• Abusive language on Debian lists

    From Eldon Koyle@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 10 02:50:02 2021
    I have noticed a pattern on Debian lists where we see:

    1) a polarizing issue is brought up on the list

    1a) (optional) there is some discussion with a few interesting points

    2) people start arguing (useful debate has ended)

    3) people start using offensive language somehow expecting it to help the situation (while also feeling justified in breaking the rules because
    someone else broke a different, "more important" rule)

    4) someone points out the offensive language in #4 is, in fact, against
    the rules

    5) someone claims that the act of pointing out the offensive language detracts from the argument^Wdiscussion or human dignity or what have you (I think it was actually the decision to break the "lesser" rule)

    I would like to propose that we shorten this cycle by simply adding a rule
    to bounce messages to public lists at #3 (ie. those containing language that
    is unquestionably against both the Code of Conduct and the mailing list code
    of conduct) with a message asking the sender to please revise their message
    and links to the relevant documents stating what is acceptable (as if they don't already know). The common belief seems to be that "we are all adults here", but we haven't been acting that way.

    If there are cries about censorship, I guess we could make the bounce a "warning: you are about to break the rules so blatantly that software can figure it out in front of the whole internet, do you want to continue?" --
    but I think we should also have more deterrents for breaking the rules in
    this case.

    --
    Eldon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thaddeus H. Black@21:1/5 to Eldon Koyle on Sat Apr 10 03:50:01 2021
    On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 06:22:57PM -0600, Eldon Koyle wrote:
    I have noticed a pattern on Debian lists where we see:

    1) a polarizing issue is brought up on the list

    1a) (optional) there is some discussion with a few interesting points

    2) people start arguing (useful debate has ended)

    Dunbar's number.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEM1APDU+pwMhnuF4GcGMmQy2FIrwFAmBw+ewACgkQcGMmQy2F Irzs7A//dsK9RWBHzqLOHOnE026CoQFOkkQYvqP+AI2WBX8xd+SfB2y9D3P/zVJP hPWw6UHpp11vPanzBLGN/sctTKjVvDDYl+id3fpksmOL6g9IRGyXkwlwkG0fGatC SQmQ3Lezn/+HxCx0Xa8s5IljZd3jaX3tUF6DBVVFYemrSAh4RnFCK1eAaK3hBP5w G/dhscr9DkjfkQlpyFCJmc4w9uoPy8rs2hjoTmFnx7wwkz2jRWHIU39Sec8Hf4If w0iDQwNEJJScdVVakVkXyJ0KXtL4DGEjl2qWyE2pNOxam5cEPVPuC9sGzwkmWn2/ UW1zL+6Jh5C7g3lJjTsRTczDhE0kdaVCMBgPZCQMl3cj6LYKm629FXGrvmA4+evl B6POva4Xk6ao3bMn/01CunR8k18k14ieh+suHqDsQaJE7kTkPET18pormSJwMK4U n0pbp8rVv8IBjLIMeMrDBipvqJ3bKJQxQBLhIk8ByreafhP4LEqJDhoEntfvtgkS irEI3RI0TtAMOaxcDdrExcWUFZuncVfBz8wGeDPEoMKyDAFL4Riq3fFFzveL6ULF pk1FumNl5OirFhAKKb8JDnpBkVNEx9U5WjSFbnH9Qu1P3H+qffVPk2ahlnpAAVCg ocfkS/898OVLgkN5r0rq/ZPUpARbq/ZHwa7ndmSbEbExXYyC4mU=
    =Ch1l
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tomas@tuxteam.de@21:1/5 to Eldon Koyle on Sat Apr 10 10:00:02 2021
    On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 06:22:57PM -0600, Eldon Koyle wrote:
    I have noticed a pattern on Debian lists where we see:

    [...]

    I would like to propose that we shorten this cycle by simply adding a rule
    to bounce messages to public lists at #3 [...]

    The problem with this is... who is going to do that?

    - If you have just a few in charge, their biases will dominate:
    what is and is not offending is bound to interpretation;
    - if you have some formal process in charge (voting, etc.),
    someone has to bear its burden;
    - etc. etc.

    In short, you are posing That One Very Hard Question™: how does
    a group of people manage "getting along together"?

