Revuo Issue 41 - revuo-monero.com/issue-41.html

I just found this room via matrix.org -- is it also bridged with #monero-community on Freenode?

it is. you are popping up in -community on freenode right now. :)

oh, you're not having an [m] on your username, but it definitely is bridged. see xmrscott[m] is here.

mattermost is bridged as well, with xmrmatterbridge.

Nice, thanks :-)

jonf3n: yes, unfortunately we still have to tolerate the plebs

¬¬

irc > *

i prefer smoke signals. can't be doing with shiny new things like irc

when foundation is spackled on it doesn't make people prettier

jonf3n: a list of Monero matrix rooms is here: +monero:matrix.org

This tweet about community-building went viral yesterday, and I think it could spark some interesting discussion here: twitter.com/HoldenShearer/status/1212727688085090305

I think it's especially relevant since the community workgroup exists in part to help prevent marginalized groups from being excluded from the Monero ecosystem. We want to make sure we're hearing their perspectives. However, allowing any type of comment may damage the community or otherwise derail it by bad-faith actors

ping rehrar who shared it with me originally

I wish more people understood this

I totally agree with that tweet. A community is welcoming if it's able to kick out toxic people.

it's sometimes frustrating for me to witness among some Monero and Bitcoin supporters, especially those who are extremely libertarian and want an entirely hands-off approach

not all participation is positive. you have to be able to exclude the negatives.

I also help moderate the r/cryptocurrency subreddit, where we have far stricter rules than most of Monero's communities. If it's likely someone is participating in bad faith, they're punished without much uproar

<rehrar> sgp_ well, I think these libertarians need to have their spaces where they can do that. And I also think there shouldn't be favoritism on whether or not they are listed on something like the Hangouts page.

which is why the libertarian ideal of a free market is also a non-starter. you can't allow "joe's assassination club" to trade on the open market.

<rehrar> But a place like -community is a workgroup with different standards. And they should respect that also. :)

we've had a few spinoffs over the years, each getting fewer than 500 or so subs and then completely dying or being filled with spam exclusively. not a single comment in >95% of posts

hyc: in an efficient market you would have "anti-joe's assassination club" to counter! /s

<learninandlurkin> It would be nice if monero-pools was just about pools rather than being the designated libertarian freeze peach zone for some reason

rehrar: to some extent there needs to be some gatekeeping

else it's overrun with bogus crao

*crap

yep.

freedom comes with responsibility. abusing freedom by spewing crap must have enforced consequences.

we've seen a few vocal people over the years who are obviously trying to damage the community but have been given many exceptions or have just barely stayed within the rules

<rehrar> repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/merge_requests/113

.hmm

rehrar: way too vague to support lol

what is it with people expecting to be paid to pursue their own personal research?

well, there's no cost to create a proposal I guess

so if Monero grows larger, expect a fewer proportion of them to be useful

<rehrar> I made a comment.

I'm surprised, you completely avoided the question of what value this has to the community, even if the work is done competently

<rehrar> Ye, I see. Sorry. :/

<rehrar> As one of the CCS maintainers I try to be impartial as to value and focus on more technical things about how the CCS operates.

fair enough

<rehrar> Please do chime in and question the value.

I should set up email notifications for each submission

can they be included in this chat like the meta issues?

back to rehrar's original point though about different workgroups having different policies, I totally agree this is natural and it makes sense

but we can (and should) say that we are going to exclude groups that have offensive policies or no clear contributions/benefit

commented

<rehrar> Hmm...but I wouldn't say that having a "we don't silence anyone" is an offensive policy, it's just a pernicious one that is rife with issues under the hood.

rehrar it partially depends on what the group is used for

<rehrar> I think having some sort of "Here there be dragons" warning on such groups might be warranted.

you can have the policy in a small group and no one may abuse it

<rehrar> "Warning, little moderation. Enter and engage at your own risk."

I think it's a bad idea to provide a home for such groups

why bother with that though? why create the outside image that Monero is associated with such unmoderated groups?

<rehrar> ...because Monero is just money?

your main concern is that we go too far and remove legit conversations and stuff, right?

rehrar: the website and this workgroup aren't money

it's not just money, there's a pretty strong ideology attached. it is permissionless, meaning that it doesn't discriminate against anyone.

