Searching \ for '[OT] Moderation and list policy' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=moderation+list
Search entire site for: 'Moderation and list policy'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Moderation and list policy'
2010\02\18@075555 by olin piclist

flavicon

Tag changed.  I originally tried to post this using the ADMIN tag since I
thought that is for discussion of list issues.  That post just
dissappeared without any notice, but I don't know if that is due to email
issues at my end.

Marechiare wrote:
> Yeah, I know this is not quite the place for democracy, but, may I
> humbly wonder what the OP have commited to make him getting thrown
> under the inquisition of the pre-moderation?

I see Bob gave you a brief answer, but it seems that was more to avoid
talking about it than to actually provide real information.

There was some ruckus at least a year or two ago with the old admins.  A
long time ago, just about everything was allowed on the PIClist.  Then
James (the admin then, who is no longer a admin) clamped down and
overreacted the other way.  At one point I'm not even sure you could tell
someone to RTFM anymore when they asked a stupid question that was
directly and clearly answered in the manual right where you'd expect to
find it.

Somewhere along the line James discovered the list server had a moderate
feature.  This could be turned on for selected users such that their posts
would be sent to a bunch of moderators before going to the list.  A
moderator can reject a post or allow it to go to the list.

Such censorship is totally the wrong way to enforce anything.  Not only is
censorship just plain wrong, but it allows the admins to feel they are
doing something "middle road" and therefore they can apply it liberally.
If there wasn't this unfortunate half-in half-out solution they'd have to
be more careful and put more thought into applying the tools, and probably
be a lot more tolerant too.  Moderation is also damaging to conversation
flow because message are delayed to the list.  The delay is usually a few
hours to a day or two.

Once we finally got rid of James, things got more reasonable.  I thought
the new admins could have handle the SolarWind fiasco better, but mostly
things were running smoothly.  Then a bunch of months ago I was told out
of the blue that I was put on moderation.  There was no mention of any
specific incident, anything I said, or any rule I was supposed to have
broken.  I decided to see how things would work out and give the new
admins the benefit of the doubt for a while.  This went on for some
months.  Occasionally some message got rejected for silly reasons.  Then a
few months ago a perfectly reasonable message that wasn't anywhere near
the line got rejected by Russell, who is PC off the deep end.  I decided
I'd had enough and wasn't going to add value to the PIClist.

Every time this sort of thing was discussed publicly, the consensus was
overwhelmingly in favor of not being so heavy handed.  In fact it was a
vote for removing me from moderation that finally caused James to step
down.  I know this list isn't a democracy, but it is a community.  The
admins may have the final say, but the sense of the community should be
considered in making decisions.

I think the right way to deal with people getting out of hand is twofold.
First and foremost, be tolerant.  Think about what harm is really done by
what someone at the other end of the internet said.  If someone thinks
you're being stupid and says so, does that really matter in the end?  If
he's right, you've learned a lesson.  If he's wrong, you can rebut.  As
long as its about the a action or the content of a message and not about
the person, there is no reason to get upset.

Second when someone does get way out of line ("FU -------") be decisive,
immediate, public, but also temporary.  Decisive means you don't do
something half in or wussy.  You ban the offender.  Public means you
announce publicly that so-and-so is banned for this-particular offense.
This is very important as it lets everyone see what line not to cross, but
also that action is taken and there is therefore no need for anyone else
to do anything more.  Temporary is so that everyone can recover.  It's
very unlikely that the person that said FU is going to do it again right
when he comes back.  Bans should last from a day or two to a week or so
for something serious.  More if it happens repeatedly.  If you look at the
archives, you'll see that the discussions about the list that James hated
so much were not actually in direct response to any offense, but in
response to his action towards one.  If such action is finite, then there
will be little uproar because the problem will be resolved by itself in a
few days.

Anyway, there have been a number of times in the last few months where
I've seen bad advice given, incomplete answers, or there was a
particularly good answer I could have given.  I refrained from adding
value to this list under the current conditions.  You can't have it both
ways.  You don't get to treat me unfairly and still have me help you.  If
you look back at the archives, you'll see I used to provide more help than
most people here.  And yes, if I thought something was stupid I'd say so,
just like it works in Real Life.  If you want Russell's idea of sugar
coated reality, then I'm not the guy.  Unfortunately it's not easy to
notice missing content since you don't know what could have been
mentioned.  I find Russell's excessively PC and wordy style quite
annoying.  He probably finds my brief and brusk style annoying.  The
difference is I don't take offense by that and certainly wouldn't put him
on moderation for it.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\02\19@131331 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Oh, I see it's been 6 months since we last had a big "OH NOES THE
ADMINS HAVE GONE OFF THE DEEP END" conflagration.

Guess we must be overdue.

/facepalm

To those who wish to participate, may I offer the following counsel and advice:

- Make sure that anything you post to the list _really should_ be
read by everyone, and wouldn't be better off sent to the individual
- Consider reviewing the archives for previous, er, 'discussions' on
the subject of list administration, moderation, etc so as to reduce
repetition and to move the conversation forward, rather than merely
rehashing it.
- Avoid dragging others into this by naming them specifically - even
if they wisely avoid responding to your "insights" about them and
their behavior, others may jump to their defense unecessarily.  This
conversation should be about policy, and only tread carefully in a
limited manner into policy as-implemented.
- While the subject is [OT]  this does not mean anything and
everything goes.  You may be fighting the good fight, but please do so
in a thoughtful and considerate manner.  You are still subject to the
list rules, nebulous though they may seem.
- Ignore the trolls, and take nothing personally.  People are people - move on.

DO NOT START TALKING ABOUT THIS IN OTHER THREADS.  Don't drag this
conversation into other unrelated threads, especially outside of [OT]
- people ignore [OT] so they can avoid these posts.

Change the subject line and tag as needed before you post your
message.  These threads in particular get very long and involved - if
you are commenting on something that started from this thread, but
really isn't part of it, change the subject.

Submitted for your consideration.

-Adam

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:56 AM, lathrop"
<spam_OUTolin_piclistTakeThisOuTspamembedinc.com"olin> wrote:
> <snip>

2010\02\19@133935 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
[snip]
> Once we finally got rid of James, things got more reasonable.

This is debatable. What you saw as "reasonable" I often saw as unfair and
hypocritical. However, in general, I agree with your proposal:


{Quote hidden}

I think the key to making this work, is to have clear and simple rules, and
a simple set of consequences for breaking the rules (first offence: 3 day
ban, 2nd: 1 wk, 3rd: 2 wks, etc).


> Anyway, there have been a number of times in the last few months where
> I've seen bad advice given, incomplete answers, or there was a
> particularly good answer I could have given.  I refrained from adding
> value to this list under the current conditions.  You can't have it both
> ways.  You don't get to treat me unfairly and still have me help you.  If
> you look back at the archives, you'll see I used to provide more help than
> most people here.  And yes, if I thought something was stupid I'd say so,
> just like it works in Real Life.

Many people would argue that given the choice between advice delivered as an
insult, and no advice, they would choose the latter. You need to realize
that there is a difference between "straight talk" and calling someone a
moron. In Real Life, you can get punched in the nose, regardless of how much
you think the victim deserves it, or how highly you think of yourself.

Nonetheless, if the rules are applied consistently and fairly, I would be
strongly in favor of abolishing message moderation and replacing it with
your system.


> If you want Russell's idea of sugar
> coated reality, then I'm not the guy.  Unfortunately it's not easy to
> notice missing content since you don't know what could have been
> mentioned.  I find Russell's excessively PC and wordy style quite
> annoying.  He probably finds my brief and brusk style annoying.  The
> difference is I don't take offense by that and certainly wouldn't put him
> on moderation for it.

Russell acts as a counterbalance to a certain other admin who is neither PC
nor softspoken. And I think he would be in favor of increasing the freedom
of speech on the PICList.

Vitaliy

2010\02\19@143457 by Marechiare

picon face
> Tag changed.  I originally tried to post this using the
> ADMIN tag since I thought that is for discussion of list
> issues.  That post just dissappeared without any notice,
> but I don't know if that is due to email issues at my end.
>
> Marechiare wrote:
>> Yeah, I know this is not quite the place for democracy,
>> but, may I humbly wonder what the OP have commited
>> to make him getting thrown under the inquisition of the
>> pre-moderation?

Yes, it was me who had written that grammatically incorrect stuff, my
apologies; had edited to add some sarcastic and had not re-read it
after the editing.


> I see Bob gave you a brief answer, but it seems that was
> more to avoid talking about it than to actually provide real
> information.

Sure it was rather cryptic as for me, I even prepared a sarcastic
reply, but finally decided to click "Discard" button.


> [skipped] Such censorship is totally the wrong way to
> enforce anything.  Not only is censorship just plain wrong,
> but it allows the admins to feel they are doing something ...

I don't know, I got no enough power to claim what's wrong or what's
right, I just try not to buy things I don't like.


> [skipped] Once we finally got rid of James, things got
> more reasonable.

I think, this is very unfair statement towards the respected person
who had been keeping the great community for many years. (10+ ?)


> [skipped] Then a bunch of months ago I was told out
> of the blue that I was put on moderation.

Perhaps I would get it provided I knew more or less reasonable
explanation of why you have [been] canceled your participation in MCHP
forum too.


{Quote hidden}

ok


> Every time this sort of thing was discussed publicly,
> the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of not
> being so heavy handed.  In fact it was a vote for
> removing me from moderation that finally caused
> James to step down.

I am not sure it is correct to speak for James about what "finally
caused him to step down". Your model of the events might happen to be
slightly off-synch with the reality.


> I know this list isn't a democracy, but it is a community.
> The admins may have the final say, but the sense of
> the community should be considered in making decisions.

It's a huge responsibility to run a global community nowadays. It
would be a good idea to get some "field" experience on the matters
before making deep suggestions how to do the running safely and
effectively.

Do you feel strong enough to start running your own list, not just
providing advices how to do it?

Thank you for your reply to my post.

---------------

{Quote hidden}

>

2010\02\19@150957 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
(on the subject of James and Olin)

I preferred this list when they were both active. Now we (effectively)
have neither :(

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\02\19@154349 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Wouter van Ooijen <.....wouterKILLspamspam@spam@voti.nl> wrote:
> (on the subject of James and Olin)
>
> I preferred this list when they were both active. Now we (effectively)
> have neither :(

Totally agree!

Tamas


>
> --
>
> Wouter van Ooijen
>
> -- -------------------------------------------
> Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
> consultancy, development, PICmicro products
> docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
>
> -

2010\02\19@155905 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
I liked James a lot and any perceived flaws James
might have were certainly small in comparison to the
good deeds that he did and does.
Same for Russell.
and Olin.    and others.
Gus

{Quote hidden}

> --

2010\02\19@192010 by Marechiare

picon face
> (on the subject of James and Olin)

No relation to the second respected person in my previous message in
this thread.

2010\02\19@211955 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
Much of what you (Olin) say, including [perspective on historical
events, is necessarily "gospel according to Olin" as i would hope that
you would recognise. You are, of course. entitled to hold your own
perspectives of reality  - as we all do to variable extents.

For the edification of others, you may wish to demonstrate how your
perspective of a typical event compares to how others may see it.

You have provided an excellent example case. As I have only ever
declined one message from you (AFAIR) but have passed many, the one
you are referring to below is clear enough.

> ... Occasionally some message got rejected for silly reasons.  Then a
> few months ago a perfectly reasonable message that wasn't anywhere near
> the line got rejected by Russell, who is PC off the deep end.  I decided
> I'd had enough and wasn't going to add value to the PIClist.

>From memory (and it won't do any harm if what you produce demonstrates
my memory is lacking) when I rejected your post

-  I wrote a substantial comment to you explaining why I had done it, and

-  noting that what you said was reasonable enough in its own right
but inadmissible in the circumstances due to how it would be very
liable to to list instability and

- I apologised for doing so and noted that it couldn't be nice having
'people in power' excercising such apparently arbitrary rights and
that i was sorry to annoy you by doing so  and

- I invited you to submit the post again and said that if you did so
I'd leave it alone and let some other admin make a decision on it.

Now, I may be mixing up some of my very few rejects from other people
there, but I think probably not.

If my response did in fact include most or all of the points above I
think that people would find it a fascinating exercise to compare what
I wrote, to your current perspective of it. By all means prove me
wrong - demonstrations of my incorrectness usually do me good after
the initial pain :-).

I think the above is traditionally termed a "put up or shut up"
request. I in my excessively PC manner [tm] would of course never put
it that way :-).
I would however welcome you posting my original rejection response for
the editication of all. (If your record and backup systems are even
only a shadow of what I imagine them to be it should take only a
moment to do so).

If that response is the sort of input that causes you to withdraw your
undoubtedly valued and valuable input from the majority then so be it.
I, like most, respect your technical capabilities and skills and have
been impressed by your (past) willingness to contribute.

I'll currently hold my counsel on most of the rest - admin informal
policy has long been to largely not be drawn into firefights onlist on
such matters.
But

1.     re my being "   PC  off the deep end ..." - you obviously
haven't had any substantial real life dealings with me :-). My
intentions are always for the best of all. The results sometimes leave
a modicum of individual annoyance - as at present. (Not something I
aim at as a by product). .

2.  The substantial body of material that I have written offlist over
the years, either TO admins or as an admin, *in your defence* would
make interesting reading :-)



              Russell





do so
-

2010\02\20@045517 by Apptech

face picon face
> Once we finally got rid of James, ...

1. We ?

2. Freudian slip? :-)  (I'm sure it wasn't but ... )


   R

2010\02\20@080045 by Justin Richards

face picon face
I prefer to be treated abruptly and succinctly and wish I could
respond to others the same, but I waste considerable time trying to
phrase emails so it does not put the recipient offside.

RTFM means I really should read the manual and from someone like Olin
ET AL (who's advice, time and effort I respect and appreciate) clearly
means I am looking in the wrong place.

This is a technical forum and the more efficiently the info flows the better.

I think few people like this approach but for me it is a case of
"beggars cant be choosers" and I am begging for free information and
advice and I get it.  I don't need it sugar coated.

I accept there should be limits but I have no idea what they should
be.  As such I am in awe of the job of the admins and moderators do.

So, I thank you all.

Lastly, What is PC as in PC  off the deep end

Cheers Justin




On 21 February 2010 14:54, Apptech <apptechnzspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
>> Once we finally got rid of James, ...
>
> 1. We ?
>
> 2. Freudian slip? :-)  (I'm sure it wasn't but ... )
>
>
>    R
>
>

2010\02\20@081448 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Justin Richards
<.....justin.richardsKILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
> Lastly, What is PC as in PC  off the deep end

I thought it was Police Constable.

Tamas


{Quote hidden}

>> -

2010\02\20@083531 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Tamas Rudnai <tamas.rudnaispamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Justin Richards
> <@spam@justin.richardsKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
>> Lastly, What is PC as in PC  off the deep end
>
> I thought it was Police Constable.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms
commonly abbreviated to PC)

I do not care about Russell's PC or not but sometimes I do
find his posts too wordy to worth the time to read. I just say
to myself "wow his English is really good" and then move on. ;-)

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2010\02\20@094216 by olin piclist

flavicon
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Much of what you (Olin) say, including [perspective on historical
> events, is necessarily "gospel according to Olin" as i would hope that
> you would recognise.

Of course.  The opinions are mine but I don't think I got the facts wrong.

> You have provided an excellent example case. As I have only ever
> declined one message from you (AFAIR) but have passed many, the one
> you are referring to below is clear enough.

Unless someone goes out of their way to sign a message, there is no way to
tell which moderator rejected it.

> From memory (and it won't do any harm if what you produce
> demonstrates
> my memory is lacking) when I rejected your post
>
> -  I wrote a substantial comment to you explaining why I had done it,

Yes, you did.  Unfortunately I didn't think to keep a copy at the time of
either my original message nor your rejection of it.  I wish I had because
I'd really like people to see what sort of trivial stuff gets rejected.

You basically apologized for rejecting the message, yet did it anyway.  You
were trying to be as nice as possible, other than of course rejecting my
message.  Your objection was that I wasn't being quite nice enough to
whomever I was replying to.  I agree you would have been nicer in the same
circumstances, but that's you.  Personally I think you spend too many words
that detract from your posts to go out of your way to not hurt someone's
feelings.  That's your style.  While I find that a bit annoying at times, I
accept that's your style and would not aim to change it or censor it if I
had the power to do so.  I doubt you actually could change in general.  Sure
you could spend extra effort to change the syle of a few messages, but that
would be too much trouble and get annoying fast.  So it is with everyone
else, including me.

(It also helps that you generally have good things to say and you clearly
know what you're doing.  Therefore it's often worth wading thru the rambles
to find the few good parts of your messages.)

There are many people on this list with a wide range of styles in several
dimensions.  Every one of them is going to rub someone the wrong way, yours
included.  However, censoring something just because *you* don't happen to
like it is wrong.  The right answer is for everyone to be more tolerant.  If
you don't like the way somebody responded, delete it and forget about it.
Once you realize that no harm is really done by a bunch of words from
someone (think of them as some ---hole if that helps) at the other end of
the internet, this is very easy to do.

> -  noting that what you said was reasonable enough in its own right
> but inadmissible in the circumstances due to how it would be very
> liable to to list instability and

Whatever I said was very mild.  I really don't remember what it was about,
but there was no call to reject it other than it wasn't how you would have
said it.

This slippery slope is one of the reasons moderation is so wrong.  It starts
trying to weed out messages that are clearly out of line.  But then the
mechanism is all set up and its so easy to start rejecting messages for ever
more trivial reasons.  If someone else had written the same thing that was
not being moderated, most on the list would not have given it a second
thought.  It certainly would not have triggered putting the poster on
moderation.  Another way to put this is that due to the inevitable human
nature of the moderators, those on moderation get held to a ever increasing
higher standard.  That's wrong.

> - I apologised for doing so and noted that it couldn't be nice having
> 'people in power' excercising such apparently arbitrary rights and
> that i was sorry to annoy you by doing so  and
>
> - I invited you to submit the post again and said that if you did so
> I'd leave it alone and let some other admin make a decision on it.
>
> Now, I may be mixing up some of my very few rejects from other people
> there, but I think probably not.

No, I'm quite sure we're talking about the same post, and I agree with the
facts as you have presented them.

This point was that this was moderation clearly taken too far.  Yes I could
have resubmitted the post, and I have no doubt that you would have let it
thru as you said you would.  But it wasn't about that post anymore.  I had
been putting up with moderation for several months, trying to give you guys
some slack for a while.  This was the last straw, and I wasn't going to take
it anymore.

> If my response did in fact include most or all of the points above I
> think that people would find it a fascinating exercise to compare what
> I wrote, to your current perspective of it. By all means prove me
> wrong - demonstrations of my incorrectness usually do me good after
> the initial pain :-).
>
> I think the above is traditionally termed a "put up or shut up"
> request. I in my excessively PC manner [tm] would of course never put
> it that way :-).

See, this is one of the differences.  I would have take no offense if you
had simply said "this is a put up or shut up", because it is, and that's
also a reasonable response from you given the circumstances.

> I would however welcome you posting my original rejection response for
> the editication of all. (If your record and backup systems are even
> only a shadow of what I imagine them to be it should take only a
> moment to do so).

Sometimes I wish I was as great as everyone thought I was ;-)

If you thought of keeping a copy, or the list server did somehow, please
post it.

> If that response is the sort of input that causes you to withdraw your
> undoubtedly valued and valuable input from the majority then so be it.
> I, like most, respect your technical capabilities and skills and have
> been impressed by your (past) willingness to contribute.

OK, so let me contribute, and recognize it's going to be in my style because
I can't change that (and don't want to) any more than you can change yours
(and likely don't want to either).  I don't suffer fools or sloths lightly,
and I'm going to tell them so.  However, if someone asks a honest and
reasonable question, I usually try to give a good answer.  You don't get the
second without the first, and you certainly don't have the right to weed out
only the parts you don't like.

> I'll currently hold my counsel on most of the rest - admin informal
> policy has long been to largely not be drawn into firefights onlist on
> such matters.

This isn't a firefight.  It's important to discuss list policy in the open,
as long as it doesn't turn into a food fight.

> 1.     re my being "   PC  off the deep end ..." - you obviously
> haven't had any substantial real life dealings with me :-). My
> intentions are always for the best of all. The results sometimes leave
> a modicum of individual annoyance - as at present. (Not something I
> aim at as a by product). .
>
> 2.  The substantial body of material that I have written offlist over
> the years, either TO admins or as an admin, *in your defence* would
> make interesting reading :-)

Don't get me wrong, Russell.  I'm not really pissed off at you, but at the
system that you are a part of.  I do respect your integrity, technical
ability, and well meaning.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\02\20@102050 by Roger, in Bangkok

face
flavicon
face
Pyrotechnically Challenged ... keep 'em far away from firecrackers.

RiB

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 20:14, Tamas Rudnai <KILLspamtamas.rudnaiKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2010\02\20@104713 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> Pyrotechnically Challenged ... keep 'em far away from firecrackers.

Ah. Yes!. That will be what Olin was adumbrating re when he called me PC.
Or, perhaps, Pryotechnically Challenging.
It's all a lot quieter these years, but there have seen some very
impressive results along the way.
My mother used to complain about the smoke from the basement filtering
through into the house on occasion. Surprisingly, the house is there
to this day. Also it's a little surprising that no eyes, fingers or
miscellaneous limbs departed along the way.  A modicum of skin and
quite a lot of hair did though. Zinc powder and er, um, censored
oxidizer, makes a very very very hot very very fast burning mix but
requires the fires of hell to prevail against it to get it going. Once
it starts it goes in a flash (when uncompressed) with a
appears-as-brighty-as-the sun flash and a nice classic mushroom cloud.
Having an outstetched hand involved in the ignition process is unwise
as the top layer gets involved in the combustion process. Removing the
pretty layer of white zinc oxide is rendered problematic by the
initial great pain on contact with anything.

If fired compressed you may get the rocket you intended - or may
instead, as a friend did, think that you have killed your best friend
and give up the activity on the spot. He have me all his chemicals
:-). The friend lived but lost the front half of his hair
instantaneouisly. Very bad ignition control practices.

Yes. That must be what Olin had in mind :-)


                  R




On 21 February 2010 04:18, Roger, in Bangkok <TakeThisOuTmerciesEraseMEspamspam_OUTcscoms.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2010\02\20@112745 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> My mother used to complain about the smoke from the basement filtering
> through into the house on occasion.

At a certain moment my parents decided to buy me a small caravan which
they put in the garden, so I could do my experiments in there. A caravan
is practical, you can stick you head out of the window (to avoid the
fumes) while still manipulating the stuff inside. But in retrospect I
think a mouth-operated pipette was not the right tool to measure liquid
Br2.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\02\20@130946 by John Ferrell

face
flavicon
face
Mine was a 20 X 20 Utility building with windows & Kerosene Heater. It was
nearly a hundred feet from the house. That was when you could buy all the
Calcium Carbide you wanted at the hardware store. It was even cheap! Sodium
Nitrate was readily available at the grocery store and sulfur came in big
jars and boxes at the drug store. The clerk didn't even blink when you told
them you wanted to mix your own gunpowder. Just a friendly reminder to "Be
careful"...

The list does seem to have been on Valium for a while...
John Ferrell  W8CCW

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."
-Edward R. Murrow
{Original Message removed}

2010\02\20@152946 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> ... The clerk didn't even blink when you told ...

