There really needs to be some moderation

[Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 18 June 2017 at 20:04:48 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 June 2017 at 11:59:34 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> As D continues to grow, there will be messages like this 
>> posted more frequently. Imagine that you work at a large 
>> company and are considering adopting D so you decide to check 
>> out the forum.
>>
>> Posts like this have to be deleted from the website and users 
>> that post such things need to be banned. Like it or not, this 
>> is marketing.
>
> I strongly disagree about deletion and banning.  The moment you 
> start removing dissenting opinions, you move towards a bubble 
> where you get isolated from the world.  These people are 
> detailing real frustrations that they had, albeit in a shrill 
> manner, feedback that doesn't hurt.
>
> As for their posts affecting corporate perception, better they 
> see the truth now and know what they're getting into, rather 
> than the companies coming in here and ranting later, only to 
> get their posts deleted too! :D

Yes - from my perspective, the way you know something is true is 
if you can recognise it as potentially such and expose it to 
critique and there hasn't been a _good_ argument against it.  
It's certainly true that the more corporate types will be put off 
by the directness and passion of discussions here, but I really 
don't think they are likely to be earlier adopters of D.  The 
people who will be early adopters are discerning principals who 
have the ability to make decisions personally and bear the 
consequences rather than managerial agent types operating in a 
world where social perception dominates.  The managerial types 
will come later - that's the price of success that it draws a 
different kind of person.  From a hiring perspective, it's a 
positive thing that very few people are involved with D primarily 
for careerist reasons - even though I can think of quite a few 
people for whom it's turning out to be pretty good indeed, and 
where taking a more conventional route would not have had this 
payoff over time.

This being said, there is only one problem which is that anyone 
can say anything and until you know who is insightful then it's 
not in the beginning obvious.  Some people here (not many) for 
example that are highly intelligent are constantly criticising 
the direction of the language - but I'm really not sure they do 
much in D at all - they just like hanging out here and arguing: 
for them it is like sports.

So I think people should earn the right to be listened to and who 
they are and what they have contributed sets the context for how 
one should understand a passionate critique, even rant.  If Manu, 
for example, (I am thinking of a while back) expresses 
frustration and in very specific terms about infelicities then 
that's something we should take seriously because it's evident 
that he cares about the language and community and would just 
like to remove such infelicities because they get in the way of 
it being adopted by colleagues and associates.  We might not be 
able to change much in the short term, but such a thing one 
should take seriously.

As Walter said you should listen to your current best customers 
not the people who give you friendly 'free advice' when they do 
not actually have skin in the game.  A community isn't a 
democracy - you listen to people who have shown they know what 
they are talking about, and the amount of noise people make is 
not very related to how much insightful they have to say.