Hey Niclas, You can say that you believe a statement is false. You just need to avoid claiming that the person is lying. Ie, attack the argument/claim and not the person. Opinion and speculation are absolutely allowed: just not personal attacks. In the "made up nonsense" example, you might say: "that is just speculation and it is incorrect", but not "you are posting made up nonsense". If a phrase like "you are posting made up nonsense" were to reach the moderators, they would reject it and suggest re-sending the same comment but without that one phrase. The poster would have the opportunity to adjust their comment and resend.
So in the example you gave, the poster who claimed you were "posting made up nonsense" would not get their comment through technical moderation (assuming they were actually being moderated), and you would only ever see it in that form if they sent it to you personally. The rest of the exchange you describe would hopefully never happen. So no: it doesn't mean that everyone has to back up every claim or argument. Although I'd still suggest that either backing things up, or marking them as experience or speculation will help us discuss more productively. I'm sure we all understand that. If it helps I can add multiple examples of ad hominem to refocus the point on ad hominem in general rather than this particular example of ad hominem. How about: "You're just saying that because you can't think straight." ? Again, what this person really wants to say is: "your argument or claim is false", but they're getting it mixed up with their feelings towards the person. If you want to point at a potential rabbit hole: it could become an issue when a conversation really *is* about two people's feelings towards each other, or about patterns of behavior. However, I don't see that as an appropriate topic for the dev@diversity list. Best, Myrle On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 5:57 AM Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> wrote: > I am sincerely curious, > > Say that I claim X, and someone Y accuses me of "keep posting made up > nonsense"... Does that then imply that if I can back up my claim X, with > say a scientific study on the matter, that Y has now "posted made up > nonsense" and should be kept on a short leash? > Likewise, does that also mean the everyone must be able to back up every > piece of factual statement with scientific studies, not just quoting blogs, > articles and opinion pieces? > > This is how I see the extension of this to its logical conclusion. > Personally, I very much dislike ad hominem and try to avoid that myself as > much as possible, even though I am not afraid to question the > validity/truthfulness of statements made by someone. Do we want to go down > the rabbit hole where opinion and speculation is not allowed, because > that's how I interpret your "made up nonsense" angle? > > // Niclas > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:24 AM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 to the ad hominem guideline. I've been thinking quite a lot about > > technical moderation/filtering versus social moderation after the fact. > > This is a good example of something where I think technical moderation is > > appropriate. > > > > I would suggest a simpler word choice than "mendacious". Maybe "you are > > lying" or "why do you keep posting made up nonsense". > > > > Kenn > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:19 AM Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hey D&I peeps, > > > > > > I've added a point to the moderation guidelines: > > > > > > Problem: *"Post contains ad hominem unnecessarily used to support an > > > argument. (For example "Your claim is mendacious.")"* > > > > > > Desired result for the community: *"Help all participants collaborate > in > > a > > > constructive manner, while still allowing substantive disagreement."* > > > > > > Moderation comment: > > > > > > *"The phrase "<phrase>"* > > > > > > *...contains an inappropriate attack on one or more fellow discussion > > > participants. Please remove or reformulate the phrase in your e-mail > and > > > resend your comments. For example, if you wrote "Your claim is > > mendacious" > > > you could replace that phrase with "Your claim is false" or simply > delete > > > it."* > > > > > > Your thoughts? > > > > > > Best, > > > Myrle > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 12:26 PM Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > > > I'm not detecting a strong preference from the group here. Naomi is > > > > strongly in favor of the provision. Patricia is strongly against it, > > > > Awasum is against it. > > > > > > > > I'm going to remove this moderation guideline. This can be changed > > again > > > > if we can detect a pattern of abuse or that we'd like to put a stop > to > > or > > > > something else happens that causes the community to develop their > > opinion > > > > further. I would like us to be flexible in growing our moderation > > > > guidelines as we learn each other's preferences and develop our > > > > understanding of how we want to interact as a community. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Myrle > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:26 PM Awasum Yannick <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi All, > > > >> > > > >> I prefer a situation where anyone call out poor behaviour as they > > arise > > > >> here...onsite..in public. I will prefer we allow people to make > their > > > >> opinions known even if at times they might be off topic or not > > > appropriate > > > >> for some people. > > > >> > > > >> We should rather call out bad behaviour here. Even if there becomes > a > > > need > > > >> to suspend or put somebody under moderation, this action should not > > > >> persist > > > >> for too long (moderate/suspend someone for 30 days and then allow > them > > > to > > > >> post without moderation and see if the VERY bad behaviour > continues). > > > >> > > > >> I say this because I believe that at times chaos is a pathway to > > growth. > > > >> {The next few sentences might be off topic to this thread but I will > > > just > > > >> go ahead and say them.} > > > >> > > > >> Look at the thread which brought about the creation of this D&I > > > committee > > > >> for example. I mean the one on ComDev. It was chaotic and went on > for > > > >> weeks > > > >> but the outcome was that the Apache Community learnt that we had a > > > >> diversity problem and that action was needed and was taken. > > > >> > > > >> I dont know about you all but the other chaotic discussion here > > > >> surrounding > > > >> Outreachy and "Pay for Development" or not was an educational > > experience > > > >> for me. I learnt how to argue, learnt English, learnt about the > Apache > > > >> way. > > > >> it was not pretty at times but I think humans are resilient enough > to > > > >> handle some of these issues. We came out of it and are now moving > into > > > the > > > >> implementation phase of things. I think the discussions we had > during > > > that > > > >> time was worth it. Some eggs might have been broken but overall, I > > will > > > >> say > > > >> freedom for people to express themselves is a good thing and we > should > > > >> maintain it. > > > >> > > > >> In concluding, I will say, we should not actively police this > mailing > > > list > > > >> with rules and regulations but to socially, diplomatically and > > politely > > > >> call out bad behaviour preferably in private. people do want to do > > good > > > >> and > > > >> be good. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Thanks. > > > >> Awasum > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:36 PM Naomi S <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > I want the moderation team to be a team of people trusted by the > VP > > > D&I > > > >> to > > > >> > make the call re who is trolling or not. that is subjective, and > it > > > is, > > > >> for > > > >> > sure, going to come down to shared values. but it's important for > > this > > > >> > initiative that we can assert a coherent set of shared values > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 19:33, Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:25 PM Patricia Shanahan < > [email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I don't think there is a way, because one person's troll may > be > > > >> another > > > >> > > > person's sincerely held and strongly expressed opinion. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > My preference would be to drop it completely. The CoC already > > > covers > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > cases that I think should be restricted. We are all adults > here. > > > If > > > >> > > > someone wants to make the rest of the mailing list > participants > > > >> think > > > >> > > > they are rude and inconsiderate, they should be let do so. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I'd like to hear what the rest of the committee prefers. I can > > > accept > > > >> > > either approach. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > The options are: > > > >> > > 1.) Continue to block trolling. Either use the existing wording > > or > > > >> look > > > >> > > for a better wording. > > > >> > > 2.) Not block trolling in technical moderation, but fall back to > > > >> social > > > >> > > moderation. Some trolling may fall under other rules (for > > example, > > > >> list > > > >> > > relevance). > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Best Regards, > > > >> > > Myrle > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java >
