On 3/2/2019 1:50 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> Out of all the things I said...you chose to respond to this?

I've been on forums for several decades. I've done the point-by-point responses endlessly. They never result in understanding nor resolution. They just spawn another point-by-point riposte, which demands another point-by-point response, which goes on and on until someone gives up from sheer exhaustion. Few forum readers ever seem to read these chains, either.

Instead, I choose to respond to what seems like the overarching point of the message. It seems to work better.


> you don't realize what you're actually doing

Please maintain professional demeanor.

On Saturday, 2 March 2019 at 22:42:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/2/2019 1:50 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> Out of all the things I said...you chose to respond to this?
>
> I've been on forums for several decades. I've done the point-by-point responses endlessly. They never result in understanding nor resolution. They just spawn another point-by-point riposte, which demands another point-by-point response, which goes on and on until someone gives up from sheer exhaustion. Few forum readers ever seem to read these chains, either.
>
> Instead, I choose to respond to what seems like the overarching point of the message. It seems to work better.

>
> > you don't realize what you're actually doing
>
> Please maintain professional demeanor.

Oh sorry, how would I say that statement in a more professional demeanor? I genuinely wasn't sure whether or not you were are of this pattern. I admit one of my weaknesses is not always knowing how to say something in the most tactful way. I find people are more sensitive than myself so I have a hard time knowing when I've said something insensitive, or how to say it in a way that's more tactful. How could I have said that in a professional manner?

On 3/2/2019 4:16 PM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> Oh sorry, how would I say that statement in a more professional demeanor? I genuinely wasn't sure whether or not you were are of this pattern. I admit one of my weaknesses is not always knowing how to say something in the most tactful way. I find people are more sensitive than myself so I have a hard time knowing when I've said something insensitive, or how to say it in a way that's more tactful. How could I have said that in a professional manner?

Thanks for asking.

You could say that what I responded to wasn't the salient part of the post, and summarize what you consider to be the most important.

---

In general, the following would be considered inappropriate in a professional setting (not just here, really anywhere):

1. impugning the motives of others

2. questioning others' intelligence, competence or mental stability

3. believing one's argument is so compelling that others must have been secretly convinced, and are continuing to disagree out of dishonesty, cussedness or attempts to save face

4. obsequiousness

It's discouraged because it is highly unlikely to produce useful results.

BTW, I'll often write a rant, then put it in my drafts folder. Looking at it an hour later, I almost always sigh and just delete it.

On Sunday, 3 March 2019 at 02:33:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/2/2019 4:16 PM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> Oh sorry, how would I say that statement in a more professional demeanor? I genuinely wasn't sure whether or not you were are of this pattern. I admit one of my weaknesses is not always knowing how to say something in the most tactful way. I find people are more sensitive than myself so I have a hard time knowing when I've said something insensitive, or how to say it in a way that's more tactful. How could I have said that in a professional manner?
>
> Thanks for asking.
>
> You could say that what I responded to wasn't the salient part of the post, and summarize what you consider to be the most important.
>
> ---
>
> In general, the following would be considered inappropriate in a professional setting (not just here, really anywhere):
>
> 1. impugning the motives of others
>
> 2. questioning others' intelligence, competence or mental stability
>
> 3. believing one's argument is so compelling that others must have been secretly convinced, and are continuing to disagree out of dishonesty, cussedness or attempts to save face
>
> 4. obsequiousness
>
> It's discouraged because it is highly unlikely to produce useful results.
>
> BTW, I'll often write a rant, then put it in my drafts folder. Looking at it an hour later, I almost always sigh and just delete it.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to this one. I'm putting up a wiki:

https://wiki.dlang.org/?title=Guidelines_for_Professional_Conduct

The rest of this response is an effort to get clarification on your guidelines and hopefully put together a good wiki for them.

As I read these and think about them I'm having a hard time understanding some of these guidelines.  For example, "impugning the motives of others".  In simple terms I understand this to mean "accusing someone of having sinister motives".  In my mind, if someone is behaving in a way that appears to be caused by sinister motives, wouldn't you want to point that out and ask them about it? Either you want to bring those sinister motives to light or hopefully they explain what their motives actually are and it bring better cooperative understanding.  How do you rectify this and remain professional?

