A friendly tech-forum

[Ron Aaron]

I and a couple other people decided we were tired of dealing with the
hostile environments on various tech forums. So we started up a new one:

https://codethoughts.org/index.php

It's free. It's friendly.

[menti...@gmail.com]

In remembrance of the Chinese students who thought they
were merely advancing some ideas about democracy, may we
use the friendly forum to correct some problems in Peking?

Remember Tiananmen Massacre

25071 94761 40175 50190 42307 54386 16536
65361 87771 59802 35171 28159 76604 28747
93005 59366 06976 30670 87663 47042 25764
14735 57790 86150 24848 45066 39372 81266

Overthrow Chinese Government << http://ai.neocities.org/GIX.html
--
Major goal in life: Trigger a Technological Singularity;
Minor goal: Overthrow the unelected government of China;
Minor goal: Win a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine;
Minor goal: [X] Reunification of East and West Germany.

[foxaudio...@gmail.com]

Looks very good Ron. Pardon my marketing bias, but how are you promoting it?

BF

[Ron Aaron]

On 06/12/2015 16:05, menti...@gmail.com wrote:

> In remembrance of the Chinese students who thought they
> were merely advancing some ideas about democracy, may we
> use the friendly forum to correct some problems in Peking?

No. Politics is specifically excluded as a discussion topic. As are a
few other things, which if you read the "Policies" you'll know.

[Ron Aaron]

On 06/12/2015 16:17, foxaudio...@gmail.com wrote:
> Looks very good Ron. Pardon my marketing bias, but how are you promoting it?

Thanks -

Well, we just started to roll it out publicly. No promotion per se,
just mentioning it here and there. Do you have ideas on how to promote
it? (you can mail me...)

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 04:09:15 -0500, Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I and a couple other people decided we were tired of dealing with the
> hostile environments on various tech forums. So we started up a new one:
>

> [link]

>
> It's free. It's friendly.

While I'm sure your purpose is noble, every sword has two edges.
What some view as a being polite and troll free, others may
view as discriminatory, exclusionary, and pro-censorship. You
can't have both. If someone has the right to ban you from speaking
freely, should they have ever been granted the right to converse
with you in the first place? Birds of a feather flock together ...
Over time exclusionary environments shift toward the majority belief
of those in control and discriminate against the minority. This
problem affects all forums with logins and walled-off fiefdoms
like Facebook. Freedom is founded upon dissenting voices,
openness, optional anonymity, and a willingness to listen others
out of respect. Many of the world's most brilliant minds have
said and done things which are or once were hated.


Rod Pemberton


--
How to kill Facebook. Tell a bunch of fourth graders that
only old people use Facebook. Wait eight years.

[Ron Aaron]

On 07/12/2015 05:57, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> While I'm sure your purpose is noble, every sword has two edges.
> What some view as a being polite and troll free, others may
> view as discriminatory, exclusionary, and pro-censorship. You
> can't have both.

Yes you can. A polite society is not necessarily discriminatory, it is
one in which individuals engage their brains before opening their
mouths. I think a technical forum where ad-hominem attacks are not
permitted is something that is needed (and so far, the feedback I've
received agrees). Similarly, there's no reason or call for divisive
off-topic discussions there. That's what the cesspool called Reddit is for.

Look at "Stack Overflow" and "Slashdot" as examples of places where
derogatory language towards the perceived "newbie" is rampant, where
people are told their questions are stupid etc. etc... and think how
many of those people who've been kicked in the teeth will now avoid
entering technological fields (or will have the somewhat justified
notion that many geeks are immature adolescents).

If you take a look at the policies of our forum, I think you'll see
they're not particularly restrictive. Just don't be a troll, and you'll
be left alone. You're free to ask newbie questions, or advertise your
wares, or discuss any technical subject - as long as you're polite and
respectful of others. Leave off your discussions of politics, macrame
or culinary achievements.

If that's too onerous, don't join.

[JUERGEN]

Congratulations. Will join soon.
I had hoped to find this here on CLF when I came as a newbee, but too often it gets personal rather than technical. These should open their own group.
You will not have to advertise much - the message is getting around already. Freedom includes as well, that a group defines who comes to the party - else has to stay out. Or open an own group.
... and I do like the example of a sword - my knives all cut on one side only - sufficient as a tool - I do not need a weapon.

[Ron Aaron]

On 07/12/2015 18:34, JUERGEN wrote:

>
> Congratulations. Will join soon.

Thanks, look forward to your participation.

[Bernd Paysan]

Ron Aaron wrote:
> If you take a look at the policies of our forum, I think you'll see
> they're not particularly restrictive. Just don't be a troll, and you'll
> be left alone.

Haha. That's precisely what he's complaining about: as he is a troll, he is
discriminated ;-). Trolls need safe spaces under their bridges, where they
must be allowed to insult and diffame, which is their natural behavior. Or
why do you want to oppress minorities?

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[rickman]

> .... and I do like the example of a sword - my knives all cut on one side only - sufficient as a tool - I do not need a weapon.

It is *easy* to avoid the "personal" stuff here. Don't start anything
and when others do, don't reply! No one has ever been forced at
gunpoint to participate in any exchange on usenet, vitriolic or otherwise.

