On being rude ...

[techhelpbb]

The problem here is that ChiefDelphi is a valuable place for some information and sometimes people know more about ChiefDelphi than they know about FIRST's own forums.

However with sheer traffic alone there comes risk. I have some Internet forums and whenever you run a forum you have to cut a careful path between: mild intolerance (not legal protected class intolerance), bad timing, misunderstood context, confusion and actual malicious intent.

There have been a number of times over my 20 or so years with FIRST when I think a very small number of posters on ChiefDelphi had malicious intent. They didn't just want to shut down the idea - they wanted to shut a person down and sometimes were not very subtle about it.

I applaud the effort to try to stop rudeness but a good test for malicious intent is whether the goal is to massively humiliate and then isolate (as in discourage any future contribution to either ChiefDelphi or FIRST). If something becomes clearly about those 2 outcomes it's gone too far. It is not a crime to be wrong, misunderstood, or out of context. We would all prefer it not happen but ineffective communication is actually a core part of the human experience. Like any part of the human experience you can work on the behavior in a positive way or you can hurt someone with it.

Oh and by the way - if you are reaching out to someone's team suggesting they shut up or be removed from FIRST. You're probably going way too far. I can forgive that because I am an adult - to a point.

[GeeTwo]

Just because your rookie year was a ways back doesn't mean that you know about everything. If a business side mentor were to ask about gear ratios, or a mechanical mentor asked about programming they should get good answers, even though they've been involved with FRC for many years. I"m presuming that the question would not be something like

Originally Posted by MechNoob

What gear ratio is best for my robot? HELP!

and even if it is, the best response is to ask the basic questions needed to figure this out, and provide a link to the JVN calculator spreadsheet. And maybe report that you think an account was hacked.

Here's a sixteen second movie clip to summarize.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

I try to post the same way I'd talk in person. It's not that I don't say how I feel; I just consider how I'm phrasing it. If I wouldn't say it to your face, I'm not going to post it online.

This is by far the best advice you'll find regarding online etiquette. It's something everyone should be mindful when interacting with others online; this goes for message boards like this one, social media, and even texting/IM. It goes a long way towards effective and mature communication. Don't use distance/anonymity as a shield.

[Munchskull]

As a student I can attest to the notion that chiefdelphi and be scary. With so many mentors that all seem to have been around "forever" it can be intimidating to ask question, even ones of a complex technical aspect, due to the fear that you will get negative rep because of your ignorance. Even after being in FRC for four years it is still a worry.

Some say that they are "just dots" and that is true from a pure factual perspective. However they are also a nice thing to have. For newer members of the community it is an affirmations going in the right direction with the green dots, but a slap in the face with red. Haven gotten both I can tell you that with red dots it would have been nice if they PMed me first and gave me a chance to fix something before dropping those dots.

[Nathan Streeter]

People flat-out shouldn't post answers or feedback to technical things rudely or give negative rep for ignorance... There's just no need for it and it's counter-productive to a great environment for learning and inspiring.

When other people make strongly-worded posts that insult or defame other teams, individuals, companies, etc., a response should productive and can be firm and direct, but still shouldn't be demeaning or rude. A PM and perhaps some negative rep may be in order, but everything you do should be full of Gracious Professionalism. Sugar-coating and coddling is not GP, but on the other hand, demeaning someone for holding an opinion or being unaware/ignorant also is not GP...

Since I think it's a good case study/benchmark...

Originally Posted by Foster

Hi, you must be new here. it's a well known fact that your $5,000 donation goes directly to FIRST. All of the parts, all of the totes, all of the shipping to your kick off site is donated.

Oh, that regional you "paid for". Donations make that happen.

Time for you to search in the CD archives about FIRST financials.

Andy Mark does amazing things to help roboteers. VEX does amazing things to help roboteers. While they meet bottom lines, the employees and owners put passion in front of profits. Brian Roberts, CEO of Comcast made $32.9 million last year. If all the First FRC teams bough ALL their parts from AM, the gross would be less than half of what Brian made.

People do amazing things for stuff the have a passion for.

I salute the robotics suppliers, I think they are awesome people with bad business sense. I buy as much stuff from them as I can, just to keep them (parts, same day shipping, talk to an engineer on a call, phone answered on the weekend) around for another year.

You, on the other hand, should do some research before you post and look like an idiot.

I think Foster's post here is right on the edge between an altogether great rebuke and something demeaning. I certainly wouldn't give negative rep for it (as some very good information is given) and I probably wouldn't give positive rep, as I do think the 3rd line and particularly the last line are crossing over into the realm of 'demeaning' when they'd probably be more productive if they were softened slightly.

