4 ms·

> and they themselves don't You're assuming good faith where it's very clear that none exists. > name calling There's no name calling in there, only factuall

> and they themselves don't You're assuming good faith where it's very clear that none exists. > name calling There's no name calling in there, only factually accurate descriptions. > you are closing the door to any sort of constructive resolution No. Let's be honest here: Muse did that when they blocked me initially. Then they did it again when they failed to answer basic questions put to them by the community. Then they did it again with the threats to the chinese guy. Then I did it once. Then they did it again when they blocked me for raising this issue. > making accusations and name calling instead of asking an actual question. What accusation did I make? I've been over this supposed "name calling" already. I'll refrain from repeating myself. > i don't even know what you are asking there, and what kind of answer you expect from the developers. I've addressed this in my other comments here. I'd suggest you read them if you're actually looking for an answer to this. > i mean you are asking if anyone agrees with your interpretation of the lead devs statement. how does that help move the conversation forward? how does it help to resolve the issue? As I've already explained elsewhere, I was trying to gauge whether my interpretation was too paranoid. I was hoping that maybe the community might say "no, you're just paranoid". Instead the maintainer said in the strongest possible terms that I wasn't being paranoid enough. It helps to move the conversation forward by helping me decide whether I'm just paranoid, and by helping to establish whether there is any hope for the audacity project, or whether a fork is absolutely necessary (turns out it is). All of those data points are useful for resolving the issue. I will grant that perhaps I should have added a "legit question" or something in there since it would appear that most people incorrectly interpreted it as purely rhetorical. But I'd also point out that the reactions from the community are overwhelmingly in agreement with my assessment. > and what response do you expect from the lead dev on that? "yes"? I've answered that elsewhere already, too. See my other comments. > there is no answer that would be satisfactory. Not from the dev. But I wasn't asking them. > if we want to resolve this we, as concerned users, need to voice our concerns in such a way that the developers actually have a chance to make the necessary corrections and regain our trust. Again, you're assuming good faith where it's very clear that none exists. I'd argue that if we want to resolve this we, as concerned users, need to support an audacity fork ASAP. You have clearly not looked into this situation in enough depth. Muse have had and squandered multiple opportunities to regain our trust.

em-bee 5y ago
You're assuming good faith where it's very clear that none exists. if you want to work towards any resolution you must always assume good faith, otherwise why even bother talking to them. There's no name calling in there, only factually accurate descriptions. scumbag is name calling. whether it's justified is irrelevant. again, you must always assume good faith, otherwise there is no point in interacting at all. > you are closing the door to any sort of constructive resolution No. Let's be honest here: Muse did that when they blocked me initially. before that you accused them of including spyware. that's where you closed the door to a constructive response. yes, you were asking the community if they agree with that interpretation. but you asked it in front of the core developers. not the right place for that question. and it wasn't clear enough that that was your question. > i don't even know what you are asking there, and what kind of answer you expect from the developers. I've addressed this in my other comments here. yes, saw that. clear now. i wasn't able to see that from your initial message. But I'd also point out that the reactions from the community are overwhelmingly in agreement with my assessment. that doesn't excuse the tone. and that is not just addressed to you but to everyone who is just yelling at the developers instead of constructively pointing out the errors of their ways. > if we want to resolve this we, as concerned users, need to voice our concerns in such a way that the developers actually have a chance to make the necessary corrections and regain our trust. Again, you're assuming good faith where it's very clear that none exists. I'd argue that if we want to resolve this we, as concerned users, need to support an audacity fork ASAP. then do that and be done with it. if there is no point in talking to the original developers then why do it? especially in that tone? the civil thing would have been to just go with one of the forks and make statements like: "i supporting this fork because i disagree with the direction of development in audacity. the fork is removing any telemetry and related features because those are not welcome" there. end of story. nothing else is needed to add. You have clearly not looked into this situation in enough depth. Muse have had and squandered multiple opportunities to regain our trust. i am not disputing any of the accusations made against them. i take issue with the form and the tone in which those accusations are being made. if you want the developers and owners of audacity to listen, then walk away from their project, and make it clear that they are loosing their userbase. but don't yell at them. that's not helping. i would not listen to that. and i don't expect them to listen to that either.

em-bee 5y ago

You're assuming good faith where it's very clear that none exists. if you want to work towards any resolution you must always assume good faith, otherwise why even bother talking to them. There's no name calling in there, only factually accurate descriptions. scumbag is name calling. whether it's justified is irrelevant. again, you must always assume good faith, otherwise there is no point in interacting at all. > you are closing the door to any sort of constructive resolution No. Let's be honest here: Muse did that when they blocked me initially. before that you accused them of including spyware. that's where you closed the door to a constructive response. yes, you were asking the community if they agree with that interpretation. but you asked it in front of the core developers. not the right place for that question. and it wasn't clear enough that that was your question. > i don't even know what you are asking there, and what kind of answer you expect from the developers. I've addressed this in my other comments here. yes, saw that. clear now. i wasn't able to see that from your initial message. But I'd also point out that the reactions from the community are overwhelmingly in agreement with my assessment. that doesn't excuse the tone. and that is not just addressed to you but to everyone who is just yelling at the developers instead of constructively pointing out the errors of their ways. > if we want to resolve this we, as concerned users, need to voice our concerns in such a way that the developers actually have a chance to make the necessary corrections and regain our trust. Again, you're assuming good faith where it's very clear that none exists. I'd argue that if we want to resolve this we, as concerned users, need to support an audacity fork ASAP. then do that and be done with it. if there is no point in talking to the original developers then why do it? especially in that tone? the civil thing would have been to just go with one of the forks and make statements like: "i supporting this fork because i disagree with the direction of development in audacity. the fork is removing any telemetry and related features because those are not welcome" there. end of story. nothing else is needed to add. You have clearly not looked into this situation in enough depth. Muse have had and squandered multiple opportunities to regain our trust. i am not disputing any of the accusations made against them. i take issue with the form and the tone in which those accusations are being made. if you want the developers and owners of audacity to listen, then walk away from their project, and make it clear that they are loosing their userbase. but don't yell at them. that's not helping. i would not listen to that. and i don't expect them to listen to that either.