www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Forum moderation policy idea: No overly combative debating

reply Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:
By now, I have years of experience from the D forums. Like most 
forums, every now and then there are people who just don't seem 
to get along with others but refuse to stop writing either.

Of course, other people often feel to need to defend themselves / 
the language / the foundation / whatever. And let's be honest - 
many of us are a bit addicted to drama, regardless of how grumpy 
it might make us. I know I am - it's the same way we tend to get 
addicted to social media. I think a bit of that tendency is just 
natural and unavoidable.

Moreover, it's not always clear-cut who is the troll and who is 
just miscommunicating in mostly good faith. It's basic manners to 
give a benefit of doubt. Thus, the advice to not feed the trolls 
can work only to a limited extent, and the result is sometimes a 
spectacular flame war.

We have a tolerant moderation policy. It has it's problems, as 
many have written the forums tend to make them angry and it's 
just easier to keep off. Terminating certain kinds of arguments 
forcibly would probably help, as would banning some of the 
troublemakers sooner, as has been sometimes requested.

On the other hand, explicit enforcement of behaviour tends to 
feel slightly condescending, and there's always the danger of 
moderation going too far and shutting off legitimate criticism.

I think there is a particular kind of behaviour that is presently 
(mostly) allowed but that we could safely have less tolerance 
for. I call it "combative debating".



Any posting that knowingly angers or annoys co-debators a more 
than what it takes to get the point across.

In other words, you are still allowed to have as stupid opinions 
as you want, and you are allowed to bring them up. What you need 
to do though, is that if you suspect your post will be disliked, 
you need to take a bit of time to put it in a diplomatic form.

If people still get annoyed by what you post even when you try to 
bring it up respectfully, then fine - it was unavoidable. But if 
they get annoyed because you dramatised, exaggregated the pain 
points, resorted to ad homineum, made fun of those who disagreed 
etc, then your post was combative.

Note, there is no specific bad manner that is needed for a post 
to be combative. It might be combative even if if there is no 
name-calling, no foul language, no character attacks, et cetera. 
The only thing that matters is what feelings the post was 
designed to provoke, and whether that was understandable or 
necessary to get the posters opinion understood.

There seem to be people who think that getting the intellectual 
point across isn't enough, maybe because their co-debators 
"deserve" getting hurt a bit. In my opinion, we can and should 
require that people leave that attitude to the door when they 
come here. This forum is for intellectual debate, not for 
receiving your mandatory dose of chastising for whatever thought 
sins you're committing. Plus, who would draw the line what mental 
punishment is justified and what is not? The only line that works 
without making it a battleground is "none of it".



NOTE: I do *not* carry these opinions myself!

Okay:

 D is a great language if you're such an enthusiast you want to 
 work with it in your free time. I have to say though, that 
 rarely I would recommend it for professional usage. It's nice 
 to use in itself, but in an actual commercial project there are 
 generally just too much dependencies on all kinds of 
 third-party tools and frameworks. With D, you'll spend too much 
 time fighting your way around the ecosystem problems that are 
 much more rarer in more mainstream languages, say Java or Go.


Too combative:

 No serious developer would ever use D for any serious project. 
 Yes, the language is nice. So what? 98% of your time you'll be 
 fighting your anger when Dub refuses to accept your dependency 
 tree, in the rare case there even is a dub library for what you 
 need. Not so nice, huh? What are you guys thinking? Why do you 
 lie to people that D is ready for commercial use when it's not? 
 *WHY*?

 Maybe you just refuse to admit it to yourselves and engage in 
 self-denial. Grow to adults. Please.


Okay:

 I understand the motivation behind the recent push to emphatise 

 and Java, after all do show it's a fine safety mechanisms for 
 your average application.

 Nonetheless, I believe the direction is misguided. D is a rare 
 breed - a systems programming language. The world is full of 
 GC-dependand langauges. Those who are fine with the GC are 
 unlikely to pick D since so many other languages have better 
 garbage collectors. D can't catch up because it's garbage 
 collector has to be compatible with raw C pointer and therefore 
 can't be generational.

 Therefore, let's focus on RAII and reference counting. That's a 
 race where there is much less competition. We should keep the 
 garbage collector around, as it is a good choice for scripts 
 and CTFE, and one reason why D is easier to use than the other 
 systems langauge - namely, Rust. But other memory management 
 methods should be the focus.


