 | | | | | | |
| |
|
This whole thing has gotten me thinking -- Matthew was out to prove a point,
right? Matthew is also a jerk and has serious problems, right. But, just
because he carried himself *very* poorly here doesn't mean he might not have
something valuable to say to us. I'm just trying to think if there's
anything about this community that is out of whack, like he suggested.
I was talking to a friend yesterday about the whole deal - someone who has
slipped away from Lugnet intentionally but unnoticed. That person feels
that the community is elitist, and from that person's perspective I
understand. They feel that when they post here people ignore them, that
they're a good candidate to kill a thread, etc. I don't like it that my
friend has had that experience here.
One thing we all know, this is a *community* and communities are made up of
people with vastly differing opinions and backgrounds. Different tastes,
levels of tolerance, etc. We've seen a pretty bad case here demonstrated
yesterday. I doubt anyone currently in the community would repeat such
actions. But something must have triggered that, whether it was Matthew's
own personal problem, his genuine experience with the people a few years
ago, or a combination of both. I'm just asking myself out loud what might
be our problem, if we have one. I certainly don't want to see anyone hurt
by this group of people. Unfortunately we had a very upstanding member of
this group leave a couple weeks ago from frustrations.
So I open it up for thoughts on the issue, and am willing to discuss and
examine just the same myself. Anyone?
And someone slap me if I'm crazy. I'm writing this because I think that
what we saw yesterday was pretty serious, and if the community has anything
to do with it I'd like to see that change. If it was all Matthew and
whatever he was smoking, that's all fine and dandy I s'pose.
Peace all...
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> This whole thing has gotten me thinking -- Matthew was out to prove a point,
> right? Matthew is also a jerk and has serious problems, right. But, just
> because he carried himself *very* poorly here doesn't mean he might not have
> something valuable to say to us. I'm just trying to think if there's
> anything about this community that is out of whack, like he suggested.
I think you're on to something there. There have been some not very nice
incidents. It's so easy for us, in the heat of the moment, to let our
indignation climb until we say things we might not have meant to say in a
calmer moment.
No one has a right not to be offended but... we're a small group compared to
the vast sea of NL mundanes, many of who are not very understanding, or even
actively hostile in a few cases. The last thing we want to do is make our
group smaller by chasing people (who have valid contributions to make, unlike
our recent MadCap visitor) away.
Is this not a common problem in small communities? Anything in the psych
literature, or shall we just begin building cloud castles to try to understand
it.. (or just do the "let's all be nicer to each other" speech and let it rest
for a while)... I dunno.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Tim Courtney wrote in message ...
> This whole thing has gotten me thinking -- Matthew was out to prove a • point,
> right? Matthew is also a jerk and has serious problems, right. But, just
> because he carried himself *very* poorly here doesn't mean he might not • have
> something valuable to say to us. I'm just trying to think if there's
> anything about this community that is out of whack, like he suggested.
>
> I was talking to a friend yesterday about the whole deal - someone who has
> slipped away from Lugnet intentionally but unnoticed. That person feels
> that the community is elitist, and from that person's perspective I
> understand. They feel that when they post here people ignore them, that
> they're a good candidate to kill a thread, etc. I don't like it that my
> friend has had that experience here.
I think your friend is right... As a newcommer, I also have this experience.
But I think that is common in a "community", in whatever media it is
represented in.
Sometimes it feels like there is an "internal" bunch of people, that you can
not enter without making a lot of noice...
But that is also something that happens when you have allready discussed a
topic a gazillion times before...
To enter this "internal" bunch, you really have to be intelligent and read a
huge amount of posts to know how to reach them. Or to make a lot of noice...
Maybe there is a "Ignore Stupid NewCommer, and People Without Expert
Knowledge" filter somewhere, LOL.
I'm not saying that this is bad, it's just from a personal "newcommers"
view. Other newcommers most likely will disagree, as they maybe found a more
interesting topic or have more social skills than I do.
> One thing we all know, this is a *community* and communities are made up of
> people with vastly differing opinions and backgrounds. Different tastes,
> levels of tolerance, etc. We've seen a pretty bad case here demonstrated
> yesterday. I doubt anyone currently in the community would repeat such
> actions. But something must have triggered that, whether it was Matthew's
> own personal problem, his genuine experience with the people a few years
> ago, or a combination of both. I'm just asking myself out loud what might
> be our problem, if we have one. I certainly don't want to see anyone hurt
> by this group of people. Unfortunately we had a very upstanding member of
> this group leave a couple weeks ago from frustrations.
>
> So I open it up for thoughts on the issue, and am willing to discuss and
> examine just the same myself. Anyone?
If I had the ability to express myself in this language, I could give you
some more thoughts. Well I'll try it anyway...
For example:
If Matthew and Jude had known each other personally a long time, Matthews
post could have been a joke, and not an act of rudeness. Some people do have
this kind o humor, I sure have.
As most of the "internal" people know each other and know how to make a joke
to each other, it will probably pass as a joke, with no further 'flamage"
from others. When i first saw Matthews response, i found it rude, but I did
not react, as I did not know if they knew each other. I just waited for the
"internal" peoples responses, and then joined the mob...
(arghh, i hope you get the picture, stupid language)
> And someone slap me if I'm crazy. I'm writing this because I think that
> what we saw yesterday was pretty serious, and if the community has anything
> to do with it I'd like to see that change. If it was all Matthew and
> whatever he was smoking, that's all fine and dandy I s'pose.
Well, he is probably smoking something that makes him lack some of the
basics of social skills...
When he decides to improve these skills, I think Todd will let him in to the
community again.
You are not crazy, it was one of the more intelligent posts I have ever
seen.
And with a great topic.
Play Well!
(please ignore bad spelling and grammar)
/Joakim, Sweden
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> From: "Joakim Olsson" <jocke@arjay.nu>
>
>
> I think your friend is right... As a newcommer, I also have this experience.
> But I think that is common in a "community", in whatever media it is
> represented in.
> Sometimes it feels like there is an "internal" bunch of people, that you can
> not enter without making a lot of noice...
> But that is also something that happens when you have allready discussed a
> topic a gazillion times before...
>
> To enter this "internal" bunch, you really have to be intelligent and read a
> huge amount of posts to know how to reach them. Or to make a lot of noice...
>
> Maybe there is a "Ignore Stupid NewCommer, and People Without Expert
> Knowledge" filter somewhere, LOL.
>
> I'm not saying that this is bad, it's just from a personal "newcommers"
> view. Other newcommers most likely will disagree, as they maybe found a more
> interesting topic or have more social skills than I do.
I haven't been on Lugnet very long, but whenever someone identifies
themselves as being new, I will try to welcome them and give them some
comments. If someone just posts something like "Hey look at this" I often
don't respond to it (unless I'm particularly impressed), because I figure
maybe someone else knows them and might respond to their post. I read a lot
of topics on Lugnet, so I don't necessarily respond to _everything_.
However, given the recent events, I for one will try to be mindful of
newcomers and be as welcoming as I can. I don't think I've been here long
enough to consider myself 'leet.
~Mark
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> This whole thing has gotten me thinking -- Matthew was out to prove a point,
> right? Matthew is also a jerk and has serious problems, right. But, just
> because he carried himself *very* poorly here doesn't mean he might not have
> something valuable to say to us. I'm just trying to think if there's
> anything about this community that is out of whack, like he suggested.
A little introspection can be healthy, too much self analysis can be
paalyzing and counter-productive.
I believe that any valid points he had to make were outweighed by his
aggressive, nay combative, immature, and myopic attitude. However, when put
forth as you have above, this topic is worthy of discussion or at least a
passing thought.
BUT,
Keep in mind, subsequent discussions could also polarize the audience even
more...
> I was talking to a friend yesterday about the whole deal - someone who has
> slipped away from Lugnet intentionally but unnoticed. That person feels
> that the community is elitist, and from that person's perspective I
> understand.
If you are making reference to the person I think you are, I miss his input.
(if it is this person, his webpage as what drew me into the online Lego
community)
I can see how outsiders and many community members can view ths community as
elitist. Some people's models are considered superior while other's are
ignored. One person's widget may receive a standing ovation while a less
recognizable name may be overlooked. (sometimes this may be based on model
scale/size or perceived "quality", other times it's a popularity contest ...
nothing more)
Remember the bitter article rating system and subsequent discussions? If
there was ever an example of perceived elites, it was during that time
period. Remember auction announcements by some (including one of mine) being
low-balled for a bad link or some other undisclosed reason?
In any highschool, workplace, community, or society there are outspoken
leaders, practiced politicians, stubborn bosses, wild rock stars,
"beautiful" people, popular cliques, lovable rogues, loudmouthed
philosophers, inspired artists et al. However, for each one of these, there
are many more observers, spectators, critics, independents etc. that
generally make up a silent majority. Many of these people may not care to
participate based on a variety of reasons from time constraints to
embarassment. Some may feel intimidated because their collections are
small, they don't have a website/digicam, or thay don't feel like
"competing" for attention and seeking approval.
Some people relish particpating in discussions while others prefer to
listen. Still more may feel that they have nothing to add of substance,
even when they do.
> They feel that when they post here people ignore them, that
> they're a good candidate to kill a thread, etc. I don't like it that my
> friend has had that experience here.
I am willing to believe that I am a "master thread killer"...have been since
I joined Lugnet (what, about 3 years ago?) ... has it changed much?...nope
Have I had the same experience? Yes
Is it frustrating? Yes, but Not as much as it used to be
Am I deeply disturbed by it? No
Sometimes, when you are passionate about something or think you have
something to offer, you want others to listen to you, comment, support you,
or tell you that you are mistaken. However, given the limited means of
communication here, if you type something and no one replies...how do you
know your opinion has even been heard? You don't. 100 people could have
read it...or none at all.
Many of these issues can be a complex mixture of self image,
pride,enthusiasm, or just a bad day at work.
I refuse to give up though = )
...SNIP...
>I doubt anyone currently in the community would repeat such
> actions. But something must have triggered that, whether it was Matthew's
> own personal problem, his genuine experience with the people a few years
> ago, or a combination of both.
Matthew is Matthew. I don't think his extreme case is a viable example, but
I think there may be some wisdom that can be gained from a general
discussion. Some people can say that the community, society, whatever made
him this way (an age old argument akin to genetics vs. socialization). If
this world pushed him over the edge, the real world must be a frightening place.
>I'm just asking myself out loud what might
> be our problem, if we have one. I certainly don't want to see anyone hurt
> by this group of people. Unfortunately we had a very upstanding member of
> this group leave a couple weeks ago from frustrations.
What's more devastating, the member who leaves or the one that is too
intimidated to join?
Any community or group has growing pains. As a society or majority move in
one direction or subscribe to a particular vision, others may disagree and
fade away, overrun, outvoted, or berated into submission. These individuals
may not be negative or threatening, their opinions simply don't agree w/
many others or conform to tradition. If the group actively disenfranchises
these people, they and their contribution are lost. If the group at least
listens, discusses, or recognizes the ideas before deciding to keep or
discard them the group may be healthier overall.
What if : all the Train people said "we only discuss 6 wide cars and 4 wide
town vehicles...anything else is crap"
What if: all the Castleheads decreed, " All castles must be gray and
black... we will not accept any others"
> So I open it up for thoughts on the issue, and am willing to discuss and
> examine just the same myself. Anyone?
> And someone slap me if I'm crazy. I'm writing this because I think that
> what we saw yesterday was pretty serious, and if the community has anything
> to do with it I'd like to see that change.
I think the recent events were serious in terms of cortey and respect, but I
would hesitate to blame the community fr creating that particular monster.
This was an individual that delights in exposing the flawed nature of
humanity and revels in emotional upheaval.
I think the community has some things to ponder, but not solely because of
Matthew.
>If it was all Matthew and
> whatever he was smoking, that's all fine and dandy I s'pose.
Thatis quite possible too...
> Peace all...
> --
>
> Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
>
> http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
> http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
>
> ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John Robert-Blaze Kanehl wrote:
<snip>
> What if : all the Train people said "we only discuss 6 wide cars and 4 wide
> town vehicles...anything else is crap"
<snip>
Well, I doubt *all* would say that....;-)
-John "8 wide or death" Neal
>
>
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
>
> John Robert-Blaze Kanehl wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > What if : all the Train people said "we only discuss 6 wide cars and 4 wide
> > town vehicles...anything else is crap"
>
> <snip>
>
> Well, I doubt *all* would say that....;-)
I suspect he was positing a rhetorical...
>
> -John "8 wide or death" Neal
Way to be open minded and inclusionary there, son. :-)
(lurkers, Mr8wide and I go way back, there's no real hostility there (well
maybe when John looks in the mirror, but I digress).
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> This whole thing has gotten me thinking -- Matthew was out to prove a point,
> right? Matthew is also a jerk and has serious problems, right. But, just
> because he carried himself *very* poorly here doesn't mean he might not have
> something valuable to say to us. I'm just trying to think if there's
> anything about this community that is out of whack, like he suggested.
Ok...I occasionally babble, I'm long winded (and unrepentently so...), and I
am a fanataical advocate of commonly disparaged themes. That's my
contribution to the wackiness of this community... (hey, every village needs
an idiot or madman)
> I was talking to a friend yesterday about the whole deal - someone who has
> slipped away from Lugnet intentionally but unnoticed. That person feels
> that the community is elitist, and from that person's perspective I
> understand. They feel that when they post here people ignore them, that
> they're a good candidate to kill a thread, etc. I don't like it that my
> friend has had that experience here.
A couple of anecdotes for you...
I had a friend who was Hip-hop DJ that used to love "breakin' out the
bricks" for a couple hours after we would get back from consuming adult
beverages at the local club. He would always make comments to me about not
lettin "the crew" (our other drinkin buddies) know that he liked to build
spaceships when he was intoxicated. He admitted to having a Lego stash that
he would hide from his roomate and girlfriend. In a phone conversation, I
told him about Lugnet. In a subsequent conversation he said, "it's cool and
a little weird" that there are ALOT of Lego builders and websites devoted to
Lego and that people spend so much time building. He commented that he was
a little embarassed being almost 30 and liking the same toys as his son. In
reference to LUGNET, he said, "hey, I like Star Trek too, but I am not a
Trekkie...those people scare me" Ultimately, Lego is a guilty pleasure for
him and he feels no compulsion/passion to do more than play a little and
look at some pics.
Locally, I know a guy that is an avid builder, but he is very private, kinda
stubborn, and has no desire to really become part of an on-line group. I
pointed him towards LUGNET and he was thrilled to go through the mech and
space links. He likes pictures, but could care less about ANYTHING else.
He thinks discussing Lego is like watching sports... If you can go outside
and do it, why watch someone else. He also commented that building a
website probably too much longer than building anything you would put on it.
