[OSM-talk] EG/Doxxing | Re: New moderation team &, , etiquette guidelines for talk@ & osmf-talk@ list

[Greg Troxel]

The challenge is to do two things at once

  not prohibit -- or discourage by fear -- legitimate discussion, even
  if that discussion is uncomfortable, and even if some people are
  "offended".

  stop personal attacks


I agree that criticizing a candidate (who is by definition a public
figure and things are a little different) for their amount of mapping
history must not be prohibited.

On the other hand, someone saying "you are a worthless human because you
only have 10 changesets" is not ok.

As I see it, this really should be "no ad hominem".  It's also not ok to
say "this edit you did is bad because you are inexperienced".  On the
other hand criticizing the edit because of the edit content is fine.

In imports, we have an idea that an inexperienced mapper shouldn't do
them, and I've said to people "if you haven't done an import, you need
to understand that it's 10x harder than you think it is right now.
after you have done one, you will understand".  In this case, they
didn't really believe me at the time -- but more or less did later.
Certainly we shouldn't prohibit that.


What I've seen of the text so far is concerning, as it focuses on
someone being offended.  If we are to talk about offense, rather than ad
hominem (which I think is a mistake), the standard should be that a
reasonable person would be offended, not that some particular person
says they are.

Overall this feels like a political agenda -- I don't think it actually
is or is meant that way, but I think we need to be careful to avoid
alienating a large number of people who value open discourse more than
the value a right not to be offended.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20220611/45590a69/attachment.sig>