You had asked to do something that is very ill advised, and you had not made it clear (*in the question*) that you knew the severity of the risks, how you planned to mitigate them, or provided a *very* good reason for accepting them anyway. When you're asking about such situations, it's not enough to simply say or imply you know the risks; you need to clarify the *problem* that you're trying to solve because thinking you need to take a dangerous approach is very often an XY problem. In this case, that means you need to explain the purpose for logging so much detail, your actual end goal, no…

So if the comments are appropriate, why did you respond defensively? It's because they hurt. But why did they hurt? The reason they stung is simply because they told you that you were on the wrong track to solve your problem. Let me write that in a more direct way that emphasizes why it's painful: they told you that you were wrong. That is always going to be a painful experience no matter how kindly it's put. But why is being told you're wrong painful? It's because of what being wrong implies. Being wrong implies that there is some part of your thoughts or behavior that you need to change. …

If it's good for us to hear things that are painful sometimes, then that implies we need to accept that pain and grow from it instead of striving to avoid it at all times. SO's old Be Nice policy contained a line that helped promote that kind of response: it said, "assume good intentions." I'm disappointed to realize that the CoC has dropped that language, and I think that change is reflective of a change in thinking about who's responsible for that unpleasantness. The new philosophy, expressed in your blog post, instead directly blames the person speaking the advice, even when it's good ad…