I feel that perhaps we should ban the kinds of bad faith arguments that often occur. when you disagree with someone about something, make sure that:
if your position was false, that there could be an argument that could convince you that it was false that someone else could actually reasonably give
you are actually making an effort to consider the possibilities of what that person might mean, as opposed to immediately assuming that it means one specific thing
your position is actually grounded in reality
you can actually express your position in a way that is comprehensible to others, as opposed to assuming that they'll know what you mean
your dissent is appropriate, kind, worthwhile, and warranted. do not derail conversations by throwing around inflamatory terms out of the blue. they must actually correspond to the severity and importance of what is discussed. when in doubt, hold your tongue.
the only official rule of apionet is "do not be a bad person; do not do bad things". we reserve the right to moderate in any way we want, but these are perhaps some guidelines that we could put into effect.
I have been so far been personally mostly unbothered by the admittedly quite pointless arguments that are occurring in apionet. though I don't think arguments are inherently hostile or unpleasant, others may feel otherwise. regardless of whether or not decorum is maintained, the circularity of the arguments can definitely be irritating, and I understand finding them frustrating or offputting.
I previously thought that the arguments in apionet did not displace other kinds of more productive conversations. but perhaps I am wrong. I thought of the pointless arguments as at least something to do, and I also genuinely wished to tease out the assumptions being made and to reach a mutual understanding and increase of knowledge. however, this is very difficult considering the way that some people engage in argument.
I want apionet to be enjoyable, pleasant, and perhaps productive for those who talk in it. so, what should we do to address this?
please try to avoid pointing fingers or rehashing old arguments in this thread and instead try to focus on ways we can improve apionet.
but before Jerry could even take one step away, the trap door blown asunder from the fireball of a ghast, with the opening immediately caving in, swallowing all above.
I wish to begin an activity. the rules of the activity are as follows:
in this thread, one may post a reply containing a single sentence.
each sentence should contribute to an overall story.
anything goes story-wise (except that which should be obvious), but each reply should be a good-faith contribution to the story, and keep in mind the cardinal rule of improv, "never say no*".
one may not post two replies in a row.
refresh the page right before posting to avoid conflicting replies.
not using features does not mean they do not exist. they are used in codebases and libraries, burden implementations, and inform the usage and idioms of the language in general. you can't just ignore the complexity of a complex language.
also, C++ fails at being an extension to C. C++ is not a full superset of C.