« first day (3348 days earlier)      last day (1720 days later) » 

1:00 PM
I thought it was a shortened uri but now I see it had an @ in it
@PaulWhite that approach is completely hypocritical though
@OrangeDog How so?
"always refer to people the way they ask, unless you think they're wrong"
No, no. Use their pronoun. That's all.
And what if Superman is their pronoun?
1:01 PM
It's no one's pronoun
I suspect attempting to convince people of such would be perceived as insensitive and trolling
and you don't see the hypocrisy in making that statement?
@Veljko89 You can, but it requires you to wear your underwear over your tights
@Mgetz that is the rule that is being advocated
@OrangeDog I'm not trying to make any statements. I'm giving my best guess at what a workable policy might be.
1 message moved to Trashcan
1:03 PM
@PaulWhite and I am pointing out that it's not workable
@OrangeDog pronouns are in general conventions of the language they are in
@rene was it really that offensive?
@OrangeDog It might not be, but as and when the CoC is clarified, let me know how you get on asking people to use Superman as your pronoun.
@Mgetz please don't make me to tranlsate stuff first and then go gggggrrmbl
@rene It was "something rude" not sure if it came back clean
I was trying to avoid something nasty
@OrangeDog that's unhelpful
1:05 PM
@Mgetz yet people commonly request pronouns that are not part of the language
If someone is clearly taking the mikey, don't respond
But the point stands, there are limits to convention at some point. If we exceed those too much then the reader has no idea what's going on
Escalate it quietly to a mod
We'll figure it out or escalate it to a CM
at that point it's deliberate obfuscation of language
@Mgetz it didn't for me.
1:06 PM
@rene blame google translate, but the point I was trying to make with that stands... in fact is escalated by that fact
All of that is reasonable IMO, but is also a violation of "use what people ask, full stop"
Why not just wait for the CoC and then request a clarification when you actually see the wording? Otherwise, it's just circular second-guessing.
We're rules lawyering
@OrangeDog Well they're part of their language, it seems, and they seem to regard it as important. Seems easiest just to accept that in good faith, right?
1:07 PM
SO, folks on SU are confused cause the messaging is just .... well
so we make it simple
@PaulWhite exactly, except a moment ago you said you'd not accept it if you thought they were being silly
My point is more that any policy is subject to abuse
@OrangeDog There is a world of difference between Superman and whichever neopronoun you regard as "not part of the language". If I understood your meaning correctly. If not, please elucidate.
@Mgetz let's stick with English then, so I don''t have to go through several hoops.

