On Jan 3, 2007, at 8:26 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
The big difference here (in contrast to Usenet, other lists etc.)
is that
this community has retained a remarkably positive and inviting tone of
discussion for quite a long time, much much more so than those
other forums,
and those involved with this community very much value that and
have chosen
to protect that over accommodating individuals whose method/manner of
communication is harsher, noisier etc., in spite of well-
intentions, good
points, and heck, even positive contributions.
As I read what's been going on in the list, the issue with Andy
hasn't been so much his tone. This being text only medium, tone is
very difficult to read into text, and most of the perceived tone of a
post comes from personal interpretation. I think the reason Andy is
now rubbing people the wrong way is a matter of the lack of substance
in his posts. Strip away the emotional appeals, and there's virtually
nothing left! If an argument can't be reduced to standard form
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_form), then there is little
point to the post, and it becomes like talking to a brick wall.
My suggestion then is that in a list which is primarily an impersonal
and intellectual discussion on problem solving in a specific domain,
the judgement call about whether someone is being disruptive should
be based on whether there's actual (not emotional or personal)
content in the post. Can the argument be restated in standard form?
Considering the nature of this list, posts consisting primarily of
emotional appeals and personal attacks just don't fit, and can easily
escalate, unless cooler heads prevail. In this case, I think Tantek
made the right call under these criteria, whether it was done
knowingly or intuitively.
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
