and it _appeared_ the mods had an agenda of hiding my posts ASAP on their own, and never un-hid them again). But that doesn't matter here. -> The person was suspended in part because of their actions - > and statements about votes and the board. To turn around and - > suggest that they are the best person to ask about votes and the - > board is inappropriate. +What does is that Guido's mild post was not getting unhidden by mod magic. There are more stories here about how tech-gossip sites speculated about why the PSF hid a post by Guido, and threatened to turn into another PR mini-disaster for the PSF. I'll skip those too. Suffice it to say that Guido and I both communicated with "press contacts" to assure them that it was probably just Discourse's auto-hiding algorithm at work, and that the post wouold soon enough become visible again. -You seem to be saying that Tim was banned for expressing certain opinions and expressing respect for his knowledge on a related -subject is a satisfactory reason for you to cancel a post. Is that right? +And so it was, before any "reputable" news site reported on the tech-gossip speculations. - Matthew Dixon Cowles +But it turns there's more to this story that hasn't been told before. Guido sent direct messages to the mods to ask why his post was hidden, and one mod in particular wouoldn't reply. I'll call that mod "Judge Dredd" here. Another mod did reply, and quickly made the post visible again. + +After Guido & I recounted this story on Discourse, Mathew Dixon Cowles sent me email to reveal that he had asked the mods about why at the time, and got a truly remarkable reply. I assumed at first he wanted to remain anonymous, but, nope! He has courage: + +> Do whatever you think is best with it including posting it publicly verbatim. And please keep my name on it. In my opinion the problem here is lack of public scrutiny and open debate. + +> What are they going to do? Ban me from posting somewhere that I lready don't post? Prevent me from answering questions on the python-help mailing list? Unilaterally revoke my status as a fellow? I've been kicked out of fancier clubs. + +Here's the entire exchange. I've changed the name of the mod to Judge Dredd. While part of me wants to name them, larger parts don't want to accuse someone in a forum where they can't speak. Under the principle of charity, I'll just assume they wwere having a very hard time thinking that day, for whatever reaason(s) that aren't my business. +--- + **Matthew Dixon Cowles mdcowles Aug 28** - David Lord davidism Aug 28 + Please tell me what rule Guido’s post violated. + + Matthew Dixon Cowles +--- + **Judge Dredd doom Aug 28** + + Multiple people indicated they felt that post was inappropriate + through flags and private discussion. The person was suspended in + part because of their actions and statements about votes and the + board. To turn around and suggest that they are the best person + to ask about votes and the board is inappropriate. Especially in + the midst of plenty of other people being able to speak to the + nuances of voting just fine. And especially from the language + author who wields a great amount of public attention and trust in + anything said by them. Core team members are expected to act as + role models for the community, and that post didn't match that + expectation. +--- + **Matthew Dixon Cowles mdcowles Aug 28** + + > Multiple people indicated they felt that post was inappropriate + > through flags and private discussion. + + I asked about a rule. + + > The person was suspended in part because of their actions + > and statements about votes and the board. To turn around and + > suggest that they are the best person to ask about votes and the + > board is inappropriate. + + You seem to be saying that Tim was banned for expressing certain + opinions and expressing respect for his knowledge on a related + subject is a satisfactory reason for you to cancel a post. Is + that right? + + Matthew Dixon Cowles +--- + **Judge Dredd doom Aug 289** > I asked about a rule. @@ -49,8 +87,8 @@ subject is a satisfactory reason for you to cancel a post. Is that right? this, please send a report to the Code of Conduct team: Python Software Foundation Code of Conduct - Python Software Foundation Policies +--- -Following David Lord's suggestion, I emailed the Code of Conduct -group to ask them to explain the situation since he wouldn't. They -were also unwilling to provide any clarification. +And Matthew adds: +> Following Judge Dredd's suggestion, I emailed the Code of Conduct group to ask them to explain the situation since he wouldn't. They were also unwilling to provide any clarification. From 086d92e4396ea87ac84f521bbb96c88d26603c08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Peters Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 01:04:25 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 04/10] Update ghide.md --- psf/ghide.md | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/psf/ghide.md b/psf/ghide.md index 15ff165..726dbe0 100644 --- a/psf/ghide.md +++ b/psf/ghide.md @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ On 25-Aug=2025, Guido van Rossum (Python's