Casual Conversation

3002 readers

466 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.

RULES (updated 01/22/25)

Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

orangeNgreen@lemmy.world

neidu2@feddit.nl

BoozeOrWater@lemm.ee

-5

What would you do in this situation? (lemm.ee)

submitted 4 days ago by shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee to c/casualconversation@lemm.ee

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Suppose you helped run a place, and there were two people, who we will call Person A and Person B. Person A reported Person B to you for something like harassment or maybe theft of property. Maybe you have a one-chance policy or maybe Person B is a repeat offender, but in any case, you removed Person B from the place you help run. However, for some reason, Person A eventually had a change of heart or expressed guilt over how it played out (or maybe they just miss them) and asked you if Person B could be forgiven some time afterward. Would you unban Person B? And/or would you respond some other way?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A repeat offender in this situation would refer to people who are operating based on something like a three strike system (as in they can get in trouble three times before they're removed) and used up the other strikes before using up the last one by being in trouble for upsetting the person in question who later has a change of heart. In this situation, you could surmise that, since the last strike was unfairly used up, you could undo it and let them back. Or you could think "well, it kind of blends in the other two strikes and how those past rule violations fairly used up those strikes".

A one-chance policy would simply be the opposite of that. That's where you say one rule violation seals one's fate.

The specific example doesn't have to be deceptive in nature. Suppose the way in which the "John" corespondent violates the boundaries of the "Jane" corespondent is to make recordings of the latter or challenge their conception of privacy. Or maybe one verbally offended the other. These are not what one would call universally set lines. You remove the offender, but later their removal is lamented. "I am sorry but I want to revise those lines [which would be in favor of the John correspondent who may come back if you decide they can]" the Jane correspondent says. And technically you could have an analog to this that doesn't need all those people; people go to jail all the time for breaking laws that get removed a month later, to demonstrate what level that can work on. It's here the question of what to do lies if it were up to you. ~~Not that I've ever met an honest Jane.~~

[–] dumblederp@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago

Sounds like workplace behavioural policy, which is a massive and well written about topic. Ask a manager threads elsewhere will probably be able to give you a clearer answer. There's no one answer. "That top looks nice on you Jane" is not the same as "Here look my dick in the copy room with the door shut" kinda situation. Jane would be fair to report either if she felt uncomfortable and one would be a conversational warning from HR (One strike i guess) and the other would be a formal warning, probably firing for some kind of gross workplace misconduct.