i don’t agree with the sentiment that aggrieved parties are the eternal arbiter of when people who fucked up have successfully resolved their situation
in my experience the amount of time aggrieved parties typically want to spend thinking about people who fucked up is this: 0
it is both unethical to ask them to continually weigh in on ongoing litigation, counterproductive (as their repulsion towards the situation will be transferred onto their analysis), and a blatant deferral of community responsibility and effective community moderation onto the people who are most vulnerable
@Lady you're not wrong, I think, but in that situation as moderator/community steward I've feared that I'm trending toward ignoring harms and letting problem behavior slide because it's less difficult for me, so checking in with unhappy folks is a check against that.
but again you're not wrong that it's dereliction of community duty and broadly dysfunctional
@egnor yeah and i mean i don’t have a problem with checking in respectfully once or twice, especially for a recent issue, and it really depends on a lot factors regarding the specifics, but
this was inspired by a moderation note on one instance about some people on a different instance who were harmed by people on a THIRD instance and that rubbed me the wrong way; like, don’t outsource your moderation decisions to people who aren’t even on your instance. if you don’t think the people who caused the harm have done enough work to fix things, make that call, but don’t hide behind somebody else when doing it, you know?
in the case that the harmed people ARE people you are responsible for, i think that the focus should be on figuring out what they need, and making sure they have that. make sure they feel safe and in control. if that means kicking someone else out, then so be it, but that’s not where you start the question, imo.
make your own damn calls