| HN Mirror

> The context you're probably missing

I don't believe I'm missing context. You keep explaining what you did, why you did it, where you did it, but I believe readers here see all that. Many still think you were mistaken. We don't see this as prodding anyone towards civility, we see changing the subject from legitimate issues to an individual's tone.

> I reminded the poster that his tone put him below the level of discussion

So you are above him and he is below you. You are his patron, reminding him of his place. This is not civility. This is the literal definition of condescension.

Civility doesn't mean avoiding hyperbole or other effective rhetoric. Civility means keeping a debate about the subject rather than the individuals discussing. You failed to do that.

From "Civility in Public Discourse"[1]:

Clearly, civility has to mean something more that mere politeness. The movement will have accomplished little if all it does is get people to say, "excuse me please", while they (figuratively) stab you in the back. Civility also cannot mean "roll over and play dead." People need to be able to raise tough questions and present their cases when they feel their vital interests are being threatened. A civil society cannot avoid tough but important issues, simply because they are unpleasant to address.

You avoided the tough questions, and changed the subject from the identified issues.

Constructive debate needs to focus on solutions which are most likely to be successful, and not upon personal attacks leveled by adversaries against one another.

He used hyperbole for effect, about the process of using the tool, not about the interlocutor. That didn't undermine civility by this canonical definition. You attacked his tone, personalizing the discussion. That did undermine civility.

Constructive civil debate, therefore, requires that the parties work together to resolve factual disagreements wherever possible.

He spent time walking through a process, factually. You ignored the facts, and replied about civility instead. That was not working together.

The most destructive confrontation process, escalation, arises when accidental or intentional provocations beget greater counter-provocations in an intensifying cycle that transforms a substantive debate characterized by honest problem solving into one in which mutual hatred becomes the primary motive. De-escalation and escalation avoidance strategies are needed to limit this problem.

His post was effective at highlighting the real user story about trying to get started with the platform.

And though you yourself use sarcasm about other products like backbone.js in a piece presented as a canonical getting started reference, your dismissive line escalated the situation into a Streisand effect turning off countless potential users of the framework.

You could have at least not replied at all, as a more civil response than what you wrote.

One crucial element of civility is recognition by conflicting parties that it is possible that they are wrong and that the policies advocated by their opponents are actually better. This entails an obligation to seriously consider the persuasive arguments made by opponents.

You did not seriously consider the persuasive arguments made by the OP, you attacked his tone instead.

Here on HN, you've demonstrated unwillingness to acknowledge, even by a single phrase, that you might have been wrong and policies around civil discourse suggested by others here might have been preferable in this instance. Elsewhere you've jumped on people trying to get into the framework, so this personalizing criticism of the framework isn't new.

Thankfully, a careful reading of this HN thread suggests contributors to ember.js disagree with you, and have suggested your response was a tired mistake. So perhaps readers here can still agree not just with the philosophy of ember.js itself, but with the philosophy of its contributors. That's important, and missing that point can cost a project dearly.

TLDR:

By most of your replies here, it seems you've confused pleasantries with the real meaning of "civil discourse" which can be quite spirited or contentious but remains focused on framing the identified issues in ways which transform win-lose confrontations into win-win opportunities.

1. http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/civility.htm