There are some people here who I generally don't reply to. It's just
not productive.

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 12/7/2015 12:44 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Ron Aaron wrote:
>> If you take a look at the policies of our forum, I think you'll see
>> they're not particularly restrictive. Just don't be a troll, and you'll
>> be left alone.
>
> Haha. That's precisely what he's complaining about: as he is a troll, he is
> discriminated ;-). Trolls need safe spaces under their bridges, where they
> must be allowed to insult and diffame, which is their natural behavior. Or
> why do you want to oppress minorities?

Not trying to start anything here, but depending on the judgement of the
moderators, many of your posts would be restricted. In fact the overall
posting style of this group would not be tolerated at many moderated
forums.

"Troll" is in the eye of the beholder.

I remember a group I was kicked out of. I discovered it was moderated
by posting a link to a closely related group and the message never
showed up. I reposted and got a reply from the group owner saying they
didn't allow the "endorsement" of other groups. I made a post to ask
the boundaries of the restrictions and was booted because I called it a
restricted group and he thought my using that term was "trolling"! lol
How can you know what is acceptable and what is not if you don't
ask???!!! I certainly didn't know I was "endorsing" anything.

So this new forum may be great, but what exactly is "troll" behavior?
Is it like pornography and the Supreme Court of the US, "I know it when
I see it"?

--

Rick

[Bernd Paysan]

rickman wrote:
> So this new forum may be great, but what exactly is "troll" behavior?
> Is it like pornography and the Supreme Court of the US, "I know it when
> I see it"?

Trolls are provoking, and not contributing to factual discussion. As such,
they drag the hole discussion down, as people respond to their provocation.
Trolls usually try to provoke under the level of moderation, and hope that
the provoked response is above that level so that they can finger-point to
the insulted.

It is not clear whether the trolls are doing that intentional or as
byproduct of personal disorders or general incompetence; if the latter is
the case, the troll will not realize what he's doing, and wonder why he
provoked angry responses. Some people do trolling as game. And some have
other disorders that spoil the discission, but don't fit with that
description.

Hugh for example is not a troll by the usual definition: He does contribute
to technical discussion, and on the other hand, when he provokes, he's
clearly way above the level of any moderation. However, he certainly
contributes to the overall unfriendly climate here.

[JUERGEN]

Rick I am surprised to hear this - not much different to your job, if somebody misbehaves, a warning, at some point of repetition - fired. What is the problem. The group rules define who they want to liaise with - this is what the freedom of choice of the group is. Why are these closed groups started - you want to enjoy the other members. And avoid the abuse happening here.

I remember the abuse I got when I suggested to give more power to the vendors in the Standards Group, to bring the language forward. Several recent events support my suggestion.

The vendors I can trust: their motive is straight forward - to serve the customers and to make money - their salary. So they will make sure the product is what their customers want. The motives of others in the Standards group i cannot judge, and they are the majority, hmmm
In contrast the vendors represent the silent majority, definitely larger - the customers who give feedback - to the standards group or to the vendors?
It was an interesting experience to participate in the standards meeting as a guest, and it was very positive.

A unique experience as is documented elsewhere - he will make sure that I cannot participate in such a meeting again - this is what I call democracy.
In a closed group this would not happen. Or at least the rules would be clearer.

[jacko]

Iyt's a binary 32 things to disagree on and 2^32 opinions in the world, and finding one different from yourself. Oh, my god (not yours ... :D), and at 43 bits that's a true 3/4 OR relationship of having a fight.

Farts to you all ...

[Ron Aaron]

On 07/12/2015 19:44, Bernd Paysan wrote:

> Haha. That's precisely what he's complaining about: as he is a troll, he is
> discriminated ;-). Trolls need safe spaces under their bridges, where they
> must be allowed to insult and diffame, which is their natural behavior. Or
> why do you want to oppress minorities?

;)

[Ron Aaron]

On 07/12/2015 19:56, rickman wrote:

> So this new forum may be great, but what exactly is "troll" behavior? Is
> it like pornography and the Supreme Court of the US, "I know it when I
> see it"?

Very simple: https://codethoughts.org/index.php/topic,2.msg2.html

[Bernd Paysan]

JUERGEN wrote:
> I remember the abuse I got when I suggested to give more power to the
> vendors in the Standards Group, to bring the language forward.

Yes, that was a very typical case for a troll posting by the definition of
the term troll: Combination of clueless behavior and serious provokation
slightly below "obvious insult" threshold. Allows the troll to finger-point
to the insulted and their angry responds.

You know why the vendors exist, because that fits your limited knowledge of
what motivates people: make money. The vendors are indeed there to make
money. That's easy (the consequence is that they want to rubber stamp their
products as "standard" and otherwise keep it incompatible with their
competitor; they are the main force that is holding the standard back - they
represent their customer by claiming that any change may break their code).
Why are other people there, why do they dominate the TC? You don't know,
don't understand, and don't want to find out; they are just in your way, and
you want to give me lessons about "democracy"?

I give you a hint: There also are people who *use* Forth. There are people
who develop systems and have a different business model than the extremely
simple one; since there is not much money in Forth, there are more of them
than vendors - these people found a better economical nice to exist than the
vendors. There are also people who *teach* Forth, with other intentions
than to sell more products.

