On 8/29/22 16:28, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > Concretely, I believe a self-moderated community should implement a form > of restorative justice. I am not well-versed in this area, but I see an > opportunity for us to create something new and valuable. I posit we > should invest in the idea of a just Agora. We should take this > seriously.
Restorative justice is a great idea. I wrote a few protos on it in the discord a while back, I'm sure someone can dig them up. > Even more concretely, I point the following, just out of the top of my > head: > > * Bans should not be permanent. There should be a way to appeal them, > and they should have time limits (though those can be unspecified and > unlimited). Times change, and so should we. > > * We should have formal processes that implement some form of > restorative justice, upon whose failure, and only then, extreme > measures such as ostracism should prevail. > > I don't believe in punishment, fiction notwithstanding, and so I don't > believe ostracism to be a punishment. It is – it must be – only the > final, most bitter remedy for an injustice so grievous, and so > collective, that there is no possible restoration. It is grave. I'd even > come to the point of saying it needs to be a unanimous decision. I admire your idealism, but I just think you're wrong about how grievous it has to be. Sometimes restoration isn't possible because someone involved refuses to engage in a restorative process. Madrid responded with "you shouldn't even be allowed to be mad at that, it's just who I am." So e's clearly not interested at this time in understanding how eir actions might have impacts. If your idealism aligns with protecting the person that makes other people so uncomfortable that they quit, because they haven't done anything **too serious**, then congrats because that's what you currently have. -- nix
