On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 10:19:50 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:28:20 -0300 Felipe Magno de Almeida > <felipe.m.alme...@gmail.com> said: > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hacohen <t...@osg.samsung.com> > > wrote: > > > On 19/06/15 17:16, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > >> The "Questions help" really changes the mood of discussions and > > >> make for a more amicable and affectionate relationship between > > >> members. > > > > > > Hey, > > > > > > The efl community guidelines are intended to be short and simple. > > > More of a general way of thinking than actual specific ways of > > > operation, so I think the above guidelines are out of scope. > > > > > > Also, I don't really agree with their "question" method. I think > > > posing comments as questions you obviously think you know the > > > answer to, is more condescending (and fluffy) than just saying > > > what you think. They make it look otherwise by using a very > > > biased example. The equivalent of "that's really stupid - it > > > won't compile" is "that's really stupid - will it compile?". > > > Without the negativity: "Doesn't look like it'll compile" is in > > > my point of view, better than "will it compile?". The key I > > > guess, is humility. > > > > IMO, the question should not be rhetorical. Which helps change > > the user's stance on the discusison by giving the opportunity to > > himself of being wrong. Saying "it won't work" gives no room to > > explain or to want to hear why it could work, while asking > > "Are you sure this work in face of this and this issue?" > > opens the discussion for understanding the other side. > > > > If you feel this is out of scope for the guideline, it is not a > > problem, but having been using this for awhile I can say it has > > helped discussions for me. Besides, it changes the focus of winning > > an argument to understand the other user's arguments. So > > I feel it would a good tip for users of the guildeline. > > i would say it's out of scope. these will become a large set of social > ettiquette details - this question method, then i have a another. > don't say "it won't compile" say "i think that won't compile". "i > think ..." makes a statement softer. we can go on. i do think though > that people should just use common sense. if someone doesn't feel a > comment is acceptable - bring it up to them as to why and what might > be better. have people police eachother (be aware that such policing > should happen) and in the end if this doesn't work - raise the issue. Not all of us speak English well enough to handle this sort of subtlety of language. Remember lots of us are not native English speakers. So plain language without trying to socially engineer things would be best. On the other hand, I have noticed over the decades that a lot of non native speakers are actually better than native speakers. They put more effort into learning the language properly, where native speakers just picked it up from every one around them since they where babies, and often learn bad habits. Ironically such non native speakers often say things like "excuse my bad English, it's not my native tongue". So yeah, plain language, common sense, it's all good. Raster, on the gripping hand, probably writes dozens of his non native languages better than his native English. B-) Yes, I'm well aware that a phrase like "on the gripping hand" would only make sense to the few of us that have read a particular science fiction book. -- A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
