Members' conduct [Was Re: Info window for 'rapids' has incorrect error message]

[RESTRICTED ACCOUNT]

Moderator note: this topic has been split from the substantive discussion of river rapids. The below post amounted to a personal attack, which is not permitted on this forum.

I know that some Extended developers prefer just to receive bug reports without speculation about the cause, so if that is you, please ignore this post.

I don't think you know that I welcome any logical reasoning or advice.
I'm very grateful to Jamas, Prissi, ceeac, Dwachs and Ters for all their kind advice and help.

As I have explained many times before, your bug report was "redundantly" written with immature, shortsighted and illogical expectations.
You tend to write 100 lines of something that could be done in 3. (I don't speak English by any means, so my sentences tend to be long to make sure I get my point across, but you are a native English speaker.)
And the content of yours is often irrelevant.

And so, up until now, your useless writing has caused me a lot of wasted time, confusion and misunderstanding.
Please review your previous posts to see if your guess was correct.
Your redundant guesses often turned out to be wrong, and verifying those wrong guesses would waste time, leaving me lost and further away from solving the bug. But I remember that at that time, I was lost and Ters rescued me.

That's why I suggest you JUST write a bug report, and why I've explained this many times before.
And the fact that you repeatedly make statements like this on Discord and the forums shows that you have no understanding of my intentions at all.

I have put my guess about the cause on GitHub.

Here's a typical example.
It's a very verbose statement that doesn't contribute anything to solving the bug. Just the information that something is wrong in a particular situation is enough (for those with the ability to fix it).
Anyone who reads it simply wastes their time. This has happened many times before.
So I just pointed it out.

This algorithm was created by Ves in May 2017. I couldn't get it from your information after all, and I had to make an effort to look it up from scratch.
You can see this bug issue from there.
I track changes like this, but you have never done so, and yet you have repeatedly spread fake news that I am to blame, based on your assumptions.
People expect you to state the cause of the bug in a clear and convincing way, but that wasn't the case.
Nevertheless, you would often conclude that my change introduced a bug, which made me very annoyed. (Maybe you've made a little progress this time by not saying that it was me who created the bug.)
Because if you say that it was me who created the bug, other people will assume that even if it's not true.
You have repeatedly spread fake news claiming that old bugs were created by me, so I have had to take the time to fix the bugs from scratch in order to refute them.
Because I don't want to be an irresponsible Japanese like THleaderH.
He ignored this kind of advice, which introduced many bugs(they still haven't been fixed), widened the code gap from standard, created code divergences that were hard to fix, and severely hindered the progress of the incorporating from standard project.
ACarlotti gave up on the fix and disappeared.

He ignored the advice of many coders and made so many changes in the wrong way. It's obvious that it's going to take a lot of effort to fix it, and regardless of who's coding for charity, a lot of effort is going to have to be put into fixing it.

I'm already looking at the multi-tile building code (since it happens to be in many of the same files) and this should not be a problem (remember I've worked on the code in this area quite a lot before), but I am going to keep working on the merges from standard in order from oldest to newest, to avoid trouble.

Then last year neroden started working on it again and I was excited to see the progress (it would be much appreciated if neroden could solve this problem, but he is certainly under no obligation to do so.), but in the end it seems like they haven't been able to break through the r8xxx barrier much like Acarlotti. He's been silent for almost a year. There is a big wall he built there.
I agree with neroden that we should incorporate the standard code in the correct way and normalize the extended code. I would love to be able to play Simutrans Extended on my android device while on the go, but is that the future?



Secondly, your solution is a bad approach.
A road closure and a speed limit are different. Therefore, the conditional branch created by Ves is not a bad thing.
What's important is that a notice indicating that the road is not passable should have been displayed before the conditional branch.
That is to say, in my country we don't put up signs saying "0km/h speed limit" to indicate a road closure.
This means that the speed limit will not be displayed when the road is closed.


I regret that it seems that I did not get through to you at all what I wanted to tell you before... （´・ω・`）

[jamespetts]

Conduct issues

I am really going to have to be very firm about this. No matter what the cause, it is not ever acceptable to be personally hostile to another. Referring to another person's contributions - in general - as "useless" or "immature, shortsighted and illogical expectations" is not appropriate.

People must be free to make contributions to this forum without fear of any kind of personal attack. There is a very, very fundamental difference between a personal attack (such as, "You tend to write 100 lines of something that could be done in 3" or referring to a person's contributions as "useless") and reasoned criticism of an idea, claim or code.

Even if a person's contribution is mistaken or misguided, expressing personal hostility to the person making that contribution is not an appropriate response. It is possible to point out that a person's contribution is misguided or mistaken without any personal hostility (and people must be free to do that, too).

It is essential for the health of the Simutrans community and consequently the number of people willing to contribute to the project that people be totally free to make good faith (even if mistaken or misguided) contributions without the slightest fear of personal hostility. It is in the interests of everyone who enjoys Simutrans that this be the case.

The substantive issues

Format of bug reports
In general, it is helpful for bug reports to have a very clear separation between the essential parts (the description of the symptoms and the steps necessary reliably to reproduce the problem) and discussion of the possible cause. Without testing or extensive knowledge of the code, there tends to be a high rate of error in attempts to deduce the cause of a given bug, especially in software as complex as Simutrans.