that's how we do it on root access
1:09 PM
@rene The point was to show an abuse of policy using something that would require going through hoops
You've made your point, it didn't work out
@Mgetz if someone is abusing it - like the old thing about identifying as an attack helicopter
we can deal with it as someone abusing it
@JourneymanGeek What was the comeback to that? At least you can still join the military?
a) if you accept that it is possible for there to be a difference, then there must be closer differences
b) if you assume someone is abusing the policy, then that is not assuming good faith
@JourneymanGeek yes but users shouldn't be punished in the mean time
1:10 PM
@PaulWhite there isn't
the whole point is to make fun of folks with 'different' gender identity
it isn't acceptable
@JourneymanGeek That exact example was used in a private room just recently. Perhaps you missed it.
people don't realise why its offensive - someone was patient enough to explain it
@PaulWhite with good reason
its pretty famous
or infamous
Oh is it. I had no idea.
That's kinda part of the problem
I see you're typing and not reading my messages.
1:13 PM
I think I just missed the sarcasm
my apologies
I am aware that people come up with stupid "I identify as a..." examples, and that is offensive.
ANd honestly
text is not a great medium for non-explicit sarcasm
I just saw a particularly witty comeback recently and thought you had too. No biggie.
due to some quirks of my background - I thought they were making fun of a specific, unrelated subculture
1:14 PM
People also come up with surprising "I identify as a..." with genuine sincerity
@OrangeDog I know a few folks like that
Well used to
@OrangeDog Sounds interesting. Do you have an example?
@PaulWhite The problem with this framing is that using pronouns as I normally would includes avoiding confusion or ambiguity for the reader - which is inherently dependent upon the specific pronoun, and automatically leads to Monica's position.
@PaulWhite well, all the "common" ones were surprising at some point
1:15 PM
@JourneymanGeek That's both offensive and pretty funny, I only hear it now
e.g. I would not use "he" in a sentence if there are two men I might be referring two. Scenario with all else held equal but one is changed into a woman, and I might use "he" or "she".
Uh, anybody seen @Tink around?
And at the other end of the spectrum, the famous example is many people identifying as Napolean
I think I read a case of someone who actually thought they were an aircraft, but I may be mistaken
@M.A.R. Recently active on Meta
1:16 PM
@Machavity Last chatted?
Similarly, I would not use "he" in reference to SparklyPrincess1234 just because I happen to know that on the other side of the monitor, SparklyPrincess1234 is really a man - because that would be confusing to the reader
Taking an example from here, I think many people were surprised/confused at an "I identify as Lavender" statement
Robert Pattinson? Haha
@M.A.R. 18h ago
@MarkAmery Indeed. But as I think someone remarked earlier (may have been you even), that means trading off someone's gender identity and someone's grammatical preferences. I think I know which one will "win" there. As regards ambiguity, that happens all the time in English as you say. Nothing new.
1:18 PM
@M.A.R. No. Not at all.
@M.A.R. I dunno then. Clearly joining chat in some form but not chatting
@MarkAmery I would if he asked me to
@OrangeDog Ok but you can see the difference between someone wanting you to use a particular pronoun (because of their gender identity), and some poor soul genuinely believing they are Napoleon or an aircraft of some kind, yes?
and if folks ask well - "Oh, he told me he was a dude, its cool!"
Lets not confuse extreme cases designed to be extreme with, well reality
1:22 PM
@JourneymanGeek But why? Why should SparklyPrincess1234 get to demand that you express yourself in a way that you both know will confuse your readers? It's not like most writing here is in a context where more readers have the opportunity to ask.
@MarkAmery why not?
@OrangeDog Yes that was new to me too, but it was easy to look up and learn. Seems quite a convenient term actually. No idea how widespread its use is, or how acceptable to people in general. Many people are on a bit of a learning curve with this.
@Machavity private room, cc @M.A.R.