Potassium Chlorate fitted that slot for us. Bikeless at that stage I
regularly walked a long long long way to a friendly pharmacist to buy
it. Presuming he was enabling boyhood learning, he can have had no
idea what you can do with so very little of that..
...
> The list does seem to have been on Valium for a while......
...
Good stuff no doubt, but not up to Pot Chlor for forming life skills.
And I've not changed so very much over time that claims of PCness in
response to thwarted desires to run hobnailed and rampant over the new
and unfamiliar with claims of teaching them what's what and, very
importantly,  who's important and to be respected (and that purpose
essentially verbatim) , as they blink uncertainly in the light of a
new list,(which is the thing which I've most sought to prevent) )
don't bring a wry mental smile.


               R

            KCLO4 +  .... :-)

2010\02\20@163203 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Potassium Chlorate fitted that slot for us.

Same for me. Mix with almost anything powdery, in any reasonable ratio,
and it will go. In those days some local chemists still sold all kinds
of interesting chemicals, and word about them got around quickly in
certain circles. Most of the stuff I used back then is not sold publicly
any more. Even the school lab was not allowed to stock some of the stuff
even then.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\02\20@164625 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Wouter van Ooijen <RemoveMEwouterEraseMEspamEraseMEvoti.nl> wrote:
> Same for me. Mix with almost anything powdery, in any reasonable ratio,
> and it will go. In those days some local chemists still sold all kinds
> of interesting chemicals, and word about them got around quickly in
> certain circles. Most of the stuff I used back then is not sold publicly
> any more. Even the school lab was not allowed to stock some of the stuff
> even then.

When I was a kid I even bought the ferrite-chloride and the
isopropil-alcohol in the local chemist. Now you have to buy these
stuff much more expensive from a 'specialist' shop.

BTW: I just about to buy resin from the music shop here, wondering how
will they look at me when I try explaining that I do not need it for
violin but for my iron :-)

Tamas


>
> --
>
> Wouter van Ooijen
>
> -- -------------------------------------------
> Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
> consultancy, development, PICmicro products
> docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
>
> -

2010\02\20@213346 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
You can't buy isopropyl alcohol from your local chemist/pharmacist?

We definitely can here in the US. Both 70% and 91% are typically
available. The latter is very flammable but still freely available.

Sean



On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Tamas Rudnai <RemoveMEtamas.rudnaispam_OUTspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>> --

2010\02\20@231359 by John Gardner

picon face
Zzzzzzz...

2010\02\20@233042 by Peter van Hoof

face picon face
Now THAT is downright RUDE mister!

Peter van Hoof



----- Original Message ----
> From: John Gardner <EraseMEgoflo3spamspamspamBeGonegmail.com>
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <RemoveMEpiclistKILLspamspammit.edu>
> Sent: Sat, February 20, 2010 11:13:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [OT] Moderation and list policy
>
> Zzzzzzz...

2010\02\20@235135 by jim

flavicon
face
I have just about had it with this infernal trivial bickering.


-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bouncesSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmit.edu [spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesSTOPspamspamEraseMEmit.edu] On Behalf Of
Peter van Hoof
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 10:31 PM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Moderation and list policy

Now THAT is downright RUDE mister!

Peter van Hoof



----- Original Message ----
> From: John Gardner <KILLspamgoflo3spamBeGonespamgmail.com>
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <EraseMEpiclistspamEraseMEmit.edu>
> Sent: Sat, February 20, 2010 11:13:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [OT] Moderation and list policy
>
> Zzzzzzz...

2010\02\21@013635 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> I have just about had it with this infernal trivial bickering.

That's why it's on OT.
There needs, arguably, to be a safety valve of sorts and a means of
public discussion of sorts.

There ae (usually) reasons that things are done that seem good to the
doers, but the reasons will never sit comfortably with others. There
will always be variations of perception and opinion. As long as they
stay polite and stay in OT they serve a valuable purpose. Or one hopes
so :-).

RM

2010\02\21@100037 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>RTFM means I really should read the manual and from someone like
>Olin ET AL (who's advice, time and effort I respect and appreciate)
>clearly means I am looking in the wrong place.

However if Read The Fine Manual is the total response, then often the
response shouldn't be sent at all. We had a recent thread where it became
evident that the OP who had asked a question had been looking through the
datasheet, but hadn't picked up that the info they needed was in a seperate
section to where they were looking. So if replying RTFM, then do add a
pointer to the relevant portion of the datasheet.

I find that because of the way the datasheet is organised I also miss info,
only to find it in another section than where I expect it, as it has come
under a heading that has an oblique reference to what I am looking for. The
reference manuals seem to have this bad because of the way they are
organised to cover whole families of chips that have evolving features over
time.

2010\02\21@101431 by Rolf

flavicon
face
olin_piclist@embedinc.com"Olin Lathrop" wrote:
> ......
> I refrained from adding
> value to this list under the current conditions.  You can't have it both
> ways.  You don't get to treat me unfairly and still have me help you.  
.....

But I notice that you have no issue with sucking value from the list
while you 'conscientiosly objected' to adding value.... It does not
strike you as hypocritical that you advertise on piclist trying to sell
your product while at the same time calling the community unfair?

In my not-so-humble-opinion, and having been the victim of your derision
too often, I find myself wishing that you had decided to stay out of
PICLISt for longer, I found the 'current conditions' much more pleasant
than what they are now.

Rolf

2010\02\21@113420 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Rolf wrote:
>> I refrained from adding
>> value to this list under the current conditions.  You can't have it
>> both ways.  You don't get to treat me unfairly and still have me
>> help you. .....
>
> But I notice that you have no issue with sucking value from the list
> while you 'conscientiosly objected' to adding value....

Exactly.  I don't have to like something to get use out of it, but I can
certainly refrain from adding value to it for free.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\02\21@164706 by enkitec

picon face
On 21-Feb-10 13:34, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Rolf wrote:
>    
>>> I refrained from adding
>>> value to this list under the current conditions.  You can't have it
>>> both ways.  You don't get to treat me unfairly and still have me
>>> help you. .....
>>>        
>> But I notice that you have no issue with sucking value from the list
>> while you 'conscientiosly objected' to adding value....
>>      
> Exactly.  I don't have to like something to get use out of it, but I can
> certainly refrain from adding value to it for free.
>
>    

    I don't think money is the real issue here...  ego, maybe.

    MJ





2010\02\21@171127 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
**** Please refrain from personal comments
**** on the behaviour and motivation of individuals in the context
**** of this thread, if only in the interests of those less likely to
**** be able to control themselves if/when the action heats up too much.

OK
Dons official list moderator hat.
Never fits very well, but ...

The recent trend in comments is "getting marginal" and coming closer to
'personal comment' than is safe.

While things are being dealt with in reasonably OK manner so far, past
indications are that sooner or later (and the timescale is never certain)
this leads to heated tempers and to somebody getting excessively rude to the
extent that more moderation happens. [Note - I'm not the one who is likely
to be doing such subsequent moderating, but the trend is well established].

It's also historical fact that the people who are most liable to be hurt by
this are NOT the people being 'attacked' but some relative newcomer who gets
involved in the fray, subtly insulted and goaded by experts and then gets
out of control and needs 'dealing with'. The experts then go their blissful
and 'innocent' way.

SO

**** Please refrain from personal comments
**** on the behaviour and motivation of individuals in the context
**** of this thread, if only in the interests of those less likely to
**** be able to control themselves if/when the action heats up too much.




              Rusell McMahon



On 22 February 2010 10:46, <@spam@enkitec@spam@spamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\02\21@195151 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
What if I am very good at commenting on the motivation of
individuals ?  I have a certificate .............
Gus

{Quote hidden}

2010\02\21@211705 by Gaston Gagnon

face
flavicon
face
Justin Richards wrote:
> I prefer to be treated abruptly and succinctly and wish I could
> respond to others the same, but I waste considerable time trying to
> phrase emails so it does not put the recipient offside.
>  
Sorry Justin, dignity commands. No amount of technical explanation,
however good it is, is worth suffering humiliation.
Bullying is not acceptable and bullies should never be tolerated, anywhere.
Help should be offered graciously or not at all.
Gaston




2010\02\22@003714 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Gaston Gagnon wrote:
>> I prefer to be treated abruptly and succinctly and wish I could
>> respond to others the same, but I waste considerable time trying to
>> phrase emails so it does not put the recipient offside.
>>
> Sorry Justin, dignity commands. No amount of technical explanation,
> however good it is, is worth suffering humiliation.
> Bullying is not acceptable and bullies should never be tolerated,
> anywhere.
> Help should be offered graciously or not at all.

Amen.


2010\02\22@004053 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
>> I have just about had it with this infernal trivial bickering.
>
> That's why it's on OT.
> There needs, arguably, to be a safety valve of sorts and a means of
> public discussion of sorts.

I thought jim's response was part of a joke.

Vitaliy

2010\02\22@082533 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Gaston Gagnon wrote:
> Help should be offered graciously or not at all.

If you really believe that, then you'd better stay out of design reviews,
especially when your design is being reviewed.

If you just withold any comment to a demanding ingrate on the list, then
they won't know their attitude prevented getting more responses.  This is
especially true since there always seem to be a few people here that can't
help showing off they know the answer instead of restraining themselves to
make the list a better place long term for all.  The OP may never know
better responses could have been had.  By telling the OP that he's perceived
as a jerk and why is actually doing him a favor, although he may not think
that in the short term.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\02\22@120431 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>By telling the OP that he's perceived as a jerk and why is actually
>doing him a favor, although he may not think that in the short term.

We had one here recently who, I suspect, wouldn't even catch on in the long
term, even though he seemed to think he was brainy enough to go to medical
college. I ended up setting up a mail rule that sent messages from him
straight into the deleted items folder.

2010\02\22@120432 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> Help should be offered graciously or not at all.
>
> If you really believe that, then you'd better stay out of design reviews,
> especially when your design is being reviewed.

This doesn't make any sense. I conduct or sit in on design reviews all the
time. Sometimes the debates become heated, but nobody ever gets called a
moron.

You make it sound like you make your engineers' life hell. I have a hard
time believing that in Real Life you let yourself insult or publicly
embarrass people you work with.


> If you just withold any comment to a demanding ingrate on the list, then
> they won't know their attitude prevented getting more responses.  This is
> especially true since there always seem to be a few people here that can't
> help showing off they know the answer instead of restraining themselves to
> make the list a better place long term for all.  The OP may never know
> better responses could have been had.

You can tell him offlist.


> By telling the OP that he's perceived
> as a jerk and why is actually doing him a favor, although he may not think
> that in the short term.

I don't buy this "they'll thank me later" logic. There are plenty of people
on this list who still, years after the fact, resent how you treated them or
a fellow member.

Stop kidding yourself: you don't do it for the benefit of the offender, or
for the betterment of the community, but only for your own enjoyment.

Bottom line: I am strongly in favor of your proposal. When you insult
someone, admins ban you for X days and make a public announcement to the
effect. Second offense, X + N days, etc.

Vitaliy

2010\02\22@134326 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> Sometimes the debates become heated, but nobody ever
> gets called a moron.

Exactly.  You don't call the person a moron but comment on the design and
ideas.  These can range the spectrum from brilliant to downright stupid,
although the vast majority are usually in the OK to "could use a little
help" range.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\02\22@153405 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Olin Lathrop <spamBeGoneolin_piclistspamKILLspamembedinc.com> wrote:
> Vitaliy wrote:
>> Sometimes the debates become heated, but nobody ever
>> gets called a moron.
>
> Exactly.  You don't call the person a moron but comment on the design and
> ideas.  These can range the spectrum from brilliant to downright stupid,
> although the vast majority are usually in the OK to "could use a little
> help" range.

But saying, "Your design is stupid" is tantamount to saying that the
person who designed it is stupid.  Inexperienced, unskilled,
disorganized, etc, maybe, but the wording one uses does impact
meaning.  Furthermore, what, exactly, does "Your design is stupid"
convey?  Absolutely nothing!  It's worthless non-constructive,
critical, peanut gallery commentary!

Why not replace "Your design is stupid" with "I believe you could
improve the design by x, y, or z", "Why didn't you implement it with
x, y, or z?", or "What happens if you apply the following input..." -
open ended questions and comments which help them reach the same
conclusion I've already reached.

This causes them to go through the thinking process without setting
them up to become defensive regarding their work product.

Yes, my job is to attack the design and point out its weaknesses, but
there are ways to attack the user by attacking the design, and then
there are ways to accomplish the same goal (better end-product)
without even indirectly attacking the user.

Which method puts the recipient in a thoughtful mood, and which puts
them in a defensive mood, and which mood is better, overall, for them
to move forward with a better design than when they started the
discussion with me?

-Adam

2010\02\22@162613 by Gaston Gagnon

face
flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Gaston Gagnon wrote:
>  
>> Help should be offered graciously or not at all.
>>    
>
> If you really believe that, then you'd better stay out of design reviews,
> especially when your design is being reviewed.
>
>  
The Piclist in NOT a design reviews list.
> If you just withold any comment to a demanding ingrate on the list
Where did you get the idea that people are begging for answers or that
they are ungrateful?
People are simply asking the whole group questions, and their intent is
certainly not for anyone's glorification.
And you must remember that "no answer is an answer". No need to crush
the poor guy to let him know his question was, in any individual's
opinion, of no great value.

If you absolutely want to humiliate someone, do it in person; at least
he has a chance to punch you in the nose hahaha :-)
As for me, I see no value in demeaning others and calling them names (
moron, jerk, etc.).
Gaston

2010\02\22@165934 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:
> But saying, "Your design is stupid" is tantamount to saying that the
> person who designed it is stupid.

Absolutely not.

> Why not replace "Your design is stupid" with "I believe you could
> improve the design by x, y, or z", ...

It all depends on how much effort it's worth going thru.  Is this generally
a good engineer who just didn't think of a better way, or is this a moron
that shouldn't be here in the first place and this design is a good
opportunity to fix that?  If the point is to get the moron canned, then
being blunt but calm, factual, and correct is often a good way to get him to
overreact and hang himself.  Bad engineers and emotional reactions tend to
go hand in hand.

Another point to consider is who is in the room.  I've been in situations
where management suspected a problem and was just waiting for someone
outside to say "that's really dumb", and of course be able to justify it
technically.

Usually everyone other then the moron appreciates bluntness as long as it's
factual and not done to be nasty.  Of course you have to right, so this
isn't for the timid or incompetent.  Not too long ago I was in a situation
brought in initially to help with PIC code.  Of course I had to look over
the schematic to understand what the PIC had to do.  I saw several thing in
the schematic that said "moron" to me.  I asked a bunch of questions before
deciding that was the case or not.  Once I had all the facts, it was clear
that "moron" was the appropriate evaluation.  The moron wasn't there, in
fact I never met him or communicated with him.  I told the people there all
the things wrong with the design, some of which were causing the problems
they brought me in to help with, and problems they didn't know about yet but
would occur in production and in the field.  They really had no idea.  Of
course I backed up everything with explanations of why the current design
was bad and how things would fail.  One of the people there had a PhD in
physics, and the other a BS in EE.  They understood.  After I had a chance
to give it some thought, I proposed a different architecture.  That's what
they went with, right after firing the moron.  I designed two of the three
boards and helped the EE with the third.  Now I'm their external EE and PIC
expert, and they've been good customers since.

Of coures the reverse can happen too.  I was recently at a prospect that
needed to replace a 15 year old controller board because they can't get
parts anymore.  I was impressed with how advanced the design was for 15
years ago, and told them that.  I think that gave me some credibility since
the design was well regarded internally (which I didn't know at the time).


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\02\22@170859 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> But saying, "Your design is stupid" is tantamount to saying that the
> person who designed it is stupid.

Reading such comments I think I might be the only person on earth for
which this applies, but if my design is stupid (I think that phrase has
a clear meaning) I'd like someone to step up an say so!

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\02\22@174014 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Wouter van Ooijen <.....wouterspam_OUTspamvoti.nl> wrote:
>> But saying, "Your design is stupid" is tantamount to saying that the
>> person who designed it is stupid.
>
> Reading such comments I think I might be the only person on earth for
> which this applies, but if my design is stupid (I think that phrase has
> a clear meaning) I'd like someone to step up an say so!

If "stupid" means "not enough knowledge" then yes, the person might
have not enough knowledge to be able to understand the principles
which then combines some case with a personality disorders that is
preventing him to learn the principles.

How many times I have seen in this list that someone asked a review
and when valuable comments had made they had been ignored completely.
And then the very same questions had taken by the same person all over
again. In addition to this when you dare to mention that it had been
discussed already, that person even start quarrelling at you.

Maybe the word "stupid" is not the right one but "ignorant" and
"arrogant" are quite close to that in my opinion. And yes, I had been
lost my temper many cases in these situations too, so it is not quite
fair to project the whole problem onto one particular member on this
list.

Tamas


>
> --
>
> Wouter van Ooijen
>
> -- -------------------------------------------
> Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
> consultancy, development, PICmicro products
> docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
>
> -

2010\02\22@181112 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Was said:
> "stupid"
As part of the continuing education while employed by a major USA auto
maker (the one doing well at the moment), we were taught to focus on the
issue, and not the person. i.e. Say Joe, the night shift foreman, made a
bunch of bad parts last night. The conversation then was, that we had
some defective parts to handle, and not that Joe had done a bad job. As
soon, as names are brought in, it is a confrontation atmosphere, which
is to be avoided. The poor performance of an employee was an issue for
his performance review, or other meeting with the boss.

For this list, stick to the facts, if something isn't a good practice,
then suggestion should be made of ways to improve it, and specific
reasons why it is not good practice. Names may only come into the
posting if several are in the thread, and wanting to refer to a
particular comment, and then only to the comment in a technical way.

This thread, has gone on with little new content, probably near run it's
course.

2010\02\22@183347 by Rolf

flavicon
face
Carl Denk wrote:
>
> This thread, has gone on with little new content, probably near run it's
> course.
>  

That's OK, in 6 months or so another poor newbie will have "valuable"
answers held at ransom, and we can have this whole discussion all over
again, while the original issue that the newbie was seeking help on will
be buried under ill feelings. Value Added indeed.

This is now the second time that I know of that a relative newbie has
been suckered in to the "poor guy, what could he possibly have done to
deserve moderation?" trap.

It is simple manipulation and blackmail of an unsuspecting innocent
victim. Where there is a victim, there is also a culprit.

"Ethical Egoism" at it's unfettered best.

Rolf

2010\02\23@024256 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
>By telling the OP that he's perceived as a jerk and why is actually
>doing him a favor, although he may not think that in the short term.

>     We had one here recently who, I suspect, wouldn't even catch on in the long
term, even though he seemed to think he was brainy enough to go to medical
college. I ended up setting up a mail rule that sent messages from him
straight into the deleted items folder.

____

>From careful observation over some while:

He caught on moderately well.
Only moderately.
He is probably reasonably bright and reasonably capable.
He is probably going to make an OK doctor - it's been traditional here
for medical students to be chosen from the creme de la creme and if
they have with egos to match its not been a bar. Only more recently
have they specifically looked at a more "holistic": package and
actually reduced the net academic level, albeit marginally. You still
have to be very very good academically.
The person in question was both capable and helpful and well known
elsewhere before he came to PICList.
Despite some utterly utterly brain dead questions and an ongoing
tendency to try and get everyone else to do his research, he picked up
PICs in a practical sense possibly faster than anyone else we've seen
and was producing high level hardware and code in short order. The
reason was that he came from a C language world and being able to use
a C compiler on a PIC made it just part of his experience base. His
"what's a resistor for" hardware experience seemed to be overcome
along the way.
All fwiw.


               R

2010\02\23@025900 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Russell McMahon <TakeThisOuTapptechnz.....spamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
>>By telling the OP that he's perceived as a jerk and why is actually
>>doing him a favor, although he may not think that in the short term.
>
>>     We had one here recently who, I suspect, wouldn't even catch on in the long
>> term, even though he seemed to think he was brainy enough to go to medical
>> college. I ended up setting up a mail rule that sent messages from him
>> straight into the deleted items folder.

I would not do that. He is a bright young man and learns
fast.

{Quote hidden}

Good observations!

References:
http://solar-blogg.blogspot.com/



--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2010\02\23@033311 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
Lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng

Russell said:

**** Please refrain from personal comments
**** on the behaviour and motivation of individuals in the context
**** of this thread, if only in the interests of those less likely to
**** be able to control themselves if/when the action heats up too much.

But then he seems to contradict his own request. Seems like a good
idea. We'll see.

____________________

? said:

>> Why not replace "Your design is stupid" with "I believe you could
>> improve the design by x, y, or z", ...

Olin responded

> It all depends on how much effort it's worth going thru.  Is this generally
> a good engineer who just didn't think of a better way, or is this a moron
> that shouldn't be here in the first place and this design is a good
> opportunity to fix that?  If the point is to get the moron canned, then
> being blunt but calm, factual, and correct is often a good way to get him to
> overreact and hang himself.  Bad engineers and emotional reactions tend to
> go hand in hand.

This is worth my commenting on as it is what is at the core of the
present discussion. I'm specifically referring to Olin here as it is
very specifically his situation and approach that led to this thread
and him who initiated it - and, reportedly, I who provided the straw
that broke the camel's back.

This is where Olin critically differs in opinion from "generally
declared list policy"*.  I say that based on essentially amicable on
and off list past conversations where we have both discussed why we
each behave as we do towards list newcomers and beginners.

Olin's stated aims, previously and above, are to use confrontation and
"verbal violence"  to not only bring to somebody's attention the
paucity of their position but also to drive off those who he perceives
don't belong. ie it's not just about technical instruction and
attitude but about causing either obeisance or flight. Causing a
person to ramp up their responses until they fall foul of the
moderation process is part of the process but putting to flight in its
own right is an acceptable outcome for those who won't buckle under.

This is where I differ and where I understand that the broad consensus
differs from Olin's approach. While there is no exact common agreement
on how to treat people, the list guidelines, evolved over a long while
non democratically but with broad input, make it clear that even
incidental personal abuse is not an acceptable means of achieving
technical aims - and purposeful calculated personal abuse is thus even
less acceptable.

I have only ever rejected ONE of Olin's posts. i have passed many,
while doing so with some sense of pain on a number of occasions.
In the present situation - I tend to feel as if I am the mouthpiece
for Olin's mini-beatings in such cases.

I rejected the one post because we had recently had a general
altercation on list, people were somewhat sensitive and Olin was
directing comments to a newcomer which were mild by his standards but
which could be reasonably expected to cause him to react adversely and
could reasonably be expected to exacerbate an already existing state
of tension. I explained this in enough detail to Olin, advised him
that he could resubmit the post for another opinion and apologised for
feeling the need to intervene.

Olin has chosen this as his cause celebre - he says that my rejection
was trivial and inappropriate and that it is proper that the whole
list suffer  the withdrawal of  his (genuinely undoubtedly capable &
significant ) input in consequence.

I understand him to be saying that he should have been allowed to
gently beat the newbie, to run the risk of exacerbating the state of
tension and perhaps cause the man to lose his cool ie this man was
apparently " ... a moron that shouldn't be here in the first place and
this ... is a good opportunity to fix that ...".

That sounds like a good reason to reject a post as I understand "the
will of the people". Maybe not.

Olin is sometimes not good at understanding the problems that "people
with English as a second language" have.  On one occasion an extremely
capable and widely renowned expert in amateur cryogenic long exposure
photography came to the list seeking assistance. He would have been a
magnificent addition to our community and expertise base. He was
French. Olin misinterpreted his use of the word 'demand" (hint - look
up a French dictionary) - got into an ugly firefight over what the
user was saying - and he clearly WASN'T demanding anything - and the
man left. Other "victims" have veen somewhat emotionally or mentally
somewhat unstable (based on my subsequent net checking). If we don't
have a place for such here and most agree then that may be fine. But,
I suspect not. Some are just 'short fused" - a normal human trait -
although I don't know why people need to be when there is an internet
and a keyboard between them and the provoker. Whatever - a bit of
needling will usually drive such away. If being short fused is a sign
of being a moron and a bad engineer then a lot of humanities top
people are morons and incapable to boot.

