I’m curious what, if any, guidelines people self-impose to try and engage in a productive way online (both on Lemmy and elsewhere). “Netiquette” if you will.
A couple of rules that I think are good practices, but still see too often, are:
- don’t pile onto the most downvoted comment. Kinda like don’t feed the trolls, but it’s more about not letting yourself get rage baited. Instead, downvote them and move on.
- don’t give a non-answer to someone’s question. Ex. if someone asks how to do X, don’t answer with, “Why are you trying to do X? You shouldn’t want to do X. Do Y instead.” Instead, explain what it would take to do X, and then offer Y as a possible alternative and why it may be a better option. But assume they already know about Y, and it doesn’t fit their use-case.
For that last one, finding a thread where someone has asked the exact question you want answered, only to find a thread full of upvoted non-answers is up there with the dreaded “nvm, I figured it out - 10y ago”.
I only comment when I feel I am adding something to the conversation that nobody else has added. On many contentious topics, nearly everything that can be said has already been said by someone, so I usually don’t comment on them.
i try not to say anything i wouldnt say to that persons face if they were standing on my front porch.
i dont delete things for the same reason you cant ‘take things back’ when verbally talking to someone.
Now really, get off my porch.
Plenty, though it’s a general thing rather than some rigid code. And these are my rules, not necessarily things that everyone should be doing. When it comes to that, Wheaton’s law covers everything well enough lol.
First, in full honesty, I sometimes will break my rules and engage with assholes, trolls, or other bad actors out of sheer boredom to entertain myself, and I’ll often throw all my other rules out the window if they’re enough of an asshole.
So, my number one rule is honesty. I refuse to lie. For one, I’ve come to value the freedom of being exactly who I am too much to fuck around. For another, I’m too fucking old to keep track of bullshit, so I’d fuck up eventually anyway. Now, I’m not saying I’ll never wrap a truth up in fancy clothes for entertainment sake, I enjoy telling stories for my own fun and I’ll tell them in a way that pleases me. The facts are always true, though the way they’re expressed might make it seem otherwise.
Like, I sometimes break out stories about my friend Spider. If I just say that he mouthed off in a bar and got me into a fight, that’s fucking boring. If I say that he pulled out his penis because the was worried he broke it, that’s less boring, but telling the story in one line is a waste when describing said penis is so much more fun. Same with my stories about my cousin, Fucking Ryan. I’m not ruining a good story by writing it down using minimalism, I’m going to tart that bitch up and make it a ride, you dig? It’s all true, but if I say Fucking Ryan stole a hamburger from me, that’s not as entertaining as describing the ketchup leaking from his pocket.
Second, if I choose to answer a question, I try to answer it to the best of my knowledge, without too much in the way of judging that it was asked. You ask about how to tell if you broke your dick, the answer is going to be about how you tell, with no more than a return question about why you need to know. That is negated when the person asking is a douche, where I will give them shit about them being a douche, but I’ll still answer.
Third, I try to remember that I’m talking to other humans. Sometimes the bots and ai generated stuff makes that hard. Other times, I fall into the trap of reacting to what’s on the screen rather than the fact that a human put it there. This is the rule I fail to follow the most. A lot of the time, that doesn’t matter because humans are assholes, and some of the shit they say is worth some backlash. But I try to take a second and think about what might have caused someone to say something shitty that is out of character even if I don’t know them.
Which leads into the fourth. There’s a limit on how many slaps I’ll go into a slap fight. I figure that if I can’t either redirect the person into a real conversation in three or four comments that also include not taking their bullshit, it isn’t worth continuing. That means that I may tell someone they’re acting like an asshole, but I’ll also be trying to get them to break out of it and move on. Believe it or not, it works. Not all the time, but it amazes me how often just telling someone they’re being a dick, and that I’m just another human trying to interact makes them stop and think for a second. Works best with folks that are already attacking an idea instead of a person, but are just being dicks to the person as a side thing.
What it all boils down to is extensions of Wheaton’s law. Ways to not be a dick, or to be less of a dick.
To add on to this, there’s no such thing as an alt account. You will eventually let something slip that will lead back to your main or to you. It’s not plausible, but it is possible and I act accordingly.
don’t give a non-answer to someone’s question. Ex. if someone asks how to do X, don’t answer with, “Why are you trying to do X? You shouldn’t want to do X. Do Y instead.” Instead, explain what it would take to do X, and then offer Y as a possible alternative and why it may be a better option. But assume they already know about Y, and it doesn’t fit their use-case.
I can get behind the spirit of this, but often times this is caused by people taking the wrong first steps to solve an issue and then getting lost in the weeds while asking for the solution to where they’re stuck, rather than asking about the original problem. In this case, usually both X and Y are bad answers, and asking why they aren’t doing Y can elucidate more about the whole situation.
