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

Groups > linux.debian.project > #12259 > unrolled thread

Abusive language on Debian lists

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Abusive language on Debian lists Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2021-04-10 02:50 +0200
    Re: Abusive language on Debian lists "Thaddeus H. Black" <thb@debian.org> - 2021-04-10 03:50 +0200
    Re: Abusive language on Debian lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-04-10 10:00 +0200
      Re: Abusive language on Debian lists Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2021-04-11 10:20 +0200
        Re: Abusive language on Debian lists Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-04-11 11:10 +0200
        Re: Abusive language on Debian lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-04-11 12:00 +0200
          Re: Abusive language on Debian lists Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2021-04-11 12:30 +0200
            NVC or other Training at DebConf Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-04-11 13:00 +0200
              Re: NVC or other Training at DebConf Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> - 2021-04-11 13:20 +0200
            Re: Abusive language on Debian lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-04-11 13:00 +0200
              Re: Abusive language on Debian lists Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> - 2021-04-12 00:40 +0200
        Re: Abusive language on Debian lists Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2021-04-11 12:30 +0200
          Re: Abusive language on Debian lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-04-11 13:00 +0200
          Re: Abusive language on Debian lists Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2021-04-16 23:20 +0200
            Re: Abusive language on Debian lists Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2021-04-17 05:40 +0200
        Re: Abusive language on Debian lists Eldon Koyle <ekoyle@gmail.com> - 2021-04-11 21:20 +0200
          Re: Abusive language on Debian lists <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-04-11 23:00 +0200
    Re: Abusive language on Debian lists Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2021-04-10 17:10 +0200

#12259 — Abusive language on Debian lists

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#12260

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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.

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

#12261

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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

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

#12269

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

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

#12270

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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

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

#12271

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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

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

#12273

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

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

#12275 — NVC or other Training at DebConf

>>>>> "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

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

#12278 — Re: NVC or other Training at DebConf

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

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

#12276

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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

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

#12283

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

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

#12272

>>>>> "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

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

#12274

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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

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

#12320

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

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

#12323

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

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

#12281

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

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

#12282

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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

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

#12263

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web