Whatever ... .

May I add:   I don't have vast problems with Olin holding his point of
view. I don't even think that he is "wrong".
People are peolpe and hold many overlapping view sets. The point is,
he is not RIGHT. In a community there is no single 'right" position or
belief. We are here to live together, to learn, to share technical
information and to build great stuff. The order of importance will
vary amongst members. This IS predomiantly, regardless of ups and
downs a PIC list. PICs are at the core and nothing should so adversely
affect that as to vastly damage the effectiveness of the listto be a
premium PIC resource. After that it is an EE list - and that is a
vitally important aspect  - both in being able ti provide techncial
support for the PIC core and in its own right. TECH is, I think, (I
would) an important add on, mainly because it allows "engineers" to
deal in engineeringly things of all flavours without diluting true EE
and PIC. Other tags are less important. OT is a vital safety valve and
means aof allowing the commiunity to be a community without diluting
the core areas.

* BUT, I used the phrase above "generally declared list policy".  I
understand this to be that we don't tolerate ongoing laziness, wilful
stupidity or obdurate bad behaviour BUT that we do want to encourage
beginners to grow into the list atmosphere and ethos and give them
some time to learn and grow. We accomodate "as wide a range of normal
as we reasonably can".  Olin's view differs. He would like to narrow
the community, drive out (literally) those who don't fit into his mold
and make the list more like whatv he is comfortable with. I can
understand and sympathise with that perspective. But not on my watch
:-).


                              Russell




             Russell

2010\02\23@084350 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Olin's stated aims, previously and above, are to use confrontation and
> "verbal violence" to not only bring to somebody's attention the
> paucity of their position but also to drive off those who he perceives
> don't belong.

Things devolved and we were talking about consulting situations, where yes,
sometimes, pointing out to the client that someone is a moron and should be
canned is the right course of action.  Obviously you can't fire people on
the PIClist, so this isn't much of a analogy.

> I rejected the one post because we had recently had a general
> altercation on list, people were somewhat sensitive and Olin was
> directing comments to a newcomer which were mild by his standards but
> which could be reasonably expected to cause him to react adversely ...

Exactly.  It is grossly unfair to blame me for saying something mild just
because you think someone else might respond inappropriately, whether you
think I'm bating him or not.  This is just plain wrong.  "Theodoric was
reading something from a book to Bazil.  I think Bazil is now going to turn
Aislinn into a witch, so Theodoric is obviously guilty and must be tied to a
stake and burned.".

"But your honor, this guy in a silver Honda Civic cut me off and it made me
so mad I just had to shoot someone.  It's not my fault.  He's the guilty
one, I'm just another victim here."

Let's get a grip on reality, folks.  Here's a heretical thought: How about
people are punished for crimes they *actually commit*, not what they are
believed to possibly cause others with their own free will to commit.

> Olin misinterpreted his use of the word 'demand"

I didn't misinterpret it.  This is a english language list.  He misused it,
although apparently in honest error.  I don't speak french and can't be
expected to guess at all the possible misinterpretations of what appeared to
be a rather clear statement.  I told him he was in no position to demand
anything.  If he had said "I'm sorry, I misused the english word "demand" si
nce in french it means a polite request", that would have been the end of
it.  If I remember right, he dug in his heals and got rude instead.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\02\23@132933 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Olin Lathrop wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Olin, you are not doing anybody here any favours, not even yourself.

One doesn't need to be emotional when one is imparting information.
Information IS information. It's value is not improved by pointing out how
stupid the student is or how superior the teacher is.

You seem to feel that you have been singled out by the list admins. That
your behaviour is reasonable. You can easily put this to the test. Simply
join the list using a pseudonym and refrain from using your real name or
company details. Then continue to behave as you always have and see how
long you are allowed to stay on the list. I suspect you will be shown far
less leniancy under your alias than you have been already as 'Olin'.

Why do you continue to pursue the piclist? I mean if you feel so hard done
by by the admins, surely you would be far better off dumpping us and
setting up your own mailing list or forum where you have absolute control.

>From what you say, I get the impression you are angry that people who do
not know or care about what they are doing or produce should be profiting
from your experience and hard work. I understand exactly how you feel. But
there is no room for that here. This list is full of different people
ranging greatly in experience and ability. If this list were open only to
professionals who make their money solely on electronic components that
they design and sell, then I would agree with your position 100%. I'd be
standing beside you with a pitchfork in my hand :-) But it is not. It has
a huge base of non-contributing members who are just onlookers, trying to
learn. Once in a while one of these people starts to feel comfortable
enough to stick his head above ground and ask a question. If you shoot him
down in flames it doesn't help the rest. It makes them feel more nervous
and scared of asking for help. So they go and buy books (some of them
really really awful) or try learning from the web AND they sometimes end
up getting even more confused because their source of information is
wrong! Have a look on the web for simple circuits with LEDs in them
sometime. You'll be amazed how many circuit diagrams have the LEDs shown
the wrong way around!

I'm not going to ramble on about how I think you should behave. Instead I
suggest that you consider who it is that forms the bulk of the subscribers
to this list and what is it that this majority wants. If you want a
professional no nonsence no newbe list then go set one up. I and many
others on this list will probably join. But I suspect the majority will be
happy with the way things are.

Friendly Regards
Sergio Masci

2010\02\23@151147 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Let's get a grip on reality, folks.  Here's a heretical thought: How about
> people are punished for crimes they *actually commit*, not what they are
> believed to possibly cause others with their own free will to commit.

I can't help but agree with Olin. Ban*, don't moderate.


{Quote hidden}

IDK, I remember it well and it was obvious from his post that he wasn't a
native English speaker.

Vitaliy

*suspend for a time

2010\02\23@171853 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 13:10 -0700, Vitaliy wrote:
> Olin Lathrop wrote:
> > Let's get a grip on reality, folks.  Here's a heretical thought: How about
> > people are punished for crimes they *actually commit*, not what they are
> > believed to possibly cause others with their own free will to commit.
>
> I can't help but agree with Olin. Ban*, don't moderate.

All this theoretical talk is interesting, but let's step back a sec and
consider a practical issue: how do you "ban" a person?

Anybody can join this list, under any email address, under any name. How
would a ban (or suspension as you are suggesting) work? How would YOU
implement a ban? The same can of course be said for moderation. The
difference is moderation hurts a persons ego far less then a ban,
meaning fewer "retribution" acts.

Sure, we could restrict list membership, but that increases the work
load on us admins. It also wouldn't really solve anything since how
would WE determine that a new arrival is a banned individual? The answer
is you can't.

The fact is moderation, as distasteful as it is, works. The list has run
FAR smoother in the "time of moderation" then it did before. People may
not prefer the solution, but I haven't heard of any other workable
solution that has the potential of being more effective.

TTYL





2010\02\23@204751 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Majority rule is mob rule.  I hardly ever agree with the majority.  
Majority
rule is very seductive yet largely ineffective at producing yummy  
results.
Gus


> If you want a
> professional no nonsence no newbe list then go set one up. I and many
> others on this list will probably join. But I suspect the majority  
> will be
> happy with the way things are.
>
> Friendly Regards
> Sergio Masci

2010\02\23@222310 by Rolf

flavicon
face
YES NOPE9 wrote:
> Majority rule is mob rule.  I hardly ever agree with the majority.  
> Majority
> rule is very seductive yet largely ineffective at producing yummy  
> results.
> Gus
>
>  

I once heard it said that people have 2 quotients, an Intelligence
Quotient, and also a Stupidity Quotient.... you know how it is that
sometimes intelligent people do stupid things, well, you get the idea...

Well, this person suggested that in the case of a group of people, the
IQ is additive, i.e. the intelligence of the group is the sum of the
intelligence of the individuals, but that stupidity is not additive...
rather that the SQ of a group is the product of the SQ of the
individuals in that group... hence Mob mentality.

It sort of explains how you get a group of intelligent people together
with generally low SQ's, but you then add just one individual who has a
large SQ, and you get interesting results.....

Rolf

2010\02\24@001337 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:47 PM, YES NOPE9 <TakeThisOuTyesKILLspamspamspamnope9.com> wrote:
> Majority rule is mob rule.  I hardly ever agree with the majority.
> Majority
> rule is very seductive yet largely ineffective at producing yummy
> results.

True, as an example McDonalds has the same flavor across all its
restaurants.  It's an OK flavor, and good to the majority, but it will
never beat a burger made to match your own tastes and preferences.  It
will never be "yummy."  However, it will be consistent, fair, and
"good enough" for most cases. It should go without saying that your
version of yummy may well be yucky to another consumer.

Often, in a large community, one must sacrifice "yummy" for "good enough"

If "good enough" doesn't cut it then one is always free to fulfill
their yummy elsewhere.

-Adam

2010\02\24@044800 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> I can't help but agree with Olin. Ban*, don't moderate.
> *suspend for a time

That option is, of course, logically available to anyone who wishes to
avail themselves of it.

Any time they are placed under moderation they can refrain from
posting at all until the moderation is removed. Few are liable to have
the ability to self manage themselves under this arrangement, but the
option is there.

If a person is placed on long term or permanent moderation then they
could, should they wish, consider themselves permanently banned. I'd
not recommend that option, but it's available.

The huge flaw in the "ban for a period" argument is that the hard core
disturbers who either can't learn (2 examples come immediately to
mind) or could learn if they wished but refuse to do so (1 example
comes immediately to mind) will simply cyclically wind things up as
soon as they are unbanned.  At each wave new newbies, or world class
experts who speak English as a second language, are abused and driven
off in showers of dead fish and lunar evocations.

The net result of implementing the OL, VM, N9 et al "ban them for a
while" model is a somewhat lower loss rate. But not low enough.

            Loss rate ~= L..b/(b+u).k

where L = loss rate without banning, b = mean ban period, u = mean
period between bannings and k is a personal uppityness or mental
illness factor * that varies with banee. While in most cases k<1,
there are known instances where K>1 or even k>>1.

The unnaceptability of this result causes the model to be rejected.


RM

(*Reference to mental illness is NOT a dig at anyone presently on list
that I am aware of. There have been at least two cases that I am aware
of where mental stability has played a part in how things worked out
(plus one other case where a highly valued list member had problems
that did NOT result in them behaving badly on list (long long ago)). .
That's just part of the great range of human normal.)

2010\02\24@061940 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
>  Loss rate ~= L..b/(b+u).k

Agh!

            Loss rate ~= L..u/(b+u).k

:-)

                         R

2010\02\24@065636 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
M. Adam Davis ha scritto:

> Often, in a large community, one must sacrifice "yummy" for "good enough"


True (maybe "sad").
On your own, claim the best. In a community, do the average best for the
community.


--

Ciao, Dario
--
Cyberdyne

2010\02\24@070920 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, YES NOPE9 wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Gosh and there's me getting it wrong all these years thinking majority
rule was called democracy and mob rule was the driving of a group of weak
willed scared individuals by a bully.

Does this mean that it's not possible for a group of people with similar
interests to gravitate together to form anything other than a mob?

What ymmy results are you hoping for from the PICLIST community? Lower
taxes? An end to world famin? Cheap clean energy? I thought the PICLIST
was just a place were people could meet, exchange ideas, ask for help
solving problems. Have I got this wrong?

The point I was making (about majority) was (and still is), if people come
together to form a community because of a core essance, changing that
essance or railing against it will cause those same people to leave and
seek that essance elsewhere.

It's all well and good a member who has been with the PICLIST for a while
(and managed to stick his head above ground without getting it shot off)
saying "I'm happy here, I don't mind if it changes, yes lets keep the
stupid out, it would be for the better" but that's only possible because
the PICLIST was the way it was when that member joined.

Intelligent discussion isn't "just" about high minded individuals
pontificating about doing things the right way, their way. It's also about
questioning the right way, about asking stupid questions that cause
discussions leading to deeper understanding and insights into doing
things better.

Having a collection of individuals with a vast breadth of expertise and
not just "bakers" is good for a community. If they talk to each other they
can help each other in ways a bunch of "bakers" couldn't.

Friendly Regards
Sergio Masci

2010\02\24@085729 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> That option is, of course, logically available to anyone who wishes to
> avail themselves of it.
>
> Any time they are placed under moderation they can refrain from
> posting at all until the moderation is removed. Few are liable to have
> the ability to self manage themselves under this arrangement, but the
> option is there.

Oh c'mon now Russell, surely you see how that doesn't address any of the
objections to moderation.  You're basically saying "if you don't like
moderation, then leave the list", which is a slap in the face especially in
the context of trying to have a reasoned discussion about list policy.

Unfortunately when people start saying "screw you", especially people in
power, the prospect for any remaining reasonable discussion vanishes.  So
it's time to see what, if anything, is going to happen.  Admins,

1 - How, if at all, will list policy be changed?

2 - When am I going to get off moderation?  I've been on moderation for 8
months.  This was done out of the blue.  No particular incident was cited
nor was there mention of any rule I was supposed to have broken.  For 5
months or so I took it and kept on as usual giving you guys the benefit of
the doubt.  I have been held guilty of causing others with their own free
will to possibly say bad things, even though I hadn't said any bad things
myself.  Eventually my patience ran out and for the last 3 months I have
refrained from adding value to the PIClist.  If this is going to continue,
then I might as well unsubscribe completely.  I'm not saying that as a
threat or ultimatum, just a fact that under these conditions the PIClist
isn't worth it for me anymore.  I am trying to appeal to your sense of
justice and fairness.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\02\24@104023 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
>
> On Feb 23, 2010, at 10:13 PM, M. Adam Davis wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:47 PM, YES NOPE9 <.....yesspamRemoveMEnope9.com> wrote:
>> Majority rule is mob rule.  I hardly ever agree with the majority.
>> Majority
>> rule is very seductive yet largely ineffective at producing yummy
>> results.
>
> True, as an example McDonalds has the same flavor across all its
> restaurants.  It's an OK flavor, and good to the majority, but it will
> never beat a burger made to match your own tastes and preferences.  It
> will never be "yummy."  However, it will be consistent, fair, and
> "good enough" for most cases. It should go without saying that your
> version of yummy may well be yucky to another consumer.
>
> Often, in a large community, one must sacrifice "yummy" for "good  
> enough"
In 90% of cases, this is not necessary.  Yet most people are driven by  
tribalistic
tendencies.   Desire for approval , affirmation , fear of  
strangeness, .......
And of course, they grow up being trained to believe they belong to  
groups ;
not the other way around.

> If "good enough" doesn't cut it then one is always free to fulfill
> their yummy elsewhere.

This was true in the 1800s.  No longer an option for many.  Unless you
are very rich and can insulate yourself , there is nowhere to go that  
does
not have excessive controls on human behaviour.  The controls
come from either pirates , criminal gangs or governments which are
often indistinguishable.
Gus

> -Adam



2010\02\24@122426 by Marechiare

picon face
> 2 - When am I going to get off moderation?  I've been on
> moderation for 8 months.  This was done out of the blue.
> No particular incident was cited nor was there mention of
> any rule I was supposed to have broken.  For 5 months
> or so I took it and kept on as usual giving you guys the
> benefit of the doubt.  I have been held guilty of causing
> others with their own free will to possibly say bad things,
> even though I hadn't said any bad things myself.  Eventually
> my patience ran out and for the last 3 months I have refrained
> from adding value to the PIClist.  If this is going to continue,
> then I might as well unsubscribe completely.  I'm not saying
> that as a threat or ultimatum, just a fact that under these
> conditions the PIClist isn't worth it for me anymore.  I am
> trying to appeal to your sense of justice and fairness.

Guilty
:-)

---

12 Angry Men1957:

- I think we ought to have an open ballot.

Call out our votes, you know?
Let's see who stands where.

Well, that sounds fair to me.
Anyone object?

OK. I'll call off your jury numbers. One?

Oh, that's me. I vote guilty. Two?
Not guilty.

Number three?
Guilty.

Number four?
Guilty.

Number five?
Not guilty.

Number six?
Not guilty.

Number seven?
Guilty.

Number eight?
Not guilty.

- Number nine?
- Not guilty.

- Number ten?
- Guilty.

Number eleven?
Not guilty.

Number twelve?
Number twelve!
Guilty.

The vote is now six to six.
And we go into extra innings here, eh?

Six to six! I'm telling you, some of you people in here must be out of
your minds.

2010\02\24@125651 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:40 AM, YES NOPE9 <RemoveMEyesspamspamBeGonenope9.com> wrote:
>> Often, in a large community, one must sacrifice "yummy" for "good
>> enough"
> In 90% of cases, this is not necessary.  Yet most people are driven by
> tribalistic
> tendencies.   Desire for approval , affirmation , fear of
> strangeness, .......
> And of course, they grow up being trained to believe they belong to
> groups ;
> not the other way around.
>
>> If "good enough" doesn't cut it then one is always free to fulfill
>> their yummy elsewhere.
>
> This was true in the 1800s.  No longer an option for many.  Unless you
> are very rich and can insulate yourself , there is nowhere to go that
> does
> not have excessive controls on human behaviour.  The controls
> come from either pirates , criminal gangs or governments which are
> often indistinguishable.

It appears you are speaking more generally - I don't see how one must
be rich and insular to avoid the piclist.

In any case, small communities are self defining.  If you jump into a
community and declare that their existing "flavor" is wrong you should
expect to receive a cold shoulder.  It doesn't matter if it is
objectively wrong or not - it's their community long before it was
yours.

If you are unable to integrate comfortably with the community, then
you have two choices:
- Leave
- Change the community

Most people choose the path of least resistance and leave - generally
there are so many communities, and changing an existing community is
long, hard work that it makes more sense from a
hunter/getherer/resources standpoint to find or form a better fitting
community.

Some choose the more difficult path largely because they get something
from the community that is worth the additional trouble.

But then there's a catch-22.  By changing the fundamental flavor of
the community, they may no longer find that it provides them with what
they require.  Further, the community may itself disintegrate as those
who made it great in the first place find the new flavor distasteful
and leave.

-Adam

2010\02\24@131153 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
I'm no moderator, but I play one on TV.  Accept (or reject!) this as
shouting from the popcorn gallery:

> 1 - How, if at all, will list policy be changed?

No change.

> 2 - When am I going to get off moderation?

When you
- recognize and accept that your behavior is unacceptable
- pledge to change
- demonstrate such change for an undefined period of time wherein the
moderators can see that you fully understand the point(s) of friction.

-Adam

2010\02\24@215931 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:18:51 -0500, "Herbert Graf" said:

> All this theoretical talk is interesting, but let's step back a sec and
> consider a practical issue: how do you "ban" a person?
>
> Anybody can join this list, under any email address, under any name. How
> would a ban (or suspension as you are suggesting) work? How would YOU
> implement a ban? The same can of course be said for moderation. The
> difference is moderation hurts a persons ego far less then a ban,
> meaning fewer "retribution" acts.
>
> Sure, we could restrict list membership, but that increases the work
> load on us admins. It also wouldn't really solve anything since how
> would WE determine that a new arrival is a banned individual? The answer
> is you can't.
>
> The fact is moderation, as distasteful as it is, works. The list has run
> FAR smoother in the "time of moderation" then it did before. People may
> not prefer the solution, but I haven't heard of any other workable
> solution that has the potential of being more effective.

Let me also add that there are 2000 people on this list. If you use the
population of the United States as an example, at any time 3.2% of the
adults are incarcerated. Applying that percentage to the Piclist the
result is 64 people. There have never been 64 Piclisters banned or under
moderation.

I'm sure this email falls under the category of "lies, damn lies, and
statistics" but I thought it worth mentioning that there is no system
that can always please 100% of it's users. Even Geico seems to do no
better than the US incarceration percentage, and they have a lizard :)

My apology to Olin, I am not trying to make fun at your expense, the
last sentence was merely what came to mind while attempting to add
perspective.

Best regards,

Bob


--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

2010\02\25@090553 by Marechiare

picon face
>> Often, in a large community, one must sacrifice
>> "yummy" for "good enough"
>>
> In 90% of cases, this is not necessary.  Yet most
> people are driven by tribalistic tendencies. Desire
>  for approval , affirmation , fear of strangeness, .......
> And of course, they grow up being trained to believe
> they belong to groups ; not the other way around.

To realise that one should belong to the remaining 10%.


>> If "good enough" doesn't cut it then one is always
>>  free to fulfil their yummy elsewhere.
>
> This was true in the 1800s.  No longer an option for
> many.  Unless you are very rich and can insulate
> yourself , there is nowhere to go that does not have
> excessive controls on ...[snipped].

In other words, no option for the community to be insulated from the
real life and be left alone. That is, "don't buy if you don't like"
seems got no chance to qualify as an acceptable answer. Let's wait and
see anyway..

2010\02\26@010316 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
M. Adam Davis wrote:
>> 2 - When am I going to get off moderation?
>
> When you
> - recognize and accept that your behavior is unacceptable
> - pledge to change
> - demonstrate such change for an undefined period of time wherein the
> moderators can see that you fully understand the point(s) of friction.

"Undefined period of time"? I'm not a fan of Olin's style, but even I
consider this utterly unfair.

Vitaliy

2010\02\26@112853 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Vitaliy <spamBeGonepiclist@spam@spamspam_OUTmaksimov.org> wrote:
> M. Adam Davis wrote:
>>> 2 - When am I going to get off moderation?
>>
>> When you
>> - recognize and accept that your behavior is unacceptable
>> - pledge to change
>> - demonstrate such change for an undefined period of time wherein the
>> moderators can see that you fully understand the point(s) of friction.
>
> "Undefined period of time"? I'm not a fan of Olin's style, but even I
> consider this utterly unfair.

I didn't provide more details because I wanted the message very short
and to the point, and because there's no way to have a 'standardized'
length of time for the moderation ban.

In each case it would differ based on the circumstances.

Olin has proven that he can play nice for 6 or more months at a time,
but about 2-3 times a year he goes over the line.  Now if he would
just say, "sorry," and leave the topic alone I doubt that this
infrequent infraction would be cause for ANY moderation.  However he
instead defends his position, intentionally draws many more people
into it (fracturing a small portion of the list into those that
support him and those that agree with the admins), and the issue goes
on for two *MONTHS* without admin intervention (that's about how long
it lasted when the de-facto admin decided to engage with Olin and
"play the game" rather than simply banning him as usual).  You can see
this is exactly how it played out again - he tells someone that he
could help them but won't due to the oppressive conditions, and
encourages that user to "take it up with the community" which then
blows all out into this current conflageration.  He's moved to this
tactic recently because he finds that it works - get someone else to
"request that he be taken off moderation" because they feel his input
is needed for their question.

So for him I might suggest that a period of 1 year of "probation"
would be sufficient, and if he tries to post a bad message again, then
it would reset to one year from the most recent attempt.

Others that start off their subscription by going over the line within
a week, and despite offlist messages still violate the policy every 1
in 10 messages or about once a week might ultimately get put on
moderation until they've gone 4+ weeks without an infraction.

The nebulous length of time can only be bounded by "wherein the
moderators can see that you fully understand the point(s) of friction"
since it's impossible to enumerate all the types of list interaction
and how they might map to a standardized system of lengths of time for
moderation.

Of course this means absolutely nothing due to the fact that I'm not
(nor have ANY desire to be) an admin.

2010\02\26@152226 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
I can see why James N quit !
Gus


'[OT] Moderation and list policy'
2010\03\04@093017 by Olin Lathrop
face picon face
Bump.

This was posted over a week ago.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect
some answer or at least a dialog from those in charge within that time.

Another problem with moderation that was only lightly mentioned is the time
lag between sending a message and when it gets distributed by the server.
This is usually a few hours, but can has been over a day in number of times.
That has a severe detremental impact on the conversation flow.

