1 |
Dear list, |
2 |
|
3 |
Why not simply naming the "formal logic rules" for the "official venue where |
4 |
developers (and ex-developers and users) can talk out their disagreements" |
5 |
to be: |
6 |
1. Anyone who is impolite get's kicked off. |
7 |
2. Anyone who repeatedly and seemingly on purpose tries to harm the discussion |
8 |
will be kicked off. |
9 |
|
10 |
Impolite: Do, under _no_ circumstances, use a word MTV would have to mute, or |
11 |
that your grandmother (hopefully) wouldnt want to hear you say ;-) |
12 |
|
13 |
Repeatedly: We are humans, we make faults. |
14 |
|
15 |
Seemingly: If this wouldnt be part of the rule, there would be endless debates |
16 |
on wether it was on purpose or not. |
17 |
|
18 |
On purpose: We are humans, we make faults, it has to be premeditation or so |
19 |
|
20 |
Kicked off: There is a group of twelve zillion people who just ban those |
21 |
people from the list, or rather, their email-adresses. |
22 |
|
23 |
harming a discussion: a list of things that can be considered harmfull should |
24 |
be set up. sth like "pointing out things that are not relevent" (like |
25 |
statements the consist of no more than "i do not like that idea"), or trying |
26 |
to shift the issue to sth different, like "oh and besides, you often have |
27 |
typos" and so on...sth that does, in no way, help finding a solution is to be |
28 |
considered harmfull in the above sense. |
29 |
|
30 |
I also suggest banning those people from posting only. |
31 |
Plus is suggest banning to be longer. a 2hr ban wont prevent flaming, but will |
32 |
look funny, and is alot of work. (if this was meant seariously) |
33 |
Banning someone for a week, a month, and finally forever are more reasonable |
34 |
time frames i think... |
35 |
|
36 |
I think those rules would ensure people sit back before replying, and think |
37 |
before they write. |
38 |
|
39 |
There simply is no need to flame, get impolite, or harm a discussion, thus i |
40 |
find being as strict as this is okay. |
41 |
How do you think to politicians discuss problems in parliament? Call each |
42 |
other fuckhead if hundrets are watching, screaming through the room while |
43 |
throwing chairs and tables? I doubt it. |
44 |
Things are similar here: We are _alot_ of people and discuss. |
45 |
Certain rules of civilized discussion, that what's usually taught in |
46 |
elementary school, need to be followed here, too. Only that the issue isn't |
47 |
that someone can cut someone else off... |
48 |
|
49 |
If anyone comes up with that the progress of politicians is too slow: |
50 |
It is slow, because they do break one of the above rules, and because they do |
51 |
often search for solutions where there is no objectively clear winner, |
52 |
because the want to keep their power, have personal interests, and so on. |
53 |
And - would you honestly think politicians would get _more_ productive, if |
54 |
they started slandering each other? |
55 |
|
56 |
Yet, here things are somewhat different: |
57 |
Code is more secure, or faster, or smaller, or in another way "better" than |
58 |
other code, depending on what the most important thing is for this piece of |
59 |
code. |
60 |
And a documentation is more or less understandable for the avg. user / dev, or |
61 |
is more correct, and thus simply is better. |
62 |
|
63 |
Here, i feel like we do not fail because we cannot find the solution that's |
64 |
best for most of us, but we fail because of personal problems. And those |
65 |
could easily be adressed by the above rules, as they in a way - as alot of |
66 |
what is to be considered "polite" does - 'remove' a part of our personality |
67 |
from the actual progress of discussing, since emotions are suppressed. |
68 |
Shortening discussions to their functional part is sth that would help to |
69 |
adress this issue, and on the other hand people could still become |
70 |
("cyber")friends since there is IRC and private discussions need to go on |
71 |
anyway. |
72 |
|
73 |
At least, different personalities are what the current thing is all about, as |
74 |
far as i know about it, which (luckily?) isnt that much. |
75 |
|
76 |
Bryan Østergaard <kloeri@g.o> wrote: |
77 |
> Somehow a lot of people seems to think banning is the only possible |
78 |
> solution. I tend to think that's a horrible idea myself and most of |
79 |
> devrel backs me up on that. |
80 |
Of course it is a horrible idea, but isnt it better than seeing someone |
81 |
constantly insulting people, instead of being productive, functional, |
82 |
objective or at least polite? |
83 |
At the moment I feel like there is no real reason _not_ to insult anyone, for |
84 |
those who like to do so, which has to be changed or values will be lost |
85 |
completely. It can even be fun to get rid of aggressions collected throughout |
86 |
the week at once, yet the gym is the correct place to do so, not this list. |
87 |
|
88 |
|
89 |
Sincerely, |
90 |
|
91 |
Daniel |
92 |
|
93 |
|
94 |
P.S.: I know I did not read the complete thread, yet I am physically ill at |
95 |
the moment, not able to read it all. [ <-- fuel your flame-o-mat with |
96 |
this ;-) ] Anyway I hope to have said something helpfull not mentioned |
97 |
before... |
98 |
-- |
99 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |