Re: Bye

Marshall wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
> >
> > Let the asshole get away with it.
>
> It's really not a question of "letting" anyone do anything.
> Anyone can post any string of characters. I have no
> way of sanctioning them if their posts don't meet my
> standards, regardless of whether my standards are
> those of impeccable politeness, strict logic, topicality,
> or fashion sense.
>
> As far as calling people on what they say, the last
> time I took up the cause of politeness, there were
> people coming out of the woodwork to curse me and
> tell me how wrong I was, and not much support for
> my position. It is extremely fatiguing (as I am sure
> you are aware.) It doesn't seem to help at all, and
> worse, does nothing to further my understanding
> of database theory, which, at the end of the day,
> is the reason I am here.
>
> Who knows? Maybe the rules of polite society are
> inapplicable in an online forum. After all, they were
> designed for face-to-face contact, and we don't
> have that here. We don't have a situation where
> the various participants all belong to the same
> social circle.
>
> Even more relevant, it is, strictly speaking, not polite
> to point out the failings of others, even if those
> failings are at politeness itself. So my very idea
> of offering unsolicited correction of other people's
> behavior is unsound at its core. It is a dilemma.
>
> I have on occasion imagined that we could split the
> group, and have comp.databases.theory.polite
> and comp.database.theory.rude. Ha ha! Of course,
> the rude people would get big laughs out of behaving
> rudely in the polite group, and laugh endlessly about
> our inability to keep them out. Again, the lack of
> sanctions is key. In a very real sense, *all* newsgroups
> end in ".polite" and all the rude people ignore that fact.
> Contempt for the standards of civil behaviour is the
> very definition of rudeness.
>
> What if we did have sanctions? What if we could set
> some standards, publish them, and exclude people
> who didn't meet the standards? What standards
> would we set?

I think you and David have both suggested that attacking arguments and statements with counter-arguments is fine, attacking people is not. That seems like a good starting point. Additionally, ad hominem and other logical fallacies should be cautioned against. Attacking questions and telling someone they have no right to ask them should be done only in line with some scope for the ng. Few will be interested in the entire scope of the group, so some guidelines about the full scope might be in order, suggesting how one should ignore threads they have no interest in instead of jumping to threads outside of their own area of interest and attacking people because their area of interest is different.

It also "feels like" some of the recent noisy people blasting me might know either BB or Pascal, perhaps even arriving here with a mission. I have not met one single person on the ng in person ever. I'm coming unarmed into a neighborhood where there seems to be a gang of bullies. Anyone who suggests that others are acting amiss gets the same gang jumping on them. So perhaps there could be something similar to a neighborhood watch where those who want to keep honest dialog going are empowered in some way to keep the bullies from taking over the streets.  I don't know what that might look like, but it would require some organization rather than the "each man for himself" approach that the rest of the neighborhood has now. That makes it very intimidating for anyone to say anything when bullies start in on someone. There are a few of you that try to make statements to set the course of a discussion right again, but with current conditions it is very difficult for someone who doesn't want to be the brunt of the next attack to speak up when a rape is taking place.

> How would we decide what is allowed?
> Trying to actually come up with a set of rules that
> would work made me realize just how problematic
> this is.

Yes, I'm sure.

> I am sorry you are having this experience here.
> I am sympathetic; I really am. In my opinion,
> you are one of the best posters c.d.t. has.

I would much sooner excuse myself than lose mAsterdam from the group. I come with a ton of questions and opinions, but few answers. So, while I try to give back when I can, I do not have nearly as much to give as mAsterdam. mAsterdam, don't leave.

Someone might have noticed from the times I posted yesterday that I was unable to sleep with this horrendous attacks I got when asking a question. I think I might let the bullies drive me out because I don't need to feel this lousy or endanger my health. The terrorists have won. I'm outta here. You guys know where to find me in the future if the group is ever to a point where it can tolerate my questions and perspective again. I'll keep my blog going, so feel free to post comments there.

Thanks a bunch to those who have been helpful. Take care. --dawn Received on Tue May 30 2006 - 05:35:02 CEST