Then message also disappear completely for no apparent reason.  I sent a few
messages last Friday morning, none of which were posted to the list.  These
were simple replies to other people with nothing even the PC types would
find objectionable.  There was no bounce from the list server, no message
from a moderator, nothing.  Yes I checked the archives to make sure the
problem wasn't my receiving them from the server when they were posted to
the list.


Anyway, from Wednesday last week:

Russell McMahon wrote:
> That option is, of course, logically available to anyone who wishes to
> avail themselves of it.
>
> Any time they are placed under moderation they can refrain from
> posting at all until the moderation is removed. Few are liable to have
> the ability to self manage themselves under this arrangement, but the
> option is there.

Oh c'mon now Russell, surely you see how that doesn't address any of the
objections to moderation.  You're basically saying "if you don't like
moderation, then leave the list", which is a slap in the face especially in
the context of trying to have a reasoned discussion about list policy.

Unfortunately when people start saying "screw you", especially people in
power, the prospect for any remaining reasonable discussion vanishes.  So
it's time to see what, if anything, is going to happen.  Admins,

1 - How, if at all, will list policy be changed?

2 - When am I going to get off moderation?  I've been on moderation for 8
months.  This was done out of the blue.  No particular incident was cited
nor was there mention of any rule I was supposed to have broken.  For 5
months or so I took it and kept on as usual giving you guys the benefit of
the doubt.  I have been held guilty of causing others with their own free
will to possibly say bad things, even though I hadn't said any bad things
myself.  Eventually my patience ran out and for the last 3 months I have
refrained from adding value to the PIClist.  If this is going to continue,
then I might as well unsubscribe completely.  I'm not saying that as a
threat or ultimatum, just a fact that under these conditions the PIClist
isn't worth it for me anymore.  I am trying to appeal to your sense of
justice and fairness.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\04@114749 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> Bump.

Ack.

_________

Rushing:

I saw that post.
I have not seen any posts from you for some days.
Th server MAY be having problems - I had noted that it seemed to be
reoffering messages some days after they had been processed and
seeming to list one message but deliver another. It's always uncertain
whether this sort of thing is a genuine problem or a view of something
that is misunderstood so appears to be doing something it isn't.

Re your question.
I'm probably not going to try to address that on list.
I have said much on the general subject on list in the last few weeks
and it tends to be either ignored or mis interpreted (not by
you)(mostly :-) ).
I'd be very happy to have this sort of dicussion with you and the
admins in general offlist. I am not averse to any such proceedings
being public per se - just a bit battle weary from the essentially
unrelated flack that happens when things start being discussed at
length.

As I have noted, I have argued your case on your behalf on various
occasions - not to say that I agree with your approach but in advocacy
of what actions should be taken in various situations.

FYI - I was not involved in placing you on moderation BUT I was given
a chance to participate in the discussion. For various reasons of
circumstance it didn't happen. I still share the collective
responsibility  - part of the "liability" that was mentioned recently.

Agh. I lied.
Onlist reply it is then :-).
I think I gave a reasonable summary of my perspective recently,
probably after the post you are now citing.

I am not too too upset about you getting into some degree of argy
bargy with those who like that sort of thing if it doesn't bother
others. *BUT* it is wholly unacceptable for newcomers to be treated in
the manner that you describe treating those in the workplace who you
consider to be morons. Time after time after time after time after
time (at least) you have been asked to leave the children alone, help
them if you can and wish, ignore them if you think them unworthy of
your talents, let other sat least try to make them a little welcome
and established and valuable members of the community. NOBODY else
wants to let people be lazy, for them to have free rides, for us to do
their home work and assignments for them, for them to endlessly ask
the list when gargoyle stands idle etc. Everyone wants the beginners
to help themselves. BUT time after time after time recurring you
absolutely demand to be entitled to beat them round the head, treat
them as morons and drive them off if they will not give you the
respect that you deserve (which is close to verbatim without actually
looking your words up). I personally have no problem acknowledging
that in many areas you are worthy of respect. that you are extremely
capable. That you are of great assistance to many. But I'd personally
not want to see you let loose in the beginners enclosure until you
agree to simply leave them alone and let others with at least one
empathy bone do the training. Letting you loose amongst the beginners
is so far a sure guarantee that we will see bleeding newbies crawling
for the exits. True morons will manage it without your very capable
assistance. Only-apparent morons may shed their moronic shell and
become vagued contributors. But only if you are on a leash OR if you
simply agree in this area to leave people alone. That doesn't mean
excessive fish waving would be allowed in other areas BUT the time
from attack to conflagration is a little longer there.

OK. There it is. On list. Where does that leave things?

.
  R



On 5 March 2010 03:30, Olin Lathrop <TakeThisOuTolin_piclistspamspamembedinc.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\03\04@120405 by Marechiare

picon face
> Another problem with moderation that was only lightly
> mentioned is the time lag between sending a message
> and when it gets distributed by the server. This is
> usually a few hours, but can has been over a day in
> number of times. That has a severe detremental impact
> on the conversation flow.

You may wish to duplicate your posts to some group you can create for
this specific purpose, for example some Google group. Anyone willing
to get your posts without moderation may subscribe.

2010\03\04@133155 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:30:34 -0500, "Olin Lathrop"
said:

> Then message also disappear completely for no apparent reason.  I sent a
> few
> messages last Friday morning, none of which were posted to the list.
> These
> were simple replies to other people with nothing even the PC types would
> find objectionable.  There was no bounce from the list server, no message
> from a moderator, nothing.  Yes I checked the archives to make sure the
> problem wasn't my receiving them from the server when they were posted to
> the list.

That isn't a moderation issue, it is something that happens for any one
of a number of reasons. There's a couple of spam filters on the list and
they dump messages with no trace. And many of your emails over the last
month have been malformed. This one looks OK but the others had strange
"from:" lines. That may have triggered the spam filter, since it tests
to see if there is a server at the "from" address and if it can't parse
it correctly then I bet the email gets dumped.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class

2010\03\04@133213 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Marechiare wrote:
>> Another problem with moderation that was only lightly
>> mentioned is the time lag between sending a message
>> and when it gets distributed by the server. This is
>> usually a few hours, but can has been over a day in
>> number of times. That has a severe detremental impact
>> on the conversation flow.
>
> You may wish to duplicate your posts to some group you can create for
> this specific purpose, for example some Google group. Anyone willing
> to get your posts without moderation may subscribe.

Your solution does not address the problem.

Vitaliy

2010\03\04@141556 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclistEraseMEspamembedinc.com> wrote:
> Another problem with moderation that was only lightly mentioned is the time
> lag between sending a message and when it gets distributed by the server.
> This is usually a few hours, but can has been over a day in number of times.
> That has a severe detremental impact on the conversation flow.

The admins are not full time.  You are not guaranteed any time frame
for when your messages will be approved - you may have to wait as long
as 72 hours, and under some circumstances even longer.  This is a
consequence of moderation.  It's further complicated by the normal
mailing list delay which is already pretty long and somewhat random.

If your response is time sensitive, please consider sending it
directly, even when you are not being moderated.

-Adam

2010\03\04@142446 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Bob Blick wrote:
> That isn't a moderation issue, it is something that happens for any
> one
> of a number of reasons. There's a couple of spam filters on the list
> and they dump messages with no trace. And many of your emails over
> the last month have been malformed. This one looks OK but the others
> had strange "from:" lines. That may have triggered the spam filter,
> since it tests
> to see if there is a server at the "from" address and if it can't
> parse
> it correctly then I bet the email gets dumped.

Things were probably unsettled while I was messing with the mail software
here, but that's been up and running in its present form for a few weeks
now.  I was on a different machine Friday morning, which probably made the
difference but I don't know how.  On that machine I use Outlook Express on
XP Pro.  OE goes outside the LAN and sends mail directly to the server at
Embed.  The message I'm writing now is from OE on a Windows 2000 Machine at
Embed, which will send it to the same server as the other one.  To the
outside world, both messages are coming from the same software at the same
IP address.  I can't think of how the server would distinguish the two
messages by anything it should be looking at.  The last (oldest) "received:"
line would be different, but the server shouldn't care and probably doesn't
even examine it.

I have sent messages successfully to the PIClist from the other machine in
the past.  Any ideas how to diagnose this problem?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\04@143707 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
For someone who was so annoyed that list policy was being discussed that he
had to belittle the effort, you sure have a lot to say.

M. Adam Davis wrote:
> The admins are not full time.  You are not guaranteed any time frame
> for when your messages will be approved - you may have to wait as long
> as 72 hours, and under some circumstances even longer.  This is a
> consequence of moderation.

Exactly.  This is yet another reason why moderation is bad.  Not only is
censorship just plain wrong, but the logistics also make things
unnecessarily difficult.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\04@145022 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:25:00 -0500, "Olin Lathrop" said:

> I have sent messages successfully to the PIClist from the other machine
> in
> the past.  Any ideas how to diagnose this problem?

I've only been able to scratch at the surface, since all the MIT mailing
lists are despammed as a group and out of our control. It appears the
usual spam scoring system is applied, but with extra ferocity. So
everything you can do to reduce the spamminess is good. The content of
the message doesn't seem to be as important as the headers. Having a
"reply-to" address is bad. Having a "cc:", "bcc:" or multiple "to:"
addresses is bad. Using a relay is bad. At home I have given up on using
a mail client since it goes through my ISP's SMTP server which is not
ftml.net, because that really raises the spam score. So I am using the
webmail client when I send mail to the Piclist.

It can be annoying but I gave up and I just work around it now.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

2010\03\04@152232 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Olin Lathrop ha scritto:
> Bump.


for the records, Olin, I HAD gotten that message...



Ciao, Dario
--
Cyberdyne

2010\03\04@170114 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Olin Lathrop <RemoveMEolin_piclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTembedinc.com> wrote:
> For someone who was so annoyed that list policy was being discussed that he
> had to belittle the effort, you sure have a lot to say.

While I belittle the effort, I don't see any reason to stand around
while you publicly badger the admins.  That's what I've done in the
past, and the results have been less than optimal.

> M. Adam Davis wrote:
>> The admins are not full time.  You are not guaranteed any time frame
>> for when your messages will be approved - you may have to wait as long
>> as 72 hours, and under some circumstances even longer.  This is a
>> consequence of moderation.
>
> Exactly.  This is yet another reason why moderation is bad.

Actually, this is yet another reason why moderation is GOOD.  If it
was instantaneous, then no one would have any reason to try to get off
moderation - they would just be using the admins as personal
secretaries.

The fact that you're complaining about it shows that this has some
effect.  Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be a strong enough reason to
compel you to change your behavior.

Since it's long been obvious that no punishment will ever compel you
to change or leave, we're stuck with this horrible, terrible, no good,
very bad compromise called moderation.

> Not only is censorship just plain wrong

Oh, are you pretending this is censorship again?  You love that old
hobby horse, don't you.

> but the logistics also make things unnecessarily difficult.

Worst of all for the admins who I'm sure would love to not have to
moderate anyone.  Unfortunately there are those who refuse to change.

Such is life.

Please.  Engage me.  I've got over a decade of list archives, and I'm
ready and raring to go.  I'll dig into history, share your more
interesting contributions with the list, show a pattern of
brow-beating and abuse towards members of the list and especially
administrators.

Chronicle your entire piclist existence and demonstrate forcefully
that you are not an asset.

I don't contribute much to the piclist, but I've stuck around since
the time Jory was an active admin, and while the list has successfully
shed other trolls and impossible people, it has yet been unsuccessful
in ridding itself of you.

You, however, have directly or indirectly driven many good
contributors and admins away, and will undoubtedly continue to do so
indefinitely.

You've proven beyond any doubt that you _will not_ change, and you
_will_ keep stirring things up.

Despite your great technical contributions, engineering skill, and
capability, I'm forced to conclude:

You are not a net positive asset to this list.

So.

Please continue to whine and complain about the injustice of
moderation and the ambiguous nature of list policy if you would like
me to engage in this endeavor.  I honestly don't have the time to
devote to it, but the piclist is worth the special effort it would
require.

-Adam

2010\03\04@170411 by Marechiare

picon face
>>> Another problem with moderation that was only lightly
>>> mentioned is the time lag between sending a message
>>> and when it gets distributed by the server. This is
>>> usually a few hours, but can has been over a day in
>>> number of times. That has a severe detremental impact
>>> on the conversation flow.
>>
>> You may wish to duplicate your posts to some group you
>> can create for this specific purpose, for example some
>> Google group. Anyone willing to get your posts without
>> moderation may subscribe.
>
> Your solution does not address the problem.

Depends on how one defines the problem :-)

2010\03\04@180358 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:
> The fact that you're complaining about it shows that this has some
> effect.

Yes, it annoys people, degrades conversation flow, and let's individual
people with little accountability censor posts in secret.

> Since it's long been obvious that no punishment will ever compel you
> to change or leave, we're stuck with this horrible, terrible, no good,
> very bad compromise called moderation.

There are better alternatives.  The point of this thread was to discuss
them.  If you don't care to discuss list policy, that's fine, but there is
no call to belittle those that do.

>> Not only is censorship just plain wrong
>
> Oh, are you pretending this is censorship again?

Let's see.  Someone else decides whether what you write will allowed to be
publicly distributed.  Don't look now, but that's pretty much the definition
of censorship.

> Please.  Engage me.

I was trying to have a reasoned discussion about list policy.  It appears
you would prefer a mud fight.  Drag up anything you want from the archives,
I don't care.  But please, start your own thread if that's what you want to
do.  I'd like to keep this one civil and on its original topic.

> I've got over a decade of list archives, and I'm
> ready and raring to go.  I'll dig into history, share your more
> interesting contributions with the list, show a pattern of
> brow-beating and abuse towards members of the list and especially
> administrators.
>
> Chronicle your entire piclist existence and demonstrate forcefully
> that you are not an asset.

Methinks you need to get over yourself, but the archives are public record
so do what you want.  Just please, not in this thread.

> I don't contribute much to the piclist,

<biting tongue really hard>


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\04@185529 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> I'm probably not going to try to address that on list.
> I have said much on the general subject on list in the last few weeks
> and it tends to be either ignored or mis interpreted (not by
> you)(mostly :-) ).

Much has been said but absolutely nothing was done and no direct questions
or requests were responded to.  If the answer is "No, you're not going to
get off moderation ever, get over it", then you should at least say so so
that I can unsubscribe now and stop wasting time.  This is a community, but
the admins largely didn't participate in the dicussion.  That's not a good
way to lead a community.

Herbert did bring up some logistical points, but never responded to the
answers.  This lack of willingness to even discuss list policy is not a good
policy.

> I'd be very happy to have this sort of dicussion with you and the
> admins in general offlist.

List policy should be discussed amongst all that care about such things.  As
I have said before, I think it's wrong that one has to open the floodgates
of OT to discuss list policy.  That alone sends the wrong kind of message.
On Usenet for example, discussions about a list are always considered on
topic by definition.

> *BUT* it is wholly unacceptable for newcomers to be treated in
> the manner that you describe treating those in the workplace who you
> consider to be morons.

A moron is a moron, whether newcomer or not.  But let's be clear here, it's
not morons we're talking about, its people who don't show a little respect
when blurting out a question.  When you ask 2000 people for a favor (which
is what you do when posting a question to the list), you have the obligation
to do it respectfully and not too lightly.  Of course we're here to help,
and most people ask reasonable questions and get reasonable answers.  That
often leads to good discussions which is what this list is really about.
However there are always a few who are too lazy to do even a modicum of
homework before asking 2000 people for a favor (remember the guy this
morning asking questions about OBDII that would have been answered by any
reference?).  Telling such ingrates to RTFM is a prefectly reasonable
answer.  They shouldn't get offended by that, but if they do and go away, no
loss.

Remaining silent would work if everyone did it.  However there are always a
few wannabe experts that finally see something they can answer and can't
help themselves trying to look smart.  As a result, the OP never knows that
better answers could have been had.  If you don't tell them why you're not
going to answer, they'll never know.  Worse yet the action will appear
accepted by the community, so even more of it ends up being encouraged.
Can't you see this just doesn't work?

> Time after time after time after time after
> time (at least) you have been asked to leave the children alone, help
> them if you can and wish, ignore them if you think them unworthy of
> your talents,

Again, that's no solution at all.  Nothing is solved.

> let other sat least try to make them a little welcome
> and established and valuable members of the community.

This only makes sense if you think newcomers deserve more slack than old
timers.  I think it's actually the opposite.  Respect, and the slack that
goes with it, is earned.  Anyone coming new into a community should first
get a sense for how things are done before engaging members.  On a list like
this, that means lurking for a few days or looking thru archives.  It's
neither hard nor time consuming to do this.

> NOBODY else
> wants to let people be lazy, for them to have free rides, for us to do
> their home work and assignments for them, for them to endlessly ask
> the list when gargoyle stands idle etc. Everyone wants the beginners
> to help themselves.

Yes, but how are those that are lazy anyway supposed to learn they made a
mistake if you're not allowed to tell them?  Even if 80% of the people
decided to withhold their response because they felt the OP was too lazy,
he'll still get a couple of possibly mediocre answers.  How's he supposed to
know that the other 8 answers were out there, were better, but were withheld
because he did something wrong?

> BUT time after time after time recurring you
> absolutely demand to be entitled to beat them round the head, treat
> them as morons and drive them off if they will not give you the
> respect that you deserve

Not that I deserve, that we all deserve.  Let's remember that despite terms
like "beat them round the head" the worst that happened is a lazy op saw
some words cross his screen he didn't like.  Let's also keep in persepective
that this is usually said like "RTFM, DSxxxx Chapter yy section zz", or "I
found the answer in 20 seconds with Google.  So can you.".  The reason
people sometimes get upset about this is because it's true and hits home.
And none of this is what you're really objecting too anyway.  What you don't
like is how some people react childishly and way out of line when they are
caught being lazy or stupid.  That's the real problem.  Deal with that
directly, not something you think may incite someone to cross the line when
it itself doesn't cross the line.

> But I'd personally
> not want to see you let loose in the beginners enclosure until you
> agree to simply leave them alone and let others with at least one
> empathy bone do the training.

I guess this is the basic philosophical disagreement.  You think newcomers
to the list should be allowed a period of forgiveness while they undergo
"training".  Newcomers know who they are and should tread extra lightly
until they get a feel for the place and get a sense for what is accepted and
what isn't.  This is exactly what you and I and most reasonable people would
do when entering a new community.  You don't go in guns blazing.  You get a
feel for the place before asserting youself.  That all follows logically
from common sense and respect.  Eventually you build up some respect
(assuming you do good deeds) and get a little slack in return.  The dynamics
of newcomers to a email community are no different since it's basic human
nature in both cases.

> Letting you loose amongst the beginners
> is so far a sure guarantee that we will see bleeding newbies crawling
> for the exits.

Only if they are arrogant ingrates, and then that's not exactly such a bad
result.

> But only if you are on a leash OR if you
> simply agree in this area to leave people alone.

That doesn't work for several reasons, one being purely logistical.  Maybe
you do it differently, but I process each post pretty much on its own merit.
Yes I recognize a few handfuls of long term contributors and give them more
slack (although they rarely need it), but otherwise its just too hard to
keep track of who joined when and whether they have this newcomer status.

Note that the corrolary to this is that anyone can redeem themselves.
Keeping grudges makes no sense.  If you don't agree on philosophical
grounds, then just consider how much trouble it is to keep track of whom
you're supposed to have what grudge against.

> OK. There it is. On list. Where does that leave things?

I think I've already outlined my proposal clearly enough, but in short:

1 - Be more tolerant.  Someone may read some words about themselves they
don't like, but they need to keep in persepctive what affect that really has
on their lives.  The true problem is people reacting to this way out of
proportion.  Don't shoot the messenger.

2 - Punish only what actually crosses the line, not what you think may cause
others that can't restrain themselves to cross the line.

3 - Never moderate.  Censorship is just wrong in so many ways.

4 - If you feel a offense truly needs to be punished (see #1 and #2) ban the
offender **for a fixed and clearly stated time**.  I expect most people will
cool off after a day or two.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\04@212334 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
Re comments on response time for moderated messages:

Despite impressions to the contrary, I think moderated messages almost
always get processed very quickly. Not always.  I check email 'semi
continuously' when I am at a PC, whih is "often", and yet when I see and
process a moderation request it has often already been processed. I think
Bob often has lightning fast response :-). I have gained the impression that
latency is often minutes to tens of minutes and would seldom be more than
say an hour. That may be wrong. Headers may allow this to be checked.

         Russell

2010\03\04@213813 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Olin Lathrop <@spam@olin_piclistRemoveMEspamEraseMEembedinc.com> wrote:
> M. Adam Davis wrote:
>> Please.  Engage me.
>
> I was trying to have a reasoned discussion about list policy.

You're right, I am being unreasonable.  I apologize, and retract my
ill-concieved post.

-Adam

2010\03\05@075806 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> I have
> gained the impression that latency is often minutes to tens of
> minutes and would seldom be more than say an hour. That may be wrong.
> Headers may allow this to be checked.

You should put yourself on moderation and then you'll have a different
impression.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\05@082332 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
The list server seems to be behaving very strangely.
This may be affecting how moderation works or appears to be working.

I just randomly checked my email and saw two list server notifications.
I accessed the newest and found it was 5 minutes old - and contained
the message below.
I approved it but the server kept presenting it for approval.
I approved it several times, so it will be interesting to see if the
list gets 1 or N or 0 copies.

I then checked the older message which was by then 17 minutes old -
and the same message. I approved that.

So make that 0,1,2,N,N+1 possible copies.

If I read this correctly and if the list server had behaved the
latency would be about 15 minutes in this case. I did not cherry-pick
the accessing. As I work on other things I occasionally check email.
It's 2:23am here fwiw.



    Russell

________________________

Message:

Copied from server:


Russell McMahon wrote:
> I have
> gained the impression that latency is often minutes to tens of
> minutes and would seldom be more than say an hour. That may be wrong.
> Headers may allow this to be checked.

You should put yourself on moderation and then you'll have a different
impression.

2010\03\05@082532 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
Ok - the server is, to some extent lying. It was not 25 minutes betwen
my approving this, as below, and my following explanation.



                  Russell


On 6 March 2010 01:58, Olin Lathrop <EraseMEolin_piclistspam@spam@embedinc.com> wrote:
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>> I have
>> gained the impression that latency is often minutes to tens of
>> minutes and would seldom be more than say an hour. That may be wrong.
>> Headers may allow this to be checked.
>
> You should put yourself on moderation and then you'll have a different
> impression.

2010\03\05@113848 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 18:55 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Much has been said but absolutely nothing was done and no direct questions
> or requests were responded to.  If the answer is "No, you're not going to
> get off moderation ever, get over it", then you should at least say so so
> that I can unsubscribe now and stop wasting time.  This is a community, but
> the admins largely didn't participate in the dicussion.  That's not a good
> way to lead a community.

Wah, wah, wah, if you don't like it, leave.

> Herbert did bring up some logistical points, but never responded to the
> answers.  

I didn't respond because I didn't have time, that a good enough reason?

> This lack of willingness to even discuss list policy is not a good
> policy.

In your opinion.

In my opinion, there is nothing NEW to discuss, therefore no discussion
is warranted.

You rehash the SAME arguments over and over and over again. Many of us
are sick of it.

I personally just don't care, the list is better with you on moderation,
and unless you commit to changing your behaviour your status as
moderated will not change.

Since I'm just one admin my post should not be taken as gospel, I'm just
explaining why I no longer waste my time with anything related to you.

TTYL

2010\03\05@122314 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:
> Wah, wah, wah, if you don't like it, leave.

