hasufell

[Naib]

User: [profile=267054]hasufell[/profile]
Topic: [topic=1005692]New to Gentoo[/topic]
Post: [post]7669458[/post]
Reason: derailing an introduction thread

[hasufell]

User: [profile=146493]steveL[/profile]
Topic: [topic=1006906]FreeBSD vs Gentoo tinkering and customization capabilities[/topic]
Post: [post]7673054[/post]
Reason: OT, spam

[steveL]

Mods: Can you please get hasufell off my back? He's doing the same crap he did a few months ago, and a year or so before that, etc. For whatever reason he's going loopy, and I don't care what that reason is, since it's nothing to do with me. I'm just sick and tired of being the person he picks on out of the blue, whenever he's having his "moment".

[hasufell]

Mods: Can you please get hasufell off my back?

Do the mods work for you?

[Ant P.]

Mods: Can you please get hasufell off my back?

Do the mods work for you?

Please stop. We don't need a repeat of TomWij.

[hasufell]

Mods: Can you please get hasufell off my back?

Do the mods work for you?

Please stop. We don't need a repeat of TomWij.

Uhm, I have no idea what you are referring to. Almost all of my posts in Gentoo Chat were technical posts, describing gentoo context and my opinion regarding that context. If my opinion offends someone (such like my opinion about portage, ebuild writing, gentoo workflow, configuration complexity etc), then I'm sorry for that, but it's still my opinion.

I've seen people repeatedly chime in those threads without adding *any* real value to the discussion. These posts seem to be widely accepted here, quite similar to the gentoo dev ML where I've reported Ciarans trolling numerous times. Nothing has happened.

I don't care about steveL or his personal problems and why he needs this forum to share his personality with others. I'm just sick that sometimes 30%+ of a threads posts are random ad hominem arguments, non-technical blahblah and very rude personal insults that are not remotely technical.
I have no intention to waste my time fighting trolls. I'v got better things to do. That's why I just report them and be done with it.

I'm also aware that a lot of gentoo users and devs react emotionally if you criticise their beloved software. But that's not my problem. And that's perfectly fine with the Code of Conduct.

I'm not even sure why THIS thread is public and why I have to discuss anything here. It shouldn't be public.

[krinn]

If my opinion offends someone (such like my opinion about portage, ebuild writing, gentoo workflow, configuration complexity etc), then I'm sorry for that, but it's still my opinion.

That's what you cannot get: i, as a user could tell this gentoo dev (pick the name you wish) sucks ass bad. That's my opinion.
While you just cannot!!! Why??? Because you are a gentoo dev, as such your opinion don't have the same power as mine ; and how, with who, and where you are sharing it have a lot to do with it.
If you want rant against a dev, use dev ml, but that's gentoo forum. What do you think users think about a gentoo dev in this forum telling bad thing about another dev???

Look at this one:
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Com ... _Conflicts
A developer whose behavior is believed to be a negative influence for the Gentoo community.

So when you share your opinion, even if it's the truth, it mean you should keep it for yourself or the dev-ml if sharing it would hurt people for no benefits in this forum: you could tell any users all you wish portage sucks ; the final result is users may look at a gentoo dev that might appears weird, users reading bad comments from a dev about portage (instead of helping fixing the problem) and a critic to others gentoo devs's work (portage dev in this case) that might just do like you, the best they could.

To be honest nobody could really tell where your limit is or should be... but it really start looking weird your rant loop against portage (and game.eclass), like if a "basic gentoo users" could be of any help with your problem or as it appears (because of the repetition) ; crusade.
So ask yourself: do sharing your opinion about portage here does provide you any help from gentoo users? Do sharing it put blame on portage devs? Do sharing it put blame on gentoo itself? Do sharing it help your cause in any way? Are you sharing it here with people (users) that couldn't understand it? Or just ; do you repeat it a bit too much?
The answers to these questions should be enough to find yourself the "limit".
com'on!!! : flaming portage from a Gentoo dev in a thread "new gentoo user"!!! Seriously Hasufell

[hasufell]

If my opinion offends someone (such like my opinion about portage, ebuild writing, gentoo workflow, configuration complexity etc), then I'm sorry for that, but it's still my opinion.

That's what you cannot get: i, as a user could tell this gentoo dev (pick the name you wish) sucks ass bad. That's my opinion.
While you just cannot!!! Why??? Because you are a gentoo dev, as such your opinion don't have the same power as mine ; and how, with who, and where you are sharing it have a lot to do with it.
If you want rant against a dev, use dev ml, but that's gentoo forum. What do you think users think about a gentoo dev in this forum telling bad thing about another dev???

I'm not sure if you have been following the recent discussions in Gentoo Chat. There was no "telling bad thing about another dev". I cannot follow you.

So when you share your opinion, even if it's the truth, it mean you should keep it for yourself or the dev-ml if sharing it would hurt people for no benefits in this forum: you could tell any users all you wish portage sucks ; the final result is users may look at a gentoo dev that might appears weird, users reading bad comments from a dev about portage (instead of helping fixing the problem) and a critic to others gentoo devs's work (portage dev in this case) that might just do like you, the best they could.

