Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
 
PerlMonks  

Re^22: What is "aggressive" argument?

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Nov 12, 2010 at 05:19 UTC ( #870989=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^21: What is "aggressive" argument?
in thread What is "aggressive" argument?

And so we get this thread, which it seems has really just been an attempt at proving you are write and whoever called you aggressive is wrong.

No. It is not about me being right. Or even who is right. It is about what is right; and who decides!.

I'm not trying to say that your or Tye's judgement is wrong, because you misread me. I'm saying it is wrong because you take it upon yourselves to judge me. Because every individual occurrence is subject to interpretation; many different interpretations. And for you to presume that yours is the "right" interpretation is .... I'll let you fill in the adjectives.

I'm not rejecting your or Tye's judgement of any individual incident. I'm rejecting the idea that either of you have any right to make any such judgements.

Of course, as individuals, we make judgements all the time. I don't like the color my neighbour painted his fences and garden shed--a kind of bright 'fake tan orangey-yellow'--but I don't go telling him that he can't do it. Despite that I have to look at it every day.

So earlier you basically accuse me of supporting (in-effect) IBGS. Me, the person who started the Do Not Feed the Trolls!!! thread!! If you give a troll attention, you are feeding the troll. And there is no better way to support a troll than to feed it. So who was it that was supporting IBGS? Last time I checked I was ignoring him as per SOP. You on the other hand were not only feeding the troll but practically doing the tango with him!!

Go to SuperSearch and check. I've never interacted with IBGS before. I *do* ignore trolls. Except on this occasion I had a point to prove. And prove it you most emphatically did. You censure me, but not him.

As for applying standards, I have different sets of standards to apply, as the occasion fits.

Exactly! Your standards. Applied capriciously, arbitrarily & unfairly. As per your whim.

Rules I'll abide by, but I will not be subjected to your whim; nor anyone's. Just as I would not expect you to be subject to mine.

So, why didn't tye and ikegami get dinged? Because it's you getting all passionate about threads again,

No. Its because you, and others, whimsically & capriciously chose not to apply your arbitrary standards to them. Even Tye himself admits that he sometimes oversteps some mark. The problem is where is that mark.

And more to the point: who decides where that mark is? You? tirwhan? Other?

But by convention writing in all caps is considered yelling on the Internet,

Fact:the written word cannot carry volume. Any such anthropomorphisation of the written word, is applied by the reader, not the writer.

I didn't shout. You and Tye, and no doubt others, chose to read me as shouting. But that is your choice.

Should I choose to respect every nonsensical rule anyone in the world might have?

Some or other Hollywood celebrity turned up on a topical news show stating that he would "only eat animals that have respect for themselves". There is a subset of human beings that won't drive cars. Others who think that the earth is circa 11,000 years old. Others that believe that eating tiger penis is good for their virility. Others that dismember albino children to use their body parts as powerful ju-ju in ritualistic ceremonies.

Should I respect all these other nonsensical "conventions"?

I am actually devoting a considerable amount of my time an energy trying to get you to see that you can make changes that will work toward your betterment.

My betterment? According to your standards? Your unwritten, changeable, applied-when-and-if-you-see-fit standards? You really think I aspire, or should aspire to compliance to such?

Once again, I am telling you--point blank; in your face; no equivocations; no room for manoeuvre or persuasion or coercion--I will not be bound by, or respect, any form of censorship, decided and applied by individuals, to an arbitrary subset of perlmonks.

If this community wants to apply some set of rules of censorship, and wants me to respect them, then it must a) codify them; b) apply them universally.

If I even perceived that your 'standards' were a) something like a consensus; b) were widely applied and respected; I would on this--as I have on other things--fall into line with them. But that is not the case here.


Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.


Comment on Re^22: What is "aggressive" argument?
Re^23: What is "aggressive" argument? (Netiquette)
by Argel (Prior) on Nov 12, 2010 at 22:35 UTC
    Here are some links on Netiquette for you:

    That last one is pretty good, so I will quote some of it:

    The netiquette has not been written to be a nuisance or to curb your freedom. Don't look upon the netiquette that way. It is to your own advantage to pay attention to the netiquette recommendations. It is sensible to be familiar with the netiquette also for quite selfish reasons:
    • If you pay attention to the netiquette, your communication will succeed better. You will gain more credibility on the Usenet community for your own views.
    • If you pay attention to the netiquette you will in all probability get helpful answers more readily on the net when you have questions to ask or need help on the net.
    • On the Usenet news the majority of the readers will know you by your messages only. What you write and how you behave will make your net personality. Think carefully what kind of a picture you wish to give about yourself. And who knows? Maybe one day you may have other dealings in real life with a few of the persons who have formed their picture of you on the net.
    • If you repeatedly and deliberately ignore the netiquette you will soon develop an indelible reputation of a troublemaker, and at least the more serious users on the net will start avoiding you altogether.

    And from the RFC on Netiquette itself:

    Use mixed case. UPPER CASE LOOKS AS IF YOU'RE SHOUTING.
    And so, given that it's common knowledge that all caps is considered to be the equivalent of shouting on the Internet and none of us are newbies to the Internet why wouldn't we assume that you were shouting? And then you get mad at us for applying that common Internet convention when you should have expected readers to interpret it that way!! Arguably that's flamebait, if not outright trolling!!

    Looking back, it seems that I erroneously thought you might actually be open to suggestions on ways to improve how you interact with your fellow Monks. But it's pretty clear now that you are in "I'm right and there's nothing you can say or write that will ever convince me otherwise mode". Looking back, you have arguably been in that mode since you wrote the OP, which is why I will still maintain that this whole thread is really about you trying to prove to everyone that you're right and whoever called your writing style aggressive is wrong.