But that's also a situation where a singlar they just avoids the whole issue
Because actually having my meaning understood is pretty much objective number one when I write anything
1:22 PM
@AndrasDeak Whoa Matrix music
@AndrasDeak Ah, forgot about that
@PaulWhite I can see a difference, but talking about it in a rational manner is the sort of thing that gets you banned
or even just asking questions to provoke consideration
@OrangeDog We're both talking about it in a rational manner as far as I can tell and neither has been banned yet.
my opinion is that this is all wrong ... wasting all this time on discussion about genders when in fact they shouldn't even be in consideration when talking to people on stackoverflow ... you see problem, you answer it if you can ... with all this coming in, only more problems can happen ...
1:23 PM
@MarkAmery this is not a technical issue. This is a people issue. The purpose of communicating is so that you talk to other people. You can't ignore their feelings and identity because you want to be more exact. I'm also not saying you should do everything entirely as others see fit and comfortable, but you can't just start on the premise that what other people feel or think is irrelevant.
@M.A.R. I'm told that Tinkeringbell is on vacation.
@AndrasDeak This is kinda the heart of the problem
@Snow She was, but I think that was only three weeks
Everyone is treating this as a technical issue
@AndrasDeak I'm not saying it's irrelevant. I'm saying that it's secondary to actually successfully expressing my point.
1:24 PM
Which I might or might not know if is over OH LOOK A BIRD
@MarkAmery Why not both? Can't the writing be expressed in such a way that it is not confusing, yet still honours the pronoun?
@JourneymanGeek Lot of programmers and technologists on SE 🙂
@MarkAmery and many others disagree, and treating it as secondary when people's dignity is on the line will make other people angry at you for considering it secondary
@PaulWhite Well, no, because... that's the whole thing that's forbidden
We're supposedly not meant to change our writing based on the particular pronoun of the person being talked about
@PaulWhite then consider precisely what is the difference between someone asking to be called "sir" to make them more comfortable with their identity that doesn't match their physical appearance
1:25 PM
... even though that's a thing we do all the time, even for cis men and women
@MarkAmery Well you have to be reasonable about this.
@M.A.R. I thought it was 6-8 weeks.
@OrangeDog And I would honor this
She probably wishes it was...
@OrangeDog What does physical appearance have to do with it?
1:26 PM
@Veljko89 that approach will still work just fine. See a problem, answer if you can. You're not going to be in trouble. There are just elements in the community which apparently make it necessary to more clearly and in a defined manner enforce the "be nice" rule. The new CoC will not affect most of us I'd assume. And if it's gonna make some people who feel left out or actively sidelined more welcome, I'm all for it.
@PaulWhite because the person does not appear to have a penis / be a french emperor
@MarkAmery Perhaps you could provide an example sentence that you would struggle with? I don't have answers by the way, but someone might.
@OrangeDog I don't see the correlation between either of those things, and calling someone "sir" if they ask?
@OrangeDog uhm
So I have a few friends who're trans
the process of transitioning isn't a switch
^ that
1:28 PM
Not even considering the whole medical side of it
there's the whole needing to deal with friends and family
How they present themselves shouldn't be the only source of deciding how to refer to them
sigh, clearly I do not have the time to fully qualify every single aspect of this dichotomy I am trying to make Paul think about
@OrangeDog "Dichotomy" is the heart of the problem
@PaulWhite The first example with Bob at meta.stackexchange.com/a/334219/200582 is illustrative, even though it was meant for a different purpose.
I just look at it as if a friend were in the same room and asked me to use a particular pronoun for them. Of course I would. Why not? It's only polite.
People are... squishy
1:29 PM
I am presenting a literal dichotemy as an example
> Bob climbed up the tower and put his bags on top. Then he fell off.


