SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
El Reg has an interesting read on an OSS developers survey:
Most of the negative behaviour is explained as "rudeness", which has been experienced witnessed by 45 per cent of participants and experienced by 16 per cent. GitHub's summary of the survey says really nasty stuff like "sexual advances, stalking, or doxxing are each encountered by less than five per cent of respondents and experienced by less than two per cent (but cumulatively witnessed by 14%, and experienced by three per cent)." Twenty five per cent of women respondents reported experiencing "language or content that makes them feel unwelcome", compared to 15 per cent of men.
This stuff has consequences: 21 per cent of those who see negative behaviour bail from projects they were working on.
Now I take an entirely different conclusion than El Reg on this. To me this says that two or three percent of respondents have valid reason to bitch about bad behavior but a further eighteen or nineteen percent above that simply are not capable of working with other people. Come on, who here has never held a job where someone on staff was a dickhead/bitch but you kept on working anyway? Me, I've not once held a job where there were zero personality conflicts. In my less than humble opinion, part of being an adult is being able to deal professionally or at least civilly with other human beings who do not cater to your every sensitivity.
Maybe I'm just a relic of the past though. Maybe the future really is a bunch of snowflakes crying to $boss to get you fired if you say or do anything they dislike.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:43PM (6 children)
Sorry, incorrect. This was a staff decision after surveying community opinion. I was just the front man on account of I don't give a shit if you talk smack about me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @12:25AM (3 children)
A staff "decision" where you championed an outcome and nobody felt it worth the effort to challenge you since you were going to do all the work implementing it anyway.
Justifified by a couple of surveys curated to the point of being push-polling.
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday June 08 2017, @12:35AM
You seem to think I'm in a position to push whatever I like down the site's throat. Here's a clue: I have three bosses that can shut down any changes I propose at any time without explanation. It was a nice try at playing the victim though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 08 2017, @02:25AM
So go make your own damned site, and you can be who and what you believe the Buzzard to be here. You'll get to make all the decisions, and when you don't like the results, you can change them without asking permission from anyone. Run along, now, little Snowflake, you have a lot of work to do!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @02:42PM
cry moar
(Score: 2) by aclarke on Thursday June 08 2017, @01:58AM (1 child)
I rarely agree with you on any philosophical or political matter, but I like the idea of everyone having mod points every day. In my opinion it makes the site better.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday June 08 2017, @03:45PM
I have to agree. There really isn't a perfect moderation system out there; they all have their ups and downs. I see two extremes: Reddit on one end and Slashdot on the other. There's also HN's system. With Reddit, it's basically a free-for-all: you can moderate any post you like up or down. There's no limits to how many moderations you can do, and you can moderate people who reply to you or who you reply to. With Slashdot, it's so locked-down it's basically worthless IMO: you can either moderate or post, but not both, in any given article discussion. You only get 5 points, and only occasionally at that. I'm not going to bite my tongue when I have something to say, so on that site I stopped moderating at all because it was always undone when I then spoke up and made a post. Then they have the idiotic "metamoderation" where they want you to spend time moderating other peoples' moderations. The whole system is ridiculous because I go to sites like that to read news and discuss, not to be unpaid labor to help curate the discussion. Then there's HN which is like Reddit's except you can't upmod people until you reach a certain level of karma (people modding you up), and you can't downmod until you reach a higher level of karma. This system tends to promote a certain amount of groupthink because only people who align with the existing community get enough karma to affect other peoples' karma. There's also a lot of heavy-handed moderation by what appear to be full-time moderators there, with people frequently getting warned, their posts removed, and banned. This site is a hybrid: anyone can mod, but everyone has a limited number of mod points, but they get new ones frequently (every day I think), and they can moderate in any discussion they're in, but there is a small limitation I think about being able to moderate posts in a sub-thread you've posted in. Honestly, I think it's about the best you're ever going to get on a site like this. It helps avoid the group-think you get on HN, but avoids the moderation system being completely useless like on Slashdot.