I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
years could probably be counted without having to take my socks off -
so perhaps I have no right to comment, but I've noticed a marked
increase in aggressive language here lately, so I'm putting my head
above the parapet to say that I don't appreciate it.
Robust disagreement is one thing [and can be quite enjoyable for those
of us merely spectating], but there's really no need to go around
calling people idiots at the drop of a hat. Quite apart from anything
else, when the contributor you're calling names is as helpful and
knowledgeable a member of the community as some of those targeted have
been, it makes you look a bit daft.
And, yes, I know bringing it up could be construed as stoking the
flames ... but, well, "silence = acquiescence" and all that.
> I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
> years could probably be counted without having to take my socks off -
> so perhaps I have no right to comment, but I've noticed a marked
> increase in aggressive language here lately, so I'm putting my head
> above the parapet to say that I don't appreciate it.
> Robust disagreement is one thing [and can be quite enjoyable for those
> of us merely spectating], but there's really no need to go around
> calling people idiots at the drop of a hat. Quite apart from anything
> else, when the contributor you're calling names is as helpful and
> knowledgeable a member of the community as some of those targeted have
> been, it makes you look a bit daft.
> And, yes, I know bringing it up could be construed as stoking the
> flames ... but, well, "silence = acquiescence" and all that.
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Zero Piraeus <sche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
> years could probably be counted without having to take my socks off -
> so perhaps I have no right to comment, but I've noticed a marked
> increase in aggressive language here lately, so I'm putting my head
> above the parapet to say that I don't appreciate it.
Thanks for speaking up, Zero. I agree that the aggressive language
lately has been a bit of a problem; but it's not incurable, and Dwight
Hutto seems to have recovered a more affable stance in his more recent
posts. (Thank you, Dwight/David.)
Etienne, we shall not trouble you for a demonstration of what you
think *real* aggressive behaviour is. Really, you've already given us
far more than the five-minute argument we paid for; though I suppose
you could be arguing on your own time. But I'm sure if you go to the
next room, you'll find "being dropped into the killfille lessons".
Better, better, but "Plonk". Hold your username here...
Wait, is that the wrong Python for this list? Oops. So confusing.
> I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
> years could probably be counted without having to take my socks off -
> so perhaps I have no right to comment, but I've noticed a marked
> increase in aggressive language here lately, so I'm putting my head
> above the parapet to say that I don't appreciate it.
Same here. I've been lurking here for a number of years, and I've always regarded this list as an example of friendly civilized behavior, quite exceptional on the Internet. I also have the impression that situation is changing for the worse, and it worries me too.
-- "Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all
facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. Too often we enjoy the
comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F Kennedy
Zero Piraeus <sche...@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm a mostly passive subscriber to this list - my posts here over the
> years could probably be counted without having to take my socks off -
> so perhaps I have no right to comment, but I've noticed a marked
> increase in aggressive language here lately, so I'm putting my head
> above the parapet to say that I don't appreciate it.
Thanks for speaking up, Zero. You are certainly not alone in this.
“Ignore the trolls” is not helpful advice if one wants to maintain a
useful and friendly environment. If the hostile behaviour you refer to
goes unchallenged, the helpful contributors become drowned out and
eventually leave from fatigue. So ignoring trolls is not enough if we
want the friendly and useful conversations to continue.
Ignoring hostile behaviour also sends the wrong signal to newcomers and
casual observers: that this is not a community which cares about
actively upholding good standards of behaviour.
What's needed, IMO, is a difficult balance: there needs to be calm,
low-volume, but firm response to instances of hostile behaviour, making
clear by demonstration – especially to the people only observing the
discussion – that such hostility is unwanted and not to be tolerated in
our community.
This is difficult to achieve, though, because if *lots* of people do it,
the thread turns into a dogpile that is also unhelpful, and usually
departs from civil and rational discussion quickly. All of this turns
away more good people (again, often people who otherwise weeren't
involved in the particular discussion), so is counter-productive.
So my request is: Be selective, and be calm.
Don't respond deep in an existing exchange, especially one where many
others have already responded to that person. Be selective and only
respond when yours will be one of the first in the thread. (And that's
not a mandate to have a quick trigger :-)
Don't keep responding in a series of exchanges; it makes your messages
difficult for newcomers to tell apart from the voluminous noise of the
troll.
When responding to a troll, don't be inflammatory yourself – that is
*exactly* what they seek, a continuation and escalation of the conflict.
Point out exactly what you think they're doing wrong, simply and calmly,
and don't go on at length. Keep the innocent reader in mind, don't care
too much about the troll reading your response.
To those who feel the need to “fight” the trolls: thank you for caring
enough about the Python community to try to defend it. But I'm concerned
that you tend to pour fuel on the flames yourself, and I hope you can
work to avoid becoming the monster you fight.
> And, yes, I know bringing it up could be construed as stoking the
> flames ... but, well, "silence = acquiescence" and all that.
Agreed. Thanks again.
-- \ “Intellectual property is to the 21st century what the slave |
`\ trade was to the 16th.” —David Mertz |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
On Oct 14, 3:39 pm, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not a know it all, but when attacked personally I defend myself,
> and those can turn into flame wars.
