“hey, X is a dealbreaker for me, if this is not fixed please let me know so I can look for someone else”

“how dare you threaten me?”

I understand how one might feel attacked by an ultimatum, but a policy of rejecting ultimatums altogether only has the benefit of keeping pride intact, on the other hand it discourages people in your life from giving you a last chance, from communicating why they are leaving, and for letting them come back if the parting was amicable

best response is to just communicate you are not fixing X and parting ways amicably, no hard feelings. not only is it beneficial for the ultimated party, but it’s fair for the ultimating party, who is absolutely in their own right to rescind their voluntary relationship, in no way is it a threat to communicate that possibility, because a threat implies violence or damage.

▲

flaunf221 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> best response is to just communicate you are not fixing X

You mean the response that was already written in a previous message and the response user decided to ignore so they can pester more?

▲

dpark an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

An ultimatum is a threat. That’s literally the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum

Again, I did not say the threat in this case was inappropriate. It’s totally legitimate to say “this doesn’t work for me; change it or I’m out”. But it is a threat. We should be honest with what we are doing. If nothing else it makes it easier to understand (and predict) a defensive reaction when we understand and acknowledge a threat is being delivered.

▲

TZubiri an hour ago | parent [-]

there’s certainly an ambiguety in the word threat, where the main definition is about violent coercion, but it is sometimes used as a useful metaphoric shorthand.

and it’s very common for the usage to cause conflict, the exchange of “are you threatening me?” “no, i’m just telling you what I’ll do” is very common.

i personally wouldn’t use it as a shorthand when there’s no violence or punitory damage implied, unless I purposefully wanted to escalate things. it’s a word that refers to violence, so it will harsh the vibes instantly

a key element of coercion (and this is deeply studied in law so there is less subjectivity than regular language) is that the hypothetical presented cause a damage, and then the avoidance of that damage is traded for a positive action. it doesn’t really apply to a case where a person exercises their right (to leave) and it only secondarily (or not at all) causes a damage, there is no intent to harm and no manipulation of the other into acting one way to avoid that harm.

in the context of leaving a relationship, it might make some sense only if there’s a contract, or even some sense of loyalty that is expected from an extracontractual custom, we are talking marriages or (arguably) employment or religious affiliation, where bonds and codependence are formed. but invoking that treatment for strangers on an as-is warrantyless usage contract? nah

▲

dpark an hour ago | parent [-]

A threat can be violence but it’s not necessarily so. A threat is an expression of a negative result if something is not done. The negative could be violence, monetary loss, embarrassment, end of a relationship, or any other negative.

Definitely not delving into legal definitions of coercion because I am not a lawyer and it is not relevant here.

> and it’s very common for the usage to cause conflict, the exchange of “are you threatening me?” “no, i’m just telling you what I’ll do” is very common.

I think you mean that threats are a common cause of conflict. “Are you threatening me?” “No, I’m merely posing a negative outcome that I will inflict if you don’t do what I want. Totally not a threat. Definitely not.”

▲

nklow 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

>a negative outcome that I will inflict

And what exactly is the negative outcome being inflicted by someone not using the software? What is the injury or harm, and to who?

	▲	dpark 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That was pretty clear from the comment, no? 1. The software will have one less user. (Implication was potentially many fewer given “we” would uninstall.) 2. The software will have one more competing product (forked from their own work). Most people willing to put their time and energy into building software for others would consider losing users to be a moderate negative and having their work potentially forked and having to compete with a derivative a strong negative. “We will fork” is a strong threat. It is basically a statement that “we” will fight the maintainer for the effective future of the project. Many open source projects have been eclipsed by their own forks.