creator) posted some [very mild shade > I don’t know much about voting systems, but I know someone who does. Unfortunately he’s currently banned. Maybe we can wait until his 3-month ban expires and ask him for advice? -That's all of it. After considerable time passed, his post was "hidden" by Discourse, due to "community flags". THat's a Discourse gimmick that lets anyone logged in click a button to indicate that a post should not remain visible. It's a complicated topic (ill-documented and subject to many administrator settings that are invisible to users) which I'll skip. Suffice it to say that I believe enough time passed that it really was the case that enoough random users clicked the button to trigger an automatic hiding algorithm. +That's all of it. After considerable time passed, his post was "hidden" by Discourse, due to "community flags". That's a Discourse gimmick that lets anyone logged in click a button to indicate that a post should not remain visible. It's a complicated topic (ill-documented and subject to many administrator settings that are invisible to users) which I'll skip. Suffice it to say that I believe enough time passed that it really was the case that enough random users clicked the button to trigger an automatic hiding algorithm. When that flag is clicked, the user has a choice to make about _why_ they clicked. The reason is visible to mods and the original poster, but not to users. This is the reason given for Guido's: @@ -16,19 +16,19 @@ That's it. Extremely broad, and in my experience impossible to guess _what_ was Whenever I got one of these, I ignored it. Hidden posts sit in a queue waiting for moderator review, and for a long time mods always un-hid my posts again on their own initiative (although very late in my pre-ban life, that changed, and it _appeared_ the mods had an agenda of hiding my posts ASAP on their own, and never un-hid them again). But that doesn't matter here. -What does is that Guido's mild post was not getting unhidden by mod magic. There are more stories here about how tech-gossip sites speculated about why the PSF hid a post by Guido, and threatened to turn into another PR mini-disaster for the PSF. I'll skip those too. Suffice it to say that Guido and I both communicated with "press contacts" to assure them that it was probably just Discourse's auto-hiding algorithm at work, and that the post wouold soon enough become visible again. +What does is that Guido's mild post was not getting unhidden by mod magic. There are more stories here about how tech-gossip sites speculated about why the PSF hid a post by Guido, and threatened to turn into another PR mini-disaster for the PSF. I'll skip those too. Suffice it to say that Guido and I both communicated with "press contacts" to assure them that it was probably just Discourse's auto-hiding algorithm at work, and that the post would soon enough become visible again. And so it was, before any "reputable" news site reported on the tech-gossip speculations. But it turns there's more to this story that hasn't been told before. Guido sent direct messages to the mods to ask why his post was hidden, and one mod in particular wouoldn't reply. I'll call that mod "Judge Dredd" here. Another mod did reply, and quickly made the post visible again. -After Guido & I recounted this story on Discourse, Mathew Dixon Cowles sent me email to reveal that he had asked the mods about why at the time, and got a truly remarkable reply. I assumed at first he wanted to remain anonymous, but, nope! He has courage: +After Guido & I recounted this story on Discourse, Matthew Dixon Cowles sent me email to reveal that he had asked the mods about why at the time, and got a truly remarkable reply. I assumed at first he wanted to remain anonymous, but, nope! He has courage: > Do whatever you think is best with it including posting it publicly verbatim. And please keep my name on it. In my opinion the problem here is lack of public scrutiny and open debate. -> What are they going to do? Ban me from posting somewhere that I lready don't post? Prevent me from answering questions on the python-help mailing list? Unilaterally revoke my status as a fellow? I've been kicked out of fancier clubs. +> What are they going to do? Ban me from posting somewhere that I already don't post? Prevent me from answering questions on the python-help mailing list? Unilaterally revoke my status as a fellow? I've been kicked out of fancier clubs. -Here's the entire exchange. I've changed the name of the mod to Judge Dredd. While part of me wants to name them, larger parts don't want to accuse someone in a forum where they can't speak. Under the principle of charity, I'll just assume they wwere having a very hard time thinking that day, for whatever reaason(s) that aren't my business. +Here's the entire exchange. I've changed the name of the mod to Judge Dredd. While part of me wants to name them, larger parts don't want to accuse someone in a forum where they can't speak. Under the principle of charity, I'll just assume they were having a very hard time thinking that day, for whatever reaason(s) that aren't my business. --- **Matthew Dixon Cowles mdcowles Aug 