I'm not wanting this to turn into another round of flames, but I do
want to highlight that there's a big difference between being asked to
moderate your language on a public list and a personal attack.
> Your plonks are irrelevant
> These things can get nasty quick.
> So if you have virgin eyes, then kill file it
> If you want it, bring it
Posturing like this doesn't help either and starts to fall into the
"aggressive language" territory this thread is concerned with.
On 14 October 2012 17:58, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> What's needed, IMO, is a difficult balance: there needs to be calm,
> low-volume, but firm response to instances of hostile behaviour, making
> clear by demonstration – especially to the people only observing the
> discussion – that such hostility is unwanted and not to be tolerated in
> our community.
Yep. I also think such responses are more effective coming from people
who already have some weight[1] around here (which was part of the
reason I was hesitant to bring it up myself). Good to see a few names
I'd put in that bracket appear in this thread :-)
-[]z.
[1] "Who are you calling fat?" replies in 3, 2 ...
> OT. you obviously has no clue what agressive behavior mean. :-)
> So please continue with the passive tone saying nothing relevant > and login to facebook.
There's a saying in English. Hit pigeons flutter. I have not been
impressed with your last few posts. In fact your last couple of posts
have been irrelevant and unhelpful to say the least. As you are looking
for a maintainer to take over your django add-on project, such an
attitude is not going to attract developers to take over your baby.
Some of this could be the language barrier, but really such posturing
isn't necessary.
On 10/14/2012 03:58 PM, Ben Finney wrote:> Zero Piraeus <sche...@gmail.com> writes:
>[...]
> What's needed, IMO, is a difficult balance: there needs to be calm,
> low-volume, but firm response to instances of hostile behaviour, making
> clear by demonstration – especially to the people only observing the
> discussion – that such hostility is unwanted and not to be tolerated in
> our community.
>[...]
The problem with this is that while there may sometimes be a weak consensus, different people have different ideas about
what is "wrong". Thus when a member of this esteemed group
was recently attacked as racist, for punning another member's
name when responding somewhat heatedly, I, according to your view, should have jumped in to point out unfair accusations of racism are not only wrong, but hurt the cause of anti-racism by devaluing such charges when they are legitimate.
No, what you propose will only reduce the signal to noise ratio
and increase the amount of off-topic arguments.
The old tried-and-true advise is still the best: don't feed the trolls. Experience with three decades of mailing lists and usenet has shown that most of them give up and go somewhere else when they don't get a response.
Of course this does not apply when you are the one attacked (or perceive you are) -- in that case your advice for a low-key
factual response is quite appropriate. (And then drop it.)
> To those who feel the need to “fight” the trolls: thank you for caring
> enough about the Python community to try to defend it. But I'm concerned
> that you tend to pour fuel on the flames yourself, and I hope you can
> work to avoid becoming the monster you fight.
>> And, yes, I know bringing it up could be construed as stoking the
>> flames ... but, well, "silence = acquiescence" and all that.
> Agreed. Thanks again.
No. Silence != acquiescence as a few minutes of thought will
show. The fact that it is often repeated does not make it true.
> Thus when a member of this esteemed group
> was recently attacked as racist, for punning another member's
> name when responding somewhat heatedly,
Again, there is a difference between "attacking" someone "as racist"
and *criticising* their *comments* as *possibly* racist. When the
person whose name was being punned said that they themselves were
unsure whether it was intended as a racial attack, then the behaviour
was worth commenting on.
If anything, I initially *joked* about it as a means of trying to
point out the issue in a non-offensive way. If there was any
"attacking" going on, it was in the criticised party's responses.
> hurt the cause of anti-racism
My response had nothing to do with "agendas" and "causes" and
everything to do with wanting to keep specific forms of discourse off
this list. I had identical issues with the same person's use of
"bitch" and "whore"; I cannot begin to fathom how stating that they're
unacceptable to use here is in any way damaging to the anti-sexism
position, or an attack on the person saying them.
On 10/14/2012 10:36 PM, alex23 wrote:> On Oct 15, 1:22 pm, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Thus when a member of this esteemed group
>> was recently attacked as racist, for punning another member's
>> name when responding somewhat heatedly,
> Again, there is a difference between "attacking" someone "as racist"
> and *criticising* their *comments* as *possibly* racist. When the
> person whose name was being punned said that they themselves were
> unsure whether it was intended as a racial attack, then the behaviour
> was worth commenting on.
I just went back and reread what you and some others wrote
to make sure I was not misremembering and am comfortable sticking with my description. (FTR, your initial response was "Please, don't be a dick.")
My intent was not to reargue that issue but to point out that different people have differing ideas on what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable" here and that if Ben Finney's advice to respond (in moderation) whenever one reads an "unacceptable" opinion is taken, one will create an environment in which troll's will flourish.
The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do the same.
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and dicks:
> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do the
> same.
If you ignore such posts, how will the poster know they are unacceptable?
How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for acting like a dick", and "I have not received any responses because nobody has anything to add"?
If I believe that your behaviour ("giving lousy advice") is causing great harm to this community, and *I don't say anything*, how will you know to change your behaviour? How will others know that I do not agree with your advice?
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and dicks:
> > The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do the
> > same.
> If you ignore such posts, how will the poster know they are unacceptable?
> How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for acting
> like a dick", and "I have not received any responses because nobody has
> anything to add"?
> If I believe that your behaviour ("giving lousy advice") is causing great
> harm to this community, and *I don't say anything*, how will you know to
> change your behaviour? How will others know that I do not agree with your
> advice?
I agree completely. I was about to say that I was fine with meeting
known trolls with silence, but what happens when new or infrequent readers see the troll's writing with no one objecting? Are they to
ignore the troll or assume that the list condones the troll's words?
~Ramit
This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and dicks:
No, I wrote about trolls. "dicks" is a highly emotive and almost totally subjective word that I would not use in a
rational discussion. Perhaps you were trying to be amusing?
>> >> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do the
>> >> same.
> > If you ignore such posts, how will the poster know they are unacceptable?
Do you really think that in the vast majority of cases that
the poster is blithely unaware of the inflammatory nature of their post? The whole point of trolling is to generate
responses by posting something inflammatory. It sounds to
me like your view is that most such posts are made by people who are simply brand new to the internet (or at least the civilized parts of it) and thus, when their error is pointed out, will say thanks and change their ways.
> > How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for acting > > like a dick", and "I have not received any responses because nobody has > > anything to add"?
Because you sent them private email telling them that? (And
if you can't do that, maybe you should take it as a hint that
they're not particularly interested in your "help"?)
> > If I believe that your behaviour ("giving lousy advice") is causing great > > harm to this community, and *I don't say anything*, how will you know to > > change your behaviour?
If that was how you thought, then you would be someone I hope would follow my advice. Because you would clearly seem to be unable to distinguish between difference of opinion on a subject relevant to the newsgroup, and inflammatory trolling.
Further you see the situation in extreme terms ("*great harm*") and one in which only a single point of view (your's) is acceptable. You would be bordering on delusional by thinking your post would somehow change my "behavior".
But even if you had a more rational response and saved that reaction for actual trolling and not someone who simply disagreed with you, I ask again, what makes you think your response will change that troll's behavior,
when in actuality, your kind of response is exactly what
most trolls hope to elicit? Did it help in the case I
mentioned?
> > How will others know that I do not agree with your > > advice?
Why is it so important to you that I and others know what you think? Since you are (usually) a reasonable person I
don't need to read your explicit pronouncement to assume
that you disagree with some repugnant post.
If it were possible to somehow have a single, reasonable
response generated to an offensive post, that would be great.
But I don't think that is possible. Multiple people will feel the need to take on that duty. Others will feel the
response is not strong enough or doesn't represent their
personal take and post their responses. Some will respond
righteously to non-offensive posts. (The use of "troll"
as a synonym for "I/we don't agree with you" is quite noticeable in this group.) The perp will inevitably
followup with more offensive posts in response. This is how things have worked since the invention of mailing
lists and why "don't feed the trolls" has served fairly
well for three decades.
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and dicks:
>> > The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do the
>> > same.
>> If you ignore such posts, how will the poster know they are unacceptable?
>> How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for acting
>> like a dick", and "I have not received any responses because nobody has
>> anything to add"?
>> If I believe that your behaviour ("giving lousy advice") is causing great
>> harm to this community, and *I don't say anything*, how will you know to
>> change your behaviour? How will others know that I do not agree with your
>> advice?
> I agree completely. I was about to say that I was fine with meeting
> known trolls with silence, but what happens when new or infrequent > readers see the troll's writing with no one objecting? Are they to
> ignore the troll or assume that the list condones the troll's words?
You do not give enough credit to people. The vast majority of people are capable of recognizing offensive posts and recognizing that non-response to them is intentional. I think it is absurd to think that most normal people will
see such posts and conclude that all Python programmers agree with them. (No time to look it up but I vaguely
recall a long series of anti-semitic posts here that were largely ignored. I've seen no evidence that there are people who brand the Python community as anti-semitic.)
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:10:17 -0700, rurpy wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 10:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and
>> > dicks:
> No, I wrote about trolls. "dicks" is a highly emotive and almost
> totally subjective word
As opposed to "troll", which is unemotional and objective? Not.
> that I would not use in a rational discussion.
I would. If someone is acting like a dick, why not call them by the word that most accurately describes their behaviour?
I see nothing troll like in Dwight "call me David, but I can't be bothered changing my signature" Hutto's behaviour. He doesn't seem to be trolling, in either sense: he doesn't appear to be making provocative statements for the purpose of making people think, nor does he seem to be making inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people. He seems to genuinely want to help people, in a clumsy, aggressive, and I believe often intoxicated way.
So it seems to me that you are wrongly applying the term "troll" as a meaningless pejorative to anyone who behaves badly.
> Perhaps you were trying to be amusing?
Certainly not.
>>> >> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do
>>> >> the same.
[...]
>> > How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for
>> > acting like a dick", and "I have not received any responses because
>> > nobody has anything to add"?
> Because you sent them private email telling them that?
My, what a ... unique ... concept of "ignore such posts" you have.
So far, this has been the best advice you have given so far. My opinion is that there is a graduated response to dickish behaviour:
* send a message telling the person they are acting unacceptably,
preferably privately on a first offence to avoid public shaming
(when possible -- lots of people aren't privately contactable for many reasons other than that they are trolls);
* if the behaviour continues, make a public comment condemning that behaviour generally without engaging directly in a debate
or "tit-for-tat" argument with the person.