> Bob climbed up the tower and put their bags on top. Then they fell off.
@OrangeDog I am trying hard to understand your point of view, but I am quite stupid.
The first is unambiguous and the second is ambiguous, as a direct consequence of what Bob's preferred pronoun is.
@MarkAmery That example seems very familiar. Oh I think you had in a meta answer, yes?
@MarkAmery what if it wasn't bob?
What if it was Jay?
Or I donno
some name that's gender neutralish
1:31 PM
> Bob climbed up the tower and put their bags on top. Then Bob fell off the tower.
My point of view is that Paul is (in good faith) expressing contradicting beliefs of what is right. I make no judgement on the validity of either belief, only that enforcing compliance with one will exclude the other.
@PaulWhite Aaaaand now you're doing the evil verboten Monica thing
@MarkAmery nope
Bob did fall off the tower
@MarkAmery Well few people know the exact details of Monica's case, so it is better to talk in the abstract.
and the bags did belong to them.
There was no complete avoidance of the pronoun
1:32 PM
@MarkAmery use "Bob" or "bags", or deal with it
@AndrasDeak which again is verboten
There's a "their" right there 🙂
@OrangeDog we're talking about different things
"Bob climbed up the tower and put Bob's bag on top. Then Bob fell off the tower" would be an alternative
@PaulWhite Eh, fair - it does work in the pronoun
1:32 PM
But its... messy
no amount of language lawyering (heh) will justify misusing language when you can do better
@AndrasDeak that was exactly one of the offending questions - "what if I just use their name"
@JourneymanGeek Yes, in that case it's clunkier than using the pronoun
and avoids it totally
@MarkAmery That's all I'm saying. English is flawed. This usage will have flaws too. Use your best judgement is all.
1:34 PM
@OrangeDog with the controversy on SE, yes. But the way Mark objects sounds like he's generally against using pronouns right
@OrangeDog The difference is always avoiding one person's pronouns by using their name, when you don't normally do that, and wouldn't do it for other people. It's just about treating people with equity.
the alleged stance of SE can't be justified
@MarkAmery and its slightly obvious the writer is avoiding using pronouns
Which can be distressing for some people - which can be an issue.
News article from a few years ago: iwf.org/news/2802621/…
Like I said
@RobertColumbia People can do things without seeing the bigger picture
what else is new?
1:37 PM
@Caleb I may actually be able to do something this evening.
I'd say its a failing in teaching people what its for
Okay, but it's non-obvious to me whether any of us here are expressing any position substantively different to Monica's. I realise that in the abstract she expressed general opposition to the singular "they", but... do y'all (who have seen more of the dialogue than me) actually think she was saying she would write that sentence in the clunky Bob Bob Bob way you've suggested, @JourneymanGeek? Her motive was explicitly about clarity of communication.
The "clunky" way is unequivably the most clear
@rene Thanks for that, that's downright embarrassing. Luckily unique and easily updated (and sessions reset) but ya, not a good move there.
We're not writing novels here
1:38 PM
@MarkAmery I think a key observation here is that we are talking about how the CoC might be applied to users. Presumably, moderators will be held to a higher standard, as is often the case.
@MarkAmery it could!
But honestly
I really feel that is something that we can work with, and for, gradually
@@Draken Thanks. I appreciate what you did there.
@PaulWhite I've always been a little unclear on the COC being applied to people
@MarkAmery No I think she would write elegantly, and SE would not find complete avoidance of singular "they" acceptable by a moderator. So it seems anyway.
I've always been of the "Folks, we do not do things this way" school of thought
1:40 PM
@JourneymanGeek Seems coherent to me in English, but then I live in a small country so.
Bigger than yours, I think, but still small 😀😀😀
At the end of the day, I think we can all agree we're more upset about the way this was handled than the policy itself.
@Stevoisiak Absolutely! The policy itself is small beans by comparison. Almost zero beans in fact.
1:42 PM
I don't have an issue with what was asked of us
in spirit
There are certain practical issues we will have to work through.
But that's always true.
Also, I expect it to come up almost never on my home site.
@Stevoisiak I was initially upset by the policy, but it took me a couple of weeks to process and accept it. Now I'm just upset by the process failure.
I'm still upset about licensing
@Caleb as a commandment, no
1:43 PM
Last time I looked on Law.SE both answers said the licencing change was ok.
But who cares anyway.
I don't share a religion with you
So I'd seriously hope you forgive any presumption - all I know of christianity is a decade in a christian school
@OrangeDog I remember when Dolphin wanted to relicense, we got permission from a majority of developers to relicense, then rewrote code from anyone who didn't want to relicense
But I'd consider respecting someone's identity and sense of self an act of love for a sibling
@PaulWhite source?
@Stevoisiak exactly, that's not what's happened here
1:45 PM
@OrangeDog My memory.
@OrangeDog Article on Dolphin relicensing for reference: dolphin-emu.org/blog/2015/05/25/relicensing-dolphin
I forget how I ended up there. Probably a link from some meta answer or comment. Should be easy to find if you search for it.
@JourneymanGeek I'm sorry, I don't follow.
And loving one another is one of those things they kept talking a lot at chapel ;)
and as it the usual case, more upset that there's been no responce to any of the questions about the probable problems with the relicensing than the initial event itself
1:46 PM
Disclosure: I previously contributed to Dolphin and gave permission for relicensing my contributions
@Caleb I don't think accepting someone for what they are is fundamentally incompatible with anything else.
Q: Is Stack Exchange allowed to unilaterally change previously published content license?