    The all caps issue pretty much proves that -- you cannot even admit that most readers would consider it shouting given that the all caps rule is one of the most common and well known guidelines on the Internet! I mean, the RFC is 15 years old, which means the practice of treating all caps as shouting has been going on for much longer than that!!

    As a side note, I think it's pretty low to compare being civil to censorship.

    Anyway, I hope you enjoy your "BrowserUK vs. the World" one man war you feel the need to wage.

    Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

      You will gain more credibility on the Usenet community

      THIS AIN'T USENET.

        The Netiquette of the Internet today traces it's roots back to the Netiquette of USENET and email. Obviously some things have changed, given a lot of the guidelines predate the Web, but most of the "changes" have just been expanding the guidelines. So e.g. for a forum-like site, the old USENET guidelines work very well.

        Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

Re^23: What is "aggressive" argument?
by Argel (Prior) on Nov 12, 2010 at 23:21 UTC
    Of course, as individuals, we make judgements all the time. I don't like the color my neighbour painted his fences and garden shed--a kind of bright 'fake tan orangey-yellow'--but I don't go telling him that he can't do it. Despite that I have to look at it every day.
    BTW, why do you think I am telling you what you can or cannot do??? I'm not!! I'm just saying that if you do not like being singled out so much then you need ratchet back on the flamewar style tactics and give being civil a try (for an extended period of time). That's "need" as in "I believe this step is necessary to achieve the specified results". Like it's in a series of instructions -- e.g. "you need to install the hard drive before you can partition it".

    It's not like I'm one of the gods here who could lock your account. And I'm not aware of the gods threatening to do that. So there's no one forcing you to do anything. In fact, I would find it very disturbing if they were threatening to revoke your account. Or at least I would once I got over the initial shock!

    So this is just a few Monks having a discussion (or whatever we want to call it). If you want to operate just like you have, there is no one stopping you. And there is also no one stopping some of us for dinging you when you resort to flamewar style tactics.

    I know you think you are being unjustly singled out, but 1) the onus is on you to try and be more civil, and 2) the technical side of the discussions are often worth putting up with the baggage they come with. And I suppose I should add 3) sometimes the "baggage" is good popcorn entertainment.

    Anyway, I think #2 is why you get dinged more often -- most flamewars degenerate into worthless drivel and feeding a troll is more like watching a mortal sin being committed right before your eyes in slow motion-- in other words, most Monks just do the "move along, nothing to see here" thing. Since your posts often have a lot of technical content, and it's often you sparring with e.g. ikegami, then many Monks do not just move along because it's interesting, either for the technical side of things or for the entertainment value (or both). And so you get noticed more. Consider it the price you pay for being a Pope on this site.

    P.S. The color of that fence sounds horrendous!! Maybe if some rust, grunge etc. was added it to it it would at least have a steampunk feel to it....

    Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

      BTW, why do you think I am telling you what you can or cannot do??? I'm not!!

      Sorry? But you are:

      1) the onus is on you to try and be more civil,

      More civil than what? More civil than who? Define "civil"?

      Please express your design for my "betterment" in terms that mean I do not have to refer everything I write to you for approval before posting.


      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
        No, I'm not! If I was really telling you what you can or cannot do then I would need to have some power over you -- e.g. the ability to revoke your account, abusing authority, etc. However, I have no power or authority over you. Well, maybe I should say that the only power I have over you is that which you give to me. An obvious example of this is when we let a troll get the best of us.

        I can only offer advice. Any time it looks like I am telling you what you can or cannot do is as I indicated before: in the context of "if you want to achieve goal Z then you will need to do X and Y" (where "will" is obviously based on my evaluation of the situation).

        Please express your design for my "betterment" in terms that mean I do not have to refer everything I write to you for approval before posting.
        I think herveus summed things up really well, so lets revisit his post:
        My sense, from a number of years of experience, is that you are prone to being needlessly contentious. You elect confrontational language on slight provocation. You do normally include substantive technical content, but it's effectiveness is lessened by the static around it.
        So, some things to look for:
        • Are you attacking the theory/idea/code (good) or the person (bad)?
        • How emotionally involved are you (normally a bad thing)?
          • Is that post you are about to publish heavy on [potentially] inflammatory content and light on relevant technical details?
          • Do you feel like you have to get the last word in? Or that you have to prove you are right?
          • Does letting go feel like a huge if not impossible challenge?
        • How many levels deep has the thread gone (deeper is usually bad)?

        The other thing you can do is brush up on the Netiquette Guidelines. Additionally, the second link I listed is for the online version of Virginia Shea's highly regarded book on Netiquette. Maybe try giving that a once over (or at least hit the summary).

        At the end of the day it really comes down to whether you are willing to admit that you do get too emotionally involved in many of these heated debates/discussions and that you want to do something about that. It's certainly not easy -- and you can see that in some of my posts, where I have fought some of the same demons. Letting go can be really, really hard. And admitting it's a problem can be equally hard. One thing that helped me was starting the Do Not Feed the Trolls!!! thread. It's a great reminder of the importance of letting things go and that I do not have to get the last word in! I just wish I could say that I planned it that way!! :-)

        As I indicated above, I think there is one technical measure for success that you have at your disposal -- how deep do these heated debate threads go? Try toning things down and just letting things go when you get too emotionally involved and then compare how many levels deep your threads go to the threads that predate any changes. I expect there will be a noticeable difference.

        Good luck and best wishes!

        Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://870989]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others taking refuge in the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-08-22 00:58 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The best computer themed movie is:











    Results (145 votes), past polls