While we're throwing around random wikipedia pages, I'd like to submit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning With respect, I don't think Daniel's comments are a constructive addition to the discussion. Whether or not daniel was treated reasonably, I think that he's reached a level of bitterness/upset/disappointment that is not going to lead to constructive discussion. I think that Daniel's post would take a long time to respond to for a lot of us who have recently spent a lot of energy trying to work through some really hard issues. For myself, I'm not going to respond in substance, and I don't want silence to be taken as agreement. Here's why I don't think the post is constructive. There are a lot of reasons why you'd want to have rapid action for handling situations other than questions of technical competence. There are significant cases where maintaining the safety of the community requires rapid action. There's a lot of thought put into antiharassment efforts that argues for fairly rapid resolution of issues rather than the long drawn-out processes that Daniel supports. You can be constructive and disagree with all that. There are really big questions of fairness and no good answers. However, constructively participating in a discussion involves learning enough of the history and enough of the positions (especially those of people you disagree with) that you can treat those positions with respect. You should be able to respond to their points and demonstrate empathy for the needs of others in the conversation. Daniel didn't do that, so I don't think he's being constructive here. Wheter it is actually sealioning or simply ignorance of other positions, the result is the same: he asks us to be drawn into a huge, painful, drawn-out discussion where we take on the duty of educating him and any trolls that are attracted by his impassioned language. I personally choose not to take on that burden here. That said, Daniel brought up one point I would like to discuss with anyone who would be interested in bringing about changes. He points out that we have events where we have face-to-face time and we could use them more effectively for working through disputes. I'm not interested in debating with Daniel about whether the process should require that. I am very eager to discuss how we can do more of that empathy building and dispute resolution at events. --Sam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature