Page 1 of 2

Moved Posts

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:10 am
by BDKR
[admin note: following have been split off from viewtopic.php?t=40450]

mcgruff

--------------------------------------
McGruff wrote: No problem: it was nothing to do with you. We've frequently had problems with anti-OOP trolls in similar discussions.
Holy <span style='color:blue' title='I&#39;m naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span>! Have you ever thought to consider your tone?


feyd | bad monkey

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:04 pm
by McGruff
BDKR wrote:Have you ever thought to consider your tone?
Pardon?

You can discuss what you like publicly on the forums including my "tone" but could I ask you to either start a new topic or contact me via pm? There's too much bad temper surrounding OOP v procedural discussions and I'm a bit fed up with members getting caught up in the crossfire. That will make people reluctant to ask questions and that's not acceptable.

Posts which don't address the original question may be moved or deleted.

Once again, can I say to members please feel free to raise whatever queries you want. The moderators will deal with any problems.

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:22 pm
by BDKR
McGruff wrote:
BDKR wrote:Have you ever thought to consider your tone?
Pardon?

You can discuss what you like publicly on the forums including my "tone" but could I ask you to either start a new topic or contact me via pm? There's too much bad temper surrounding OOP v procedural discussions and I'm a bit fed up with members getting caught up in the crossfire. That will make people reluctant to ask questions and that's not acceptable.

Posts which don't address the original question may be moved or deleted.

Once again, can I say to members please feel free to raise whatever queries you want. The moderators will deal with any problems.
Try to remember that I am also a moderator and in the act of moderating, I'm asking you to, from this point forward, use discretion!

Cheers

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:43 pm
by Roja
McGruff wrote:There's too much bad temper surrounding OOP v procedural discussions and I'm a bit fed up with members getting caught up in the crossfire. That will make people reluctant to ask questions and that's not acceptable.
Now that this post has been moved, I feel its more appropriate for me to comment. I've avoided commenting on this issue in the original thread because I completely agree with McGruff - it results in threads that are half learning-experience, and half heated discussion.

However, in this case, the initiating comment came not only from a moderator, but specifically from McGruff (the person endorsing the stance that we should encourage discussion).

The comment McGruff made was:
McGruff wrote:No-one who has learned OOP properly would go back to procedural code.
Which is provably false and insulting to the class of individuals that would disagree with his position

The statement means that either, you won't do anything but OOP (because you've learned it properly), OR, you haven't learned it properly. If you have in fact learned OOP properly, and do in fact "go back" to procedural code, then you will feel insulted, as I did.

Just like if I said "All OOP proponents are bigoted", I would be insulting and provably inaccurate. Its inappropriate by McGruff's standards, and by the rules of the forum.

So restating BDKR's comment, I'll ask what I've asked several times before - Please follow the rules of the forum, if you are going to enforce them on others.

The statement was entirely inappropriate, and at the time I was in such a good mood, I responded in a very light-hearted fashion to encourage focusing on the important issues and not on personal attacks. Perhaps I should have done so via PM, but by the same consideration, the comment shouldn't have been made by McGruff in public, in the first place.

Since I'm not a mod, its hard for me to correct the inappropriate actions of a member without a public comment. But apparently, even mods have a hard time calling McGruff on inappropriate actions.

I don't want to start, continue, or encourage trouble. However, I don't see how McGruff can honestly argue that the comment was anything but against the rules of the forums. It shows no respect for people of a different opinion than his. And by McGruff's standard (Encourage open discussion) it causes just the opposite effect.

Thoughts?

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:40 pm
by Jenk
Gentlemen, may I suggest that issues between moderators/admins are kept behind closed doors?

:)

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:41 pm
by Charles256
no no.in public.. : munching on popcorn:

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:22 pm
by jurriemcflurrie
Heheh... next time i'll think twice before I start a thread about oop :lol:

I understand that McGruff <span style='color:blue' title='I'm naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span> of people. But if no one responded to it in the first place there wouldn't even be a problem.

Oh well.. good night!

