Re: Enhancing the FAQ. Please suggest enhacements....(new topic, getting closer...)

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:17:53 +0100, sasan3@xxxxxxxxx <sasan3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Every thread I start goes out on a tangent simply because some of you
people are not reading my posts carefully:


I totally disagree with the answers you have got so far to this.
I think the subject you are raising is very appropriately characterized.

We are seing a number of rude responses, and I have no objection to
enhancing the FAQ or the charter or whatever, to include, beyond advices
to newbies on how to post, also some suggestions about how to answer.

I would also say, in case that question comes up, that every newgroup
must have room for a degree of meta-discussion, i.e., discussion which
is not about the topic of the newsgroup, but about the newsgroup itself.

However, as a matter of debate technique, one should avoid by all means
attributing actions, mindsets, etc, to the participants.  I find
the above statement unfortunate in that it pretends to know what other
people are doing, or, rather, why they are responding the way they do.
It is not really a question of guessing right or wrong, it is kindof a
rule of diplomacy that I believe works.  Never tell people they are
"stupid", or doing something that could be interpreted as a form of
being "stupid".

Oh, occasionally you can break this rule, with people who you know respect
you and who you know knows you respect them, but in situations like this,
where the discussion is continually going out in tangents, such
attributions, justified or not, are good ways of ensuring yet another
tangent.

For the others, I have noticed that when there is talk about rude answers,
responses often go like "nobody pays me to answer, if you don't like my
answers you can go elsewhere".  It makes me wonder if the implied logic is
"If nobody pays me to be civilized, I prefer to be rude".  (Yes, this is
again an attribution, and I am not sure if it is a clever move on my part.
But at least I say this is how it sounds to me, not that this is how people
are.)

Another possible logic seems to be "Since I am the one providing most
of the answers, the newsgroup needs me, so I have the power to do as
I like.  Anyone trying to talk moral to me is a looser."

I am not at all sure that there is a "silent majority" of civilized
people.  At least, it seems to me that there is a rather entrenched
roughness of style among quite many of the frequent posters.  I fear that
a significant part of the constituency here want it to be that way.

As I see it, it is entirely possible that the tangents are due to
people just loving the occasional lynching of a newbie, or of anyone
that they can agree on attaching the label of "contemptible" on.
Rather than due to misreadings or misunderstandings. (More attributions!)

Myself I am sufficiently new here that I don't consider myself to be
"infuential", and I am not sure who it would be that in the end would
have to decide.  I understand that this kind of "organization" is not
a democracy, but a "do-ocracy"; those who act set the trend.


Here is the phrase I am proposing for inclusion in the FAQ:

 "to existing members of the group: please understand that for every
 expert in a field, there are many new comers who will need direction
 and help to get started. Please encourage new-comers by being tolerant

 of all questions, even if not well-researched, or well-phrased. These
 qualities cannot be expected of someone lacking the necessary
 coordination in a given field, and without our intial help, we will
 only delay these new-comers' progress in getting the necessary skills
 to become productive memebers of this group. If you don't feel like
 answering a post because it is not well researched, or well
 constructed, please ignore the post."


I subscribe to the view expressed.

Some facts that I must reiterate:
1-I am not upset about any answers or non-answers that I have received
on this board. I wrote my initial post because of reading a thread (
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.setup/browse_frm/thread/b9daa31f8f1b4f7e?tvc=1&q=sasan3+knoppix
) with a rude reply which made me concerned about how our good
community is loosing a good number of new-comers because of the bad
manners of a few, who as I said previously, though good technically,
should not be allowed to leave their cubicle.


Perhaps that is the problem. They are not being let out of their
cubicles, so they go out on the net instead. (Ouch, another attribution.
It is really hard to avoid!)  Perhaps one should ask their keepers to
throw in a banana now and then. (Ouuuch, ouuuuch!)

2-My cross-posting is not without reason. This is a topic that relates
to all newsgroups, specially technical ones. As such, any discussion
about this topic MUST be posted to all original groups. I urge you to
include other groups that you think can benefit from this dialogue.

3-Please read this one VERY VERY carefully. I am not trying to force 

A somewhat condescending style. Even if the message is not really
condescending, as you are talking about yourself, but you are attributing
to others an inability to grasp the contents on first reading.

anyone to provide answers. If you don't want to give answers, by all
means, please move on to the next post. All I am saying is if you don't
want to give answers, don't discourage new-comers by posting
discouraging replies. After all, someone else on the board may find
that question reasonable and provide an answer, and by that time, the
new-comer may have decided to move on because of the rude initial post.


I believe I have seen it happen. More than once.

4-I must reiterate. I am not trying to force anyone to provide answers.
I am just asking anyone who doesn't like a question to leave it to
someone more tolerant to answer.


I'm hard at hearing... What?

5-Someone said, I must be tolerant of the newsgourp culture. I
disagree. If something sucks, you must stand up and correct it even if
the status quo has become a comfort zone for a few.


Hold out.  Stay the course.  Even if I talk about diplomacy, that is not
synonymous with appeasement.

I look forward to your enhancements of my suggested sentence. I urge
people who think their respective FAQ already includes such a message,
to post that section.


Thanks, Sasan

-Enrique
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Anti-Ahmedinajad Protests on Monday
    ... How rude. ... nothing absurd in making that one, even if I disagree with Karen about ... your responses are rude and aggressive. ... It would begin with you and Karen not attributing arguments to me that I ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Character name advice wanted.
    ... In America you can get in trouble for reading forbidden ... It's rude to make those jokes in public but you're not going ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: New Hunter Needs An Answer
    ... I'd agree with you if I'd have seen a first post that wasn't rude to begin ... and the responses were the consequence of the ... New Hunter, I honestly look forward to hearing some more questions from you; ... Federal's 150 grain soft point is 308A and the 180 ...
    (rec.hunting)
  • Re: Character name advice wanted.
    ... In America you can get in trouble for reading forbidden ... It's rude to make those jokes in public but you're not going ... Don't get me wrong -- race-based jokes are rude. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: OS X compile
    ... Please do not be rude. ... I don't like Neo because he is continually, repeatedly, consistently, ... it has become since his responses to me have convinced me that he is not ... even slightly amenable to reason in this matter - and it would have ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.angband)