Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #44102 > unrolled thread

A friendly tech-forum

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 11:09 +0200
    Re: A friendly tech-forum mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-12-06 06:05 -0800
      Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 16:20 +0200
    A friendly tech-forum foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2015-12-06 06:17 -0800
      Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 16:24 +0200
    Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-06 22:57 -0500
      Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 06:58 +0200
        Re: A friendly tech-forum JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-12-07 08:34 -0800
          Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 19:40 +0200
            Re: A friendly tech-forum hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-12-09 18:31 -0800
          Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 12:48 -0500
        Re: A friendly tech-forum Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-12-07 18:44 +0100
          Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 12:56 -0500
            Re: A friendly tech-forum Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-12-07 19:19 +0100
              Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-08 02:02 -0500
            Re: A friendly tech-forum JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-12-07 10:26 -0800
              Re: A friendly tech-forum jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 11:19 -0800
              Re: A friendly tech-forum Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-12-07 23:41 +0100
                Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-08 02:36 -0500
                Re: A friendly tech-forum "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-12-13 14:14 +1100
                  Re: A friendly tech-forum hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-12-12 20:59 -0800
                    Re: A friendly tech-forum "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-12-15 23:52 +1100
                      Re: A friendly tech-forum "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-12-15 08:16 -1000
                        Re: A friendly tech-forum "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-12-16 12:55 +1100
            Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 21:49 +0200
              Re: A friendly tech-forum jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 18:53 -0800
                Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 07:09 +0200
                  Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-08 02:52 -0500
              Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-08 03:00 -0500
                Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 10:22 +0200
                  Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 13:15 -0500
              Re: A friendly tech-forum visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-12-08 19:15 -0800
                Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 08:12 +0200
                  Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 01:50 -0500
                  Re: A friendly tech-forum mhx@iae.nl - 2015-12-08 23:40 -0800
                    Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:01 +0200
                    Re: A friendly tech-forum Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-09 11:15 +0000
          Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 21:48 +0200
          Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-08 01:53 -0500
        Re: A friendly tech-forum "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-08 01:50 -0500
          Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 08:55 +0200
          Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 01:57 -0500
            Re: A friendly tech-forum Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-12-08 20:32 +0100
              Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 15:27 -0500
        Re: A friendly tech-forum Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 04:24 -0800
        Re: A friendly tech-forum Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 04:52 -0800
          Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 01:31 -0500
            Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 10:05 +0200
              Re: A friendly tech-forum Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 04:59 -0800
              Re: A friendly tech-forum krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-11 05:32 -0800
                Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 18:26 +0200
                  Re: A friendly tech-forum krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2015-12-12 08:46 -0800
                    Re: A friendly tech-forum Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 19:00 +0200
              Re: A friendly tech-forum rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 15:13 -0500

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#44138

On 12/08/2015 08:50, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 23:58:49 -0500, Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Just don't be a troll, and you'll be left alone.
> 
> Doubtful.  Seriously.

Glad to see you doubt my word, without knowing me at all.  Well, you're
free to try it or not, as you see fit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44139

On 12/8/2015 1:50 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 23:58:49 -0500, Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just don't be a troll, and you'll be left alone.
>
> Doubtful.  Seriously.
>
> Who decides who is a troll and for what?
>
> E.g., I've been called a troll on Usenet for:
>
> 1) asking a question
> 2) telling the truth
> 3) explaining an answer from someone else
> 4) answering someone's question in depth
> 5) asking a "newbie" question
> 6) defending myself from perceived attacks, insults
> 7) correcting a mistake
> 8) criticizing someone for incessantly calling others trolls
> 9) pointing out that someone was driving people away with insults
> 10) responding to someone perceived by others to be a troll
> etc.

I think the problem with having "troll police" is that "troll" is a 
value judgement.  I can see how everything in your list could be 
interpreted as perfectly innocent by the "troll" while others perceive 
it as trolling.  It all depends on the tone and other hard to define 
characteristics of the posts.  I'm not calling you a troll.  I'm just 
saying that someone thinking they are doing the above things does not 
mean others won't see a given post as trolling.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44146

rickman wrote:

> On 12/8/2015 1:50 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 23:58:49 -0500, Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just don't be a troll, and you'll be left alone.
>>
>> Doubtful.  Seriously.
>>
>> Who decides who is a troll and for what?

Everybody who uses a communication platform, and for the purpose to ignore 
the other person in order to make the communication more enjoyable.

>> E.g., I've been called a troll on Usenet for:

Trolling is the art to insult by means that are not obviously insulting like 
swear words - the more innocent the techniques are, the "better" the troll 
in terms of peer recognition.  Therefore, such a typical "code of conduct" 
list excludes people with some sort of verbal tourette (like Hugh), but not 
the better trolls.

>> 1) asking a question
>> 2) telling the truth

A typical problem of naively "telling the truth" is that the truth may be 
quite different, but the troll insists on a distorted version of reality, 
and thus insults the intelligence of the counterpart.  If a child is 
convinced that Santa Claus exists and delivers the gifts, it is cute.  If an 
adult is still convinced of similar naive things, he's insulting his adult 
audience.

>> 3) explaining an answer from someone else
>> 4) answering someone's question in depth
>> 5) asking a "newbie" question
>> 6) defending myself from perceived attacks, insults

Well, #6 is easy how that can be insulting, as it is escalating previous 
provocations.

>> 7) correcting a mistake

Of himself?  With Rods postings often containing more factual errors than 
sentences, maybe it wasn't a correction and not a mistake of the original 
poster ;-).  However, even when he's right (and recently, he did post 
something that was really right, and got angry responses nonetheless), 
correcting mistakes may be insulting.  It depends on the tone and on the 
recipient - some people simply don't like to be corrected.

Especially posting replies where Rod corrects only the typos of the other 
poster are insulting.  Usenet doesn't allow corrections on postings, so 
third proofreading is unnecessary - the only message of such corrections is 
"hey, you can't even spell properly, you idiot".  Given that many people 
don't write in their native language here, a higher tolerance to spelling 
errors is absolutely necessary to avoid looking like a troll.

>> 8) criticizing someone for incessantly calling others trolls
>> 9) pointing out that someone was driving people away with insults
>> 10) responding to someone perceived by others to be a troll
>> etc.

Looks like Rod is pretty good in the art of meta-trolling, too.

> I think the problem with having "troll police" is that "troll" is a
> value judgement.  I can see how everything in your list could be
> interpreted as perfectly innocent by the "troll" while others perceive
> it as trolling.

The troll always perceives his own actions as innocent (or pretends so), and 
probably really is.  I.e. he's not trolling wittingly.  It just happens.

> It all depends on the tone and other hard to define
> characteristics of the posts.  I'm not calling you a troll.  I'm just
> saying that someone thinking they are doing the above things does not
> mean others won't see a given post as trolling.

I block Rod to enjoy clf more.  His posts contained too many factual errors, 
on which he insist they are "the truth".  And he too often did 
"proofreading", which is not that useful on Usenet.  Maybe he's offended by 
spelling errors...  The value of his postings did not match the amount of 
anger he creates.

Recent postings have shown that he can post things without even one factual 
error, so it might be possible that it was just innocent naivity that caused 
the big amount of factual errors, and that in the meantime he has lerned.  
Trolls out of innocent naivety may not stay trolls forever.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44148

On 12/8/2015 2:32 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>
> I block Rod to enjoy clf more.  His posts contained too many factual errors,
> on which he insist they are "the truth".  And he too often did
> "proofreading", which is not that useful on Usenet.  Maybe he's offended by
> spelling errors...  The value of his postings did not match the amount of
> anger he creates.
>
> Recent postings have shown that he can post things without even one factual
> error, so it might be possible that it was just innocent naivity that caused
> the big amount of factual errors, and that in the meantime he has lerned.
> Trolls out of innocent naivety may not stay trolls forever.

