Forum moderation policy idea: No overly combative debating (page 4)

On Saturday, 4 May 2024 at 10:17:20 UTC, NotYouAgain wrote: > On Saturday, 4 May 2024 at 08:44:03 UTC, Dom DiSc wrote: >> On Saturday, 4 May 2024 at 08:24:22 UTC, NotYouAgain wrote: >>> One of the real problems with this forum, and any forum really, is the extent that people identify with the product that the forum is about... it's a kind of tribal thing really. >> >> May be. But I think its a matter of taste. >> If I don't like choco-cake (as I happen to do) and say so, this should not be a problem. >> But if I come and call choco-cake "wrong" and "unprofessional", I'm pretty sure to annoy a lot of people and can expect strong reactions and "resistance". Because this will bring up the whole choco-cake-liker "tribe". > > So, for example, if I say Walter was wrong in not allowing a class to be an encapsulated type, then I'm going to anger the Walter-loving tribe members? > > And therefore, I really should rephrase what I want to say, in put it in a way that doesn't anger the Walter-loving tribe members? > > I mean Walter can handle that sort of criticism very well .. he doesn't need protection from anyone. That's the thing I like most about Walter actually. > > But still, he was WRONG! What I think Dom meant, is that people won't be annoyed if you just declare an opinion and willingness to debate anyone who disagrees. However, if you declare, or imply, that those who disagree *must* defend their opinion against you or you'll make them lose face, that sure will raise ire. Yes, to an extent it means we can be cowards and avoid debating points we think we'd lose on. But people can move to other languages if language authors start doing that too much. Why would you want to make people angry anyway?

May 05

Re: Forum moderation policy idea: No overly combative debating

Posted by NotYouAgain
in reply to Dukc

Permalink

NotYouAgain

Posted in reply to Dukc

Permalink

On Saturday, 4 May 2024 at 16:01:17 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 May 2024 at 10:17:20 UTC, NotYouAgain wrote:
>> On Saturday, 4 May 2024 at 08:44:03 UTC, Dom DiSc wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 4 May 2024 at 08:24:22 UTC, NotYouAgain wrote:
>>>> One of the real problems with this forum, and any forum really, is the extent that people identify with the product that the forum is about... it's a kind of tribal thing really.
>>>
>>> May be. But I think its a matter of taste.
>>> If I don't like choco-cake (as I happen to do) and say so, this should not be a problem.
>>> But if I come and call choco-cake "wrong" and "unprofessional", I'm pretty sure to annoy a lot of people and can expect strong reactions and "resistance". Because this will bring up the whole choco-cake-liker "tribe".
>>
>> So, for example, if I say Walter was wrong in not allowing a class to be an encapsulated type, then I'm going to anger the Walter-loving tribe members?
>>
>> And therefore, I really should rephrase what I want to say, in put it in a way that doesn't anger the Walter-loving tribe members?
>>
>> I mean Walter can handle that sort of criticism very well .. he doesn't need protection from anyone. That's the thing I like most about Walter actually.
>>
>> But still, he was WRONG!
>
> What I think Dom meant, is that people won't be annoyed if you just declare an opinion and willingness to debate anyone who disagrees.
>
> However, if you declare, or imply, that those who disagree *must* defend their opinion against you or you'll make them lose face, that sure will raise ire.
>
> Yes, to an extent it means we can be cowards and avoid debating points we think we'd lose on. But people can move to other languages if language authors start doing that too much. Why would you want to make people angry anyway?

You should direct this towards those who insert themselves into discussions for no other reason that to derail it.

It's that attempt to derail it, that you need to fight against.

There is nothing at all wrong with discussing the idea of D allowing a class to be an encapsulated type. Thats what I attempted to do. But people who don't like the idea, did what they always do.. derail the discussion to ensure it goes no futher.

D3 should have @safe by default, module-private by default and have class level encapsulation - i.e private(this). Not D2 of course, but D3. But certain people are so stuck in their ways, that these ideas will inevitably be argued and debated in a way that is sometimes not pleasant to onlookers.

But if you want change, that sometimes the only way change can occur.

But I don't recall every descending to derogatory rhetoric, such as calling someone an oo...phile. Nor would I.

On 5/3/2024 6:16 PM, NotYouAgain wrote: > There was nothing rude or insulting in my comment. That isn't the only reason for removing comments. In the development and ideas forums, Mike has said he's going to delete posts that are off-topic, in order to prevent thread drift.

On 5/4/2024 3:17 AM, NotYouAgain wrote: > But still, he was WRONG! False, I'm never wrong. I have historically allowed a lot of latitude for criticizing me in the forums that was not allowed against others. Unfortunately, this resulted in some threads becoming firestorms so bad that it was driving people away. As a result we've changed course and now criticism of myself and others is treated the same. Things never stay the same, and it's important that we have the flexibility to adjust the moderation policy as needed.

On Sunday, 5 May 2024 at 00:15:57 UTC, NotYouAgain wrote: > > But I don't recall every descending to derogatory rhetoric, such as calling someone an oo...phile. Nor would I. Accusations of bad faith (which I believe you thrown around to like 7 ppl) are far worse then my oo-phile insult; you could always reform your ways and stop using oo, grep for the word class and write a script to rm any such files. Accusations of bad faith are unshakable, fundamentally if you believe someone to be a liar, why all there offers of proof are further lies; it halts debate completely.

On Sunday, 5 May 2024 at 01:51:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: > On 5/3/2024 6:16 PM, NotYouAgain wrote: >> There was nothing rude or insulting in my comment. > That isn't the only reason for removing comments. In the development and ideas forums, Mike has said he's going to delete posts that are off-topic, in order to prevent thread drift. As I explained, my comment was entirely on-topic. What I proposed, was a valid soltion to the problem identified. It was also valid to say that this same solution was proposed to me, for a very similar reason. But still, it got deleted. I think Mike's biases kicked in, instead of policy.

On Saturday, 4 May 2024 at 01:16:43 UTC, NotYouAgain wrote:

For example, there is a thread in DIP Ideas that wants to do: "I want to propose that we provide a mechanism to semantically detach unit tests from the scope they are written in. Such unittests would be treated as if they were not in the same scope or module".

I proposed putting the unittest in a separate module, as that would ensure it was out of the scope and semantically detached. I pointed out also, that was the same response that people gave me when i asked for the same thing (i.e. the issue I have with unittests outside the scope of a class, but within the same module, still behaving as if it were in the scope of the class.).

I'm unsure why it was deleted, but my response is that your suggestion does not, in fact, fix the problem. Documented unittests must go with the thing they are documenting. Putting them outside the module will not generate proper documentation.

unittests do not naturally associate with the code they are testing when written in other modules as well, I don't think that's a palatable answer. I want to write unittests close to the thing they are testing. This is a very nice feature of D.

As for private(this), I do not agree that moving unittests that test public API outside the module is palatable. But also, private(this) does not fix that problem either -- you can still call private functions from within the module -- even if they aren't in classes, and documentation should avoid that.

-Steve

Forums