<rehrar> the closest thing you can really say is "why create the outside image that the Core Team stewarded infrastructure is associated with such unmoderated groups"

allowing a hate group that targets certain ethnicities would e.g. be in conflict with that ideology

<rehrar> if it were edited to be the above statement, then I would probably more agree than disagree

<rehrar> the reality is that Monero has one overwhelmingly large club that uses it socially, financially, and developer-wise. That group I will name the Core Team Kids (CTK)

rehrar this isn't a legal challenge in a court, this is establishing the community that we all want to be a part of

well, most people, not all

<rehrar> I'd say that CTK currently moderates the IRCs, Telegrams, most workgroups, and current infrastructure. At the moment, there's few people who dislike the CTK and their way of doing things, because we haven't done anything to push people away.

the core team is centralized, and it takes community feedback seriously and that's good. but their default shouldn't be "allow anything because we're worried about being gatekeepers." that is likely to be overrun by bad actors and exclude far more people that you actually want

<rehrar> Even though core team themselves is not responsible for most things, we still fall into line behind their infrastructure and development/release model.

<rehrar> I understand, and I agree.

<rehrar> I guess my issue was when you used the term "Monero" when you meant "the largest subset of the Monero community"

<rehrar> though we haven't had the vocabulary to talk about it now before CTK :D

no, I mean the monero website stewarded by a group of people

<rehrar> ok. With that change to your statement, then I agree.

to some extent, we can always play the game about what is actually "Monero" vs some other rando group

but I don't find the conversation interesting

since people can shape it to mean whatever they want

<rehrar> Well, if Monero really is trying to be an alternative to fiat...

<rehrar> It's like asking which subculture reps the dollar.

<rehrar> Subcultures USE dollars, but they are not the dollar.

<rehrar> that's the only distinction I'm trying to make here.

<rehrar> The CTK are the largest Monero community, and run most things, and I agree that we by and large set sane rules, of which unmoderated channels should probably not be a part.

it's an important distinction, but continuously bringing it up only muddies the main narrative to me

<rehrar> But the CTK does not equal Monero.

it sounds to me like you're trying to make a narrow court argument to get off on a technicality

<rehrar> It just rustles my jimmies when people are like "Monero is this."

you're the one who said "Monero is only the money part" :p

<rehrar> Fireice did it "Monero allows this or that" and we push back against him for this error.

yeah and fwiw I think then when argued appropriately it's good

<rehrar> Well, I think we agree mostly and disagree on a few things. But that's ok.

yeah but the good thing is I know you're arguing in good faith and have good points

<rehrar> same

nah u don't know me :p

<rehrar> I have made myself an open book to this community while you hide behind your masks and filth

haha

in summary, I just want to get across that every time some borderline or obviously bad behaviors in bad faith are tolerated, it scares other people away and has real consequences

I don't like to bring up fireice's name since it reminds people that he exists, but it helps make a good point so I will anyway

every participation in the community was in bad faith. it was always trying to purposefully harm people

so what happened? there were many arguments and there were some subsequent rule changes

then they (fireice and other ryo people) were participating by barely staying within the rules, but still acting in bad faith

ultimately I think the mods got fed up and banned him for some rule violation, but that could have happened far sooner

as an aside, I dislike the viewpoint that we shouldn't ban people just because that would be "giving in" or "what they want"

who cares

good that's what they want lol. that's also what everyone else wants

anyway, end justin rant

lol... those episodes went on for far too long

you have to have zero tolerance for intolerance. sounds paradoxical but it's true.

bad actors must be stopped immediately, otherwise they just continue to damage the community.

rehrar: can I be added as a maintainer of the ccs repo?

fireice was exceptionally something though. i don't think we've had anything like it.

and his posts were never self contained in their toxicity. you had to know the whole backstory. which i didn't feel like referencing everytime.

even in cases where i got snippy with him on reddit, there were newcomers that were like "woh, why u bein like that". and im like "oh jeez, you don't know"

and to some degree, he sorta sectioned himself off with ryo or sumo or whatever.

i think the gardens we really need to protect is the github / gitlab, or wherever development aggregates.

thats also why it seemed exceptional - the fact that it was happening and started in the code