I haven't blocked his posts yet, but I seldom read them in depth if at 
all.  His last few in this thread are pretty strange.  He seems to have 
a mental image which he is talking from, but no one else knows what that 
is.  At least I have no idea what he is talking about.

Oh well, another day, another silly discussion on Usenet.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44173

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 11:58:52 PM UTC-5, Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 07/12/2015 05:57, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> 
> > While I'm sure your purpose is noble, every sword has two edges.
> > What some view as a being polite and troll free, others may
> > view as discriminatory, exclusionary, and pro-censorship.  You
> > can't have both. 
> 
> Yes you can.  A polite society is not necessarily discriminatory, it is
> one in which individuals engage their brains before opening their
> mouths.  I think a technical forum where ad-hominem attacks are not
> permitted is something that is needed (and so far, the feedback I've
> received agrees).  Similarly, there's no reason or call for divisive
> off-topic discussions there.  That's what the cesspool called Reddit is for.
> 
> Look at "Stack Overflow" and "Slashdot" as examples of places where
> derogatory language towards the perceived "newbie" is rampant, where
> people are told their questions are stupid etc. etc... and think how
> many of those people who've been kicked in the teeth will now avoid
> entering technological fields (or will have the somewhat justified
> notion that many geeks are immature adolescents).
> 
> If you take a look at the policies of our forum, I think you'll see
> they're not particularly restrictive.  Just don't be a troll, and you'll
> be left alone. You're free to ask newbie questions, or advertise your
> wares, or discuss any technical subject - as long as you're polite and
> respectful of others.  Leave off your discussions of politics, macrame
> or culinary achievements.
> 
> If that's too onerous, don't join.

The problem comes when moderators are closed-minded or irritable, or when the definition of "on-topic" becomes too narrow. Here's a summary of an interchange I had once in a #C channel on IRC:

Me: You can break the stack pretty easily with: int main() { return main(); }
Mod: That's not legal ANSI C.
Me: Right, but it's a succinct way of demonstrating how to break the stack.
Mod: THAT'S NOT ANSI C.
[bans me]

In short, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44175

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 11:58:52 PM UTC-5, Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 07/12/2015 05:57, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> 
> > While I'm sure your purpose is noble, every sword has two edges.
> > What some view as a being polite and troll free, others may
> > view as discriminatory, exclusionary, and pro-censorship.  You
> > can't have both. 
> 
> Yes you can.  A polite society is not necessarily discriminatory, it is
> one in which individuals engage their brains before opening their
> mouths.

You really can't. In the polite society you mention, explicitly excluded are individuals who cannot or will not engage their brains before opening their mouths. Implicitly excluded are individuals whose responses are thoughtful and well-intended but misinterpreted, and those who have a communicative style that is too brusque to meet the accepted definition of "polite".

There is exclusion in such an arrangement, there is discrimination. The discrimination is the *point* of the rules.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44182

On 12/10/2015 7:52 AM, Alfred Singlestone wrote:
> On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 11:58:52 PM UTC-5, Ron Aaron wrote:
>> On 07/12/2015 05:57, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>> While I'm sure your purpose is noble, every sword has two edges.
>>> What some view as a being polite and troll free, others may
>>> view as discriminatory, exclusionary, and pro-censorship.  You
>>> can't have both.
>>
>> Yes you can.  A polite society is not necessarily discriminatory, it is
>> one in which individuals engage their brains before opening their
>> mouths.
>
> You really can't. In the polite society you mention, explicitly excluded are individuals who cannot or will not engage their brains before opening their mouths. Implicitly excluded are individuals whose responses are thoughtful and well-intended but misinterpreted, and those who have a communicative style that is too brusque to meet the accepted definition of "polite".
>
> There is exclusion in such an arrangement, there is discrimination. The discrimination is the *point* of the rules.

