Timeline for answer to Is this comment really "not nice"? by Paul
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2021 at 20:28 | comment | added | einpoklum | OP's comment was not an ad hominem, it was ad cogitationis processum, and that's not the same thing. | |
| Sep 3, 2021 at 19:05 | comment | added | bad_coder | Some candidates during mod elections take an undue amount of the bottom 2 without any real substance. | |
| Sep 3, 2021 at 17:36 | comment | added | nvoigt | On one hand side, I find this very interesting, on the other hand side, this is a level of comprehension of the nuances of the English language, that I have a hard time getting in a row with other English requirements of this site. I suggested warning people that had no question mark in their question that they need to ask a focussed question and this suggestion was met with "how dare you assume that level of proficiency from the poor programmers around the world". So on one hand side we don't want quality, because... of language requirements, but we feel happy to ban people for nuances. | |
| Sep 3, 2021 at 16:06 | comment | added | TylerH | TBH the "you" instances of the first two questions are fine even in the first version, but especially fine to remain in the second version; no need to remove them there. | |
| Sep 3, 2021 at 9:19 | comment | added | Ruud Helderman | @Paul I was of course creating my own fallacy; a diversion by questioning site policies rather than the comment. A false contradiction. But isn't it fun to see how both the policy and the policy's target are sitting so close to the bottom of the same pyramid? | |
| Sep 3, 2021 at 8:34 | comment | added | Paul | @RuudHelderman It is somewhere between hand-wringing over tone and refuting the OP's claim that his version is not hostile or snarky. Assuming the possibility of good faith, demonstrating how to make it less hostile/snarky is both tone and refutation. This may imply alterations to Graham's pyramid where the topology is distorted into something from an HP Lovecraft story. | |
| Sep 3, 2021 at 8:19 | comment | added | Ruud Helderman | So far, criticizing OP's behavior can be summarized as "responding to tone". Which is not a whole lot higher up the pyramid compared to OP's behavior. I say we all still have a lot to learn. | |
| Sep 3, 2021 at 8:07 | comment | added | user20416 | This. Criticize the behavior, not the individual. | |
| Sep 3, 2021 at 8:02 | comment | added | Paul | Also, I am not trying to show how to resolve every disagreement or ill feeling in that exchange -- but simply trying to tone down the ad hominem a bit. One way is to scan for "you" and replace it with something non-personal. | |
| Sep 3, 2021 at 7:59 | comment | added | Paul | @BSMP I read the latter text as expressing an opinion about changing code. Opinions vary, we all have some. But the earlier text literally states "you are not thinking". | |
| Sep 3, 2021 at 7:25 | comment | added | BSMP | The last one still accuses the OP of not thinking, just in different words. Why leave in the assumption that they're just following a trend? | |
| Sep 2, 2021 at 23:30 | history | edited | Paul | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 69 characters in body
|
| Sep 2, 2021 at 23:12 | history | edited | Paul | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Sep 2, 2021 at 23:11 | comment | added | Paul | @PeterMortensen Probably. The depersonalized remark should probably cite specific code. | |
| Sep 2, 2021 at 23:07 | comment | added | Peter Mortensen | Is it a rhetorical question (not a rhetorical question)? | |
| Sep 2, 2021 at 23:02 | history | answered | Paul | CC BY-SA 4.0 |