Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Netiquitte Discussion with khayyam
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Forums Feedback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2244

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:32 pm    Post subject: Netiquitte Discussion with khayyam Reply with quote

Edit: Split off off-topic discussion from eselect-opengl conflict with mesa and glproto.JRG

John R. Graham wrote:
khayyam, I find I can't agree, on two counts. First, all I see here is opinion and polite discussion: I don't see any forum rules violation. Not even close, in fact. Politeness goes a long way.

John ... yes, and quite honestly I was kind of suprised when I recieved a PM this morning from ulenrich announcing that my post had been reported. I wasn't accussing anyone of violating the rules (I made no report), I was simply saying that to keep on going with this "advice" "[g]iven all that has been said above" would consitute misinformation.

John R. Graham wrote:
Second, although the opinion that everyone should be at ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~arch" is a little over the top (in my opinion), I think it's fair to say the Gentoo encourages experimentation. The basic instructions on how to keyword unstable packages, add overlays, apply non-standard patches—a myriad of behaviors that deviate from stable, in other words—are right there in the Handbook. The appropriate caveats are there as well.

I think thats all covered in the section in from the handbook I quoted above, of course we are all free to do as we please, and enjoy, or suffer, the consequences. This is not really whats being argued, its the propositon that the handbook recomendation is "wrong", and essencially unworkable for beginners, and that the advice should be otherwise.

John R. Graham wrote:
I think you're seeing trouble where there is none.

To be honest I know there isn't the slightest chance that a "bug" of this sort would be paid any heed, but given such a poorly reasoned proposal I thought it worth challenging ...

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John R. Graham
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 7841
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not saying that you don't have a point, but I also believe that it's a poorly reasoned proposal that a forums policy violation even remotely exists, something that was, in fact, your proposal. :wink:

- John
_________________
This space intentionally left blank.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2244

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John R. Graham wrote:
Not saying that you don't have a point, but I also believe that it's a poorly reasoned proposal that a forums policy violation even remotely exists, something that was, in fact, your proposal.

John ... I never stated there was a policy violation, I simply pointed to the CoC and wrote: "[g]iven all that has been said above with regard to the reasoning behind stable you have failed "giving accurate information" and are now "constantly purveying misinformation." This is a statement about the argument, not about the rules.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John R. Graham
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 7841
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bah. To make an analogy, what you're saying is that you never accused him of murder, but merely cited the Federal statue defining murder and then drew parallels to some of his actions.

Don't be the troll. It doesn't further your arguments and it draws the negative attention of your friendly forum constabulary.

- John
_________________
This space intentionally left blank.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 2413
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Etiquette" is subjective. For example, a lot of people find it rude and condescending when all of a person's replies look like form letter templates.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aCOSwt
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2537
Location: Hilbert space

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ant P. wrote:
"Etiquette" is subjective.

Apparently almost as much as misleading.
I remember a forum member who was asked to remove his signature advising an rm -fr / in order to remove all french content from the system. :lol:
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John R. Graham
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 7841
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ant P. wrote:
... For example, a lot of people find it rude and condescending when all of a person's replies look like form letter templates.
Good one.

- John

(Form Template Gentoo-71-5)
_________________
This space intentionally left blank.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2244

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John R. Graham wrote:
Bah. To make an analogy, what you're saying is that you never accused him of murder, but merely cited the Federal statue defining murder and then drew parallels to some of his actions.

John ... these are not analogous, a statutory definition states what is required to qualify, whereas an action can be referenced both by that statue and outside of the existence of that statute. I was clearly referencing "all that has been said above", and not "you are acting in a way contrary to the CoC". So, why cite the CoC, why not simply say "your argument is inaccurate and likely to misinform"? Well, I was simply done with any attempt at reasoning the case (I wrote: "[...] as I've already made this reasoning clear I don't see the point in taking the discussion any further."), and done with the constantly moving goal posts. So, yes, I'd accuse ulenrich of inaccuracy, failing to listen and understand what has been said, and persisting in a cause which is misleading given the reasons provided, but I would have that accusation framed by what has been said in the discussion, rather than, as you seem to see it, a disingenuous accusation by proxy.

John R. Graham wrote:
Don't be the troll. It doesn't further your arguments and it draws the negative attention of your friendly forum constabulary.

I'm not sure I can respond to that, trolls have a special nack of pleading their case, and I'd prefer not to be judged as one.

Anyhow, I should probably lay off engaging in such discussions ...

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1160

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@khayyam, I am not a lawyer. Your sentence about statues and statutes is out of reach for my brain. But
Quote:
I was clearly referencing "all that has been said above", and not "you are acting in a way contrary to the CoC"
the flow of discussion was (shortend):
ulenrich wrote:
my suggestion:
If You beginner don't want to hassle around and you don't regret using older software keep all Gentoo stable!
If You want recent software it is easy way to turn all of Gentoo unstable! It is wrong common sense to think it is easier to turn ~unstable for certain packages only!

I expressed: If the beginner wants the hassle... But you stated:
khayyam wrote:
Your proposal is to do away with the distinction between stable and testing, and that ~arch should be the de facto "recommended" for new users,

Yes, I have said later:
ulenrich wrote:
We should really encourage to use Gentoo~unstable!
But this was meant conditionaly in the context of our discussion!
You then threatened to go to court against me:
khayyam wrote:
ulenrich wrote:
We should really encourage to use Gentoo~unstable!

ulenrich ... I advise you to read the Code of Conduct. "Acceptable Behavior [...] Give accurate information [...]. Unacceptable Behavior [...] Constantly purveying misinformation".

Given all that has been said above with regard to the reasoning behind stable you have failed to "giving accurate information" and are now "constantly purveying misinformation."
Because I don't like to be threatened I have reported myself and asked these questions:

A) Is it allowed to argue against the Gentoo Handbook in the forums?
B) Isn't it necassary to see all my statements in the context of the whole discussion, when claiming they are against Code of Conduct?
C) As a forum discussion is not a completed handbook, is it justified to claim: You don't give me the whole truth, you are a liar.

@khayyam, you missed to react to these!
_________________
fun2gen2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Forums Feedback All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum