As many of you know, Rafael has stepped down as the P5P pumpking. He's done a great job and I'm sad to see him go, but he couldn't take the mud-flinging any more. I can't say I blame him.
Regarding mud-flinging -- and not just in regards to this particular debacle -- I won't name names (many will guess and many guesses will be wrong), but I have some observations about reputation:
I suppose if people aren't concerned about work, they may not be concerned with how they come across online. On the other hand, wouldn't it at least be good to be known as someone who can find ways of getting things done nicely? I struggle with this myself at times and I hate seeing it in others.
"There is a person
Great, now every candidate can wonder if it's them. I suppose you could argue that's the point, since it makes each person reconsider their behavior. OTOH, people acting badly may not know they're acting badly, and probably need to be told directly how their behavior hurt someone else.
Re:What's the point
Ovid on 2009-07-06T15:34:52
I know that two out of those three people have been told directly. One doesn't care, one doesn't believe it. As for the third, I don't care. They've behaved so patently offensively that I'll have nothing to do with them (and the order I mention them here is not the order mentioned in my post).
And yeah, I think people should reconsider their behavior. Those who are consistently nice online are probably not worried, but I know that I need a reminder every now and then and if thinking about this makes me pause before sending that angry reply, that's a good thing. I also know that if I stand up for people being decent, then I'll be called to the carpet for hypocrisy if I'm not. By putting myself out there, I'm even more likely to try and catch my behavior.
I should also note that one issue that so many people forget is that writing doesn't capture tone of voice or body language. Even if we strive to capture the right tone, so many people skim online writing that our carefully crafted statements are still easily taken out of context. I know I did that recently when I completely missed a point chromatic was making and I falsely accused him of objecting to my concerns without acknowledging them. That was very embarrassing to me and I apologized, but the damage is done. I don't think he bears ill-will for this, but others may very well have seen what I did without seeing the apology and even then, if I have to apologize, it means I've done something wrong.
I just want people to be nice to each other
:) Re:What's the point
chromatic on 2009-07-06T15:40:14
I don't think he bears ill-will for this....
Certainly not! Like you, I also spend a lot of time and energy trying hard never to attack people or call them names. I'll debate ideas (sometimes to the hilt, unfortunately), but it's never okay to attack people.
Re:What's the point
dagolden on 2009-07-06T18:54:35
Not only does writing not capture tone of voice or body language, but it's easy to forget that a lot of what is in online in Perl forums/lists/blogs is written and read by people for whom English is a 2nd, 3rd, etc. language.
-- dagolden
Re:What's the point
rjbs on 2009-07-07T14:20:22
I sometimes wimp out, but I know that I'd rather be told I am being a jerk than have it whispered about behind my back. (I'm agreeing with Ovid here, not complaining that he talked about some anonymous people! I understand and agree with why he did *that* too.)
I've always found it to be in my best interests to treat people as if they were thinking, feeling entities with whom I shared a mutual hope for the improvement of ourselves and the world. Even when it's not true, it's often a great plan! This involves both being respectful of people (and their ideas) and being willing to tell them when you think they're wrong, and to argue politely until some kind of consensus can be reached. (Sometimes that consensus is, "we should stop arguing for a while." That's okay, too.)
I have tried to excise a lot of items from my list of ways to communicate: sarcasm and dismissiveness most of all, though they're hard to let go. They just get in the way of actually communicating, and don't serve much purpose. Heck, even when you really do want to dismiss someone, it's possible to do it politely.
I guess I have no point. I just agree *achingly* with Ovid.
Re: the real problem is...
Eric Wilhelm on 2009-07-07T19:38:32
The internet doesn't have beer (no, "BYO" doesn't count.) It also lacks identity, intonation, and facial expression (I blame skype and similar proprietary communication tools (and closed networks) for the ongoing lack of ubiquitous ability to truly communicate -- such as in the always-promised, never-delivered virtual pub.)
And, I still think we need the chairkick protocol.
But seriously: sure, you should consider that people might misread your posts and you should be generally nice. On the other hand, you should also consider that you might be a jerk who misreads everything and gets all huffy about it. (See, now I have to point out that I'm not calling anyone a huffy jerk... but surely that sort of person will have stopped reading already, so maybe it sorts itself.)
I've often feared that my brutal honesty interferes with my genuine helpfulness. But remember: if you live in fear, the terrorists win!
Re: the real problem is...
rjbs on 2009-07-07T19:51:59
Absolutely. If the guy at the other end of ytalk didn't say, "I believe you to be a stinking pile of filth," it's usually a much, much better idea to assume that he's being polite and trying to communicate, rather than to assume that he's a sarcastic jerk. Even if you're wrong, you will have avoided feeling insulted!
Coping with the Internet 101