In the wiki I rewrote number 2 as "Avoid personal attacks.  Avoid insulting another's intelligence, competence or mental stability.".  Feel free to modify it of course.

> 3. believing one's argument is so compelling that others must have been secretly convinced, and are continuing to disagree out of dishonesty, cussedness or attempts to save face

This one is confusing to me.  It doesn't appear to be a guideline for professional conduct, more like a guideline to life and how to view other people.  It sounds like you're saying we should assume that people are always "open minded" and that they never let pride get in the way of things.  Is this correct or did I misunderstand?  If so then this doesn't really match my own life experience with myself or other people.  I try my best to remain open minded but I realize my mind constantly wants to "pick a side" and I have to actively fight that tendency.  My own experience seems very consistent with how I see other people behave as well.  Do you hold a different view on this?


> 4. obsequiousness

Had to look this one up, but even after that I'm not sure what you meant by this one.

On Sunday, 3 March 2019 at 16:29:03 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:

>
> Thanks for taking the time to respond to this one. I'm putting up a wiki:
>
> https://wiki.dlang.org/?title=Guidelines_for_Professional_Conduct
>
> The rest of this response is an effort to get clarification on your guidelines and hopefully put together a good wiki for them.
>

>
>> 4. obsequiousness
>
> Had to look this one up, but even after that I'm not sure what you meant by this one.

It means, don't suck up to Walter/Andrei to curry favour with them.

Jonathan, you have a high signal to noise ratio and you are usually very 'professional'. I think your time would be better spent thinking/designing/coding than updating wiki pages about social issues.

But in any case, I'll add a few personal thoughts on my own rules for contributing to forums, perhaps others will find them beneficial.

1) Don't post when you are angry.

2) Target / address all the readers of the comment, not just the person who posted the comment you are replying to. Trying to 'win the argument' with the poster who you are replying to is nearly always a waste of time and just ends up in aggravation and even lost sleep.

3) Always be polite even when someone is being gratuitously rude and insulting.

4) Give people the benefit of the doubt.

Readers will notice, these rules are not a recipe to win a technical argument. Technical discussion is the interesting part of the debate, but in the absence of the social rules it can quickly descend into a slanging match.

On 3/3/2019 8:29 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> Thanks for taking the time to respond to this one. I'm putting up a wiki:
> 
> https://wiki.dlang.org/?title=Guidelines_for_Professional_Conduct

Please don't. We're about D, we're not about being any sort of authority on manners. I particularly don't want to codify things in a way that becomes something written in a lawyerly fashion for people looking to conform to the letter yet violate the spirit.

I suggest anyone looking for an authority on it to pick out one of the "Emily Post" books on Amazon.


> TFor example, "impugning the motives of others".  In simple terms I understand this to mean "accusing someone of having sinister motives".  In my mind, if someone is behaving in a way that appears to be caused by sinister motives, wouldn't you want to point that out and ask them about it?

No. It is extremely rude to do so, and in every case I know of the accuser was wrong about it.


>> 3. believing one's argument is so compelling that others must have been secretly convinced, and are continuing to disagree out of dishonesty, cussedness or attempts to save face
> 
> This one is confusing to me.  It doesn't appear to be a guideline for professional conduct, more like a guideline to life and how to view other people.

The two are the same.


> It sounds like you're saying we should assume that people are always "open minded" and that they never let pride get in the way of things.  Is this correct or did I misunderstand?

It's a misunderstanding. It's not about the Bob continuing to disagree, it's
about Fred asserting that Bob couldn't honestly disagree, that Bob must be trying to save face.

I've seen (3) many times in this forum, and don't care to see it again. No, I'm not going to identify particular instances.

I'm reminded of something a lawyer told me long ago:

1. When the law is on your side, argue the law.
2. When justice is on your side, argue for justice.
3. When neither the law nor justice is on your side, engage in character assassination.

