Do you have any rules you try to follow when engaging with others online?
-
A [email protected] shared this topic
-
i try not to say anything i wouldnt say to that persons face if they were standing on my front porch.
i dont delete things for the same reason you cant 'take things back' when verbally talking to someone.
-
don't give a non-answer to someone's question. Ex. if someone asks how to do X, don't answer with, "Why are you trying to do X? You shouldn't want to do X. Do Y instead." Instead, explain what it would take to do X, and then offer Y as a possible alternative and why it may be a better option. But assume they already know about Y, and it doesn't fit their use-case.
I can get behind the spirit of this, but often times this is caused by people taking the wrong first steps to solve an issue and then getting lost in the weeds while asking for the solution to where they're stuck, rather than asking about the original problem. In this case, usually both X and Y are bad answers, and asking why they aren't doing Y can elucidate more about the whole situation.
-
Now really, get off my porch.
-
-
Plenty, though it's a general thing rather than some rigid code. And these are my rules, not necessarily things that everyone should be doing. When it comes to that, Wheaton's law covers everything well enough lol.
First, in full honesty, I sometimes will break my rules and engage with assholes, trolls, or other bad actors out of sheer boredom to entertain myself, and I'll often throw all my other rules out the window if they're enough of an asshole.
So, my number one rule is honesty. I refuse to lie. For one, I've come to value the freedom of being exactly who I am too much to fuck around. For another, I'm too fucking old to keep track of bullshit, so I'd fuck up eventually anyway. Now, I'm not saying I'll never wrap a truth up in fancy clothes for entertainment sake, I enjoy telling stories for my own fun and I'll tell them in a way that pleases me. The facts are always true, though the way they're expressed might make it seem otherwise.
Like, I sometimes break out stories about my friend Spider. If I just say that he mouthed off in a bar and got me into a fight, that's fucking boring. If I say that he pulled out his penis because the was worried he broke it, that's less boring, but telling the story in one line is a waste when describing said penis is so much more fun. Same with my stories about my cousin, Fucking Ryan. I'm not ruining a good story by writing it down using minimalism, I'm going to tart that bitch up and make it a ride, you dig? It's all true, but if I say Fucking Ryan stole a hamburger from me, that's not as entertaining as describing the ketchup leaking from his pocket.
Second, if I choose to answer a question, I try to answer it to the best of my knowledge, without too much in the way of judging that it was asked. You ask about how to tell if you broke your dick, the answer is going to be about how you tell, with no more than a return question about why you need to know. That is negated when the person asking is a douche, where I will give them shit about them being a douche, but I'll still answer.
Third, I try to remember that I'm talking to other humans. Sometimes the bots and ai generated stuff makes that hard. Other times, I fall into the trap of reacting to what's on the screen rather than the fact that a human put it there. This is the rule I fail to follow the most. A lot of the time, that doesn't matter because humans are assholes, and some of the shit they say is worth some backlash. But I try to take a second and think about what might have caused someone to say something shitty that is out of character even if I don't know them.
Which leads into the fourth. There's a limit on how many slaps I'll go into a slap fight. I figure that if I can't either redirect the person into a real conversation in three or four comments that also include not taking their bullshit, it isn't worth continuing. That means that I may tell someone they're acting like an asshole, but I'll also be trying to get them to break out of it and move on. Believe it or not, it works. Not all the time, but it amazes me how often just telling someone they're being a dick, and that I'm just another human trying to interact makes them stop and think for a second. Works best with folks that are already attacking an idea instead of a person, but are just being dicks to the person as a side thing.
What it all boils down to is extensions of Wheaton's law. Ways to not be a dick, or to be less of a dick.
-
-
-
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.
-