And then you scratch your head why you get angry responses. I give you a
hint: By supporting a minority of the TC, and showing disrespect to the rest
of the TC, you seriously insulted people. Maybe you did it unintentionally,
but you did, nonetheless. And you completely and utterly failed to grasp
what happened (or pretended so).

And somehow this lack of being able to understand things seems to be our
fault. That's very typical for a troll. A troll wants to "win" an
argument, not to gain wisdom.

I remember that you once told us in Xian, the Chinese restaurant in Munich
were we had our monthly Forth meetings more than a decade ago, what you
though Usenet was for: to troll other people. You didn't say "troll", you
described the behavior - "win" by provoking the most responses. And you
seemed to be convinced that was the right way to use it. But if you want to
"win" that game, don't complain that you are getting angry responses - it's
part of this weird "game".

I said I will vote against your inclusion into the TC next time, based on
your written statement that you only want more power for the vendors - you
are welcome if you want to speak for yourself, but I don't think a sock
puppet is acceptable: the vendors shall not gain votes by letting sock
puppets join. We already have a "no proxy vote" policy in place; for the
same reasons - some people might collect proxy votes. If you think that
makes it impossible for you to participate again, remember that one counter-
vote on a decision is still considered acceptable.

So only if my argument is convincing, *then* it is impossible for you to
join, because there will be a majority against you - if my argument is
convincing, it is a reality that exists independent of me. Everything else
is a Hugh-like reality distortion: I didn't kick Hugh out of the mailing
list, he himself did. It was a consensus between him and everybody else
that we shouldn't take his insults any longer.

[jacko]

It a bit passive aggressive.

The vague concept of "inappropriate language", and the concept of "make us do".

1. "make us do" - A more appropriate "will do, no problem." The concept of pleasing people has the lower motive of what makes for pleasure? We is not a f*n' mind reader, we is (obviously either royalty or schizoid, and it was not an XOR.

2. "inappropriate language" - The mind reading challenge is to calculate from the waves in the air what the comprehensive situation is in order to compute the optimal and hence appropriate language. Now it is possible to forgive a lack of pedantic definition, as the forum has just started, but the touchy bounds of finding the definition out (drawing it out of 'em), is likely (maybe) not to please them. Pedantry becomes facetiousness. Shut up and hold hands, and no kissing ...

[Ron Aaron]

On 08/12/2015 04:53, jacko wrote:

> It a bit passive aggressive.

Ah, well that's the problem. I'm not an armchair psychologist, I just
use ordinary language.

I'll make it as explicitly simple as I can:

If you are invited to someone's house for dinner, you would probably
refrain from insulting the host. You would probably not ogle his
daughter. You would probably not needlessly provoke him. You would
probably try to be pleasant.

If you agree with the 'probablys' listed above, you are probably a
welcome addition to the forum. If not, not.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 23:58:49 -0500, Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just don't be a troll, and you'll be left alone.

Doubtful. Seriously.

Who decides who is a troll and for what?

E.g., I've been called a troll on Usenet for:

1) asking a question
2) telling the truth
3) explaining an answer from someone else
4) answering someone's question in depth
5) asking a "newbie" question
6) defending myself from perceived attacks, insults
7) correcting a mistake
8) criticizing someone for incessantly calling others trolls
9) pointing out that someone was driving people away with insults
10) responding to someone perceived by others to be a troll
etc.

That's just of the top of my head in under 15 seconds.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 12:44:03 -0500, Bernd Paysan <bernd....@gmx.de> wrote:

> Ron Aaron wrote:

>> If you take a look at the policies of our forum, I think you'll see
>> they're not particularly restrictive. Just don't be a troll, and you'll
>> be left alone.
>
> Haha. That's precisely what he's complaining about: as he is a troll, he is discriminated ;-). Trolls need safe spaces under their bridges,
> where they must be allowed to insult and diffame, which is their natural
> behavior. Or why do you want to oppress minorities?
>

Bernd, I'm not the troll here. When a troll like Hugh says you're
a troll, that says something.


RP

[Ron Aaron]

On 12/08/2015 08:50, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 23:58:49 -0500, Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just don't be a troll, and you'll be left alone.
>
> Doubtful. Seriously.

Glad to see you doubt my word, without knowing me at all. Well, you're
free to try it or not, as you see fit.

[rickman]

On 12/8/2015 1:50 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 23:58:49 -0500, Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just don't be a troll, and you'll be left alone.
>
> Doubtful. Seriously.
>
> Who decides who is a troll and for what?
>
> E.g., I've been called a troll on Usenet for:
>
> 1) asking a question
> 2) telling the truth
> 3) explaining an answer from someone else
> 4) answering someone's question in depth
> 5) asking a "newbie" question
> 6) defending myself from perceived attacks, insults
> 7) correcting a mistake
> 8) criticizing someone for incessantly calling others trolls
> 9) pointing out that someone was driving people away with insults
> 10) responding to someone perceived by others to be a troll
> etc.