Too combative:


 okay, the GC brings safety benefits *when you can afford it*. 
 But those languages turned most everybody to a GC zealot who 
 think that nothing else is needed anymore.

 It's as apparent here as anywhere. Never mind D brands itself 
 as a systems language, on it's front page! Can't you please 
 just accept that device drivers, game engines, real-time 
 systems and whatever operating system you're using still need 
 to be maintained. A sophiscated person might even think that 
 humanity might new device drivers for new devices some day. Why 
 am I bothering though? It's not 1990 anymore. Nobody will 
 understand it no matter how clear it is.

 Then there will be threads wodering why Rust takes over the 
 world, when it has no GC. You will never know because don't 
 understand when sane people tell it to you. So sad...




Combative debating benefits no one. The discussions end up in 
fruitless spirals that frustate everyone, yet there are not 
necessarily any grounds for moderation to kick in under the 
current policy. It has no benefits for free speech either, as the 
definition explicitly says it's combative only if it is toxic 
without reason. Anything you can write combatively you can as 
well write respectfully.

The proposal, you quessed it: overly combative debating shall be 
forbidden and henceforth grounds for closing of threads, and in 
severe cases bans.

I do not propose a heavy-handed policy on this, quite the 
contrary in fact. There still should be plenty of space for 
normal self-expression, and no expectation to be perfect. In 
almost all cases, the moderator should first warn when someone 
crosses the limit, and employ sanctions only when those warnings 
go unheeded.

The difference to the present situation is there needs to be no 
particular (unwritten) rule broken, such as name calling or going 
off topic. It only needs to be shown that a debator is stirring 
up bad feelings with no constructive purpose, and it can be 
intervened.

What do you think?
Apr 29
next sibling parent reply bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:
On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 14:46:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:




 Combative debating benefits no one. The discussions end up in 
 fruitless spirals that frustate everyone, yet there are not 
 necessarily any grounds for moderation to kick in under the 
 current policy. It has no benefits for free speech either, as 
 the definition explicitly says it's combative only if it is 
 toxic without reason. Anything you can write combatively you 
 can as well write respectfully.

 The proposal, you quessed it: overly combative debating shall 
 be forbidden and henceforth grounds for closing of threads, and 
 in severe cases bans.

 I do not propose a heavy-handed policy on this, quite the 
 contrary in fact. There still should be plenty of space for 
 normal self-expression, and no expectation to be perfect. In 
 almost all cases, the moderator should first warn when someone 
 crosses the limit, and employ sanctions only when those 
 warnings go unheeded.

 The difference to the present situation is there needs to be no 
 particular (unwritten) rule broken, such as name calling or 
 going off topic. It only needs to be shown that a debator is 
 stirring up bad feelings with no constructive purpose, and it 
 can be intervened.

 What do you think?


I think using a posted set of guidelines like HN is a good way to 
proceed. Starting by telling people they're violating the 
guidelines a couple times is helpful, because it doesn't require 
active moderation, which is a heavy tool. It doesn't even require 
the moderator to point out the violation of the guidelines.

One guideline alone would clean up much of what you've defined as 
"combative debating":


 Only post things that are intended to move the language 
 forward. Questioning the motives of others, accusing others of 
 not wanting to improve the language, implying other posters are 
 ignorant, and making unsupported claims about what "everyone 
 wants" or "everyone needs" are all examples of things that do 
 not move the language forward.
Apr 29
parent Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 19:25:29 UTC, bachmeier wrote:

 I think using a posted set of guidelines like HN is a good way 
 to proceed. Starting by telling people they're violating the 
 guidelines a couple times is helpful, because it doesn't 
 require active moderation, which is a heavy tool. It doesn't 
 even require the moderator to point out the violation of the 
 guidelines.


This is orthogonal to what I proposed, but I agree.

Walter seems to think that a rule of honour trumps rule of law. 
That is, if there is a set of rules defining exactly what goes 
and what doesn't, that will always have loopholes and/or tendency 
to displace our internar wish to behave honourably. And that's 
why we don't want code of conduct.

