🇳🇱
@design_RG @mngrif @arteteco Seems I'm going to reluctantly have to vote to silence neckbeard, pl, and FSE.
Giving safe harbor to individuals who evade bans and complete inaction regarding resolving it is too big a risk to the safety of our users. If they can no longer block users they wish to block they have no protection against harassment. Since this individual threatened to murder someone it is particularly concerning.
As was seen I reached out to the admin of all three instances and after a long talk none were willing to take action to ban or contain the user in any way.
For these reasons I reluctantly need to vote for a silence.
Any votes from the rest of you or discussion left?
@freemo @design_RG @mngrif @arteteco
I'd like to register my support for letting the affected user deal with this himself using the "Hide everything from example.com" feature.
The following is on QOTO's about page.
What won't get you banned:
Anything that can be solved by a personal block
Why not apply the same standard to silencing instances as to banning users?
@freemo @design_RG @mngrif @arteteco
I'd be more supportive of an instance silence if we had the feature proposed here. That would make silencing an instance merely an overrideable default, and I have no problem with the mods trying to set up sane defaults to ensure new users have a generally decent experience off the bat.
I entierly agree, if users could override a silence and effectively unsilence an instance that would be a very valuable feature i would support. In fact that would solve a lot of other problems too now that i think about it (would totally make the isolate gab movement pointless for example).
@freemo
If you already reached some conclusion feel free to not include me, I was late and as we've always done who's present takes the decisions, otherwise it would slow us down a lot.
Maybe just open a topic on discourse linking the discussion on mastodon, for transparency?
I was traveling and getting setup in my USA home, so I put this topic on hold. No actual decision was made.
Now that I'm situated I want to come back to this as well as hear your input. I'd rather avoid silencing... perhaps an interim option is to create a "suggested block list" that we offer to users and encourage them to block those instances, of their own choice, and detail the reasons, leave it up to them.
Then maybe I can implement a feature where the suggested blocklist is automatically applied to users accounts by default but they can select to opt out as they wish.
The problem has continued, and has gotten worse, so I dont think the instances that have done nothing in response should just be ignored. Thankfully most of the instances contacted were all quick to resolve the issue on their end.
I can start a discourse topic to discuss.
I will update everyone effected as a decision is reached, but for now letting those involved know that no silence has been enacted yet.
@khird @design_RG @mngrif @casualwp @hrisskar @snow @AtlasFreeman @p @nepfag @redneonglow @Lumeinshin @march @jack @sjw @FBI @mewmew @nosleep @jasonl8446
> I dont think the instances that have done nothing in response should just be ignored.
I said I was gonna warn him, I warned him, I said that this was policy around here: no one gets banned without ample warning. It is a little disingenous to say that anyone "did nothing". I do not think the guy has bothered you from here since then.
Doing anything about the actions of the user in question carried out on other instances would not only contradict our other policies, it would also have absolutely no effect, because a ban on this instance does not automatically ban him from other instances. He can still just sign up on the other instances and spam. Unless he's using FSE to plan that, I don't presume to exceed my jurisdiction. Like any clever fedi user, he knows how to find https://qoto.org/api/v1/instance/peers and since it's a one-man operation, no actual coordination is needed.
The guy's on Tor, I'm not blocking Tor exit nodes and I'm not shutting down registrations.
These policies were very carefully considered and discussed at length. They will not change on a whim, especially not over a personal dispute where he's yelling "GET LAID, INCEL" and you're yelling "I HAVE AN AR-15, MICROPENIS".
So I appreciate the heads-up, but as I said before, I'd prefer not to participate in any further deliberations; just let me know when a decision is reached. I don't think we made any progress during the last round of deliberations (although I'm glad they are not a DM this time; I do not like to do this sort of thing in secret, FSE is run openly), but the end result was you were willing to try none of the proposed solutions and I'm not going to change the policy, so I don't see any possibility of this round of deliberations being productive.
At this point, my only remaining proposal is that everyone
take it easy 
, and anyone that wants to propose something else should go ahead and untag me.cybertaco.gif
Yes thanks for your feedback. For the time beeing there is no silence or suspend in place. I will let you know if that changes. You were tagged just to update you on that regard. I am trying to consider alternatives to a silence/suspend.
You wont be tagged in general discussion. This was to let you know that no action was taken, which you requested to be informed about the status.
@AtlasFreeman @FBI @Lumeinshin @jack @jasonl8446 @march @mewmew @nosleep @redneonglow @sjw @nepfag @arteteco @casualwp @design_RG @hrisskar @khird @mngrif @snow
