Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated. On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 3:08 PM Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
