I can also say that when someone are not understanding what he has done wrong. It can be very painful to read something like:
It is very similar to phrase like “get out somewhere”.
Because it do not answer the main question. What am I doing wrong…
You would be right if the screenshot is not about “Beginner question welcome”
Such declaration automatically means that people in this chat may not have high qualification.
I am sure that Beginner may not understand most part of CoC by default.
There is a lack of examples. And even if there were better explanation. They still need experience and time to used.
It seems like a revenge :))
I think if someone use a bad practice he can gain ban
But nobody should gain bad treatment.
The first warn and the last warn must be done correctly.
I wholeheartedly agree. I believe this speaks to Sam Halliday’s point.
Hmm. I generally disagree – in most cases, I would say say that it can and should be done privately as a first step. (Albeit sometimes with a request to apologize publicly.) Only in relatively severe cases is a public reprimand the ideal first step.
Community is a complex topic, and we’ve got a lot of complicating factors here. Yes, we want to be welcoming, and harsh measures are required if somebody gets directly in peoples’ faces. But humans are humans, and public confrontation will, more often than not, cause a situation to spiral for the worse, where a more private reprimand may quiet it down.
We have to remember that the goal is not slapping people down, it is to make the public community as friendly as we can. That being the case, I would generally save public reprimands for particularly bad offenses and second warnings, but start privately where possible.
(All that said, I would say that a less-specific “let’s cool this conversation down”, publicly but not aimed at anyone in particular, is often a good first step.)
if a user correct the wrong message later it will be correct.
In other cases, it will look like someone can do it while other cannot do that.
It is my personal opinion:
To be even more complete, the context starts at https://gitter.im/scala/contributors?at=5b7ed196a491f459178df828 where Dale remarks
MissingFinal’snoLeakingCaseClassshould have the samenon-abstractcondition
To which Olaf, the maintainer of scalafix asks Dale for the details
@dwijnand can you elaborate?
And Dale obliges:
@olafurpg noLeakingSealed mentions non-abstract, if noLeakingCaseClass triggers for the abstract case class example above I think it should have the same non-abstract condition
reading from https://scalacenter.github.io/scalafix/docs/rules/MissingFinal
And then you suggest people ask Sam (something, it’s still not clear what they’re supposed to ask)
This is shortly after you suggested the scalac contributors to read Sams book to learn about testing.
All of this, hot of the heels of VectorMap#{remove, init, tail} broken in Scala 2.13.0-M5 · Issue #11100 · scala/bug · GitHub, where Sam remarks
why am I being pulled into this conversation, and why are my comments (asking you why I’m being pulled in) being deleted?
Actually, I don’t care. Please just stop pestering me. I am no longer interested in Scala.
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
Are any of those willing to accept that nomination? Pinging @Blaisorblade @propensive @dwijnand @retronym @mdedetrich
I support the basis for Codes of Conduct, since they help address severe problems in communities that struggled to be inclusive because of behaviors in both online and real-life spheres. Early CoCs were moderate proposals that would usually define unacceptable behavior in a community. Unfortunately, many of these community agreements were forged as attempts to both do better and amend for failing to handle despicable incidents.
More recently, these codes have also included suggestions for positive behavior. Encouraging good behavior and giving examples is laudable but was not really the purpose of CoCs. My point isn’t to undercut CoCs by suggesting they have slowly become overreaching or that they no longer embody their original spirit. My point is that there are lots of bad behavior that doesn’t necessarily rise to the level of a Code of Conduct which simply rises to the level of online moderation. Maybe I’m wrong and Codes of Conduct will be amended to be broader and be applied for moderation. Regardless, elevating moderation this way has consequences, though.
The fora related to Scala are a privilege to be used, and not abused. People should respect themselves and others and be on their best behavior in these fora. I don’t know the extent of the infractions that motivated the current discussion, but my sense it is just bad net etiquette of a few people. Those people need to reflect on that and change their behavior. The reason there are rules to not talk in a movie theatre is because it doesn’t scale. Online communities aren’t movie theaters, but there are certain rules of engagement that work and don’t work. Trolling doesn’t scale in online communities. This has been known for a long time.
Discussing the current infraction is off-topic here, and people should refrain from doing so, but I’ll point out that there is now the second order effect of people litigating the enforcement of moderation. This is an additional cost. This undercuts our moderators who seem to only be dealing with a few examples of bad etiquette among a huge number of Scala community members.
AFAIK, there have been no complaints about moderation other than the 2 or 3 infractions discussed here.
Speaking in broader, overarching themes without discussing how they impact those cases runs the risk of missing the mark entirely.
Regardless of whether or not you were snarky in the referenced situation, your reply here very much is snarky, which isn’t helping your point loads.
Also, your screenshots still leave out a LOT of context. You can see the full log of what was said in the first example here. I would post full screenshots, in case the messages get deleted (I’m not sure if that’s possible), but it’s about 6 full screens worth.
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
If discussing the incident is off-topic, IMO we might as well not bother with discussing any changes, as they will be unmoored from the actual issues at hand.
If someone start unwise behavior it does not prove that wise behavior is not possible. I can see that here is more number of reasonable men than unreasonable
Agreed, I don’t consider them off-topic, they are related to the incident that triggered these changes and deserve discussion.
Please, let’s all calm down here. @martijnhoekstra I understand you have an opinionated way of interpreting Sam’s incident and that involves judgments on Sam and his intentions, please let’s not go down that rabbit hole and discuss things at face value, trying to find the things we agree on rather than disagree on. This is a thread to find consensus and give everyone an opportunity to explain themselves if they want to, both moderators and those moderated.
This feedback doesn’t only apply to Martin (which has made other good points in the thread), it applies to pretty much all the comments that have been made today. Let’s get back on track.
I don’t know how I managed to bring that across.
All I have is how things came across to me, which I made note of, in the hopes of increasing understanding between how things may have been intended (which I have no idea about), and how things came across to at least me. If people want to call me a liar about how the situation came across to me, then they should definitely do so. I for one reject the accusation on lying about how things appeared to me.
It is very easy.
There is more difficult thing. It is to understand other man. I do not mean the case when you say yourself I have understood you are lier\stupid\egoistic etc :))
It is natural and it is very easy 
I mean to analyze his qualification,skills and real motivation so much as it need to help him.
We have special training for that in our company.
It is something similar to proverb:
I have found your comments in this thread very helpful and factually accurate. Thank you!
It seems amazing when you have met such misunderstandings first time.
But it is usual thing in chat.
Actually in the chat it is common to loss up to 80% information.
There is psychological definition in my country:
I will try to demonstrate:
It is for voice comunication(for chats it is worse)