Regarding the Ranran's restriction

[209CATrus]

I'd like to make a few points:

• Programming is stressful
• Fixing bugs is more stressful than programming
• Maintaining a nearly two decade old codebase is even more stressful, causes madness
• Maintaining a nearly two decade old codebase, as far as i'm concerned, has a high chance of either causing, or requiring some kind of psychological deviation to pick up such a task in the first place. Just like engineering major, huh.
• We're, as far as the game popularity goes, alone there. We have some dozens of active players, and just about a dozen active developers. Standard, let alone Extended, must keep its developers.
• Two men, especially a man that was developing the game for years and a man that was playing (and occasionally developing) this game for years must have the right to have serious, manly discussion. Full of subnormative vocabulary.

Having chitchats with Matthew here and there on Discord made me sure than Matthew is a grown up man that had a prior experience with hot arguments. Ranran, i believe, had arguments more than it seems. Rules might be the rules, but cut them some slack. I believe that since they both can settle an argument on their own, the restriction, no matter what it is, is not specifically constructive regarding the future of Simutrans development. Instead of restriction (that must be lifted, now or eventually), i propose following solutions:

• VERY SERIOUS S-TSHOW BOARD, a cesspit of some sort where developers can vent or discuss the hot topics as needed. Of course with restricted external access, so it doesn't appear on main page, and perhaps isn't shown at all to anonymous visitors.
• Since the external intervention like one-sided restrictions is very saddening and instantly breaks any chance of discussion continuing with the hopes of it producing something useful, i suggest either moving the problematic topic somewhere isolated, or ask all participants to relocate somewhere like DMs. The problem is, if the discussion actually becomes constructive through the hail and fire of subnormatively-vocalized accusations, it must have its place on this forum, at least for archival purposes.

As far as i know, the developer on developer 1on1 must be settled in an adequate environment, since just restricting developers (or, god forbid, kicking them out of community) never did any good for any project. Removes the symptoms, but not the cause. I believe Ranran and Matthew both have solid mental capacity to settle their argument without extreme measures such as restrictions.

Just look at Linus Torvalds. Barely held back, and actually went this far.

[209CATrus]

James, i actually believe you should figure out their argument purely from a developer and an Extended maintainer standpoint, without approaching it as a moderator

[Isaac Eiland-Hall]

This forum will not accept incivility. That is a baseline rule, and one of the foundational rules.

I do not believe there is consensus to allow incivility on this platform.

[209CATrus]

This forum will not accept incivility. That is a baseline rule, and one of the foundational rules.

I do not believe there is consensus to allow incivility on this platform.

That's the problem, civility is a vague term, and i don't feel anything particularly incivile in Ranran's comments. I'm pretty sure that's just a normal workplace communication style, sort to speak.

[Isaac Eiland-Hall]

Rules are kept vague because well-defined rules invite rules lawyers and those who seek to push the boundaries.

But the response to breakage of the rules is also kept vague, because the response is proportional to the offense.

A discussion about the situation was had on the Devotee forum as I didn't want to make it a larger forum issue than it already was. I don't recall anyone in that discussion that found the signature to be completely acceptable, although there were a range of opinions on the matter.

I mention that to say that as far as I can tell, your opinion about the civility is an outlier, and consensus was that it was some level of unacceptable.

This forum has been pretty free from incivility for at least two decades, and I don't think there are many that feel oppressed. It seems to be working, with pretty minor exceptions.

[Leartin]

• VERY SERIOUS S-TSHOW BOARD, a cesspit of some sort where developers can vent or discuss the hot topics as needed. Of course with restricted external access, so it doesn't appear on main page, and perhaps isn't shown at all to anonymous visitors.
• Since the external intervention like one-sided restrictions is very saddening and instantly breaks any chance of discussion continuing with the hopes of it producing something useful, i suggest either moving the problematic topic somewhere isolated, or ask all participants to relocate somewhere like DMs. The problem is, if the discussion actually becomes constructive through the hail and fire of subnormatively-vocalized accusations, it must have its place on this forum, at least for archival purposes.

1) Nobody needs a cesspit. Or rather: No community needs people who need a cesspit.
2) Nobody could stop any two people from talking out their problems in whichever tone they prefer, in private. I don't think there is any danger of something productive going missing, as that's an unlikely result in the first place and nothing stops the participants from sharing it, without any baggage.