No. Not ever. I don't agree to censorship in any way. I say my opinion wherever I please as long as it doesn't conflict with the CoC. What result telling my opinion has is totally orthogonal to anything that is related to this very thread.

com'on!!! : flaming portage from a Gentoo dev in a thread "new gentoo user"!!! Seriously Hasufell

quote from a portage dev (I'm not saying who)

portage should be killed with fire

Talking about it and making this NIH-talk and narrow-minded "other solutions are evil" thing go away involves telling users about it. If you don't like my style, then I don't care. I've done nothing wrong, however.

[desultory]

User: [profile=146493]steveL[/profile]
Topic: [topic=1006906]FreeBSD vs Gentoo tinkering and customization capabilities[/topic]
Post: [post]7673054[/post]
Reason: OT, spam

Again, just because you do not agree with an opinion does not make it spam nor does it render it off topic. Are you familiar with the fables of Aesop?

Mods: Can you please get hasufell off my back?

Do the mods work for you?

As a matter of fact, yes we do. We also work for you and everyone else who uses this site. A critical qualifier is that we work for all of those individuals as an aggregate whole.

Please stop. We don't need a repeat of TomWij.

Uhm, I have no idea what you are referring to.

Brief summary: a developer, who is on the whole quite helpful to users, and various users managed to fail to interact well socially. With regard to site rules neither "side" was entirely in the right, but the developer had a tendency to be slightly more wrong. Things got verbose, and unpleasant before quieting down.

To put none too fine a point to it: I am disinclined to invest that sort of time into another developer, or user, without strong indication that it will pay off sooner rather than later.

I'm not even sure why THIS thread is public and why I have to discuss anything here. It shouldn't be public.

It is public, in part, because there are times when there is a decided benefit to having a public discussion about its contents. Even if there were no such value, it is exceedingly rare for there to be an issue here which actually warrants private reporting, though we do have a rather obvious set of mechanisms in place for such things.

I don't agree to censorship in any way. I say my opinion wherever I please as long as it doesn't conflict with the CoC. What result telling my opinion has is totally orthogonal to anything that is related to this very thread.

Curiously, you seem to have not realized that your manner of conveying your opinions is what has lead to this very discussion, that and your penchant for trying to feud with stevel. Leaving whatever issues you have with other people at the login page would help rather significantly in reducing the amount of time you spend "fighting trolls", as the people that you are branding "troll" are by and large responding to your manner in kind.

quote from a portage dev (I'm not saying who)

portage should be killed with fire

In various contexts, that comment would be utterly unsurprising coming from virtually anyone who has been part portage team in recent years. Without context and attribution, it is fairly yawn inspiring as a rhetorical device.

Talking about it and making this NIH-talk and narrow-minded "other solutions are evil" thing go away involves telling users about it.

As I have pointed out to you [post=7594730]before[/post], paludis was very much "invented here". Further, paludis is hardly the unknown project you make it out to be. While you are correct in asserting that there are political aspects to the level of acceptance and use of paludis, you are decidedly incorrect about how to address them.

If you don't like my style, then I don't care.

Your style is working diligently to form a rift between you and several others. You might not care now but you should at least realize that you are putting quite a bit of effort into feeding problems that will fester for some time.

I've done nothing wrong, however.

False assertion is [post=7671602]false[/post], also mildly amusing.

Split from "[topic=28820]Report violations, duplicates, misplaced posts, etc.[/topic]".

[Navar]

I'm late to the party, finally reading some of these threads...

Again, just because you do not agree with an opinion does not make it spam nor does it render it off topic. Are you familiar with the fables of Aesop?

Desultory, I don't get 'it'. Let's ignore the spam reason and focus on what you stated versus what reads as yet another character attack, starting off with his apologizing for hasufell to your general audience. As if he's the self appointed host for us all, our peer and whom we should all defer to. This from someone who has tended to show repeated history here of age characterization as 12 year old 'children' those whom he disagrees with among other patterns. Regardless of that, the reality that we're all imperfect... and with the main focus on reducing animosity and mitigating toxic discussions as part and parcel for why moderation exists:

Can you explain how that particular post is instead on topic? Can you further elaborate on how its intended tone is not to be entirely antagonistic in nature within each of its 4 small paragraphs?

Why was that a good example for you against hasufell? Why did you ignore the provoker?

Meanwhile, within that thread in question, hasufell actually seems one of the least provoking, unlike many others who certainly didn't welcome Lifeonfull. If the assertion being that a newer user, with whatever grand post count is applicable to you, posts a poll, thereby causing you to emotionally respond in distaste, then suggest adding restrictions to who can. Furthermore, perhaps a number of you should jump off the hypocritical bandwagon and heed your own advice given against others who expressed opinions you disagreed with in past threads.