    You're not the first one to pose it, mind you :-)

    I think the current set-up in the Debian mailing lists is a good
    equilibrium: there is a moderation, but it only intervenes in
    exceptional cases. Usually, intervention is from the participants
    in the list.

    I think also that if you want to change things you should take
    that equilibrium into account and move from there, instead of
    trying to "make a new world from scratch". Engineering *is*
    messy :-)

    To give backing to a welcoming "culture", there is the Code of
    Conduct.

    On debian-user@ there is even a regular posting, as a reminder
    (a recently started experiment): "debian-user list info and
    guidelines (FAQ)", a reminiscence of the regular postings whic
    were customary in good old Usenet times.

    Note that this all needs care & feeding -- thanks & kudos for
    the above go to Andrew M.A. Cater.

    Cheers
    - t

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAmBxVdQACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZS0ACfbDkV3kcOO6fEJoA8ec2vuXNU yKEAn27BXY2P9lqFEtnm4Eb5eBKGindj
    =ff7+
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Miles Fidelman@21:1/5 to Eldon Koyle on Sat Apr 10 17:10:01 2021
    This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
    Eldon Koyle wrote:
    I have noticed a pattern on Debian lists where we see:

    1) a polarizing issue is brought up on the list

    1a) (optional) there is some discussion with a few interesting points

    2) people start arguing (useful debate has ended)

    3) people start using offensive language somehow expecting it to help the situation (while also feeling justified in breaking the rules because
    someone else broke a different, "more important" rule)

    4) someone points out the offensive language in #4 is, in fact, against the rules

    5) someone claims that the act of pointing out the offensive language detracts from the argument^Wdiscussion or human dignity or what have you (I think it was actually the decision to break the "lesser" rule)

    I would like to propose that we shorten this cycle by simply adding a rule
    to bounce messages to public lists at #3 (ie. those containing language that is unquestionably against both the Code of Conduct and the mailing list code of conduct) with a message asking the sender to please revise their message and links to the relevant documents stating what is acceptable (as if they don't already know). The common belief seems to be that "we are all adults here", but we haven't been acting that way.

    If there are cries about censorship, I guess we could make the bounce a "warning: you are about to break the rules so blatantly that software can figure it out in front of the whole internet, do you want to continue?" -- but I think we should also have more deterrents for breaking the rules in this case.

    Can we just go back to Godwin's law?

    Miles Fidelman

    --
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
    In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra

    Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
    Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
    In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
    nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown


    <html>
    <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
    </head>
    <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Eldon Koyle wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAKJRP3QdTL8yT_3agxa4SNxqoOSLtL=0ANRr_Z7mKEZHQzH+_g@mail.gmail.com">
    <pre wrap="">I have noticed a pattern on Debian lists where we see:

    1) a polarizing issue is brought up on the list

    1a) (optional) there is some discussion with a few interesting points

    2) people start arguing (useful debate has ended)

    3) people start using offensive language somehow expecting it to help the situation (while also feeling justified in breaking the rules because
    someone else broke a different, "more important" rule)

    4) someone points out the offensive language in #4 is, in fact, against
    the rules

    5) someone claims that the act of pointing out the offensive language detracts from the argument^Wdiscussion or human dignity or what have you (I think it was actually the decision to break the "lesser" rule)

    I would like to propose that we shorten this cycle by simply adding a rule
    to bounce messages to public lists at #3 (ie. those containing language that
    is unquestionably against both the Code of Conduct and the mailing list code
    of conduct) with a message asking the sender to please revise their message
    and links to the relevant documents stating what is acceptable (as if they don't already know). The common belief seems to be that "we are all adults here", but we haven't been acting that way.

    If there are cries about censorship, I guess we could make the bounce a "warning: you are about to break the rules so blatantly that software can figure it out in front of the whole internet, do you want to continue?" --
    but I think we should also have more deterrents for breaking the rules in
    this case.

    </pre>
    </blockquote>
    Can we just go back to Godwin's law?  <br>
    <br>
    Miles Fidelman<br>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
    In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra

    Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
    Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
    In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
    nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown</pre>
    </body>
    </html>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eldon Koyle@21:1/5 to tomas@tuxteam.de on Sun Apr 11 10:20:01 2021
    On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 1:52 AM <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:

    On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 06:22:57PM -0600, Eldon Koyle wrote:
    I have noticed a pattern on Debian lists where we see:

    [...]