I think the problem with having "troll police" is that "troll" is a
value judgement. I can see how everything in your list could be
interpreted as perfectly innocent by the "troll" while others perceive
it as trolling. It all depends on the tone and other hard to define
characteristics of the posts. I'm not calling you a troll. I'm just
saying that someone thinking they are doing the above things does not
mean others won't see a given post as trolling.

--

Rick

[Rod Pemberton]

On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:19:06 -0500, Bernd Paysan <bernd....@gmx.de> wrote:

> rickman wrote:

>> So this new forum may be great, but what exactly is "troll" behavior?
>> Is it like pornography and the Supreme Court of the US, "I know it
>> when I see it"?
>
> Trolls are provoking, and not contributing to factual discussion.

Really? ...

How many times have you discussed your anti-American views?
How many times have you posted about revisionist world history?
How many times have you brought up copyright laws?
How many times have you discussed your own microprocessor designs?
How many times have you discussed China issues?
etc.

How many times has 'rickman' posted about microprocessors?
How many times has 'rickman' posted about Forth? (0)
How many times has 'rickman' called someone a troll? (many)

How many times has Hugh ranted about Mrs. Rather etc? (god-like)

[Rod Pemberton]

On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 17:41:35 -0500, Bernd Paysan <bernd....@gmx.de> wrote:

> JUERGEN wrote:

>> I remember the abuse I got when I suggested to give more power to the
>> vendors in the Standards Group, to bring the language forward.
>

> I give you a hint: By supporting a minority of the TC, and showing
> disrespect to the rest of the TC, you seriously insulted people.

Ron,

I wish you well in your utopic endeavor Ron, but the eventual
outcome is already obvious to me: anarchy or dictatorship.

If you weren't seriously paying attention to my comments, re-read
those lines above by Bernd and JUERGEN in regards to the TC, which
is another "walled off kingdom" of sorts, and then re-read my
statements summarized here:

"[...] Birds of a feather flock together ... Over time exclusionary

environments shift toward the majority belief of those in control

and discriminate against the minority. [...] Freedom is founded

upon dissenting voices, openness, optional anonymity, and a
willingness to listen others out of respect."

;-)

Clearly, the TC wasn't accepting of dissenting voices. The majority
did discriminate against the minority. And, there wasn't respect of
of certain TC members or potential members.

The Japanese supposedly have a saying which says the nail which
sticks out gets hammered down.

German culture is extremely authoritarian and dominating. It's
why Volkswagen employees followed orders to produce a vehicle
which would pass emissions and sell well in other countries. When
communication is only one direction, it didn't matter that they
couldn't actually do so.

> Everything else is a Hugh-like reality distortion:

Hugh's only reality distortion is his incessant rants on
Ms. Rather et. al.

The rest of what he says seems sane, although sometimes radical.

[Rod Pemberton]

Well, that clearly depends on the host, now doesn't it? Most hosts
attempt to be on their best behavior too, unless truly drunk or are
power mad ... They don't want to be embarassed in front of their
guests whom they are usually attempting to impress or at least are
attempting to maintain a pleasant relationship with. If I ever had
a truly bad host, say a host who pulled a gun on me, then I'd have
no problem attempting to take the gun away from and shooting him
dead in front of his family. Generic rules don't work since they
can't apply to all situations.

I'm a male. So, if a female is attractive and walking around
half-naked, I'm looking. I may do so more discretely if the
relationship with the host is important to me, but I'm not
responsible for her appearance. I'm not a horse and shouldn't
be required to wear blinders because the host finds it inappropriate
to look at what is placed in front of them. She's responsible for
what she chose to wear that day. So, it's her responsibility
to not embarass her family by dressing appropriately for polite
company when present. What is it with people attempting to
avoid all personal responsibility nowadays?

[Rod Pemberton]

On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:49:28 -0500, Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://codethoughts.org/index.php/topic,2.msg2.html

No offense, but that's what a cat is for ...

What adult wants to be belittled and treated like a child?
"Don't spit! Don't poke! Don't swear! Smile!"

Maybe, this child-like treatment being accepted in society is a
side affect of millenials growing up in a zero-tolerance school
environment combined with their parents paranoid helicopter parenting ...


"Fuck! You're dead."
"If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all!"
"But, Mom, he smashed me in the head with a baseball bat ..."

[Ron Aaron]

On 12/08/2015 10:00, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015 14:49:28 -0500, Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> https://codethoughts.org/index.php/topic,2.msg2.html
>
> No offense, but that's what a cat is for ...

Sorry, I haven't the slightest clue what that means. Don't bother to
explain it, however.

> What adult wants to be belittled and treated like a child?
> "Don't spit! Don't poke! Don't swear! Smile!"
>
> Maybe, this child-like treatment being accepted in society is a
> side affect of millenials growing up in a zero-tolerance school
> environment combined with their parents paranoid helicopter parenting ...

Clearly the idea of conforming to societal norms is not to your liking.
I guess we won't see you on the forum.

Have a good day.

[rickman]

I think I'm starting to understand why you feel the need for a moderated
forum.

--

Rick

[Bernd Paysan]

rickman wrote:

> On 12/8/2015 1:50 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 23:58:49 -0500, Ron Aaron <ramb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just don't be a troll, and you'll be left alone.
>>
>> Doubtful. Seriously.
>>
>> Who decides who is a troll and for what?

