> But Discourse's goal is to raise the bar. Significantly.
Well then it's probably not the right place for ember, because programmers don't behave that way, and your response has been to lock down all forms of criticism, even things you find to be in keeping with internet and programmer culture.
That's criticism you need - criticism you say is in keeping with the culture, and that you say you've been actively soliciting.
.
> "[the sarcasm] still deviates from the high quality of discussion I'd like to have"
I think what you might be missing is that nobody else is reading it that way except you. Most of us are trying to tell you "guy, you're being way over-sensitive, and you aren't rising on your own to the standards you set for others."
.
> "I opted to publicly explain why I wouldn't be participating."
And the response you got was "you're lowering the bar; stop it."
And you have dug your heels in to insist you're doing the right thing.
We disagree.
.
> "What I failed to do, and this shows my failing to keep that high bar, is explain what we could change to make the discussion civil."
What you could have done is responded to the actual legitimate criticism, which you pay lip service to being appropriate in typical internet culture.
Dancing around it then shutting the topic off is not a form of keeping a high bar, sir. It is my opinion that this phrasing is self congratulatory, so that you don't have to face the nature of what you're actually doing.
Have you considered that your behavior here is doing serious damage to the reputation of the ember community?
It doesn't really matter if you agree with yourself; the rest of us don't. Repeating yourself, "clarifying" yourself; these things don't matter.
In reality, someone joked around, told you what they needed; you paniced, and yelled at them for giving you what you pretend you want. Then you told everyone "oh this is totally appropriate, but Discourse wants something else."
Except Discourse didn't do this. You did.
Please understand, sir, that to the rest of us, you just appear to be back-pedalling and blame shifting.
To the rest of us, it looks like you barked at someone because you didn't want to know that your role as documentation maintainer had not been well fulfilled.
And "explaining" won't change that that's how this is being interpreted, because if that's what really was going on, someone would respond by "explaining."
Civil discussion doesn't mean discussion you like, and it doesn't actually exclude sarcasm, either. What civil discussion is is factually based discussion which does not make personal attacks.
He didn't make personal attacks. You did, extensively, in three places that I'm aware of.
If you find him to be uncivil, get a mirror.