I agree with all of that, except with the no-code conclusion. 
What we still could have, is a code that describes, but does not 
define what is acceptable. It would be like API documentation: 
sometimes wrong or out of date, but still your first reference 
when you're unsure about something. But it would not be the law - 
if it disagrees with the actual community norms, you could not 
hide behind it once you're told it's wrong.

Wikipedia rules are [just like 
that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_
ll_rules%22_means). IMO they show there can be written rules, with a code of
honour still being the ultimate authority.


 Only post things that are intended to move the language 
 forward. Questioning the motives of others, accusing others of 
 not wanting to improve the language, implying other posters 
 are ignorant, and making unsupported claims about what 
 "everyone wants" or "everyone needs" are all examples of 
 things that do not move the language forward.




Mostly agreed. I'd probably be slightly more liberal though. If 
you start an off-topic thread on merits of FreeBSD versus OpenBSD 
and declare some strong opinions, that doesn't move the language 
forward but isn't what I want to see purged - assuming there's 
still respect maintained for those who disagree (or use the 
"inferior" system :D). I think even venting frustation over some 
problem, without any improvement proposal should be allowed - as 
long as it's about seeking some human empathy, and not the 
penance of those who erred.

I realise my proposal does leave a loophole for someone with a 
particulary vengeful attitude ("I hate to say this, but developer 
X has a disastrous record of \"good\" ideas. People need to be 
aware of this, because far too many have already wasted countless 
weekends on failed errands of his initiative."). But at least it 
minimises the attack surface. If trolls start exploiting this 
loophole they will at least start sounding like each other and 
therefore be easier to recognise and disregard.
Apr 30
prev sibling next sibling parent reply NotYouAgain <NotYouAgain gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 14:46:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:

 ...
 What do you think?


I think that people inserting themselves into what was at the 
point a resonable discussion, and the calling people discussing 
it 'oo-philes' (clearly meant to be derogatory), is not helpful 
to the discussion.

That's what I think.

https://forum.dlang.org/post/txagkzyhiajbwjdyraxl forum.dlang.org
Apr 30
parent monkyyy <crazymonkyyy gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2024 at 10:03:25 UTC, NotYouAgain wrote:

 On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 14:46:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:

 ...
 What do you think?


 I think that people inserting themselves into what was at the 
 point a resonable discussion, and the calling people discussing 
 it 'oo-philes' (clearly meant to be derogatory), is not helpful 
 to the discussion.

 That's what I think.

 https://forum.dlang.org/post/txagkzyhiajbwjdyraxl forum.dlang.org


You accused me of bad faith after a single line, I consider 
accusations of bad faith to be a nuclear option. I hit back after 
insults and feel no shame about this.

Please do not bring me up out of context.
Apr 30
prev sibling next sibling parent NotYouAgain <NotYouAgain gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 14:46:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:

..
 What do you think?


I think it would be better if people stopped inserting themselves 
into a discussion to tell everyone how pointless the whole things 
and that it will never succeed.

https://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.1566.1714182148.3719.dip.ideas puremagic.com
https://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.1567.1714200569.3719.dip.ideas puremagic.com
https://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.1568.1714203598.3719.dip.ideas puremagic.com
https://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.1572.1714210342.3719.dip.ideas puremagic.com
https://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.1571.1714210336.3719.dip.ideas puremagic.com


That's what I think.
Apr 30
prev sibling next sibling parent reply RazvanN <razvan.nitu1305 gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 14:46:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:


 What do you think?


Although in essence I agree with the proposal, whenever I hear 
about moderation I instantly think about censorship and about how 
subjective it is. I totally agree that the "too combative" 
examples that you've shown should probably be toned down, 
however, there might be other members that don't think that that 
was such a big deal. Additionally, there are other "weird" 
circumstances from a moderator perspective where valuable 
community members make acid remarks while making a very strong 
technical point. If I were a moderator, I would have trouble in 
taking a decision in such circumstances.

If I were to decide anything, I would let the community decide 
what is acceptable and what not. How would I do that? I would 
essentially migrate the forum to a platform that is more powerful 
that can simply let users flag certain parts of a comment that 
are "too combative". If a certain threshold is met (for example, 
10 people have flagged a portion of a comment), then that part of 
the post will be automatically moderated. I would rather go this 
path, then have someone (which most likely will be Mike) 
individually decide whether to moderate someone or not.

