I made a Q&A which resulted in a conflict that could be avoided. It was discussed on this Meta.
This thread attempts to inform of potential causes of such conflict in hopes of preventing it, while hearing dissent to provided suggestions.
Below is complemented by Olli's guidelines, most of which I agree with. Below is also better understood if read alongside my "Main response" here, but not strictly necessary.
You don't work here. You're not obligated to vote, comment, or read any post. So,
Read fully before voting. It's the most basic decency I grant everyone, with rare exceptions. There's many reasons I may open my post with what looks like you disagree with, only to clarify otherwise later in the post.
Read fully before commenting, or disclaim your commentary. How do you know I've not already said what you did? If others are as impatient, it suggests a contradiction with my post.
Read fully before answering. It's a reasonable standard to be held to. Again there's reasons I may not include the whole question in bullet points - the bullets are there to assist, and I could easily force reading of the entire post instead. This includes questions and answers; how do you know you don't repeat me (or others)? Or that you're even answering what's being asked?
- "and answers" isn't critical, but if your answer implies a contradiction with another due to length/order of presentation, it should be disclaimed (e.g. "To add to OLGD's answer", "This answer is another perspective, not contradicting..."), if e.g. notified by answerer
"Read fully" really only goes as far as "ensure your vote/comment/answer wasn't addressed", for which a tactful skim most often suffices, but even that much is not being done. Partial exception for "answer", as described in 4.
- Retract downvote if problem is solved. This is most relevant if the answer's in net-negatives; most cannot see the
+ -, and the post may effectively be destroyed.
- Ignore the speaker, at least for some duration. A decent self-check would be, Would I say it to Matt L? I've lostd count of instances of positivity and negativity that are explained almost exclusively by who's behind a post, rather than the substance of the post. I lack proof but have evidence I won't be digging up. I'm not denying the role of the speaker in what's spoken, only saying it's drastically exaggerated.
- Acknowledge you aren't all of signal processing. The 30-ish active users don't remotely encompass the full diversity of viewpoints and attitudes toward any given concept. This includes, and especially concerns, concepts one's been long familiar with. This doesn't mean ignoring fallacies, but rather withholding condemnation unless you know exactly what's being said; being confused doesn't count.
What's the community think of these?