Things not to do in Software Solutions.

[aramis]

Interim and Proposed for permanent Software Solutions special rules.

[m;]Several behaviors are not acceptable in the software solutions area.[/m;]

[m;]The following are off topic and may be infracted as such:[/m;]

• Responding to help requests with unsolicited suggestions of other programming languages, environments, or IDEs.
• Implying or stating that someone else's chosen laguage, envoronement, or IDE is inferior
• Requesting to be paid for help

[m;]The following have long been prohibited:[/m;]

1. Asking for copies of non-freeware non-open-source software.
2. Asking for proprietary code.
3. Posting code you are unwilling to share.

1 and 2 are copyright infringements.
3 is essentially baiting.

[m;]It is fine to: [/m;]

• offer to pay for help. It is fine to respond to such requests.
• to ask for commentary on specific software, and to suggest alternatives if it's clear alternatives are in scope of the discussion.
• to discuss the merits and flaws of specific languages, environments and IDEs.
• to post bug reports on traveller related software
• to point out known incompatibilities of specific environments when in scope.

[m;]Some ethics - Not binding, but suggested[/m;]

• If you use code someone else posted, they should be credited in the project and product.
• If you want to suggest alternatives to a language, environment, or IDE that someone is asking for help with, do so in a separate thread.
• If you don't know the language, environment, or IDE, make it clear when offering suggestions.

Edit note: underlined text indicates changes based upon discussion.

 

[aramis]

[m;]Note: after the poll closes, all discussion will be moved to a separate thread. Both threads will be locked.[/m;]

Commentary is important here - I've my pet peeves, and can be a bit short at times. So, while I'm imposing them as interim (truth is, I've been using them for years, but it's seldom been an issue) at present, after the poll closes, I'll look at the discussion and votes, and adjust accordingly.

 

[BillDowns]

Just noting I voted against the discussion of languages, etc because those always seem to devolve into holy wars.

 

[simonh]

I voted generally for the more liberal options. I agree that language wars, etc, do happen but fear that bans on discussing the cons of any given language, storage format or other technology could have an unnecessarily dampening effect on genuine discussion.

To my mind if a post is for example an egregious and rude attack on someone else's preferences in implementation technology, then it will be possible to object to the post because it is an attack or because it is rude. Objecting to the post because it’s about a technology choice is redundant. If it’s not rude and not egregious, i.e. if it is courteous and respectful of the other’s choice, then I don’t see the need for extra rules just due to the subject being discussed.

I do accept that politics or religion are reasonable exceptions to that principle because they're not on-topic for COTI anyway, but this forum is specifically for discussions about software.

Simon Hibbs

 

[whulorigan]

I voted generally for the more liberal options. I agree that language wars, etc, do happen but fear that bans on discussing the cons of any given language, storage format or other technology could have an unnecessarily dampening effect on genuine discussion.

To my mind if a post is for example an egregious and rude attack on someone else's preferences in implementation technology, then it will be possible to object to the post because it is an attack or because it is rude. Objecting to the post because it’s about a technology choice is redundant. If it’s not rude and not egregious, i.e. if it is courteous and respectful of the other’s choice, then I don’t see the need for extra rules just due to the subject being discussed.

I do accept that politics or religion are reasonable exceptions to that principle because they're not on-topic for COTI anyway, but this forum is specifically for discussions about software.

Simon Hibbs

I second all of that. That was the philosophy behind my vote preferences.

 

[grondak]

What's an example of posting code I'm unwilling to share? Showing a snippet, perhaps looking for help with a method that won't work? So you post the method and not the whole program?

Is there an example thread in which something like this happened to spawn this infraction category?

 

[aramis]

What's an example of posting code I'm unwilling to share? Showing a snippet, perhaps looking for help with a method that won't work? So you post the method and not the whole program?

Is there an example thread in which something like this happened to spawn this infraction category?

It's from years ago - someone posted their own proprietary code, and threw a hissy fit when someone else asked to borrow it, and deleted the thread. (Deletion of the first post can have unpleasant effects.)

 

[FreeTrav]

With one exception, I don't think any of the prohibitions should be absolute. The one exception is the "Yeah, I can fix that - pay me" post where the person being responded to has not already offered to pay.

Most of the others should be presumed, but allowed if context makes them non-offensive - for example, regarding the prohibition against suggesting a language other than the one being used, if someone says to the effect that "I'm doing this in INTERCAL, because X, but I'm willing to look at APL if a library for Y exists", I wouldn't infract someone saying "Well, J is essentially APL done with text instead of funny characters, and LIB_Y exists for J; you want more info?". That would violate the letter of the prohibition, but it's not IMO a violation of the underlying INTENT of the prohibition, and it IS potentially helpful to the querent.

I think part of the issue is that there is often a fine line between an "It's OK" like discussion of the merits of various IDEs and a "No good" like dissing someone's choice of IDE. With no way to draw exactly where that fine line is, I don't think making something a hard-and-fast rule is a good idea; instead, make them "generally discouraged behaviors" and note that the moderator has final say over whether a particular post has crossed the line.

I have no doubt that there would be similar scenarios for almost any of the issues. The biggest problem would most likely be perceived unequal enforcement - "Hey, why'd you infract me for that? It's the same thing that X did before without getting infracted...". And I admit I don't have a solution to that thorny problem.

 

[aramis]

You make a good point, Jeff. "unsolicited suggestion of alternative languages and/or IDEs" is probably a better wording.

Changing it.

 

[aramis]

[m;]Final Takeaway[/m;]

Off-Topic - suggesting alternate instead of help with requested	4	36.36%	Fails to carry - amended version used instead
Off-Topic - requesting pay for help	9	81.82%	Carries
Off-topic - dissing people's chosen language/environment/IDE	8	72.73%	Carries
Ethics - code source citing	6	54.55%	Carries
Ethics - noting lack of personal experience	5	45.45%	Carries
Ethics - making suggestions of alternates in new thread	4	36.36%	Carries
It's Fine - offer pay for help	9	81.82%	Carries
It's Fine - have discussions of merits and flaws of languages, environments, IDEs	9	81.82%	Carries
It's Fine - point out known problems when in scope	11	100.00%	Carries