Comparisons to prior actions of TomWij by others was incomparable and incorrect. No evidence was presented to indicate otherwise. Hasufell is his own persona, whether you agree with him or not, at least respect that much. While I've certainly seen hasufell and other devs here be quite assertive with their opinions at times, including firsthand, I have not seen him approach that particular level implied. And TomWij nicely improved in userside manner over time.

And then there's this,

I've done nothing wrong, however.

False assertion is false, also mildly amusing.

Which you regarded with this,

Generally it is also faster,

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Which came down to a difference of opinion context, again, as you essentially referred to above. So you're citing, in your opinion, that of a false claim made, asserting further your amusement of such (essentially taunting) and using that as your answer with regards to their claim of innocence.

Can you explain how that was intended to help the situation?

[desultory]

I'm late to the party, finally reading some of these threads...

At over four months on, I think that we can agree on this particular iron being rather cold at this point.

Again, just because you do not agree with an opinion does not make it spam nor does it render it off topic. Are you familiar with the fables of Aesop?

Desultory, I don't get 'it'. Let's ignore the spam reason and focus on what you stated versus what reads as yet another character attack, starting off with his apologizing for hasufell to your general audience. As if he's the self appointed host for us all, our peer and whom we should all defer to. This from someone who has tended to show repeated history here of age characterization as 12 year old 'children' those whom he disagrees with among other patterns. Regardless of that, the reality that we're all imperfect... and with the main focus on reducing animosity and mitigating toxic discussions as part and parcel for why moderation exists:

Just to address the report by hasufell, again, the post was reported as spam, simple junk or noise, there was no complaint whatsoever about its contents, and that was not the first time that hasufell had reported a non-spam post as spam. To ignore that in addressing how things progressed from there is to ignore ignore the cause, or at least the catalyst, while assessing its effects.

Can you explain how that particular post is instead on topic? Can you further elaborate on how its intended tone is not to be entirely antagonistic in nature within each of its 4 small paragraphs?

That post is in response to prior posts with comments in a similar tone, and it does somewhat address that tone, albeit in a less than ideal manner. Not having written the post, I cannot directly address the actual intent behind it; however it does not strike me as being more antagonistic than the posts it was in reply to.

Why was that a good example for you against hasufell? Why did you ignore the provoker?

It was not a "good example", of most anything, though it was correct in that it pointed out that they had been feuding before. I "ignored" the "provoker" in this instance because the reporter also ignored the "provoker". My point was, and remains, that it was not spam. That it was no worse that what hasufell had himself already posted in that topic made reporting it, without acknowledging his own faults in that topic, disingenuous at best.

Meanwhile, within that thread in question, hasufell actually seems one of the least provoking, unlike many others who certainly didn't welcome Lifeonfull. If the assertion being that a newer user, with whatever grand post count is applicable to you, posts a poll, thereby causing you to emotionally respond in distaste, then suggest adding restrictions to who can. Furthermore, perhaps a number of you should jump off the hypocritical bandwagon and heed your own advice given against others who expressed opinions you disagreed with in past threads.

While I understand the first sentence, and how that conclusion could be reach with regard to the user who posted the poll, I am unsure of what was meant by the rest of that paragraph.

Comparisons to prior actions of TomWij by others was incomparable and incorrect. No evidence was presented to indicate otherwise. Hasufell is his own persona, whether you agree with him or not, at least respect that much. While I've certainly seen hasufell and other devs here be quite assertive with their opinions at times, including firsthand, I have not seen him approach that particular level implied. And TomWij nicely improved in userside manner over time.

The comparison was made by Ant P., not me, but there were parallels to a certain extent. My comment regarding investing time into attempting to get other users, of any type, to avoid being unnecessarily abrasive was meant as a general comment, and it remains true.

And then there's this,

I've done nothing wrong, however.

False assertion is false, also mildly amusing.

Which you regarded with this,

Generally it is also faster,

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Which came down to a difference of opinion context, again, as you essentially referred to above. So you're citing, in your opinion, that of a false claim made, asserting further your amusement of such (essentially taunting) and using that as your answer with regards to their claim of innocence.

Can you explain how that was intended to help the situation?

Having already removed spurious reports by hasufell, the link was merely to the top of the yet to be split out topic. Aside from that, the post cited in the post that link points to is actually an example of a longstanding argument made by those arguing in favor of paludis, specifically to claim that and comparison in speed is "misinformation" without backing up their claim with so much as a comment or citation as to their meaning. In that context, it amounted to mild trolling. Granted, there have been a few instances where someone making that argument actually did at least link to what amounted to benchmarks using relatively similar configuration, but that was not one. As reading ever so slightly farther in that topic would show, promoting ones preferred package manager in that topic had already been addressed by another administrator. Given the additional context present in this topic, the assertion that he had done nothing wrong was self evidently false. The remainder of that comment was meant to soften the tone, not antagonize or taunt, in retrospect it apparently did not convey that intent well.

[Navar]

Fair enough, thank you for the response. The middle paragraphs were not directly in response to you but in general on some others in the thread.

And it would seem from your statements that there was more I didn't read elsewhere.