Re: 7.0 wishlist?

On Nov 14, 8:23 am, blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
He uses it when someone other than him replies to a post that he
thinks only he should reply to, often/usually one that he thinks
requires a reply from him.  How this is a "feedback loop" --
as I understand it, the idea is that these not-from-him replies
result in there being yet more posts to which he must reply.

A somewhat distorted or simplified explanation, to be sure.

Essentially, it's this: When things get personal, two things occur --
one, the discussion is no longer legitimately within the newsgroup
charter, and it's really not proper then for anyone to reply except in
their own defense if maligned; two, the "discussion" has generally
turned into an argument, and usually this has divided up into several
separate arguments that are essentially just two people arguing.

Therefore, a) if A insults B and B rebuts A's insult, possibly also
counter-insulting A, B has a valid reason (self-defense) for breaking
the newsgroup charter and making what is surely an off-topic post and
probably against the nominal rules in other ways as well. Much as if A
rushed B with a knife, B might be justified in using lethal force to
stop A, even though B killing A would normally violate rules of
conduct.

However, some third party C has no such justification for butting in
and making an off-topic, or especially an inflammatory, remark. So if
C replies to B (other than to defend A; defense of another is also a
justification) or if C replies to A's reply to B, C has no excuse for
his or her behavior.

In actual practise, the cases that arise tend to be that C replies to
B to second B's insult on A (i.e. ganging up on A, generally without
any direct and immediately-recent provocation of C by A) or C replies
to A to attack A and interfere with A's self-defense (which is again C
jumping in to gang up on A).

This is clearly illegitimate.

As for "feedback loop", the effects of C's actions are that the
arguments in which A is embroiled begin to multiply. Consider if A and
B are arguing with each other, A and C are arguing with each other,
and B and C are arguing with each other, separately. As a rule, each
day or week or however-long A will find some posts by B and C that
require a response, B will find some posts by A and C that do, and C
some by B and A. They will each post similar numbers of posts. The
total number of posts each interval will tend to stay about the same,
or gradually decrease as the arguments are resolved one by one, or end
in draws one by one, or whatever.

This is good, if the ideal is for acrimony, flamewars, and suchlike to
die down rather than persist, and for off-topic discussions to peter
out rather than grow to dominate the traffic in a newsgroup, as I
think reasonable people will concede.

When C starts butting into what has become a personal argument between
A and B, you get A posts a post, B posts a reply, and C butts in; A
now has to defend from both B and C, and makes two posts; if B replied
to A's reply to B and C to A's reply to C we wouldn't have much of a
problem but suppose C again butts in and replies to A's new reply to
B, so now A has two replies by C and one by B to deal with, and A now
makes three posts; B replies to A's reply to B and C replies to
everything by A, attacking A, and A now makes four posts; A's
workload, as well as C's, and the newsgroup's flaming/off-topic
traffic, are now growing rather than shrinking. Linearly, mind you.

It gets worse if more than one person starts butting in when not
themselves threatened. Suppose both B and C tend to attack everything
that A writes to either of them, whether or not what A said impacts
the other. Now A makes one post, gets two attack replies. A makes two
rebuttals, gets four attack replies. A makes four rebuttals, gets
eight attack replies ... clearly now the growth is exponential. A, B,
*and* C have exponentially growing workloads, and the newsgroup has
exponentially growing undesirable traffic. This is the worst-case
scenario, quickly drowning the newsgroup with what is, to other
participants, basically spam, and quickly growing to consume
inordinate amounts of time from A, B, *and* C. All of whom probably
really have better things to do with their time.

That is why it is best if nobody butts into the middle of other people
disputing or arguing about an off-topic thing. It makes things worse.
It fans the flames. It spams the newsgroup.

Think of the exponentially-growing off-topic traffic as a feedback
squeal, caused because of C's butting-in that acts as an amplifier. C
causes feedback between C and the dispute between A and B that
generates a rapidly worsening shriek of unwanted noise.

Hence, "no feedback loops".

I admit to an ulterior motive: my own workload is expanded by such
feedback loops. But I avoid butting in in the manner described and
urge others to do likewise for the sake of everyone's time and for the
sake of the newsgroup's SNR.