    I would like to propose that we shorten this cycle by simply adding a rule to bounce messages to public lists at #3 [...]

    The problem with this is... who is going to do that?

    - If you have just a few in charge, their biases will dominate:
    what is and is not offending is bound to interpretation;
    - if you have some formal process in charge (voting, etc.),
    someone has to bear its burden;
    - etc. etc.

    In short, you are posing That One Very Hard Question™: how does
    a group of people manage "getting along together"?

    You're not the first one to pose it, mind you :-)

    I think the current set-up in the Debian mailing lists is a good
    equilibrium: there is a moderation, but it only intervenes in
    exceptional cases. Usually, intervention is from the participants
    in the list.

    <snip>

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

    I think I did a bad job of explaining. I'm talking about English words that universally accepted as swearing. I have not seen this class of words used constructively in lists, and they are already forbidden.

    I don't think it would be fair to ask moderators to police these words.
    There would be a cost to them both in time and in relationships with others.

    I feel these words always contribute to a toxic environment, however they
    are being used intentionally by people I respect who hold a lot of influence
    in this group, in open defiance of the accepted rules. Using a small shell script (or regex) to catch the strongest of language (that should never be
    used anyway) seems like a simple way to slow escalation in many cases.

    --
    Eldon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrei POPESCU@21:1/5 to Eldon Koyle on Sun Apr 11 11:10:01 2021
    On Du, 11 apr 21, 00:56:04, Eldon Koyle wrote:

    I feel these words always contribute to a toxic environment, however they
    are being used intentionally by people I respect who hold a lot of influence in this group, in open defiance of the accepted rules. Using a small shell script (or regex) to catch the strongest of language (that should never be used anyway) seems like a simple way to slow escalation in many cases.

    That would make it very difficult to post verbatim excerpts of some code comments or changelogs, and these are just some common examples.

    How would you even discuss the brainfuck programming language and
    associated packages (already in Debian)?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck

    Kind regards,
    Andrei
    --
    http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE5E64jOIbhY42OXqk/8eFRO8iNBwFAmBys7oACgkQ/8eFRO8i NByKVw//YdzZcsF1IYQ4u+hHOwuWsYJFhcsGNQSIyeZd2j9VKQTjJSZJIfS0EuK1 NaSkUh6lXdAX1PjtraSJKE4EoWvwoo5l935/9X51Hk9vZoJrGuNfdpsAerKDiuP6 tTdFO4eob1QxnW8af10Er5kicHBDrN6ma8/fQH/LCnwQpZ7U/lajtQ8MoX8J3djm Erwnzb+t4yv7rmQgu2sDJ8/gvTOpZBZS1uZpXkPlMfkaCGm3CerydPnpE1iMpYQR v2IGpK60mqgunD+Enx5J+ftJNdaOvv3oGtQ/c9rrcHsEmikqj52uCebNqB2sCcrY 9ro2jBjL0eWfnTm71XQdOJy2Iuji+0/XlRooaycC7DWIIi5QZDI81t88smdEhkXK h02rjpWvXrfQJrIwPMzL/YzsYJQjPOBq5F0w5BfYpNWKPEs87J8C7WCuf7Z/aRMq 2OCGd4+m0VqZrcRKCTihwGfXABB3cONhX8sqImsyd0rrSbjrJSj455PWp9iMryL5 BMW10FWL2Rt8F5sfsnOPF5UODnITm3P6o6zBRUE2x4BPFQ0GHJb/0HkndeLXfm+t hpw2esUcFxDmLnUSH+gIzWrFAzBd9YxYrtbzgnjgGsYL80C9SlCARHAdceZBPtYZ vKu0isPfNUqIibfQgDJ4KE01u4gF8hmQBOSbpKdrRLcQJyNSIxI=
    =HhVs
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tomas@tuxteam.de@21:1/5 to Eldon Koyle on Sun Apr 11 12:00:01 2021
    On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:56:04AM -0600, Eldon Koyle wrote:

    [...]

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

    I think I did a bad job of explaining. I'm talking about English words that universally accepted as swearing. I have not seen this class of words used constructively in lists, and they are already forbidden.

    Ah, got your point now.

    I don't think it would be fair to ask moderators to police these words.
    There would be a cost to them both in time and in relationships with others.