Everybody who uses a communication platform, and for the purpose to ignore
the other person in order to make the communication more enjoyable.

>> E.g., I've been called a troll on Usenet for:

Trolling is the art to insult by means that are not obviously insulting like
swear words - the more innocent the techniques are, the "better" the troll
in terms of peer recognition. Therefore, such a typical "code of conduct"
list excludes people with some sort of verbal tourette (like Hugh), but not
the better trolls.

>> 1) asking a question
>> 2) telling the truth

A typical problem of naively "telling the truth" is that the truth may be
quite different, but the troll insists on a distorted version of reality,
and thus insults the intelligence of the counterpart. If a child is
convinced that Santa Claus exists and delivers the gifts, it is cute. If an
adult is still convinced of similar naive things, he's insulting his adult
audience.

>> 3) explaining an answer from someone else
>> 4) answering someone's question in depth
>> 5) asking a "newbie" question
>> 6) defending myself from perceived attacks, insults

Well, #6 is easy how that can be insulting, as it is escalating previous
provocations.

>> 7) correcting a mistake

Of himself? With Rods postings often containing more factual errors than
sentences, maybe it wasn't a correction and not a mistake of the original
poster ;-). However, even when he's right (and recently, he did post
something that was really right, and got angry responses nonetheless),
correcting mistakes may be insulting. It depends on the tone and on the
recipient - some people simply don't like to be corrected.

Especially posting replies where Rod corrects only the typos of the other
poster are insulting. Usenet doesn't allow corrections on postings, so
third proofreading is unnecessary - the only message of such corrections is
"hey, you can't even spell properly, you idiot". Given that many people
don't write in their native language here, a higher tolerance to spelling
errors is absolutely necessary to avoid looking like a troll.

>> 8) criticizing someone for incessantly calling others trolls
>> 9) pointing out that someone was driving people away with insults
>> 10) responding to someone perceived by others to be a troll
>> etc.

Looks like Rod is pretty good in the art of meta-trolling, too.

> I think the problem with having "troll police" is that "troll" is a
> value judgement. I can see how everything in your list could be
> interpreted as perfectly innocent by the "troll" while others perceive
> it as trolling.

The troll always perceives his own actions as innocent (or pretends so), and
probably really is. I.e. he's not trolling wittingly. It just happens.

> It all depends on the tone and other hard to define
> characteristics of the posts. I'm not calling you a troll. I'm just
> saying that someone thinking they are doing the above things does not
> mean others won't see a given post as trolling.

I block Rod to enjoy clf more. His posts contained too many factual errors,
on which he insist they are "the truth". And he too often did
"proofreading", which is not that useful on Usenet. Maybe he's offended by
spelling errors... The value of his postings did not match the amount of
anger he creates.

Recent postings have shown that he can post things without even one factual
error, so it might be possible that it was just innocent naivity that caused
the big amount of factual errors, and that in the meantime he has lerned.
Trolls out of innocent naivety may not stay trolls forever.

[rickman]

On 12/8/2015 2:32 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>
> I block Rod to enjoy clf more. His posts contained too many factual errors,
> on which he insist they are "the truth". And he too often did
> "proofreading", which is not that useful on Usenet. Maybe he's offended by
> spelling errors... The value of his postings did not match the amount of
> anger he creates.
>
> Recent postings have shown that he can post things without even one factual
> error, so it might be possible that it was just innocent naivity that caused
> the big amount of factual errors, and that in the meantime he has lerned.
> Trolls out of innocent naivety may not stay trolls forever.

I haven't blocked his posts yet, but I seldom read them in depth if at
all. His last few in this thread are pretty strange. He seems to have
a mental image which he is talking from, but no one else knows what that
is. At least I have no idea what he is talking about.

Oh well, another day, another silly discussion on Usenet.

--

Rick

[visua...@rocketmail.com]

I am wondering.

In former times there something existed called "Netiquette".
On Wikipedia it still exists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_in_technology#Netiquette

There even is a Usenet ``Netiquette'':
"There are many traditions with Usenet, not the least of which is dubbed netiquette---being polite and considerate of others. If you follow a few basic guidelines, you, and everyone that reads your posts, will be much happier in the long run."
Source:
"Zen and the Art of the Internet - Usenet News"
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC44

Tempus fugit?

[Ron Aaron]

On 12/09/2015 05:15, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote:

> There even is a Usenet ``Netiquette'':
> "There are many traditions with Usenet, not the least of which is dubbed netiquette---being polite and considerate of others. If you follow a few basic guidelines, you, and everyone that reads your posts, will be much happier in the long run."
> Source:
> "Zen and the Art of the Internet - Usenet News"
> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC44
>
> Tempus fugit?

Indeed. The anonymity of internet forums in general leads directly to a
decrease in civility -- because there are no repercussions.

In a traditional, face-to-face setting, a person would risk getting
punched in the face (or worse) for the kind of language and behavior
routinely exhibited on the 'net. At the least, one would be shunned as
an undesirable.

That's not really possible online, and socially maladjusted people take
advantage of it, unfortunately.