A quote "If you are gonna build, BUILD! Don't just talk about it" (this led
to a lengthy spirited discussion about the merits of sharing ideas)
In these 2 cases, the people had different priorities and LUGNET did not
fulfill their needs... will it ever, maybe...time will tell. Lugnet was not
elitist per se, it just didn't meet their needs. Overall, I have pointed
dozens of auction winners and acquaintences towards Lugnet, 90% of which
have viewed it as a Godsend. Some others have commented that they lurk on
LUGNET because:
They only like to build/collect sets+ not create MOCs
They don't have a huge collection
They don't have a digicam or a website
They don't wish to "compete for attention"
They believe LUGNET is primarily a "U.S. thing"
Too many others know much more about Lego than they do
SNIP
> I certainly don't want to see anyone hurt
> by this group of people. Unfortunately we had a very upstanding member of
> this group leave a couple weeks ago from frustrations.
> So I open it up for thoughts on the issue, and am willing to discuss and
> examine just the same myself. Anyone?
Ok to discuss this issue and elitism consider a few points:
Do you value one member's opinion above another?
Do you read certain posts in a thread because "todd" or someone else wrote it?
Are you skeptical of strangers?
Do you rate the opinions, MOCS, etc. of established members higher than
"newbies" or "right" or "better"?
Do you seek approval of one individual or group over another?
Are you disappointed if no one comments on your post in a thread?
Do you think some members get preferrential treatment?
Do you think a group or person excludes or discourages other individals or
groups?
Do you like to interact w/ likeminded indviduals or groups?
There are many more related questions, but these are just a few. I can
honestly say YES to all of the above since I have been on LUGNET.
For my part...
I will always look at a craigo creation (because I have been impressed by
his work)
I try to catch all of the posts in . Pirates from Lndsay (because I learn
something) and Richard Parsons because I like the dry wit and interesting
pictures
I will value some opinios over other because they are consistent or
insightful (Gary Istok's commentary on elements)
I cringed when I saw matt posts here because i remember the flame war that
buried rtl as a viable discussion forum and brought me here
I think some members are worshipped, coddled, and praised... some have
earned a place of respect due to their contributions and knowledge (which is
the natural order of things) and some have endeared themselves to the masses.
I believe that is the nature of groups and group interactions. Every
community has various components, factions, leaders, followers, etc. The
United States is 1 country with 50 seperate divisions which are further
subdivided into counties,cities, towns, neighboorhoods, citizens, etc.
LUGNET is an on-line community of Lego enthusiasts with how many sub-groups,
themes, clubs, etc? I can say the same thing about my family, my church,
the local pub, or my neighborhood. The essence of which is the desire of
one person to share with other likeminded individuals. Elites, cliques,
clubs become a natural evolution. Life ain't fair, Schtick happens, and
contrary to some beliefs, everyone does not necesarily like everyone else.
However, that does not mean that we should ignore the contributions of
others or disrespect them. Why not offer encouragement to "newbies"? Why
not be open minded? Why not act as a community? (say Hello to the aussies
or read .space instead of just castle once in awhile.)
I think their has been an ABSOLUTELY AMAZING evolution/revolution in
building in the past couple years. This may both encourage and discourage
others. "newbies" and "de-lurkers" have been coming out of the woodwork for
quite awhile. Why not foster a friendly environment that kindles a passion
in the ambivalent or says "come on in and sit awhile"? (I don't mean 12
steps, group therapy, "let's all hug" and cume-baya here folks... I would be
the first to hurl = )
> And someone slap me if I'm crazy. I'm writing this because I think that
> what we saw yesterday was pretty serious, and if the community has anything
> to do with it I'd like to see that change. If it was all Matthew and
> whatever he was smoking, that's all fine and dandy I s'pose.
>
> Peace all...
> --
>
> Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
In reference to the Matt issue... My objections were to the antagonistic
manner in which he presented himself. I think critique and commentary are
essential elements of this hobby, but he approached the process in a
negative/destructive way. I don't wish to ban criticism, debate, or
discussion in favor, I just think we can do it in a positive+friendly way.
The Ultimate lesson of Matt Moulton can be a positive one...
THE STRENGTH OF LUGNET IS THAT IT IS A COMMUNITY...
The fact that the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts is evident
here. Why not rejoice in it? That which Matt sought to destroy may yet
become stronger from his passing.
John
> http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
> http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
>
> ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
> Ok...I occasionally babble, I'm long winded (and unrepentently so...), and I
> am a fanataical advocate of commonly disparaged themes. That's my
> contribution to the wackiness of this community... (hey, every village needs
> an idiot or madman)
Hey don't worry about it - I personally enjoy your posts anyways :)
[...]
> In these 2 cases, the people had different priorities and LUGNET did not
> fulfill their needs... will it ever, maybe...time will tell.
Both of those cases are understandable. Because of the word 'Community' here -
there will be ALL types, even types who don't find it useful to devote time
here. Hopefully they'll find some benefit from its existance, but if they
don't, let them build in peace.
[snip elitist examination questions]
I can probably answer yes to all of those questions too.
In my niche here (CAD) there are a lot of times I'll value the opinion of a
long time contributor over that of a newbie - because I know and trust the
person. Not that it's right.
Yes, I'll read certain peoples' posts first, for whatever reason.
One thing is I do get disappointed if I don't get replies - that might not be
an ego thing, but just the way my personality works. I work off of feedback.
No one replied to my Spamcake To Go rendering I posted last week, which was
surprising to me because it was a hit at Kidvention, and with every Lugnut
I've shown in person. But that doesn't mean that people haven't seen it and
haven't enjoyed it.
I think groups exclude people based on signal to noise ratio a bit myself. In
groups like space, you'll get the serious MOC making people, and the 'newbies'
(usually younger) who will say 'why don't you make this?' 'lego should make
this?' 'zapp pow bang!' - and those generally get looked over. Its
unfortunate, but are those people really constructive to the group? Is this
acceptable, because its the way societies function?? Dunno...
And I could go on...
> I think some members are worshipped, coddled, and praised... some have
> earned a place of respect due to their contributions and knowledge (which is
> the natural order of things) and some have endeared themselves to the masses.
Yep, of course.
[snip factions paragraph]
> Schtick happens, and
> contrary to some beliefs, everyone does not necesarily like everyone else.
Unfortunately not. I've got people here I don't like - but its part of life
that I have to deal with them in my interactions here. That doesn't
necessarily make me elitist, but it doesn't necessarily make me not elitist.
> However, that does not mean that we should ignore the contributions of
> others or disrespect them. Why not offer encouragement to "newbies"? Why
> not be open minded? Why not act as a community? (say Hello to the aussies
> or read .space instead of just castle once in awhile.)
I think that when we see newbies with talent we instantly absorb them and they
become 'one of the gang.' (I'm sure if Dan Jassim had a computer and access,
he'd fit right in) But there are some who struggle at first, and have to make
their way on their own.
When I started on RTL 4 years ago, I wasn't instantly accepted. I was a 14
year old kid with no real knowledge of how to communicate effectively without
offending people online. My website was less than stellar (Zacktron..heck,
its not killer now even ;) - I was the little brat of the group. For certain
views, I was practically flamed out of there.
So I took a breather, gathered some resolve, and came back, and made the best
of it. One thing lead to another - alongside this I had been playing with web
stuff etc. and the opportunity came to take on the ldraw.org project. I did
it because I liked making sites and this needed a site. I didn't do it
because I am super knowledgable of LDraw or LCAD stuff - I knew more than most
but still, I couldn't tell you half the utilities to this day and what they
do. And POV, me? Forget it :)
Now for some, I'm one of those people who you say is practically worshipped.
For others, I'm a noisemaker, but everyone has their opinions. I don't think
its practically comfortable to be worshipped, nor is it the easiest being high
profile in the group.
But despite all of this, I've been trying to teach myself not to act elitist
or like an elite towards others, even newbies.
> I think their has been an ABSOLUTELY AMAZING evolution/revolution in
> building in the past couple years.
For certain!!
> This may both encourage and discourage
> others. "newbies" and "de-lurkers" have been coming out of the woodwork for
> quite awhile. Why not foster a friendly environment that kindles a passion
> in the ambivalent or says "come on in and sit awhile"? (I don't mean 12
> steps, group therapy, "let's all hug" and cume-baya here folks... I would be
> the first to hurl = )
I agree with you there.
> The Ultimate lesson of Matt Moulton can be a positive one...
>
> THE STRENGTH OF LUGNET IS THAT IT IS A COMMUNITY...
> The fact that the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts is evident
> here. Why not rejoice in it? That which Matt sought to destroy may yet
> become stronger from his passing.
And hopefully it will do just that.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
> > Ok...I occasionally babble, I'm long winded (and unrepentently so...), and I
> > am a fanataical advocate of commonly disparaged themes. That's my
> > contribution to the wackiness of this community... (hey, every village needs
> > an idiot or madman)
>
> Hey don't worry about it - I personally enjoy your posts anyways :)
Aye. And remember, this is a discussion forum. Some very good posts don't
lend themselves to further discussion, and so don't get much (or any)
follow-up. And some very crummy posts get tons of followup.
> In my niche here (CAD) there are a lot of times I'll value the opinion of a
> long time contributor over that of a newbie - because I know and trust the
> person. Not that it's right.
Not that it's wrong either. Trust is an important issue. I don't have
time to sit down and thouroughly process through everything posted on
LUGNET. I depend a lot on familiarity with the people I'm reading messages
from, or responding to. This can make it harder for new people to 'break
in', but it's not impossible.
Communication skills help a lot. If a post shows very poor communication
skills, it's going to take more to get me to pay attention to it. Is that
elitist? Maybe. It's just another time issue -- I don't have time for
everything, and I'm trying to get (and give) the most value for my time.
> Yes, I'll read certain peoples' posts first, for whatever reason.
There are two people I used to look for, for responses to "Look at my MOC!"
posts. If Terry K. or Jeremy S. responded with a "that's great!" post,
then I'd go look at the MOC. They never steered me wrong.
> One thing is I do get disappointed if I don't get replies - that might not be
> an ego thing, but just the way my personality works. I work off of feedback.
> No one replied to my Spamcake To Go rendering I posted last week, which was
> surprising to me because it was a hit at Kidvention, and with every Lugnut
> I've shown in person. But that doesn't mean that people haven't seen it and
> haven't enjoyed it.
I'm still looking at it -- I immediately made it my background/wallpaper.
:)
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > In my niche here (CAD) there are a lot of times I'll value the opinion of a
> > long time contributor over that of a newbie - because I know and trust the
> > person. Not that it's right.
>
> Not that it's wrong either. Trust is an important issue. I don't have
> time to sit down and thouroughly process through everything posted on
> LUGNET. I depend a lot on familiarity with the people I'm reading messages
> from, or responding to. This can make it harder for new people to 'break
> in', but it's not impossible.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this... there is *nothing wrong*
with being elitist... as long as it's a meritocracy. In large part, that *is*
the way things operate in a lot of groups, there are people who most people
know are contributors, or who know who they are talking about, and whose words
tend to get more weight.
That is a good thing.
And what's great about compartmentalisation is that there are so MANY groups
for people to participate in and for them to shine in. Experts in one are only
novices in others.
Where things go a bit wrong is where cliques form, based on not merit, but
that sense of closeness that shuts out valid contributors. Fresh ideas are
good. There's a balance in there somewhere. This is a great topic, I wish I
had more time.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> And what's great about compartmentalisation is that there are so MANY groups
> for people to participate in and for them to shine in. Experts in one are only
> novices in others.
Three cheers for compartmentalized dorks! >;-D
-John
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > And what's great about compartmentalisation is that there are so MANY groups
> > for people to participate in and for them to shine in. Experts in one are only
> > novices in others.
>
> Three cheers for compartmentalized dorks! >;-D
I don't think is the right group for that...
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
>
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > > And what's great about compartmentalisation is that there are so MANY groups
> > > for people to participate in and for them to shine in. Experts in one are only
> > > novices in others.
> >
> > Three cheers for compartmentalized dorks! >;-D
> I don't think is the right group for that...
Sorry, couldn't resist when I saw the word "compartmentalisation". I'm sure you
remember that little flap in RTL about a year ago...
Actually, the post was just simply my little way of posting "I agree". Unless you
want to argue whether my comment belongs in this group, in which case the discussion
would;-)
-John
>
>
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> Steve Bliss wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> >
> > > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > >
> > > > And what's great about compartmentalisation is that there are so MANY groups
> > > > for people to participate in and for them to shine in. Experts in one are only
> > > > novices in others.
> > >
> > > Three cheers for compartmentalized dorks! >;-D
>
> > I don't think is the right group for that...
>
> Sorry, couldn't resist when I saw the word "compartmentalisation". I'm sure you
> remember that little flap in RTL about a year ago...
>
> Actually, the post was just simply my little way of posting "I agree". Unless you
> want to argue whether my comment belongs in this group, in which case the discussion
> would;-)
Sorry, I just left off the winkey. ;)
It takes a compartmentalized dork to argue about the right place to
celebrate compartmentalized dork-dom.
:)
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Steve Bliss wrote:
>
> It takes a compartmentalized dork to argue about the right place to
> celebrate compartmentalized dork-dom.
:-) Thanks for the chuckle, Steve!
-John
> :)
>
> Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi Tim,
Actually, I'm also thinking the subject of "is lugnet elitist?" from
time to time, and even throw out some of my 0.02 Turkish liras about the
subject in some cases, both in RTL and here in Lugnet. I'm strongly
against elitism and alienating newcomers from the place.
I also think that this pathetic person is completely out of subject
here. Look at the thread and his stupendous replies, look at the thread
in RTL from Dejanews that he mentioned over and over (he was posting as
madhater, it was not 3 years ago, it must be 1 or 1.5 at most), look at
the fictitious chat and his insane reasoning about why we are so evil as
a community in his web site. He is sick, he has no cure, he is a
complete waste of terran resources. He is an *** **** either naturally,
or by training and no one can be responsible from it.
Back to the subject, we are here from very different parts of this
planet, with very different characters, backgrounds, interests,
cultures, understanding, tolerances, incomes, rules, etc. However we are
still a community. Maybe the only common thing between some of the
people here is the love of the brick, but we still obey some written and
unwritten rules here, mostly nothing but the common sense.
Being a community, besides from the rules, also has its own natures.
Every community has its famous people, i.e. "unofficial leader types". I
don't call this elitism. If you are manager of a big project (like you
and Ldraw organization), if you spend more than anyone here at the
community (like Larry and some others), if you are a knowledgeable Lego
historian (like Gary), if you are owner of the whole thing (like Todd),
if you are a master microfig builder (like Jeremy and Karim), if you
provide some worthy tools for the purpose (like Ldraw and James,
Brickshelf and Kevin, Brickset and Huw) you will be famous, well known
and respected, possibly more than the others. And of course this
examples can be widened much more than this. Some people are also famous
here by just being nice and helpful to others (like Shiri). Everyone
free to be famous here, just as everyone is free to participate.
Elitism, in my mind, is not allowing people to participate who is not a
famous one.
Of course not all the people, actually most of the people here including
me, has not enough means to be famous, some don't have the time, some
don't have the money, some don't have the courage, some don't mind to be
one. As I always said, Lego is not the purpose of my life, just as for
most of the others I think, it's just a spare time fun.
The point here is, if someone is distinguishable from the crowd by
anything he/she perform that relates to the founding purpose of the
community, he/she will be famous than the other participants of the
community. If you are distinguishable, then naturally you are rare, and
rare means "not for everyone". People should accept this. I know my
level of contribution, I know my level of dedication, so I'm happy with
my level of "popularity". Most of my messages went without any replies,
but who cares. I'm one of the most veteran members of Lugnet, but I'm
not so popular around. Many people might even wonder when they see my
member number (#4) who is this guy? When posting a message I mostly just
throwing my 0.02 Turkish Liras and every one has the freedom of taking
it or not, just as me. I already accepted that in full extend. And I
also know that if I say something worthy enough, it will have enough
response.
The other point should made be clear that, I'm strongly against any
forced "leadership" or "popularity", which is the true elitism. Let the
popularity and or leadership go naturally. I objected before to both
"Lugnet Police Force" and "article rating" issues only for this reason.
In addition to this, communities might have some touchy subjects. Ldraw
is one of the examples to our touchy subjects. I clearly remember that I
had been flamed in L-CAD mailing list (before Lugnet) since just I
talked about changing the naming convention of Ldraw parts. But I didn't
feel that this is some alienating approach from the veterans, I reworded
my complaints, that it had been accepted.
Being alienated can be (mostly) related to having expectations which is
unreasonably high. This also works for any community, any group of
people, either virtual or real.
In brief, I believe our community is not an elitist one in its current
form. And I wish this will continue like that.
Selçuk
Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> This whole thing has gotten me thinking -- Matthew was out to prove a point,
> right? Matthew is also a jerk and has serious problems, right. But, just
> because he carried himself *very* poorly here doesn't mean he might not have
> something valuable to say to us. I'm just trying to think if there's
> anything about this community that is out of whack, like he suggested.
>
> I was talking to a friend yesterday about the whole deal - someone who has
> slipped away from Lugnet intentionally but unnoticed. That person feels
> that the community is elitist, and from that person's perspective I
> understand. They feel that when they post here people ignore them, that
> they're a good candidate to kill a thread, etc. I don't like it that my
> friend has had that experience here.
>
> One thing we all know, this is a *community* and communities are made up of
> people with vastly differing opinions and backgrounds. Different tastes,
> levels of tolerance, etc. We've seen a pretty bad case here demonstrated
> yesterday. I doubt anyone currently in the community would repeat such
> actions. But something must have triggered that, whether it was Matthew's
> own personal problem, his genuine experience with the people a few years
> ago, or a combination of both. I'm just asking myself out loud what might
> be our problem, if we have one. I certainly don't want to see anyone hurt
> by this group of people. Unfortunately we had a very upstanding member of
> this group leave a couple weeks ago from frustrations.
>
> So I open it up for thoughts on the issue, and am willing to discuss and
> examine just the same myself. Anyone?
>
> And someone slap me if I'm crazy. I'm writing this because I think that
> what we saw yesterday was pretty serious, and if the community has anything
> to do with it I'd like to see that change. If it was all Matthew and
> whatever he was smoking, that's all fine and dandy I s'pose.
>
> Peace all...
> --
>
> Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
>
> http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
> http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
>
> ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Selçuk Göre writes:
[snip for time's sake - test in 40 minutes :\ ]
> Being a community, besides from the rules, also has its own natures.
> Every community has its famous people, i.e. "unofficial leader types". • [snip]
> Everyone
> free to be famous here, just as everyone is free to participate.
> Elitism, in my mind, is not allowing people to participate who is not a
> famous one.
You hit it right on here. I don't think we see very much not allowing certain
people to participate based on their status in the community, and I think that
we are pretty strong for it. Everyone in this group is pretty much given
equal opportunity to participate, and if they're so inclined, rise above the
masses with something exceptional they have to offer, whether its MOCs, a
website resource, finances, etc.
> Of course not all the people, actually most of the people here including
> me, has not enough means to be famous, some don't have the time, some
> don't have the money, some don't have the courage, some don't mind to be
> one. As I always said, Lego is not the purpose of my life, just as for
> most of the others I think, it's just a spare time fun.
Different strokes for different folks. I understand where you're coming
from. For me, Lego is almost a way of life, and what I do on Lugnet is almost
a way of life. (I'm not making a judgment call on whether or not that action
is healthy or not right now). I hope to turn this into something more as
things progress with the community and go through school. I've kept contact
with TLC, etc, and hope to do some stuff for them, yadda yadda. In a sense, I
need to do what I have been doing for those inroads.
> The other point should made be clear that, I'm strongly against any
> forced "leadership" or "popularity", which is the true elitism. Let the
> popularity and or leadership go naturally. I objected before to both
> "Lugnet Police Force" and "article rating" issues only for this reason.
Yep.
> In addition to this, communities might have some touchy subjects. Ldraw
> is one of the examples to our touchy subjects. I clearly remember that I
> had been flamed in L-CAD mailing list (before Lugnet) since just I
> talked about changing the naming convention of Ldraw parts. But I didn't
> feel that this is some alienating approach from the veterans, I reworded
> my complaints, that it had been accepted.
Its all in the approach when you're calling for change. The first time I
suggested ldraw.org publicly, I was even flamed right away.
> In brief, I believe our community is not an elitist one in its current
> form. And I wish this will continue like that.
After reading opinions on this, I believe the same. I do think that everyone
here could stand to be a bit nicer to each other, and a bit more accepting to
other ideas for how things could be done, to newbies, etc. This will help
foster better relationships for the community and bring us closer together -
and hopefully translate into some cool real life experiences.
I for one have met many people through Lugnet in person, and a handful of them
have become really good friends of mine. I'm greatful for that. I'm also
greatful that those people get to see me for who I am, rather than for what I
do. And I'm glad that I get to see them for the same.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi Selçuk,
After reading your post and Tim's, I must throw in a "Me too" (as much as
those posts are highly detested around here ;-).
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Selçuk Göre writes:
[..]
> I'm strongly
> against elitism and alienating newcomers from the place.
As am I. I don't think anyone is really *for* it, but many people might not
notice they are doing this. That's when it gets to be a problem (or even
moreso when it is done intentionally-- but I don't think there is someone on
lugnet that really is).
[..]
> Back to the subject, we are here from very different parts of this
> planet, with very different characters, backgrounds, interests,
> cultures, understanding, tolerances, incomes, rules, etc. However we are
> still a community.
Agreed 100%.
> Maybe the only common thing between some of the
> people here is the love of the brick, but we still obey some written and
> unwritten rules here, mostly nothing but the common sense.
In the ideal situation, yes, we all do. Then there are times when not everyone
does, in the heat of the moment, and yes, it happens.
> Being a community, besides from the rules, also has its own natures.
> Every community has its famous people, i.e. "unofficial leader types". I
> don't call this elitism.
Most definitely. We're a small society, even, and any society has the leader
types and the followers. From what little sociology I've learned, some people
are just born leaders; some can't help being a little bossy, others have a
plain "let's stop the talking and all start doing something about it"
approach, and others will just speak up more and so have their opinions heard
(and perhaps respected). Then the majority of the people will speak up here
and there, but mostly keep quiet or just be generally helpful.
[snip many true examples]
> Everyone
> free to be famous here, just as everyone is free to participate.
> Elitism, in my mind, is not allowing people to participate who is not a
> famous one.
Very true. There are no restraints here, and I've seen newcomers
become "famous"/"leaders" in a matter of a few weeks, or just become generally
known. Lugnet as a community, a mini-society, or whatever, is not elitist in
that sense... not at all.
> As I always said, Lego is not the purpose of my life, just as for
> most of the others I think, it's just a spare time fun.
--like Tim mentioned in his reply - that varies. I know at some point or other
lego was a "way of life" for me, but it's not really anymore. (Still a major
hobby, but not a way of life, no.) And there certainly are people for whom it
is. But there's nothing wrong with either way.
> The point here is, if someone is distinguishable from the crowd by
> anything he/she perform that relates to the founding purpose of the
> community, he/she will be famous than the other participants of the
> community. If you are distinguishable, then naturally you are rare, and
> rare means "not for everyone". People should accept this.
Yeah.
[..]
> Many people might even wonder when they see my
> member number (#4) who is this guy?
LOL, mostly because I know exactly who you are and I think a considerable
amount of people do. ;-)
But yes, I see your point. Not everyone can be famous, and many people might
be known in their little area of lugnet (e.g. .[insert theme here], .cad,
or .o-t.[whatever]) but not so much in the general sense.
[..]
> The other point should made be clear that, I'm strongly against any
> forced "leadership" or "popularity", which is the true elitism. Let the
> popularity and or leadership go naturally. I objected before to both
> "Lugnet Police Force" and "article rating" issues only for this reason.
Yeah...
[..]
> Being alienated can be (mostly) related to having expectations which is
> unreasonably high. This also works for any community, any group of
> people, either virtual or real.
Right. So we should (all) be just a leeeetle careful when responding to a
post, without knowing if the person is a newbie or not, or (for example) has
english as a second language, or is relatively young, etc. (Hehe - I remember
getting into some scrapes for EACH of those reasons... <grin>)
> In brief, I believe our community is not an elitist one in its current
> form. And I wish this will continue like that.
Agreed entirely.
> Tim Courtney wrote:
> > I was talking to a friend yesterday about the whole deal - someone who has
> > slipped away from Lugnet intentionally but unnoticed. That person feels
> > that the community is elitist, and from that person's perspective I
> > understand. They feel that when they post here people ignore them, that
> > they're a good candidate to kill a thread, etc. I don't like it that my
> > friend has had that experience here.
That is too bad. I hope that friend realizes that no one intended to hurt
him/her. I doubt anyone really saw him/her as a "good candidate to kill a
thread"... and it's really sad that someone feels that way. I hope he/she
comes back, just to try again...
> > And someone slap me if I'm crazy. I'm writing this because I think that
> > what we saw yesterday was pretty serious, and if the community has anything
> > to do with it I'd like to see that change. If it was all Matthew and
> > whatever he was smoking, that's all fine and dandy I s'pose.
<grin>
<slap>
j/k, Tim, you're not crazy. But really, over-analyzing ourselves won't get us
very far. LUGNET is, for the *most* part, a great place. But even the best
places and people can't prevent everyone from getting hurt once in a while.
It's just inavoidable, to some extent. I think we aren't elitist in the sense
of really keeping someone (anyone!) from participating (as long as they follow
the basic rules, o'course).
Tim also wrote:
> After reading opinions on this, I believe the same. I do think that everyone
> here could stand to be a bit nicer to each other, and a bit more accepting to
> other ideas for how things could be done, to newbies, etc.
Oh, most definitely...
> This will help
> foster better relationships for the community and bring us closer together -
> and hopefully translate into some cool real life experiences.
>
> I for one have met many people through Lugnet in person, and a handful of them
> have become really good friends of mine. I'm greatful for that. I'm also
> greatful that those people get to see me for who I am, rather than for what I
> do. And I'm glad that I get to see them for the same.
I agree. This has happened to me too (whether I've met these friends in RL or
not). I'm *grate*ful for that, too. (Heck, I've met my bf here... ;-)
Now... let's get back to lego!
-Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Shiri Dori wrote:
>
> > I'm strongly
> > against elitism and alienating newcomers from the place.
>
> As am I. I don't think anyone is really *for* it, but many people might not
> notice they are doing this. That's when it gets to be a problem (or even
> moreso when it is done intentionally-- but I don't think there is someone on
> lugnet that really is).
The good thing is this, as you already said. There is no one who do it
intentionally. No clans here like veterans or lamers. So the problem for
newbies might be having too much expectations. But this should be dealed
by their own selves.
> [..]
> > Many people might even wonder when they see my
> > member number (#4) who is this guy?
>
> LOL, mostly because I know exactly who you are and I think a considerable
> amount of people do. ;-)
I know..:-) And I know you well, too... But who doesn't know you
anyway?..:-)
> [..]
> > Being alienated can be (mostly) related to having expectations which is
> > unreasonably high. This also works for any community, any group of
> > people, either virtual or real.
>
> Right. So we should (all) be just a leeeetle careful when responding to a
> post, without knowing if the person is a newbie or not, or (for example) has
> english as a second language, or is relatively young, etc. (Hehe - I remember
> getting into some scrapes for EACH of those reasons... <grin>)
It's specific to you of course but I really can't see if anyone can
recognize your age if you not uncover it. Do you remember the funny
"Craig for president!" thread?..:-) I already knew you form reading your
messages before this thread, but I never realized that you are on 15 at
that time, and I replied humorously automatically assuming that you are
an adult..:-)
> > Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > I was talking to a friend yesterday about the whole deal - someone who has
> > > slipped away from Lugnet intentionally but unnoticed. That person feels
> > > that the community is elitist, and from that person's perspective I
> > > understand. They feel that when they post here people ignore them, that
> > > they're a good candidate to kill a thread, etc. I don't like it that my
> > > friend has had that experience here.
>
> That is too bad. I hope that friend realizes that no one intended to hurt
> him/her. I doubt anyone really saw him/her as a "good candidate to kill a
> thread"... and it's really sad that someone feels that way. I hope he/she
> comes back, just to try again...
As I already said, this is the individual's problem somehow. You can't
expect an instant recognition, for any group of people, either here or
in real life. Don't expect anything unreasonably high, give nature a
chance, and try to enjoy. Most of my messages go with any replies, too,
although even I'm one of the beta testers of Lugnet, and I already know
many people here even since before Lugnet. And Maggie already showed me
that "no replies" doesn't mean "unnoticed".
> > > And someone slap me if I'm crazy. I'm writing this because I think that
> > > what we saw yesterday was pretty serious, and if the community has anything
> > > to do with it I'd like to see that change. If it was all Matthew and
> > > whatever he was smoking, that's all fine and dandy I s'pose.
>
> <grin>
> <slap>
> j/k, Tim, you're not crazy. But really, over-analyzing ourselves won't get us
> very far. LUGNET is, for the *most* part, a great place. But even the best
> places and people can't prevent everyone from getting hurt once in a while.
> It's just inavoidable, to some extent. I think we aren't elitist in the sense
> of really keeping someone (anyone!) from participating (as long as they follow
> the basic rules, o'course).
