Life In 19x19

DrStraw wrote:

Bantari wrote:I assume you are talking to/about me.

Or me.

But what is the point of posting a question if only positive responses are acceptable? You have to accept the good with the bad and get a sense of the balance of opinion. It seems that the majority like the idea and therefore it seems appropriate to explore further. But getting down on those who are not so enthusiastic is not a good policy for open and free discussion.

So people should be allowed to be negative about the original idea, but then being negative about those people's reactions is wrong?

Perhaps getting down on people for not being enthusiastic about negative reactions is not a good policy for open and free discussion?

I appreciate the feedback you guys are giving, and I completely expect and embrace that people will disagree with ideas or my design approach, so feel free to say what you want. No offense taken!

Please, let me as OP say that I don't mind.

With that said though I think my first post doesn't really merit much discussion, since it's just saying "I wish something existed". I'll open a new thread that I think will get us talking about something more specific and interesting. See you guys there!

HermanHiddema wrote:
So people should be allowed to be negative about the original idea, but then being negative about those people's reactions is wrong?

Perhaps getting down on people for not being enthusiastic about negative reactions is not a good policy for open and free discussion?

Huh? I suppose there must be some logic in there somewhere, but it is lost on me.

I think I overreacted in my post, which is why I edited it. I come from a discipline where taking critical potshots at people is surprisingly prevalent and I was stressed out for other reasons at the time. Disagreement is all well and good, but the more constructive and charitable, the better. It also doesn't hurt to keep the tone more positive, even when disagreeing (but then again, perhaps us Go players are just a bunch of practical-minded engineer types who don't care about how things are packaged, right? ). I think it's especially good to keep tone positive when someone is undertaking a clearly well-intentioned project, we don't want to discourage people from trying to help the cause of Go, right?

I don't want to derail the thread with meta-discussion so I'll just leave it at that.

HermanHiddema wrote:

DrStraw wrote:

Bantari wrote:I assume you are talking to/about me.

Or me.

But what is the point of posting a question if only positive responses are acceptable? You have to accept the good with the bad and get a sense of the balance of opinion. It seems that the majority like the idea and therefore it seems appropriate to explore further. But getting down on those who are not so enthusiastic is not a good policy for open and free discussion.

So people should be allowed to be negative about the original idea, but then being negative about those people's reactions is wrong?

Perhaps getting down on people for not being enthusiastic about negative reactions is not a good policy for open and free discussion?

There is a HUGE difference between saying something like "I disagree or dislike this idea" and "I don't think you should be saying anything negative about this idea."

I'll leave it at that. Something for you to ponder, grasshopper.

Bantari wrote:There is a HUGE difference between saying something like "I disagree or dislike this idea" and "I don't think you should be saying anything negative about this idea."

I'll leave it at that. Something for you to ponder, grasshopper.

<- symbol indicating my post was tongue in cheek. A joke.

HermanHiddema wrote:

Bantari wrote:There is a HUGE difference between saying something like "I disagree or dislike this idea" and "I don't think you should be saying anything negative about this idea."

I'll leave it at that. Something for you to ponder, grasshopper.

<- symbol indicating my post was tongue in cheek. A joke.

Problem with all these little pictures is that for those of us who only use one or two, at most, we don't have a clue what the rest of them are supposed to mean.

HermanHiddema wrote:

Bantari wrote:There is a HUGE difference between saying something like "I disagree or dislike this idea" and "I don't think you should be saying anything negative about this idea."

I'll leave it at that. Something for you to ponder, grasshopper.

<- symbol indicating my post was tongue in cheek. A joke.

Ugh... in such case, I really stepped into it. My apologies.

DrStraw wrote:Problem with all these little pictures is that for those of us who only use one or two, at most, we don't have a clue what the rest of them are supposed to mean.

Most of them are exaggerated versions of common facial expressions. Happy. Sad. Shocked. Confused. They're supposed to be easy to understand to anyone with a basic ability to judge facial expressions. We add them because we can't add tone of voice to text on the internet, which in normal conversation would immediately clue people in if something was a joke. If you don't understand them, perhaps you should learn. They're a pretty basic staple of internet communication, and have been for 30 years.

HermanHiddema wrote:

DrStraw wrote:Problem with all these little pictures is that for those of us who only use one or two, at most, we don't have a clue what the rest of them are supposed to mean.

Most of them are exaggerated versions of common facial expressions. Happy. Sad. Shocked. Confused. They're supposed to be easy to understand to anyone with a basic ability to judge facial expressions. We add them because we can't add tone of voice to text on the internet, which in normal conversation would immediately clue people in if something was a joke. If you don't understand them, perhaps you should learn. They're a pretty basic staple of internet communication, and have been for 30 years.

For me, the problem is that different people use the very same symbols in very different ways. For example - the symbol you used was a "wink". It can be used to denote lack of seriousness, or saying "don't worry, even if you're wrong this time, I still like you" or anything inbetween and beyond. So sometimes it is hard to tell. In situations which are inflamed or lead to inflamation, I find it best not to rely that such symbols are clear enough to clearly communicate intent. Especially if the intent seems to be contrary to the actual words chosen.

PS>
For example - I used the same "wink" at the end of the above paragraph. Does it mean I said it all in jest or that I don't mean any of that?

Sure, there are different meanings in different contexts, and in different cultures. I generally just assume that anything with a positive smiley is meant in a generally positive way. Certainly I would never interpret "My apologies. " as "Oh, the smiley meant it was a joke, so he's really telling me to go f*ck myself". I think you'd have to be ridiculously literal-minded to interpret it like that.

HermanHiddema wrote:Sure, there are different meanings in different contexts, and in different cultures. I generally just assume that anything with a positive smiley is meant in a generally positive way. Certainly I would never interpret "My apologies. " as "Oh, the smiley meant it was a joke, so he's really telling me to go f*ck myself". I think you'd have to be ridiculously literal-minded to interpret it like that.

This is certainly true.