This is exactly the kind of dictatorial refusing to even discuss things
attitude I'm talking about.  That's bad enough, but your childish taunting
is out of line and unbcoming of a admin.  If I had said something like that
you would have put me on moderation.  Exempting yourself from your own rules
is a abuse of power.  Frankly Herbert, you don't belong in that position and
should step down.

>> Herbert did bring up some logistical points, but never responded to
>> the answers.
>
> I didn't respond because I didn't have time, that a good enough
> reason?

No, not really in your case since you chose to be a admin and considering
its been well over a week.  This is your job.  If you can't stand the heat,
get out of the kitchen.

You brought up what I thought were legitimate logistical concerns.  Both
Vitaliy and I tried to address them.  You didn't come back with "No, because
..." or "OK, I agree...".  You just evaporated.  Nobody was yelling and
screaming or name calling.  These were polite technical posts.

I suspect the real reason you didn't respond is because the arguments no
longer supported the outcome you wished.

> In my opinion, there is nothing NEW to discuss, therefore no
> discussion is warranted.
>
> You rehash the SAME arguments over and over and over again. Many of us
> are sick of it.

There have been some new things brought up, but also some things said
before.  The reason they keep coming up is because the arguments just get
ignored.  You always use the same excuse that there's nothing new, but have
never really responded to the issues.  In other words, you just want to
maintain your point of view, and hearing reasoned arguments against it
annoys you because you don't have good responses.  So your response is
childish taunting and refusing to discuss anything by claiming it's already
been done when in fact it never has.

> I personally just don't care, the list is better with you on
> moderation,

I think the list would be better off without you as admin, but unfortunately
I don't have the power to do anything about that.

> Since I'm just one admin my post should not be taken as gospel,

OK, so how does one get the gospel?  It's been 9 days since I asked specific
questions of the admins.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\05@131112 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 12:23 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
> > Wah, wah, wah, if you don't like it, leave.
>
> This is exactly the kind of dictatorial refusing to even discuss things
> attitude I'm talking about.  

Again, wah.

> That's bad enough, but your childish taunting
> is out of line and unbcoming of a admin.  If I had said something like that
> you would have put me on moderation.

I disagree. I didn't belittle you, I didn't deride you, I simply pointed
out that you are whining. That isn't childish taunting, it's pointing
out behaviour that some may consider childish, but I don't. Everybody
whines (from Prime Ministers and Doctors to people in a DMV line),
there's nothing childish about it.

I do however make an effort to point out when someone is whining about
something.

>   Exempting yourself from your own rules
> is a abuse of power.  Frankly Herbert, you don't belong in that position and
> should step down.

Hehe, Olin, you are a master, I'll give you that.

> >> Herbert did bring up some logistical points, but never responded to
> >> the answers.
> >
> > I didn't respond because I didn't have time, that a good enough
> > reason?
>
> No, not really in your case since you chose to be a admin and considering
> its been well over a week.  This is your job.  If you can't stand the heat,
> get out of the kitchen.

Hehe, now Olin really has it out for me, I guess I made the rookie
mistake of giving him another target, so be it.

Olin, to be clear, I'm not paid to do this job, it is a hobby, if my
professional work consumes my time then it will receive priority (you
are no doubt exactly the same).

Everyone here knows that there are times when you're just to busy to do
something. This is the real world Olin, and your "complaint" isn't
anywhere near my top priority.

Also, I make it a practice that if I haven't had a chance to respond to
a post within a certain set time I don't respond. It's the "missed call"
effect, if it's important enough they'll phone back.

> You brought up what I thought were legitimate logistical concerns.  Both
> Vitaliy and I tried to address them.  You didn't come back with "No, because
> ..." or "OK, I agree...".  You just evaporated.  Nobody was yelling and
> screaming or name calling.  These were polite technical posts.

Olin, WHY are you making me repeat myself? I didn't have time to
respond, deal with it.

> I suspect the real reason you didn't respond is because the arguments no
> longer supported the outcome you wished.

Frankly I don't even remember reading the post, because of earlier
agreements I don't read every post dealing with you.

> > Since I'm just one admin my post should not be taken as gospel,
>
> OK, so how does one get the gospel?  It's been 9 days since I asked specific
> questions of the admins.

There is no protocol, there is no drive on our side. You haven't opened
anything new, therefore you can consider the old gospel still relevant,
which Bob stated quite clearly:

Until you are willing to admit that some change is necessary from your
side, the status quo remains. If you don't like it, leave. If you pledge
to change your behaviour, i.e. to ensure that your responses to those
you consider "morons" doesn't inflame, we'll THEN have a discussion.

Why do you expect everybody else to change when you don't?



2010\03\05@141514 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:10:53 -0500, "Herbert Graf" said:

> There is no protocol, there is no drive on our side. You haven't opened
> anything new, therefore you can consider the old gospel still relevant,
> which Bob stated quite clearly:

I think that was Adam.

My own feelings are not simple.

This is the MIT Piclist. MIT is the premier technology school. It would
be nice if the Piclist could live up to that standard.

Respecting other people's feelings is important. Yesterday I offended
Gus unintentionally.

Within a culture, having a defined set of customs and protocols makes
for polite discourse even if what's being said is slightly unwelcome.

There's a reason why the term "RTFM" came into existence. There's got to
be a way to tell someone to look something up for themselves without
causing offense or starting a flame war.

Does the Piclist need some guidelines how to ask questions, how to tell
someone to "RTFM", and how the recipient and the rest of the users
should respond to it?

In other words, if someone responds "RTFM"(or the new Piclist
equivalent), the recipient should not take offense, and other readers
not respond to the RTFM, only to the OP's question if they do choose to
help directly?

In my opinion, something should be done to allow participation and at
the same time press us to continually improve the quality of the
technical discussions on the Piclist.

This is a complicated mess we are in and I think a little thinking needs
to be applied. The Piclist has lots of helpful and smart people. Let's
use them all and grow our way out of this.

Best regards,

Bob



--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin

2010\03\05@142355 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:
>>> Wah, wah, wah, if you don't like it, leave.
>>
>> This is exactly the kind of dictatorial refusing to even discuss
>> things attitude I'm talking about.
>
> Again, wah.
>
>> That's bad enough, but your childish taunting
>> is out of line and unbcoming of a admin.  If I had said something
>> like that you would have put me on moderation.
>
> I disagree. I didn't belittle you, I didn't deride you, I simply
> pointed out that you are whining.

In a taunting way.  It's also not clear how to discuss or request something
without it being labeled "whining" by you.  But OK, I'll take your word for
it that if I had done something similar you would not have put me on
moderation.

Calling something "whining" is just another way to dismiss the other's
arguments without having to actually respond to them.  That may work when
someone is just ranting on because that means they've let emotions get in
the way already, and the "whining" accusation is likely to push them into a
even bigger emotional outburst such that they hang themselves.  Hey, I've
used that tactic too.  There are actually quite a number of ways to stay on
rational ground yourself while goading the other into a emotional outburst
to hang themselves.  That is what Russell gets so upset about.  The trick is
to judge carefully if the other person will likely overract emotionally.  If
they don't, then you are the one left looking like they failed.

Herbert, you likely won't believe this, but I really am sorry about having
to expose your failed debating tactics.  My intent is truly not to make you
look stupid, but only to not let you get away with dismissing the points
raised by using a smokescreen.  There are a lot of people on this list with
different backgrounds and fluency with english.  I was afraid some might not
be able to detect the smokescreens for what they are.

> Everyone here knows that there are times when you're just to busy to
> do something. This is the real world Olin, and your "complaint" isn't
> anywhere near my top priority.

Fair enough, although it wasn't a complaint but a request.  But now that you
obviously have time, you decided to get argumentative instead of responding
to the points made.  It is becoming ever clearer this is to deflect the fact
that the points raised actually have some merit.  "I can't respond on the
merits, so I'll make a lot of fuss about something else and maybe nobody
will notice."

>> You brought up what I thought were legitimate logistical concerns.
>> Both Vitaliy and I tried to address them.  You didn't come back with
>> "No, because ..." or "OK, I agree...".  You just evaporated.  Nobody
>> was yelling and screaming or name calling.  These were polite
>> technical posts.
>
> Olin, WHY are you making me repeat myself? I didn't have time to
> respond, deal with it.

There goes the argumentative tone again, and the glaring lack of actually
addressing what was said.

> Frankly I don't even remember reading the post, because of earlier
> agreements I don't read every post dealing with you.

They were in direct response to the questions you raised.

> There is no protocol, there is no drive on our side. You haven't
> opened anything new, therefore you can consider the old gospel still
> relevant,

"Pretend we've already responded so we hopefully never have to"

> which Bob stated quite clearly:
>
> Until you are willing to admit that some change is necessary from your
> side, the status quo remains. If you don't like it, leave. If you
> pledge
> to change your behaviour, i.e. to ensure that your responses to those
> you consider "morons" doesn't inflame, we'll THEN have a discussion.

Actually Bob didn't say that, only a bystander with no official authority
said anything like that.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\05@145108 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Bob Blick wrote:
> There's a reason why the term "RTFM" came into existence. There's got
> to be a way to tell someone to look something up for themselves
> without causing offense or starting a flame war.

I'd hate to see more and more rules, but maybe a suggestion that if you're
going to respond with RTFM, you are encouraged to give some guidance as to
where in what M.  Again, I don't think this should be a rule because it
would be too burdensome to have to find the appropriate M and look up the
applicable passage in all cases.  However, if you can and are willing to, it
would be considered a plus.

Otherwise I see no need for some sort of sugar coated RTFM.  As you say,
that term evolved for a reason.  It has now become pretty much a standard.
It doesn't make sense to use a different one just on the PIClist.  Even if
you did, it would quickly devolve to have the same meaning.  For example, is
there anyone that actually thinks a "pre-owned" car is different from a
"used" one?

> This is a complicated mess we are in and I think a little thinking
> needs to be applied. The Piclist has lots of helpful and smart
> people. Let's use them all and grow our way out of this.

OK, I had nearly given up.  I've put forth my ideas.  I'll wait around for a
while to see what others come up with.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\05@145128 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:24 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
{Quote hidden}

OK Olin, my time is yet again short, so I'm going to spell this out very
simply, and then I'm done with this thread as it is:

You have brought no new argument to this thread, therefore there is no
need for discussion in my eyes.

As for the situation:

You are on moderation because your comments tend to inflame.

You will be on moderation until you state an understanding of WHY you
are on moderation, and pledge that you will work to change how you state
things to avoid a flame war.

The option of leaving is always on your plate.

That's it. If you have something NEW to discuss I'm all ears, otherwise
I will no longer repeat what I've said numerous times already.

If one of the other Admins has an interest in furthering this discussion
I'm sure they'll step in, I for one feel this thread has been disruptive
enough as it is, with no constructive addition to the list.



2010\03\05@152432 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
I'm getting tired of seeing the Subject Line: "Re: [OT] Moderation and
list policy", and there isn't a lot new being added, plus there are a
lot of names being used.

It would seem that 2 rules should govern, and neither need be written
anywhere:

1: Do unto others as you wish done unto yourself.
      Not everyone can be proficient in ALL areas, and even if they are
proficient in an area, they may be seeking confirmation on an idea.
Would be nice to have a few words of what level they are. Then replies
can be worded to an appropriate level of expertise. We all were
beginners at one time. If one is asked to go elsewhere for help, would
be good to at least point in a direction with links, search words, etc.
At this point there have been more words spent on this topic, than it
would take to answer a years worth of less than best worded questions.

2: This is a technical forum, all subjects should be able to be
discussed in technical terms without names, other than an occasional
reference to the content of one's posting to separate it from other
postings on the entire thread.

2010\03\05@153556 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> OK, so how does one get the gospel?  It's been 9 days since I asked specific
> questions of the admins.

It may be that my opposite approach to Herberts - one of grosspublic
discussion - something like data dump / chain of consciousness / ...
has masked the fact that I have addressed the key elements of your
questions. Or think I have :-).

Without intending to comment on my thoughts one way of the other on
other aspects of what Herbert said (don't read ANYTHING into that
other than what I say) I agree with an utterly pivotal aspect of what
he said - namely, if you are not willing to change your attitude on a
key point then I don't see that the situation has changed in any way.
You expound at length on your positionm and then provide a "solution"
which is utterly contrary in its effect to the motive for you being on
moderation. ie as long as you not only think it is appropriate to
abuse and hound newcomers to the list but insist that you need to be
taken off moderation so you can do so, I cannot imagine the situation
changing. Apart from that I'd say most other things may be negotiable.
Others may disagree.

As I adumbrated previously, ... . Hmmm. I'll send you that offlist ...


               Russell

2010\03\05@154219 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:
> You have brought no new argument to this thread, therefore there is no
> need for discussion in my eyes.

Once again, there have been suggestions made that have never been responded
to, other than by being dismissed because they already responded to.
Obviously you know this because at one time you actually started discussing
implementation issues.

> As for the situation:
>
> You are on moderation because your comments tend to inflame.

You fail to consider that it's usually been comments directed at me, not
from me that crossed the line.  Telling someone to RTFM or that they are
wrong is not a offense.  Overracting to that is the problem.  Deal with the
real problem.  Otherwise you end up dumbing down the level of technical
discourse and ultimately the value of this list to all.  It is my
obvervation that exactly that has been happening to the PIClist lately.

> You will be on moderation until you state an understanding of WHY you
> are on moderation, and pledge that you will work to change how you
> state things to avoid a flame war.

I think I've stated my take on this quite clearly already.  You are also
confusing understanding with agreement.  Good technical discussions come
with some warts.  Get over it or you'll end up with much worse, which is
stifled and lowered technical content.  What you call a flame war is
generally a back and forth exchange where emotions have run wild.  Look very
carefully and you'll see that's not my style at all.  I may sometimes push
people's buttons, but don't blame me when others can't keep their emotions
in check.  This is a list for engineers, not a bunch of touchy-feely
artists.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\05@155715 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
I guess that it's time to me to wade into this debate. I'll open with what
I believe is a Dilbert joke:

Unix guru: Here's a nickel kid. Go buy yourself a clue.

For the record, I side with Olin on all accounts. You cannot and should not
legislate niceness. Sometimes people need to be told (and possibly even
rudely) that they are wrong, and that indefinite moderation is creul and
unusual punishment.

You're dealing with a cultural and generational issue here. I got a chance
to hear a local Psycology professor speak a couple of weeks ago on the
Millenial generation of students. She listed a host of common traits that
they simply do not share with previous generations:

- Self centered
- A coddled sense on entitlement.
- Rejecting of authority
- Feels alienated when chastised

And that's exactly what you see here. Most engineering/CS folks work well
with authoritarian meritocracy. In short, if someone knows more than you
do, shut up and listen to them.

But when the new Rennaissance people who think they know everything about
everything come along, they bristle when told:

"You're a moron. Sit down and listen."

and so here we are.

Olin is right on point that they will never learn any better until taught.
The PicList and its longtime inhabitants are the valued resource.

I've been around for each and every one of the blowups. The firefight was
never ever the initial comment nor the response. It was always the attempt
to try to mediate the issue on the back end that caused the flamewars.

The correct response to a newcomer who feels slighted should be:

"Olin has been here for years. He's a working engineer with years of
experience and tons of products. If you really want to learn, sit down and
listen."

And trust me if newcomers got that from all of us each and every time,
there would be many less issues.

This whole scene is childish, and frankly I can't help but wonder why Olin
even bothers to put up with it.

You keep telling him he is wrong and that he needs to change.

To me it's like a breath of fresh air.

For more on the subject and understanding the culture take a read of Eric
S. Raymond's "How to ask questions the Smart Way." It outlines all of these
points. And frankly anyone asking questions here who hasn't read it should
be gently told to STFU and RTFM.

You can find it here.

http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Here's my suggestion for resolution to this issue:

1) Any member who has a record of posting to this list for more than a year
is no longer subject to moderation at any time. Ever. Period. That includes
Olin.

2) Any member with less than a year is subject to moderation.

3) When a blowup occurs (stop trying to stop them), which inevitably
happens when a new member full of themselves come in and try to take over,
moderate them! Strong, swift, limited time. Teach them that this is a list
where people can speak their mind without having to go nuclear.

Now one of two things will happen. New members will learn to understand the
culture of this list and its members, or they will leave. In either case
harmony is restored.

The only response to "You moron, go RTFM and STFW because if you took 5
minutes you'd have the answer and wouldn't be wasting our time." is

"OK, thanks for telling me that."

I think I've typed enough.

BAJ

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 02:51:24PM -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> --

2010\03\05@155957 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> It may be that my opposite approach to Herberts - one of grosspublic
> discussion - something like data dump / chain of consciousness / ...
> has masked the fact that I have addressed the key elements of your
> questions. Or think I have :-).

You have commented.  But like Herbert, you've also made it clear it's not
the official gospel (his words).

> You expound at length on your positionm and then provide a "solution"
> which is utterly contrary in its effect to the motive for you being on
> moderation.

Hmm.  I don't see it that way, but I respect your view of it to be genuine.

> ie as long as you not only think it is appropriate to
> abuse and hound newcomers

You keep talking about newcomers.  I've only said that *anyone* needs to
show some respect when asking 2000 people for a favor.  My only distinction
is that newcomers haven't been around and contributed and therefore haven't
earned any slack yet.

> to the list but insist that you need to be
> taken off moderation so you can do so,

Actually I insist I be taken off moderation because it's just plain wrong.

I also object to how I was put on moderation, which was "just because" even
though there was nothing specific I was blamed for doing nor any rule I was
supposed to have broken.

That and the fact that it's been many months, including several months of
near silence from me.  So even if I say nothing at all, the punishment
persists.  When I try to get the situation changed, I'm blamed for stirring
things up.  Can't you see the catch-22 here?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\05@170508 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> 1: Do unto others as you wish done unto yourself.

You can't be serious. If I would do that I would be put on immediate
moderation-for-life.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\03\05@171010 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> For the record, I side with Olin on all accounts.
> I've been around for each and every one of the blowups.

me too, and me too

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\03\05@171615 by adastra

flavicon
face
Like Wouter and Byron said:
Me too, and me too!
 Foster


{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\03\05@180148 by ivp

face picon face
> "How to ask questions the Smart Way"
> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

I've suggested previously that should be sent to and be required
reading for anyone subscribing. Moderating their first few posts and
insisting they post the correct way would ensure they start PIC life on
the right foot. After that they're fair game and if you ask a question that
deserves an RTFM answer and you get one, you've only yourself to
blame. Learn from it

IMO PIClist suffers less from newbie questions than other forums
(including Microchip's). Of the type "My circuit isn't working", followed
by pages of "What circuit" "What PIC" "What's wrong"

> - Self centered
> - A coddled sense on entitlement.
> - Rejecting of authority
> - Feels alienated when chastised

That's the way kids think now unfortunately. But they will always be
the emerging entrants in any field and need to be told how to research
and present findings. When I started work we were instructed to do
just that. The lab manager would then pick over our reports, pointing
out what was well done, missing, irrelevant, and so on

My approach has always been along the lines of

> 3) Give them some water, and tell them where the well is

If you asked someone what the time was and they told you to ****
off and buy a watch, how would you feel ? But if they told you the
time and suggested you purchase some sort of timepiece .......

> This is a list for engineers, not a bunch of touchy-feely artists

Competence and sensitivity are not mutually exclusive but I appreciate
your sentiment. If, however, referring to my first paragraph, you show
people the correct way to get help, that would make things run a lot
more amicably

Looking at the vastness of Microchip's portfolio nowadays, I completely
understand how a newcomer would be totally overwhelmed at the sight
of an enormous, seemingly impenetratable, forest of information before
them. Only from experience do I know that getting familiar with a product
takes time and patience. Newbies do not have that experience and I'm
prepared to help them (up to a certain point)

wbr

2010\03\06@022745 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Byron Jeff wrote:
> You're dealing with a cultural and generational issue here. I got a chance
> to hear a local Psycology professor speak a couple of weeks ago on the
> Millenial generation of students. She listed a host of common traits that
> they simply do not share with previous generations:
>
> - Self centered
> - A coddled sense on entitlement.
> - Rejecting of authority
> - Feels alienated when chastised

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of
exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households.
They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their
parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross
their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

- Socrates (470 - 399 BC)

2010\03\06@023234 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Byron Jeff wrote:
> The correct response to a newcomer who feels slighted should be:
>
> "Olin has been here for years. He's a working engineer with years of
> experience and tons of products. If you really want to learn, sit down and
> listen."

I'm not sure why, but I've always hated this line of reasoning.

Vitaliy

2010\03\06@031526 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>> "Olin has been here for years. He's a working engineer with years of
>> experience and tons of products. If you really want to learn, sit down and
>> listen."
>
> I'm not sure why, but I've always hated this line of reasoning.

Which part? I agree that "has been here for years" is of no importance.
But "If you really want to learn, sit down and listen." is still very
valid (unless of course Olin is riding his assembler hobby horse - note
the smiley :) )


--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\03\06@081541 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Vitaliy wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Our children can read us (their parents) like books. They see us when we
are selfish, envious, unjust, self opinionated, shallow and full of shit.
They endure teachers who are mediocure and begrudge the job they are in.
They listen to the lies of the politicians and the commentry of the sour
apathetic adults. They listen to adverts on TV that tell them not to be
content with what they have. If you want to blame anyone, don't blame the
children - we made them the way they are.

Sergio Masci

2010\03\06@085443 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
sergio masci ha scritto:
>
>if you want to blame anyone, don't blame the
> children - we made them the way they are.
>


definitely agreed with this too :)


--

Ciao, Dario

2010\03\06@085513 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Vitaliy ha scritto:

> "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
> authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of
> exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households.
> They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their
> parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross
> their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
>
> - Socrates (470 - 399 BC)


love this one :)
I was feeling the same!
>


--

Ciao, Dario
--
Cyberdyne

2010\03\06@092120 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
          Iain (BCC)(Psychology masters student) an interesting
         thought to ponder (although you have probably done so muchly already).

> >if you want to blame anyone, don't blame the
> > children - we made them the way they are.

> definitely agreed with this too :)

You'll definitely get criticism on that statement :-).

Life is more complex than that, of course.
There is no doubt that parents and society have had foundational
influences on the current generations.
And also no doubt that they are responsible for dealing well with what
we have done to them :-).

Many will complain loudly re at the suggestion that we oldies are to
blame for the way the more recent generations have turned out. And i
have sympathy with such complaints. BUT, consider:

How is it that we can apply "Gen X" and "post modern" and similar
labels and actually see quite clear demarcations and traits which
apply to the large majority of a whole generation, and then change
again for the next one? How can we reasonably escape a significant
part of "the blame" for how a generation turns out when a whole
generation does turn out in some consistent manner.

if eg Olin or I were representative of the norm of our generation then
both WE and our ancestors would be to blame. Fortunately for all the
broke the mold when both Olin and I were made and we are largely to
blame for our own sins :-).

Not quite so much so Gen X etc. Alas.



           Russell

2010\03\06@114756 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>>> "Olin has been here for years. He's a working engineer with years of
>>> experience and tons of products. If you really want to learn, sit down
>>> and
>>> listen."
>>
>> I'm not sure why, but I've always hated this line of reasoning.
>
> Which part?

The part where a person's status is used in place of a rational argument or
to justify unequal treatment of people. AKA "appeal to authority" fallacy or
"pulling the rank".

Vitaliy

2010\03\06@120306 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Russell McMahon ha scritto:

>>> if you want to blame anyone, don't blame the
>>> children - we made them the way they are.
>
>> definitely agreed with this too :)
>
> You'll definitely get criticism on that statement :-).
>
> Life is more complex than that, of course.
> There is no doubt that parents and society have had foundational
> influences on the current generations.
> And also no doubt that they are responsible for dealing well with what
> we have done to them :-).

:) sure it's more complex than that, but I'd say that a good % comes
from ancestors. Some % from environment too, but it's us who made it...


> How is it that we can apply "Gen X" and "post modern" and similar
> labels and actually see quite clear demarcations and traits which
> apply to the large majority of a whole generation, and then change
> again for the next one? How can we reasonably escape a significant
> part of "the blame" for how a generation turns out when a whole
> generation does turn out in some consistent manner.

you know Russell?
because people do forget.
I don't have children, yet (?) :)
But I often made this reasoning about music: you know? Everybody does
love and remember well and talk the splendors of the music he/she
listened to when was 18-20-22 yrs old.
And it's the same for every generation. Isn't it funny and curious?

I have a *very* good memory, often a pain. But I do like to make this
kind of "observation". Of course, I don't have a solution for it :) even
if it was a good idea - changing the way most people judge. For sure, TV
does not help.



> if eg Olin or I were representative of the norm of our generation then
> both WE and our ancestors would be to blame.


no I don't think so :) I like you :))


--

Ciao, Dario
--
Cyberdyne

2010\03\06@120316 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
sergio masci wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Sergio, I think that perhaps I did not make my point clear enough. The
situation had remained virtually unchanged for the past 2500 years. On the
whole, children today are no better or worse than their parents were, when
they were children.

My 1 year old is self centered, acts like he owns the place, regularly
rejects the authority of his mother and father, and doesn't like to be
disciplined. Just like every other 1 y.o. I've known.

I think it is natural for children and young people to have a strong
tendency to be rebellious, argumentative, and to take risks. Just as it
seems natural for old people to grumble and reminisce of the "good ol'
days."

Vitaliy

2010\03\06@121337 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> The part where a person's status is used in place of a rational argument or
> to justify unequal treatment of people. AKA "appeal to authority" fallacy or
> "pulling the rank".

(as said) I agree that being here for years is no argument at all. But
the technical merits of his answers definitely are.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\03\06@192855 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Wouter van Ooijen <wouterspamBeGonespamvoti.nl> wrote:
>> The part where a person's status is used in place of a rational argument or
>> to justify unequal treatment of people. AKA "appeal to authority" fallacy or
>> "pulling the rank".
>
> (as said) I agree that being here for years is no argument at all. But
> the technical merits of his answers definitely are.

It's essentially the question - do the ends justify the means.

2010\03\13@123927 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
It's been well over two weeks since I asked two direct and clear questions
of the admins:

> 1 - How, if at all, will list policy be changed?
>
> 2 - When am I going to get off moderation?  I've been on moderation for 8
> months.  This was done out of the blue.  No particular incident was cited
> nor was there mention of any rule I was supposed to have broken.  For 5
> months or so I took it and kept on as usual giving you guys the benefit of
> the doubt.  I have been held guilty of causing others with their own free
> will to possibly say bad things, even though I hadn't said any bad things
> myself.  Eventually my patience ran out and for the last 3 months I have
> refrained from adding value to the PIClist.  If this is going to continue,
> then I might as well unsubscribe completely.  I'm not saying that as a
> threat or ultimatum, just a fact that under these conditions the PIClist
> isn't worth it for me anymore.  I am trying to appeal to your sense of
> justice and fairness.

While a couple admins did offer individual opinions, there has been no
official response.  Everyone has had their say, so it's time to resolve
this.

When I take it and pretend like there is no moderation for 5 months, nothing
changes.  When I don't say anything at all for 3 months, nothing changes.
When after 8 months I try to discuss the policy and am careful to do so
politely and respectfully, I'm labeled a whiner, by a admin no less.
Request for official clarification are unaswered after more than two weeks.
This is grossly unfair.

It's also unfair how I was put on moderation.  This was done out of the blue
without any particular incident cited or mention of any rule I was supposed
to have broken.  I went back in the archives and found the previous 2 days
of my posts (I think) before being put on moderation.  For some reason I
couldn't get the links to make it thru email without being garbled, so so I
put them at http://www.embedinc.com/temp/temp.htm, numbered 1 thru 7 in
reverse cronological order.  1, 2, 6, and 7 are technical posts discussing
circuit details.  In one I even took the trouble to draw a circuit and
attach it to discuss it better.  3 is a response to someone that didn't even
put a subject on his message and asked rediculous vague questions.  Yes I
did try to put him in his place, but note there was no name calling or
anything else there against list rules.  I also responded to his points
individually so he could hopefully understand what was wrong with his
original post.  5 and 6 were responses to Solarwind, who had months of
history abusing the list with questions that were answered directly in the
documentation.  Anyone who was on the PIClist at that time knows full well
he was just being lazy and had a attitude that he was entitled to answers
without any work on his part.  I wasn't the only one getting fed up with it.
I told him to RTFM (as others had also done numerous times in the previous
months) but also told him the answer was right where you'd expect to find
it.  Again, none of this was against list rules or things others hadn't also
done.

Someone mentioned the excellent article
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html, which is used as the
reference for how to ask questions on many lists and forums.  I had seen
that before, but reread it when it was referenced again recently.  One
passage hit me in particular relative to the current state of the PIClist:

 There have been hacker forums where, out of some misguided sense
 of hyper-courtesy, participants are banned from posting any
 fault-finding with another's posts, and told "Don't say anything
 if you're unwilling to help the user." The resulting departure of
 clueful participants to elsewhere causes them to descend into
 meaningless babble and become useless as technical forums.

This really hit home as it is exactly what is happening to the PIClist.  The
level of technical content has definitely declined recently, and the inverse
correlation to the PC-ness of the list is quite strong.  This is the *MIT*
PIClist after all.  If anything, the level of technical content and
vigiallance should be particularly high here.  You can be PC or have high
technical content.  Pick one.

So that brings me to a concrete proposal.  The PIClist should adopt the "How
to Ask Questions the Smart Way" (link above) article as the official
reference for how things work here and the guiding principle for judging
acceptable behavior on the list.  Technically, nothing the article suggests
should happen on either side is against list rules currently, but then again
neither was what I said and I got put on moderation anyway.

The PIClist is at a critical descision point.  Do we value PC over high
content and plain talk or not?  I think this is such a important question
that there should be a poll.  The PIClist isn't a democracy, but it is still
run supposedly for the benifit of the community.  While the admins aren't
bound by the outcome, they should however take note of it, and so should
everyone else.  I would hope they would at least want to know what the
consensus is before making their decision.

If a solid majority want PC, then this list isn't for me (and I suspect for
a bunch of others either), and I would likely unsubscribe on my own or
greatly curtail my envolvement.  Anyone that does post has to be careful
what they say and can't complain about getting moderated or other sanctions
if they step out of line.  If on the other hand a clear majority prefer
plain talk, then the PC folks need to stop complaining and certainly stop
putting people on moderation for saying "RTFM" and the like.

I don't know about this mailing list software, but there may be a way to
conduct a pole.  I remember James did on occasion do that.  So here is the
proposed poll question:

 Resolved, that the PIClist adopt the article "How to Ask Questions
 the Smart Way" (http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html)
 as the official description of acceptable behavior.

 Yes (_)   No (_)

How about it?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\13@140525 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> ... so it's time to resolve this.

It's been under active discussion with admins this last while and a
comment is imminent.

Presumably you are happy with the idea of EVERYONE compromising to
some extent in order to get as close to something that most are happy
with as possible ? :-)


Russell

2010\03\13@150605 by ivp

face picon face

>  Resolved, that the PIClist adopt the article "How to Ask Questions
>  the Smart Way" (http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html)
>  as the official description of acceptable behavior.
>
>  Yes (_)   No (_)

Yes

2010\03\13@153049 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> Yes

Did you read it all.?

(It's long)
SOME of what it said would not in fact be acceptable on list of late
FWIW


   R

2010\03\13@161947 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> Presumably you are happy with the idea of EVERYONE compromising to
> some extent in order to get as close to something that most are happy
> with as possible ? :-)

I don't know until I see what the compromises are, but I don't think that's
possible.

I do think this is not something you can do half way.  Either you allow
straight talk and the higher technical content that comes with it, or you
don't.  The How to Ask Questions article is a distillation of years of
experience and presumably some give and take and compromises.  It is
referenced often on various lists and groups.  A wussy half in half out
approach will just as likely serve neither end.

You can have a list with straight talk and high technical content, or you
can have a list that becomes a glorified Kaffe Klatsch with ever so polite
content free niceties.  Pick one.

I also think that a vocal and wordy minority are trying to impose their will
on the quieter and somewhat disgusted majority.  Hold a poll if you want to
prove me wrong.  If a solid majority want PC, I'll shut up and either
largely or completely go away.  If however, as I suspect, it's the other way
around, I expect you to back off instead.  And yes, this is a "put up or
shut up" challenge, although it goes both ways.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\13@170908 by ivp

face picon face
>> http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>>
>> Yes
>
> Did you read it all.?

Yes

Presumably you're refering to "How To Interpret Answers"

If so, that's the debate du jour

A new subscriber should be encouraged to read the section on posting,
and even, might I be so bold, asked to demonstrate what they've learned
from it. Including, for example and especially, how some responses come
about and how they would and should react. And be put on moderation
for a few posts. Consider it Boot Camp, or at least Basic Training. Now,
if they don't measure up, are they List material ? That's not being elitist.
I'm sure most people are using this list to advance their knowledge of
PICs and electronics, not as an exercise to see how many "Delete Unread"
filters they can amass or relate anecdotes about "this dick on my email
group...."

Now we come to the nub. If a subscriber has passed Boot Camp, and
been on initial moderation, they should hopefully post thoughtfully and
not attract "objectionable" responses

Despite the Boot Camp allusion, pimply young lads are not being prepared
to go over the top as machinegun fodder. PICList isn't a war zone. A little
training though will save a lot of confrontation down the track

Assuming that everyone on the list has passed through Boot Camp, and
the training wheels are now off, how should the list respond to a blunt
"Duh, how does the PIC's A2D work ?"

Most will see it as a very lazy question and ignore it
Some will be nice and indulge the lazy poster
A few will see indulging the lazy poster as encouraging laziness
A fewer few will hesitate not a moment and send a brusque "RTFM"

We all understand why "RTFM" responses happen. As I said earlier,
that should now include the poster. I understand why some people
consider RTFM rude and others don't. If you're the recipient, it's not
good reading and can give you quite a turn. Others empathise with
that feeling

So, IMVHO there should be

- an amnesty on moderated posters

- a restriction (ban, if you like) on personal epithets such as moron, idiot
etc (is "what you're proposing is moronic" tantamount to calling someone
a moron ? If it was said to me I'd probably take it that way)

- <PC> RTM instead of RTFM </PC> or similar polite / non-adversarial
pointing to a document

- some attempt at heading-off-at-the-pass by admins to stop lazy posts
getting to the list. Traffic is not too heavy, and that type of post is not
all that frequent. Lazy posters should be reminded of what they learned
in Boot Camp. However, if someone like me, who's been here man and
boy, asks a question lazy and dumb enough to deserve an RTM response,
I probably should get one and suck it up. The responders who reply with
RT(F)M are voicing their opinion of the poster with that RT(F)M

wbr, Joe

PS, just how DOES the PIC's A2D work ? ;-)

2010\03\13@181015 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: PS, just how DOES the PIC's A2D work ? ;-)

More On that later :)  Oh I love plays on words, don't get me started
on Freudian slips - very uncomfortable so I'm told!
--
cdb, RemoveMEcolin@spam@spamspamBeGonebtech-online.co.uk on 3/14/2010

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359







2010\03\13@183957 by ivp

face picon face
> :: PS, just how DOES the PIC's A2D work ? ;-)
>
> More On that later :)

You toss a mean response ;-)

2010\03\13@190601 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, ivp wrote:

{Quote hidden}

This really is getting WAY BEYOND a joke (no personal dig at you Joe).

I mean come on!

Boot camp?! How to ask questions?! How to interpret answers?! How newbies
should behave whilest in the presence of their betters?!

Look, the fact is, the people here who feel so superior and unable to deal
with "stupid questions" are only in that position because they have been
at this for suuuuuch a long time (at some point they were asking stupid
questions as well). They have loads of experience on the subject BUT that
doesn't make them any more valuable as people or even members of society.
A valuable person is one from which we benefit not one we need to
pussyfoot around, be scared of, keeps the community under his thumb. All
this "I'm too clever to deal with idiots like you" BS is just a mighty
self stroking of ones own ego. If you're really so intelligent how about
modifying your behaviour to fit in with what everyone else expects.

If someone asks (what you consider to be) a stupid question then just
ignore it. No one elected you to shoot the newbie. If someone wants to
answer the stupid question let them. What exactly is it costing you to
just ignore it?

There are sooooo many really clever people on this list that seem to be
able to answer questions without injecting emotion or condemnation, why is
it that these people are able to get along with the list as it is but the
list as a whole needs to change to accomodate one person who is too
arrogent to want to do things any other way but his own?

It is now very obvious that Olin wants to be on this list as Olin. So I
propose that you take Olin OFF moderation, give him one last chance to
play nice, and if he sets off another nuke you simply ban him. Sure he can
keep coming back using aliases but he wont want to if he can't be seen to
be Olin, if he can't gain exposure from posting to the list.

Regards
(really fed up)
Sergio Masci

2010\03\13@193521 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 14/3/2010 00:53, sergio masci escreveu:
> It is now very obvious that Olin wants to be on this list as Olin. So I
> propose that you take Olin OFF moderation, give him one last chance to
> play nice, and if he sets off another nuke you simply ban him. Sure he can
> keep coming back using aliases but he wont want to if he can't be seen to
> be Olin, if he can't gain exposure from posting to the list.
>  

I agree with Sergio, take Olin off  moderation but advise him to avoid
certain words and expressions. I think Olin's contributions are very
important to the list and with him the technical quality of the
discussions raises a bit, although sometimes he exaggerates on the wording.


Regards,

Isaac
__________________________________________________
Faça ligações para outros computadores com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/

2010\03\13@200205 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
>> :: PS, just how DOES the PIC's A2D work ? ;-)
>>
>> More On that later :)

> You toss a mean response ;-)

You're a brick Joe, a real brick. Just think what the list would be
like with more members like you.
:-)

(Can we look forward to much more like this if we de-RTFM things :-) ?)


                R

2010\03\13@200700 by ivp

face picon face
> This really is getting WAY BEYOND a joke (no personal dig at
> you Joe).

No offence taken Sergio

(1) - don't ask stupid questions (however that comes about)
(2) - don't answer stupid questions (for whatever reason)

2010\03\13@202845 by Russell McMahon
face picon face
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>> Presumably you are happy with the idea of EVERYONE compromising to
>> some extent in order to get as close to something that most are happy
>> with as possible ? :-)

> I don't know until I see what the compromises are, but I don't think that's
> possible.

:-)

> I do think this is not something you can do half way.
> Either you allow straight talk and the higher technical content that comes with it, or you
> don't.

I, of course :-) [tm] , disagree with such an extreme interpretation.

I understand from your prior explanations and your prior approaches that

- "straight talk" is your code for your using language (words and
style) that may reasonably be expected to cause affront to a
reasonably large proportion of recipients, especially newcomers who
are not aware of your approach and

- that this is language that you say is reasonable and

- that if they are upset with the approach then THEY have a problem and

- that potentially "causing affront" is part of the intention, as
those who respond in this way are demonstrating their unworthiness.

I think that that's an honest representation of your position.
Do please correct any point(s) that are incorrect.

I have no problem with straight talk.
I can't even spell Kafee Klach and can only guess (probably correctly)
at what it means.

I say (of course [tm] etc) that "straight talk" does not HAVE to mean
"using language that may well cause personal affront to some people in
order to achieve the desired affect". This may be an occasional (!)
result, but need not and should not be the expected norm or even very
common when "correction" seems indicated.

I'd agree wholeheartedly that experience shows that in most things in
life the optimum point is not in the middle of the range. But I also
find that it's seldom the point where the needle is pinned hard
against the stop, which seems to be what you consistently advocate.

Having "higher technical content" can be achieved without having
newcomers being compelled to either bow the knee to the greatness of
the list worthies or leave.

Despite people repeatedly having built straw men to the contrary:
   I don't wish to encourage laziness.
   I don't wish to encourage sloppy questions
   I don't wish to encourage rudeness (by newcomers)
   I wish newcomers to be required to meet the same standards as others

The difference is, when / if newcomers fall short of objectives I
believe that it is appropriate to simultaneously provide both polite
(but possibly firm) corrective guidance AND at least some information
to assist them. This
- points them in the right direction (which may BE reading the fine
manual (possibly metaphorically) , (but you haven't quite put it that
way)
- and they have received eg the name or address of the manual or the
number of the index page

> The How to Ask Questions article is a distillation of years of
> experience and presumably some give and take and compromises.  It is
> referenced often on various lists and groups.  A wussy half in half out
> approach will just as likely serve neither end.

I absolutely agree. I would never advocate a wussy half in half out approach.
Before replying to further posts of mine on this subject please Read
My Fine Replies (is RMFR an accepted acronym?) on the subject and
understand what I am really saying.
:-).
Now. Was that really useful?

Would you have understood it any less if I'd said something like
"I certainly have never suggested a 'wussy half in half out approach'
- although you frequently misrepresent me as having done so. Please
have another look at my previous relevant replies to see that this is
in fact the case".
?

Sure, that didn't do more than give you an occasional minor bump as
the putative RMF... meaning occurred but it didn't annoy you (I
think).

BUT an RTFM there from an *apparently* arrogant apparently egotistical
apparently (and actually? :-) ) rude stranger whose worth they do not
know is just as inflationary there as if a newcomer drops in and
starts RTFMing you - as has happened - and you were indeed
unimpressed. YOU think that they should respect YOUR position as a
member of merit.

BUT a point that may never have occurred to you - they have no way of
telling that you ARE a member of merit. No way of knowing that you
deserve the respect that you, literally, demand. You may just as well
be only the list bully come for another cheap victory over a so far
disoriented newcomer. And they act appropriately, as they see it.

> You can have a list with straight talk and high technical content, or you
> can have a list that becomes a glorified Kaffe Klatsch with ever so polite
> content free niceties.  Pick one.

No. Maybe that's the world you feel compelled to live in. Your choice.
But eg airliner and spacecraft cockpits, combat crews under fire that
survive many missions and teams of any sort that depend on their
members for split second timings and tight cooperation, often enough
don't have to resort to abuse and invective for results.

And, are you implying (or better) that the conversations that I have
with people who ask questions never has "high technical content"? :-)

I've always been amused and impressed by the oh so proper olde world
politeness of the airline pilot's "Go around power, Please"*. That may
well have all capitals in terms of its importance and urgency - but
it's still uttered in "the right stuff" calm in the face of death**.
Even 1/4 of that reserve when giving newcomers a chance to get
established would make  a world of difference.


             Russell

* Translation" Get us out of here NOW!. And fast !!!.
** Flight 901, 00:49:52. Last words of Captain Jim Collins. 3 seconds to live.

              http://www.super70s.com/super70s/tech/aviation/disasters/79-11-28(NewZealand).asp
              www.nzterritory.com/disasters/erebus.html

2010\03\13@204048 by ivp

face picon face
> Just think what the list would be like with more members like you

That is so cunning. Trying to incapacitate me with dopamine poisoning.
And today is a good day to try. New F1 and IRL seasons open, the
first half-decent new Hendrix album in 40 years, finished the hard 90%
of the current project and now imagining the Very Best List In All The
Land. How much more of a good mood could I be in ?

8-)

2010\03\13@211400 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: first half-decent new Hendrix album in 40 years

Wow my monitor has gone a strange purple hazy colour - you might want
to hunt down ABC Radio National's webcast - Thursday they did
interviews with the Hendrix contemporaries about Hendrix.

As for F1 - if it's not at Brands Hatch it doesn't count (ah youthful
days) and ruby = sport = activity = me running in the opposite
direction to those big post things - oh that was at school too.

Can an off topic subject matter become off topic, and would that then
make it on topic?

Colin
--
cdb, .....colin@spam@spamEraseMEbtech-online.co.uk on 3/14/2010

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359







2010\03\13@221126 by ivp

face picon face
> ruby = sport = activity = me running in the opposite direction to
> those big post things

This "ruby" sounds like one scary girl (they're called 'legs' BTW)

2010\03\14@120533 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
sergio masci wrote:
> at some point they were asking stupid questions as well

You are confusing stupid with ignorant.  Nobody here has any objection,
including me, to ignorant questions.  That's partly what we're here for,
after all.  In fact, we like answering ignorant questions.

Stupid questions are totally different and show laziness and lack of respect
by the questioner.  The distinction between "stupid" and "ignorant" may not
be immediately obvious to someone not a native english speaker.  Just keep
in mind that when you see people talk about "stupid" questions, that's very
very different from "ignorant" questions.  Ignorant means simply not knowing
something.  There is no shame in that.  Stupid, as it is used in this
context when referring to questions, means roughly "should have known
better", "should have been easily able to find the answer himself", etc.
The corrolary being the questioner is asking 2000 people for a favor as a
substitute for a few minutes doing a web search or reading the datasheet.

We were all ignorant of every question here at some point.  However, it is
not right to say we all asked stupid questions at some point.

Stupid: Now many pins does a 10F200 have?

Ignorant: How do I find out what each of the connection leads of a 10F200
does?  Do these things have a standard name?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\14@125320 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> I understand from your prior explanations and your prior approaches
> that
>
> - "straight talk" is your code for your using language (words and
> style) that may reasonably be expected to cause affront to a
> reasonably large proportion of recipients, especially newcomers who
> are not aware of your approach and

Russell, you continue to misrepresent what I suggest.  The point is not to
cause affront, but to deal with the problem.  I thought this was well
described in the How to Ask Questions article.

> I have no problem with straight talk.

Clearly you do, since you apparently don't think RTFM is a reasonable
response in some (actually rare) situations.

> I can't even spell Kafee Klach and can only guess (probably correctly)
> at what it means.

I think it's Kafee Klatsch, but am not sure either (In german the english
"sh" sound is usually spelled "sch".  The english "ch" is the same sound
preceeded by the T sound.  There is no such single purpose combination in
german, so a english "ch" would have to be written out as "tsch" in german.
(The german "ch" has two possible sounds, neither of which occur in english
at all)).  It refers to a bunch of people sitting around gossiping over
coffee.  I was recently told in polish there is a word for sortof the same
thing called "gavenda".  However, I don't speak polish, so please don't
shoot me that's incorrect or worse.

> Having "higher technical content" can be achieved without having
> newcomers being compelled to either bow the knee to the greatness of
> the list worthies or leave.

Of course now you are overstating my case to the point of ridicule to make
it easier to dismiss.

> Despite people repeatedly having built straw men to the contrary:
> I don't wish to encourage laziness.
> I don't wish to encourage sloppy questions
> I don't wish to encourage rudeness (by newcomers)
> I wish newcomers to be required to meet the same standards as others

Exactly.  So every once in a great while someone does come in and not follow
these rules, and they may get a RTFM answer.  Big deal.  In fact, that's a
good thing.  It not only gives the lazy person a gentle slap (it is after
all just a word from the other end of the internet), but also lets everyone
else see what is tolerated and what is not.

> The difference is, when / if newcomers fall short of objectives I
> believe that it is appropriate to simultaneously provide both polite
> (but possibly firm) corrective guidance AND at least some information
> to assist them.

And if you look carefully, most of the time RTFM is accompanied by exactly
that.  However, that shouldn't be legislated.  Generally only with repeat
offenders, such as Solarwind, did people get fed up enough to simply say
RTFM with little or no additional help.

>> The How to Ask Questions article is a distillation of years of
>> experience and presumably some give and take and compromises. It is
>> referenced often on various lists and groups. A wussy half in half
>> out
>> approach will just as likely serve neither end.
>
> I absolutely agree. I would never advocate a wussy half in half out
> approach.

