What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?
-
@irj said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?:
I like the tone, once you get used to it. It keeps you on your toes and makes you a better IT professional.
I do agree it can be harsh for new people, but honestly I dont give a fuck. I like the challenging attitude.
I feel the same. This is a discussion forum, not a QA site. Everything is open to be challenged, even if it wasn't the main topic of the post. Sometimes people's assumptions need to be identified and challenged before a question can really be answered.
Imagine what kind of power trip @scottalanmiller could go on if no one challenged some of his posts head on
-
@flaxking said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?:
@irj said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?:
I like the tone, once you get used to it. It keeps you on your toes and makes you a better IT professional.
I do agree it can be harsh for new people, but honestly I dont give a fuck. I like the challenging attitude.
I feel the same. This is a discussion forum, not a QA site. Everything is open to be challenged, even if it wasn't the main topic of the post. Sometimes people's assumptions need to be identified and challenged before a question can really be answered.
Imagine what kind of power trip @scottalanmiller is no one challenged some of his posts head on
We have @JaredBusch for that
-
I figured I'd let the conversation run for awhile before putting my oar back in. It sounds like some of what I've said has been misunderstood. I am rarely offended or "hurt" by anything said here. I am not interested in creating an IT "safe space". If I am being an idiot then I expect that I will be told such. That is part and parcel for the people that frequent ML.
What has bothered me (not made me feel rejected, but made me question if this is what I want in a community) is the pedantry (thank you @momurda) or excessive focus on something that is tangential to the problem at hand. Accuracy is important, but communication can be retarded by accuracy. When someone has to sift through pages of posts about something unrelated to the OP because one person misused a term in an answer and someone else called them out on it and the back and forth carried on for some time I wonder about the value achieved in the back and forth.
This isn't about me, or how people have responded to my posts in particular (after rereading the Miscellaneous Tech News thread I realized that I did overreact and that there was a valuable discussion), but about what we want ML to be. It sounds like the majority prefer it this way, and that is fine. I figured I'd bring up the discussion and see what y'all thought.
-
And the, of course, there is the question of "when to fork". Just because a conversation should happen, doesn't always mean it should happen in the same place. But it's a hard call in a lot of cases, because forking pulls part of one discussion into another and the breaks aren't always clean.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?:
And the, of course, there is the question of "when to fork". Just because a conversation should happen, doesn't always mean it should happen in the same place. But it's a hard call in a lot of cases, because forking pulls part of one discussion into another and the breaks aren't always clean.
This is specifically something we have discussed before and something @scottalanmiller and I disagree on when it should happen. But if it happened more often here, there would be fewer posts like @Kelly mentions.
-
@gjacobse I like that. So where's my corner to go hide in?
-
@gjacobse One of the funniest guys ever in that image
-
@obsolesce Oh thats just great. Looks like something I would do when younger. Now I'm not allowed to get hurt or sick. Wife yells at me to stay healthy so I can do more chores around the house
-
@nashbrydges I like the way you put that!
-
@jaredbusch said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?:
@scottalanmiller said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?:
And the, of course, there is the question of "when to fork". Just because a conversation should happen, doesn't always mean it should happen in the same place. But it's a hard call in a lot of cases, because forking pulls part of one discussion into another and the breaks aren't always clean.
This is specifically something we have discussed before and something @scottalanmiller and I disagree on when it should happen. But if it happened more often here, there would be fewer posts like @Kelly mentions.
Perhaps when the pedantry has no effect on the final answer, resolution, or meaning of an OP, it can be forked.
However, if said pedantry could have an effect on an answer being correct, or the value of an answer, then I feel it should not be forked... if you know what I mean.
-
Problem there is, you don't know if it affects the final answer in many cases until much later. I've seen that a lot. People get upset about a "tangential" discussion, that much later, changes the final outcome once it is all worked out. The thing is, if you feel the answer is the defacto, you see a tangential discussion as tangential. If you feel the answer is not defacto, then you see it as core.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?:
Problem there is, you don't know if it affects the final answer in many cases until much later. I've seen that a lot. People get upset about a "tangential" discussion, that much later, changes the final outcome once it is all worked out. The thing is, if you feel the answer is the defacto, you see a tangential discussion as tangential. If you feel the answer is not defacto, then you see it as core.
That's a very good point that I didn't consider, but have seen thinking back now!
Someone has a question or something based on some amount of information, then later, after some seemingly pedantic discussion, it turns out a different (but better) direction takes place... that would NOT have gone that way had the pedantry not happened.
-
@obsolesce said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?:
@scottalanmiller said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?:
Problem there is, you don't know if it affects the final answer in many cases until much later. I've seen that a lot. People get upset about a "tangential" discussion, that much later, changes the final outcome once it is all worked out. The thing is, if you feel the answer is the defacto, you see a tangential discussion as tangential. If you feel the answer is not defacto, then you see it as core.
That's a very good point that I didn't consider, but have seen thinking back now!
Someone has a question or something based on some amount of information, then later, after some seemingly pedantic discussion, it turns out a different (but better) direction takes place... that would NOT have gone that way had the pedantry not happened.
Right. An example is "I can't get Hyper-V remote access to work."
Then people discuss workgroup vs. domain. Someone thinks this doesn't matter because they aren't aware that being in a domain changes how the access works.
-
@kelly said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?:
First off, I do not want to have some kind of discussion about civility or point fingers. However, I have noticed from a number of threads that there is a general tendency in the community to find something about a post/topic/thread that is wrong/inaccurate/incomplete and focus on that item to the (to me) detriment of the overall thread.
Am I being too sensitive, or can this be a somewhat hostile place at times? (Telling me that I'm wrong here is not being hostile, btw.)
When I first came here I thought the need for absolute perfection (semantics as an example) was a negative, but I can honestly say that isn't the case. I have been much more accurate with what I am discussing on interviews and it's directly related to this community. At the same time a thread becomes naturally hostile when someone attacks the person instead of the concept being discussed, regardless of how wrong they are. I've been incorrect a lot of the time and when civil discourse occurs it's extremely beneficial for everyone.
-
@wirestyle22 said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?:
@kelly said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?:
First off, I do not want to have some kind of discussion about civility or point fingers. However, I have noticed from a number of threads that there is a general tendency in the community to find something about a post/topic/thread that is wrong/inaccurate/incomplete and focus on that item to the (to me) detriment of the overall thread.
Am I being too sensitive, or can this be a somewhat hostile place at times? (Telling me that I'm wrong here is not being hostile, btw.)
When I first came here I thought the need for absolute perfection (semantics as an example) was a negative, but I can honestly say that isn't the case. I have been much more accurate with what I am discussing on interviews and it's directly related to this community. At the same time a thread becomes naturally hostile when someone attacks the person instead of the concept being discussed, regardless of how wrong they are. I've been incorrect a lot of the time and when civil discourse occurs it's extremely beneficial for everyone.
It's a good point...
Learning to be more specific in the questions you are asking, and expecting results and answers based on your question.
