bad behaviour and manipulation

[Sean Kelly]

Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
> 
> Ehm. It's much simpler than that. The problem with calumny, as opposed 
> to a technical argument, is that there is little meaningful defense one 
> can put forth, particularly in a newsgroup setting. That's why in any 
> newsgroup debate sticking to the technical argument is important, while 
> attacking the person is just an unprofessional cheap shot. The suggested 
> exercise of putting oneself on the receiving position of a personal 
> attack was meant to reveal exactly this issue (not posing as a victim 
> etc.).
> 
> However contradictory a technical argument might get, it just works to 
> follow this simple policy - stick to the technical points being made by 
> others, and put forth technical points as well. Progress can be made and 
> everybody can leave the discussion enriched. This has made my and 
> others' participation to moderated newsgroup enjoyable and productive - 
> indeed, I can't imagine myself programming in C++ or in general without 
> the newsgroups comp.lang.c++.moderated or comp.std.c++. It looks, 
> however, that on an unmoderated newsgroup technical ability is second to 
> the willingness of using potshots and personal attacks in winning an 
> argument.

My wife pointed something out to me yesterday regarding all this that 
seems worth mentioning here.  In a work environment, it is generally a 
bad idea to let grievances fester because doing so can sabotage 
productivity and lead to divisions in the group.  Instead, they are 
typically aired in a calm and rational manner and then the team 
hopefully moves on unencumbered by such feelings.

As you have said however, online discussions tend to do the opposite. 
The lack of visual cues for determining intent tends to foster 
misunderstandings, and physical separation gives rise to personal 
attacks that are left unaddressed in the interest of the conversation at 
hand.

I suppose the difference between the two situations is that in the 
former, a team of employees must work together closely, while online, 
people can simply choose not to interact with one another, or to do so 
in a limited manner.  Over time, I have noticed that these D newsgroups 
tend to behave somewhat more like a work environment than they do a 
typical online forum.  The number of active participants is a fairly 
small and regular group, and many know one another fairly well all 
things considered.

So both approaches for resolving conflict are de rigueur in different 
contexts, and given the type of community which seems to have developed 
here, I think both are to be expected based on the various participants' 
backgrounds, personal tastes, and perhaps their feeling of closeness to 
the community.  In particular, I would expect more of a work-oriented 
response from members of the Tango team (of which both John and Kris are 
a part), largely because it is essentially a development team that by 
necessity works together in an online context, within the larger context 
of the D community as a whole.

I do not think there is any need to comment on any of what was said 
directly, but I do think it would be a mistake to believe that either 
party feels they are acting in any but a constructive manner.  In fact, 
I think recent events suggest that some of the more vocal participants 
have accepted you as a member of this community, in their own way.  If 
not, there would be no reason to "clear the air" in such a manner, even 
if what was said may have been hurtful.


Sean