28** @@ -92,3 +92,18 @@ Here's the entire exchange. I've changed the name of the mod to Judge Dredd. Whi And Matthew adds: > Following Judge Dredd's suggestion, I emailed the Code of Conduct group to ask them to explain the situation since he wouldn't. They were also unwilling to provide any clarification. + +I'll spell out some reasons for how absurd the claimed "reasons" for hiding are. + +Guido not a "role model"? Beneath contempt. + +I was supposedly banned for posts in an earlier topic debating whether the PSF Board should adopt some specific bylaw changes. That Board vote had nothing in common with any future SC vote. And the election method the SC wants to use bears no relation to the earlier specific bylaw changes. Thrashing at random to come up with "well, the word 'vote' is needed to discuss both" is beyond just absurd. It reeks of spectacular bad faith informing an utterly irrational conclusion. + +"Plenty of other people being able to speak to the nuances of voting just fine" is just false. People were sharing personal anecdotes, which is fine, but none showed the slightest knowledge of any election theory, or election research, or even of election methods beyond their personal experience (there are dozens I know non-trivial things about). + +In the PSF's history, 3 people showed non-trivial knowledge of such stuff: me, David Mertz, and Donald Stufft. I was banned for 3 months. David had been suspended from Discourse forever. Donald did chime in, but had no interest: he said SC elections are so trivial (in formal senses) that the choice of election method probably wouldn't make any difference to which 5 winners were picked. I agreed with him on that. but also had a lot of sympathy with Gregory Smith's motivating desire to switch to a method that allowed voters to express more of what they believed (in the then-current "block Approval", for each candidate yuo can only say "yes" or "no" - no possibilty to express that you like one more than some other, or, if so, to express how strongly you like one more - it's a fine method, but can leave people frustrated with how little they can express). + +As things turned out, the core devs agreed to switch to "bloc STAR", thanks to Guido pushing for it. Is Guido an election theory expert? He wasn't at the time :wink:. In the background, I gave him a crash course on election theory via email, and pushed him toward STAR. He is, of course, a very quick learner, and convinced himself it was the best choice. So he spoke his own mind, and by agreement never mentioned that, in some senses, he was channeling me for a change. + +But that isn't the point here either. The point is how very maddening bad moderation policies can be. And also how maddening trying to point that out can be. Matthew's is one of the few cases I've heard of where the CoC WG even botherd to reply to emai. Sure, they're busy. In which case perhaps they shouldn't butt in so much on trivialities to begin with :wink:. + From e55297913f33475b405ab504c3a1dad11e4456c7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Peters Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 01:05:12 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 05/10] Update .wordlist.txt --- .wordlist.txt | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/.wordlist.txt b/.wordlist.txt index d2206ee..7800173 100644 --- a/.wordlist.txt +++ b/.wordlist.txt @@ -72,3 +72,5 @@ wokeness Workgroup Wokesson's PyCon +Stufft +Cowles From 0a455ee2416c4716aa97306da45636861a2fe014 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Peters Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 01:09:29 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 06/10] Update index.md --- psf/index.md | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/psf/index.md b/psf/index.md index 03e71fe..3ab3afe 100644 --- a/psf/index.md +++ b/psf/index.md @@ -19,8 +19,10 @@ title: PSF topics ### 2024 +- [**Matthew Dixon Cowles's**](ghide) surreal account of Discourse moderation +> A bizarre tale of one of Guido's posts getting hidden because he wasn't acting like a "role model" - [**willy Wokesson's**](censored) disturbingly suppressed call for discussion on the PSF's Discourse -> t's crucial to differentiate between truly harmful behavior and discussions that might challenge our sensibilities but contribute to our collective growth. +> It's crucial to differentiate between truly harmful behavior and discussions that might challenge our sensibilities but contribute to our collective growth. - [**David Mertz's**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOB1CEaZcDk) keynote address at PyCon Nigeria, "Python as a Social Fact" > Codes of conduct are meant to encourage cooperation and deference, but they can sometimes simultaneously attract zealots devoted to their draconian and capricious enforcement. ... A descent into a miniature authoritarianism can emerge from a collective feeling of what a community means. Those who carry out “purification” generally believe they are acting from consensus, and even from demands of the larger groups. - [**Peter Bittner's**](https://painless.software/letter-to-tim-peters-author-of-pep20) "Letter