Op 16-06-13 22:04, Steven D'Aprano schreef: > On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 20:16:34 +0200, Antoon Pardon wrote: > >> You are trying to get it both ways. On the one hand you try to argue >> that there are no boundaries > I have never, ever argued that there are no boundaries. I have repeatedly > made it clear to Nikos when I thought he was behaving improperly. And > I've done the same to others when they've acted improperly.
That doesn't mean much. People can and do contradict themselves. So the fact that you made it clear to Nikos that he behaved improperly doesn't contradict you arguing somewhere else in a way that strongly suggest there are no boudaries. But I'll take note that you assert there are boundaries. So I'll take it that there is nothing wrong with playing Internet Police and taking people to task who transgress this boundaries? One thing I would like to make clear, is that I find you making it clear he behaviour is improper, to be inadequate for the reason that it ignores the possibility that you are playing a troll game. To make an analogy. Suppose someone want to play a game of troll-chess with you. The rules of troll-chess are the following. You are allowed any kind of piece movement or you can utter the statement: TIC (That is cheating). So in troll-chess you are allowed to move your bisshops like a queen. The only thing is, that if you do a move that is illegal in ordinary chess and your opponent answers with TIC, you must take back that move and make a move that is legal ordinary chess. So you make think you are making it clear to your troll-chess opponent that he is cheating for your troll-chess opponet you are just participating in his game. Now it is possible that your opponent is not in fact playing troll chess but just doesn't know enough of the game to know what is a legal move and what is not. In my opinion that doesn't matter. If your opponent doesn't want to invest the time needed to at least have a reasonable idea of what moves are legal and so in practice is hardly distinguishable from those who's intent it is to play troll chess, the end result is the same. >> to what is acceptable by calling people who >> do try to enforce such boundaries the Internet Police. On the other hand >> you do suggest that playing Internet Police is out of bound behaviour. > Yes. Trying to start flame wars with Nikos is unacceptable behaviour. It > is unproductive, it makes this a hostile, unpleasant place to be, it > ruins the environment for the rest of the community, it's off topic, and > it simply doesn't work to discourage trolls. > I'm sorry but again I find that you are trying to have it both ways. IMO, and I suspect I'm not alone in that judgement, the threads that Nikos starts are in general, boring, repetitive, unproductive and draining. Not only that they are having an effect on the mailing list as a whole making it an unpleasant place. To the people who come with that complain, your respons, seems to be that if those people would just ignore the nikos-threads. They don't have to experience this unpleasantnes. But now that you start to experience unpleasantness, this unproductiveness and unpleasantness is cause for you to label behaviour unacceptable. But the same remedy is available here. Just ignore threads with behaviour that you find unacceptable and you (and others) don't have to experience this hostility and unpleasantness. Those you accuse of ruining the environment, find this environment already partly ruined by nikos and those that enable him. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
