[Klug-general] Mailing list etiquette, again

[George Prowse]

Shish wrote:
>> And you feel that people who dont post in a certain way undermine your 
>> ability to post?
>>
>> If "yes" then you seem to have lost your "thick skin" you said you have.
>> If "no" then why start this argument?
> 
> No, they do not undermine my ability to post, they undermine my ability
> to *understand*. 

So the ability to post a reply has nothing to do with the ability to 
understand the original post?
> 
>>> Also, how was force suggested and / or applied?
>> So what are the point of rules if no-one adheres to them?
> 
> My hope is that if people know that guidelines exist, and they know
> that there is a reasonable, logical explanation behind them, then the
> majority of people will follow them of their own free will.
> 
And if no-one does...? Either a) there was no point posting them in the 
first place or b) they will have to be forced/policed.

The point still stands that there is no point creating rules for such 
trivial things like posting to a friendly list. There are /some/ rules 
here though but they all concern keeping this a friendly place.
> 
>> A general point was made that some rules about etiquette were needed, my 
>> response was that if we use common sense then they aren't.
> 
> Common sense isn't :P
> 
> Where is the common sense in posting a new thread when replying to an
> existing one?
> 
> Where is the common sense in changing the title of the thread if you
> are continuing the same topic?
> 
> Where is the common sense in giving context to a message only after
> that message has finished?
> 
> Where is the common sense in putting someone else's text and your own
> at the same level, so to someone glancing, they look as one message?
> 
All irrelevant because this is the first time an innocent mistake like 
this has occurred in 3 years of me being on this list.

Leave it alone, you made a mountain out of something infitely smaller 
than a molehill.

> By your defenition of "if we use common sense then rules about
> etiquette aren't needed", and my reply of "we do not use common sense",
> then the conclusion we come to is "rules about etiquette *are* needed".
> 
By that logic we should tell people to check all their punctuation 
before posting, just in case it *may* lead to people misunderstanding 
sentences/paragraphs/posts.

> I also wish to point out that I don't think the OP is necessarily
> lacking in common sense, just that they didn't explicitly sit down
> and spend time thinking about effective communication, as I have done :P
> 
Are you trying intentionally to be rude?
> 
>>> See why I think "quote, reply, quote, reply" is a good idea yet? It
>>> helps both reader *and* writer :P
>> *If* they are talking to you and you alone...
> 
> If it helps one person understand the conversation, how does it not
> help a group? How would top-posting, bottom-posting, or not quoting at
> all be better?
> 
Because we are all nice friendly people who understand people have 
differing ways of doing things.
> 
>> Have you seen the original poster make these mistakes time and time again?
> 
> Why wait for mistakes to be repeated before pointing out better ways?
> 
Again, have you seen the original poster make these mistakes time and 
time again? If not it is probably a one-off. Wait for him to do a few 
more times before you start judging him
> 
>> Let it go, sometimes things like this happen.
> 
> Myself and the poster in question have explained our positions and (I
> hope) come to a conclusion over the original incident~
> 
And he decided that it was best if he stayed off the list for a week... 
Well done.
> 
>>> I have no idea why someone thinks that spending 5 minutes doing the
>>> above is a good thing, and spending 5 seconds following etiquette in
>>> order to make their message instantly understandable is a bad thing :-/
>> Why work it out? If you dont like how it is written - don't read it
> 
> Because I was working on the assumption that if someone has posted,
> then they want what they've written to be read and understood by
> others. I wished to help the poster achieve this.
> 
> IMHO, ignoring someone who wants to be heard is ruder than trying to
> help them get their message across.
> 
In that case why doesn't everyone on the list reply to *every* post?
> 
> As an anecdote; the last time I was upset by something someone said
> online was ~6 years ago, when I was 13. It was a discussion of
> reletavistic effects when one nears the speed of light -- I was
> insisting that newtonian physics made sense and reletavistic effects
> were silly*. There were two groups of people opposing me, those who
> were being openly aggressive, with much use of harsh language, who
> pointed out every tiny mistake I made, they actually pushed me to
> tears on several occasions; and those who basically said "there's no way
> you'll ever be able to understand", at which point they left the thread.
> 
> So here we have three points:
> o) Open offense, swearing, calling names, etc
> o) Pointing out my mistakes
> o) Giving up hope
> 
> And three results:
> o) I got a thick skin and learned to ignore irrelevant stuff
> o) I learned a lot about physics, logic, debate skills, and became a
>    much better person generally
> o) I was upset
> 
> Can you guess which point led to which result? Hint: leaving me alone
> so that I could continue failing did not make me a better person.
> 
> (If you notice me telling this story at every chance I get, it'll be
> because even though I was upset to tears, I still consider it the
> single most important event that made me as awesome** as I am now :P)
> 
> * TBH, I still think relativity is silly, although I'll concede that
>   it's right :P
> 
> ** in other news, my ego needs deflating :-/ A pint for anyone who can
>    use maths and logic to prove me irrefutably wrong about something, as
>    the physics dudes mentioned above did...
> 
Who cares? Just because they treated you like an arse and I am younger 
since my flight back from Australia doesn't mean that you should feel 
the need to do the same. Hopefully you will learn from this as well.
> 
> Thing is, from where I'm looking, "Post according to etiquette
> guidelines" IS "Post sensibly", seeing as all the guidelines are,
> IMHO, embodiments of sensibleness.
> 
You seem to miss the point completely, we all *DO* post sensibly and 
making mistakes is not failing to be sensible, it is human nature.