to Tim Peters, Author of PEP20" From ef2af113444d6c4d9e99f6de3a4a6b46e47d7836 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Peters Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 01:11:54 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 07/10] Update .wordlist.txt --- .wordlist.txt | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/.wordlist.txt b/.wordlist.txt index 7800173..3309189 100644 --- a/.wordlist.txt +++ b/.wordlist.txt @@ -74,3 +74,4 @@ Wokesson's PyCon Stufft Cowles +Dredd From 1547f4deb4a1d91c93357f4618f31c52d41e32d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Peters Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 01:25:24 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 08/10] sdlk --- .wordlist.txt | 2 ++ psf/ghide.md | 10 +++++----- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/.wordlist.txt b/.wordlist.txt index 3309189..1ef54c8 100644 --- a/.wordlist.txt +++ b/.wordlist.txt @@ -74,4 +74,6 @@ Wokesson's PyCon Stufft Cowles +Cowles' Dredd +Roaaum diff --git a/psf/ghide.md b/psf/ghide.md index 726dbe0..81581fc 100644 --- a/psf/ghide.md +++ b/psf/ghide.md @@ -14,13 +14,13 @@ When that flag is clicked, the user has a choice to make about _why_ they clicke That's it. Extremely broad, and in my experience impossible to guess _what_ was found to be "offensive", etc. -Whenever I got one of these, I ignored it. Hidden posts sit in a queue waiting for moderator review, and for a long time mods always un-hid my posts again on their own initiative (although very late in my pre-ban life, that changed, and it _appeared_ the mods had an agenda of hiding my posts ASAP on their own, and never un-hid them again). But that doesn't matter here. +Whenever I got one of these, I ignored it. Hidden posts sit in a queue waiting for moderator review, and for a long time mods always unhid my posts again on their own initiative (although very late in my pre-ban life, that changed, and it _appeared_ the mods had an agenda of hiding my posts ASAP on their own, and never un-hid them again). But that doesn't matter here. What does is that Guido's mild post was not getting unhidden by mod magic. There are more stories here about how tech-gossip sites speculated about why the PSF hid a post by Guido, and threatened to turn into another PR mini-disaster for the PSF. I'll skip those too. Suffice it to say that Guido and I both communicated with "press contacts" to assure them that it was probably just Discourse's auto-hiding algorithm at work, and that the post would soon enough become visible again. And so it was, before any "reputable" news site reported on the tech-gossip speculations. -But it turns there's more to this story that hasn't been told before. Guido sent direct messages to the mods to ask why his post was hidden, and one mod in particular wouoldn't reply. I'll call that mod "Judge Dredd" here. Another mod did reply, and quickly made the post visible again. +But it turns there's more to this story that hasn't been told before. Guido sent direct messages to the mods to ask why his post was hidden, and one mod in particular wouldn't reply. I'll call that mod "Judge Dredd" here. Another mod did reply, and quickly made the post visible again. After Guido & I recounted this story on Discourse, Matthew Dixon Cowles sent me email to reveal that he had asked the mods about why at the time, and got a truly remarkable reply. I assumed at first he wanted to remain anonymous, but, nope! He has courage: @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ After Guido & I recounted this story on Discourse, Matthew Dixon Cowles sent me > What are they going to do? Ban me from posting somewhere that I already don't post? Prevent me from answering questions on the python-help mailing list? Unilaterally revoke my status as a fellow? I've been kicked out of fancier clubs. -Here's the entire exchange. I've changed the name of the mod to Judge Dredd. While part of me wants to name them, larger parts don't want to accuse someone in a forum where they can't speak. Under the principle of charity, I'll just assume they were having a very hard time thinking that day, for whatever reaason(s) that aren't my business. +Here's the entire exchange. I've changed the name of the mod to Judge Dredd. While part of me wants to name them, larger parts don't want to accuse someone in a forum where they can't speak. Under the principle of charity, I'll just assume they were having a very hard time thinking that day, for whatever reason(s) that aren't my business. --- **Matthew Dixon Cowles mdcowles Aug 28** @@ -101,9 +101,9 @@ I was supposedly banned for posts in an earlier topic debating whether the PSF B "Plenty of other people being able to speak to the nuances of voting just fine" is just false. People were sharing personal anecdotes, which is fine, but none showed the slightest knowledge of any election theory, or election research, or even of election methods beyond their personal experience (there are dozens I know non-trivial things about). -In the PSF's history, 3 people showed non-trivial knowledge of such stuff: me, David Mertz, and Donald Stufft. I was banned for 3 months. David had