My earlier suggestion of a way to de-escalate this in such a way that
nobody "loses" relative to anyone else was, sadly, completely ignored
-- it didn't even draw any flames! -- but I reiterate the suggestion
that a staged de-escalation will ultimately benefit everyone involved
in this mess, compared to the alternative.

Especially, though, two things should be done:
a) My opponents should desist from feedback loop buttings-in;
b) They should likewise desist from dishonorable tactics such
as various forms of computer hacking, denial-of-service
attacks, and intentional misquotations -- such tactics
actually are self-defeating anyway, since anyone caught
using them is unmasked as a charlatan, a fraud, and a sore
loser besides; and
c) They should desist from attempting to reignite old flame-
wars gratuitously and randomly, and, especially, from
dragging random people in and flaming them too. A quick
google of this group shows many people I've previously
locked horns with engaged in multiple flamewars with
multiple apparently-innocent victims, most of whom they
have accused wrongly of being me (not that being me is
actually a crime, other than in their view). This is
especially bad -- it harms innocent people, brings cljp
into disrepute (by making newbies afraid to speak up,
lest they get jumped on and dragged into some stupid
two-year-old feud that needn't involve them), and has
the same pernicious effects as feedback loops, growing
and multiplying the amount of flame-traffic and OT
traffic by inoculating various threads with irrelevant
flamage that had formerly lacked it.

Flamage here is like Dutch elm disease in a tree farm. Deliberately
spreading the disease to formerly-uninfected trees is vandalism. All
those who keep attacking random people out of a paranoid belief that
they're me are therefore vandalizing cljp. If they truly value cljp,
they should desist from such behavior. Those that do not, I shall call
out as enemies of cljp, persons who place their private vendettas and
personal axes to grind above the well-being of the community and the
newsgroup, and who view themselves as above the law, beyond
netiquette, and accountable to no-one.

But they are not accountable to no-one; they are accountable to the
community, if the community sends a clear message that their wish is
for cljp to be a place for the civil discussion of Java programming
and not really comp.flame in disguise, dominated by personal and
acrimonious debates that have little or nothing to do with Java.

And to reiterate, for those that have forgotten or that simply do not
know: bugs in Google Groups intended to limit the rate at which
spammers can generate postings via automated script have the
unfortunate side effect of forcing users that participate heavily,
posting more than about 14 news posts a day, to get multiple Google
Groups accounts, and I am basically stuck using Google Groups. I have
not posted here using any other news server, or using any other than
@gmail.com emails. I have not impersonated anyone else and I have made
no intentional effort to disguise my identity. Generally, I'm
instantly recognizable from my "none of the nasty things that you have
said or implied about me are at all true" line. There is no attempt at
deception or disguise. The side effect of being harder to killfile is
unfortunate and unintended, but not apparently avoidable given the
other constraints present (such as those imposed by the sheer volume
of incorrect crap being written about me and posted publicly, which
cannot of course be allowed to go uncorrected). However, stuck with
Google Groups as I am, I have an even harder time killfiling anyone
else. :)

Oh, and since people simply will not quit promulgating incorrect
guesses about my real name, and then compounding the error by mis-
attributing their guesses to multiple *other* people in turn: my
actual name is Jerry Gerrone.

Silly-sounding, yes, I know. That and my valuing my privacy and
physical safety from potential stalkers made me reluctant to disclose
it, especially in a not-entirely-friendly environment. However, it is
now clear that maintaining my anonymity will simply end up costing the
poor, much-maligned Paul, bringing on him whatever ills I manage to
dodge by remaining anonymous. Whatever his past sins (and for all I
know he could be the Antichrist himself), and regardless of his
apparently deceased status (based on a quick google), he has no
causative role in this dispute and it would therefore be
irresponsible, negligent, and just plain evil of me to essentially end
up using him as a human shield. If someone is going to be attacked
because of things that I have done, whether those things deserve such
responses or not, let that someone be me and not some uninvolved third
party. I choose not to be complicit in causing such collateral damage,
even though it may cost me.

I wonder if a single one of my opponents is man enough to seek de-
escalation, seek to avoid collateral damage to third parties and to
cljp, and seek as amicable as possible a resolution to all this as I
am.

We will soon find out who else is such a man, and who is just out to
"win" at any cost, unwilling to accept a loss or even a draw,
determined to go down swinging and the hell with the consequences.
.

Loading