However, you seem to be.  You seem to be arguing to water down what the
article says, and legislate additional restrictions.

> as if a newcomer drops in and
> starts RTFMing you - as has happened - and you were indeed
> unimpressed.

Huh?  If you're claim that I:

 1 - Asked a question that clearly showed I hadn't done the
     reasonably expectable homework, and

 2 - Reacted badly when I got a RTFM reply,

you'd better provide a reference, since I don't think there was a single
case of that.

> YOU think that they should respect YOUR position as a
> member of merit.

I think they should respect *everyone* they are asking a favor from.

> And, are you implying (or better) that the conversations that I have
> with people who ask questions never has "high technical content"? :-)

Your posts generally do have high technical merit, although also usually
wrapped in excessive verbiage and disclaimers.  However, that's just you.
Good content from others is easily stifled or driven off altogether by
excessive rules.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\14@135935 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Stupid: Now many pins does a 10F200 have?

7 on average?

but the point is very clear.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\03\14@151516 by Gaston Gagnon

face
flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Ignorant: How do I find out what each of the connection leads of a 10F200
> does?  Do these things have a standard name?
>
>  
The proper answer would be RTFM of course.
Gaston


2010\03\14@152619 by enkitec

picon face
On 14-Mar-10 16:04, Gaston Gagnon wrote:
> Olin Lathrop wrote:
>    
>> Ignorant: How do I find out what each of the connection leads of a 10F200
>> does?  Do these things have a standard name?
>>
>>
>>      
> The proper answer would be RTFM of course.
> Gaston
>
>    


    Wrong. The proper answer would be no answer at all.

    Mark

2010\03\14@154159 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>      Wrong. The proper answer would be no answer at all.

(there we go again?)

wrong. assuming that RTFM is the correct answer (like Olin pointed out,
it depends on the context whether this is true), then it is good to give
that answer.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\03\14@162830 by enkitec

picon face
On 14-Mar-10 16:41, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>>       Wrong. The proper answer would be no answer at all.
>>      
> (there we go again?)
>
> wrong. assuming that RTFM is the correct answer (like Olin pointed out,
> it depends on the context whether this is true), then it is good to give
> that answer.
>
>    

    Completelly wrong according to the list rules:

DON'T'S
- Do not engage in bullying or inflammatory behavior (keep RTFM for your friends)


    Mark

2010\03\14@163400 by Gaston Gagnon

face
flavicon
face
enkitec@gmail.com wrote:
> On 14-Mar-10 16:41, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>  
>>>       Wrong. The proper answer would be no answer at all.
>>>      
>>>      
>> (there we go again?)
>>
>> wrong. assuming that RTFM is the correct answer (like Olin pointed out,
>> it depends on the context whether this is true), then it is good to give
>> that answer.
>>
>>    
>>    
>
>      Completelly wrong according to the list rules:
>
> DON'T'S
> - Do not engage in bullying or inflammatory behavior (keep RTFM for your friends)
>
>  
Yes but that is no fun. Give the ignorant what he deserves for asking
low level favours to highly skilled hackers. And put an emphasis on the
"F" part, it is more effective. If you do well 1) he will be ban for
lack of respect by answering back of  2) he will join the 19x0 quiet
members of the piclist and not bother anymore or 3) he will go away for
good "et bon debarras".
Mission accomplished
Gaston

2010\03\14@171032 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Gaston Gagnon wrote:
>> Ignorant: How do I find out what each of the connection leads of a
>> 10F200 does?  Do these things have a standard name?
>
> The proper answer would be RTFM of course.

I didn't see a smiley, so I'll have to assume you really meant that.  In
that case I strongly disagree.

This guy clearly knows very little about PIC, ICs, and electronics in
general.  He is asking a reasonable question within his own context.  He is
asking how to find information instead of demanding it on a silver platter.
He has done nothing wrong and shouldn't be treated as such.

My answer, depending on the amount of time and inclination I had at the
particular instance, would be to introduce the concept of a datasheet,
explain where to find Microchip datasheets, "pins" and "pinout", and
probably also a warning that he should start at the shallow end of the pool
with basic electronics first.

However in no case should a particular answer be legislated in or out.  If
you answered RTFM to this guy, you'd get jumped on plenty by others and
things would take care of themselves if only the admins have the restraint
to not try to "fix" anything.  If he gets rude as a result of your RTFM
("F--- off a------"), then that's a separate issue and should be dealt with
as such.  He'd get jumped on plenty for that too, with admin action again
only making things worse unless he does it repeatedly.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\14@171544 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
enkitec@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ignorant: How do I find out what each of the connection leads of a
>>> 10F200 does?  Do these things have a standard name?
>
>> The proper answer would be RTFM of course.
>> Gaston
>
>  Wrong. The proper answer would be no answer at all.

Wrong again.  Of course anyone has the right not to answer something for any
reason, but I don't thinks that's what you meant.

What exactly do you think this guy has done wrong within what could be
reasonably expected of him?  He is definitely in the wrong place and way
over his head, but it appears he doesn't know that and coming here is a
honest mistake.  In other words, ignorant, but not stupid.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\14@172111 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:33:36 -0400, "Gaston Gagnon" said:

> Yes but that is no fun. Give the ignorant what he deserves for asking
> low level favours to highly skilled hackers. And put an emphasis on the
> "F" part, it is more effective. If you do well 1) he will be ban for
> lack of respect by answering back of  2) he will join the 19x0 quiet
> members of the piclist and not bother anymore or 3) he will go away for
> good "et bon debarras".
> Mission accomplished

Hi Gaston,

We tried to make the best choice, and "fun" wasn't one of the criteria
we were trying to achieve.

We did make a few assumptions, one is that newbies can be clueless but
should not be declared hopeless if they ask how many pins a 10F200 has.

We also observed that "RTFM" really does incite certain people. For some
people there are words that escalate bad situations.

If someone asks "how many pins does a 10F200 have", different people
will have different reactions:
1. The majority will ignore him.
2. Some will tell him that question is wasting the piclist's time.
3. Some will answer his question.
4. Some will send him a private email.
5. Some will complain to .....piclist-ownerRemoveMEspammit.edu
6. ???

Within reason, any of these is appropriate. You seem to be favoring #2.

What we are saying is that "RTFM" by itself can lead to a flamewar
including one that involves more than just two people, and it also
wastes the resource of the piclist. Nobody comes off looking good.

If you choose #2, you must do it in a way that does not belittle or
bully the questioner, and also combines #3. You must give some other
value in your answer. You also need to do it in a way that doesn't cause
other people to rise up in his defense, because that really is a waste
of the piclist's time.

All that being said, we admins are pretty involved right now, so you
needn't take it upon yourself to try to correct other people's behavior.

If a newbie posts five stupid questions in one hour, or if it's a
longtime user that is bothering you, then please complain in an email to
piclist-owner. We've seen every possible squabble, let us screw it up
for you! Everybody hates us already :)

Cheerful regards,

Bob


--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be

2010\03\14@172250 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Copied into this thread from the admin announcement to [PIC].

Bob Blick wrote:
{Quote hidden}

********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\14@173259 by Ray Warren

picon face
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 05:09:29PM -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> --

2010\03\14@175435 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Bob Blick wrote:
> DO'S
> - Be a smart and courteous adult

That's pretty much content free.

> - Consider reading http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> - Go easy on newbies and non-native speakers

For two completely different reasons and in different dimensions, I hope.

> - Send private message to the user or piclist-owner if you have an
> issue
>
> DON'T'S
> - Do not engage in bullying or inflammatory behavior (keep RTFM for
> your friends)

This is vague and contradictory to the article linked above.  Specifically,
what would your response be to #4 linked to from
http://www.embedinc.com/temp/temp.htm?  That included RTFM in the response,
but with additional information.  Note that this was also in response to a
particularly well known poster with a long history of abusing the list with
questions easily found in the documentation.  What about #5?  That's
actually a harsher message but a little more sugar coated.

> - Don't "push the line" (query the admins if in question)

Whatever that means.

> - Refrain from asking stupid questions or posting frivolously (the
> piclist does not replace google)

I agree, but your consequences are very harsh for this.  Public pressure
will provide the appropriate feedback.  This shouldn't be a admin matter.
Even Solarwind's many infractions of this rule shouldn't be grounds for
punishment (although in his case some of his response to being told to RTFM
certainly should been).

> - Don't post superficial, flippant or aggressive answers
>
> CONSEQUENCES (typical sequence, at discretion of admins)
> - warning
> - 1 week of moderation
> - 1 month of moderation
> - 1 year of moderation
> - permanent moderation (subject to yearly review by admins)

Wow, that's really heavy handed.  Sometimes, probably most of the time, it's
best to let things work out on their own.  You are falling into the same
trap James did where he created big problems by trying to fix little
problems.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\14@183409 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Usually people here refer rtfm to a specific documentation which is
the datasheet. Sometimes people refer to google if the answer is very
easy to find, like first page on search results...

Btw, when i started with pics around 5 years ago i found
mikroelektronika's book first, then this list. So i just don't
understand how others have difficulty finding a free and popular book
like that - i guess that is still on the first or second page. And
when we see a newbie not even trying to find the answer or read the
documentation that was told to be read so, then usually such an
argument is coming like this.

Personally i don't think if an rtfm is any bad. Sometimes we just
can't find that doc and other people have no time to explain or can't
do that better than a well worded book or blog. So why write that down
again or keep silent than telling which doc to look for?

Tamás

On 3/14/10, Ray Warren <.....raywarren2STOPspamspam@spam@comcast.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>> -

2010\03\14@183638 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:54:19 -0500, "Olin Lathrop" said:

> Specifically,
> what would your response be to #4 linked to from
> http://www.embedinc.com/temp/temp.htm?  That included RTFM in the
> response,
> but with additional information.  Note that this was also in response to
> a
> particularly well known poster with a long history of abusing the list
> with
> questions easily found in the documentation.

We admins talked about RTFM a lot. Basically there was a censensus that
many people take things at face value, so no matter what the historical
significance RTFM might have, the words themselves were not helpful.

I did follow the link you posted, and I've seen worse questions. If you
are asking about the relative power consumption of different micros, and
you didn't know much about the technology behind them, you wouldn't know
the "right" questions to ask. And really, there are lots of ways to
compare power consumption.

 What about #5?  That's
> actually a harsher message but a little more sugar coated.

You should complain to piclist-ownerEraseMEspam@spam@mit.edu if you think a user is
wasting the piclist's time, because the reply you gave had absolutely no
information and just sets you up for further confrontation.

> > - Don't "push the line" (query the admins if in question)
>
> Whatever that means.

It means that admins get to use their judgement and don't want people to
constantly test the rules.

> > - Refrain from asking stupid questions or posting frivolously (the
> > piclist does not replace google)
>
> I agree, but your consequences are very harsh for this.  Public pressure
> will provide the appropriate feedback.  This shouldn't be a admin matter.

We really don't want users involved in policing the piclist. For every
opinion there is a differing opinion, and then the list gets filled up
with lots of chatter that has nothing to do with PICs.

Please leave admin duties to the admins. If you don't like what a user
is doing, send a complaint to piclist-owner and let us deal with it.

Best regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail

2010\03\14@190616 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:54:19 -0500, "Olin Lathrop" said:

> > - Be a smart and courteous adult
>
> That's pretty much content free.

This is supposed to be an inspiring document, it needed to start that
way :)

In all seriousness, nobody is perfect, but that doesn't excuse one from
striving to improve in all three of the mentioned areas.

> > - Consider reading http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> > - Go easy on newbies and non-native speakers
>
> For two completely different reasons and in different dimensions, I hope.

The first line is for the person with the question. The second line is
for the person who gives the answer.

It sets up a protocol where the quality of information goes up and the
level of friction goes down.

We made a document that asks something from everybody. If it bears fruit
it will be worth it.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders
                         wherever you are

2010\03\15@022902 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> What we are saying is that "RTFM" by itself can lead to a flamewar
> including one that involves more than just two people, and it also
> wastes the resource of the piclist. Nobody comes off looking good.

I agree to that observation, but IMO your conclusion is plain wrong. If
someone deserves a RTFM he should get it. Consider the opposite: if
someone asks a stupid question, and gets a lengthy end friendly answer
that makes me very angry. Now suppose I start a flame war on this
ground, would you blame that on the person who answered and consequently
ban the long an friendly answer???

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\03\15@024454 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:28:50 +0100, "Wouter van Ooijen" said:
> > What we are saying is that "RTFM" by itself can lead to a flamewar
> > including one that involves more than just two people, and it also
> > wastes the resource of the piclist. Nobody comes off looking good.
>
> I agree to that observation, but IMO your conclusion is plain wrong. If
> someone deserves a RTFM he should get it. Consider the opposite: if
> someone asks a stupid question, and gets a lengthy end friendly answer
> that makes me very angry. Now suppose I start a flame war on this
> ground, would you blame that on the person who answered and consequently
> ban the long an friendly answer???

You've read our policy so you would probably complain in private email
to either the concerned parties or to piclist-owner.

Definitely you wouldn't start a public flamewar, because that is not
allowed.

Best regards,

Bob





--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service

2010\03\15@030651 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I am new so if you tell me to rtfm please tell me which manual and what
> part of it`because that helps a random rtfm indicates you have no clue

Not necesarrily. A plain rtfm can be good for instance because
- which manual you should read is obvious
- the manual is so small you should be able to find it easily
- you should read the manual anyway
- finding the right place is as much work for the answered as it is for you

A good follow-up question to rtfm could be "I read section x.y, which is
the place where I expected the answer, but it was not there". For *that*
question a plain rtfm is indeed not a good answer.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\03\15@031049 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> You've read our policy so you would probably complain in private email
> to either the concerned parties or to piclist-owner.
>
> Definitely you wouldn't start a public flamewar, because that is not
> allowed.

That's dodging the question Bob. You defended the 'rtfm ban' by noting
that it often starts a flame war. I wanted to show the ridicule of that
line of reasoning.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\03\15@060437 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> > You've read our policy so you would probably complain in private email
> > to either the concerned parties or to piclist-owner.

> > Definitely you wouldn't start a public flamewar, because that is not
> > allowed.

> That's dodging the question Bob. You defended the 'rtfm ban' by noting
> that it often starts a flame war. I wanted to show the ridicule of that
> line of reasoning.

I'm puzzled and somewhat perturbed by Wouter's line of thought.

I assume that you understand that it is the specific term "RTFM" that is at
the core of this discussion and not the concept that it embodies. (It's
possible to have this sort of conversation with that NOT obvious so I need
to note it).

I assume as of right that your (Wouter's) vocabulary either in English or
Dutch or whatever is not so limited that you consider there is no linguistic
option or synonym to using the actual phrase RTFM

I assume that, while the copulation synonym, whatever it may be in Dutch or
whatever, is common enough in many walks of life that you pass through (as
it is in mine) , you probably don't use it very often to get abrupt
attention in social, business or work settings. eg in  a lecture situation,
I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that RTFM's F probably doesn't feature no
matter how stupid a student's question. Quite possibly something with a bit
less reasonably incidental baggage is used, and that's the primary aim here.

That's NOT an encouragement to find creative alternatives - the word is
really quite unimportant apart from the result it has often enough for it to
be better avoided.

In the mind of enough people that it matters it can parse as eg
"Read the manual you drivelling loser". /
Didn't your mommy tell you not to play with the big boys until you had dome
your homework /
Idiots like you don't belong here - shape up or shape out.
etc

Some will, of course, argue that this is utter rubbish and that nobody sees
it that way.
Others will use it on purpose BECAUSE of this effect.
Some do both the above at once.
Some argue that people who can't stand being called drivelling losers (or
interpreting the term that way) without reacting adversely are not worthy of
being on this list.

So ...

   RM

2010\03\15@080351 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I assume that you understand that it is the specific term "RTFM" that is at
> the core of this discussion and not the concept that it embodies.

> That's NOT an encouragement to find creative alternatives - the word is
> really quite unimportant apart from the result it has often enough for it to
> be better avoided.

I am lost. RTFM is the problem, not the concept, but we are *not*
encouraged to find alternative ways to express the same message?

BTW in my classes it is normal (although not frequent) for one student
to say RTFM to another. I seldom say so directly to a student, although
I sometimes say "if you asked that question on internet you would be
RTFM'ed - and rightly so".

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\03\15@084844 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> > That's NOT an encouragement to find creative alternatives - the word is
> > really quite unimportant apart from the result it has often enough for it to
> > be better avoided.

> I am lost. RTFM is the problem, not the concept, but we are *not*
> encouraged to find alternative ways to express the same message?

Sorry. The joys of conveying concise meaning in relatively few words.
An art that I an less well versed in than some :-)

I meant, not an encoragement to find new creative new ways to cause
offence without using proscribed words.

ie RTFM per se causes offence.
But an F free word or phrase to cause the same level of offence should
not be sought to replace it.

eg note the genuinely light hearted exchange a day of so ago where
several members called each other morons and tossers and um (that was
me) er, something else :-)..., and also expressed doubt re the worth
of one of the members to the list, ALL without any use of 'bad' words.

>  ... I seldom say so directly to a student, although
> I sometimes say "if you asked that question on internet you would be
> RTFM'ed - and rightly so".



Yes. One cal almost get away with that with a student.
May not work quite so well on a client or your manager :-).

I think we both understand the others general drift.
I also hope that we can manage to both avoid the more extreme winding
up of newcomers as an art form that we have seen in the past by some
AND satisfy most of the desires for beginners to quite rapidly
understand the level that the list is meant to work at. For a while,
in cases of doubt, it may require all of us to read the manual
occasionally :-).

FWIW- and I've said it often enough, but it doesn't seem to get
universally heard - I, too, am keen for newcomers to think
intelligently, learn rapidly, fit in well, use available resources
well and understand what is available and how to find it, sit at the
feet of the masters when sitting is most productive and generally
become useful and happy members of this community. And, to rapidly
demonstrate their own mastery and capability when it's there, asap. P
for mastery varies from weeks through years to sometimes never. That's
life.

Interestingly, one of the most rambunctious stubborn, pig headed
newcomers of relatively recent times who seemed to utterly refuse to
bow or to learn very rapidly, also happened to come with a reasonably
high degree of mastery attached, albeit mostly in one area. A nice guy
despite all this - although many probably failed to notiuce  ! :-).
The noise generated by the punchups and screamings very largely
overshadowed the contributions that were made and probably diminished
what would otherwise have been made. I'm not saying at all that his
pig headed insistance on flouting reasonable behaviour should have
been long tolerated, but I suspect he was one of those for whom
different training methods than those most visibly tried may have been
more effective. We were (almost) all young once :-),



                        Russell

2010\03\15@090226 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>>  ... I seldom say so directly to a student, although
>> I sometimes say "if you asked that question on internet you would be
>> RTFM'ed - and rightly so".
>
> Yes. One cal almost get away with that with a student.

.r/almost //

> May not work quite so well on a client or your manager :-).

I think I literally said the same to both types on serveral occasions.
No problem. But then, they were Dutch :)

> I also hope that we can manage to both avoid the more extreme winding
> up of newcomers

I am afraid the concern for that problem will drive away even more
experienced users. It is no fun to be on a list when both your hands are
tied behind your back.

> We were (almost) all young once :-),

I recall that time. I was much less polite then.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\03\15@092234 by Derward Myrick

picon face

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell McMahon" <RemoveMEapptechnzspamspamBeGonegmail.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <spamBeGonepiclistKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 5:04 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] Moderation and list policy


.
{Quote hidden}

Russel,  these people can say what they want about using RTFM and it should
not cause
a problem but There are many people that they would not say that to face to
face.
I am not talkin about friends talking to each other but to people you do not
know.

It is easy to insult some one from behind a computer but when some one can
get to you
then you think twice.  I knew people in the military service that would whip
your  ***
if you gave them that answer and this tells me that some take this as very
rude.  I think that
it would be much better to say RTM and most wold not get too upset with
that.


Derward





















2010\03\15@092750 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
>> I also hope that we can manage to both avoid the more extreme winding
>> up of newcomers

> It is no fun to be on a list when both your hands are
> tied behind your back.

No hands are tied.
In comparative terms we are all more fettered in our daily lives by eg
the laws of the land, paying taxes, having to wear clothes and follow
various other social mores. Not to mention having to drive on the same
side of the road as everyone else, use the sewage system for sewage (a
blessing we are so unaware of most of the time)(I'm working on a
'project' for an area where that outcome is not always SOP :-( ).
Actually being just slightly nice to newcomers and introduce them
round and provide a bit of training and a modicum of understanding
where required is something that falls entirely within the societal
norm in bout everything else we do. Not, apparently, some think, in
this community.

> I am afraid the concern for that problem will drive away even more
> experienced users.

I submit that it will only be a problem if one or more (so far it's
been one) insists to make it a cause celebre, fall on their swords,
die at all costs insistence that they must be allowed to abuse the
children into line.

By saying the above you are saying that you discount every point in
my comments in my last message about wanting newcomers to rapidlyu
become as good as they can be. But, I've got very used to that so far
:-).

Tryagain.
Which of these is bad?

Keen for newcomers to
- think intelligently,
- learn rapidly,
- fit in well,
- use available resources well and
- understand what is available and
- how to find it,
- sit at the feet of the masters when sitting is most productive and
- generally become useful and happy members of this community. And, to
- rapidly demonstrate their own mastery and capability when it's there,
- asap.

Alas that's just read as PC PC PC woosy bleeding heart PC PC woosy ...
for some reason.



       Russell

2010\03\15@094608 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I submit that it will only be a problem if one or more (so far it's
> been one) insists to make it a cause celebre

I contra-submit that it is a problem whether they leave silently or with
flying banners. In both cases it is their contributions that I miss.

> Which of these is bad?

I don't think we disagree about the long-term goal. But we do disagree
about the path.

And the other thing is that you talk a lot about newcomers. There is the
experienced ones too. For me this list is a lot less interesting without
Olin. Replace 'me' and 'olin' with other examples.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\03\15@095511 by Mark E. Skeels

flavicon
face
I'm not sure how much cred my opinion will really have, since I am not a
frequent contributor, but more of a lurker on this list; but here goes.

I used to be really afraid of somebody calling me a moron; that was an
error and an impediment to progress and growth.

"The wounds of a friend are faithful." (hope you'll cut me some slack
there...)

That said, I have never found it necessary or productive to call anyone
else a moron. And there is more than one way to "help" an individual to
rise above "moron" status. Over the years, I can think of people in my
life that did that for me in different areas at different times.

The people on this list have really helped me on a number of occasions,
and I appreciate you all.

I am a every-day, working engineer, and I am trying the best I can to
accomplish the tasks set before me; at times I struggle with these
tasks, not really knowing how I am going to get from point A to point B
until it all becomes clear. The PICList helps me with that.

The best, BEST, period, post I have ever seen on this list was Olin's
explanation of how to design a switching power supply.

There's an individual much like Olin on the MSP430 list......I think he
goes by OneStone. He once gave a summary of how to design a firmware
program. It was in the same class as Olin's post. Everybody on both
lists saw the value in those posts.

If you want to know what real love is, it is at least in part taking
that time and putting forth that effort to create something that useful
and then give it away for free. Not that I know Olin's motives, mind you.

I can endure being called a moron once in a while to get to information
like that, since I do, in fact, act like a moron on occasion. And
really, does it matter what Olin or anybody else thinks of us?

Here is food for thought..... it is not often that humility and
extraordinary gifts and talent are found in the same individual. There
are a lot of talented and gifted individuals on this list.

On the other hand, it is true that many folks hate the super-competent
because of intimidation or jealousy.

But there is a place for all of us.