    I feel these words always contribute to a toxic environment, however they
    are being used intentionally by people I respect who hold a lot of influence in this group, in open defiance of the accepted rules. Using a small shell script (or regex) to catch the strongest of language (that should never be used anyway) seems like a simple way to slow escalation in many cases.

    Tough point. Apart from more technical considerations, as Andrei has
    posed in his other reply, I would like to pose a social one: Banning
    "some words" from the language just papers over the real issue: whether
    the real intention or the actual effect is to offend someone.

    The latter issues are complex social issues and can only be solved by
    humans (or so I hope: the idea of some AI doing this has a rather
    dystopian flavour to me, at least).

    So in the end, I think the only real way is to raise awareness, with
    the goal tha /we all/ try to help keeing a friendly tone.

    It's a fine line to walk, between intervening (good) and vigilante
    (perhaps too much), and one important point is to try not to assume
    malice when something comes across as offensive, but still try to
    explain to the original poster why I perceive his/her post as such.

    Difficult, because views and sensibilities are extremely diverse
    in such a big and widespread community as ours is.

    Cheers
    - t

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAmByxVoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb/ygCff+V682CUMx9PTkzpAzFnB0yX p0IAn13yNFrLaLvkzZUeWDZcLyv/ugCk
    =COP9
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Steigerwald@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 11 12:30:01 2021
    Dear Tomas, dear Debian community,

    tomas@tuxteam.de - 11.04.21, 11:46:02 CEST:
    So in the end, I think the only real way is to raise awareness, with
    the goal tha /we all/ try to help keeing a friendly tone.

    It's a fine line to walk, between intervening (good) and vigilante
    (perhaps too much), and one important point is to try not to assume
    malice when something comes across as offensive, but still try to
    explain to the original poster why I perceive his/her post as such.

    I remember that at the recent KDE Academy meetups, I think the last two,
    there has been some workshop about non-violent communication.

    Maybe it would be an idea to propose something like that for the next
    Debconf or maybe even some online meeting before?

    If you like I can look up or ask about the details for those workshops.
    I did not attend them.

    Best,
    --
    Martin

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sam Hartman@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 11 12:30:01 2021
    "Eldon" == Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> writes:

    Eldon> Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

    Eldon> I think I did a bad job of explaining. I'm talking about
    Eldon> English words that universally accepted as swearing. I have
    Eldon> not seen this class of words used constructively in lists,
    Eldon> and they are already forbidden.

    I'd be against that.
    I think the blanket prohibition of profanity in the list code of
    conduct is outdated and harmful.

    I absolutely agree that profanity directed at an individual-- you are a
    blank-- or at a group is problematic.
    I was not pleased with Steve's original comment that I was copied on in
    private mail before the recipient forwarded to a Debian list.

    But I think a blanket prohibition would be harmful:

    * Sometimes you are quoting others or quoting something with artistic or
    literary value.

    * Tone policing is a thing. Sometimes a cry for help reaches a level
    where profanity captures your emotional state. "I'm so fucking tired
    of being dehumanized."
    And yeah, sometimes you take that to far... "Those fucking insert
    group label here just don't understand." And yes, that's
    inappropriate. But in some important cases rejecting your cry for
    help because of how you phrase it is far more inappropriate.

    * Sometimes profanity directed at a situation really does let you get
    off a little steam. "This situation is a fucking mess. I don't know
    how to help people find empathy and listen to each other."
    And yeah, for me, I actually felt tension release saying that in a
    strong manner like that.
    And yes, it's impolite, and yes, doing it often is problematic.
    But once in a while lets us remember that we're all human.

    --Sam

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tomas@tuxteam.de@21:1/5 to Sam Hartman on Sun Apr 11 13:00:01 2021
    On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 06:08:23AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:

    [...]

    But I think a blanket prohibition would be harmful:

    Yes, I think mutilating language could also miss the mark. That
    doesn't mean that I think language doesn't matter at all (I think
    it does, very much!), and sometimes marking some words as "problematic"
    might be, IMHO a good idea. But the aim is rather to raise awarenes --
    each time I issue some "@#%$*!&", I hope I think "could this hurt
    someone?" and behave accordingly.

    So the main goal should to (try to) walk in other people's shoes.
    Or something.