RazvanN
Apr 30
parent Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2024 at 10:14:29 UTC, RazvanN wrote:

 On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 14:46:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:


 What do you think?


 Additionally, there are other "weird" circumstances from a 
 moderator perspective where valuable community members make 
 acid remarks while making a very strong technical point.


I don't think we should be afraid to moderate someone having a 
strong technical viewpoint. It's enough that we make it clear the 
technical viewpoint is welcome as long as they care a bit about 
how they wrap it.


 If I were to decide anything, I would let the community decide 
 what is acceptable and what not. How would I do that? I would 
 essentially migrate the forum to a platform that is more 
 powerful that can simply let users flag certain parts of a 
 comment that are "too combative". If a certain threshold is met 
 (for example, 10 people have flagged a portion of a comment), 
 then that part of the post will be automatically moderated. I 
 would rather go this path, then have someone (which most likely 
 will be Mike) individually decide whether to moderate someone 
 or not.


That's a good idea. Mike is a good moderator but one human is 
always fallible. Then again, such a migration project depends on 
finding a champion to do it.
Apr 30
prev sibling next sibling parent reply NotYouAgain <NotYouAgain gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 14:46:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:

 ..
 ..
 What do you think?


I think it would better if people NOT insert themselves into a 
conversation and tell you will be shunned if fight back, and then 
insert themselves again and call you a 'complainer' and 
'socketpuppet'.

https://forum.dlang.org/post/rzonykaoyzbpkuwnpcia forum.dlang.org
https://forum.dlang.org/reply/loxfedydkggtevsipggf forum.dlang.org

That's what I think.
Apr 30
parent Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2024 at 10:15:48 UTC, NotYouAgain wrote:

 and then insert themselves again and call you a 'complainer' 
 and 'socketpuppet'.


I already said it there, but I meant a participant in the 
previous debates about the same subject.
Apr 30
prev sibling next sibling parent NotYouAgain <NotYouAgain gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 14:46:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:

 ..
 What do you think?


i think we should create any area called DIP Ideas, and tell 
people what is expected of them when they insert themselves into 
a conversation.

Maybe the guidelines could be:


- Be on-topic, relating directly to the DIP idea or draft.
- Be respectful and constructive.
- Provide context and useful information. Avoid short, 
contextless remarks like "LGTM" or "Thumbs up!" Explain your 
reasoning.

Oh. Wait. We already have that.

And how's that going...
Apr 30
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Sergey <kornburn yandex.ru> writes:
On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 14:46:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:

 What do you think?


Short answer: it could be good to have one.

Long answer: I think community should have some kind of 
self-regulation, however software used for communication should 
give this ability(functionality) and be more flexibility. Of 
course mail-based solution is just outdated and not competitive 
for that purpose.

In the Discord (where the most active and let me say long-lived D 
users are living) situation is much better.
Apr 30
parent reply Dom DiSc <dominikus scherkl.de> writes:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2024 at 14:55:00 UTC, Sergey wrote:

 On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 14:46:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:

 What do you think?


 Short answer: it could be good to have one.

 Long answer: I think community should have some kind of 
 self-regulation, however software used for communication should 
 give this ability(functionality) and be more flexibility. Of 
 course mail-based solution is just outdated and not competitive 
 for that purpose.


I fully agree to this. Pure text communication has a strong 
tendency to get out of control as important other channels like 
voice and mimic are missing, which give a short-time reaction to 
the words someone uses. Without this immediate reaction people 
say things they never would face to face. That is why moderation 
on such low-band media is so essential. Unfortunately.
Apr 30
next sibling parent NotYouAgain <NotYouAgain gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2024 at 15:35:49 UTC, Dom DiSc wrote:

 ..
 .. I fully agree to this. Pure text communication has a strong 
 tendency to get out of control as important other channels like 
 voice and mimic are missing, which give a short-time reaction 
 to the words someone uses. Without this immediate reaction 
 people say things they never would face to face. That is why 
 moderation on such low-band media is so essential. 
 Unfortunately.


There's certainly 'some' truth to that. But face2face can be just 
as vicuous sometimes.

i.e. you're missing perhaps the most important truth here: 
Sayre's Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law

Being passionate and arguing your case, in the face of intense 
opposition, should not be discouraged.