Strongly agree. I wish this discussion would have been appeared by
another reason. I'm not very comfortable with the feeling of we are
taking stupid reasoning into account of a sick personality that he made
up as a reason for his sickness.
> Tim also wrote:
> > I for one have met many people through Lugnet in person, and a handful of them
> > have become really good friends of mine. I'm greatful for that. I'm also
> > greatful that those people get to see me for who I am, rather than for what I
> > do. And I'm glad that I get to see them for the same.
>
> I agree. This has happened to me too (whether I've met these friends in RL or
> not). I'm *grate*ful for that, too. (Heck, I've met my bf here... ;-)
Lucky you..:-) I wish my wife would have been an AFOL..:-)
I've met with four person in real life too, although I'm living in a
place thousands of kilometers away from the majority, and of course all
the meetings was very nice experiences. I think you will return back to
your homeland in near future? Turkey is a famous touristic place for
Israeli people AFAIK. Maybe we can meet someday..:-)
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Selçuk Göre writes:
> Everyone is
> free to be famous here, just as everyone is free to participate.
> Elitism, in my mind, is not allowing people to participate who is not a
> famous one.
>
> The point here is, if someone is distinguishable from the crowd by
> anything he/she perform that relates to the founding purpose of the
> community, he/she will be famous than the other participants of the
> community. If you are distinguishable, then naturally you are rare, and
> rare means "not for everyone". People should accept this. I know my
> level of contribution, I know my level of dedication, so I'm happy with
> my level of "popularity". Most of my messages went without any replies,
> but who cares. I'm one of the most veteran members of Lugnet, but I'm
> not so popular around. Many people might even wonder when they see my
> member number (#4) who is this guy?
You might be surprised.... For instance (correct me if I am wrong!), you have a
good sense of humor, you are a cat person, and IIRC it was you who recently
made that utterly charming statement about not knowing enough offensive words
to be able to adequately express yourself in English.
And I'm not a particularly observant person. You can imagine what someone more
observant than I picks up from reading Lugnet posts, even those not written by
the most vocal and conspicuous among us. (Just because a post doesn't get a
reply doesn't mean it hasn't been noticed by many!)
>
> In brief, I believe our community is not an elitist one in its current
> form. And I wish this will continue like that.
Agreed!
Maggie C.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Maggie Cambron wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Selçuk Göre writes:
>
>
> You might be surprised.... For instance (correct me if I am wrong!), you have a
> good sense of humor, you are a cat person, and IIRC it was you who recently
> made that utterly charming statement about not knowing enough offensive words
> to be able to adequately express yourself in English.
:-) Yes, I'm surprised. You are correct at all. Actually, it's also
surprised that this is the first message from me replied by four
individuals..:-)
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Selçuk Göre writes:
> Hi Tim,
>
> Actually, I'm also thinking the subject of "is lugnet elitist?" from
> time to time, and even throw out some of my 0.02 Turkish liras about the
> subject in some cases, both in RTL and here in Lugnet. I'm strongly
> against elitism and alienating newcomers from the place.
This may be semantics and I may be repeating myself, but like I said, I think
a meritocracy (that is, the "rule" of those with merit) based elitist system
is a good basis for a specialised hobby community like LUGNET. I think it IS
semantics rather than fundamental disagreement, because in the part that I
snipped you cite several examples of people who I would consider part of
the "elite" under my definition and you explain why you give them credence..
because they are worthy, that is they merit that credence...
The only one example I would challenge is the example you gave of someone who
spends more than others. That's not a reason for respect, in and of itself.
Spending a lot may be an obsession out of control, or maybe an indulgence if
you have the resources to indulge yourself (why does Jay Leno, the late night
talk show host, have so many antique cars?? because he can). But it's not a
sign of any particular merit. (something I need to remind myself of when I
start bragging, which I do from time to time)
It's now how big your collection is, it's what you do with it. What you
*should* do with it is enjoy it, whatever that means to you.
Me, I enjoy talking about it as well as doing it. I've expounded on
the "facets of the hobby" before, there are a lot of them. Some of us relish
the trading aspect, some the hunt for old sets or bargains in stores, some the
building, some the rendering, some the making of websites, some the creation
of software, some the collating info, some the Festing, some the gaming, some
the chatting here or on IRC or AIM, and on and on.
Ain't it grand?
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
>
> The only one example I would challenge is the example you gave of someone who
> spends more than others. That's not a reason for respect, in and of itself.
> Spending a lot may be an obsession out of control, or maybe an indulgence if
> you have the resources to indulge yourself (why does Jay Leno, the late night
> talk show host, have so many antique cars?? because he can). But it's not a
> sign of any particular merit. (something I need to remind myself of when I
> start bragging, which I do from time to time)
I get it. It was not a good example, it was not since I used "popular"
and "respected" interchangeably. But still I think, in some extent,
spending large amounts means somehow dedication to me, so being popular
by it, is not so bad also.
> It's now how big your collection is, it's what you do with it. What you
> *should* do with it is enjoy it, whatever that means to you.
>
> Me, I enjoy talking about it as well as doing it. I've expounded on
> the "facets of the hobby" before, there are a lot of them. Some of us relish
> the trading aspect, some the hunt for old sets or bargains in stores, some the
> building, some the rendering, some the making of websites, some the creation
> of software, some the collating info, some the Festing, some the gaming, some
> the chatting here or on IRC or AIM, and on and on.
>
> Ain't it grand?
Of course. Agreed 100%.
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
<snipped to conserve space>
Tim is right, we do need to take some time and reflect. Let us 'Selah' for a
time and make some constructive changes to the community to improve things.
I have been participating in LUGNET for several months now and must admit that
at first I was intimidated. That is proven by the fact that I lurked for years
before that on both LUGNET and RTL. When I was first starting to post I was in
the weird situation of knowing a lot of people from the years of observation,
or at least thinking I knew them. But I remember being excited to get a reply
to something I posted, frankly I still am. I would not be surprised that there
are other newbies who feel the same way.
In my time here I have seen good things, great things and bad things. I have
said positive and uplifting things, inoffensive things and down right stupid
and cruel things. I am no more innocent or guilty than the rest, but I think
we need to change. My manifesto a couple of weeks back [1] was hard to follow.
And in fact, I failed to meet the challenge I gave. As a person studying to be
a pastor, I am taught that I am to live what I preach. I do know even if I
don't live it, I don't invalidate the truth, I invalidate my authority to
share it.
Thanks to Todd, who put the brakes to me instigating things further, I was
able to correct my mistake yesterday and move on. Frankly, I feel dirty for
failing my own challenge.
LUGNET has over 500 members and more participants than that. It is impossible
for the Larry's, Todd's, Tim's, Suz's, and others to get to know each and
every one in a personal manner. Yet these leaders [2] are part of everyone’s
lives. We share the parts of their lives that they show us.
Personally I would like to contribute in a positive manner to the community
but it seems all the choice spots are already taken by individuals like Todd,
Kevin Loch, Tim Courtney, Steve Bliss, etc… I would love to learn to create
new Ldraw elements and further my Lcad Model collection (which is happening
slowly). But I must say it is hard for a newbie to get actively involved; in
that it is like trying to get into a moving car. And most people do not have
the aggressive personality to break in like Shiri Dori for example. Thus we
need to do something in regards to making it easier to participate.
[3] One idea I have is a new LUGNET group like lugnet.newbie or something.
This group would be a non-topic group that anyone can post to and just get to
know one another. It can also be used by individuals who do not understand
where to post things (Shiri can then redirect them :-). Of course there would
have to be rules such as a zero tolerance in flaming even is followed up in
another group and no market advertising i.e. auctions. It would then be the
responsibility of everyone to participate.
Even if this does not come into being, we need to each take a little time and
find the newbies and make sure they are encouraged. A simple reply can go a
long way in brightening up someone’s day.
I know we are not going to solve all our problems and of course we will not
always agree on everything but I think we can improve, and it will start on a
one-on-one basis.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jude Beaudin
shiningblade@home.com
AIM: ShiningBlade1
MSN: ShiningBlade
ICQ: 77656388
1 - http://news.lugnet.com/people/?n=1168
2 – I do not know the word I should use to describe the pillars of the
community
3 - This is the reason I xposted to .admin.general
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@home.com> wrote in message
news:G2ovu8.n12@lugnet.com...
> LUGNET has over 500 members and more participants than that. It is • impossible
> for the Larry's, Todd's, Tim's, Suz's, and others to get to know each and
> every one in a personal manner. Yet these leaders [2] are part of • everyone's
> lives. We share the parts of their lives that they show us.
Regardless of 'leader' status, I think that the good thing here is that we
can get to know each other personally through LUGs, etc. You're right,
people of any position can't get to know everyone, but also average users
can't accomplish that task either. I find that I have a lot of people who I
do know for various reasons, whether it be CAD, I've met them at a Legofest,
or just from random discussion. There's probably 20-30 people on Lugnet I
do know well outside the context of the group - and probably half of that
who I know well in person.
Yes, we're all sharing a part of our lives by what we contribute here. We
unfortunately get a better perspective on it when someone passes away - like
James and Gary Louie.
> Personally I would like to contribute in a positive manner to the • community
> but it seems all the choice spots are already taken by individuals like • Todd,
> Kevin Loch, Tim Courtney, Steve Bliss, etc. I would love to learn to • create
> new Ldraw elements and further my Lcad Model collection (which is • happening
> slowly). But I must say it is hard for a newbie to get actively involved; • in
> that it is like trying to get into a moving car.
I think that we've seen something like the .com businesses reflected on a
smaller scale here in the community - that those who were there to do the
big things early on got in, and now they may be so comprehensive that
others' efforts may fizzle before snowballing.
But!! That doesn't mean you can't make that positive impact here. You want
to create LDraw parts, go for it!! Get involved and do different things
here, try your hand at what you like. People will respect you for
contributing, and you never know where it can take you.
> And most people do not have
> the aggressive personality to break in like Shiri Dori for example. Thus • we
> need to do something in regards to making it easier to participate.
LOL! Knowing Shiri in person fairly well, I wouldn't characterize her as an
aggressive personality ;-)
...wait, then again there was Brickfest. <gdr>
> [3] One idea I have is a new LUGNET group like lugnet.newbie or something.
> This group would be a non-topic group that anyone can post to and just get • to
> know one another. It can also be used by individuals who do not understand
> where to post things (Shiri can then redirect them :-). Of course there • would
> have to be rules such as a zero tolerance in flaming even is followed up • in
> another group and no market advertising i.e. auctions. It would then be • the
> responsibility of everyone to participate.
Good idea for a group - something to transition people from civilian life to
Lugnet life ;)
> Even if this does not come into being, we need to each take a little time • and
> find the newbies and make sure they are encouraged. A simple reply can go • a
> long way in brightening up someone's day.
Yep. This old timer gets a bit bummed even when he doesn't get replies -
how much more of a positive impact would a cheerful reply have on a newbie?
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> Regardless of 'leader' status, I think that the good thing here is that we
> can get to know each other personally through LUGs, etc. You're right,
> people of any position can't get to know everyone, but also average users
> can't accomplish that task either.
True. Personally, I got to know a few people after repeatedly trading with
them, because we used to slip in tidbits about RL happenings within the posts
or emails. Even those little things go a long way later on.
> I find that I have a lot of people who I
> do know for various reasons, whether it be CAD, I've met them at a Legofest,
> or just from random discussion. There's probably 20-30 people on Lugnet I
> do know well outside the context of the group - and probably half of that
> who I know well in person.
I'd say the same for me.
[..]
> > Personally I would like to contribute in a positive manner to the
> > community
> > but it seems all the choice spots are already taken by individuals [..]
It's too bad that you feel that way. There's always room to help. Take for
example Cary Clark who has taken upon himself a project with the FAQs. This is
just going on right now, and I'm sure he could use help, there's a lot of
posts to go through. And that's just one example that came to mind. There's
*always* room to improve and help. ;-)
> > But I must say it is hard for a newbie to get actively involved;
> > in that it is like trying to get into a moving car.
>
> I think that we've seen something like the .com businesses reflected on a
> smaller scale here in the community - that those who were there to do the
> big things early on got in, and now they may be so comprehensive that
> others' efforts may fizzle before snowballing.
>
> But!! That doesn't mean you can't make that positive impact here. You want
> to create LDraw parts, go for it!! Get involved and do different things
> here, try your hand at what you like. People will respect you for
> contributing, and you never know where it can take you.
Exactly. True, the more people and ideas there are, the easier it is to
accidently overlook something great, but that doesn't mean everything will be
overlooked.
> > And most people do not have
> > the aggressive personality to break in like Shiri Dori for example. Thus
> > we need to do something in regards to making it easier to participate.
Hehehehehe.... oh my ;-)... aggressive personality? Hmmmmm.... you know I
lurked for *quite* a while before joining in... but if you say so ;-)
> LOL! Knowing Shiri in person fairly well, I wouldn't characterize her as an
> aggressive personality ;-)
>
> ...wait, then again there was Brickfest. <gdr>
Yeah, and yesterday afternoon too <grin>. Shoving you around is just too
fun. ;-)
Aggressive... well... I guess ;-)
> Good idea for a group - something to transition people from civilian life to
> Lugnet life ;)
Yep, it was thrown around here a bunch of times - I'm glad Todd finally put it
in motion!!
(see lugnet.people.newbies)
> Yep. This old timer gets a bit bummed even when he doesn't get replies -
> how much more of a positive impact would a cheerful reply have on a newbie?
Definitely!
-Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Shiri Dori" <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G2uEK7.81r@lugnet.com...
> > > Personally I would like to contribute in a positive manner to the
> > > community
> > > but it seems all the choice spots are already taken by individuals [..]
>
> It's too bad that you feel that way. There's always room to help. Take for
> example Cary Clark who has taken upon himself a project with the FAQs. • This is
> just going on right now, and I'm sure he could use help, there's a lot of
> posts to go through. And that's just one example that came to mind. • There's
> *always* room to improve and help. ;-)
Yup.
> > LOL! Knowing Shiri in person fairly well, I wouldn't characterize her as • an
> > aggressive personality ;-)
> >
> > ...wait, then again there was Brickfest. <gdr>
>
> Yeah, and yesterday afternoon too <grin>. Shoving you around is just too
> fun. ;-)
I know, you're mean!
> Aggressive... well... I guess ;-)
Hehe ;-) As I said before, I'm really glad I'm not attached to you :-P
(and I pity the person who is) ;-)
j/k
> > Good idea for a group - something to transition people from civilian life • to
> > Lugnet life ;)
>
> Yep, it was thrown around here a bunch of times - I'm glad Todd finally • put it
> in motion!!
> (see lugnet.people.newbies)
Cool!