[rickman]

On 12/9/2015 1:12 AM, Ron Aaron wrote:
>
>
> On 12/09/2015 05:15, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>
>> There even is a Usenet ``Netiquette'':
>> "There are many traditions with Usenet, not the least of which is dubbed netiquette---being polite and considerate of others. If you follow a few basic guidelines, you, and everyone that reads your posts, will be much happier in the long run."
>> Source:
>> "Zen and the Art of the Internet - Usenet News"
>> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC44
>>
>> Tempus fugit?
>
> Indeed. The anonymity of internet forums in general leads directly to a
> decrease in civility -- because there are no repercussions.
>
> In a traditional, face-to-face setting, a person would risk getting
> punched in the face (or worse) for the kind of language and behavior
> routinely exhibited on the 'net. At the least, one would be shunned as
> an undesirable.

I have tried to point this out to people who were being extremely rude
at the time and they adamantly professed that they treated people like
this all the time. Go figure!

> That's not really possible online, and socially maladjusted people take
> advantage of it, unfortunately.

It seems widespread enough to me to think it does not require any
special defect. I think it is not unexpected really. I remember in
college being told of a psych experiment conducted in the 50's where two
people were in isolation booths both looking at a board with roads drawn
on it. Each one was starting at opposite ends of the board and needed
to get to the other side to make a delivery. But only one vehicle could
use a road at a time. If your opponent blocked you, one of you would
have to take a longer route that would lengthen your trip and cost you
money. If they had speakers to talk through they cooperated an each one
took turns waiting for the other to use the short route and made more
money than taking the long route. If instead of speakers they had just
a horn, they would tend to sit at the impasse blowing their horns at
each other.

Posting in forums tends to be a bit like this. We can communicate, but
much of the "personal" aspect is missing. So people are quicker to take
offense when they misunderstand and the language used can be a lot
stronger because of the lesser feedback. It is also a lot easier to
misread the "tone" of a message. I find that happens from my posts far
too often. I think I am writing unemotionally, but get very strong
emotional responses.

--

Rick

[m...@iae.nl]

Wouldn't it be possible to add some sort of rating system?
Voted 'good' postings earns points, rated 'bad' takes them away.
If you don't have enough +points you can't post. These
points could be kept separate for certain main categories (e.g.
technical / general on-topic / general off-topic).

-marcel

[Ron Aaron]

On 12/09/2015 09:40, m...@iae.nl wrote:

> Wouldn't it be possible to add some sort of rating system?
> Voted 'good' postings earns points, rated 'bad' takes them away.
> If you don't have enough +points you can't post. These
> points could be kept separate for certain main categories (e.g.
> technical / general on-topic / general off-topic).

Yes, and the forum already has a "karma" system built-in. Probably need
to play with that and see how it goes. My current feeling is that
people should be left alone unless they abuse the trust, e.g. mostly
hands-off moderation.

More importantly, a post can be "reported" to the moderators. So if
someone thinks a post is inappropriate for whatever reason, it can be
brought to the moderators' attention. I don't anticipate that being
used all too often, nor do I think moderation will be all that
necessary. The people who join are already well-behaved in general
(though "the night is young").

[Albert van der Horst]

That is the way stackoverflow and others work. If you have enough
kudo's you can remove an offending message with almost no form of
process. If you're new you can try to get kudo's by giving a
brilliant answer and hope it gets kudo's. I don't think Aaron's
censored bulletin board can beat that.

One of our trolls already has written off stackoverflow as dictatorial.
That is more of a good sign.

>-marcel

Groetjes Albert
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[hughag...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 10:40:19 AM UTC-7, Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 07/12/2015 18:34, JUERGEN wrote:
>
> >
> > Congratulations. Will join soon.
>
> Thanks, look forward to your participation.

Ron is welcoming sales-people to his forum --- therefore his forum will contain only advertisements, with zero information content --- note that Juergen Pintaske is employed doing sales for MPE, and MPE makes its money doing "joint projects" with Forth Inc., and Juergen's contribution at EuroForth was to suggest that Leon Wagner and Stephen Pelc take turns every other year at being the "benevolent dictator" for Forth programmers such as myself.

My objection to Elizabeth Rather is that she declared ANS-Forth to be the Standard (with a capital 'S') --- if she was just selling SwiftForth then I wouldn't care, as everybody has a right to sell their product even if it has such low quality as to be useless --- however, declaring oneself to be the Standard setter, and declaring everybody else to be non-standard, is the ultimate form of trolling (certainly a bold marketing strategy for Forth Inc., but it degrades the Forth community who are actually writing software).

Ultimately, it is all about money.

[Alfred Singlestone]

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 11:58:52 PM UTC-5, Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 07/12/2015 05:57, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
> > While I'm sure your purpose is noble, every sword has two edges.
> > What some view as a being polite and troll free, others may
> > view as discriminatory, exclusionary, and pro-censorship. You
> > can't have both.
>
> Yes you can. A polite society is not necessarily discriminatory, it is
> one in which individuals engage their brains before opening their
> mouths. I think a technical forum where ad-hominem attacks are not
> permitted is something that is needed (and so far, the feedback I've
> received agrees). Similarly, there's no reason or call for divisive
> off-topic discussions there. That's what the cesspool called Reddit is for.
>
> Look at "Stack Overflow" and "Slashdot" as examples of places where
> derogatory language towards the perceived "newbie" is rampant, where
> people are told their questions are stupid etc. etc... and think how
> many of those people who've been kicked in the teeth will now avoid
> entering technological fields (or will have the somewhat justified
> notion that many geeks are immature adolescents).