But calling someone an oop..phile. . well that really should be 
frowned upon.
May 01
prev sibling parent reply Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 30 April 2024 at 15:35:49 UTC, Dom DiSc wrote:

 That is why moderation on such low-band media is so essential. 
 Unfortunately.


It's also ironic IMO. With all the extra time to think and cool 
off before one hits "post", it should be the case that low-band 
media tended to be more civil than more spontaneous ones.

I wonder whether the reader opinion pieces in newspapers in the 
old times suffered from particulary toxic argumentation, being an 
even lower-band media.
May 02
parent Dom DiSc <dominikus scherkl.de> writes:
On Thursday, 2 May 2024 at 10:04:56 UTC, Dukc wrote:

 I wonder whether the reader opinion pieces in newspapers in the 
 old times suffered from particulary toxic argumentation, being 
 an even lower-band media.


For sure - thats the reason why newspapers were moderated, 
lectored and even censored. E.g. there were always discussions if 
a particular reader post should be printed or not.
The people doing this called themself "editors".

But even so, the tone of newspapers was often more harsh than 
what one would say face to face.
May 02
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Having a written moderation policy is a lot like trying to define the
difference 
between porn and art, which has failed utterly since the invention of writing. 
But we all know the difference when we see it.

Rather than mire ourselves in endless debates about this, we have Mike Parker. 
Mike is in charge of moderation, and I can't think of a better, more evenhanded 
moderator than Mike. He adjusts policy with the evolution of the D community.
If 
you disagree with decisions he's made, he'll listen to your appeal and adjust 
course as he feels is appropriate.

Mike has my full confidence and support as moderator.
Apr 30
next sibling parent reply "Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole" <richard cattermole.co.nz> writes:
On 01/05/2024 1:44 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 Having a written moderation policy is a lot like trying to define the 
 difference between porn and art, which has failed utterly since the 
 invention of writing. But we all know the difference when we see it.
 
 Rather than mire ourselves in endless debates about this, we have Mike 
 Parker. Mike is in charge of moderation, and I can't think of a better, 
 more evenhanded moderator than Mike. He adjusts policy with the 
 evolution of the D community. If you disagree with decisions he's made, 
 he'll listen to your appeal and adjust course as he feels is appropriate.
 
 Mike has my full confidence and support as moderator.


I too have full confidence in Mike to make the best choice he feels that 
he can make with the given information that he has.

There may be things that we differ on, such as this precise topic, but 
over all he does do his best to do right by everyone.

However I do want to point out, that we have a derived set of rules for 
our Discord server based upon the principles that you brought to the 
N.G. and that has worked for many years with minimal modification 
without any such concerns about its application for the same group of 
people.

In saying that, the N.G. is quite a different beast, so it could be that 
we are all wrong and that is the rub, you either try it and find out or 
you don't and it's all guess work either which way.
Apr 30
parent monkyyy <crazymonkyyy gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 May 2024 at 04:35:23 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew 
Cattermole wrote:

 
 However I do want to point out, that we have a derived set of 
 rules for our Discord server based upon the principles that you 
 brought to the N.G. and that has worked for many years with 
 minimal modification without any such concerns about its 
 application for the same group of people.


counterpoint I have never read the discord rules
Apr 30
prev sibling parent reply Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 1 May 2024 at 01:44:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:

 Having a written moderation policy is a lot like trying to 
 define the difference between porn and art.


I agree on the analogy. I could well see myself, let alone 
multiple people, being unsure how to classify a borderline case. 
I definitely can't claim I 100% know when I see it. It's maybe 
futile to try coming up with a fully generic definition. But if 
you need a policy to classify between them it's useful to have 
rules how to make the classification for the sake of the policy. 
For example, a picture someone swimming naked, when stated reason 
and... details... for the picture are [imagine something you feel 
would make it borderline]. The rules can't be 100% precise like a 
switch statement, but they are still better than having no idea 
what's the aim.


 Rather than mire ourselves in endless debates about this, we 
 have Mike Parker. Mike is in charge of moderation, and I can't 
 think of a better, more evenhanded moderator than Mike. He 
 adjusts policy with the evolution of the D community.


Mike decides the policy, not only enforces it? Okay, let's call 
this a proposal for Mike then.