> The problem comes when different people have different ideas about what
> sensible is, which is why it helps to agree formally. Also, people
> might not necessarily have a different idea, but no idea at all, about
> what techniques are useful -- again, telling them is better than
> letting them flail about helplessly.
> 
When have you seen that people have these different ideas?
> 
>>>> ignore mistakes and errors
>>> Personally, if I make a mistake, I wish to know about it. How else will
>>> I learn?
>> Personally I think the way you have handled this is fucking rude!!!
> 
> So I noticed :) And thanks to the fact that you have pointed this out,
> I have learned that there are people on this list who's threshold for
> "fucking rude" is below my threshold for "clear, polite, and
> informative".
> 
Clearly...

> I have also learned that when I read "You're an f'ing idiot, you're
> doing it all wrong (just like an idiot would, you idiot), you should do
> it this way, idiot", I ignore the offense part and take the advice part;
> but when other people read "you're doing it wrong, you should do it this
> way", they imagine an offence part where none is intended, and ignore
> the advice part...

I would ignore anyone who started off any advice with "You're an f'ing 
idiot..." unless it was someone like Alan Cox or Linus Torvalds.
> 
>> How dare you shove a small mistake down someone's throat on a friendly 
>> list like this!
> 
> Firstly, I wouldn't consider a combination of mistakes large enough
> that I couldn't understand the post to be "small".
> 
> Secondly, if you think this is shoving something down someone's throat,
> I dread to think how you'd react to a flame war...
> 
Heh, I'd say something here but it would sound patronising.
> 
>>> Given that you think pointing out mistakes is a mistake, and you're
>>> pointing that out to me rather than ignoring it, that shows that you
>>> support my view and defeat your own :P
>> I'm arguing these points so you dont make the same mistake again and we 
>> dont need some "rules and regulations" when we post
> 
> And I'm arguing these points so that other people don't make their same
> mistakes again and we don't need to waste time deciphering when we read.
> 
No-one has made these mistakes before and i doubt they will again so why 
bother?

Are you looking for the job of list dictator?

> We're both arguing to the same degree, and both arguing with the
> intent of making the list a better place; the difference being, my
> argument isn't inherently hypocritical :P
> 
The list is fine how it is, thankyou. And saying the list is fine does 
not make me a hippocrite.

> I'm getting a lot of vibes of "We MUST all be tolerant of others, and
> allow them to make mistakes. Intolerance will NOT be tolerated; if
> they make that mistake, we must stop them immediately!"
> 
Are you suggesting there is something inherently wrong with being 
tolerant? The reason we try to be tolerant is because there are people 
of various ages and experience here.

EOD.