And for those who value their own peace and quiet over the community benefit:
* block or killfile posts from that person so they don't
have to be seen, preferably publicly.
When I killfile someone, I tend to make it expire after a month or three, just in case they mend their ways. Call me Mr Softy if you like.
[...]
>> > If I believe that your behaviour ("giving lousy advice") is causing
>> > great harm to this community, and *I don't say anything*, how will
>> > you know to change your behaviour?
> If that was how you thought, then you would be someone I hope would
> follow my advice. Because you would clearly seem to be unable to
> distinguish between difference of opinion on a subject relevant to the
> newsgroup, and inflammatory trolling. Further you see the situation in
> extreme terms ("*great harm*") and one in which only a single point of
> view (your's) is acceptable.
As opposed to only your opinion being acceptable? Why on earth should I follow your advice if I think it is bad advice?
We can't both be right[1]. We can't simultaneously confront bad behaviour, and ignore bad behaviour. I think your advice is bad, and has the potential to kill this community. You think my advice is bad, and has the potential to kill this community. Except that you've made a 180-
degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any definition "ignoring". So apparently you don't actually agree with your own advice.
> You would be bordering on delusional by
> thinking your post would somehow change my "behavior".
It's not necessarily about changing your behaviour. (Well, in this case, it's less about you than about Dwight Hutto specifically and badly-
behaved posters in general.) It's about sending a message that the behaviour is unacceptable.
The primary purpose of that message is to discourage *others* from following in the same behaviour. Nothing will kill a forum faster than trolls and dicks feeding off each other, until there is nothing left but trolls and dicks. A single troll doesn't do much harm -- few of them have the energy to spam a news group for long periods, drowning out useful posts.
> But even if you had a more rational response
*raises eyebrow*
> and saved that reaction for
> actual trolling and not someone who simply disagreed with you, I ask
> again, what makes you think your response will change that troll's
> behavior, when in actuality, your kind of response is exactly what most
> trolls hope to elicit? Did it help in the case I mentioned?
As I said, I do not believe that Dwight Hutto is a troll. I believe he is merely badly behaved. And yes, I do believe that confronting him has changed his behaviour, at least for now.
Not immediately, of course. His immediate response was to retaliate and defend himself. Naturally -- very few people are self-honest enough to admit, even to themselves, when they are behaving badly.
But in the intervening weeks, we, this community, has done anything but ignore him. We're still talking about him *right now*. We're just not necessarily talking *to* him. And the few times that people do respond directly to Dwight, they make it very clear that their response is guarded and on sufferance.
And there have been no further outbursts from Dwight, at least not so far. So, yes, I think we've gotten the message across.
>> > How will others know that I do not agree with your advice?
> Why is it so important to you that I and others know what you think? > Since you are (usually) a reasonable person I don't need to read your
> explicit pronouncement to assume that you disagree with some repugnant
> post.
You are assuming we all agree on what is repugnant. That pretty much demonstrates that you have missed my point. Without drawing explicit boundaries, how do people know what we consider beyond the boundary of acceptable behaviour?
The people in this forum come from all over the world. We're not all white, middle-class[2], Australian, educated, progressive/liberals like me. We're black, Chinese, German, conservative, Muslim, Christian, atheist, socialist, anarchist, fascist, etc. We come from all sorts of cultures, where families are run like democracies, or where they are run like dictatorships where the father is the head of the household even of his adult children; cultures that consider euthanasia beyond the pale and those that believe that there are fates worse than death; cultures where smacking children is an abomination and cultures where it is simply common sense; cultures that condone honour-killings and those that don't; cultures where blowing yourself up to kill the enemy is thought to be an act of bravery, and cultures where pushing a button to kill strangers a thousand miles away is thought to be an honourable act of military service.
What on earth makes you think we would possibly agree on what posts are repugnant without talking about it?
I'm sure that there are some people here -- and you might be one of them -- that consider my use of the word "dick" unacceptable. And others who consider dick a mild word and far less offensive than the euphemisms others might prefer.
Your opinion that we should all, somehow, agree on acceptable behaviour is culturally self-centred and rather naive. I'm far more offended by Dwight's habit of posting incoherently while pissed[3] than I am by his possibly-or-possibly-not racist punning. But I don't expect everyone to agree with me.
[1] However, we can both be wrong. There's no reason to think that there is *any* strategy to respond to bad behaviour that will work all the time, against all people.
[2] Nearly everybody thinks they're middle-class, except the filthy rich and the filthy poor.
[3] I don't give a damn what mind-altering chemicals Dwight wishes to indulge in, so long as he does it in private.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 02:45:04 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Dwight "call me David, but I can't be bothered changing my signature"
> Hutto's behaviour.
I withdraw this dig at David Hutto. It was unnecessary, and it turns out, wrong as he has now changed his signature.
> On 10/14/2012 10:36 PM, alex23 wrote:> On Oct 15, 1:22 pm, ru...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Thus when a member of this esteemed group
> >> was recently attacked as racist, for punning another member's
> >> name when responding somewhat heatedly,
> > Again, there is a difference between "attacking" someone "as racist"
> > and *criticising* their *comments* as *possibly* racist. When the
> > person whose name was being punned said that they themselves were
> > unsure whether it was intended as a racial attack, then the behaviour
> > was worth commenting on.
