bzt wrote:
Schol-R-LEA wrote:
I think that each of you saw the other one as the unreasonable party
That's exactly one of the misunderstanding I want to clearify. Why do you think that? If I were to think zaval is unreasonable, then I wouldn't try to explain anything to him in the first place. What did I do to make you think that I think zaval is unreasonable? (And please, please don't take this question as offensive in any way, it's not.)
Your initial posts did seem calm and reasonable to me personally; indeed, you didn't even address Zaval at all in the first post, and they were the ones to start things off by their "you are wrong" statement.
it was only your later posts that seemed a bit aggressive, though honestly they were as much defensive as anything. I will say that it was Zaval who seemed to go on the offense first, but I am pretty sure that Zaval - who also isn't a native English speaker -
did see your words as an attack for some reason.
TBH, Zaval has always seemed a bit quick to take offense, and at times appears to take any sort of disagreement as a personal attack. That could simply be my impression of Zaval, though.
Certainly, Zaval has very strong and somewhat eccentric opinions, which they are quick to share to all and sundry, but the same is true to some degree of everyone here, I think. I am not sure what else to say about that.
I should add that the fact that the subject was the Raspberry Pi 3 was part of it; Zaval's disdain of that particular SBC is well known here. They are unlikely to consider anything that is specifically about the Pi as valid, despite their commitment to the ARM as a platform in general (Zaval's opinion of the x86 is equally harsh, almost as much as my own), they would rather avoid the RPi in favor of more powerful SBCs with less restrictive firmware (the use of VideoCore 4, and the other proprietary Broadcom hardware, seems to be part of their problem with it). At least, that is my read of their opinions.
Thus, I think that Zaval was predisposed to a negative tone just based on the fact that it was the RPi 3. I may be wrong, though.
bzt wrote:
Please tell me what are those phrases so that I can avoid them. I'd really appreciate if you tell me what I should use instead of them in the future. Right now it seems to me that the real problem is you're victims of your own negative biases and not my language skill, but I want to be proven wrong.
It isn't so much specific words or phrases, but the way in which they are used. Part of the problem is simply in the medium - plain text is notoriously problematic for expressing tone or nuance. There is, in my experience, a tendency to assume hostility even when there is none, simply due to how unaffected and flat plain-text messages often are.
The fact that neither of you are native English speakers also plays a role, but less than you'd think, as you are both fairly fluent in your writing (far more so than many who are native English speakers, really).
I would be hard-pressed to point to a specific point in the conversation and say, 'this is where it goes wrong', but there are some specifics I can mention.
For example,
bzt wrote:
zaval wrote:
Emmm, you are wrong.
Am I? Read the doc more carefully,
While it is not particularly offensive, especially compared to the 'you're wrong' it replies to, it would seem curt and dismissive to many. The wording is fine, as such, but it lacks any 'give' to it - it reads as if you were facing Zaval down for the previous line. A lighter touch - 'I think I am correct, allow me to explain' or something like that - might not have set Zaval off.
Think of it as 'politeness judo' - you don't want to seem as if you are being forcibly polite, but you still want to use just enough politesse to defuse any potential situations. It is a difficult balance, and Eris knows I've messed up on it often enough.
This advice applies to everyone, not just you, by the bye. I hope that Zaval is reading this themself, as I think they could benefit from it.