Forum moderation policy idea: No overly combative debating

[NotYouAgain]

On Saturday, 4 May 2024 at 16:01:17 UTC, Dukc wrote:
> 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?

You should direct this towards those who insert themselves into 
discussions for no other reason that to derail it.

It's that attempt to derail it, that you need to fight against.

There is nothing at all wrong with discussing the idea of D 
allowing a class to be an encapsulated type. Thats what I 
attempted to do. But people who don't like the idea, did what 
they always do.. derail the discussion to ensure it goes no 
futher.

D3 should have @safe by default, module-private by default and 
have class level encapsulation - i.e private(this). Not D2 of 
course, but D3. But certain people are so stuck in their ways, 
that these ideas will inevitably be argued and debated in a way 
that is sometimes not pleasant to onlookers.

But if you want change, that sometimes the only way change can 
occur.

But I don't recall every descending to derogatory rhetoric, such 
as calling someone an oo...phile. Nor would I.