[LWN Logo]

From: Guido van Rossum <guido@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Subject: Siege mentality
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 16:18:29 GMT

I'd like to have a meta-discussion on how to handle discussions like
the recent thread started by Stevan Apter (still going strong at 60
posts, with about two-thirds of them by Apter); or the crossposted
thread featuring Zenin, for example.  These aren't quite the same kind
of discussions, but I see enough similarities to want to discuss them.

I know this is Usenet -- it's hopeless to ask for well-mannered
behavior.  But since we often think of this newsgroup as "different
than the other ones", I'm going to try anyway.

It seems that from time to time the regulars of this forum spend way
too much time trying to "defend" Python against outsiders.  A typical
scenario is as follows.

Someone no-one here has ever heard of posts a question that could be
seen as putting Python down, with very little (or obviously flawed)
argumentation.  Some initial responders (usually some well-known names
amongst them, as these are often 24-hours-a-day news/mail junkies --
like myself) respond to the original post.  Usually most responses
don't take the question seriously -- they ridicule it, or respond with
a simple RTFM and the python.org URL, or (in case it's a statement
about Python instead of a question) they simply answer: "No it's not."

So far, nothing grave is going on.  But the kind of thread that I'm
talking about, and which I've started to really loathe, is started
when the original poster takes a fighting stance.  Right or not, he
feels offended by the responses he got, and in turn starts offending
the Pythoneers.  This is often carefully disguised as a rational
defense of the original post -- but the more rational the Pythoneers'
responses are, the more irrational the original poster behaves.  In
the latest incident, this was nicely pointed out by Gordon McMillan's
post today "How to be a Usenet Troll".  (My personal favorite was
Apter's response to Tim's explanation that K descended via J from APL:
"Not by any J or K programmers").

What keeps these threads alive is the unwillingness of either side to
give the other side the last word.  Python supporters apparently won't 
admit silently that there are others who don't particularly like
Python; and the typical troll takes the attitude "I've never lost a
fight and I won't start losing now!"

In other words, AS LONG AS YOU KEEP RESPONDING THE THREAD STAYS ALIVE.

It should be clear that there is no victory or other gain to be had
from continuing such a thread.  All the rational arguments in the
world won't convince the troll (who is irrational, but plays a
rational being on Usenet).  Most Python supporters know the arguments,
and while they often appreciate the considerable humor and wit brought
to the battle, they get bored by the ongoing argument increased volume
of messages.

An innocent bystander might get the impression that Python users are
unusually defensive about their favorite language.  That's probably
true.  But it's time to give it up.  Proselytize all you want, but
don't fight individuals who won't "see the light."  Go spend your
energy by helping would-be converts who are actually struggling with
their first Python programs.  There are plenty of those in the
newsgroup -- a true sign that Python is on the rise.

Those newbies are our most valuable resource.  They are not deterred
by occasional negative remarks at Python's address by outsiders.
They've probably heard those same remarks in their own environment,
and have chosen to ignore them.  So there's no need to refute every
argument against Python ever made.  They *may* be deterred by endless
argumentative threads though -- simply because the news/mail volume
gets too high (many newbies are no experts in using their news/mail
software either).

In other words, when you feel the urge to respond to a troll...

	JUST SAY NO.

I did (after the first round, anyway :-).

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)