i've been adding a lot of "rules" to my posts on here about what kind of replies I want ("no starting arguments!” "no explaining what a git commit is!”)

Here's a thread about why! Some of my goals are:

1. have nuanced discussions & stay on topic
2. hear from a diverse set of people
3. learn new things about how people use computers

let’s talk about each of them!

(1/11)

goal 1 is: have nuanced discussions! stay on topic!

When I started writing about git on here, every single time I made a post, people would reply with a HUGE range of thoughts and opinions about git which were totally unrelated to the question I asked.

This was a problem because it meant we could only have extremely surface level-discussions, and people’s hot takes were VERY repetitive. It felt like I was in a time loop — I even made a bingo card about it https://wizardzines.com/comics/git-discussion-bingo

(2/11)

When I say things like “please do not reply saying that you prefer rebase over merge”, it’s not because I think people who prefer rebase are “wrong”.

It’s because I’m trying to dig deeper and have a more nuanced discussion about a specific topic and I don’t want a very common opinion (“rebase is better than merge!”) to drown out other perspectives.

(3/11)

goal 2 is: hear from a diverse set of people!

I spent about 16 years on Twitter. Over time, I noticed that the people in my replies became pretty homogenous: for example I heard from women much less often than I wanted to.

I eventually realized that this was because I was allowing people to behave in a variety of unpleasant ways in my replies that was offputting.

(4/11)