> I just went back and reread what you and some others wrote
> to make sure I was not misremembering and am comfortable
> sticking with my description. (FTR, your initial response
> was "Please, don't be a dick.")
> My intent was not to reargue that issue but to point out
> that different people have differing ideas on what is
> "acceptable" and "unacceptable" here and that if Ben
> Finney's advice to respond (in moderation) whenever one
> reads an "unacceptable" opinion is taken, one will create
> an environment in which troll's will flourish.
> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage
> others to do the same.
Trolling posts certainly exist. And when 'troll' becomes a short-form
for 'one-who-regularly-trolls' its fine as long as we remember that
its a metonymy.
When we forget
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg should help by:
1. Showing how to deal with trolling
2. Reminding that such beings dont actually exist except as caricature
Coming to current misbehavior on the list -- specifically Etienne's
outburst against Steven,
I am reminded of a similar situation a year ago
The last thing that John Bokma posted (to the best of my knowledge)
was:
> Ben Finney <ben at benfinney.id.au> writes:
>>> Get a life. Or better, just fuck off and die. It will improve both the
>>> world and the Python community, of which you are nothing but a little,
>>> smelly shitstain.
>> That abuse is entirely unwelcome in this community, against any person.
>> Please desist.
> You should have spoken up sooner, especially as the spokes person of
> "this" community. But every bully has is fan club.
> --
> John Bokma
If we think/feel that John Bokma was trolling then driving him off the
list was a good thing.
If not we need to question whether those actions were collectively
sound.
Specifically Steven's post that triggered Etienne's misbehavior is
this:
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:10:46 -0400, Etienne Robillard wrote:
> > Dear list,
> > Due to lack of energy and resources i'm really sad to announce the
> > removal ofnotmmfrom pypi and bitbucket.
> Well that's just rude. Even if you don't intend to maintain the software
> any more, why are you removing it from pypi? Since you say you are a fan
> of Open Source software, just flag it as unmaintained and leave it for
> somebody else to pick up.
> If you are going to abandon the project, release it on PyPI with a dual
> MIT and GPL licence, and let it be taken over by somebody else.
> If you were looking for sympathy here, starting off by removing your
> project from free hosting, then complaining that you can't pay for the
> non-free hosting, was NOT the right way to do so.
:
> Steven
I read Etienne as saying: 'I need money (or at least some sympathy)'
Steven is unequivocally saying 'You are not getting it from here'
Technically he is correct; humanly I am not so sure.
[I have a personal regret that I did not rebut Steven's rudeness with
a '... that is not necessarily the view of the whole group...'
I hesitated to do so because I am not adept at giving sympathy without
giving false hope and keeping the post at reasonable length.
Anyhow this (too long) post is an attempt at correcting that.]
In the earlier (Quora-thread) Terry Reedy's voice was most balanced
and sane; unfortunately covered in the 'dog-pile' of all the rest.
Hopefully he will put in his word here as well.
[And Zero thank you for starting this thread]
<steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:10:17 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 10:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and
>>> > dicks:
>> No, I wrote about trolls. "dicks" is a highly emotive and almost
>> totally subjective word
> As opposed to "troll", which is unemotional and objective? Not.
>> that I would not use in a rational discussion.
> I would. If someone is acting like a dick, why not call them by the word
> that most accurately describes their behaviour?
> I see nothing troll like in Dwight "call me David, but I can't be
> bothered changing my signature" Hutto's behaviour. He doesn't seem to be
> trolling, in either sense: he doesn't appear to be making provocative
> statements for the purpose of making people think, nor does he seem to be
> making inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people. He seems to
> genuinely want to help people, in a clumsy, aggressive, and I believe
> often intoxicated way.
> So it seems to me that you are wrongly applying the term "troll" as a
> meaningless pejorative to anyone who behaves badly.
>> Perhaps you were trying to be amusing?
> Certainly not.
>>>> >> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do
>>>> >> the same.
> [...]
>>> > How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for
>>> > acting like a dick", and "I have not received any responses because
>>> > nobody has anything to add"?
>> Because you sent them private email telling them that?
> My, what a ... unique ... concept of "ignore such posts" you have.
> So far, this has been the best advice you have given so far. My opinion
> is that there is a graduated response to dickish behaviour:
> * send a message telling the person they are acting unacceptably,
> preferably privately on a first offence to avoid public shaming
> (when possible -- lots of people aren't privately contactable
> for many reasons other than that they are trolls);
> * if the behaviour continues, make a public comment condemning
> that behaviour generally without engaging directly in a debate
> or "tit-for-tat" argument with the person.
> And for those who value their own peace and quiet over the community
> benefit:
> * block or killfile posts from that person so they don't
> have to be seen, preferably publicly.
> When I killfile someone, I tend to make it expire after a month or three,
> just in case they mend their ways. Call me Mr Softy if you like.
> [...]
>>> > If I believe that your behaviour ("giving lousy advice") is causing
>>> > great harm to this community, and *I don't say anything*, how will
>>> > you know to change your behaviour?
