Re: tone policing

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

"    - If you are caught in an argument, keep the discussion focused on
      issues rather than the personalities involved."

RFC1855, October 1995. I don't think there is anything new about avoiding personal attacks. However, I agree that the subjective threshold may have moved.

From a message on a public list in 1996:

"You are consistently demonstrating you have absolutely no clue of the issues and while mildly amusing, this is beginning to get tiresome."

Was that OK in 1996? Would it be OK in 2019?

Regards
   Brian

On 10-Sep-19 10:43, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Dan, you asked for specific examples of speech whose acceptability has 
> changed.
> 
> A clear and simple example is personal attacks.  It is no longer 
> acceptable (or at least, we try to make it impossible) to respond to an 
> argument by saying "you do not know what you are talking about, so we 
> should ignore your input."  Other even more extreme and personal 
> comments were once accepted in this community.   they are not accepted 
> any longer.
> 
> This debate seems to be about how do we handle cases which are not 
> simple and obvious personal insults, but can be taken as such.  (Part of 
> the complexity lies in who could reasonably take it as an insult and 
> when.)   Given what has been acceptable in at least some working groups 
> in the recent past, I personally hope we can improve the situation. 
> Having said that, I do recognize that we need to avoid going overboard 
> and losing the free technical discussion that is the core of our work.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 9/9/2019 6:27 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>
>>    Hi Rich,
>>
>> On 9/9/19 1:42 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>>      > 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?
>>>>     You misunderstand me.    I do not object to trying to be more 
>>>> inclusive,
>>>      but I strongly object to imposing arbitrary, poorly-defined 
>>> constraints
>>>      on IETF contributions.
>>> I am sorry if I was not clear.  I am saying "we are choosing to do A 
>>> in order to get B"  You are saying "I want B without A"
>>>
>>> So, like Paul asked: how do you propose to get B without A?
>>
>>    You are assuming that if you do A you'll get B.
>>
>>    What is this evolution of which you speak? Can you give me specific 
>> examples of things
>> that used to be acceptable at the IETF but now are commonly seen as less 
>> so?
>>
>>    I'm pretty sure B in your example is "more inclusive" but I'm not 
>> sure what A is.
>>
>>    If A is more mentoring then great. If A is more Sunday classes for 
>> newcomers then great.
>> If A is prohibition on speech that is based on the recipient deeming it 
>> "toxic" or "harsh" or
>> "hurtful" or some vague word then not great at all.
>>
>>    regards,
>>
>>    Dan.
>>
>>
>>
> 
>