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Tim,
Wise words. It is a pity that some of these things have raised their heads
before, let's hope this is the last time.
The golden rule is to never say anything online that one would not say in
person to anyone. I'm not saying I'm perfect (others are free to do so), but
lets all be nice and relaxed. Let's be friends.
Scott A
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> This whole thing has gotten me thinking -- Matthew was out to prove a point,
> right? Matthew is also a jerk and has serious problems, right. But, just
> because he carried himself *very* poorly here doesn't mean he might not have
> something valuable to say to us. I'm just trying to think if there's
> anything about this community that is out of whack, like he suggested.
>
> I was talking to a friend yesterday about the whole deal - someone who has
> slipped away from Lugnet intentionally but unnoticed. That person feels
> that the community is elitist, and from that person's perspective I
> understand. They feel that when they post here people ignore them, that
> they're a good candidate to kill a thread, etc. I don't like it that my
> friend has had that experience here.
>
> One thing we all know, this is a *community* and communities are made up of
> people with vastly differing opinions and backgrounds. Different tastes,
> levels of tolerance, etc. We've seen a pretty bad case here demonstrated
> yesterday. I doubt anyone currently in the community would repeat such
> actions. But something must have triggered that, whether it was Matthew's
> own personal problem, his genuine experience with the people a few years
> ago, or a combination of both. I'm just asking myself out loud what might
> be our problem, if we have one. I certainly don't want to see anyone hurt
> by this group of people. Unfortunately we had a very upstanding member of
> this group leave a couple weeks ago from frustrations.
>
> So I open it up for thoughts on the issue, and am willing to discuss and
> examine just the same myself. Anyone?
>
> And someone slap me if I'm crazy. I'm writing this because I think that
> what we saw yesterday was pretty serious, and if the community has anything
> to do with it I'd like to see that change. If it was all Matthew and
> whatever he was smoking, that's all fine and dandy I s'pose.
>
> Peace all...
> --
>
> Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
>
> http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
> http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
>
> ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> [...] The golden rule is to never say anything online that one would not
> say in person to anyone. [...]
I really like this advice.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> This whole thing has gotten me thinking -- Matthew was out to prove a point,
> right? Matthew is also a jerk and has serious problems, right. But, just
> because he carried himself *very* poorly here doesn't mean he might not have
> something valuable to say to us. I'm just trying to think if there's
> anything about this community that is out of whack, like he suggested.
I can see your concern but I wouldn't really worry about it. Although I didn't
participate in the thread yesterday I did read it. To me responding to such
posts is like throwing water on a grease fire and thats why I have come to
avoid them. In my experiance people like Matthew are just out for attention
and if you ignore them they eventually go away. I know that is hard if not
impossible for many of you especially seeing the very inappropriate attacks
Matthew made here on LUGNET and the inappropriate graphic on his site but for
me ignoring him does more to solve the problem then responding to him.
>
> I was talking to a friend yesterday about the whole deal - someone who has
> slipped away from Lugnet intentionally but unnoticed. That person feels
> that the community is elitist, and from that person's perspective I
> understand. They feel that when they post here people ignore them, that
> they're a good candidate to kill a thread, etc. I don't like it that my
> friend has had that experience here.
Well I would tell your friend not to worry about it. Most of my posts never
get responded to and I think if you looked across LUGNET statistically you
would find that its the same for almost everyone. Sure a few of my posts have
received tremendous response but to tell you the truth some of those I was
supprised by the response and a few of my not so popular posts I thought would
generate a lot of conversation.
Heck I will even admit that I am not as active (responding to others posts) but
that is not because I don't find them interesting. Its just I don't have the
time to respond to people like I used to. I also have come to dislike "Me Too"
posting a great deal so if someone has already said what I would have I just
don't bother. I think many have developed this attitude so in general there
are lots of posts that don't get a hugh response even though many people enjoy
reading the post.
>
> One thing we all know, this is a *community* and communities are made up of
> people with vastly differing opinions and backgrounds. Different tastes,
> levels of tolerance, etc. We've seen a pretty bad case here demonstrated
> yesterday. I doubt anyone currently in the community would repeat such
> actions. But something must have triggered that, whether it was Matthew's
> own personal problem, his genuine experience with the people a few years
> ago, or a combination of both. I'm just asking myself out loud what might
> be our problem, if we have one. I certainly don't want to see anyone hurt
> by this group of people. Unfortunately we had a very upstanding member of
> this group leave a couple weeks ago from frustrations.
Hey what happened was unfortunate but I wouldn't go out trying to stop it. It
will happen again and there is basically nothing any of us can do about it sort
of dealing with the problem when it happens. At some point in the future there
will be someone that wasn't around when this conversation took place and will
act irresponsibly its just human nature.
So I wish people wouldn't worry about it. I think the community in general is
great and people like this arn't going to make me leave. I just tune them out
and hope in time they will come around (I have seen this happen).
Granted there are also different "Levels of enthusiasm" here as well and I
consider myself somewhere in the middle of the enthusiasm scale where others I
see at the high end of that scale. Those at the high end of the scale probably
get offended more easily than those in the middle or low end of the scale just
because they take things more seriously/personally. To me its LEGO and the
best toy ever but I could live without it if I had to and it wouldn't take that
long for me to get over it.
>
> So I open it up for thoughts on the issue, and am willing to discuss and
> examine just the same myself. Anyone?
>
> And someone slap me if I'm crazy. I'm writing this because I think that
> what we saw yesterday was pretty serious, and if the community has anything
> to do with it I'd like to see that change. If it was all Matthew and
> whatever he was smoking, that's all fine and dandy I s'pose.
Well what happend yesterday was all Matthew but like I said earlier, it will be
someone else tomorrow, next month, or next year. Its not something we can
avoid its just something we have to deal with. Sure things like that will make
some people leave if they just can't deal with it but for the most part we will
all stay and within a couple of months forgive and forget that it happened.
So just put on your bullet proof vest or coat yourself with teflon and deal
with the problems when they arrise and don't let them get to you too much.
This is a hobby for the vast majority of us after all and it shouldn't make
that big a difference in our lives when one person flies off the handle.
>
> Peace all...
Nice theory but not likely in our lifetime :-).
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Kingsley writes:
>
> I can see your concern but I wouldn't really worry about it. Although I • didn't
> participate in the thread yesterday I did read it. To me responding to such
> posts is like throwing water on a grease fire and thats why I have come to
> avoid them. In my experiance people like Matthew are just out for attention
> and if you ignore them they eventually go away. I know that is hard if not
> impossible for many of you especially seeing the very inappropriate attacks
> Matthew made here on LUGNET and the inappropriate graphic on his site but for
> me ignoring him does more to solve the problem then responding to him.
G'day Eric,
Y'know, I can't remember how many times I've read that advice
in regards to disruptive posts or heated discussions. Having
posted in electronic forums since before there really was an
internet, I've seen it a lot.
But now I think I finally get it :]
I stumbled upon yesterday's menage when it was just an hour or
so old. Posts were coming in almost by-the-minute. Pretty
quickly I was able to recognize Mr. Moulton's "posting style"
from experience. I knew it was bad news, and this was going
to be another doozy thread. It was my first time on LUGNET
seeing some heated posts from certain regulars..., it really
took me by surprise.
And I felt as much as anyone else that someone had just barged
into a peaceful little group harassing everyone and needed to
"be stopped". And I was so, so close to posting something.
But I couldn't think of what to post. How can you possibly
make a point that will stick with a character like this? You
can't. And even if you do, it just gets ignored, which frustrates
you immensely, and then the spiral. Posting to this guy
would serve no useful purpose.
But oh I so wanted to!
Here it is hardly much over 24 hours later, and it all seems
so remote. And I didn't post a single thing. I don't know
how that happened! :] I've been in a couple of lengthies
here on LUGNET..., no flame wars mind you, but definitely heated
discussions. Two in particular that come to mind, but they all
worked out. I tend to get caught up in just diving in to join
the fray. It's the electronic form of road rage I suppose.
I don't know how on earth I managed to stay out of this one.
But having done it, I now see that it's a very good idea, as hard
as it is. So my new strategy is to read the posts, and if I see
tense-looking ones (especially when it seems to be just two
specific people getting into it)..., turn off the machine and
go do something else. Come back to the posts the next day. It'll
probably all be blown over.
But it took me about 10 years to finally learn this! I think
that's why these skirimishes will never go away. Everyone has
to get up the learning curve, and some (me) are slower than
others. No matter how much people say "just ignore them", enough
will get involved to make it a mess. But that means a few more
people will learn, too. As long as someone is learning something,
it wasn't a waste. That even probably goes for Mr. Moulton's
time, too.
Enough philosphy for me for this year :]
Peace everyone,
KDJ
________________________________________________________
Kyle D. Jackson, LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Eric Kingsley wrote in message ...
>
> I can see your concern but I wouldn't really worry about it. Although I • didn't
> participate in the thread yesterday I did read it. To me responding to • such
> posts is like throwing water on a grease fire and thats why I have come to
> avoid them. In my experiance people like Matthew are just out for
attention
0>and if you ignore them they eventually go away. I know that is hard if
not
> impossible for many of you especially seeing the very inappropriate attacks
> Matthew made here on LUGNET and the inappropriate graphic on his site but • for
> me ignoring him does more to solve the problem then responding to him.
While I would agree that ignoring someone rude is preferable to flaming
them, how about actually treating them with politeness! This is what I did,
and immediately I got results:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6617
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8003
Personally I think the flame war would have ended then and there if it
weren't for a few still-angry people who made little or no effort to be
polite or friendly. Disappointingly, only one of them was Matthew.
"LUGNET... has been called "the friendliest place on the Internet.""
That's on the VERY FRONT of this site. Don't we have an obligation to uphold
its sentiment?
>
> Hey what happened was unfortunate but I wouldn't go out trying to stop it. • It
> will happen again and there is basically nothing any of us can do about it • sort
> of dealing with the problem when it happens. At some point in the future • there
> will be someone that wasn't around when this conversation took place and • will
> act irresponsibly its just human nature.
The key, I feel is to stay friendly. Unfriendliness does not _deserve_ to be
responded with unfriendliness! That, if anything is the vicious cycle that
feeds the flame war.
>
> So I wish people wouldn't worry about it. I think the community in general • is
> great and people like this arn't going to make me leave. I just tune them • out
> and hope in time they will come around (I have seen this happen).
Frankly, I wonder just how many people actually _know_ that it happened. Did
it ever crop up in any NGs other than .space, .off-topic.debate, and
.admin.general?
>
> Well what happend yesterday was all Matthew but like I said earlier, it • will be
> someone else tomorrow, next month, or next year.
Sorry, but it was NOT all Matthew by any stretch of the imagination. If
people had admonished Matthew using a friendlier tone the flame war would
never have happened. Go back and look at the thread in .space, it's plainly
obvious that people were distinctly unfriendly, and at times, even more
childish than Matthew was. It was very, very disappointing to see.
The real surprise was that these people, Matthew included, were much, much
friendlier, more reasonable and conciliatory when responding to me in
private emails. When I look back at it, it's obvious why - it's because I,
personally, was polite to _them_!
Can you imagine how quickly and quietly Matthew's original comment would
have blown over if more people had been like this? The mind boggles!
>
> Its not something we can
> avoid its just something we have to deal with. Sure things like that will • make
> some people leave if they just can't deal with it but for the most part we • will
> all stay and within a couple of months forgive and forget that it happened.
>
> >
> > Peace all...
>
> Nice theory but not likely in our lifetime :-).
I believe it's easily achievable here, as long as we all make an effort to
be more FRIENDLY. Yes, even to rude and immature people.
LUGNET has been called "the friendliest place on the Internet". Let's all
work to maintain our reputation.
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET member 164
http://www.geocities.com/doctorshnub/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes:
> Sorry, but it was NOT all Matthew by any stretch of the imagination. If
> people had admonished Matthew using a friendlier tone the flame war would
> never have happened. Go back and look at the thread in .space, it's plainly
> obvious that people were distinctly unfriendly, and at times, even more
> childish than Matthew was. It was very, very disappointing to see.
> The real surprise was that these people, Matthew included, were much, much
> friendlier, more reasonable and conciliatory when responding to me in
> private emails. When I look back at it, it's obvious why - it's because I,
> personally, was polite to _them_!
> Can you imagine how quickly and quietly Matthew's original comment would
> have blown over if more people had been like this? The mind boggles!
Disagree. I have reviewed more of that unpleasant thread and looking at the
direct replies to the first post, none of them are anywhere near the level of
unfriendliness that MM ended up at. If anything, most of them were friendlier
than MMs first post and the "attached/embedded" site. At least that is my read.
When a wolf sneaks into the sheep herd, how many sheep are supposed to
docilely turn the other cheek and take injury before the wolf is expelled,
exactly?
Plus, I already tried it your way, a year ago. I know that I myself knew what
to expect from the thread, unless MM had changed his ways from the Mad Hatter
scansite incident, there was going to be a lot of nastiness from him and a lot
of circular reasoning, factual errors, deliberate misstatements, inappropriate
amplifications, etc. He hadn't changed, and all that came to pass. That's why
I urged ignoring. Responding in a friendly manner wasn't going to do any good,
it just fed the fire. That was my experience the last time I had a run in with
this character. I was polite to him, he wasn't polite back. I could find you a
half dozen other people who had the same experience.
I think you might be in the cultural relativism trap, unable to say that some
people are twisted enough that there is no rational dealing with them because
they don't have the same premises you do, don't acknowledge reason as a
mechanism, and don't conform to behavioural norms. You may think that
appeasement and prevarication will somehow work to integrate them in. Didn't
work for Neville Chamberlain. Won't work here.
LUGNET is the friendliest place on the internet. One way to keep it that way
is to exclude the deliberately and irretrievably unfriendly, by enforcing the
ToS. LUGNET is not a psychotherapy club and it's not the members job to
resolve festering issues in those that cannot confirm by trying to be nice to
them even when they spit in your face.
That said, I still do think there is a lot of merit in keeping discussion
dispassionate, in trying to include those with less experience and knowledge,
in making sure that we don't alienate valuable contributors, etc. A lot of
that can be accomplished by two simple expedients. Publicly ignore
troublemakers so brawls don't start and privately call for ToS enforcement.
But that's not all that needs doing. Rather than talking about MM in this
thread, I'd rather identify the other things to do that will help LUGNET be
more inclusionary.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G2tqEs.Asu@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes:
>
> > Sorry, but it was NOT all Matthew by any stretch of the imagination. If
> > people had admonished Matthew using a friendlier tone the flame war would
> > never have happened. Go back and look at the thread in .space, it's • plainly
> > obvious that people were distinctly unfriendly, and at times, even more
> > childish than Matthew was. It was very, very disappointing to see.