On Monday, 4 March 2019 at 06:41:36 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/3/2019 8:29 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> Thanks for taking the time to respond to this one. I'm putting up a wiki:
>> 
>> https://wiki.dlang.org/?title=Guidelines_for_Professional_Conduct
>
> Please don't. We're about D, we're not about being any sort of authority on manners. I particularly don't want to codify things in a way that becomes something written in a lawyerly fashion for people looking to conform to the letter yet violate the spirit.

I can appreciate this argument as earlier in this thread I was just using the same argument to describe a problem with the current DIP process.  That people are rigidly adhering to the process and forgetting the spirit of it.

My issue here is that these guidelines are not obvious to me and I've seen others question what they are as well. That being said, I think your concern of "rigid adherence" can be addressed by being careful with how the guidelines are presented. This is why I changed the wording in your response from

    "do not do X".

to
    "avoid X" and "consider X"


Because of your concern, I've also added a statement that these are not rules to be followed to the letter and included a list of "goals" to describe the "sprit of the guidelines".  I'm not sure what these goals are so I just included one and am hoping for it to be filled in by the leadership.

>
> I suggest anyone looking for an authority on it to pick out one of the "Emily Post" books on Amazon.

At work I have also been known to be "intimidating" at times and can come off as rude and insensitive.  I know you are probably shocked!  I don't want to be this way and I try hard not to be.  I take this stuff seriously and I am taking your suggestions seriously.  I see a fair number of books, which ones would you specifically recommend?

>
>
>> TFor example, "impugning the motives of others".  In simple terms I understand this to mean "accusing someone of having sinister motives".  In my mind, if someone is behaving in a way that appears to be caused by sinister motives, wouldn't you want to point that out and ask them about it?
>
> No. It is extremely rude to do so, and in every case I know of the accuser was wrong about it.

This is very interesting to me. To clarify, you're saying that if you suspect someone has sinister motives that you shouldn't say anything about it. This is very contradictory to my current world view. I've come to believe that if something is wrong then you should bring it out in the open so that it can be resolved rather than letting it simmer and get worse. However, I also believe that the way in which you discuss it is VERY IMPORTANT and is often the deciding factor in whether or not it can be resolved.  So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that some things should never be discussed.  Futhermore, if you think someone has bad motives, you're probably wrong, so you should drop it and not ask the person what their motives actually are. This is so fundamentally different to how I think. I will have to think on this more and reconsider my current beliefs I listed above.

>
>
>>> 3. believing one's argument is so compelling that others must have been secretly convinced, and are continuing to disagree out of dishonesty, cussedness or attempts to save face
>> 
>> This one is confusing to me.  It doesn't appear to be a guideline for professional conduct, more like a guideline to life and how to view other people.
>
> The two are the same.
>
>
>> It sounds like you're saying we should assume that people are always "open minded" and that they never let pride get in the way of things.  Is this correct or did I misunderstand?
>
> It's a misunderstanding. It's not about the Bob continuing to disagree, it's
> about Fred asserting that Bob couldn't honestly disagree, that Bob must be trying to save face.
>
> I've seen (3) many times in this forum, and don't care to see it again. No, I'm not going to identify particular instances.
>
> I'm reminded of something a lawyer told me long ago:
>
> 1. When the law is on your side, argue the law.
> 2. When justice is on your side, argue for justice.
> 3. When neither the law nor justice is on your side, engage in character assassination.

I think you're reasoning here matches that previous one.  You're saying that if you suspect someone isn't being convinced by your argument because of some other reason besides your argument, you're probably wrong.  It's unlikely that the person who disagrees with you is doing so because they dislike you or because they have an agenda. You shouldn't ask them about it because doing so would be rude and it's unlikely that it's true. So just assume you're suspicions are wrong and continue.

I would say I agree with this up to a point.  I personally try to give people the "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to these things.  However, I would stipulate that if you see what appears to be repeated vindictive behavior then at some point it should be addressed and discussed between the parties.

On Sunday, 3 March 2019 at 20:16:11 UTC, Abdulhaq wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 March 2019 at 16:29:03 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to respond to this one. I'm putting up a wiki:
>>
>> https://wiki.dlang.org/?title=Guidelines_for_Professional_Conduct
>>
>> The rest of this response is an effort to get clarification on your guidelines and hopefully put together a good wiki for them.
>>
>
>>
>>> 4. obsequiousness
>>
>> Had to look this one up, but even after that I'm not sure what you meant by this one.
>
> It means, don't suck up to Walter/Andrei to curry favour with them.
>
> Jonathan, you have a high signal to noise ratio and you are usually very 'professional'. I think your time would be better spent thinking/designing/coding than updating wiki pages about social issues.