    Cheers
    - t

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAmBy0wkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbTFwCeL7DSCjHz2cmNWX0ZGD/7vdaw h6QAn1MByRqRScUWk3P4LjvOcMMUGPj9
    =l3tf
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sam Hartman@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 11 13:00:01 2021
    "Martin" == Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> writes:

    Martin> I remember that at the recent KDE Academy meetups, I think
    Martin> the last two, there has been some workshop about non-violent
    Martin> communication.

    Martin> Maybe it would be an idea to propose something like that for
    Martin> the next Debconf or maybe even some online meeting before?

    I've found NVC to be incredibly useful.
    I have had no formal training but have read some of their books and then started trying to use it for years.

    NVC is basically a framework/toolkit for dealing with emotions and for connecting with yourself and others.
    It's not really a world view so much as a set of tools.
    If you want connection with others, perhaps it will be effective for
    you.
    It has been for me.

    Some people in the project have gotten NVC training they weren't very
    happy with.
    I'd love to see good NVC training at DebConf.

    Or training in any other empathy framework or similar.

    One complaint i've heard is that the training is expensive.
    In our current climate, "um whatever," is my response.
    I think that any training that helps us work together would be worth its
    weight in modern servers.

    --Sam

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tomas@tuxteam.de@21:1/5 to Martin Steigerwald on Sun Apr 11 13:00:02 2021
    On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:13:06PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
    Dear Tomas, dear Debian community,

    [...]

    I remember that at the recent KDE Academy meetups, I think the last two, there has been some workshop about non-violent communication.

    Maybe it would be an idea to propose something like that for the next Debconf or maybe even some online meeting before?

    If you like I can look up or ask about the details for those workshops.
    I did not attend them.

    That seems to be a good idea. I can't say I'll be at the next Debconf, life seems to be currently against it. But never say never :-)

    Cheers
    - t

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAmBy01MACgkQBcgs9XrR2kboGQCfR0Z00Yd51RGNRPBBCCsmKkus l3gAnAsRzXcbumM1nK2++BjYnI5l46sa
    =+EMk
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Steigerwald@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 11 13:20:01 2021
    Cc'd to you as you cc'd me. I do not really need a Cc though.

    Sam Hartman - 11.04.21, 12:44:17 CEST:
    "Martin" == Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> writes:
    Martin> I remember that at the recent KDE Academy meetups, I think
    Martin> the last two, there has been some workshop about non-violent
    Martin> communication.

    Martin> Maybe it would be an idea to propose something like that for
    Martin> the next Debconf or maybe even some online meeting before?

    I've found NVC to be incredibly useful.
    I have had no formal training but have read some of their books and
    then started trying to use it for years.
    […]
    Some people in the project have gotten NVC training they weren't very
    happy with.
    I'd love to see good NVC training at DebConf.

    Or training in any other empathy framework or similar.

    I found Sedona method to be a gem as well.

    One complaint i've heard is that the training is expensive.
    In our current climate, "um whatever," is my response.
    I think that any training that helps us work together would be worth
    its weight in modern servers.

    It was 2018 – maybe it was repeated later, but I do not find that at the moment:

    Akademy/2018/TrainingNVC: Training in Nonviolent Communication

    https://community.kde.org/Akademy/2018/TrainingNVC

    I have no idea what KDE e.V. paid for the training.

    At least one participant found the training to have been run
    exceptionally:

    Akademy 2018

    https://kshadeslayer.wordpress.com/2018/09/19/akademy-2018/

    There may have been another blog post about it, but that is what I found
    in my news reader at the moment.

    I do not know the trainer.

    That is how much I know at the moment.

    I bet it would be possible to find someone in KDE community who can tell
    more about the training.

    Best,
    --
    Martin

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eldon Koyle@21:1/5 to hartmans@debian.org on Sun Apr 11 21:20:01 2021
    Preface: Some people may consider it petty to care about this. I am not
    trying to be petty. I honestly feel sad and hurt every time I see this language on these lists. The language over the last few weeks has me
    feeling sick inside. I'll admit that I'm likely in a small minority here,
    but I do not believe that I am the only person who feels this way.

    On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 4:08 AM Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> wrote:

    "Eldon" == Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> writes:

    Eldon> Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

    Eldon> I think I did a bad job of explaining. I'm talking about
    Eldon> English words that universally accepted as swearing. I have
    Eldon> not seen this class of words used constructively in lists,
    Eldon> and they are already forbidden.