3) You mistakenly akin Simutrans communities to something like the Linux Kernel Project. That is simply not equatable. Simutrans communities are for players and fans. Many happen to start applying themself eventually - be it programming, pak-development or other work - but it's not a Developer Community, where you'd be measured by your contributions. So, it does not mean much whether someone is a developer or not, the thought isn't "losing developers" but just "keeping the community civil". Different priorities.
If developers wanted to have a more toxic environment to discuss their work, nobody is stopping them from creating their own dev community. It just isn't something anyone ever needed or wanted.




To put it simply: Sure we want Simutrans Developers, but not for any price. If Ranran wants to be part of any community, he has to play by that communities rules, and that does not change no matter how much stuff he develops.


Also, as a man, I want to distance myself as far as possible from the thought that anything about 'subnormative vocabulary' is manly.

[isidoro]

I wouldn't be that radical.  No one should speak in the name of the community, since those points are, at least, debatable.

I remember one of the affairs with Hajo and in that occasion "the community" was quite permissive, at least at the beginning, because of Hajo's contributions.  So, those statements aren't and haven't been true in the past.

If one wants a sentence to be true, it should be universally true, not contingently true. 

[prissi]

I really hesitate to post. But the rather hostility from Ranran is something which is not fitting to the forum. Saying "you are stupid" is not a way of communication. Any developer place with that atmosphere will probably loose contributors quickly. And while Simutrans always could do with more codes, translators, testers, we are not that desperate.

In case of Ranran, the initial reaction from James was stronger than I would have done. But Ranran's reaction was also not much better, there was little effort visible at keeping objective shortcomings from general insults.

And one cannot blame this on translation software alone ...

[Oldie]

I think we need a good cool comfortable screw up against a wall. Otherwise known as a Screwdriver and a Harvey Wallbanger and a nittle kit of Koolnesk. KO?

[isidoro]

I can see both points of view.

This is a free voluntary project and developers should work comfortably.  Nobody gets paid or otherwise receives a compensation.  So the minimum is to be comfortable when contributing.

It's quite probably that the way of working of Ranran doesn't fit with the current team and my opinion, from what you have said, is that all of you can't simply work together.  That's all to it.

It's a pity that his work can't be useful to the project any more but that's how it is.

What I don't like are absolute points of view telling what is right and what is wrong, even if the majority advocates for some of them or there are cultural biases in between.

Ranran can find people with whom work together with their rules and ways of addressing differences and fork the project if need comes.

The community here has some rules and the main group of developers have theirs.  Ranran has the freedom of joining and following them or leaving.

[Leartin]

I wouldn't be that radical.  No one should speak in the name of the community, since those points are, at least, debatable.

I remember one of the affairs with Hajo and in that occasion "the community" was quite permissive, at least at the beginning, because of Hajo's contributions.  So, those statements aren't and haven't been true in the past.

If one wants a sentence to be true, it should be universally true, not contingently true. 

I rather consider it proof of my point that even the creator of the game is subject to the same rules of conduct and can be excluded, but let me specify that by 'contribution' I meant active contribution to the game or paksets, which I don't think was the point in HaJos case. But that topic should rest.

I only want my sentences to be true enough in the context they are said. If you disagree with anything in particular, please address it head-on. Otherwise, remember that not even 1+1=2 is universally true.

[isidoro]

I think that what I have said is enough to make my point clear.

[209CATrus]

Rules are kept vague because well-defined rules invite rules lawyers and those who seek to push the boundaries.

But the response to breakage of the rules is also kept vague, because the response is proportional to the offense.

A discussion about the situation was had on the Devotee forum as I didn't want to make it a larger forum issue than it already was. I don't recall anyone in that discussion that found the signature to be completely acceptable, although there were a range of opinions on the matter.

I mention that to say that as far as I can tell, your opinion about the civility is an outlier, and consensus was that it was some level of unacceptable.

This forum has been pretty free from incivility for at least two decades, and I don't think there are many that feel oppressed. It seems to be working, with pretty minor exceptions.

OBJECTION!!!

• Since rule lawyers work by finding holes in the rules, by leaving them vague you are just making one big hole out of the rules. Rules are left to the imagination of moderators?
• Response to the breakage of the rules is proportional to offense, yet prissi, being an administrator, stated that James initially overreacted to the Ranran's offense. The proportion of response versus offense is subjective and left to the imagination of moderators?
• isidoro, being a devotee, stated that the points regarding community-wide consensuses are themselves debatable. There's no objective consensus?

