On 10/28/13 11:07 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
Op 28-10-13 15:38, Chris Angelico schreef:
>On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Grant Edwards<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>On 2013-10-28, Steven D'Aprano<st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>
>>>Chris is not baiting Nikos, he is giving him useful information that
>>>unfortunately Nikos doesn't want to hear.
>>
>>So he's replying to Nikos with responses that aren't helping Nikos and
>>just encourage more posts from Nikos. I'm sure the_intent_ is
>>different than Mark's, but unfortunately, the result is identical.
>
>I still maintain that I'm not*baiting* him, though.
I don't care. Maybe you can find some semantical rule, that will
give your behaviour an other etiket than "baiting", in the end
the effect on the list is the same, with Nikos feeling entitled
to insist to get an answer.
And if we want this to be a welcoming community, then we have to
care about the effects and not about the semantical category. So
should you want this to be a welcoming community, then you are
focussing on the wrong point.
I agree it is probably best to err on the side of ignoring Nikos. But
there is a distinction between (say) Chris' response and Mark's. The
effect on Nikos is the same, but the effect on other readers, especially
readers new to the list, is very different.
We've already seen a few new people explicitly asking, "is this what
usually happens on this list?" and they weren't referring to the
Chris-style response, they were referring to the Mark-style response.
If we want this to be a welcoming community, we have to understand that
there are many more readers than there are authors, and the impression
we make on them matters too. Responding negatively, no matter how
humorously, is not going to improve the group. It might amuse the
regulars, but it is not building a strong and welcoming community. I
also happen to think that responding negatively won't even achieve its
stated purpose of making the help-vampire go away.
--Ned.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
