> On Sep 9, 2019, at 12:30 PM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I object to your use of the term "censorship," I find it more inflammatory than useful. Doesn't this make Keith's point? If we're *listening* to Keith, then we take *his* view that "tone policing" is to him "censorship" at face value. What he chooses to call it is not really the point, it does convey clearly that he sees real potential for abuse. > The world has evolved, and what used to be acceptable is now commonly > seen as less so, and as a worthwhile trade-off for more inclusivity. > You seem opposed to the IETF doing this, or do I misunderstand you? This cuts to the substance... When does the negative tone of a post rise from firmly stated opinion to hostility that deters participation, and warrant corrective guidance? There is surely much room for error, but also some point at which strong language dwarfs any accompanying argument and strays into denigration or abuse. If the focus shifts too much to policing tone, then Keith's concerns become valid. If on the other hand, *arbitrarily hostile* posts are tolerated, so long as the post has some technical merit, the medium becomes an unpleasant. Whether we agree with Keith about the "censorship" label or not, his use of it seems to me to be a legitimate way to express his view. -- Viktor.
