This is the first reply to this forum thread. I did not find out until yesterday that you are the (current) author/maintainer of Quill, and that you’re the one who made the decision to have Quill be part of the ZIO organisation. That information is critical context to your replies, particularly in terms of judging the objectivity and intent of them. It colours them much differently than they might have seemed initially.
Not disclaiming the fact that you’re the maintainer of Quill before replying to this thread is incredibly dishonest, bordering on deceitful. Not everyone will have read the entirety of the linked github PR, and even of those who did, some may have missed the implication that you are the maintainer of Quill.
“Unsavoury” was perhaps not the most accurate or descriptive word for me to use, but yes. We should ban people who cause harm.
This is, unfortunately, something that we as a community—as well as as a society in general—have to contend with in judging others. It’s unavoidable. Courts need to pass judgement, even though mistakes are a possibility.
We cannot avoid moderation for the possibility of making a mistake in judgement; that only means that people who cause harm may do so with impunity in perpetuity. We do the best we can, and that’s something that we as a community (and a society) have to live with. And of course, appeal is available to help fix mistakes and reduce the impact and incidence of false positives.
This is an appalling thing to say. To suggest that people hide who they are and that they are members of minorities, in order to avoid harassment and abuse? Must BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Colour) folks pretend to be white, women pretend to be men, trans, nonbinary and intersex folks pretend to be cis, queer folks pretend to be straight, neurodiverse folks pretend to be neurotypical, disabled folks pretend not to be? You want people to hide and deny their identities so they don’t get harassed and abused, instead of stopping the harassment and abuse?
For shame.
And on top of being an abhorrent notion, it’s ridiculous. Even online, not all neurodivergent people can hide their neurodiversity. But what about in-person interactions, such as conferences? You cannot hide being black. You cannot hide being a woman. Are minorities excluded from conferences and meet-ups on top of being forced to hide themselves online?
Suggesting such a thing is inappropriate and disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.
This argument is broken on both sides:
We use our judgement to make sure that the people we are removing are actually causing harm. Your supposition is kind of a false premise opposed to moderation in general, and I don’t think is a valid argument.
We are not trying to make a separate community formed by all of the harmful people we’ve removed safe. We’re trying to make our own community safe. Yes, if we ban harmful people, they may form their own groups and communities that are unsafe, but we make our community better, which is the goal. And people who need safety will be able to participate in our community. I don’t think the ability for people to form their own bad communities is an argument against making our own a safe one.
That’s… literally masking yourself.
You’ve publicly given your name as Naftoli Gugenheim. If the minority group you’re a member of was to be any more public, you’d need a billboard. You’ve also stated the minority group you’re a member of publicly in the past. If you wanted to mask it, you’d use a pseudonym that hid your identity as a member of that group.
The thread’s intention was not to claim that people on it are guilty of bigotry, harassment or abuse (by definition, in fact, since when I made the thread I was its only member). The point was that there are people in the Scala community in general who are guilty of such things.
This is a major simplification and misses several key points:
- John de Goes, the primary person in question, invited multiple people with “abhorrent beliefs” to speak at his conference, and in doing so promoted their bigotry. This is more than just working with them. It has caused substantial harm to many, many people. It is one of the reasons I do not feel safe in his presence, digital or otherwise. (I am not stating that this is the only thing he has done; it is just the most major and community-relevant, in my mind.)
- John de Goes is the stated Benevolent Dictator For Life of the ZIO organisation. The organisation has defined itself in a way that ties John de Goes inextricably to its core.
It is not that people are guilty regardless of their beliefs; it is that the ZIO organisation in particular is problematic for its leader.
This conversation is not saying what you stated, and is certainly not “truly saying” it in a True Scotsman fashion.
Neither I, nor from what I’ve read anyone else in this thread, has stated that supporting ZIO means you are a bigot; however, ZIO is lead by someone who has promoted bigotry in a very wide and public fashion, and caused much harm in doing so. Thus, supporting ZIO signals acceptance of that bigotry and harm, and that acceptance makes those who are harmed feel even less safe and less welcome.
This is a gross caricaturisation of the views and statements of myself and many others in the community. It is deliberately worded to paint us as ignorant and stubborn. It is inappropriate.
Yes. Removing people who cause harm from the community reduces future harm and increases safety. This is a fairly well-known principle, and the reason why moderation of communities exists as a concept in general.
And until everyone behaves ethically, we remove those who don’t and who cause harm.