Does that mean that the rules are make-believe, and the difference between administration and regular folk boils down to pure, perhaps unrestricted, administrative power?

Besides, this is an International Simutrans forum, and world has many civilizations. I believe locals of India wouldn't consider you civilized if you start consuming roast beef in front of them, and so are locals of Middle East if you start bragging about pork chops you ate back at home. Since forum is so International, how do you settle the meaning of word "civilized"?

[209CATrus]

1) Nobody needs a cesspit. Or rather: No community needs people who need a cesspit.
2) Nobody could stop any two people from talking out their problems in whichever tone they prefer, in private. I don't think there is any danger of something productive going missing, as that's an unlikely result in the first place and nothing stops the participants from sharing it, without any baggage.

3) You mistakenly akin Simutrans communities to something like the Linux Kernel Project. That is simply not equatable. Simutrans communities are for players and fans. Many happen to start applying themself eventually - be it programming, pak-development or other work - but it's not a Developer Community, where you'd be measured by your contributions. So, it does not mean much whether someone is a developer or not, the thought isn't "losing developers" but just "keeping the community civil". Different priorities.
If developers wanted to have a more toxic environment to discuss their work, nobody is stopping them from creating their own dev community. It just isn't something anyone ever needed or wanted.




To put it simply: Sure we want Simutrans Developers, but not for any price. If Ranran wants to be part of any community, he has to play by that communities rules, and that does not change no matter how much stuff he develops.


Also, as a man, I want to distance myself as far as possible from the thought that anything about 'subnormative vocabulary' is manly.

One small issue - Simutrans Extended is drastically different both by code and by gameplay from mainline Simutrans, basically has it's own set developers and its own set of players. Maybe ten, maybe hundred times smaller than regular Simutrans? It wouldn't be a big fuss for me, if i couldn't count active Extended developers with just one hand worth of fingers.

[209CATrus]

Matthew, i summon thee to this thread because, as far as i remember, nobody asked you when Ranran got his share of "consensual" moderation. Are you fine with the so-called, from forum staff's standpoint, personal attacks from Ranran as long as he furthers the development of Simutrans Extended? Were you that much offended in the first place?

[Leartin]

It wouldn't be a big fuss for me, if i couldn't count active Extended developers with just one hand worth of fingers.

That tends to happen with forked projects. On the bright side, when you try to create a new Extended Dev Community with a different set of rules allowing for RanRan to act his ways, you don't need to convince many people to join - just a handful of active devs.


Matthews opinion wouldn't change much. For one, if two people agree to call each other names, they still can't do so in public. But more importantly, neither the signature way back nor the outburst towards Matthew are the real issue anymore. It's that he does not reflect and even believes to be a victim.
See, if a dog doesn't understand that it's wrong to pee on the couch, it will pee on the couch. It doesn't matter if it's a bad dog or a dumb dog, nor how much you love it, if you don't want a smelly couch, you can't let it in.

Ultimately, you are barking at the wrong tree. You might have an easier time convincing a single individual to conform to community guidelines rather than convincing a whole community to change their guidelines for a single individual. Communities can forgive a lot if people are willing to change their behavior, even Ranran can be welcome again (at least that's my understanding).

[209CATrus]

That tends to happen with forked projects. On the bright side, when you try to create a new Extended Dev Community with a different set of rules allowing for RanRan to act his ways, you don't need to convince many people to join - just a handful of active devs.


Matthews opinion wouldn't change much. For one, if two people agree to call each other names, they still can't do so in public. But more importantly, neither the signature way back nor the outburst towards Matthew are the real issue anymore. It's that he does not reflect and even believes to be a victim.
See, if a dog doesn't understand that it's wrong to pee on the couch, it will pee on the couch. It doesn't matter if it's a bad dog or a dumb dog, nor how much you love it, if you don't want a smelly couch, you can't let it in.

Ultimately, you are barking at the wrong tree. You might have an easier time convincing a single individual to conform to community guidelines rather than convincing a whole community to change their guidelines for a single individual. Communities can forgive a lot if people are willing to change their behavior, even Ranran can be welcome again (at least that's my understanding).

