Agreed, here is not the place for it, but we should recognize moving past the bootstrapping stage of the project that a moderator unilaterally determining the truth on a controversial (and opinion laced) topic isn’t (in my opinion) conducive to reducing conflict.
First, welcome to the Discourse! Next time if you could, instead of commenting on a resolved thread just make a new one.
If you (and @jakehamilton) could, I think it would be good to delete your messages from the CoC and inclusion thread so we can start fresh here.
I’d like to address your concerns, and I don’t mind reviewing/explaining what was already discussed, or making sure that you feel heard if there’s a new concern.
To get started @aidan, I could use an ELI5 version of this quote since its a bit abstract for me.
moving past the bootstrapping stage of the project that a moderator unilaterally determining the truth on a controversial
Agreed, here is not the place for it, but we should recognize moving past the bootstrapping stage of the project that a moderator unilaterally determining the truth on a controversial(and opinion laced) topic isn’t (in my opinion) conducive to reducing conflict.
I’m not pushing for litigation of that topic. I am pushing for recognizing the risk of allowing a unilateral declaration of truth. If this(like with Jon) is just one extraneous circumstance that’s one thing- but that doesn’t mean we can’t recognize a risk of perpetuating that.
Hey Jeff, I appreciate you wanting to engage in discussion, but I don’t think this topic will have any positive use. The other thread is resolved and the topic at hand is fairly contentious. If possible, I’d prefer we move forward instead and focus on building Aux.
I agree with Jake building Aux comes first! I do also believe open discussion on how moderation is done is important. But I definitely understand wanting to let the tension cool on this issue. This is Jake’s house, I’m happy to discuss it when it’s more conducive to the development of the project
and sounds good!