[Mod-discuss] Re: On ways to respond to warnings from the moderation team

Michael De Roover <ietf@nixmagic.com> Wed, 10 September 2025 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@nixmagic.com>
X-Original-To: mod-discuss@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: mod-discuss@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63CE6026C69 for <mod-discuss@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 19:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qTtS18_KaEZn for <mod-discuss@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 19:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nixmagic.com (e1.nixmagic.com [116.203.235.171]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37FF56026C59 for <mod-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 19:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from workstation.vm.ideapad.internal (dhcp13.lan [192.168.10.213]) by nixmagic.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72D1511E725; Wed, 10 Sep 2025 02:02:49 +0000 (UTC)
From: Michael De Roover <ietf@nixmagic.com>
To: Mod-discuss <mod-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 04:02:49 +0200
Message-ID: <2024852.yKVeVyVuyW@workstation.vm.ideapad.internal>
Organization: workstation.vm.ideapad.internal
In-Reply-To: <8f98b02c-fe87-490b-bd0e-1be699011c47@app.fastmail.com>
References: <20250906090857.738556.qmail@cr.yp.to> <aMB8btLcGb8cAbsO@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <8f98b02c-fe87-490b-bd0e-1be699011c47@app.fastmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Message-ID-Hash: ORLHRPML3AH6IAFRSUXGAFVD35NF2N24
X-Message-ID-Hash: ORLHRPML3AH6IAFRSUXGAFVD35NF2N24
X-MailFrom: ietf@nixmagic.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-0; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-1; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-2; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-3; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-4; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-5; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-6; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-7; header-match-mod-discuss.ietf.org-8; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Mod-discuss] Re: On ways to respond to warnings from the moderation team
List-Id: Discussion list for IETF moderation policies and practices <mod-discuss.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mod-discuss/bBkMnfFCA51TSzWpjRNCTb-a0PU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mod-discuss>
List-Help: <mailto:mod-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:mod-discuss-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mod-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mod-discuss-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mod-discuss-leave@ietf.org>

Hi,

Toerless Eckert wrote:
> You do not know if that will hold for the future. If future moderation
> actions are raised against you in the future you can for sure expect those
> past warnings to be brought up in evidence against you to establish a
> pattern of disruptive behavior.

Bron Gondwana wrote:
> Often when I get a warning, it prompts me to adjust my behaviour so that I'm
> less likely to establish a pattern or need another warning in future.  So
> even if I think the warning was unwarranted or excessive, I was clearly
> doing something which the moderation team considered warn-worthy.  Unless
> the thing that got me a warning was essential to my goals of posting to the
> list, figuring out how to not cause the moderation team to have to closely
> examine my messages is a pretty valuable side-quest!

I think both of you raise good points, and I like seeing both sides of this 
written out. Thank you.

When I wrote that flagged email, I will admit to having consumed a bit more 
alcohol than I should. I do appreciate that this was flagged, and that I was 
shown where the limits of acceptable conduct are. Several years ago I made 
that same mistake, but much, much worse. And it gnawed on me for all that 
time, even if in practice it ended up just buried in the archives, as I think 
it should be. That's why I appreciated that warning. It prompted me to take a 
step back, and at least sober up first. And then came, of course, the real 
punishment -- the hangover.

I do believe that, while perhaps unwritten in such words, that all of us try 
our best to act in good faith. Currently being in the process of reading and 
reviewing the MODPOD charter, that is more or less the vibe I'm getting from 
it. Significant freedom to moderate in one's own discretion, sure, but with 
several appeals processes and other such checks and balances attached. I will 
need more time to review it properly, but so far I'm liking what I'm seeing. 
So, within that framework and assuming that everyone is acting in good faith 
(even including last calls for community input on restrictive actions it 
seems), I think I'm okay with it.

Seeing that there is a desire from the moderators to move these discussions to 
the mod-discuss list, I have taken the liberty to do so in my recipients.

Anyway, I do have a cup of port wine on my desk, so I think I'll wrap things 
up here for tonight and raise this cup to you both, as well as everyone else 
who volunteers their time to making the Internet tick. Cheers!

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,
Michael De Roover

Mail: ietf@nixmagic.com
Web: michael.de.roover.eu.org

-- vim@workstation.vm.ideapad.internal