Tomb of debate

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by lukerichards

Indeed - I was massively surprised to find that "Anonymous 4chan user" was given author credit on a paper on superpermutations!

Tao tried very hard to have one of the Polymath papers published under the pseudonym D H J Polymath, to credit all the authors equally. When the journal wouldn't play ball and required him to pick the main authors he still tracked down the other contributing authors to give them credit as well, even if they had only minor parts in the project.

[lukerichards]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Someone just posted (to a new user, no less):



I submit it as further evidence of the need for a cultural shift. We can do better.

There are tonnes of pieces of evidence. Just this afternoon I googled a general point about number theory and found a thread where someone asked the same question only to be shot down by established members.

Furthermore, a brief look at the forum post by a new member about an android app which runs LL tests will find *some* members politely explaining why an unverified app which requires root privileges is not safe. On the contrary, many members were being distinctly unwelcoming. After a while, George Waltman had to intervening with an arguably over-the-top encouraging post about someone who had taken the time to write an LL-testing program for Android, while pointing out the limits thereof. It was a little embarrassing to read if I'm honest - and sad that the "culture of belittling" has got to this point.

[retina]

Originally Posted by lukerichards

Furthermore, a brief look at the forum post by a new member about an android app which runs LL tests will find *some* members politely explaining why an unverified app which requires root privileges is not safe.

Someone has to prove themselves before they can expect to get respect. So posting an app that requires complete access to one's device requires a lot of trust in the original poster. You can't expect someone to be trusted from day one with no past history. They might be a scammer/hacker, how would anyone know?

If people want to be all sensitive and have their feelings hurt at the drop of a hat then that is their choice. But they need to learn to take a bit of scepticism from others instead of expecting others to bend towards their particular sensitivity. If one learns to take a few hits without crying into a pillow then that gains them more respect than whining about it to everyone. Instead they can ignore it and converse with people that they feel are worth their time.

[lukerichards]

Originally Posted by retina

Someone has to prove themselves before they can expect to get respect. So posting an app that requires complete access to one's device requires a lot of trust in the original poster. You can't expect someone to be trusted from day one with no past history. They might be a scammer/hacker, how would anyone know?

Oh I COMPLETELY agree.

The problem is when people confuse 'criticism' and 'scrutiny' with 'attack', 'belittling' and 'antagonising'.

There is a canyon of difference between the two. I'd argue that (Constructive criticism)(Rude attacks) is an empty set.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by retina

Someone has to prove themselves before they can expect to get respect.

You are confusing trust and respect. I can hold off on trusting someone with my sensitive data, while still being respectful/civil.

[lukerichards]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

You are confusing trust and respect. I can hold off on trusting someone with my sensitive data, while still being respectful/civil.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

You are confusing trust and respect. I can hold off on trusting someone with my sensitive data, while still being respectful/civil.

I cannot trust someone I don't have respect for. Being respectful isn't the same as having respect for someone.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by lukerichards

The problem is when people confuse 'criticism' and 'scrutiny' with 'attack', 'belittling' and 'antagonising'.

I agree with you. The written word is difficult to parse.

Without the "non-verbal" body language contained in face-to-face communications, it can be difficult to tell if someone is being friendly and in agreement, or being disagreeing and difficult.

[lukerichards]

Originally Posted by retina

I cannot trust someone I don't respect for. Being respectful isn't the same as having respect for someone.

Fair point.

My argument is that we should all be respectful towards people, even if they haven't yet garnered our unwavering respect.

Politeness is the key.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Without the "non-verbal" body language contained in face-to-face communications, it can be difficult to tell if someone is being friendly and in agreement, or being disagreeing and difficult.

Thus the smilies/emojis can help carry the tone.

I do sometimes use tone in real life to mess with people (close friends and family only). Sometimes when I agree with them I say, "Yeah, sure" in a flat tone. Most will interpret this as skepticism. When they protest I tell them that I agreed with them, what part of "Yeah, sure." did they think was disagreement?

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by lukerichards

My argument is that we should all be respectful towards people, even if they haven't yet garnered our unwavering respect.

Politeness is the key.

I think this is especially important online, where the lack of body language (as chalsall mentions) makes words easy to misinterpret. Keeping words polite and continually assuming good faith of others helps.