den·i·grate(dn-grt)
tr.v. den·i·grat·ed, den·i·grat·ing, den·i·grates
1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
2. To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
we have denigrated the community? or do you mean certain members have denigrated the XOOPS community?
there may have been a lack of communication and direction, but we certainly did not belittle you or anyone, in fact when it came to denigration, i seem to remember it was always the other way round. (maybe you should choose a different word than 'denigrate') lol
so how do we want to interact with the community. well 1st of all we want to interact in a friendly manner, which is totally FREE of defammatory, offensive, and PERSONAL Attacks against any member!!, do you think you are totally innocent of any of these actions? in deed I think many people were involved in these actions.
We want to keep the forum FREE of these flame-wars and personal attacks (whether your personal attack was merited or not!!) the personal attacks & flame-wars are what did more damage to the community than anything else!! you don't invite good responses from people when you are constantly barraging and flaming them at every instance, in fact that does more to discourage them from answering or helping you in the 1st place.
to quote from the mozilla team's book >
The chapter
Setting the Tone from the book
Producing Open Source Software gives us a clear proven outline of how we can effectively demonstrate how community support should be done.
and to quote:
Quote:
Nip Rudeness in the Bud
From the very start of your project's public existence, you should maintain a zero-tolerance policy toward rude or insulting behavior in its forums. Zero-tolerance does not mean technical enforcement per se. You don't have to remove people from the mailing list when they flame another subscriber, or take away their commit access because they made derogatory comments. (In theory, you might eventually have to resort to such actions, but only after all other avenues have failed—which, by definition, isn't the case at the start of the project.) Zero-tolerance simply means never letting bad behavior slide by unnoticed. For example, when someone posts a technical comment mixed together with an ad hominem attack on some other developer in the project, it is imperative that your response address the ad hominem attack first, as a separate issue unto itself, and only afterward move on to the technical content.
It is unfortunately very easy, and all too typical, for constructive discussions to lapse into destructive flame wars. People will say things in email that they would never say face-to-face. The topics of discussion only amplify this effect: in technical issues, people often feel there is a single right answer to most questions, and that disagreement with that answer can only be explained by ignorance or stupidity. It's a short distance from calling someone's technical proposal stupid to calling the person themselves stupid. In fact, it's often hard to tell where technical debate leaves off and character attack begins, which is one reason why drastic responses or punishments are not a good idea. Instead, when you think you see it happening, make a post that stresses the importance of keeping the discussion friendly, without accusing anyone of being deliberately poisonous. Such "Nice Police" posts do have an unfortunate tendency to sound like a kindergarten teacher lecturing a class on good behavior:
First, let's please cut down on the (potentially) ad hominem comments; for example, calling J's design for the security layer "naive and ignorant of the basic principles of computer security." That may be true or it may not, but in either case it's no way to have the discussion. J made his proposal in good faith. If it has deficiencies, point them out, and we'll fix them or get a new design. I'm sure M meant no personal insult to J, but the phrasing was unfortunate, and we try to keep things constructive around here.
Now, on to the proposal. I think M was right in saying that...
As stilted as such responses sound, they have a noticeable effect. If you consistently call out bad behavior, but don't demand an apology or acknowledgment from the offending party, then you leave people free to cool down and show their better side by behaving more decorously next time—and they will. One of the secrets of doing this successfully is to never make the meta-discussion the main topic. It should always be an aside, a brief preface to the main portion of your response. Point out in passing that "we don't do things that way around here," but then move on to the real content, so that you're giving people something on-topic to respond to. If someone protests that they didn't deserve your rebuke, simply refuse to be drawn into an argument about it. Either don't respond (if you think they're just letting off steam and don't require a response), or say you're sorry if you overreacted and that it's hard to detect nuance in email, then get back to the main topic. Never, ever insist on an acknowledgment, whether public or private, from someone that they behaved inappropriately. If they choose of their own volition to post an apology, that's great, but demanding that they do so will only cause resentment.
The overall goal is to make good etiquette be seen as one of the "in-group" behaviors. This helps the project, because developers can be driven away (even from projects they like and want to support) by flame wars. You may not even know that they were driven away; someone might lurk on the mailing list, see that it takes a thick skin to participate in the project, and decide against getting involved at all. Keeping forums friendly is a long-term survival strategy, and it's easier to do when the project is still small. Once it's part of the culture, you won't have to be the only person promoting it. It will be maintained by everyone.
so there you have it. that is what we would like here also. and to that extent on past issues, there are quite a lot of us including yourself & others who are not so innocent & helped to bring the state of this project to it's knees nearly.
Can we all work together?
Yes we can,
but do we all think the same?
NO we don't!,
do we all interpret the written word exactly the same as the next person?
No we don't. what one person reads may mean something completely different to how the author actually meant it to be read!. that's a problem of written word! But flame-wars & personal attacks *should not* be tolerated and allowed on the forum.
so the question is, can you work with everyone else to achieve those goals?