been suspended from Discourse forever. Donald did chime in, but had no interest: he said SC elections are so trivial (in formal senses) that the choice of election method probably wouldn't make any difference to which 5 winners were picked. I agreed with him on that. but also had a lot of sympathy with Gregory Smith's motivating desire to switch to a method that allowed voters to express more of what they believed (in the then-current "block Approval", for each candidate yuo can only say "yes" or "no" - no possibilty to express that you like one more than some other, or, if so, to express how strongly you like one more - it's a fine method, but can leave people frustrated with how little they can express). +In the PSF's history, 3 people showed non-trivial knowledge of such stuff: me, David Mertz, and Donald Stufft. I was banned for 3 months. David had been suspended from Discourse forever. Donald did chime in, but had no interest: he said SC elections are so trivial (in formal senses) that the choice of election method probably wouldn't make any difference to which 5 winners were picked. I agreed with him on that. but also had a lot of sympathy with Gregory Smith's motivating desire to switch to a method that allowed voters to express more of what they believed (in the then-current "block Approval", for each candidate you can only say "yes" or "no" - no possibility to express that you like one more than some other, or, if so, to express how strongly you like one more - it's a fine method, but can leave people frustrated with how little they can express). As things turned out, the core devs agreed to switch to "bloc STAR", thanks to Guido pushing for it. Is Guido an election theory expert? He wasn't at the time :wink:. In the background, I gave him a crash course on election theory via email, and pushed him toward STAR. He is, of course, a very quick learner, and convinced himself it was the best choice. So he spoke his own mind, and by agreement never mentioned that, in some senses, he was channeling me for a change. -But that isn't the point here either. The point is how very maddening bad moderation policies can be. And also how maddening trying to point that out can be. Matthew's is one of the few cases I've heard of where the CoC WG even botherd to reply to emai. Sure, they're busy. In which case perhaps they shouldn't butt in so much on trivialities to begin with :wink:. +But that isn't the point here either. The point is how very maddening bad moderation policies can be. And also how maddening trying to point that out can be. Matthew's is one of the few cases I've heard of where the CoC WG even bothered to reply to email. Sure, they're busy. In which case perhaps they shouldn't butt in so much on trivialities to begin with :wink:. From 8317faaf7cc61faa4b8a01b11724d182f8a8cc00 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Peters Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 01:28:47 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 09/10] sdlk --- .wordlist.txt | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/.wordlist.txt b/.wordlist.txt index 1ef54c8..ed60604 100644 --- a/.wordlist.txt +++ b/.wordlist.txt @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ Wokesson's PyCon Stufft Cowles -Cowles' +Cowles's Dredd -Roaaum +Rossum +unhid + From 55260244be5f7be0df44695cd1e04da91defac51 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Peters Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 01:31:25 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 10/10] sdlk --- psf/ghide.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/psf/ghide.md b/psf/ghide.md index 81581fc..b5eda30 100644 --- a/psf/ghide.md +++ b/psf/ghide.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ When that flag is clicked, the user has a choice to make about _why_ they clicke That's it. Extremely broad, and in my experience impossible to guess _what_ was found to be "offensive", etc. -Whenever I got one of these, I ignored it. Hidden posts sit in a queue waiting for moderator review, and for a long time mods always unhid my posts again on their own initiative (although very late in my pre-ban life, that changed, and it _appeared_ the mods had an agenda of hiding my posts ASAP on their own, and never un-hid them again). But that doesn't matter here. +Whenever I got one of these, I ignored it. Hidden posts sit in a queue waiting for moderator review, and for a long time mods always unhid my posts again on their own initiative (although very late in my pre-ban life, that changed, and it _appeared_ the mods had an agenda of hiding my posts ASAP on their own, and never unhid them again). But that doesn't matter here. What does is that Guido's mild post was not getting unhidden by mod magic. There are more stories here about how tech-gossip sites speculated about why the PSF hid a post by Guido, and threatened to turn into another PR mini-disaster for the PSF. I'll skip those too. Suffice it to say that Guido and I both communicated with "press contacts" to assure them that it was probably just Discourse's auto-hiding algorithm at work, and that the post would soon enough become visible again.