AtizsThe original thread can be found here: Stack Exchange and Stack Overflow are moving to CC BY-SA 4.0 As far as I understand, Stack Exchange can move on to CC BY-SA 4.0 for content published in the future, but they are not allowed to unilaterally change the license of previous publications. Severa...

I respect any reservations you have
but eh.
@Machavity Thank you!
My main issue is with how this was done, in every aspect
not what is asked of us
1:47 PM
Yours, yes. Not @Caleb's; that was clear in his resignation post.
And if we start argueing- precisely the effect this has on folks ><
Thing is, I'm not sure how you could properly re-license SE content. It was difficult enough with Dolphin's 200 contributors
I thought @Caleb's post was exceptionally well-written.
It was
I have a great deal of respect for Caleb after reading that post, but I think it's also fair to say that his take on this is very different to Monica's or that of the mods who resigned in protest.
1:48 PM
Which is also fine
There is always a range of views on any topic.
I enjoy reading alternate opinions and viewpoints.
@PaulWhite I disagree
Sometimes I even change my mind about things.
1:49 PM
@Machavity thanks, a) I think the answers are wrong and b) it is SE that should be justifying it - even a simple "yes our lawyers checked and said we could" has not been forthcoming
@AndrasDeak ha!
@JourneymanGeek Sorry mate I'm not trying to be dense but I feel like I'm looking at half a conversation. I'm being pinged and I the replies don't seem to be in connection with something I said.
@JourneymanGeek Indeed. But with that in mind, I thing it's not quite true to claim that "we all" are primarily upset about the handling of Monica, and not the policy
@PaulWhite Even if the licensing change is legally okay, the way they handled the communication around it (by simply ignoring all concern) was a problem. And symptomatic of wider problems.
@TRiGisTimothyRichardGreen Yes communication has been exceptionally poor recently. Deliberately so, one might think.
1:50 PM
@Caleb eh. Never mind then. Lets chalk it down to ... the sheer level of stuff going on and me being scatterbrained ;)
@Caleb JG is often hard to follow. I find it helps to say woof every now and again.
You'd be surprised how many times things like relicensing happens and nobody notices.
Heck, it happened on SE once
I wonder how many people carefully assess the implications of CY-BY-SA-XX before posting on SE
The problem is, they're now backed into a corner. Anything they say can be used against them in a court of law
@PaulWhite pretty close to 0%.
1:52 PM
@Stevoisiak arbitration, you can't sue SE
@Stevoisiak Has SE relicensed before? I know there was a lot of talk about code relicensing, but that time they did (reluctantly) listen to the community and back off.
I mean I know I had every word of the Terms validated by my own legal team before joining, but probably not everyone does.
they have forced arbitration
@MarkAmery This is true. I've thought about going back and adding more emphasis to that point, but it's not entirely different either. E.g. Robert and Gilles have similar issues even if their background for them came about differently. A lot of the outrage is directed at the way it was handled and I'm actually far more concerned about the underlying cause for why they thought there was something to handle in the first place.
@Mgetz unless you opted-out, or are European
1:52 PM
A: Should Stack Exchange switch to CC BY-SA 3.0?

Jeff AtwoodAs of around April 8, we re-licensed under 3.0: There are some noteworthy differences between the two. 3.0 has a no endorsements clause, and it introduces the concept of a "Creative Commons Compatible License", a third-party license approved by CC as "essentially equivalent" (none are approv...