>> If that was how you thought, then you would be someone I hope would
>> follow my advice. Because you would clearly seem to be unable to
>> distinguish between difference of opinion on a subject relevant to the
>> newsgroup, and inflammatory trolling. Further you see the situation in
>> extreme terms ("*great harm*") and one in which only a single point of
>> view (your's) is acceptable.
> As opposed to only your opinion being acceptable? Why on earth should I
> follow your advice if I think it is bad advice?
> We can't both be right[1]. We can't simultaneously confront bad
> behaviour, and ignore bad behaviour. I think your advice is bad, and has
> the potential to kill this community. You think my advice is bad, and has
> the potential to kill this community. Except that you've made a 180-
> degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently
> didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any definition
> "ignoring". So apparently you don't actually agree with your own advice.
>> You would be bordering on delusional by
>> thinking your post would somehow change my "behavior".
> It's not necessarily about changing your behaviour. (Well, in this case,
> it's less about you than about Dwight Hutto specifically and badly-
> behaved posters in general.) It's about sending a message that the
> behaviour is unacceptable.
> The primary purpose of that message is to discourage *others* from
> following in the same behaviour. Nothing will kill a forum faster than
> trolls and dicks feeding off each other, until there is nothing left but
> trolls and dicks. A single troll doesn't do much harm -- few of them have
> the energy to spam a news group for long periods, drowning out useful
> posts.
>> But even if you had a more rational response
> *raises eyebrow*
>> and saved that reaction for
>> actual trolling and not someone who simply disagreed with you, I ask
>> again, what makes you think your response will change that troll's
>> behavior, when in actuality, your kind of response is exactly what most
>> trolls hope to elicit? Did it help in the case I mentioned?
> As I said, I do not believe that Dwight Hutto is a troll. I believe he is
> merely badly behaved. And yes, I do believe that confronting him has
> changed his behaviour, at least for now.
> Not immediately, of course. His immediate response was to retaliate and
> defend himself. Naturally -- very few people are self-honest enough to
> admit, even to themselves, when they are behaving badly.
> But in the intervening weeks, we, this community, has done anything but
> ignore him. We're still talking about him *right now*. We're just not
> necessarily talking *to* him. And the few times that people do respond
> directly to Dwight, they make it very clear that their response is
> guarded and on sufferance.
> And there have been no further outbursts from Dwight, at least not so
> far. So, yes, I think we've gotten the message across.
>>> > How will others know that I do not agree with your advice?
>> Why is it so important to you that I and others know what you think?
>> Since you are (usually) a reasonable person I don't need to read your
>> explicit pronouncement to assume that you disagree with some repugnant
>> post.
> You are assuming we all agree on what is repugnant. That pretty much
> demonstrates that you have missed my point. Without drawing explicit
> boundaries, how do people know what we consider beyond the boundary of
> acceptable behaviour?
> The people in this forum come from all over the world. We're not all
> white, middle-class[2], Australian, educated, progressive/liberals like
> me. We're black, Chinese, German, conservative, Muslim, Christian,
> atheist, socialist, anarchist, fascist, etc. We come from all sorts of
> cultures, where families are run like democracies, or where they are run
> like dictatorships where the father is the head of the household even of
> his adult children; cultures that consider euthanasia beyond the pale and
> those that believe that there are fates worse than death; cultures where
> smacking children is an abomination and cultures where it is simply
> common sense; cultures that condone honour-killings and those that don't;
> cultures where blowing yourself up to kill the enemy is thought to be an
> act of bravery, and cultures where pushing a button to kill strangers a
> thousand miles away is thought to be an honourable act of military
> service.
> What on earth makes you think we would possibly agree on what posts are
> repugnant without talking about it?
> I'm sure that there are some people here -- and you might be one of them
> -- that consider my use of the word "dick" unacceptable. And others who
> consider dick a mild word and far less offensive than the euphemisms
> others might prefer.
> Your opinion that we should all, somehow, agree on acceptable behaviour
> is culturally self-centred and rather naive. I'm far more offended by
> Dwight's habit of posting incoherently while pissed[3] than I am by his
> possibly-or-possibly-not racist punning. But I don't expect everyone to
> agree with me.
> [1] However, we can both be wrong. There's no reason to think that there
> is *any* strategy to respond to bad behaviour that will work all the
> time, against all people.
> [2] Nearly everybody thinks they're middle-class, except the filthy rich
> and the filthy poor.
> [3] I don't give a damn what mind-altering chemicals Dwight wishes to
> indulge in, so long as he does it in private.
As a casual observer of this list (and many others)
I can only say...
What the f**k! I thought that subscribing to
a list would promote education, enlightenment,
and a shared communal effort to make things better
for things (python) related.
It sucks for me to spend so much time filtering this BS.
I will say that my perusal of this list has been
informative. I also receive more email from this
list than any other I subscribe to.
Let's be honest, does any of this crap have
anything to do with python, it's promotion,
or resolving anything related to making it
one of the most exciting languages I have
ever seen since C?
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:10:17 -0700, rurpy wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2012 10:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:27:48 -0700, rurpy wrote about trolls and
>>>>> dicks:
>>> No, I wrote about trolls. "dicks" is a highly emotive and almost
>>> totally subjective word
>> As opposed to "troll", which is unemotional and objective? Not.