[kristinweiss]

I have always viewed CD as a place to get real, honest answers. If you ask a "bad" question, whether it be something that offends people or that has been asked a million times before, yes, you will probably get some "mean" responses, but that is to be expected. You would probably get the same type of responses from people on your team if you asked them the same question in person, so don't expect it to be any different just because you ask it online. As a general rule of thumb, on my team, we talk about the questions we may have with each other before asking on CD, just to make sure that it is a valid question and that we have done a quick google search and checked our other resources first. Once you have posted something, you have to realize that it is now public for everyone to see, and even though you may get some "bad" or "rude" responses, if you ask a legitimate questions, you will get mainly legitimate responses in return.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

People flat-out shouldn't post answers or feedback to technical things rudely or give negative rep for ignorance... There's just no need for it and it's counter-productive to a great environment for learning and inspiring.

When other people make strongly-worded posts that insult or defame other teams, individuals, companies, etc., a response should productive and can be firm and direct, but still shouldn't be demeaning or rude. A PM and perhaps some negative rep may be in order, but everything you do should be full of Gracious Professionalism. Sugar-coating and coddling is not GP, but on the other hand, demeaning someone for holding an opinion or being unaware/ignorant also is not GP...

Since I think it's a good case study/benchmark...



I think Foster's post here is right on the edge between an altogether great rebuke and something demeaning. I certainly wouldn't give negative rep for it (as some very good information is given) and I probably wouldn't give positive rep, as I do think the 3rd line and particularly the last line are crossing over into the realm of 'demeaning' when they'd probably be more productive if they were softened slightly.

This is my feeling on the subject also. Well said Nathan.

[Lil' Lavery]

I red dotted Foster's post, and I'd do it again to another individual who posted in the same fashion.

Was there useful information in there? Sure (though some of it was only half-true).
Was it also condescending and needlessly hostile? Absolutely.

Nothing in the post he was responded to warranted him insulting that poster. There are very seldom reasons to call someone an idiot on Chief Delphi (or imply they are an idiot, as Foster did). Certainly not expressing a viewpoint in the reasonable fashion the poster he was responding to did. It's fine to lay out the difference in perspective, it's not fine to attack someone for it.

To expand upon the wisdom of [paraphrasing] not saying stuff on Chief Delphi you wouldn't say to their face, you have to be even more selective on internet than you would be in person. I try to avoid posting anything here I wouldn't be comfortable e-mailing to my coworkers or boss. Any non-verbal cues you may give in person to convey the message you want are lost over the internet. You have to assume anything you write will be interpreted in the worst way possible. Even if you didn't mean to offend, if there's a possibility that your post can offend, it likely will. The rapport you have with another poster will not carry over to the general public, and considering you're posting on a public forum, think twice about leaning on that rapport to send the message you want. There are those out there who may take the wrong message away from your post.

I have a real problem with the groupthink and shutdown posts that get lobbed about here. "FIRST lifers" often likes to pile on to people espousing a particular viewpoint. In some cases (such as when a poster is bullying another team), it's warranted. However, it frequently isn't. It's not only applicable to Chief Delphi (it's worse on Facebook and elsewhere), but it's very present here. Instead of fostering a discussion to illuminate the misguided, people simply shutdown conversation and belittle those they disagree with. Posting a dead horse emoticon is not a sufficient answer to a question. Snidely saying another poster needs to use the search function or read the manual is not an inclusive approach.

[rsisk]

remember when communicating through text online, you no longer have other clues like visual hints, tone of voice, body language, etc... and neither does the other person get those clues from you (emoticons don't cut it).

In other ways it is easier to communicate via text online as you have time to craft and edit a good response.

Bottom line, it is more difficult to communicate via text online than face to face. Be aware of what you are posting and a lot of frustration can be avoided.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

I try to post the same way I'd talk in person.

Originally Posted by Karthik

Don't use distance/anonymity as a shield.

Not to counter, but to amplify: when posting online, especially on a site such as CD where your post is likely to be read by third parties, and not just this week, but as a result of a search, it is helpful to provide context with your post, especially if it is not already in the thread. For example:

Originally Posted by WithContext

A stack of six totes with an RC weights about 56 pounds, so you'll want a lower gear ratio if you're planning full stacks; between friction and wanting to get up to speed quickly, we designed ours for 100 pounds.

Originally Posted by NoContext

If you don't have 100 pounds of lift, you won't get far in this game.

So here, you have told both the OP and readers in 2020 why you thought 100 pounds was a good design lift. This is necessary in order to make intelligent use of the information; perhaps OP was only making three-stacks, or perhaps was planning to build and lift two stacks at the same time. For the next game requiring a lift, the load may be less than one pound (an inner tube, pool noodle, or small ball) or rather heavier (a mobile goal or a robot). OBTW, it is far easier to read rudeness into the second post than the first.