@Stevoisiak I have the feeling that due to their detachment from the community they've managed to get from "it's OK guys, we can figure this out" via "you're not lawyers, we don't have to explain anything to you lot" to "OK, let's sue SE and see what happens"
@TRiGisTimothyRichardGreen Check my answer on the subject
@TRiGisTimothyRichardGreen twice
They relicensed from 2.5 to 3.0 in 2011
@OrangeDog AFAIK they don't have any facilities or personnel in Europe, you'd have to go to the US to pursue anything.
1:53 PM
And I suspect they will try to address the way it was handled and a lot of people will calm down and go back to their jobs. But I don't see the slightest hint that they are going to back away from the why this happened in the first place.
@Stevoisiak Okay. I somehow never even noticed that one.
@Caleb I think there are three possible levels of disagreement, and people drop off at different levels
The strange part is, I don't think anyone is opposed to the 4.0 relicensing in concept
and it's highly likely the courts will rule that they can change the TOS to remove opt out
> I suspect they will try to address the way it was handled

This would be a start

> a lot of people will calm down and go back to their jobs

I would love this
1:54 PM
There are people who object to the way Monica was fired. That's basically everyone.
@Caleb You mean beyond things like @Aza's post?
boo chat
Nobody raised an eye at the 2.5 to 3.0 relicence.
@Stevoisiak the one issue I saw was that it's then not compatible with Wikipedia
@MarkAmery Broken down the way I split my 3 reasons, or some other way?
1:55 PM
Then there are people who object to enforcing use of pronouns instead of names, because, for liberal reasons, they don't want to impose beliefs about trans people on speakers. That includes me, you, but by no means everybody here. Maybe we're a minority.
@JourneymanGeek Are you having fun with that formatting at all
@Stevoisiak it wasn't announced, it was mostly a typo on one page/footer that eventually got unified
@PaulWhite no
Software copyright gets broken all the time. Heck, there's a fairly popular VR build of Dolphin that is technically illegal under our license, but developers look the other way.
@MarkAmery The compelled speech argument? That is coherent.
1:55 PM
@Stevoisiak and there was a lot less content and fewer users back then
Is it right? Not necessarilly
@MarkAmery Liberal being a word with many many reasons.
@JourneymanGeek Yeah chat markdown sucks like nothing else.
And then there are people who personally object to them, personally using trans people's preferred pronouns. That includes you, @Caleb, but at that point, I'm not longer with you. I defend your right to hold that view, but don't defend the view.
Licensing is complicated
1:57 PM
@PaulWhite I'm not entirely sure that it is coherent, actually. I think it's often (usually) an excuse to be petty and bigoted while pretending to care about some weird abstract principle which doesn't actually make much sense.
Once again, I think people are upset about how it was relicensed, rather than the relicensing itself
I have a great deal of empathy with people that hold strongly conflicting religious views on this.
@Stevoisiak but... wierdly, it happened with no fuss
but no one's really gotten to us about the legal stuff yet - and I don't even think anyone would notice this week
@JourneymanGeek The 2.5 > 3.0? Or the 3.0 to 4.0?
1:58 PM
is everyone doing good
@Stevoisiak 2.5 < 3.0, dude
@Stevoisiak wiki-cc to 2.5 and 2.5 to 3.0
@MarkAmery not to put words in Caleb's mouth, but those sorts of objections are at a personal level of believing that reinforcing a trans identity is detrimental to the trans person's welfare, and a high-level philosophical argument of denying objective truth
@TRiGisTimothyRichardGreen Assuming good faith, yes I have encountered people that can provide rational reasons for holding that view. That does not mean I agree with them by the way. No doubt there are bad actors too.
Just double checking.
1:58 PM
And I guess I think it's interesting that the universal agreement on the wrongness of the manner of Monica's firing has meant that the other two levels of disagreement have gotten close to no airtime here. And as someone who personally disagrees with the policy, I think that's a pity.
"wiki-cc" was never really a thing, and is the same terms as 2.5
@MarkAmery One problem at a time
@MarkAmery You don't know the specifics of that policy yet.
@JourneymanGeek Fair enough.
I guess everyone is to caught up in the discussion
1:59 PM
@PaulWhite Lets talk about the concept in the abstract, not individual cases. I'm not blaming Aza in specific and I'm not even sure all the pointers to their post are any more than a less volitile corollary case. One of a set maybe, but not the cause in the way I'm thinking about it.

« first day (3348 days earlier)      last day (1720 days later) »