So now I've had a conversation with a moderator at Fosstodon.

It seems as though, despite the sites pretty bold CoC prohibition on "public or private oppressive language or actions" (language they borrowed from elsewhere), they construe that prohobition much more narrowly than is written.

In fact they allow a great deal of oppressive language, if you don't @ anyone directly.

This contradiction bolsters my inclination to suspend the instance—until they decide to enforce their CoC as written.

@lawremipsum

I'm not sure if I am the moderator you mean. If so, I didn't mean to suggest that we construe the CoC narrowly; we haven't really had a formal discussion.

What I can tell you is that we take all reports very seriously and (setting aside obvious spam ) it's very common for us to discuss the appropriate action as a group.

Plus, we have about 1 moderator per 200 active users—far higher than most instances—which helps us strongly enforce the CoC.

@lawremipsum
technically, @codesections is telling the truth, since this is prefaced with "our practice has been"

fosstodon.org/@codesections/10

But Kev's snowflake post is still up, so it looks like the practice in question is still ongoing

Moderator ratio isn't worth much if there isn't an actual willingness to enforce the CoC, as there appears not to be, when it comes to an admin.

· · Web · 1 · 0 · 3
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Cybrespace

cybrespace: the social hub of the information superhighway jack in to the mastodon fediverse today and surf the dataflow through our cybrepunk, slightly glitchy web portal support us on patreon or liberapay!