>>> that I would not use in a rational discussion.
>> I would. If someone is acting like a dick, why not call them by the word
>> that most accurately describes their behaviour?
>> I see nothing troll like in Dwight "call me David, but I can't be
>> bothered changing my signature" Hutto's behaviour. He doesn't seem to be
>> trolling, in either sense: he doesn't appear to be making provocative
>> statements for the purpose of making people think, nor does he seem to be
>> making inflammatory statements to get a rise out of people. He seems to
>> genuinely want to help people, in a clumsy, aggressive, and I believe
>> often intoxicated way.
>> So it seems to me that you are wrongly applying the term "troll" as a
>> meaningless pejorative to anyone who behaves badly.
>>> Perhaps you were trying to be amusing?
>> Certainly not.
>>>>>>> The best advise is to ignore such posts and encourage others to do
>>>>>>> the same.
>> [...]
>>>>> How should somebody distinguish between "I am being shunned for
>>>>> acting like a dick", and "I have not received any responses because
>>>>> nobody has anything to add"?
>>> Because you sent them private email telling them that?
>> My, what a ... unique ... concept of "ignore such posts" you have.
>> So far, this has been the best advice you have given so far. My opinion
>> is that there is a graduated response to dickish behaviour:
>> * send a message telling the person they are acting unacceptably,
>> preferably privately on a first offence to avoid public shaming
>> (when possible -- lots of people aren't privately contactable
>> for many reasons other than that they are trolls);
>> * if the behaviour continues, make a public comment condemning
>> that behaviour generally without engaging directly in a debate
>> or "tit-for-tat" argument with the person.
>> And for those who value their own peace and quiet over the community
>> benefit:
>> * block or killfile posts from that person so they don't
>> have to be seen, preferably publicly.
>> When I killfile someone, I tend to make it expire after a month or three,
>> just in case they mend their ways. Call me Mr Softy if you like.
>> [...]
>>>>> If I believe that your behaviour ("giving lousy advice") is causing
>>>>> great harm to this community, and *I don't say anything*, how will
>>>>> you know to change your behaviour?
>>> If that was how you thought, then you would be someone I hope would
>>> follow my advice. Because you would clearly seem to be unable to
>>> distinguish between difference of opinion on a subject relevant to the
>>> newsgroup, and inflammatory trolling. Further you see the situation in
>>> extreme terms ("*great harm*") and one in which only a single point of
>>> view (your's) is acceptable.
>> As opposed to only your opinion being acceptable? Why on earth should I
>> follow your advice if I think it is bad advice?
>> We can't both be right[1]. We can't simultaneously confront bad
>> behaviour, and ignore bad behaviour. I think your advice is bad, and has
>> the potential to kill this community. You think my advice is bad, and has
>> the potential to kill this community. Except that you've made a 180-
>> degree turn from your advice to "ignore" bad behaviour, but apparently
>> didn't notice that *sending private emails* is not by any definition
>> "ignoring". So apparently you don't actually agree with your own advice.
>>> You would be bordering on delusional by
>>> thinking your post would somehow change my "behavior".
>> It's not necessarily about changing your behaviour. (Well, in this case,
>> it's less about you than about Dwight Hutto specifically and badly-
>> behaved posters in general.) It's about sending a message that the
>> behaviour is unacceptable.
>> The primary purpose of that message is to discourage *others* from
>> following in the same behaviour. Nothing will kill a forum faster than
>> trolls and dicks feeding off each other, until there is nothing left but
>> trolls and dicks. A single troll doesn't do much harm -- few of them have
>> the energy to spam a news group for long periods, drowning out useful
>> posts.
>>> But even if you had a more rational response
>> *raises eyebrow*
>>> and saved that reaction for
>>> actual trolling and not someone who simply disagreed with you, I ask
>>> again, what makes you think your response will change that troll's
>>> behavior, when in actuality, your kind of response is exactly what most
>>> trolls hope to elicit? Did it help in the case I mentioned?
>> As I said, I do not believe that Dwight Hutto is a troll. I believe he is
>> merely badly behaved. And yes, I do believe that confronting him has
>> changed his behaviour, at least for now.
>> Not immediately, of course. His immediate response was to retaliate and
>> defend himself. Naturally -- very few people are self-honest enough to
>> admit, even to themselves, when they are behaving badly.
>> But in the intervening weeks, we, this community, has done anything but
>> ignore him. We're still talking about him *right now*. We're just not
>> necessarily talking *to* him. And the few times that people do respond
>> directly to Dwight, they make it very clear that their response is
>> guarded and on sufferance.
>> And there have been no further outbursts from Dwight, at least not so
>> far. So, yes, I think we've gotten the message across.
>>>>> How will others know that I do not agree with your advice?
>>> Why is it so important to you that I and others know what you think?
>>> Since you are (usually) a reasonable person I don't need to read your
>>> explicit pronouncement to assume that you disagree with some repugnant
>>> post.
>> You are assuming we all agree on what is repugnant. That pretty much
>> demonstrates that you have missed my point. Without drawing explicit
>> boundaries, how do people know what we consider beyond the boundary of
>> acceptable behaviour?
