Without being able to elaborate too much on my immediate thinking, it
seems to me that there is a distinct difference between something that
can "reasonably provoke an angry response" and something that is
*targeted* at a group or sub-group of people with the likely outcome of
provoking an angry response. This distinction may be something to leave
up to moderators to determine..
On 22/07/2019 08.49, Myrle Krantz wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:29 AM Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> wrote:
I am very troubled by "provoke an angry response". Sometimes, things
need to be said that will anger a significant portion of people on the
list.
You're right, Patricia. The wording *is*problematic. What I'm trying to
capture here is trolling. That is: writing emails which are intended to
stir things up rather than move a conversation forward. But the word
"trolling" is all about intention. Intention is hard to determine reliably
and easy to deny. And maybe only marginally relevant. So I'm trying to
relate this to the effect on the community instead. Do you have an idea as
to how to phrase this better?
For example, the whole targeted moderation plan could not have been
announced on any ASF list with that rule in effect. That announcement
clearly provoked an angry response, and could have reasonably been
expected to do so.
Yes this is a very good counter-example.
Best,
Myrle