>
> If you take a look at the policies of our forum, I think you'll see

> they're not particularly restrictive. Just don't be a troll, and you'll
> be left alone. You're free to ask newbie questions, or advertise your
> wares, or discuss any technical subject - as long as you're polite and
> respectful of others. Leave off your discussions of politics, macrame
> or culinary achievements.
>
> If that's too onerous, don't join.

The problem comes when moderators are closed-minded or irritable, or when the definition of "on-topic" becomes too narrow. Here's a summary of an interchange I had once in a #C channel on IRC:

Me: You can break the stack pretty easily with: int main() { return main(); }
Mod: That's not legal ANSI C.
Me: Right, but it's a succinct way of demonstrating how to break the stack.
Mod: THAT'S NOT ANSI C.
[bans me]

In short, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Alfred Singlestone]

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 11:58:52 PM UTC-5, Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 07/12/2015 05:57, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>
> > While I'm sure your purpose is noble, every sword has two edges.
> > What some view as a being polite and troll free, others may
> > view as discriminatory, exclusionary, and pro-censorship. You
> > can't have both.
>
> Yes you can. A polite society is not necessarily discriminatory, it is
> one in which individuals engage their brains before opening their
> mouths.

You really can't. In the polite society you mention, explicitly excluded are individuals who cannot or will not engage their brains before opening their mouths. Implicitly excluded are individuals whose responses are thoughtful and well-intended but misinterpreted, and those who have a communicative style that is too brusque to meet the accepted definition of "polite".

There is exclusion in such an arrangement, there is discrimination. The discrimination is the *point* of the rules.

[rickman]

Ron is still discussing this with you. I guess I would be interested in
knowing if this conversation would be allowed in his forum...

--

Rick

[Ron Aaron]

On 11/12/2015 08:31, rickman wrote:

> Ron is still discussing this with you. I guess I would be interested in
> knowing if this conversation would be allowed in his forum...

It's not on-topic for the forum, which is a tech forum, not a philosophy
gab.

"Would be allowed"? Initially, yes; but after the discussion went as
far astray as this has, I would ask the participants to can it. Again,
there's lots of places where people can vent their philosophical ramblings.

We're trying to create a place where the SNR is higher than the average.

And I'm done discussing this, since there's not much point in continuing
to rehash the same words.

[Alfred Singlestone]

Oh, dear. "Gab." "Ramblings." "Rehash." "I'm done discussing this." "Can it." With moderation like that, how could the new forum be anything but a delight?

[krishna...@ccreweb.org]

High SNR is overrated sometimes. Look up the phenomenon of "stochastic resonance".

Cheers,
Krishna

[rickman]

On 12/11/2015 3:05 AM, Ron Aaron wrote:
>
>
> On 11/12/2015 08:31, rickman wrote:
>
>> Ron is still discussing this with you. I guess I would be interested in
>> knowing if this conversation would be allowed in his forum...
>
> It's not on-topic for the forum, which is a tech forum, not a philosophy
> gab.
>
> "Would be allowed"? Initially, yes; but after the discussion went as
> far astray as this has, I would ask the participants to can it. Again,
> there's lots of places where people can vent their philosophical ramblings.

Not trying to be argumentative, but if they were discussing the limits
of posting in your forum, wouldn't that be "on topic"?

> We're trying to create a place where the SNR is higher than the average.
>
> And I'm done discussing this, since there's not much point in continuing
> to rehash the same words.

It's not clear to me that this thread is all rehashing as yet. That's
why I asked the questions I'm asking. Maybe I'm trying to put too fine
a point on the topic which is not exactly the same thing. That often
happens in technical discussions.

I will say I think I roughly have the answer to the question though.
The limits are where you say they are, no more and no less.

--

Rick

[Ron Aaron]

On 11/12/2015 15:32, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote:
> High SNR is overrated sometimes. Look up the phenomenon of "stochastic resonance".

In circuitry, yes; in human interactions?

[krishna...@ccreweb.org]

I don't have any reason to dissuade you from setting up a private, single moderator type of forum. Maintaing civil discoure on usenet is a challenge, and this venue beats down those with a thin skin. However, I still believe it's preferable to have an open forum for discussion, even with its occasional ugliness and sometimes high noise level. Restrictive, civil (by some particular standard) on topic discussion might be desirable from a comfort viewpoint, but in my observation, it's not the way the human brain works, or the way in which it makes the most progress. I believe we can make usenet more useful, by contributing stimulating topics for discussion.

Stochastic resonance is believed to be widely used by the human brain to aid sensory perception.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_resonance_(sensory_neurobiology)

Cheers,
Krishna

[Ron Aaron]

On 12/12/2015 18:46, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote:
> I don't have any reason to dissuade you from setting up a private, single moderator type of forum.

It's not. There are currently four moderators. So far, moderation has
only been used as a gateway to keep actual spammers from joining. It's
also not private, at least in the sense of being 'by invitation only'.

