Add newer moderation rules [DRAFT] #1254
Conversation
Those rules have higher formalism, transparency and proofs standards than the current one. They're also explicit about the moderator self-dealing risks.
|
I’ll attend next Jitsi meeting to explain this proposal, it’s opened in a constructive fashion. Not in a rush to land it, so if it takes few weeks or months to come to some consensus on that, I’m fine with it. If I’m asked why such relentlessness on mod rules, it’s because I’ve spent countless nights on the last years on dealing with LN severe vulnerabilities, it’s always a mess and poor mod rules makes that's even more a mess. |
|
I’m leaving that one opened, as the draft moderation rules as I’m proposing is at least putting rightly that’s the hard problem with any moderation rules is the “who moderate the moderators” problem. I’ll still address comments if any when I found time. As it’s said within the draft, transparency is critical to building trust in the moderation process and ensuring external accountability. I’m not planning to come back contributing to Lightning BOLTs now now, anyway. That said, I would still bet than 5 years from now, we wouldn’t have still have resolved all the flaws arising from a blockchain world with dynamic fees. Flaws in my opinion which are seriously grieving the Lightning protocol. |
After talking offline over the last weeks with some, opening a revamped version of the
coc.md. I’ve never been formally opposed to uphold courtesy and civility on the internet and this Lightning BOLT repository. The part where I’ve always been skeptical is the classic Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? and what does it mean in a decentralized open-source project like Lightning with contributors all over the world.The proposed newer moderation rules aims to strike an equilibrium among many concerns.
Emphasis is more made on strict proceeding timelines (if you’ve already sat once on a law school bench, you know that proceedings rules matters more than what actually is defined as torts) and moderators safeguard to be impartial. Upholding transparency is required for building trust in the moderation process and ensuring external accountability.
Only 2 torts are defined, i.e spamming and cyber-harassment. In practice, cyber harassment is wide enough to cover all the others behavior deemed previously as unacceptable. With the restrictions that it’s only apply to enumerated online communication channels, like this repository. If you have trouble with someone for offline behaviors, go to hire competent attorneys in conflict of laws or go to meditate on your lifelong ethics and if your words have always matched your actions.
Opening as a draft, as I still have few modifications to bring and review it more. It’s indeed open for comment or suggestions.