On being rude ...

[Lil' Lavery]

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.

As notmattlythgoe mentioned, I did not give Foster's post in this thread a red dot. I gave his post in another thread (the one that Foster quoted and that was brought up in the couple posts leading up to mine) the red dot.

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Neg rep given for pompousness

Something tells me you read that sentence wrong... Or you're kidding and I have a terrible sense of humor

Anyway,

This entire thread just screams "welcome to the internet." The fact that there is a wall of pixels between you and the other people in the conversation makes it a lot easier to be rude in a situation where you normally wouldn't. I'd say there's definitely some toxic posters on CD, and I'm sure that some of the people who I think are toxic think I'm toxic. However, the level of toxicity on here is way better than almost any other social media I've seen. (It even stands out among FIRST social media, who else remembers FRC Confessions?)

Toxic posters aren't necessarily toxic people. It's the internet, don't get mad.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

Something tells me you read that sentence wrong... Or you're kidding and I have a terrible sense of humor

It was a joke.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

However, the level of toxicity on here is way better than almost any other social media I've seen. (It even stands out among FIRST social media, who else remembers FRC Confessions?)

Toxic posters aren't necessarily toxic people. It's the internet, don't get mad.

I think it really depends on the consequences of people being toxic. If that targeted person is forced out of FIRST, or worse, then yes someone shouldn't be happy about it.

Luckily I think most people can handle some toxic behavior within limits.
Not sure we should encourage people to look for the limits but one could interpret the statement above in that way.

(I am going away from this topic for a while - I can respond on forums much more quickly than many other people and I
would rather let this topic develop in my absence than make it seem like people can't get post in edgewise.)

[TJP123]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

Something tells me you read that sentence wrong... Or you're kidding and I have a terrible sense of humor

I think he was kidding. Neg rep given for terrible sense of humor (get it?)

Toxic posters aren't necessarily toxic people. It's the internet, don't get mad.

You've summarized one of my life rules: the internet makes people jerks.

CD is still the internet.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

Something tells me you read that sentence wrong... Or you're kidding and I have a terrible sense of humor

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

It was a joke.

Originally Posted by TJP123

I think he was kidding. Neg rep given for terrible sense of humor (get it?)

Sometimes they just jump in the boat.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Sometimes they just jump in the boat.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

I think it really depends on the consequences of people being toxic. If that targeted person is forced out of FIRST, or worse, then yes someone shouldn't be happy about it.
...

Agreed. No one should be forced out of FIRST or any other CD-related activity by someone toxic.

Agreed. If there is a malicious, misguided, or clueless situation that might cause someone to be forced out of ___, then someone (several someones, including me) shouldn't be happy about it.

And I'll add this opinion. Responses that focused exclusively on a "toxic" author would be dangerously incomplete. Step one for me is helping readers embrace that they should never cede that much authority to anyone else.

Blake

[Rachel Lim]

Many things on CD would be much better if everyone thought before they posted.

Think about who you're writing about. Why you're complaining. Why you're accusing them of something.
Think about who you're responding to. Why they think that way. What you could teach them.
Think about how your post is going to be interpreted.
Think if this something you'd be willing to say in person.
Think if this is how you want people to see you and your team.

Think, then post.


Disagreements are not bad. The way people disagree can be.

[Scott Kozutsky]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

As notmattlythgoe mentioned, I did not give Foster's post in this thread a red dot. I gave his post in another thread (the one that Foster quoted and that was brought up in the couple posts leading up to mine) the red dot.

Ah, I was mistaken.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

...
Think, then post.
...

And ...
Read, then think.

I'm still beating my drum - It's not a one-way street.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by gblake

And ...
Read, then think.

I'm still beating my drum - It's not a one-way street.

Unfortunately it is a one-way street. You as the writer cannot control how your reader is going to interpret what you write. But you can do the best you can to not give them the option to interpret it as rude.

In my opinion it is rarely going to work to "hope for the best" from the reader.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by gblake

A) B) I'm sincerely curious why you chose to label the hypothetical OP as "lazy" and the hypothetical responder as "rude". Aren't they both lazy? Or both rude? What justifies painting them with different brushes?

Sure, I can see your point there. Of course, the hypothetical OP might also simply lack the requisite subject knowledge or searching proficiency to come up with decent search terms. I suspect that's pretty common in light of the fact that a lot of people are pretty impatient, and it's faster to use a search engine than to wait for a human to respond. So I shouldn't imply that being lazy/rude is the only explanation for people who post questions that would seem pretty easy to look up.

For anybody who wants to be a helpful forum poster but also doesn't want to see the place clogged up with the same easily answered questions all the time, I think it makes the most sense to answer the question and also point out that you can find it in a search in the same reply.

Anybody who doesn't have time to provide an answer to a question could save even more of their time by not replying with a "go look it up."

[gblake]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

Unfortunately it is a one-way street. You as the writer cannot control how your reader is going to interpret what you write. But you can do the best you can to not give them the option to interpret it as rude.

In my opinion it is rarely going to work to "hope for the best" from the reader.

I think what you are saying can easily be turned on its head with a result of still being perfectly valid. I'll try.

The reader is the only one in control of how they react to what I write. Because the potential readers are so diverse, it's impractical, if not impossible to adjust my writing style, and the opinions I express, to satisfy them all. Some of them, "Yes". Many of them, "Hopefully Yes". All of them, "No".

So, I should write what I mean; mean what I write; be happy to have my Grandmothers read what I write; be delighted to explain my meaning if a reader politely asks me for more information; and let the haters hate, if they want to spend their time that way.

In my opinion, it is rarely going to work to be blown about in the wind by the attitudes of everyone who might read what I write (Not that you were advocating that - However, it's the strong way to express one opposing viewpoint).

Blake

PS: I don't think of this as an an either-or topic. There are other useful perspectives/viewpoints. What I wrote above is simply an attempt to show that at least one valid counter-argument does exist.

PPS: I presume that this thread is evidence that I do care about the opinions of many/most people who read what I write, here and elsewhere; and that I try to express myself politely; even though I know it's very unlikely that every reader and I will land on the same page at the end of the discussion. What some consider polite, others will consider rude. No amount of finger wagging by me will change that, so instead I ask both readers and writers to search for charitable, middle-ground interpretations and responses.

PPPS: Some day when I cross someone's "line", I fully expect some or all of this post to come back to haunt me. Doh!

[Munchskull]

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.

+1