Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

So ask good technical questions. When I started posting on CD I started with a question about sizing a gearbox, which went into a discussion of reflected inertia with Dr Joe, which lead to a lot of other things over the years. Good questions bring out the best minds here, and some of them are very very good.

Think about something you wish were different about this year's robot and ask questions about how to do it better. That would be a good start.

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

Not condemning use of destructive and ungracious language is isomorphic to tacit approval. There is no way for any community to maintain a standard of discourse if no one acts to do so.

If you care about the discourse here being civil and gracious, then I think you have an obligation to point out when it is not and make it clear that you do not approve.

If/when the tone becomes acceptable, then you resume discourse.

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

I disagree. I think condemning is more destructive and tacit approval is destructive as well. I suppose it depends on what you mean by condemnation though.

The difference being condemning by saying "you're being very un-GP" vs. saying "that is a strong opinion. Why?"

Andrew's point is to not use the first method and to rather use the second. By saying the first, you're literally fueling the fire.

Saying GP over and over again doesn't help, but telling someone how to act respectably (essentially GP) might help.

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

I wish we could do away with "gracious professionalism" and/or "GP" as a descriptor in discussion on CD.

Here's why:

Situation 1:

Person A posts some topic talking about a controversial situation.
Person B says "Wow, talking in that way about other teams isn't GP. This topic should be closed"

Situation 2:

Person A posts some topic talking about a controversial situation.
Person B says "Wow, talking in that way about other teams isn't very polite. This topic should be closed"

If I, as Person C, disagree with Person B, we have a problem. Everyone has different interpretations of what "GP" is. However, if you argue with anyone about what it means, and don't just accept it as a blanket statement, people get hostile, like "GP" is some blanket truth that everyone is supposed to agree upon and not question, just because Woodie said you should be GP.

My grandma probably has/had a lot different view on things than your grandma.

I also see it thrown around a lot too where it doesn't need to be, like (paraphrasing something I remember seeing earlier this year) "the music you used in your robot video isn't very GP". Really? It's a music piece that we can talk about the pros and cons of, it doesn't need to be "abolished from FIRST society forever" just because you don't like it or maybe find lyrics or themes questionable.

That's just one example. I know there are a lot of people out there who don't "abuse" the term, but I wish we could all just post and say what we mean instead of throwing the "YOU AREN'T BEING GP!" flag.

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

If someone comes out and says openly "I hate your team," I think they should be told quite firmly "that tone is not acceptable here."

If no one ever does this, there is no way to uphold any standard of discourse at all.

Ideally, if people continue to be nasty, the moderators step in.

This has nothing to do with "saying GP over and over again" or substituting "GP" in places where there should be legitimate discourse. This is a fundamental tenant of a decent forum community that's not at all specific to CD or to FIRST.

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

I'd rather have folks learn WHY something is not acceptable than merely the fact that it is. There's no lack of condemnation, merely a lateral approach that address the core issue.


Play a little thought experiment with me:


Me: I hate 1337

You: Thats not GP, you shouldn't say that here. *neg rep*

Me (to my friends): I hate 1337

OR

Me: I hate 1337

You: Why?

Me: Because they are mentor built and their students don't learn anything. And my students get discouraged because they always lose to them and it's not fair

You: [rational explanation on why that line of thinking is flawed and how I should use them as a role model, something to strive to BE not to BEAT]

Me: Oh. I hadn't looked at it that way.

Which exchange has more value? The former was using GP as a bandaid to treat the symptom (emotion based on misunderstanding) vs the actual problem (misunderstanding).

Now, come at it from the perspective of a member of 1337, all they'd see is "All these people hate us and are only not saying it because it's not GP". Not cool.

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

But saying that flat out without any explanation or prompt for further discussion will likely drive the person away and this "hate" will continue to exist.

No-one is suggesting not to approach that post and mention that it's unacceptable, but similar to how you said "choice of words is EXTREMELY important". It's the same situation here.


Perhaps it's moot to discuss this part, but like Andrew said there's people that simply say "this post is un-GP" or even keep referring to the GP. So we don't have to talk about GP because it seems like you're not trying to defend this.

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

In my estimation, the second scenario is rather contrived and unlikely ("you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't arrive at by reasoning"), and the far more likely course of events is a protracted debate with further use of uncivil tone.

I think you miss something when you claim that the "actual problem" is only the misunderstanding. It is not; or, at least, the misunderstanding is only part of the problem. One can voice an unpopular (or wrong, whichever you prefer) opinion in a civil manner.

Pointing out that the tone is unacceptable isn't a band-aid to cover the first problem, it's addressing the second problem directly, which I think quite strongly is a valuable thing to do.

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

As long as you don't leave it at just pointing it out. I will concede that pointing it out with an explanation is an appropriate thing to do.

To Andrew, it's still important that the person understands to not just say "I hate xxx". So in a reply that asks "Why?" I would also have a tidbit asking them to explain for future posts or to refrain from saying something so blunt. Slightly irrelevant but...This is like every technical post ever that goes "My robot is messed up" and the correct reply would be "What do you mean? Also, in future posts please explain further so we can help and skip this section".

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

That was my intended point. I'm glad we reached agreement! :)

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

The language people use isn't the problem, the feeling or idea that drove someone to use that language is. Criticizing someone for the way they present an idea rather than for the content of the idea is, as ever, a bad idea.

CD has many, many more users today than it did 10 years ago. One could argue that the decline in overall quality mirrors the decline of quality in FIRST itself. Efforts to raise the floor, as the saying goes, of robot functionality on the field could be mimicked here as well. The challenge, I believe, is that there is nothing so convenient as geography to insulate each of us on CD from facing ALL of the bad at one time, so the notion of raising the floor of discourse here is all the more daunting.

Regarding technical discussion, specifically --

Most people answering technical questions have little to no idea what they're talking about and would probably do the community a service by keeping quiet. When a chorus of misinformation piles into a thread, the folks that do know their stuff have to answer the original question and debunk all of the bad science that gets thrown around. The burden on the subject matter experts, in that regard, is much higher.

I'm not sure how to fix that, exactly, but it mustn't be impossible. It'll probably take a bit of education, a lot patience, and a more stern manner with some folks to make them understand that they're noise more often than they're signal.

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

I do not think this is true as a general principle.

If someone comes in and says something completely valid, but with vile and offensive language, should we do nothing because "the content of the idea is all that matters?"

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

If you're asking me, specifically, I believe that we should judge the value of the idea, not its presentation.

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

In that case, I think we simply have a fundamental disagreement about what makes a good message board.

Re: Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be
 

Probably so. Policing 'vile or offensive language' or ideas isn't something I'm too interested in doing. My standard is likely very different from yours, which is itself very different from someone else's standard. I am not so presumptuous as to assume that my standard is the correct one -- perhaps you are not either -- so I am not comfortable telling other people how they should behave or what language they should use. Certainly, the standard I use in moderation here is very different from the standard used by others.

What I can do is to share with them how their behavior or language impacts me and empower them to choose to change if they desire.