Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:90912 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 12649 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2016 11:00:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jan 2016 11:00:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=derick@php.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=derick@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 82.113.146.227 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: derick@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 82.113.146.227 xdebug.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [82.113.146.227] ([82.113.146.227:56321] helo=xdebug.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 81/43-26079-55006A65 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 06:00:37 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by xdebug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CBC2DE5C3; Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:00:33 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 11:00:33 +0000 (GMT) X-X-Sender: derick@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl To: Stanislav Malyshev cc: Pierre Joye , PHP internals In-Reply-To: <56A47FD0.5010902@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <56A43770.9080104@gmail.com> <56A47FD0.5010902@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="8323329-1882395146-1453719633=:3314" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Specific incident in relationship to the proposed Code of Conduct From: derick@php.net (Derick Rethans) --8323329-1882395146-1453719633=:3314 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Sat, 23 Jan 2016, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > I think we should have used temporary bans a bit more to cool down=20 > > things. Including to myself along other. >=20 > Ban is a very dangerous thing, since it excludes people from discussion > thus preventing it from reaching a conclusion, achieving consensus and > closure, and it also hurts people and labels them ("ah, this guy who was > already banned stirs up things again? let's just ignore him, he's > obviously a troll"). But on the flip side, most of us are pretty good sporting trolling=20 anyway, and I certainly have ignored threads where some people=20 partipated because I didn't think it would contribute anything to the=20 discussion. And that means you miss out on reasonable comments and=20 opinions too. > Stopping discussion by ban breeds resentment on the banned side and=20 > taints whatever the other side achieved with "if I only were not=20 > banned, I would prove you are wrong". Of course, there might be cases=20 > where behavior turns destructive to the point consensus just can not=20 > be reached, but if the person is still committed to overall goals of=20 > the project, neutral third-party moderation would usually help. Not=20 > 100% of cases, but usually. At least that's my conviction. So I think=20 > using bans more "to cool things down" would not be healthy. Using=20 > neutral third party to advise people to cool down (and maybe take a=20 > break) might be. Tthe balance needs to be found as to what's more important: seeing all=20 good discussions and comments and inconvieniencing a persistent troll,=20 or drawing out reasonable comments manually because of an issue being=20 inconvienienced by a troll. I don't know the answer. A balance is=20 important, and *perhaps* an option is to do allow for short term (in the=20 order of days) "timeout periods" =E2=80=94 in case the "please cool down"= =20 message is repeatly ignored. However, in the first phase we ought to be discussing the goals, values=20 and contributing guidelines. CoC, Mediation and (possible) enforcing is=20 for later. cheers, Derick --8323329-1882395146-1453719633=:3314--