> > The real surprise was that these people, Matthew included, were much, • much
> > friendlier, more reasonable and conciliatory when responding to me in
> > private emails. When I look back at it, it's obvious why - it's because • I,
> > personally, was polite to _them_!
> > Can you imagine how quickly and quietly Matthew's original comment would
> > have blown over if more people had been like this? The mind boggles!
>
> Disagree. I have reviewed more of that unpleasant thread and looking at • the
> direct replies to the first post, none of them are anywhere near the level • of
> unfriendliness that MM ended up at. If anything, most of them were • friendlier
> than MMs first post and the "attached/embedded" site. At least that is my • read.
>
> When a wolf sneaks into the sheep herd, how many sheep are supposed to
> docilely turn the other cheek and take injury before the wolf is expelled,
> exactly?
>
> Plus, I already tried it your way, a year ago. I know that I myself knew • what
> to expect from the thread, unless MM had changed his ways from the Mad • Hatter
> scansite incident, there was going to be a lot of nastiness from him and a • lot
> of circular reasoning, factual errors, deliberate misstatements, • inappropriate
> amplifications, etc. He hadn't changed, and all that came to pass. That's • why
> I urged ignoring. Responding in a friendly manner wasn't going to do any • good,
> it just fed the fire. That was my experience the last time I had a run in • with
> this character. I was polite to him, he wasn't polite back. I could find • you a
> half dozen other people who had the same experience.
Here we go again:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=8133
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ...
>
> Plus, I already tried it your way, a year ago. I know that I myself knew • what
> to expect from the thread, unless MM had changed his ways from the Mad • Hatter
> scansite incident, there was going to be a lot of nastiness from him and a • lot
> of circular reasoning, factual errors, deliberate misstatements, • inappropriate
> amplifications, etc. He hadn't changed, and all that came to pass. That's • why
> I urged ignoring.
And kept it to yourself? That's a real shame. If' I'd made the connection, I
would have used it constructively, to help persuade Matthew not to repeat
his past mistakes, instead of sitting and letting someone else discover it
and use it in a small-minded, destructive way (which they did with bells
on).
>
> That was my experience the last time I had a run in with
> this character. I was polite to him, he wasn't polite back. I could find • you a
> half dozen other people who had the same experience.
Politeness and friendliness are different things. They were inarguably
polite, but their tone was anything but friendly. But then, why should have
they been friendly to such a horrible person? There, I can only refer you to
the quote on the front of LUGNET.
>
> I think you might be in the cultural relativism trap, unable to say that • some
> people are twisted enough that there is no rational dealing with them • because
> they don't have the same premises you do, don't acknowledge reason as a
> mechanism, and don't conform to behavioural norms. You may think that
> appeasement and prevarication will somehow work to integrate them in. • Didn't
> work for Neville Chamberlain. Won't work here.
I have already explained more than once now that my friendliness towards
Matthew _did_ work . His apology, flawed as it may have been, was _not_ a
coincidence. I explained to him that it was the only, both publicly and in
private correspondence (in which he was, I might add, completely
reasonable). Matthew was _not_ beyond help.
>
> LUGNET is the friendliest place on the internet. One way to keep it that • way
> is to exclude the deliberately and irretrievably unfriendly, by enforcing • the
> ToS. LUGNET is not a psychotherapy club and it's not the members job to
> resolve festering issues in those that cannot confirm by trying to be nice • to
> them even when they spit in your face.
There's the flaw, Larry - "irretrievably". I was friendly to Matthew even
while telling him his error and giving him the proper advice, and _never_
did he even once "spit in my face". He responded to be with friendliness,
regrets, even reason! Can you believe that! Amazing but true. I mean, who
would have thought this unhelpable monster would respond to being treated
nicely? He was _not_ beyond help.
>
> But that's not all that needs doing. Rather than talking about MM in this
> thread, I'd rather identify the other things to do that will help LUGNET be
> more inclusionary.
Actually, in all my huffing and puffing that's exactly what I'm trying to
do - I think we could make more of an effort to see how we can help problem
individuals, and therefore be equipped to help them rather than simply
ignore/banish them! I see it as part of being "the friendliest place on the
Internet".
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET member 164
http://www.geocities.com/doctorshnub/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes:
<snip>
I dispute that MM was "retrievable" or that it's my job to try. If you
persist, I will politely point out what a fool you are for trying, in a
friendly way, of course. I don't reason with rabid dogs either.
> > But that's not all that needs doing. Rather than talking about MM in this
> > thread, I'd rather identify the other things to do that will help LUGNET be
> > more inclusionary.
>
> Actually, in all my huffing and puffing that's exactly what I'm trying to
> do - I think we could make more of an effort to see how we can help problem
> individuals, and therefore be equipped to help them rather than simply
> ignore/banish them! I see it as part of being "the friendliest place on the
> Internet".
I think the things being done like .newbie are spot on. That helps include
people who want to be here and want to follow the norms but need a little
drawing out, a little guidance to figure out how to proceed and contribute. It
doesn't do anything for those that need basic instruction in manners, though.
However this is not a therapy club and it is not my job, my role, or my desire
to deal with people who need therapy in order to be polite. You're welcome to
do so if you like, more power to you, but I am not. I will not tolerate it. My
hobby is building with bricks, not ministering to the deranged.
It's over. MM is gone and will not soon be back. Let's move on.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Paul Baulch wrote:
....
> Matthew was _not_ beyond help.
....
> He was _not_ beyond help.
Paul I can see your point, but I strongly believe that this is not a
therapy club and I think most of the people here, surely including me,
would not take the job. I still believe that there is a big difference
between a slightly misguided and a sick.
Also, for the theory of "I was friendly to him, he was friendly to me" I
wish you had a chance to see the part of the famous thread in RTL, in
which he talked with a German friend (Hoerst Lehner if I remember
correctly).
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ...
> > Plus, I already tried it your way, a year ago. I know that I myself knew
> > what to expect from the thread, unless MM had changed his ways from the Mad
> > Hatter scansite incident, there was going to be a lot of nastiness from him
> > and a lot of circular reasoning, factual errors, deliberate misstatements,
> > inappropriate amplifications, etc. He hadn't changed, and all that came to
> > pass. That's why I urged ignoring.
>
> And kept it to yourself? That's a real shame. If' I'd made the connection, I
> would have used it constructively, to help persuade Matthew not to repeat
> his past mistakes, instead of sitting and letting someone else discover it
> and use it in a small-minded, destructive way (which they did with bells
> on).
Lemme interject something here. :-) Matthew didn't make any mistakes -- at
least not in the usual social faux-pas sense. I've been speaking a little bit
with him offline in email since Saturday and he considers himself a "Social
Engineer" hacker. If I understand his goals and intentions correctly, he
specifically set out to cause a disruption or, more accurately, to make
himself into a mirror with which to show people a side of themselves that
they didn't want to see, with disruption as the side-effect which proves his
points in his mind. I'm not trying to judge these goals as being noble or
ignoble, just to understand them as best I can. Thus, it would do absolutely
no good to try to persuade him not to repeat his past mistakes, because in his
mind there were no mistakes -- only in our minds were there "mistakes." He
mentioned a couple of other online communities he is helping (that was his
word), one them being some vampire community. It would be interesting to
have a few beers with MM someday and trade philosophies on life and sociology.
> I have already explained more than once now that my friendliness towards
> Matthew _did_ work . His apology, flawed as it may have been, was _not_ a
> coincidence. I explained to him that it was the only, both publicly and in
> private correspondence (in which he was, I might add, completely
> reasonable). Matthew was _not_ beyond help.
I don't think he wants help or needs help. He seems to be a very intelligent
person who knows what he is doing and does it very well (meaning I gather
that he achieves his objectives). Unfortunately, the "social engineering"
he does isn't something which sits well here (or in RTL, for that matter).
> There's the flaw, Larry - "irretrievably". I was friendly to Matthew even
> while telling him his error and giving him the proper advice, and _never_
> did he even once "spit in my face". He responded to be with friendliness,
> regrets, even reason! Can you believe that! Amazing but true. I mean, who
> would have thought this unhelpable monster would respond to being treated
> nicely? He was _not_ beyond help.
I have found him to be extremely polite, intelligent, and logical in private
emails as well. The thing to remember is that he was here for a completely
different reason than the rest of us (at least during the SE phase -- I can't
say about the LEGO-building phase).
If he wanted to turn off the SE, I'm sure he could do so at will and could
play just as nicely as he did from April up until last week.
> Actually, in all my huffing and puffing that's exactly what I'm trying to
> do - I think we could make more of an effort to see how we can help problem
> individuals, and therefore be equipped to help them rather than simply
> ignore/banish them! I see it as part of being "the friendliest place on the
> Internet".
He's not a "problem individual" to be helped or reformed -- he's playing a
different game -- a higher level, meta-game outside the normal rules. I'm
not defending his actions, just stating that I believe help is irrelevant in
this case.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman wrote:
> I don't think he wants help or needs help. He seems to be a very intelligent
> person who knows what he is doing and does it very well (meaning I gather
> that he achieves his objectives). Unfortunately, the "social engineering"
> he does isn't something which sits well here (or in RTL, for that matter).
I must say I can't think of a place, either on or off line, where that
kind of "social engineering" WOULD sit well. He must be quite used to
being run out of groups on a rail...
Kevin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Lego Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/lego.html
City Park: Limited edition kit
http://www.lionsgatemodels.com/cat-park.htm
Craftsman Kits & Custom Lego models: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> I must say I can't think of a place, either on or off line, where that
> kind of "social engineering" WOULD sit well. He must be quite used to
> being run out of groups on a rail...
I have a question (for anyone) about the phrase "Social Engineering." In
your experience, does the phrase automaticaly imply causing disruptions,
flamewars, etc. or can SE be done in quiet, civil ways? If the ToS for the
discussion groups were changed so that SE was explicitly disallowed, would
it be clear what that meant. (OK, it would probably need a couple examples,
but would it be ambiguous or unambiguous?)
And is someone who practicies "Social Engineering" typically referred to as
an "SE hacker"?
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> > I must say I can't think of a place, either on or off line, where that
> > kind of "social engineering" WOULD sit well. He must be quite used to
> > being run out of groups on a rail...
>
> I have a question (for anyone) about the phrase "Social Engineering." In
> your experience, does the phrase automaticaly imply causing disruptions,
> flamewars, etc. or can SE be done in quiet, civil ways?
Actually, that's something I considered when speaking to Matthew offline. I
think my conclusion on the issue is that Matthew's approach (I.E. causing
disruptions, etc) is a very fast, effective way of doing it. However, it causes
unfortunate side effects such as bitterness and ill-will (not to mention
increased traffic). Personally, I think it can be done in a much more civil
manner, but that takes more time and determination.
Also, SE by necessity needs to affect everyone in the community. SE by example
(disruptive, etc) therefore needs to generate much more of the side effects
seen in MM's example before really hitting the point home; and likewise SE via
civility and discussion takes all that much longer. Give and take, really, but
I think I'd prefer slow and civil anyday over abrupt and disruptive.
The other issue with SE is that for different people, it may take different
strengths to drive the point home. After all, I know many of us (yes I'm
guilty) responded to some of Matt's posts with emotional flare, but how many
more examples will/would it take before you'd adequately "learn your lesson"? I
certainly won't guarantee that any amount of knowledge and/or experience will
100% prevent me from responding similarly in the future. And of course then, my
issue with Matthew's approach is that at that level, the amount of ill-will,
etc. starts to weigh very heavily-- argeably to the point of outweighing the
good it's caused.
But I guess what drives home the point for me is the actions in retrospect.
Let's take 'Bob' who was SE'd, and as a result lost friends, gained a lot of
bitterness (if only about himself), but also won't let his emotions get the
better of him. Then we've got 'Joe' who's exactly like Bob, but was never SE'd.
He still has those old friends, isn't as bitter, but occasionally gets into
stints with people. Who's better off? Debateable. And while I personally may
decide to be Bob, I won't decide for anyone else to be Joe. And there's my
issue. I don't feel justified to make that decision for anyone, or force them
into that position.
> If the ToS for the
> discussion groups were changed so that SE was explicitly disallowed, would
> it be clear what that meant. (OK, it would probably need a couple examples,
> but would it be ambiguous or unambiguous?)
Probably difficult to describe clearly, and difficult to discern in practice.
If I was fed up with Joe Blow's attitude on Lugnet and I decided to do some
disruptive sytle SE on him in particular (or several Joes), could that actually
be differentiated from a little private flame war, which would be allowable to
an extent? After all, who's to say when I'm acting out of my own feelings, and
when I'm just acting to a psychological end? Hmm... Anyway, I'm not sure I
could reliably discern the two if the person doing the SE wasn't owning up to
the fact.
Anyway, my $.02,
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I think Todd got "played". (And I recently said I didn't think Todd was easy
to fool)
Social Engineering my foot. If that was what MM was up to, it has no place
here. But I don't think it was, I think it was just another layer of
deception. This guy is amazingly deep and amazingly twisted.
Now, I do think that helping people out with things like spelling hygiene and
how to ask questions and where stuff is and so forth is worthy and could
possibly be construed as SE. But I don't think it is. If it was I'd be against
it and I'm not so it must not be. :-)
Sorry for that, it sounded funny when I typed it. But my UK flight is about to
be called so I gotta be terse.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
This is tough but I think its a worthy discussion...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I think Todd got "played". (And I recently said I didn't think Todd was easy
> to fool)
With all due respect to Todd, I think Larry is right to an extent. I told Todd
in a private E-mail that I thought MM was mostly full of it. MM thinks very
highly of himself and I would be supprised if he had many "real" freinds. My
guess is that MM lives in a virtual world with little social interaction out of
it.
>
> Social Engineering my foot. If that was what MM was up to, it has no place
> here. But I don't think it was, I think it was just another layer of
> deception. This guy is amazingly deep and amazingly twisted.
I also mentioned to Todd that I thought MM seemed to contradict himself
regularly and seemed to have hugh emotional swings. I wouldn't be supprised if
MM had some sort of schizophrenic or multiple personality disorder
(Unfortunately I have a fair amount of family experiance with this). Of course
that is an assumption on my part and I am not a doctor but it is clear MM has
some real problems.
>
> Now, I do think that helping people out with things like spelling hygiene and
> how to ask questions and where stuff is and so forth is worthy and could
> possibly be construed as SE. But I don't think it is. If it was I'd be against
> it and I'm not so it must not be. :-)
Well personally I could care less about spelling as long as it is just a word
here or there. Actually I got pretty peeved once when someone E-mailed me
correcting my spelling, I didn't do anything about it but I was peeved.
If all SE was for was to make someone look at something through a different set
of eyes then I am for it. Knowing and understanding different philosophies is
a good thing, forcing your views on someone is not.