 If you disagree with decisions he's made, he'll listen to your 
 appeal and adjust course as he feels is appropriate.

 Mike has my full confidence and support as moderator.


I don't have any issues with decisions Mike has made, and I agree 
he is doing a great job.

I'm writing this because there are two parts of moderation: the 
policy, and it's enforcement. I'm very happy with the enforcement 
part (although see Razvan's idea earlier in this thread), but I 
suggest a change to the policy.

Also it's not that I'd think there's anything wrong with the 
current policy. There are many possible policies all right and 
reasonable, it's only about what works best for each community. I 
feel my proposed policy might work better - reasonable poeple can 
disagree of course.
May 02
next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 2 May 2024 at 10:47:49 UTC, Dukc wrote:


 I'm writing this because there are two parts of moderation: the 
 policy, and it's enforcement. I'm very happy with the 
 enforcement part (although see Razvan's idea earlier in this 
 thread), but I suggest a change to the policy.

 Also it's not that I'd think there's anything wrong with the 
 current policy. There are many possible policies all right and 
 reasonable, it's only about what works best for each community. 
 I feel my proposed policy might work better - reasonable poeple 
 can disagree of course.


The policy I operate under is basically two items:

1. Is there an obvious personal insult in the post?
2. Is the poster disrupting the thread?

Some people have a lower threshold for what constitutes an 
obvious personal insult, and they sometimes let me know. These 
days, I tend to act when they do let me know. In the past, I 
would often try to convince them of why we should let it go.

Given my timezone, threads unfortunately tend to get disrupted 
while I'm in bed. Then I wake up to several emails and DMs on 
Discord. So I do sometimes step in when it looks like things are 
heading that way.

The thing is, though, we have limited moderation tools available 
to us because of the nature of our forums. I can't put anyone in 
a timeout, I can't suspend an account, I can't lock threads or 
move posts, I can't DM people to give them private warnings...

The biggest problem is that once I delete a post, it's gone. I 
can't restore it. So because of that, I always prefer to give 
people more leeway than I would if I could restore a post I 
shouldn't have deleted.

I've been accused of censorship and I've been accused of letting 
trolls run rampant. I've been accused of bias and I've been 
accused of allowing overly negative people to ruin our image. I'm 
never going to make everyone happy. I've adapted my approach over 
time based on feedback, so I'm always open to that.

In this case, what you consider combative, I consider annoying. 
Some people are just abrasive in their online communications. But 
they still can further a discussion or debate.

What I suggest is that anyone who thinks a poster is being 
combative, please email me and let me know. I've take a closer 
look at the thread in question and, if I don't agree anything 
should be deleted, I'll ask that the language be toned down. Then 
I can start deleting if it isn't. Does that sound better?

I've been deleting posts in the new DIP forums that don't contain 
any information relevant to the discussion. I could also start 
doing that in other forums for posts that are just angry rants. 
But again, some posts that raise red flags for some people raise 
any for me, so I encourage others to let me know if they see 
something like that.
May 02
next sibling parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 2 May 2024 at 12:08:26 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

I'd love to have an edit feature in addition to mod tools:"


 I've take a closer


"I'll take"


 angry rants. But again, some posts that raise red flags for 
 some people raise any for me,


"don't raise any for me"
May 02
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 2 May 2024 at 12:08:26 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 The policy I operate under is basically two items:

 1. Is there an obvious personal insult in the post?
 2. Is the poster disrupting the thread?


Basically, I'm suggesting the first item to be replaced with:

1. Does the poster have to know their post is likely to anger or 
annoy others, insult or no?
2. If so, is it necessary or understandable given the point they 
are trying to make?


 The thing is, though, we have limited moderation tools 
 available to us because of the nature of our forums. I can't 
 put anyone in a timeout, I can't suspend an account, I can't 
 lock threads or move posts, I can't DM people to give them 
 private warnings...

 The biggest problem is that once I delete a post, it's gone. I 
 can't restore it. So because of that, I always prefer to give 
 people more leeway than I would if I could restore a post I 
 shouldn't have deleted.


This explains a lot. Thanks - I can see why it's worth erring to 
the side of not intervening. So that even with my proposal, you 
will have to keep a light touch - and that's fine.