And also, back to the main topic:

Originally Posted by Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore

yet, sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often.

This is one of the nice things about posting on line. If you are in doubt, use the Preview Post button. Walk away. Come back and re-read it. Edit it. Remember that the reader cannot hear the inflection in your voice (though you may be able to simulate it with an emoji). Repeat until you either delete it or decide that it's worthy to post.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I red dotted Foster's post, and I'd do it again to another individual who posted in the same fashion.

I'll confess here that I'm the one who proposed a highlight post:

Originally Posted by foster

do some research before you post and look like an idiot.

Note that Foster did not say that the poster was an idiot, but that by making uninformed inflammatory statements, poster looked like an idiot. While that particular sentence would have been more appropriate in a PM than a post, it was spot-on. I recommended it as a spotlight post not to call out the poster, but because it is a bit of wisdom that people should see every once in a while.

I do not give rep very often (12 times so far, all positive), but if I were giving negative rep for that exchange, it would be for ignorantly defaming our generous sponsors rather than correcting the score with a bit of stern advice calling Foster, Kate Pilotte, and by extension, the good folks at AndyMark a pack of liars. (If #2 means anything else, it's poorly written, indeed!) IMO, calling someone a liar (especially without evidence) is far ruder than anything Foster did in defense.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Snidely saying another poster needs to use the search function or read the manual is not an inclusive approach.

Folks,

Along with paying attention to LL's advice, let's not go overboard and label any/all short simple replies that tell people to search first, or to read the manual as "snide". I wouldn't want anyone to take away from LL's post that all replies of that ilk are automatically snide.

Searching (multiple places, including the manuals) before wasting others' time is a valuable STEM skill people need to use.

Wasting the time of a large number of readers, plus distracting the few who reply from topics containing non-trivial questions, is definitely rude.

Posters who rudely do make the mistake of assuming CD is a replacement for doing their own fundamental preparation before they interject, do need to be steered (with civility) onto a better path. That better path will accelerate converting their STEM inspiration into STEM results.

While I realize that this form of rudeness is often the result of bad habits picked up elsewhere, and is (IMO) almost never a form of intentional selfishness, that doesn't mean it isn't both rude, and worthy of feedback/corection.

Blake

[notmattlythgoe]

[quote=gblake;1504737]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Snidely saying another poster needs to use the search function or read the manual is not an inclusive approach.[/QUOTEFolks,

Along with paying attention to LL's advice, let's not go overboard and label lany/all short simple replies that tell people to search first, or to read the manual as "snide". I wouldn't want anyone to take away from LL's post that all replies of that ilk are automatically snide.

Searching (multiple places, including the manuals) before wasting others' time is a valuable STEM skill people need to use.

Wasting the time of a large number of readers, plus distracting the few who reply from topics containing non-trivial questions, is definitely rude.

Posters who rudely do make the mistake of assuming CD is a replacement for doing their own fundamental preparation before they interject, do need to be steered (with civility) onto a better path. That better path will accelerate converting their STEM inspiration into STEM results.

While I realize that this form of rudeness is often the result of bad habits picked up elsewhere, and is (IMO) almost never a form of intentional selfishness, that doesn't mean it isn't both rude, and worthy of feedback/corection.

Blake

If you post anything about there being a search function or reading the manual without attempting to answer the question you are being rude.

The correct way to answer is to provide them the information and where you found it and remind them to check the manual or use the search function.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by rsisk

remember when communicating through text online, you no longer have other clues like visual hints, tone of voice, body language, etc... and neither does the other person get those clues from you (emoticons don't cut it).

Thank you for pointing out several reasons why *readers* should not assume rudeness when they read a post that could easily be interpreted as the friendly ribbing that occurs all the time in STEM and other conversations.

Readers have a duty to hold up their end of the online-communication-can-be-difficult bargain too.

I sometimes worry that an over-emphasis on the writer side of the equation is a form of bullying by folks who are intolerant of diversity. Remembering the points you made can help us all avoid falling into that trap. Thanks again for pointing out the pitfalls writers, and *readers*, can fall into.

Blake

[gblake]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

If you post anything about there being a search function or reading
the manual without attempting to answer the question you are being rude.

I believe you are mistaken, and that your blanket assertion is wrong.

YMMV.

I think our disagreement is a form of respectful diversity that should not be suppressed.

Blake

[PayneTrain]

You will never have to worry about me being rude on Chief Delphi ever again because my head just exploded from reading some posts on this thread, I have died, and this was a prerecorded message.