Anyway when all is said and done I think MM was only trying to disrupt and
cause chaos with no higher calling. Why he would want to do this in the LEGO
community I don't know but to each their own. I never responded directly to
any of MM's posts becuase I didn't want to give him any added satisfaction. I
did respond to other posts when I thought they were misguided but that is
because I do feel that sometimes we are a little to nice and accepting here. I
think we could all use a look in the mirror occasionally because that will help
us become better as a community. Constant praise usually doesn't lead to
advancement, a little self examination and healthy debating does.
So maybe in the future we can be a tad more critical but of course in a nice
way. I know I often ask for feedback here both positive and negative (in a
constructive sense) and to tell you the truth I learn more from the
critical/constructive posts then the posts of praise. I also don't get
offended by critical posts which might be a problem for some so maybe this is
not a good approach for all.
>
> Sorry for that, it sounded funny when I typed it. But my UK flight is about to
> be called so I gotta be terse.
Thats OK lots of what you write here I find funny and terse. ;-)
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Kingsley writes:
> Lar said:
> > Now, I do think that helping people out with things like spelling hygiene and
> > how to ask questions and where stuff is and so forth is worthy and could
> > possibly be construed as SE. But I don't think it is. If it was I'd be
> > against it and I'm not so it must not be. :-)
>
> Well personally I could care less about spelling as long as it is just a word
> here or there. Actually I got pretty peeved once when someone E-mailed me
> correcting my spelling, I didn't do anything about it but I was peeved.
>
> If all SE was for was to make someone look at something through a different • set
> of eyes then I am for it. Knowing and understanding different philosophies is
> a good thing, forcing your views on someone is not.
Check. Walk a mile in the other man's shoes and all that.
> Anyway when all is said and done I think MM was only trying to disrupt and
> cause chaos with no higher calling. Why he would want to do this in the LEGO
> community I don't know but to each their own. I never responded directly to
> any of MM's posts becuase I didn't want to give him any added satisfaction. I
> did respond to other posts when I thought they were misguided but that is
> because I do feel that sometimes we are a little to nice and accepting here.
C/becuase/because/
C/to nice and/too nice and/
<GRIN>
Seriously, without starting a big war, I think most of us know that you're a
bit spelling challenged, Eric. And we love you nonetheless. Having said that,
I do think that sloppy penmanship leads to poor marks. While there are reasons
why people may not be able to spell words, punctuate clauses, structure
sentences, and so forth correctly, it does detract, especially on first
impression.
People get past that, if there is merit behind the errors. And perfectly
formed fluff is still fluff nonetheless. But you know what I mean.
> So maybe in the future we can be a tad more critical but of course in a nice
> way. I know I often ask for feedback here both positive and negative (in a
> constructive sense) and to tell you the truth I learn more from the
> critical/constructive posts then the posts of praise. I also don't get
> offended by critical posts which might be a problem for some so maybe this is
> not a good approach for all.
Check. I don't want slavering "wow that was good" posts any more than I
want "wow that sucked" posts. The best posts are the kind like "nice, but why
did you...? did you try ... instead?" and like "wow, neat effect, can you tell
us more about how you...?"
Just repeating what we all already know, no doubt.
Still up, unless you count plane sleep, from when I typed the post you're
responding too, but about to call it a day.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
<snip>
> C/becuase/because/
> C/to nice and/too nice and/
>
> <GRIN>
>
> Seriously, without starting a big war, I think most of us know that you're a
> bit spelling challenged, Eric.
You want a war I'll give you a war... ;-).
I don't pretend to be a good speller, I'm no good at the gramma stuff neither
;-). Never have been and probably never will be. I do try and spell check
words that I trully don't know but seeing I use the web interface many typo's
get through along with some misspelling when I am lazy.
It's not something I am proud of but, I am not ashamed of it either. I will
admit that in my professional life I am much more careful but still not perfect
by any means. I guess thats why I just design and code and leave documentation
up to someone else.
> And we love you nonetheless.
Gee thanks!
> Having said that,
> I do think that sloppy penmanship leads to poor marks. While there are reasons
> why people may not be able to spell words, punctuate clauses, structure
> sentences, and so forth correctly, it does detract, especially on first
> impression.
In general I agree but right now I have enough stress in my life to worry to
much about my penmanship on LUGNET. I try the best I can (which isn't really
that good) but if I make a mistake I don't fret to long about it.
>
> People get past that, if there is merit behind the errors. And perfectly
> formed fluff is still fluff nonetheless. But you know what I mean.
Very true.
> Still up, unless you count plane sleep, from when I typed the post you're
> responding too, but about to call it a day.
Well I have flown enough to know that plane sleep does not count. So good
night and rest well.
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Kingsley writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Seriously, without starting a big war, I think most of us know that you're a
> > bit spelling challenged, Eric.
I meant that in the nicest way, of course.
> You want a war I'll give you a war... ;-).
I think you left a comma out of that sentence fragment, big fella. :-)
All (1) kidding aside (I should have set followups to .fun on the last post
but they're set there now), I think if you don't want to be perfect in your
posts (not everyone can be me, after all (1)) you shouldn't have to be! This
is, afer all, a place to relax and have fun.
Everyone has to come to terms with the level they want to achieve in their
presentation, and what one sets as a standard for work may well be different
than when one is among friends, like here, especially when one is being
colloquial.
> I guess thats why I just design and code and leave documentation
> up to someone else.
Now that's scary! Programmers should document their own code, how can anyone
else know what it does? :-)
> > Still up, unless you count plane sleep, from when I typed the post you're
> > responding too, but about to call it a day.
I put a deliberate error in there for you to pounce on so you wouldn't feel
left out, but you missed it. :-)
1 - ok, most
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > I guess thats why I just design and code and leave documentation
> > up to someone else.
>
> Now that's scary! Programmers should document their own code, how can anyone
> else know what it does? :-)
Well I think you probably knew what I meant in that I leave final documentation
to someone else, i.e. the copy the customer sees, I have to document my code
for internal purposes of course.
>
> > > Still up, unless you count plane sleep, from when I typed the post you're
> > > responding too, but about to call it a day.
>
> I put a deliberate error in there for you to pounce on so you wouldn't feel
> left out, but you missed it. :-)
Well I am not sure but I think it was the "too". Ah the great English
language. We have to, too, and two and their, there, and they're the plural of
goose is geese but moose ain't meese. How anyone learning English as a second
language can ever figure it out I don't know. Heck I can't figure it out
sometimes.
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> > I must say I can't think of a place, either on or off line, where that
> > kind of "social engineering" WOULD sit well. He must be quite used to
> > being run out of groups on a rail...
>
> I have a question (for anyone) about the phrase "Social Engineering." In
> your experience, does the phrase automaticaly imply causing disruptions,
> flamewars, etc. or can SE be done in quiet, civil ways? If the ToS for the
> discussion groups were changed so that SE was explicitly disallowed, would
> it be clear what that meant. (OK, it would probably need a couple examples,
> but would it be ambiguous or unambiguous?)
<OBDisclaimer: I am not a professional sociologist, nor do I make any
pretensions of actual knowledge in the field.>
Social Engineering can be applied to a much broader spectrum of science and
psuedo-science than MM is using it for. Not all SE is bad, not all of it is
good. It's a tool, much like any other. However nearly all forms of SE I'm
familiar with are built on the premise that subvert manipulation is more
effective that overt manipulation, and (in my books anyway) of dubious ethics
at best.
Most advocates of SE that I know (or know of) tend to operate from the basis
that people as individuals are only predictable when taken in groups. That
is - you can't predict that person A will react "thusly" to input X, but in
any group of N (n typically being 5 or more) people, someone will react
thusly, and the whole group will be affected by the reaction.
SE tends to also operate on the assumption that groups have inertia, and to
acheive any goal, that inertia must be overcome before any change will happen.
There's lots more, but I should be getting some real work done this afternoon.
A good place to look for various examples & hypothesis regarding social
engineering is science & speculative fiction(s) - It's a common theme,
although rarely refered to as such. The example that springs immediately to
mind is Isaac Asimov's Foundation series - For all intents and purposes,
that's the subject.
> And is someone who practicies "Social Engineering" typically referred to as
> an "SE hacker"?
This sort of Social Engineering? That may be their prefered term, but I
suspect other less kind referals are normally used. Something like Trekkies
refering to themselves as Trekkers - or Lugnuts as Lugnetters <GD&R>
James
(jack-of-all-philosophies, proponent of none)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> > I must say I can't think of a place, either on or off line, where that
> > kind of "social engineering" WOULD sit well. He must be quite used to
> > being run out of groups on a rail...
>
> I have a question (for anyone) about the phrase "Social Engineering." In
> your experience, does the phrase automaticaly imply causing disruptions,
> flamewars, etc. or can SE be done in quiet, civil ways? If the ToS for the
> discussion groups were changed so that SE was explicitly disallowed, would
> it be clear what that meant. (OK, it would probably need a couple examples,
> but would it be ambiguous or unambiguous?)
>
> And is someone who practicies "Social Engineering" typically referred to as
> an "SE hacker"?
>
> --Todd
Of course it's your call, but I don't think it's really necessary to put
something like that into TOS. Current TOS is already forbids many things
involved with this recent "social engineering" issue as you called. It
doesn't matter too much to me what is underside of hostility. If someone
want to "engineer" us "socially" by a way that fits the general harmony
here (i.e. we are not disrupted in anyway) I don't care (probably I even
don't notice). And if some other "engineer" (i.e. psycho) tries to
destroy our comfort here, I don't care, too, what is his/her real
purpose to achieve, he/she will get the same response from me.
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> > I must say I can't think of a place, either on or off line, where that
> > kind of "social engineering" WOULD sit well. He must be quite used to
> > being run out of groups on a rail...
>
> I have a question (for anyone) about the phrase "Social Engineering." In
> your experience, does the phrase automaticaly imply causing disruptions,
> flamewars, etc. or can SE be done in quiet, civil ways? If the ToS for the
> discussion groups were changed so that SE was explicitly disallowed, would
> it be clear what that meant. (OK, it would probably need a couple examples,
> but would it be ambiguous or unambiguous?)
I think "Social Engineering" can mean many things. You can really only define
it by its aim.
Scott A
>
> And is someone who practicies "Social Engineering" typically referred to as
> an "SE hacker"?
>
> --Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> I think "Social Engineering" can mean many things. You can really only define
> it by its aim.
We might be able to define it by its aim, but we can only evaluate it in
terms of outcome. The recent episode may have been a noble attempt to shame
us into some sort of community restructuring, but in reality Matt's posts came
off as childish posturing and name-calling.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > I think "Social Engineering" can mean many things. You can really only define
> > it by its aim.
>
> We might be able to define it by its aim, but we can only evaluate it in
> terms of outcome.
Good point. But before we can say "No Social Engineering Allowed", we have
define what it is. Could it be argued that the rules of LUGNET themselves are
social engineering?
Scott A
> The recent episode may have been a noble attempt to shame
> us into some sort of community restructuring, but in reality Matt's posts came
> off as childish posturing and name-calling.
>
> Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > I think "Social Engineering" can mean many things. You can really only • define it by its aim.
> >
> > We might be able to define it by its aim, but we can only evaluate it in
> > terms of outcome.
>
> Good point. But before we can say "No Social Engineering Allowed", we have
> define what it is. Could it be argued that the rules of LUGNET themselves are
> social engineering?
Absolutely! They are, after all, the foundation of this community (or
society?), so they would certainly qualify in my view. For that matter, the
fact that LUGNet is a generally cohesive, friendly, and positive whole is more
important than the original intent in itself (with all due respect, of
course), even if the intent closely matches the outcome.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Paul Baulch writes:
> > And kept it to yourself? That's a real shame. If' I'd made the connection, I
> > would have used it constructively, to help persuade Matthew not to repeat
> > his past mistakes, instead of sitting and letting someone else discover it
> > and use it in a small-minded, destructive way (which they did with bells
> > on).
>
> Lemme interject something here. [...]
(Just rereading what I wrote...) I didn't mean that to sound like everyone
should have known this (what I snipped) and that Paul was wrong in what he
wrote back to Larry. I just wanted to add some facts in an appropriate place
to comment. No offense intended to Paul.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> Matthew didn't make any mistakes -- at
> least not in the usual social faux-pas sense. I've been speaking a little bit
> with him offline in email since Saturday and he considers himself a "Social
> Engineer" hacker. If I understand his goals and intentions correctly, he
> specifically set out to cause a disruption or, more accurately, to make
> himself into a mirror with which to show people a side of themselves that
> they didn't want to see, with disruption as the side-effect which proves his
> points in his mind. I'm not trying to judge these goals as being noble or
> ignoble, just to understand them as best I can. Thus, it would do absolutely
> no good to try to persuade him not to repeat his past mistakes, because in his
> mind there were no mistakes -- only in our minds were there "mistakes."
I recognize that you're just the messenger, rather than the purveyor of this
mindset, but such "social engineering" as Matt describes it is also known as
sociopathy. The fact that it can be couched in politically correct rhetoric
doesn't excuse the fact that it's simply rude in context.
Within the community of Pro Wrestling, it's not improper to headbutt someone
or clothesline them into the canvas, whereas in many other social circles it
would be considered at least passingly rude, whatever the alleged goal.
Kafka (whom I cite cautiously, because he's over-quoted to the point of
nausea) identifies the "outsider" as the most important figure in a community,
in that the "outsider" unites the others into a cohesive whole. If one adopts
a subtractive view of community (that is, we're only a community because we
dislike the same thing) then this theory can hold some water. If, however,
one views a community in a cumulative way (we're a community because we like
the same thing) then a "social engineering" approach of the type we've
recently witnessed is simply flawed.
> I don't think he wants help or needs help. He seems to be a very intelligent
> person who knows what he is doing and does it very well (meaning I gather
> that he achieves his objectives). Unfortunately, the "social engineering"
> he does isn't something which sits well here (or in RTL, for that matter).
It depends what kind of "help" we're discussing, and at any rate I don't
think any of us is qualified to assess his realworld psyche, other than to say
he appears to have a sizable chip on his shoulder, and he's not inarticulate.
The hostility he demonstrated suggests any number of other character issues,
but we have no access to their source. To paraphrase Larry, Matt's intent is
irrelevant--only the outcome is significant (which, to start another debate,
basically sums up my entire viewpoint re: authorial/artistic "intention"--
thanks, Lar!) We all know that Matt's psychological state is not for us to
diagnose; we have neither the right nor responsibility to do so. However, we
are entitled to discuss the effect his postings have had on our "community."
If his goal, as stated, is simply to rock the boat and try to cause
disruption, then I feel comfortable dismissing his postings as self-indulgent
and juvenile, regardless of how intelligent he might actually be.
