Forum moderation policy idea: No overly combative debating

[Dukc]

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?