On being rude ...

[Lil' Lavery]

Blake,

If someone shot you an e-mail or PM with such a question, sure, respond in a short fashion according to your own time limits.

However, this is a public forum. If you don't have time to post more than "read the manual," you should probably simply let someone else respond to the question.

[Scott Kozutsky]

One thing that IMO needs to be improved is the search itself on chief delphi. There is SO MUCH information that is already available here that's basically impossible for peoples with little experience on the site to access. The search is obtuse to use, the link to it is in a weird part of the page (nearly every other forum I've been on has a searchbar in the sidebar, if you don't know it's there you can easily overlook it) and even if you find and use it reasonably well it's still pretty unlikely to be that helpful. It doesn't help that there are differing opinions on various topics. The FAQ could also use an update/streamline.

Don't be too critical of peoples who can't find what they're looking for.

IMO lazy questions shouldn't have much effort put into answering them. Be relatively courteous but make sure that laziness isn't encouraged, point peoples to where they can find the info, don't just give it to them. I don't agree with the idea that we should be entirely professional. If peoples don't spend the effort to be professional with us I don't think they deserve it from us either.

A reminder: "Giving negative reputation because you don't agree with what was said is not an appropriate use of the reputation system." quoted from the FAQ.

Every forum I've been on has that policy and also has peoples who forget it (myself included). IMO, Lil' Lavery should not have red dotted foster for this reason (he's definitely not the only one).

[mschwab013]

Originally Posted by gblake

If someone else posts a more complete answer (because they like doing other people's homework, or happen to have memorized a section/rule that is pertinent, or simply because they have spare time that they want to use in that way); good for them! But, I disagree that the shorter answer is rude. And, IMO many of the longer answers (often) reinforce a bad habit.

This is exactly why we give all of our students the homework of reading the manual ASAP and definitely before the end of week 1. It reinforces a habit of doing what you can to find information out for yourself before asking for help.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Scott Kozutsky

A reminder: "Giving negative reputation because you don't agree with what was said is not an appropriate use of the reputation system." quoted from the FAQ.

Every forum I've been on has that policy and also has peoples who forget it (myself included). IMO, Lil' Lavery should not have red dotted foster for this reason (he's definitely not the only one).

I didn't neg rep Foster because I disagree with Foster. I neg repped Foster because of the tone of Fosters' response.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Scott Kozutsky

A reminder: "Giving negative reputation because you don't agree with what was said is not an appropriate use of the reputation system." quoted from the FAQ.

Every forum I've been on has that policy and also has peoples who forget it (myself included). IMO, Lil' Lavery should not have red dotted foster for this reason (he's definitely not the only one).

I actually disagree with you here. Sean used rep exactly how it should have been used. He didn't disagree with what was said, but how it was said.

An incorrect usage would be if I said 2363 was the best team in FRC and you gave me neg rep because I'm wrong.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

An incorrect usage would be if I said 2363 was the best team in FRC and you gave me neg rep because I'm wrong.

Neg rep given for pompousness

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Blake,

If someone shot you an e-mail or PM with such a question, sure, respond in a short fashion according to your own time limits.

However, this is a public forum. If you don't have time to post more than "read the manual," you should probably simply let someone else respond to the question.

Someone else likely will. Until they do, the person asking the question will know that the answer they want is in whatever manual is mentioned in the short answer.

That person asking the question can also assume that the person who wrote the short reply is either busy (but still wanted to help), or is teaching them what others have surely already tried to teach them about asking good questions, or is rude.

Why assume "rude"? What gives anyone the justification to apply a blanket label of "that came from someone rude." to a short reply?

Why tell people who are willing to take the time to supply a short, useful answer, that their attempt to help isn't needed/allowed?

Answering my own questions, I know that I get irritated by people who fail to do their own homework/prep, and whose sloppy questions waste other people's time. And, the more often it occurs the more irritated I get. And the more irritated I get, the greater the chance I will be rude.

But, that does not mean that a short "Read the XYZ manual." isn't the best help someone could offer at the moment, or that it doesn't explicitly and implicitly contain a valuable, practical lesson for someone learning how to ask good questions. Absent evidence, I believe it would be rude to think otherwise.

YMMV

Blake

[gblake]

Folks,

The "Read the manual" subtopic here, is one I'm going to try to pull out of.

If what I have written so far about avoiding placing an asymmetric burden on writers, and about applying "rudeness" yardsticks carefully and symmetrically, isn't persuasive, writing more probably won't change opinions.

I'm not trying to get in the "last word" on "RTM" (other folks may do that if they like), but I am curious if there is anything else related to this thread's original thesis that anyone wants to discuss? What are some other rabbit holes to dive down?

Blake

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by gblake

What are some other rabbit holes to dive down?

Here's one: Before we post a response, we should try evaluate why we are posting it.

In my experience, the intent of a (non-questioning) post can be (very loosely) generalized to one of three categories:

1) Discussion
2) Debate
3) Rant

I mean something fairly specific by each of these words, which I will explain here:

A "discussion" post in one made in good faith for the purpose of exchanging information with another participant in the thread. If there is disagreement, the goal is to present your view in a way that the party you disagree with can understand and might reflect on and change his own. By the same ticket, doing this requires that you be willing to read other people's posts and reflect honestly on your own position.