 What I suggest is that anyone who thinks a poster is being 
 combative, please email me and let me know. I've take a closer 
 look at the thread in question and, if I don't agree anything 
 should be deleted, I'll ask that the language be toned down. 
 Then I can start deleting if it isn't. Does that sound better?


It's a good idea. But could you go further? I think you can give 
a warning right away when you, using your own judgement, find 
something combative. When people have been warned, you can hardly 
do a gross injustice by deleting posts of someone ignoring the 
warnings. If they really think you're suppressing any valid 
talking points they can privately tell you.

To be clear, while there is one thread that gave me the impulse 
to write this, it's not that I'm particulary annoyed with it or 
any other of them, and certainly not with any of your decisions. 
If you think the two examples I devised and/or the DIP thread 
weren't that combative, I'm not complaining - I might be wrong 
easily as well as you. It's just a general policy improvement 
idea.
May 02
parent cc <cc nevernet.com> writes:
On Thursday, 2 May 2024 at 12:50:27 UTC, Dukc wrote:

 It's a good idea. But could you go further?


I want to go on record as completely disagreeing with every call 
for increased moderation in all capacities.  In my experience 
across numerous domains this only leads to disaster, for reasons 
it would be impossible to delve into without deep political 
discourse.  The level we have now is fine, Mike is doing a fine 
job, and as much as people like to wax poetic while 
characterizing each others' opinions and styles (for example, Our 
Holy GC Church vs Those Evil Anti-GC Apostates Whom Our Faith 
Compels Us to Wipe Out-type arguments), I don't want any of them 
deleted, even the ones that annoy me with their narrow viewpoints 
and conceited ignorance for the needs of diverse and venerated 
use cases.  Just in case my semi-ironic tone here doesn't make it 
clear, I'm vehemently against it.  It's bad.  It makes 
conversations and attitudes worse, not better, and it's not even 
a "maybe".  It does, and will.

The only time I've seen an obvious need for moderation, besides 
weight loss pill spam, is the occasional occurrences in the past 
of one or two certain users suspected of changing their usernames 
frequently to stir up doomposts with zero contribution.  A 
doompost in and of itself is not the end of the world but one 
that attempts to use deception to saturate messaging is another 
matter and deserves the X clicks.
May 02
prev sibling next sibling parent reply aberba <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 2 May 2024 at 12:08:26 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 On Thursday, 2 May 2024 at 10:47:49 UTC, Dukc wrote:


 I'm writing this because there are two parts of moderation: 
 the policy, and it's enforcement. I'm very happy with the 
 enforcement part (although see Razvan's idea earlier in this 
 thread), but I suggest a change to the policy.

 Also it's not that I'd think there's anything wrong with the 
 current policy. There are many possible policies all right and 
 reasonable, it's only about what works best for each 
 community. I feel my proposed policy might work better - 
 reasonable poeple can disagree of course.


 The policy I operate under is basically two items:

 1. Is there an obvious personal insult in the post?
 2. Is the poster disrupting the thread?

 Some people have a lower threshold for what constitutes an 
 obvious personal insult, and they sometimes let me know. These 
 days, I tend to act when they do let me know. In the past, I 
 would often try to convince them of why we should let it go.

 Given my timezone, threads unfortunately tend to get disrupted 
 while I'm in bed. Then I wake up to several emails and DMs on 
 Discord. So I do sometimes step in when it looks like things 
 are heading that way.

 The thing is, though, we have limited moderation tools 
 available to us because of the nature of our forums. I can't 
 put anyone in a timeout, I can't suspend an account, I can't 
 lock threads or move posts, I can't DM people to give them 
 private warnings...

 The biggest problem is that once I delete a post, it's gone. I 
 can't restore it. So because of that, I always prefer to give 
 people more leeway than I would if I could restore a post I 
 shouldn't have deleted.

 I've been accused of censorship and I've been accused of 
 letting trolls run rampant. I've been accused of bias and I've 
 been accused of allowing overly negative people to ruin our 
 image. I'm never going to make everyone happy. I've adapted my 
 approach over time based on feedback, so I'm always open to 
 that.

 In this case, what you consider combative, I consider annoying. 
 Some people are just abrasive in their online communications. 
 But they still can further a discussion or debate.