Ron is still discussing this with you.  I guess I would be interested in 
knowing if this conversation would be allowed in his forum...

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44184

On 11/12/2015 08:31, rickman wrote:

> Ron is still discussing this with you.  I guess I would be interested in
> knowing if this conversation would be allowed in his forum...

It's not on-topic for the forum, which is a tech forum, not a philosophy
gab.

"Would be allowed"?  Initially, yes; but after the discussion went as
far astray as this has, I would ask the participants to can it.  Again,
there's lots of places where people can vent their philosophical ramblings.

We're trying to create a place where the SNR is higher than the average.

And I'm done discussing this, since there's not much point in continuing
to rehash the same words.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44187

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 3:05:34 AM UTC-5, Ron Aaron wrote:
> On 11/12/2015 08:31, rickman wrote:
> 
> > Ron is still discussing this with you.  I guess I would be interested in
> > knowing if this conversation would be allowed in his forum...
> 
> It's not on-topic for the forum, which is a tech forum, not a philosophy
> gab.
> 
> "Would be allowed"?  Initially, yes; but after the discussion went as
> far astray as this has, I would ask the participants to can it.  Again,
> there's lots of places where people can vent their philosophical ramblings.
> 
> We're trying to create a place where the SNR is higher than the average.
> 
> And I'm done discussing this, since there's not much point in continuing
> to rehash the same words.

Oh, dear. "Gab." "Ramblings." "Rehash." "I'm done discussing this." "Can it." With moderation like that, how could the new forum be anything but a delight?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44188

High SNR is overrated sometimes. Look up the phenomenon of "stochastic resonance".

Cheers,
Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44218

On 11/12/2015 15:32, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote:
> High SNR is overrated sometimes. Look up the phenomenon of "stochastic resonance".

In circuitry, yes; in human interactions?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44219

I don't have any reason to dissuade you from setting up a private, single moderator type of forum. Maintaing civil discoure on usenet is a challenge, and this venue beats down those with a thin skin. However, I still believe it's preferable to have an open forum for discussion, even with its occasional ugliness and sometimes high noise level. Restrictive, civil (by some particular standard) on topic discussion might be desirable from a comfort viewpoint, but in my observation, it's not the way the human brain works, or the way in which it makes the most progress. I believe we can make usenet more useful, by contributing stimulating topics for discussion.

Stochastic resonance is believed to be widely used by the human brain to aid sensory perception.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_resonance_(sensory_neurobiology)

Cheers,
Krishna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44220

On 12/12/2015 18:46, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote:
> I don't have any reason to dissuade you from setting up a private, single moderator type of forum. 

It's not.  There are currently four moderators.  So far, moderation has
only been used as a gateway to keep actual spammers from joining.  It's
also not private, at least in the sense of being 'by invitation only'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44196

On 12/11/2015 3:05 AM, Ron Aaron wrote:
>
>
> On 11/12/2015 08:31, rickman wrote:
>
>> Ron is still discussing this with you.  I guess I would be interested in
>> knowing if this conversation would be allowed in his forum...
>
> It's not on-topic for the forum, which is a tech forum, not a philosophy
> gab.
>
> "Would be allowed"?  Initially, yes; but after the discussion went as
> far astray as this has, I would ask the participants to can it.  Again,
> there's lots of places where people can vent their philosophical ramblings.

Not trying to be argumentative, but if they were discussing the limits 
of posting in your forum, wouldn't that be "on topic"?


> We're trying to create a place where the SNR is higher than the average.
>
> And I'm done discussing this, since there's not much point in continuing
> to rehash the same words.

It's not clear to me that this thread is all rehashing as yet.  That's 
why I asked the questions I'm asking.  Maybe I'm trying to put too fine 
a point on the topic which is not exactly the same thing.  That often 
happens in technical discussions.

I will say I think I roughly have the answer to the question though. 
The limits are where you say they are, no more and no less.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web