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:36 pm
by Roja
jurriemcflurrie wrote:I understand that McGruff <span style='color:blue' title='I'm naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span> of people. But if no one responded to it in the first place there wouldn't even be a problem.
And if no one responds to it, then he can continue to insult people, and the mod team will (correctly) say "Well, no one has complained".

The important thing to note is that I completely agreed with the arguments and evidence in his post. Everything except for the statement insulting people was completely on the money. In addition, there was no additional value in him doing so. It didn't expand the discussion, or improve the tone. It did just the opposite: It made a rude statement with the intent of cutting off and preventing opposing opinions.

It is a recurring theme, and it is against both the rules and the spirit of the forum.

I say to your comment that if no one responds, he can do whatever he likes.

On the contrary - if he would follow the rules he judges others by, no one would NEED to respond.
Jenk wrote:Gentlemen, may I suggest that issues between moderators/admins are kept behind closed doors?
The sad truth is that the moderators are not moderating his actions, and so as a user, I feel compelled to respond in the same arena he commits his violations - in public.

Notably, I am not a moderator on these forums.

Who will watch the watchers? The users.

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:16 pm
by Burrito
Roja:

Trust me when I say that this issue has been floating around behind the "closed doors" since the last blow-up and we are doing our best to try and calm the storm and come to some kind of resolution that will result in a more mature and productive discussion for any future topics started about this question.

I am not going to take sides either way as I've tried to keep an impartial view of this heated debate and look at it from the 40,000 foot level. Both sides have good points and both sides are guilty of issuing cheap shots unnecessarily.

Unfortunately there is no "easy" solution here, but as I mentioned, we are working on a plan that will *hopefully* put the nonsense to rest and allow for quality dicussion about the topic.

For now, if you have something to say (this is to BOTH sides) that you think might be borderline inappropriate.... it is! and it needs to be done through a PM.

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:39 pm
by McGruff
jurriemcflurrie wrote:Heheh... next time i'll think twice before I start a thread about oop
That's the last thing I want to see. Please, don't be afraid to ask questions. I moved these posts precisely so you wouldn't have to deal with that. Really, there is no problem.

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:08 pm
by Buddha443556
The reason for choosing a methodology or solution should not come down to the one that was less demonized by moderator or admin or any other member from phpDN. If that's not the reason why there are rules against such ad hominem arguments then someone should add it to the list. We should all promote the highest standards not only in programming but also in our conduct here. I'm not a stellar example myself when it comes to proper conduct but I'm also not a moderator or admin either.
Jenk wrote:Gentlemen, may I suggest that issues between moderators/admins are kept behind closed doors?
It's not an issue just between moderators and admins.

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:20 pm
by McGruff
The comment McGruff made was...
Saying that "no-one goes back to procedural" isn't insulting, I think. It certainly wasn't meant to be. That's just my experience. I think I've only ever met one exception and I wasn't convinced by his arguments - nor he by mine I expect.

Can we have a reality check?

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:25 pm
by Jenk
Buddha443556 wrote: It's not an issue just between moderators and admins.
The comments made between BDKR and McGruff is what I was referring to, two mods/admins disagreeing should be discussed behind closed doors imo, or even better.. PM's. :)

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:45 pm
by Roja
McGruff wrote:Saying that "no-one goes back to procedural" isn't insulting, I think. It certainly wasn't meant to be. That's just my experience. I think I've only ever met one exception and I wasn't convinced by his arguments - nor he by mine I expect.

Can we have a reality check?
I think its entirely fair to ask for a reality check.

However, you've framed the debate by misquoting yourself to make your statement seem fair. Your statement was not "no-one goes back to procedural". It was "no one who has learned OOP properly would go back to procedural code".

It forces the respondant that chooses "to go back to procedural" to accept the insult that they have not learned OOP properly.

Thats where the insult is - not in the subset of your quote you chose.

In the chosen quote, its simply provably false.. plenty of people have posted previously that they have in fact chosen to use procedural code even after learning OOP.

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:00 pm
by McGruff
As I said, no offence was meant and none should be taken. You are free to argue your case and I am free to argue mine.