 What I suggest is that anyone who thinks a poster is being 
 combative, please email me and let me know. I've take a closer 
 look at the thread in question and, if I don't agree anything 
 should be deleted, I'll ask that the language be toned down. 
 Then I can start deleting if it isn't. Does that sound better?

 I've been deleting posts in the new DIP forums that don't 
 contain any information relevant to the discussion. I could 
 also start doing that in other forums for posts that are just 
 angry rants. But again, some posts that raise red flags for 
 some people raise any for me, so I encourage others to let me 
 know if they see something like that.


I've come to trust Mike too. He's doing a great job already. 
Happy to have things be the way it is.
May 03
parent reply NotYouAgain <NotYouAgain gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 3 May 2024 at 20:46:54 UTC, aberba wrote:

 ..
 ...
 I've come to trust Mike too. He's doing a great job already. 
 Happy to have things be the way it is.


The problem is, nobody know what exactly it is, that he his 
deleting, or why.

I've not in favor of moderators not being accountable.

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.).

There was nothing rude or insulting in my comment. It got 
deleted. And the justification was ?? .. Mike just didn't like it.

If you could see my post, you would see how benign it was.. but 
you can't see it, so you don't even know it existed, or why it 
was deleted.

I'm sure Mike will want to jump in here and show the contents of 
my response, as he also explains why he deleted it.
May 03
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
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.
May 04
parent NotYouAgain <NotYouAgain gmail.com> writes:
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.
May 05
prev sibling parent Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:
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
May 05
prev sibling parent reply NotYouAgain <NotYouAgain gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 2 May 2024 at 12:08:26 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

 ..
 The biggest problem is that once I delete a post, it's gone. I 
 can't restore it. ....


Yes, that is a real problem...still.. and decades later...it's 
still the biggest problem. As to why, seem my point further below.


 I've been accused of censorship and I've been accused of 
 letting trolls run rampant. I've been accused of bias and I've 
 been accused of allowing overly negative people to ruin our 
 image. I'm never going to make everyone happy. I've adapted my 
 approach over time based on feedback, so I'm always open to 
 that.

 ...


If you don't want to be accused of censorship, and bias, then the 
obvious thing to do is keep a record of the actual contents of a 
post that you've decide to delete, the reason you've decided to 
delete it (incuding if someone has asked you to delete it).

Then there is a record, should anyone decide to challenge you as 
to whether it's censoring or moderating, or moderating with 
personal bias.

Without an opportunity for due process, you just open yourself to 
the exact criticism that you don't think is warranted.

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. If someone 
outside your tribe criticises something about the product, which 
they should be free to do btw, then certain members of the tribe 
will all go and pound on that person. But if a member of you 
tribe criticises something about the product, then they've 
'earned' the right to do so, being a member of the tribe.

Most people are still so tribal, it seems.

Anyway.. back to my main point.... make moderation a process that 
people can have confidence in, and then people can judge for 
themselves whether you're just censoring, or whether you're own 
biases (or others biases) are coming into play.
May 04
parent reply Dom DiSc <dominikus scherkl.de> writes:
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".
May 04
parent reply NotYouAgain <NotYouAgain gmail.com> writes:
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!
May 04
next sibling parent cc <cc nevernet.com> writes:
On Saturday, 4 May 2024 at 10:17:20 UTC, NotYouAgain wrote:

 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!


"Walter was wrong-" is used as punctuation around here, and as 
such is simply ignored by anyone who believes their time has 
value.
May 04
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:
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 04
parent reply NotYouAgain <NotYouAgain gmail.com> writes:
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.
May 04
next sibling parent monkyyy <crazymonkyyy gmail.com> writes:
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.
May 04
prev sibling parent Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:
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.


This is not derogatory rhetoric. I think there may be a language 
barrier, or misunderstanding.

-phile is a "lover of". So e.g. audiophile is a lover of good 
sound. A bibliophile is one who loves to read books. Someone 
saying you care passionately about oop is not saying something 
derogatory, or incorrect if I understand your position.

-Steve
May 04
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
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.
May 04
prev sibling parent Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:
Dukc kirjoitti 2.5.2024 klo 13.47:

 [snip]


Testing my NNTP reader, Am I replying to the thread, opening a new 
thread or mailing myself?

Sorry for the noise.
May 07