Speed limits
I agree that a road that is impassible should state as such and not give a "0km/h speed limit". Does the code as now incorporated from Matthew's patch show a "0km/h speed limit" on impassible ways? If so, this will need to be changed.

[RESTRICTED ACCOUNT]

Whenever Matthew reports a bug or someone on discord suggests a bug, he always starts with the disclaimer "I know that Extended developers don't like to make guesses."
(There is a Japanese word for this kind of behavior, "taunt," but it is possible that there is no exact equivalent word in English.)

I believe this is referring to me. I only ask them to provide evidence, not guesses, but I can't think of anyone else who fits that description.


I believe labeling someone like this is an attack on me. (He said that while he may think I didn't see it, others who did see it did too, and he reported it to me. So at least there are people who feel that way.)
The same goes for claiming that I caused a bug that I did not as has happened many times in the past.
I told him that if he was going to blame someone else he should provide solid evidence, otherwise I would be forgiven for thinking he was trying to harass me. All he could think of were vague reasons, like it was because I was the one who changed the UI recently.

I wonder if it's okay to be polite and disparage someone while pretending that it's not an attack. I believe that's unfair.

I can't use such methods because I don't speak English at all, so I have to use direct expressions. Otherwise, machine translation is prone to errors.
So he is attacking me effectively, but I don't have the means to do so effectively.

I also have no way of understanding how accurate the translation is. At least it doesn't seem like my intentions were conveyed to Matthew, and as a result, I feel that he continues to attack me.
I have repeatedly asked him to improve his attitude but it never seems to improve.

[jamespetts]

There is no possible interpretation of anything that Matthew wrote that could amount to a personal attack. A personal attack is a criticism of a person's character (as distinct from criticism of conduct on a particular occasion), or purposely communicating hostile intent. Writing something that somebody anticipates that you will not like and that you in fact do not like does not make something a personal attack. This distinction is fundamental.

In any event, even if Matthew had engaged in a personal attack, that cannot on any possible view justify a personal attack in response. The correct response to a personal attack is to report it to the moderators, or possibly to respond by stating that it is a personal attack. I cannot emphasise this enough. There are literally no circumstances in which it is acceptable to engage in a personal attack on this forum. Ever.

Your contributions to the UI code of Simutrans-Extended have been very helpful, but that cannot be allowed to prevent the clear rules of this forum from being enforced to protect all members from personal attacks.

For reference, see the forum rules section 3(a):

3.a. "be nice and respect other members, as well as their opinions and works"

- Please keep posts friendly. Please do not flame your fellow forum members. Please refrain from making personal attacks. Please don't attack the ideas that your fellow forum members have. Constructive criticism is welcome; attacks are not.

You are more than welcome to engage in constructive criticism of Matthew's bug reports and suggestions and even the style or format of the reports and suggestions. Any further personal attacks against anybody will result in moderatorial sanctions. 

I hope that this makes things clear beyond any possible doubt.

[RESTRICTED ACCOUNT]

As I said at the beginning,

(1) "Whenever Matthew reports a bug or someone on discord suggests a bug, he always starts with the disclaimer "I know that Extended developers don't like to make guesses."

I wonder if this statement is referring to me.

(2) If so, then I am asking you to stop making these remarks.
As I explained, what I am looking for is an evidence-based discussion of possibilities, not wild speculation.

(3) Please do not blame others without clear evidence. This is also just a request.
But is this request also considered an attack? But are you saying that blaming others based on vague evidence is not an attack? It is clearly discrimination.

However, you are only trying to stop me from making comments by bullying me unilaterally.

[jamespetts]

...

However, you are only trying to stop me from making comments by bullying me unilaterally.

No, I am stopping you from bullying others. There are literally no circumstances ever in which a personal attack is justified. The rules are beyond clear on the point. 

Constructive criticism is permitted, personal attacks are not.

[RESTRICTED ACCOUNT]

As I said at the beginning,

(1) "Whenever Matthew reports a bug or someone on discord suggests a bug, he always starts with the disclaimer "I know that Extended developers don't like to make guesses."

I wonder if this statement is referring to me.

(2) If so, then I am asking you to stop making these remarks.
As I explained, what I am looking for is an evidence-based discussion of possibilities, not wild speculation.

(3) Please do not blame others without clear evidence. This is also just a request.
But is this request also considered an attack? But are you saying that blaming others based on vague evidence is not an attack? It is clearly discrimination.

I believe this is a request, not a personal attack.

[jamespetts]

I believe this is a request, not a personal attack.

That was not what I was referring to. The request was made in the same post as you wrote,

However, you are only trying to stop me from making comments by bullying me unilaterally.

You cannot have meant that I was trying to stop you from making the request, as you had not made the request until the same moment as you posted that message. The comments to which you were referring can only have been your comments in previous posts, which included personal attacks.

The only comments that anyone is stopping you from making are comments that amount to a personal attack as personal attacks are not welcome on this forum and are clearly prohibited by the rules.

You are free to make requests, but remember (for the future) (1) a person not doing as you request does not, in and of itself, amount to a personal attack; and (2) nothing, not even something that you believe is a personal attack on you, justifies you in making a personal attack on others.

I will separate out the posts concerning the conduct issues and lock the thread, as this thread is about an issue concerning the code of Simutrans-Extended and should not be allowed to be derailed by discussions of a member's conduct.