On Thu Apr 15, 2021 at 12:19 AM BST, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:41 PM Frosku <fro...@frosku.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think, in general, it's fine to leave this decision to moderators. It's
> > just a little disconcerting when one of the people who would probably be
> > moderating is saying that he could have shut down the discussion if he
> > could only ban jerks, as if to imply that everyone who dares to disagree
> > with his position is a jerk worthy of a ban.
>
> I haven't seen anybody say that, so I'm not sure who you are talking
> about. In any case, what makes you say that that person, whoever they
> are, would probably be a moderator? And why do you infer that that
> person believes that everybody who "dares to disagree with his
> position" is a jerk? Did they say so? Or are you making the same
> mistake that you are attributing to this person: equating disagreement
> over ideas with disagreement about appropriate behavior?
>
> Ian
This was the quote:
> The choice to /not/ have a policy for ejecting jerks has serious costs.
> One of those costs is the kind of rancorous dispute that has been
> burning like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
My read is that this is suggestions that if the 'jerks' were simply
removed from the discussion, there would be no dispute. The only way this
would be true is if all the jerks were on a single side of it, and I make
the assumption that the individual I'm quoting wasn't suggesting that he
himself be banned.
Perhaps you can suggest a more charitable read. Ambiguity is the enemy of
good discussion in text, after all.
>>= %frosku = { os => 'gnu+linux', editor => 'emacs', coffee => 1 } =<<
