Do you have any rules you try to follow when engaging with others online?
-
-
-
Yes, the XY Problem (or in this case, the YX Problem).
I think it's still better to abide by the rule as I wrote it, because IMO it is actually more elucidating for someone to be able to explain how to do X as it is written, and then provide Y as a possibly preferable alternative, than for someone who maybe really doesn't know how to do X just propose Y instead.
It might even be the case that Y is the solution OP should be asking for, but 10y later when someone else finds that same thread, and Y isn't an option for them, the thread is much less useful.
At a bare minimum, don't say "you shouldn't want to do X", either explain how to do X, or be clear about the fact that you don't know how.
-
I had actually decided I'm not a fan of the Golden Rule for...reasons, and this is actually the first time I've heard that those reasons are referred to as the Platinum Rule. TIL.
-
I think answering questions in the context of work is different, because then, yeah I agree, your goal isn't to answer their question, it's to solve their problem.
But if someone makes a thread asking "How do I serve a fileshare publicly", I think it's better to answer with something like, "Open this config, change these options, open these ports in your network, and restart these services. NOW, why do you want to do this? Because it might be a bad idea...etc." Assume that their usecase is private info, and that they are asking the question they mean to ask. Because when someone else who knows they need to do X comes searching for this thread later, you won't be able to ask about their use case.
I also made this adjustment in another comment, but I think at a minimum, if you're offering Y because you don't know how to do X, don't say "you shouldn't want to do X", instead be clear and say "I don't know how to do X, but Y might be an option for you". If no one reading the thread actually knows how to do X, then that's also useful info.
-
I also follow this in offline interactions.
I'll engage if two of the three can be answered with a "yes".
1 - Is it kind?
2 - Is it true?
3 - Is it necessary?
For online-only conversations, assume that everything you say is public.
-
If you have to absolutely, positively, immediately, reply right now for reasons .. don't.
-
If I've tagged them as "DNE" (don't engage), then trust I tagged them for a reason and don't engage.
-
-
Ted Lasso rule: Be curious, not judgemental. I try to give people the chance to explain themselves. I assume good faith. Even if I'm pretty sure I'm right, I allow for the possibility that I'm not or that I'm missing some relevant information.
-
I wince when I hear people talk about putting everything on signal. It's like, you know if your using Google keyboard on Android, Apple devices, servers to transfer the data, and many others are listening in.
-
Applies to emails, texts, pretty much any form of communication. Wait 20 minutes minimum before hitting send.
-
The main rule I try to adhere to:
If I think someone who responded to my comment did not read the whole thing, I should not reply.
-
-
Stupid question: Can I tag people here?
-
Lemmy itself doesn't support user tags, but some of the clients like voyager, do.
-
Cool thanks! I use Voyager and can’t find it
-
To add on to this, there's no such thing as an alt account. You will eventually let something slip that will lead back to your main or to you. It's not plausible, but it is possible and I act accordingly.
-
-
Same goes for people actively misreading your content in the worst possible way obviously just to start some shit.
This has been a plague on reddit.