[HAA]

Bernd Paysan wrote:
> JUERGEN wrote:
> > I remember the abuse I got when I suggested to give more power to the
> > vendors in the Standards Group, to bring the language forward.

> [...]
> And then you scratch your head why you get angry responses. I give you a

> hint: By supporting a minority of the TC, and showing disrespect to the rest

> of the TC, you seriously insulted people. Maybe you did it unintentionally,
> but you did, nonetheless. And you completely and utterly failed to grasp
> what happened (or pretended so).

Chuck expressed his disillusionment with Forth-94 by walking out.
No doubt the remaining TC members would have felt they'd been
insulted. Chuck could have saved himself grief by pretending to go
along with the process. Instead he chose to quit and suffer the fallout.
What would you do?

[hughag...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:14:48 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote:
> Bernd Paysan wrote:
> > JUERGEN wrote:
> > > I remember the abuse I got when I suggested to give more power to the
> > > vendors in the Standards Group, to bring the language forward.
> > [...]
> > And then you scratch your head why you get angry responses. I give you a
> > hint: By supporting a minority of the TC, and showing disrespect to the rest
> > of the TC, you seriously insulted people. Maybe you did it unintentionally,
> > but you did, nonetheless. And you completely and utterly failed to grasp
> > what happened (or pretended so).

Bernd Paysan would have praised Juergen Pintaske as a brilliant and wise Forth programmer if Bernd had been listed as one of the "benevolent dictators" rather than just Leon Wagner and Stephen Pelc alternating years in this exulted position. Bernd isn't against the concept of "benevolent dictators" so long as he is one of them --- Elizabeth Rather did appoint Bernd to the Forth-200x committee, so he is one of the "benevolent dictators" --- he is mad because Juergen was trying to pull the rug out from under him.

The problem with people is that they are too quick to accept a leader in exchange for an appointment to a middle-management position --- no matter how bullied a person may be, there is always somebody below them that they can bully, so they never rebel against the bullies above them who are making them miserable --- the reason why America imprisons so many people for victimless crimes is that there has to be a bottom level to the pyramid and it has to be wide.

For Bernd Paysan, it is far more important to avoid the bottom level of the Forth community than to obtain the top level --- this is why he is willing to obediently do what Leon Wagner tells him to do, in exchange for being appointed to the Forth-200x committee rather than stuck in purgatory (the mailing list) --- this is why he responded with such anger to Juergen trying to take away his appointment, which is the only thing of value that he has in life.

Being on the Forth-200x mailing list is the worst thing in the world --- if you don't believe me, then ask Bernd Paysan! --- he is holding onto his committee appointment with both hands.

> Chuck expressed his disillusionment with Forth-94 by walking out.
> No doubt the remaining TC members would have felt they'd been
> insulted. Chuck could have saved himself grief by pretending to go
> along with the process. Instead he chose to quit and suffer the fallout.
> What would you do?

What fallout? Charles Moore's name is listed in the ANS-Forth document as a supporter. Most likely, ANSI would not have allowed ANS-Forth to be made the Standard without his name listed as a supporter.

In all likelihood, nobody at ANSI knows anything about Forth programming, but they do know that Forth was invented by Charles Moore so they looked for his name in the list of supporters --- when they saw it they gave ANS-Forth their stamp of approval --- this is how ANS-Forth became the Standard with a capital 'S'.

[HAA]

hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:14:48 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote:

> ...

> > Chuck expressed his disillusionment with Forth-94 by walking out.
> > No doubt the remaining TC members would have felt they'd been
> > insulted. Chuck could have saved himself grief by pretending to go
> > along with the process. Instead he chose to quit and suffer the fallout.

> > ...
>
> What fallout?

Is he on the 200x TC? Ever invited?

> Charles Moore's name is listed in the ANS-Forth document as a supporter.

He's listed as having participated which he did at the beginning.

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

Chuck has devoted his life to innovation, which is the opposite of
standardization. When he realized this, he left the ANS Forth TC, which
was an appropriate action.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[HAA]

Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 12/15/15 2:52 AM, HAA wrote:
> > hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:14:48 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> Chuck expressed his disillusionment with Forth-94 by walking out.
> >>> No doubt the remaining TC members would have felt they'd been
> >>> insulted. Chuck could have saved himself grief by pretending to go
> >>> along with the process. Instead he chose to quit and suffer the fallout.
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> What fallout?
> >
> > Is he on the 200x TC? Ever invited?
> >
> >> Charles Moore's name is listed in the ANS-Forth document as a supporter.
> >
> > He's listed as having participated which he did at the beginning.
>
> Chuck has devoted his life to innovation, which is the opposite of
> standardization. When he realized this, he left the ANS Forth TC, which
> was an appropriate action.

Except that he didn't just leave it to others, he's been a critic ever since.
Moore: "I had reservations about ANSI. I worried that it would be a disaster and
not merely a dubious advantage. All of my fears of the standard and none of the
advantages of the standard have come to pass."

From the beginning Forth defied authority. It came with a method and logic
but users were required to think and do for themselves. It wasn't going to
take over the world and that was ok too. What's surprising and remains so
is the notion that Forthers smart enough to use the language were going to
be constrained by a Standard.