JUST GOT HACKED

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 02-10-13 11:08, Steven D'Aprano schreef:
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:32:57 +0530, Ravi Sahni wrote:
> 
>> I find this real confused!! Why they are answering then?!?! As far as I
>> can make out everyone who is answering (helping!) doing it frustratation
>> and disgust.  But still they keep answering and answering!!
>>
>> Makes no sense
> 
> 
> If you want to ask why people are answering Nikos' questions, you should 
> ask them directly. I won't speak for others, but I'll answer for myself: 
> I answer Nikos' questions because:
> 
> #1 He is a member of our community who needs help with Python, and this 
> is a welcoming community, not an elitist one.

Come on Steve. You have kill filed people. So you don't think that
merely being a member is enough. Or are you being elistist when you
kill file someone?

> #2 Some of his questions are interesting technical questions, like his 
> Unicode problems. I have learnt things from answering his questions. I'm 
> sure other people have learnt things from reading those answers.

Sure, but not the fourth or fith time the same question comes up in the
same thread.

> #3 Even his uninteresting questions deserve answers. Everybody here, I am 
> sure, has asked boring or stupid or trivial questions at some stage, 
> especially the newbies. Even when the answer is just "This answer is the 
> same as last time you asked", the question deserves an answer. This is a 
> matter of simple respect. We should treat others in the way we would hope 
> to be treated if we were in their shoes.

Steve with Nikos's MO this means you risk a thread with nothing but a
cycle of Nikos repeating his question and others repeating the question
was already answered in the thread.

And you don't treat all others in the way you hope to be treated if you
would be in their shoes. I suspect that should you one day feel so
frustrated you need to vent, you will hope to get treated differently
than how you treat those that need to vent now. You are very selective
about the people in whose shoes you can imagine yourself.

> #4 Explicit is better than implicit. Even if nobody has an answer, or if 
> it is off-topic, it is better to explicitly say that we have no answer 
> and remove all doubt than to respond with nothing but silence and leave 
> open the hope that if you just ask again more loudly someone will answer.
>
> #5 In the long run, encouraging good behaviour is more effective at 
> changing people's behaviour than merely punishing bad behaviour.

But you don't encourage good behaviour by rewarding bad behaviour.
Even when Nikos has ignored previous answers and has ignored advise
to read up on a particular subject, you are still inclined to answer
him. That is not encouraging good bahaviour, that is rewarding bad
behaviour.

All these reasons you have given above, don't differentiate between
Nikos behaving good or badly while asking his questions. You giving a
reason that depends on making such a differentiation doesn't make any
sense after that.

> #6 Consider the first impression of a newbie, joining this community with 
> questions about Python. The first thing they see is Nikos asking 
> questions, and being ignored, or worse, being abused. Does that send the 
> message that we want, that their questions are welcome?

Newbie may be new to python, that doesn't mean they are new to social
interaction. I think people can understand someone has been behaving
badly enough so people won't engage with him anymore.

This reason here implies, that no matter what a nuissance Nikos is,
we should still answer his questions, which blantantly contradicts
your "encourage good behaviour" reason above. There is no encouragement
for good behaviour is you provide an answer anyway, whether the
asker is showing good behaviour or not.

-- 
Antoon Pardon