On Sun., 8 Sep. 2019, 01:55 Keith Moore, <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9/7/19 10:47 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> I would think it is the other way, it is easier for us since most of the
> work happens on the lists, and people who keep offending the policies can
> be moderated so that they can fix their tone and stay on the technical
> content of their message.
I maintain my position that "tone" is entirely subjective. For this
reason it is easy to criticize "tone" as a way of avoiding criticizing
technical content, and distracting from the technical content.
Criticizing "tone" is itself a kind of personal attack, and should not
IMO be permitted.
Keith
It cuts both ways. Tone is entirely about the point where two apes interact, so it is always 'personal'. What we're calling 'tone' is metadata, its use in conversation is to affect the listener's emotional state. It can be just as effective in distracting from the guts of the conversation as criticism.
Asking every recipient to modify their human/emotional response to a message's structure/terseness/choice of words/idioms/etc. seems much less effective than asking the one sender to be conscious of it when writing. Best when they both happen, together, of course. (It's easier to read in good faith if you have a sense that the writer wrote in good faith.)
A thought I try to think before hitting send is: is this valuable enough that it's worth rephrasing?
None of this is about policing or enforcement, mind. I don't even want to think about that until we understand what it is that would be being enforced.
Cheers,
Matthew Kerwin