While I agree you do run into XY problems alot I find another way is have them explain their use-case first. By just asking what is your ultimate goal you are trying to achieve. Then after knowing that answering their question to the best of my ability. Otherwise you waste their time ans yours answering the Y. Had one this week customer wanted to remotely view files stored in his local server. Company built out secure vpn and file server for said files. Customer then asks how does the public access these files. Customer really wanted was a website to download documents or public use.
I think answering questions in the context of work is different, because then, yeah I agree, your goal isn’t to answer their question, it’s to solve their problem.
But if someone makes a thread asking “How do I serve a fileshare publicly”, I think it’s better to answer with something like, “Open this config, change these options, open these ports in your network, and restart these services. NOW, why do you want to do this? Because it might be a bad idea…etc.” Assume that their usecase is private info, and that they are asking the question they mean to ask. Because when someone else who knows they need to do X comes searching for this thread later, you won’t be able to ask about their use case.
I also made this adjustment in another comment, but I think at a minimum, if you’re offering Y because you don’t know how to do X, don’t say “you shouldn’t want to do X”, instead be clear and say “I don’t know how to do X, but Y might be an option for you”. If no one reading the thread actually knows how to do X, then that’s also useful info.
Yes, the XY Problem (or in this case, the YX Problem).
I think it’s still better to abide by the rule as I wrote it, because IMO it is actually more elucidating for someone to be able to explain how to do X as it is written, and then provide Y as a possibly preferable alternative, than for someone who maybe really doesn’t know how to do X just propose Y instead.
It might even be the case that Y is the solution OP should be asking for, but 10y later when someone else finds that same thread, and Y isn’t an option for them, the thread is much less useful.
At a bare minimum, don’t say “you shouldn’t want to do X”, either explain how to do X, or be clear about the fact that you don’t know how.
The Golden Rule. Maybe even the Platinum Rule if I’m in a good mood.
I had actually decided I’m not a fan of the Golden Rule for…reasons, and this is actually the first time I’ve heard that those reasons are referred to as the Platinum Rule. TIL.
- Read the room. If it looks like a glorified echo chamber you’ll get downvoted to oblivion. If you try to debate you might get banned. This is usually the case with news and political groups.
- Don’t get pulled into pointless fights with trolls. You can usually spot them because they try to take the discussion on a radical detour or pointless pick a fight. Don’t let yourself get baited.
- Don’t tell people to “google it”. They are probably looking for other’s insights. If you can’t answer their question or add to it then don’t respond.
- If a topic is upsetting and you feel the urge to rant it is best to just walk away from it.
- Try to take the high road and be polite even if they aren’t. Win by being nice, others will notice it.
- Finally, if someone is just totally unreasonable or even sounds nuts don’t engage them. Block them if necessary.
If it is a controversial subject reread your comment before posting to see how it could be misinterpreted. People will automatically assume something negative so you have to write very clearly and defensively.
Dedicate no more than two or three replies unless you’re absolutely sure that the person is engaging in good faith. The single biggest tip-off that they are not is that they do not engage with the core of your case, and instead do any number of other things: (1) snipe at edge cases or other minutea (2) change the subject (3) move the goalposts (4) etc.
I misread the title as edging
Ive got nothing really to contribute, just know that I’m here rounding out the left-hand of the bell curve for the rest of you filthy animals!
If you have to absolutely, positively, immediately, reply right now for reasons … don’t.
Applies to emails, texts, pretty much any form of communication. Wait 20 minutes minimum before hitting send.
Well…there was a time when that was true. Now we’ve got a mostly dead internet. But yeah, if you’re going to bother engaging because you believe they’re real, then treat them like a person.
I think Lemmy has the capacity to have even more bots, because moderation is so inconsistent and underfunded. The big sites have the resources to fight bots, but ironically have an incentive to embrace them because it reflects well on DAU. IMO the only thing keeping bots off lemmy is a lack of ROI. Great, you spent how much to influence the views of a minuscule userbase in the corner of the internet no one goes to?
Still, it does feel sometimes like our share of braindead group think is higher than it should be…
I think it flies under the commercialization radar so it isn’t worth a lot of scammers and attention getter’s time.
Ted Lasso rule: Be curious, not judgemental. I try to give people the chance to explain themselves. I assume good faith. Even if I’m pretty sure I’m right, I allow for the possibility that I’m not or that I’m missing some relevant information.
Stupid question: Can I tag people here?
Lemmy itself doesn’t support user tags, but some of the clients like voyager, do.
Cool thanks! I use Voyager and can’t find it 😃
Edit: Forget what I said. Found it.