Thanks for the feedback.  Unfortunately this isn't the first time or the first person who has accused me of being "unprofessional".  Because of this I take it seriously and I'm trying to be better.  I think it can be good to take some time to self-reflect and possibly re-adjust yourself.

>
> But in any case, I'll add a few personal thoughts on my own rules for contributing to forums, perhaps others will find them beneficial.
>
> 1) Don't post when you are angry.
>
> 2) Target / address all the readers of the comment, not just the person who posted the comment you are replying to. Trying to 'win the argument' with the poster who you are replying to is nearly always a waste of time and just ends up in aggravation and even lost sleep.
>
> 3) Always be polite even when someone is being gratuitously rude and insulting.
>
> 4) Give people the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Readers will notice, these rules are not a recipe to win a technical argument. Technical discussion is the interesting part of the debate, but in the absence of the social rules it can quickly descend into a slanging match.

These are good tips. I know you said I shouldn't spend time on the wiki but I think it's worth the effort to include them.  I've added a "Tips" section.

On 3/4/2019 5:03 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> Because of your concern, I've also added a statement that these are not rules to be followed to the letter and included a list of "goals" to describe the "sprit of the guidelines".  I'm not sure what these goals are so I just included one and am hoping for it to be filled in by the leadership.

I don't wish to get into any debate that nitpicks about what is and is not professional conduct. It's a hopeless debate, as hopeless as trying to codify the difference between art and porn. As far as the forums go, the decision will be made by the moderators. It's usually pretty clear, and we'll discuss among ourselves any problematic cases.


>> I suggest anyone looking for an authority on it to pick out one of the "Emily Post" books on Amazon.
> 
> At work I have also been known to be "intimidating" at times and can come off as rude and insensitive.  I know you are probably shocked!  I don't want to be this way and I try hard not to be. I take this stuff seriously and I am taking your suggestions seriously.  I see a fair number of books, which ones would you specifically recommend?

For starters, "How To Win Friends and Influence People" by Carnegie is a long-standing classic for good reason.

And, "Emily Post's Etiquette".

When I was growing up, I noticed something interesting. I was able to recognize people that were less "mature" than I was, but not more "mature". I could only see my maturation in hindsight. I think it's similar with manners.

BTW, I think it's very good of you to recognize issues and work to resolve them. I have a lot of respect for that. But don't expect to just read a book and get better at it. It's a lifelong struggle. I've been working on mine since I first read HTWFaIP as a teenager.


> This is very interesting to me. To clarify, you're saying that if you suspect someone has sinister motives that you shouldn't say anything about it. This is very contradictory to my current world view. I've come to believe that if something is wrong then you should bring it out in the open so that it can be resolved rather than letting it simmer and get worse. However, I also believe that the way in which you discuss it is VERY IMPORTANT and is often the deciding factor in whether or not it can be resolved. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that some things should never be discussed.  Futhermore, if you think someone has bad motives, you're probably wrong, so you should drop it and not ask the person what their motives actually are. This is so fundamentally different to how I think. I will have to think on this more and reconsider my current beliefs I listed above.

Even if you're right about their motives, you'll never resolve it by bringing it out into the open. You'll just make them mad at you.


> However, I would stipulate that if you see what appears to be repeated vindictive behavior then at some point it should be addressed and discussed between the parties.

Vindictive behavior is something entirely different from failing to find one's argument compelling.

On Monday, 4 March 2019 at 06:41:36 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> I'm reminded of something a lawyer told me long ago:
>
> 1. When the law is on your side, argue the law.
> 2. When justice is on your side, argue for justice.
> 3. When neither the law nor justice is on your side, engage in character assassination.

That's doesn't sound like a very good lawyer. Law is just someone made up and justice is whatever people perceive it to be. There's plenty you can do other than those 3 things.