I cannot change anyone or the way they behave by my own power. But in
order to preserve freedom on this list, I think it is best not to sensor
Olin or anyone else, and then hope for the appearance and practice of
mutual respect, understanding that nobody is going to be perfect.

IM(hopefully H)O.

Mark Skeels
Engineer
Competition Electronics, Inc.
TEL: 815-874-8001
FAX: 815-874-8181
http://www.competitionelectronics.com


2010\03\15@100231 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
I think there are too many straw men and hypothetical cases - and
that's on all "sides".

We now have a wholly unmoderated list membership.
We have as many oldies here as are here.
We have  a chance to get on with things and conduct ourselves in an
adult way - whatever that may mean to whoever.

The "newcomers" 'problem' is academic. Why don't we all just wait in
eager anticipation of the first "problem' arriivng and see how
maturely we can handle it between us. Perhaps assume that it's your
manager's managers daughter for the first few exchanges :-). No need
for PC or wussy. Just sensible politeness. Same as one may afford to
Derward's military buddies in person. Or maybe some members just have
no front teeth as a matter of principle?

AND if the outcome leaves any seasoned members feeling like leaving in
silence with banners flying they will presumably be mature enough to
first discuss why with the list admins.



      Russell

2010\03\15@102451 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 17:54 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Wow, that's really heavy handed.  Sometimes, probably most of the time, it's
> best to let things work out on their own.  You are falling into the same
> trap James did where he created big problems by trying to fix little
> problems.

Olin: just to be clear (don't want Bob shouldering everything) this is a
collective response of ALL the admins.

You wanted a discussion, there was a discussion (both on list and among
us admins).

You wanted a clear policy, you now have a clear policy.

You wanted off moderation, you are off moderation.

Thanks, TTYL



2010\03\15@110226 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> I also hope that we can manage to both avoid the more extreme winding
>> up of newcomers
>
> I am afraid the concern for that problem will drive away even more
> experienced users. It is no fun to be on a list when both your hands
> are tied behind your back.

Exactly.  Russell has a particular way he thinks everyone should interact.
He is intitled to that.  Unfortunately he is in a position of power and
abusing it by imposing his standard on everyone.  I find his style and
approach annoying at times.  However, I would not seek to disalow it if I
had the authority to do so.

RTFM is and the message behind it is the right thing to say in some
circumstances.  It is a accepted way to communicate in many situations,
including many forums, mailing lists, and in person.  Forcing those who
would naturally say that and related things to always look over their
shoulder is obnoxious, and will curtail envolvement.  Why doesn't it count
that we are offended by not being allowed to say RTFM when we think it's
appropriate?

It's funny how Russell was talking about compromise, but I don't see
anything in the new official policy that deviates far from his opinions.
What exactly did he compromise on?

Then there is the issue of laws should only be made with broad support.  The
vast majority agree that stealing, killing, etc, are wrong, so we have laws
that prohibit them.  There is certainly no broad support here for banning
RTFM, so there shouldn't be a law against it.  Having one is then just a
minority trying to impose their view of things on everyone.  That's wrong.

Chill out and be more tolarant.  There is rarely any need for official
action.  Things will work out on their own if you just let them, and
recognize that people will occasionally need to jump in and talk about what
is acceptable or not.  That's important and healthy in any community.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\15@111318 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> What exactly did he compromise on?

I understand you are out of moderation?

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2010\03\15@111449 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> We now have a wholly unmoderated list membership.

That's a step in the right direction.  However, we still have the threat of
moderation hanging over us for things many here consider trivial offenses or
no offense at all.

> We have  a chance to get on with things and conduct ourselves in an
> adult way - whatever that may mean to whoever.

Exactly.  It means very different things to different people.  Unfortunately
you have made it clear you will apply your particular view and deal harshly
with those that fall outside of it.

> The "newcomers" 'problem' is academic. Why don't we all just wait in
> eager anticipation of the first "problem' arriivng and see how
> maturely we can handle it between us.

While you hold the threat of moderation over the whole experiment.  That's
no experiment at all.

> No need for PC or wussy. Just sensible politeness.

PC, wussy, and sensible by who's interpretation.  Are you willing to allow
that others' interpretation of those vary considerably from yours?

> AND if the outcome leaves any seasoned members feeling like leaving in
> silence with banners flying they will presumably be mature enough to
> first discuss why with the list admins.

We *have* been discussing it.  So far you haven't budged at all.  You only
preach to us how your way is right.  In fact the new rules seem to be
tighter than they ever were.  You are killing this list.

2010\03\15@112403 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> What exactly did he compromise on?
>
> I understand you are out of moderation?

Yes, that does appear to be the case.  I should have been more clear that I
was talking about long term policy issues.  It appears those rules are not
tighter than ever.  Even though I was put on moderation despite not having
broken any rules, now those same actions are apparently against the rules.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\15@114854 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> It appears those rules are not tighter than ever.

Oops.  Fingers faster than brain.  That should have been "now tighter ...".


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\15@174027 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> You are killing this list.

Yes they are, in a very insidious way. Instead of an honest and public ban,
you get put on moderation. Admins continue to make decisions regarding
individual users in secret, leaving the door wide open for abuse.

I'm not leaving, but I'm definitely less likely to contribute.

Vitaliy

2010\03\15@181123 by ivp

face picon face
> I'm not leaving, but I'm definitely less likely to contribute

Sounds like Lysistrata revisited

You wouldn't withhold help would you ?

Forget the other layers, the other issues, if the PICList isn't sharing
PIC and related information it's not going to be much of a list is it

2010\03\15@181436 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> I'm not leaving, but I'm definitely less likely to contribute.

That's pretty much how I feel at present too.  Now that I'm off moderation,
I will probably reply to a few posts here and there as they interest me, but
I don't see putting in the kind of effort as when describing how to design a
switching power supply with a 10F, for example.

It just doesn't feel like "our" list anymore.  It's run by the admins for
the admins according to their whims.  You get slack for being new to the
list, but not for good contributions.  There is emphasis on one particular
person's version of proper etiquette, but valuable content is not mentioned
at all.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\03\15@185409 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
I'll copy a comment from near the end to the top so people who tire 10% of
the way through don't miss it :-).

Olin was talking about "compromise".

For my part - I'll see if I can act more like Olin might in any situation
where people aren't meeting the grade. If you looked at the past advice that
I've given people who you (Olin) have been "short" with you will find that I
(also) have solidly and consistently "preached" the message that you wish
them to learn - use a good search engine, think before you ask, do your
homework first, learn from the answers given and don't ignore what is said
etc. I'll see if I can do that more even more thoroughly if the need arises.
OK?

_______________________

> That's a step in the right direction.  However, we still have the threat
of
> moderation hanging over us

Moderation has always (essentially) been one of the admin tools.
I imagine it will get used less in future, not more.

(FWIW - I have NEVER placed anyone on moderation personally and have
rejected probably 3 or 4 messages ever, due to content, only 1 from Olin. On
every such occasion I've provide a comment on why).

PLEASE read the "rules" list again.
PLEASE TRY and see it as an attempt to let 99.75%* of people do 99%+++ of
what they'd typically like to do, and for 0.25% of people do about 99%+ of
what they'd typically like to do. For the 99.75% it is unlikely that they
will find any imposition on their activities. For the 0.25% (maybe only
0.1%?) the perceived limitations may feel irksome.

I'd suggest trying it and seeing how it works.
ANY system is non ideal.
No system will please everyone.

Consider - it was absolutely certain that you (Olin) were not going to 100%
agree with what the admins came up with. 100% sure. Given that certainty,
why not try it out and see if what has been arrived at actually workls.

If you read the comments over the past few weeks you will find a very strong
and important contingent who support no limitations, no "censorship",
effectively almost no administration. (Some of these don't think it though
enough to realise what they would experience if this 'freedom' was granted,
but some do).

And you'll find comments from other people who also probably don't want to
be oppressed, censored, subject to arbitrary limitations etc BUT who clearly
want a system that is different from what some others want. The differences
ALL (afair) relate to "behaviour". You (Olin) disagtree with these other
peo;le. They disagree with you.

If they admins produced a "rule set" that made you happy it is certain that
other list members would be unhappy with it.

PLEASE read the "rule" list again and try and see it from the "lets all just
get on with doing a good job of making this list a premium technical
community, not only for PIC but for EE AND an interesting place for the
technically inclined. I'd hope that if we did that with an approach that
would be what the vast majority of people would take in the vast majority of
real world face to face situations, (especially if talking to Derward's
military friends :-) ). then we'll all be rather happy.

If some people insist on trying to view what is intended to be a list of
suggested sensible behaviours as the description of a neo-fascist
police-state then I'm sure we'll have lots to talk about. BUT, why not just
give it a trial? We've had a long period where you (Olin) were dissatisfied.
This is intended to be better and different. Give it a go.


> Unfortunately you have made it clear you will apply your particular view
and deal harshly
> with those that fall outside of it.

No, *I* certainly haven't.
By all means please quote chapter and verse where *I* have done so and I'll
see if I should correct what I said.  Really.

If by *you* you means ALL the admins then you at least have the right target
group.
BUT the threat to "deal harshly" is, I think, more your perspective than a
reality or an intention..

eg you suggests a series of bans for "offences".
Why a 1 week ban is less harsh than a 1 week period of moderation is unclear
to me.
I can see that it may feel more of a "punishment" (I have been put on
moderation in the past and I know how it feels ! :-) ). But a person on 1
week moderation can either ignore it and just keep posting 99%+ of what they
might otherwise say, or self ban themselves for a week.

>> The "newcomers" 'problem' is academic. Why don't we all just wait in
>> eager anticipation of the first "problem' arriving and see how
>> maturely we can handle it between us.
>
> While you hold the threat of moderation over the whole experiment.  That's
> no experiment at all.

Threat - see above.
Moderation - see above.
Experiment - I'd expect we'd ALL be dancing carefully when the first few
":tests" arrived.

> We *have* been discussing it.  So far you haven't budged at all.

*You* is not me. See above.

> You only preach to us how your way is right.

Not quite. In a system with no absolutes there is no right. Only opinion or
desire.
I "preach" perception - not absolute rightness. So do you. Strongly.
I of course "preach" what I perceive - and in 99% of my 'belief set' it's a
"fuzzy logic" continuum.
(I'd expect that that's how all "real" engineers view most of reality :-) ).


Leaving aside absolute absolutes, which don't need to explicitly feature
here - NO view is "right" - all have various merit and perception varies
with person and their world view and path to the present.

You (Olin) only preach to us how your way is right.
Always.
Only.
My view is not what is espoused in the new rules.
My view informed them. As did others.
But you need to address ":ALL" admins if you want to talk about whose views
they are.
And, odds are most don't agree 100% with 100% of them.

> In fact the new rules seem to be
> tighter than they ever were.

They may be. I don't think so. You think so. You may be right. I don't think
so.
I suggest (see above) that you make an honest attempt to make things work
and see if we can't all be nicely surprised how well we all work together.
If you allow just a whiff of what is trying to be done to influence your
actions in the desired direction it will probably make all the difference.
If you instead decide to find every way possible to push against the
perceived restrictions then everyone will probably be unhappy.

For my part - I'll see if I can act more like Olin might in any situation
where people aren't meeting the grade. If you looked at the past advice that
I've given people who you have been ":short" with you will find that I have
solidly "preached" the message that you wish them to learn - use a good
search engine, think before you ask, do your homework first, learn from the
answers and don't ignore what is said etc. I'll see if I can do that more
even more thoroughly if the need arises. OK?

> You are killing this list.

1. You need to be sure if you mean "me" or all *admins* there.
2. Some would disagree with you. Some strongly.
3. As you will be well aware, some have said and are saying that you are
killing the list. Some for a long long long time. Some strongly.

My perception is, of course, a fuzzy logic continuum.
You MAY be right. I don't think you are.

I think that by your ongoing actions you have done much harm to the list
while being a great asset, whereas, by bending only a very very small amount
in accommodating others you could have been just a great asset. I may be
wrong. I don't think I am.
I am not saying that you are destroying the list. BUT I think the list could
be a much better community, and would have been, if you had been willing to
voluntarily compromise on the very extreme edges of what you would like to
do. Just a very little.



    R

2010\03\15@194018 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
ivp wrote:
>> I'm not leaving, but I'm definitely less likely to contribute
>
> You wouldn't withhold help would you ?

Joe, do you help *everyone* who asks for help? Considering your credential
and the number of people whose requests you are not responding to, obviously
you are "withholding" help.

My point is, if you enjoy the process more, you contribute more. The
opposite is also true, my time is worth something to me and if the list
policy makes it more difficult/less enjoyable for me to offer help, I will
withold it in marginal cases where the satisfaction I get from helping
someone is not worth the effort.

I'm NOT blackmailing anyone. I'm simply stating a fact.

Vitaliy

2010\03\15@194310 by GENEL227

picon face

---- enkitecspam_OUTspam@spam@gmail.com wrote:
> On 14-Mar-10 16:41, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> >>       Wrong. The proper answer would be no answer at all.
> >>      
> > (there we go again?)
> >
> > wrong. assuming that RTFM is the correct answer (like Olin pointed out,
> > it depends on the context whether this is true), then it is good to give
> > that answer.
> >
> >    
>
>      Completelly wrong according to the list rules:
>
> DON'T'S
> - Do not engage in bullying or inflammatory behavior (keep RTFM for your friends)
>
>
>      Mark
>
> --

2010\03\15@200453 by Gaston Gagnon

face
flavicon
face
Vitaliy wrote:
> Olin Lathrop wrote:
>  
>> You are killing this list.
>>    
>
> Yes they are, in a very insidious way. Instead of an honest and public ban,
> you get put on moderation.
Could someone tell us how many people were put on moderation last year?
Gaston

2010\03\15@201154 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:05:17 -0400, "Gaston Gagnon" said:

> Could someone tell us how many people were put on moderation last year?

It's either three or four.

Cheers,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be

2010\03\15@204334 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> > Could someone tell us how many people were put on moderation last year?

> It's either three or four.

One was Olin as already wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllll discussed.

Maybe over a year now:
One was a relative newcomer who got into abusive fire fights with
various people.
Continued to contribute happily enough.
No longer active AFAIK - moved country and probably changed activities
too - but seemed to fade away amicably

One was similar to above.
Newcomer. Opinionated. Abusive fire fights.
Accepted moderation with a good grace.
Capable & promising person and pleasant and respectful when not
engaging in fire fights :-).
Still occasionally active. Interests lie more elsewhere.

One other I can think of.
Short term.
Complex and best discussed.
They may decide to comment - I'd suggest it be left as bygones as very
little positive is liable to come from dredging such things up.
I'll say as a personal opinion that admins could probably have done
better as a group in that case.

________________

FWIW: I can think of few others prior to that.
(Perhaps 2 but I suspect they were the same person)
Experienced member and capable in first incarnation.
Prone to occasional extreme stances - easily provoked to fire fights.
Was cunningly rapidly would up to explosion point by various people.
Not heard of for some while.
MAY be active under an alias.

_______

I was moderated for a while in James's time :-).
Coz I was thought to have (all in one post) 1. made political comment
on Californian politics (that was news to me :-), 2. criticised NASA,
and 3. said that the old cannot kill the young forever. The latter is
poltical in the right context and a truism otherwise and was not the
reason for the moderation - the first two were.



                Russell

2010\03\15@221237 by ivp

face picon face
> Joe, do you help *everyone* who asks for help?

When I can, yes. Honestly

> Considering your credential and the number of people whose
> requests you are not responding to, obviously you are "withholding"
> help

I don't consider I obviously do. I know my strengths, for example my
recent posts with h/w and s/w that I've used and know to work and
which are relevant to the OP

I know little about compilers, languages other than asm, electronic
theory, radio etc and replies from others cover those areas well. I
would certainly not barge in on those threads and offer "Google for
it, you lazy git" and generally try, as most people would tend to do,
to not to engage in discussions where I know my ignorance puts me
out of my depth

> My point is, if you enjoy the process more, you contribute more

Well, I do enjoy the list and contribute as much as I can. On the odd
occassion, in cahoots with a couple of other larrikins ("some bigger
boys made me do it"), I've submitted something which I should have
known would have Bob coming at me like a nun with a ruler, and I
got a deserved rap on the knuckles

I haven't ever had a proper argument or falling out with anyone on
the list. Some I know just aren't my cup of tea, just like in life, and I
avoid them when possible. Olin isn't included in that list by the way.
Personally he's OK

> The opposite is also true, my time is worth something to me

Well, everybody's time is worth something to them, and this is
volunteer work if you want to look at it that way. I'm sure everyone
fades in and out of all sorts of things as time permits

> and if the list policy makes it more difficult/less enjoyable for me to
> offer help, I will withold it in marginal cases where the satisfaction I
> get from helping someone is not worth the effort.

I don't exactly see what "policy" there is to prevent me offering or
asking for help. I've never felt that I'm under any restrictions, apart
from inflammatory personal comments like calling someone a liar,
or adding fuel to religious, political etc discussions

AFAICT there is no "policy" that I can't say simply and only "Have
you read the manual ?" or "What have you done to help yourself ?"

Do I need to say any more than that initially ? Do I really need to
say it in any other way ? "You come in here asking for a favour ...."
or "We're not helping you if you don't help yourself"

Despite some very tempting moments, I don't believe I've ever been
prodded quite enough to indulge in malicious name-calling. Even
confronted by the likes of a Jose S Samonte Jr (good grief, the name
is etched), who was a test of patience indeed, I still tried my very best
to maintain some decorum (publicly anyway). Others at the time were
quite openly suggesting that micros were not for him and eventually
I think that was proved correct and he wandered off. I don't recall
anyone actually calling him an idiot or a moron but the implications
were certainly there

My approach was, and usually is, to give them the benefit of the doubt
and see where it goes. If they argue, continually doubt the content of
help, or what they're being told simply won't sink in, then it's time to
move on from that person. One example was someone who got up
eveyone's noses and I, amongst others, told him offlist that if he does
that, people will just clam up. We all got an abusive email from him
so we clammed up. In that one case, yes, I/we did withhold help and
refused to answer anymore of his questions (which he carried on
posting like nothing had happened) and he was/is persona non grata

Personally, I really haven't noticed any changes in how the list is run,
as it affects me on a day-to-day basis. There were opposing points
of view back when James Newton was running it too

The current discussion has risen to the surface many times over the
years, but the rest of the threads, the vast majority of threads overall,
have hardly changed in demeanour

What I would like to see are figures showing historically how many
people have left **simply because** of the under-discussion issues.
If that's even possible

One or two have said they refrain from asking questions because they
fear the replies they might get. I don't understand that, as they have
been on this list long enough to know how to ask a question "properly"

2010\03\15@223419 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
>> Considering your credential and the number of people whose
>> requests you are not responding to, obviously you are "withholding"
>> help

> I don't consider I obviously do. I know my strengths, for example my
> recent posts with h/w and s/w that I've used and know to work and
> which are relevant to the OP

Pssst.
Joe.
He thinks you know more than you think you do. Don't disallusion him.
:-)

(The people I don't manage to get to repy to usually count themselves
as lucky :-) ).


    R

2010\03\16@002706 by Gaston Gagnon

face
flavicon
face
Hum! That is 0.1% of the membership.
I'm wondering:  How much effort would an engineer reasonably allocate to
accommodate a feature that is causing 100% of the problem 100% of the
time, given that the system can perform reasonably well without the
feature ? ;-)
Gaston


Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\03\16@013302 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Jinx, Gaston: I wrote each of you detailed responses, but deleted them
because I became convinced that you will never 'get it' until you find
yourself on the receiving end (= maybe, never). As long as a set of rules
suits you, you will find ways to rationalize them and even joke about
"eliminating the 0.1%".

It was worth a try. At least now I can see how things are more clearly.

Sorry for wasting everyone's time.

Vitaliy

2010\03\16@015601 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> Hum! That is 0.1% of the membership.
> I'm wondering:  How much effort would an engineer reasonably allocate to
> accommodate a feature that is causing 100% of the problem 100% of the
> time, given that the system can perform reasonably well without the
> feature ? ;-)
> Gaston

Depends greatly on circumstance.
If it was the engine in your Starship ...
Or even one tyre on the Space Shuttle.
Or one below water inspection hatch on ... :-)

Or, if you had 2000 children (should one be so unlucky :-) ) and loved
them all equally ... ;-)

Also, some opine that the admins fill about the same percentage and
cause all the trouble, so ... :-)


  R

2010\03\16@030928 by ivp

face picon face
> I became convinced that you will never 'get it' until you find yourself
> on the receiving end (= maybe, never)

Vitaliy, (= maybe, never) could well be true. To the best of my
ability, despite how I might like to push the envelope a little at
times, I try not to be on the receiving end. And personally I don't
find it that difficult

> As long as a set of rules suits you, you will find ways to rationalize
> them and even joke about "eliminating the 0.1%"

It's not that rules "suit" me, it's just that I have no particular problem
with them the way they are. That's not to say I'm some puppy dog.
I'd react if I thought I was being treated unfairly. Nothing is so big
that you can't walk away from it

I wouldn't advocate removing anyone or making life here intolerable
enough for them to leave, but there's obviously a great contention
between some members and admins that the many of us really don't
"get". I conduct myself on the list as per my personality, others will
do the same. If their conduct is at odds with the admins then that
is something which I can do nothing about

> It was worth a try

Anything's worth a try

> At least now I can see how things are more clearly

Not sure what to make of that

> Sorry for wasting everyone's time.

Please don't think you've wasted _my_ time. I'm interested

wbr, Joe

2010\03\16@071831 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> I became convinced that you will never 'get it' until you find
> yourself on the receiving end (= maybe, never).

I 'get it' well enough.
I've been on the receiving end.
I didn't like the feeling at all.
It was done irrationally,
wasn't because I had broken any rules,
was due to somebody thinking I meant things that I wasn't even aware
were implied by my comments (and were of no interest to me)(US
domestic politics) - and which were so mild had they been intended
that they fell well inside any reasonable boundaries.

Interestingly, part of my post WAS potentially extremely inflammatory
had there been any strongly pro Chinese communist government list
members paying attention, but the admin never noticed the allusion and
nobody else commented. So I, like enough others*, had done enough to
justify significant treatment, but nobody noticed :-).)  (* Many of us
have our occasional excursions. The large majority go unremarked.
Which is as it should be).

As a consequence I acted far more like Olin did in the same
circumstances than I would have expected. An interesting experience.
And the moderation lasted for a significant period for reasons that
were unclear to me.

So, yes, I can entirely put myself in the few other's shoes who have
been in that position.

> As long as a set of rules
> suits you, you will find ways to rationalize them

I'm a bit perplexed as to how "do no harm" has been transformed into
seeming to be rampant fascist repression, but it seems to go with the
territory, alas.

> and even joke about
> "eliminating the 0.1%".

Just in case you didn't notice, I didn't do that (fwiw) I did the
opposite. Somebody asked about the 0.1% and I provided positive
examples of real life situations where you'd try and retain such. And
a thinly veiled metaphorical reference to a 2000 year old example
indicating that every member is equally valuable no matter how large
the flock AND that the outliers are singled out for treatment as being
specially valuable. (In the original example it was 1:99 but the
message was clear that the ratio wasn't the point, but the value of
each individual)

> It was worth a try. At least now I can see how things are more clearly.

Hopefully the above facts will assist the perspective. ie mainly YES
I've been on the receiving end of non rule-based moderation and yes I
didn't like it and no, I didn't joke about getting rid of the 0.1% -
in fact just the opposite.

No medals required - just the hope that people may be able to spot a
bit of sincerity when they find it ;-).

> Sorry for wasting everyone's time.

None of it's wasted if the family all end up happy. It's a total waste
if we spend this much time trying to honestly accommodate severely
disparate views but still find that people are grossly unhappy.

> Vitaliy

                   Russell

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...