Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> writes:
> Adam ("Everything You Need To Know") has perhaps posted unwisely and
> clumsily, but obnoxiously?
>
> Obnoxious (noun):
> very offensive; hateful; odious; reprehensible.
>
> What did Adam do that was *obnoxious*? Here are some of the
> accusations thrown at him:
>
> - he posted using a "self-aggrandising name" instead of his "real
> name";
Using one's real name is helpful, but choosing not to is not obnoxious.
Using a name that is clearly not naming a person, and instead is a
marketing name for one's site elsewhere, is odious and reprehensible
because it approaches this community as no more than a market for
one-way messages.
> - his post is "spam" (commercial, unsolicited advertising);
Spam does not entail commercial; religious screeds that have no
commercial nature can qualify, for example.
His posts, repeatedly giving a link to a video and contributing to no
on-topic discussion, are unsolicited bulk messages. That's spam.
> - he posted as a member of a group instead of an individual.
No, he posted *as the group*, and his explanations made it clear that he
did not intend to engage as an individual. That's obnoxious in a
community discussion forum.
> I reject any suggestion that Adam's post is "obnoxious" or that it is
> spam. It is clearly on-topic.
I'm one of many who disagree.
> Frankly, I am ashamed at the closed-minded hostility demonstrated here
> in this thread.
Engaging a person with specific details on how their behaviour is
objectionable, and specific requests on how to improve, demonstrates
hope and optimism that the person can contribute positively. I don't
accept the claim of closed-mindedness.
Hostility? Yes, I'm hostile to behaviour which has already descended to
disrespecting the purpose of this community forum. That doesn't extend
to hostility to a person, though I understand it can be difficult for
the person to see the difference at the time their behaviour is
criticised.
> Ben, I believe that your behaviour goes against the spirit of the
> Python Community Code of Conduct, if not the actual letter of CoC. Can
> you honestly say that you have been Open, Considerate, and Respectful
> in telling Adam that his post was "obnoxious" and that his post is
> "not appropriate" just because it is hosted on YouTube?
Yes, I have respectfully explained at length to Adam why I'm criticising
his behaviour.
I have not, AFAIK, given any cause to think I lack respect for Adam as a
person — indeed, one of my main criticisms is that Adam should engage
*as a person*.
I also respect Adam enough to recognise that he's likely to be able to
learn what was objectionable about his behaviour and improve it.
> This is supposed to be a welcoming place. Does anyone think we as a
> community have been welcoming to Adam?
When the initial engagement is a continuous repeating of the same
disrespectful behaviour, and it continues oblivious to requests to
correct the mistakes, I think the welcome has worn out. We are not
obligated to endure everything, and respect for all the *other* persons
here is also needed and entailed in the Code of Conduct.
--
\ “[It's] best to confuse only one issue at a time.” —Brian W. |
`\ Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie, _The C programming language_, 1988 |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