    I'd be against that.
    I think the blanket prohibition of profanity in the list code of
    conduct is outdated and harmful.


    Does the belief that a rule is harmful somehow nullify the rule? Does the belief that a rule is outdated give you license to disregard it?

    I cannot accept either of these points. If you think the rule needs
    updated, you should go through proper channels to try to update it rather
    than simply disregard it.


    <snip>
    But I think a blanket prohibition would be harmful:

    * Sometimes you are quoting others or quoting something with artistic or
    literary value.

    I have not seen much of this, however as a counterpoint: the FCC is not a tolerant organization. People have subscribed to these lists using packet radio. The language in your last reply was such that the FCC would
    absolutely take official action against anyone who _received_ it (if it came
    to their attention, that is). I hope nobody is doing this anymore, but it makes me sad that we are unwilling to support people doing interesting
    things in a Debian context.


    * Tone policing is a thing. <snip>

    If I understand the argument against tone policing correctly, it is that focusing on the language/tone within the discussion detracts from the main point of the message. If the message were sent back for revision before it
    was posted to the list, I think that would actually be a net win as it
    reduces the chance of tone policing on the list -- especially where it would
    be done by a machine with no emotion involved.

    I think the project at large would have been better off if all of the recent messages with profanity had been kicked back for revision.


    * Sometimes profanity directed at a situation really does let you get
    off a little steam. <snip>

    Getting off steam often leads to escalation. Also, these lists have a lot
    of members. Does an individual's desire for catharsis outweigh the wish of multiple people to keep the language on the list free of profanity?

    I apologize to anyone who feels I am wasting their time with this, and I will try not to drag it out any more.

    --
    Eldon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tomas@tuxteam.de@21:1/5 to Eldon Koyle on Sun Apr 11 23:00:01 2021
    On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:14:40PM -0600, Eldon Koyle wrote:
    Preface: Some people may consider it petty to care about this. I am not trying to be petty. I honestly feel sad and hurt every time I see this language on these lists. The language over the last few weeks has me
    feeling sick inside. I'll admit that I'm likely in a small minority here, but I do not believe that I am the only person who feels this way.

    I don't think it is petty. I do disagree somewhat (I expanded on that
    in another post), but it is part of community work to negotiate things
    and try to find a way which is as viable as possible for all.

    So from me, thanks for making your point.

    Cheers
    - t

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAmBzW3oACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZsGACcCUZPO/LMigxVnKJ7HVuCbkdn H2YAn0Ogtsbokhqjq3MAJMpIH/O1Viba
    =PLAN
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bernd Zeimetz@21:1/5 to tomas@tuxteam.de on Mon Apr 12 00:40:03 2021
    On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 12:45 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

    That seems to be a good idea. I can't say I'll be at the next Debconf, life seems to be currently against it. But never say never :-)

    Debconf21 will be online. No idea if such a training can happen online, but
    if so you might be able to join form whereever you are at that moment :)


    --
    Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
    http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org
    GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Armstrong@21:1/5 to Sam Hartman on Fri Apr 16 23:20:02 2021
    On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Sam Hartman wrote:
    I think the blanket prohibition of profanity in the list code of
    conduct is outdated and harmful.

    That's (as it states) a historical holdover: "some people receive the
    lists via packet radio, where swearing is illegal."

    I can't recall a case of listmaster@ actually enforcing the prohibition
    of profanity, and I'm unaware of anyone actually using packet radio for receiving listmail anymore. [If they are, I really hope it's encrypted.]

    --
    Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com

    Vimes hated and despised the privileges of rank, but they had this to
    be said for them: At least they meant that you could hate and despise
    them in comfort.
    -- Terry Pratchett _The Fifth Elephant_ p111

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eldon Koyle@21:1/5 to don@debian.org on Sat Apr 17 05:40:02 2021
    On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:12 PM Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
    <snip>
    I can't recall a case of listmaster@ actually enforcing the prohibition
    of profanity, and I'm unaware of anyone actually using packet radio for receiving listmail anymore. [If they are, I really hope it's encrypted.]

    Encryption is generally illegal in amateur radio (aka ham radio).

    --
    Eldon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)