On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:15:52AM -0700, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On 9/3/19 7:04 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > > > On 9/3/19 10:00 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > > > > >> Keith Moore wrote on 03/09/2019 14:51: > > >>> And maybe you shouldn't be trying to shout down people > > >> > > >> This is your 16th email on the topic since yesterday morning GMT. > > >> > > >> Who's shouting at whom? > > > > > > I'm just sending replies to people arguing for censorship What I > > > wonder is, why aren't more people objecting? > > > Well I certainly object but you are quite capably handling it. I do think > > the SAA role has been abused in order to squelch discussion. > > Exactly. I strongly object as well, but Keith is doing a great job > of making all the points I would have made, and doing it a lot > quicker than I possibly could. (I'm the sort who finally thinks of > the better argument on the car ride home...) > > I'm only responding now because it seems it's now become necessary > to show support - despite being told in the past that simple shows > of support are nothing but useless clutter. I'll add my hum in support of the spirit of Keith's concerns, even if I might agree that posting as often as he does is, as a tactical matter, might perhaps not be as effective as waiting to batch up responses to multiple messages all at once. Replying to each message in a "last post wins" style of argumentation tends to be counter productive since it causes people to be annoyed, and humans being emotional creatures, this can cause them to be less receptive to your arguments. That being said, people who are arguing in favor of trying to legislate a more "civil" form of discourse (which sounds better than "less toxic", although both are hard to define and tend to be very subjective) have probably caused more noise than if they had simply just hit the 'd' key and moved on. And to the extent that someone were to send private e-mail to trying to pursuade someone, it is my experience that doing so by at least *trying* to point out that a more moderate style discourse might to be there benefit is going to be more likely to be productive than threatening people (explicitly or implicitly) with being silenced by P.R. actions. This includes both people who have been acting in their roles as SAA, and people who have been trying to "help". As I have stated earlier, I preferred to have a much lighter touch when I served as an SAA, and the more aggressive, more heavy-handed approach is, in my opinion, doing more harm than good. I'll end this with a plea that people *try* to remember that the saying of "be conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you receive", applies to e-mail messages as well as protocols. Even if something is *allowed*, trying to go up to the line of what is acceptable does not make for a good implementation, even if it is legal according to the spec. And trying to assume that any message should be taken in the worst light possible, and trying to engender outrage, either in yourself, or others, by taking any message which might be marginally deemed to be offensive and crying foul that it is "unprofessional", and therefore someone should have their posting privileges posted, is also not great as an implementation. "Can't we all just get along?" - Ted