A "debate" post is one made where the goal is no longer to communicate with or persuade the person you are addressing, but rather to convince any other readers that you are correct and he is not. The difference between a discussion and a debate is largely one of audience - in a discussion, you are primarily speaking to the person with whom you are discussing. In a debate, you are speaking to convince an external audience. Usually, once you cross the threshold from discussion to debate, a lot of good faith is lost and honest exchange of ideas ceases. This is usually where people tend to wall off and get defensive, and the thread turns sour. Debates, by nature, tend to become rude - when convincing an external audience, it rates to discredit your opponent.

A "rant" is where you are no longer arguing with the other person, or even to convince an audience - the only audience left is yourself. Rants are posted purely for the author to read his own post and feel justified in his own belief. All possible productivity is gone, and the only real end of such posts is alienation of others.

In the vast majority of cases, I believe that the goal of posting on a forum should be discussion. Rarely, when a person both shows that they are not interested in honest exchange of ideas and is posting information that one considers harmful, debate can be warranted. Rants are always counterproductive.

A lot of rudeness (perceived or otherwise), I think, is the result of people posting in a manner appropriate for debate (or ranting) and not for discussion. I know for a fact that I've been guilty of my fair share of this.

Edit: Changed wording to avoid potential misunderstanding.

[MrForbes]

Every now and then, I find it necessary to be rude.

How's that for a rabbit hole?

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

A "rant" is where you are no longer arguing with the other person, or even to convince an audience - the only audience left is yourself. Rants are posted purely for the author to read his own post and feel justified in his own belief. All possible productivity is gone, and the only real end of such posts is alienation of others.

It is really easy to think something is a rant if you merely assume the other person is that shallow and that they have no audience. Thing about it is this is also a dismissive. If one really thinks that something is a rant then it has no risk because anyone that follows it will not achieve anything. Realistically assuming out of billions of people who could read a public forum I seriously doubt you will find too many things with no audience or people that feel in some way similar.

I can certainly see how someone can devalue another person by accusing them of 'ranting'. In a real way it's an attack on the person not the point.

[Scott Kozutsky]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I didn't neg rep Foster because I disagree with Foster. I neg repped Foster because of the tone of Fosters' response.

As I understand it, fosters' position was you are justified in being rude(to an extent) in certain situations. He gave examples of what he does. He gave an example of himself being quite rude.

His analysis and explanation was not rude, it was constructive and contributed to the discussion, it just presented a viewpoint that being rude is sometimes justified and used an example.

This is how I see it and at this point I'm probably being more pedantic than necessary.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Scott Kozutsky

As I understand it, fosters' position was you are justified in being rude(to an extent) in certain situations. He gave examples of what he does. He gave an example of himself being quite rude.

His analysis and explanation was not rude, it was constructive and contributed to the discussion, it just presented a viewpoint that being rude is sometimes justified and used an example.

This is how I see it and at this point I'm probably being more pedantic than necessary.

I believe he is talking about Foster's original post from another thread. Not Foster's analysis of his own post.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

It is really easy to think something is a rant if you merely assume the other person is that shallow and that they have no audience. Thing about it is this is also a dismissive. If one really thinks that something is a rant then it has no risk because anyone that follows it will not achieve anything. Realistically assuming out of billions of people who could read a public forum I seriously doubt you will find too many things with no audience or people that feel in some way similar.

I'm sorry, I may not have been sufficiently clear:

I posted that categorization because I think it is a useful tool for people to reflect on their own posting habits (it has certainly been for me), not so much to judge the posting habits of others. I would be lying if I said I had never ranted on Chief Delphi. I suspect it is the same for other people, which is why I posted that, but you are completely correct in that it would be very poor form to claim that someone else was ranting in lieu of an actual response, and it is not what I am advocating.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Scott Kozutsky

As I understand it, fosters' position was you are justified in being rude(to an extent) in certain situations. He gave examples of what he does. He gave an example of himself being quite rude.

His analysis and explanation was not rude, it was constructive and contributed to the discussion, it just presented a viewpoint that being rude is sometimes justified and used an example.

This is how I see it and at this point I'm probably being more pedantic than necessary.

I believe a leadership skill does apply here and I mean absolutely no disrespect to Foster. So much of what as contributed was of value, but unfortunately, the thing getting the most attention is a small fraction of it.

I suspect that wasn't the goal and I know people fall into this communications trap all the time (I myself fall into it). I am not writing that the ends justify the means, but in this case this is turning the burden of the reader to not inflate this detail into the burden of the writer. The question is if we filter off the distraction are we hurting the value of the message for the writer?

I suppose the risk from this extra sensational detail is high because Foster is presumed to be arguing from authority. However everyone is human. Authority doesn't make anyone perfect. I do not think Foster intended any harm here. On the other hand the community has apparently decided on some improvement so Foster is caught in that shift.