Fork me on GitHub
#admin-announcements
<
2015-12-28
>
bostonaholic00:12:47

you cannot leave #C03RZGPG1

bostonaholic00:12:20

that's a Slack "feature"

seancorfield00:12:14

In general, in every Slack, there are one or two channels that everyone is added to when they join the team, which you cannot leave. That's why discussions tend to happen in other channels -- such as #C03S1KBA2, #C03S1L9DN etc here -- rather than the unleaveable channels.

kopasetik06:12:24

OK, I solved my second Clojure Codewars problem!

kopasetik06:12:48

The problem...

kopasetik06:12:32

My solution...

seancorfield06:12:57

You might want to share that in the #C03S1KBA2 channel

seancorfield06:12:19

This is an unpartable channel so everyone here sees every message.

seancorfield06:12:46

(congratulations tho')

kopasetik06:12:54

Thanks! 😄

crocket10:12:08

I wonder how people would be stopped when they display hyper-sensitivity to perceived insults to troll others.

crocket10:12:30

Is clojurians equipped to handle the challenge of handling bad actors? I have to confirm, yet, though.

jaen10:12:48

I don't think there's any empirical data here.

crocket10:12:05

Stackexchange is engineered in favor of trolls. It allows trolls to bury people with status attacks.

jaen10:12:09

You can only know that when and if that happens.

jaen10:12:41

Anyway, I've been here since 5th of September and I didn't since anything more problematic than someone being angry with the Clojurescript's maintainer attitude.

jaen10:12:49

And I don't imagine anything more serious happened before either.

jaen10:12:57

This slack seems like a tame bunch.

jaen10:12:15

So you'll probably only have your answer when and if something happens.

crocket11:12:44

ClojureScript maintainer attitude where?

jaen11:12:18

On the #C03S1L9DN channel, I remember someone being annoyed recently to the point of ragequitting.

jaen11:12:29

But that's really about it.

crocket11:12:40

A system's resilience against bad actors can be inferred from its governance structure.

crocket11:12:25

CoC is a great aid, but it's still not as good as polycentric legal system.

jaen11:12:32

Sure, but that does not always work. French had a reputedly superb military in the pre-WWII days and look how quick they folded.

crocket11:12:07

"CoC is a great improvement over no rule. polycentric legal system is a few notches up the ladder." is my impression for now.

crocket11:12:17

At least with CoC, admins will have little or no excuse for letting trolls harm people for extended periods of time.

jaen11:12:34

Hmm, reading wiki page for "polycentrism" doesn't really give me any ideas how that could apply to an IRC channel.

crocket11:12:10

IRC governance is basically either no governance or dictatorship most of the time.

jaen11:12:32

Sure, but I don't understand how that "polycentric legal system" would work in this context.

crocket11:12:47

A polycentric legal system may work with multiple laws and clans.

crocket11:12:57

It requires different kinds of software protocols.

crocket11:12:14

Basically, under polycentric law, people choose their own legal system.

crocket11:12:03

Even, dictatorship is not a good solution because it only punishes those who offend dictator. It doesn't punish trolls who don't offend dictators. And, dictators can't watch channels 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The dictator is one man. Trolls can avoid punishment when dictator is sleeping.

jaen11:12:47

Hmm, I'll bookmark those for future reference, look like interesting reads.

crocket11:12:55

I do not perceive a strong incentive for admins to stick to CoC. There may be hidden incentives, though.

jaen11:12:06

Hmm, based on what? And what would you perceive as an incentive for example?

crocket11:12:14

The admin/user hierarchy is quite permanent, so they may feel less need for following and enforcing CoC. Under polycentric legal system, judges are chosen by litigants. If people do not perceive fairness in a judge's decisions, they will change judges.

jaen11:12:38

And how would judge enforce their decisions then?

crocket11:12:16

victims enforce judge's decisions in polycentric law. If offender refuse to compensate victims for damage, the community is allowed to attack the offender without any consequence. The offenders who don't renumerate have to run away for life.

jaen11:12:02

Oh, this might work in real life, I suppose.

jaen11:12:28

On the intarwebs this seems like it would end up in total warfare obliterating the channel.

crocket11:12:12

But, on slack or IRC, I don't find any means by which to attack cheaters. In companies and funding groups, the punishment can be outlawing. Outlawed people cannot receive money from company. This means severance.

jaen11:12:45

I dunno, maybe you're not creative enough. Bring out your bots and make their life on the channel miserable?

jaen11:12:34

This is the direction I imagine everything would turn to in your scheme.

jaen11:12:39

Open bot warfare.

crocket11:12:54

It doesn't sound elegant. It attracts third parties.

jaen11:12:06

Life isn't ever elegant.

crocket11:12:22

Polycentric law in real life is elegant. I think the online version should have to be devised anew.

jaen11:12:53

I imagine this could work in a P2P community, not in a centralised one.

crocket11:12:14

That's why I said it requires new software protocols.

jaen11:12:43

I must have missed that remark about protocols then.

jaen11:12:11

But all in all I don't think this Slack can do any better as it stands.

jaen11:12:43

Maybe it could stand to have a few more moderators, so timezone coverage is better, but that's about it.

crocket11:12:50

Since it relies on a few people's decisions, I don't think it is a quite reliable means to enforce CoC.

jaen11:12:19

It is a centralised community, someone has to be "in charge"

jaen11:12:53

In this framework I don't think you can do much better than how it currently is, apart from making the pool of moderators a bit larger.

crocket11:12:21

As I said above, a clear set of rules called CoC is a great improvement over unwritten rules of dictators or no governance.

crocket11:12:54

Plus, IRC makes it difficult to collect evidence and be approved of the authenticity of collected evidence. Slack is a step in the right direction. It logs conversations.

mpenet11:12:02

Slack conversations are mutable tho... So not really

crocket11:12:26

Perhaps, people should stick to publicly logged communications channels with proper governance. Slack is still better than IRC.

crocket11:12:16

For evidence, conversations could become immutable after, for example, a day or two. But, I concede that slack is not really designed with protecting people in mind. At least, on slacks, you can go back to a conversation and take screenshots or search conversations.

mpenet14:12:26

Bah, it's very subjective... IRC has a lot of pros over slack too

mpenet14:12:14

And everything you describe can be built over irc as well (or exists already via simple extensions/bots).

mpenet14:12:09

It's a bit like debating some proprietary IDE vs emacs imho. Kind of pointless.

ag21:12:10

btw it seems grimoire been down for a few days now. when you go to http://conj.io/ it just shows this pic. Is it on different domain now?

bronsa21:12:30

@arrdem: ^