>> The people in this forum come from all over the world. We're not all
>> white, middle-class[2], Australian, educated, progressive/liberals like
>> me. We're black, Chinese, German, conservative, Muslim, Christian,
>> atheist, socialist, anarchist, fascist, etc. We come from all sorts of
>> cultures, where families are run like democracies, or where they are run
>> like dictatorships where the father is the head of the household even of
>> his adult children; cultures that consider euthanasia beyond the pale and
>> those that believe that there are fates worse than death; cultures where
>> smacking children is an abomination and cultures where it is simply
>> common sense; cultures that condone honour-killings and those that don't;
>> cultures where blowing yourself up to kill the enemy is thought to be an
>> act of bravery, and cultures where pushing a button to kill strangers a
>> thousand miles away is thought to be an honourable act of military
>> service.
>> What on earth makes you think we would possibly agree on what posts are
>> repugnant without talking about it?
>> I'm sure that there are some people here -- and you might be one of them
>> -- that consider my use of the word "dick" unacceptable. And others who
>> consider dick a mild word and far less offensive than the euphemisms
>> others might prefer.
>> Your opinion that we should all, somehow, agree on acceptable behaviour
>> is culturally self-centred and rather naive. I'm far more offended by
>> Dwight's habit of posting incoherently while pissed[3] than I am by his
>> possibly-or-possibly-not racist punning. But I don't expect everyone to
>> agree with me.
>> [1] However, we can both be wrong. There's no reason to think that there
>> is *any* strategy to respond to bad behaviour that will work all the
>> time, against all people.
>> [2] Nearly everybody thinks they're middle-class, except the filthy rich
>> and the filthy poor.
>> [3] I don't give a damn what mind-altering chemicals Dwight wishes to
>> indulge in, so long as he does it in private.
-- This message is NOT encrypted
--------------------------------
Mr. Kristen J. Webb
Chief Technology Officer
Teradactyl LLC.
2301 Yale Blvd. SE.
Suite C7
Albuquerque, NM 87106
Phone: 1-505-338-6000
Email: kw...@teradactyl.com
Web: http://www.teradactyl.com
Home of the
True incremental Backup System
--------------------------------
NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS: Any
On Oct 17, 1:54 pm, "Kristen J. Webb" <kw...@teradactyl.com> wrote:
> Let's be honest, does any of this crap have
> anything to do with python, it's promotion,
> or resolving anything related to making it
> one of the most exciting languages I have
> ever seen since C?
Python is more than the language, it's the community as well.
Discussing acceptable behaviour on a community mailing list is highly
relevant. Wanting to stop behaviour that could potentially drive
people away from the language is very much about promotion.
> It sucks for me to spend so much time filtering this BS.
Yet you then chose to participate in a discussion about it. Because
that's what people do to discuss suitable behaviour.
I really don't get people who feel they need to share their opinion
when that opinion is that other people shouldn't share theirs.
> What the f**k! I thought that subscribing to a list would promote
> education, enlightenment, and a shared communal effort to make things
> better for things (python) related.
Yes, that's the focus of this thread: how best to engage in a shared
communal effort to make things better for Python-related discussion.
> It sucks for me to spend so much time filtering this BS.
The thread helpfully tells you what it's about in the subject field, and
remains remarkably on-topic by that description. Filter appropriately.
If it sucks for you to receive a high-volume discussion forum in your
email, you may want to use a better email client with more sophisticated
filtering capability. Or you can subscribe to the forum as a Usenet
newsgroup, <URL:news:comp.lang.python>.
> Let's be honest, does any of this crap have anything to do with
> python, it's promotion,
Yes, I think this discussion does have direct relevance to supporting
the promotion of Python. My views on how have been made elsewhere in
this same thread.
-- \ “Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a |
`\ man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.” |
_o__) —John A. Hrastar |
Ben Finney
On Oct 17, 9:25 am, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 17, 1:54 pm, "Kristen J. Webb" <kw...@teradactyl.com> wrote:
> > It sucks for me to spend so much time filtering this BS.
> Yet you then chose to participate in a discussion about it. Because
> that's what people do to discuss suitable behaviour.
> I really don't get people who feel they need to share their opinion
> when that opinion is that other people shouldn't share theirs.
Ha Ha!
Let me try to restate alex without the barb.
What exactly do you (Kristen) find to be BS?
If its the one-line endorsement from David to Steven, Ive no comment
or opinion
If its the hundreds of lines of Steven's post, it would be good if
your mail-quoting singles that out.
If its Zero's OP then I am sorry, but many of us think that something
needs to be said.
In case its the length of Steven's post here's my attempt at improving
his S/N ration:
There are dicks and there are trolls. Behavior can be improved by
calling right things by the right names.
[My addition]:
1. There are no dicks and trolls; there is dick-ing and trolling
2. jmf's objections to python's unicode is classic trolling. David's
abusive language is dicking.
Using the right name helps to find the right strategy
> I will say that my perusal of this list has been
> informative. I also receive more email from this
> list than any other I subscribe to.
You could instead access it as a newsgroup via news.gmane.org. That keeps posts isolated and you only download those item you request. News readers should collapse threads to a single line and allow you to mark all as read.