Leartin, i can't quite grasp, are you dehumanizing Ranran to a dog, or do you consider dogs as civilized as humans? Are dogs in your country have rights, able to settle disputes in court, hire lawyers or smth? I really don't quite get where you're heading with your example

[Leartin]

Leartin, i can't quite grasp, are you dehumanizing Ranran to a dog, or do you consider dogs as civilized as humans? Are dogs in your country have rights, able to settle disputes in court, hire lawyers or smth? I really don't quite get where you're heading with your example

Wow, never heard of a metaphore? You need it spelled out?
Someone (Ranran/a dog) did something (mean outburst/pee on a couch) the caretaker of a space (forum/house) does not want anyone to do. So there are consequences.
If they (Ranran/dog) learn from it and won't do it again, everything is fine.
But if they (Ranran/dog) get mad and bark at the caretaker, it's indicative that they did not learn anything, and will do it (mean outburst/peeing on a couch) again. As it is the caretakers job to prevent that, they will restrict access to the space (forum/house) and have a keen eye on them (Ranran/dog)
It does not really matter why they (Ranran/dog) don't learn, nor does it mean they (Ranran/dog) are entirely bad. It just means they (Ranran/dog) don't really mesh well with the space (forum/house).
...and you are the guy who demands the dog (Ranran) should be allowed in the house (forum), because it's cute (productive), and the smelly couch (broken forum rules) are no matter to you.

While I'm telling you that if you want the dog in a house, you can let it pee on your own couch in your own house, or try teach it not to pee on a couch. Need that part explained as well, or did you get the gist?

[209CATrus]

Wow, never heard of a metaphore? You need it spelled out?
Someone (Ranran/a dog) did something (mean outburst/pee on a couch) the caretaker of a space (forum/house) does not want anyone to do. So there are consequences.
If they (Ranran/dog) learn from it and won't do it again, everything is fine.
But if they (Ranran/dog) get mad and bark at the caretaker, it's indicative that they did not learn anything, and will do it (mean outburst/peeing on a couch) again. As it is the caretakers job to prevent that, they will restrict access to the space (forum/house) and have a keen eye on them (Ranran/dog)
It does not really matter why they (Ranran/dog) don't learn, nor does it mean they (Ranran/dog) are entirely bad. It just means they (Ranran/dog) don't really mesh well with the space (forum/house).
...and you are the guy who demands the dog (Ranran) should be allowed in the house (forum), because it's cute (productive), and the smelly couch (broken forum rules) are no matter to you.

While I'm telling you that if you want the dog in a house, you can let it pee on your own couch in your own house, or try teach it not to pee on a couch. Need that part explained as well, or did you get the gist?

I believe Ranran has contributed a bit too much to Extended to deserve such animalistic "metaphors". I suggest you keep your metaphors to yourself, at least until you find a dog that is able to maintain and develop Simutrans Extneded code. Speaking of your so-called metaphor, if your dog happen to pee on your couch, do you treat it with a bullet to a head or send it to an animal shelter, instantly looking for a new one?

Your, i will say it once again, so-called metaphor fails to deliver its meaning (however twisted it is) for the following reasons:

• You consider that humans are on the same cognitive level as dogs, hence "don't learn", "bark", etc.
• You consider the dog replaceable just by the fact that some dogs pee on couches and some don't
• You consider the dog productive by being "cute". SO CUTE TO SEE SIMUTRANS GETTING DEVELOPED, CUTECUTECUTE11111. Yeah, sure, it's not like Ranran was developing the very reason we're still lurking on this forum. Sure, just cute, yeah.
• The couch is more important than a dog? *scratch-scratch* Maybe you should keep owning couches instead of dogs, no?

I'd like to mention that your tone, no matter how many layers of metaphors, irony or other rhetoric tools you try to cover it with, really sounds like whoever gets in the way of moderation is a little less than a human being.

[Isaac Eiland-Hall]

This thread is not accomplishing anything and is a clear attempt to stir up drama. There is approaching borderline rudeness going on, and so this topic is done.

The rules have worked just fine for two decades, and will continue to do so.

Either abide by the rules, or do not participate in the forum.

It's really not that complicated.


Quick note:

even Ranran can be welcome again (at least that's my understanding).

Very much so, as I believe I hopefully abundantly made clear to them.


One more quick note: RanRan was moderated for their behaviour, not whether anyone was offended or not by it. They broke forum rules and that was addressed. Thus it doesn't matter whether or not any specific person was insulted or not, as that was not the basis for the actions.