> He's not a "problem individual" to be helped or reformed -- he's playing a
> different game -- a higher level, meta-game outside the normal rules.
I don't believe it's a higher level anything, and to call it a meta-game
romanticizes it beyond the point of useful discussion. There are many in the
community who "get" what he was trying to do--you're one of them, Todd; I
believe Larry is also, and I'm pretty sure I am (just to name a few)--we "get"
it, but we don't buy into it.
There are certain artistic theories that pursue the scrupulous reproduction
or portrayal of really bad art, be it music, painting, sculpture, or what have
you. Some of these artists may have considerable skill, but the problem is
that, even if their reproduction is good, it's a reproduction of crap. That,
I think, is part of the problem here. Matt's portrayal of an ugly game may
have been very faithful to the subject, but it's still only faithful to
ugliness, and in the end it's not especially helpful to a community, even as a
warped mirror. The mirror, after all, reflects only what Matt chose to
reflect with it.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> I don't believe it's a higher level anything, and to call it a meta-game
> romanticizes it beyond the point of useful discussion.
I don't know what else to call it. Any suggestions?
> There are many in the
> community who "get" what he was trying to do--you're one of them, Todd; I
> believe Larry is also, and I'm pretty sure I am (just to name a few)--we
> "get" it, but we don't buy into it.
I really only "got" what he was trying to do after he explained it carefully.
I played into his trap. Any others that come to mind?
BTW, I can see that you get it.
Say, do you remember "Mandroid" in RTL about 4 years ago? I dug up a passage
from archives tonight that he/she posted -- it went like this:
"While I empathize completely with you, surely you have been hanging
around rec.toys.lego long enough to realize that the MAJOR FUNCTION of
this group is the obnoxious pursuit of capitol gain."
Kinda sounds like the same kind of social engineering. People called Mandroid
a troll but some pointed out that there was always some twisted shred of truth
in what he wrote which allowed him to irk people enough to learn enough about
them to irk them more. I don't know if he (I'm assuming Mandroid was a he)
ever achieved his objectives -- they weren't obvious and I suppose they would
be hard to measure even if they were obvious. I suppose he moved on when he
finally achieved whatever it was that he wanted to achieve.
--Todd
p.s. Did Mandroid ever tell anyone his real name?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > I don't believe it's a higher level anything, and to call it a meta-game
> > romanticizes it beyond the point of useful discussion.
I strongly agree with this point...
If I rob a bank, is it a crime?... or "a Meta-game in which I proposed to
test the gullable nature of bank tellers, the resolution of low-light
cameras, the competancy of local law enforcement, and the ethics of the
judicial system (and my subsequent cell-mates)?
All of Matt's explanations, apologies, and theories are intellectually
dishonest and conceptually flawed. If we were to follow this "meta-game"
crappola, instead of calling it a vandalous troll assault, his arguments
will still not hold water.
I propose that the ultimate act of "elitism" was Matthew's own conduct. He
considered himself so far above the rest of us intellectually, that he had
to "show us our ignorance". <cough...garbage...> He thought so little of
our cognitive skills, that he needed to create a scenario to show us the
error of our ways. Essentially, Matt, in his hubris, thought us too
ignorant to discuss "his ideas" rationally...
But, the above gives Matt too much credit ... meta-game schmeta-blame ...
the recent events were a stunt designed to disrupt/destroy this friendly
place. To ascribe any noble crusade or intellectual intent to Matt's
actions is analogous to thanking a serial killer for addressing the problem
of overpopulation by removing the weak from the herd.
> I don't know what else to call it. Any suggestions?
Troll post, flame war, vandalism, assault, negative behavior, deliberate
deception, hurtful?
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
You realize, of course, one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same
exact thing over and over again, expeting different results?
Let's look at what this "game" entails before you decide on a name:
Manipulation of group members
Anti-social behavior
Disrespectful attitude towards others
Negative forms of commuication and feedback
Egotistical posturing
Sadistic pathos
Stunts designed to inflame and draw attention
In short, MADNESS... Ok, a not so cute acronym, but you get the idea. His
conduct doesn't need a special classification or a new name. The issue of
"social engineering" can be broken down into fundamental components like
courtesy, respect, and friendly conduct. The very essence of what happened
and the manner in which it occured violated all of these fundamental ideals.
(which, correct me if I am wrong, makes "social engineering" TOSsable,
based on already existing "rules") The very idea of running this "game"
/scam/stunt disrespects and deceives individuals and the community as a
whole, treating people like mice in a Skinner box or Pavlov's pooches. It
is malicious, irresponsible, and anti-social. The intent of such an
"experiment" may be "reform", but the de facto outcome is chaos and ill-will.
Essentially, you can't legislate thought and intent but, you can punish poor
conduct. There is no way that you can design a TOS for every contingency.
You do need to maintain some discretionary power, so that an offender can't
say "there is nothing in the TOS about XXXXX". In an effort to prevent a
certain event, you may actually create numerous and potentially greater
loopholes. The TOS must be a simple, functional, document that is easily
comprehended, especially in a forum that encompasses users of all ages.
Generally, the current TOS establishes "the spirit law" even if it does not
enumerate "every letter of the law".
I agree with some members, the TOS needs to clarify a couple issues, but it
can't become a complicated document meant to cover every contingency. The
TOS can establsh very basic structures and rules that can be clarified and
ejudicated on an individual basis if a specific issue occurs...similar to
the U.S. Constitution (I hesitate to make this analogy, at the risk of
starting a tangential thread larger than this one = )
Meta-game (mega-lame)... ahhh a euphemism for manipulation, vandalism, and
HACK pyschology/sociology. Matt's "experiment" was flawed from its
inception. It wasn't a scientific hypothesis with a series of tests
designed to prove or disprove a theory, it was an immature self-fulfilling
prophecy-nothing more.
In a discussion or in any community, there will always be individuals trying
to build a consensus of thought, acheive a goal, or move others to action.
Again, consensus building is a natural and fundamental aspect of society,
but the "social engineering" conducted on Lugnet was an insidious,
deceptive, and destructive corruption of this idea and social science.
Proof positive that people with a little knowledge can be dangerous. Matt
created a self-fulfillig prophecy, a catch 22 of reasoning based around an
otherwise interesting debate (burying a big lie in layers of truth)
Again, his ideas were a non-issue smoke screen. His conduct was
unacceptable. Rational debate of reform or improvement is healthy and seems
to happen on Lugnet regularly.
> > There are many in the
> > community who "get" what he was trying to do--you're one of them, Todd; I
> > believe Larry is also, and I'm pretty sure I am (just to name a few)--we
> > "get" it, but we don't buy into it.
I think I "got it" right away...
Faux intellectaulism as an excuse for bad behavior...
Trolling in the guise of reform...
A pig in a dress.
> I really only "got" what he was trying to do after he explained it carefully.
> I played into his trap. Any others that come to mind?
I participated in the discussion, but I don't think I was ever "fooled"
(probably less than a dozen posts in 5 days)
> BTW, I can see that you get it.
>
> Say, do you remember "Mandroid" in RTL about 4 years ago? I dug up a passage
> from archives tonight that he/she posted -- it went like this:
>
> "While I empathize completely with you, surely you have been hanging
> around rec.toys.lego long enough to realize that the MAJOR FUNCTION of
> this group is the obnoxious pursuit of capitol gain."
I seem to remember references or discussion of "mandroid" when I first came
on-line... I don't think it was 4 years ago, the event seemed more recent
than 3 years ago, but I digress = )
> Kinda sounds like the same kind of social engineering. People called Mandroid
> a troll but some pointed out that there was always some twisted shred of truth
> in what he wrote which allowed him to irk people enough to learn enough about
> them to irk them more. I don't know if he (I'm assuming Mandroid was a he)
> ever achieved his objectives -- they weren't obvious and I suppose they would
> be hard to measure even if they were obvious. I suppose he moved on when he
> finally achieved whatever it was that he wanted to achieve.
>
> --Todd
I would not be surprised if Mandroid was our old "friend" Matt also... He
has had many names over the years.
> p.s. Did Mandroid ever tell anyone his real name?
Not that I know of... but there was speculation that Mandroid was Maddhatter
based on similarities in sentence structure, history, and behavior.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > I don't believe it's a higher level anything, and to call it a meta-game
> > > romanticizes it beyond the point of useful discussion.
>
> I strongly agree with this point...
>
> If I rob a bank, is it a crime?... or "a Meta-game in which I proposed to
> test the gullable nature of bank tellers, the resolution of low-light
> cameras, the competancy of local law enforcement, and the ethics of the
> judicial system (and my subsequent cell-mates)?
Naturally, it could be both. It's never not a crime, of course. If someone
thinks it a meta-game, they clearly think quite differently from most people.
Again, I don't care to judge MM's game or meta-game or tactics (or whatever
you want to call them) as being noble or ignoble right now. Somewhere in what
I said -- some word choice -- my point got lost, and that was that normal
reasoning doesn't work -- normal reasoning only works when you're playing the
same game. When you're playing on one field and the opponent is playing on
another field (whether one is higher or lower the other is in the eye of each
beholder) then the rules aren't necessarily the same. I hope that clarifies
what I meant earlier when I said "lemme interject something."
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> Again, I don't care to judge MM's game or meta-game or tactics (or whatever
> you want to call them) as being noble or ignoble right now. Somewhere in what
> I said -- some word choice -- my point got lost, and that was that normal
> reasoning doesn't work -- normal reasoning only works when you're playing the
> same game. When you're playing on one field and the opponent is playing on
> another field (whether one is higher or lower the other is in the eye of each
> beholder) then the rules aren't necessarily the same. I hope that clarifies
> what I meant earlier when I said "lemme interject something."
You make a good point--it's hard to claim your opponent is cheating at
checkers when he's playing chess. However, it's a cheap maneuver to say
after the fact that you were playing a different game all along, especially
when it looks like you've lost. That is, MM (or anyone else making a
similar claim) simply lacks credibility when he asserts retroactively that
LUGNet didn't understand his game.
To rehash a metaphor from my earlier post, if MM is playing by
ProWrestling rules and the rest of us are using Marquis of Queensbury, his
tactics are simply inappropriate given the playing field. Even if he can
claim afterwards to have kicked our collective butt, he can only do so by
including the disclaimer that we chose not to join his particular game.
Further, if he were really interested in playing a game, and not in simply
spouting off noisily (and noisomely), then he shouldn't cry foul when his
game fails. If we can't (in his mind) criticize his tactics--on the grounds
that he was playing a different game--he certainly can't criticize our
response, because we were also playing a different game. Sauce for the
goose, so to speak.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
For a guy who uses WebTV, this JohnnyBlaze is pretty eloquent!
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
<snip>
> In short, MADNESS...
Great, memorable acronym! And a good summation.
> The TOS must be a simple, functional, document that is easily
> comprehended, especially in a forum that encompasses users of all ages.
This statement is brilliant! For anyone who is wondering how to structure a
good ToS, or for anyone who is trying to understand the philosophy behind
one, it bears repeating as a mantra.
Our ToS may have some flaws (and I know that I've called for more
explication in places) but it, by and large, is as simple as it can be, but
no simpler.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
Lar,
Aren't you supposed to be on a flight somewhere? Drag your armored
suitcase over someone's toes and get some sleep!
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> Lar,
> Aren't you supposed to be on a flight somewhere? Drag your armored
> suitcase over someone's toes and get some sleep!
That was hours ago, I took an overnight monday nite, got to work around 1 PM
GMT and did a good half day before I posted. Fortunately I got bumped from
Delta onto NW, so I spent some miles to get out of coach and into Business,
much better sleep in Business than Coach.
Now it's tomorrow and I got a real nights sleep so look out!
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> For a guy who uses WebTV, this JohnnyBlaze is pretty eloquent!
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Robert-Blaze Kanehl writes:
>
> <snip>
> > In short, MADNESS...
>
> Great, memorable acronym! And a good summation.
>
> > The TOS must be a simple, functional, document that is easily
> > comprehended, especially in a forum that encompasses users of all ages.
>
> This statement is brilliant! For anyone who is wondering how to structure a
> good ToS, or for anyone who is trying to understand the philosophy behind
> one, it bears repeating as a mantra.
>
> Our ToS may have some flaws (and I know that I've called for more
> explication in places) but it, by and large, is as simple as it can be, but
> no simpler.
>
> ++Lar
I read the first sentence and couldn't stop laughing...
Thanks for the best laugh (compliment?) all day Larry!
I'll read the rest of the post as soon as I dry my eyes...
John
(who prefers to think of himself as a slightly evolved sloped-forehead
knuckle-dragging webtv user.)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
*snipped some good stuff*
> Lemme interject something here. :-) Matthew didn't make any mistakes -- • at
> least not in the usual social faux-pas sense. I've been speaking a little • bit
> with him offline in email since Saturday and he considers himself a "Social
> Engineer" hacker. If I understand his goals and intentions correctly, he
> specifically set out to cause a disruption or, more accurately, to make
> himself into a mirror with which to show people a side of themselves that
> they didn't want to see, with disruption as the side-effect which proves • his
> points in his mind. I'm not trying to judge these goals as being noble or
> ignoble, just to understand them as best I can. Thus, it would do • absolutely
> no good to try to persuade him not to repeat his past mistakes, because in • his
> mind there were no mistakes -- only in our minds were there "mistakes." He
> mentioned a couple of other online communities he is helping (that was his
> word), one them being some vampire community. It would be interesting to
> have a few beers with MM someday and trade philosophies on life and
sociology.
A vampire playing with Lego, thats a new one. That proves what a great
product Lego really is...
The "Malkavians" are everywhere and are famous for their sick pranks in the
vampire society.
Don't forget to have a wooden stick brought in, together with the beer and
some of that "uber garlic".
Some people call it "role palying", but instead of playing cards doing so
IRL. It gets more exciting that way...
> I don't think he wants help or needs help. He seems to be a very • intelligent
> person who knows what he is doing and does it very well (meaning I gather
> that he achieves his objectives). Unfortunately, the "social engineering"
> he does isn't something which sits well here (or in RTL, for that matter).
There´s no intelligence involved here. I am rude to people every day,
without even have to make an effort. To be rude, you only have to think of
your own needs and follow your basic instincts. To be polite you have to
think on not only your own needs but to everyone else involved. It's just
"laziness".(I may learn someday how to spell that word)
I used to be rude and hang out with some really ugly people to in my youth,
so I think I know what is missing here...
(Personal thoughts, keep in mind)
> I have found him to be extremely polite, intelligent, and logical in • private
> emails as well. The thing to remember is that he was here for a completely
> different reason than the rest of us (at least during the SE phase -- I • can't
> say about the LEGO-building phase).
He (or his brother, or someone)made some very nice Lego models. Yes, and I
hope that (who ever it is)continues to do so.
> If he wanted to turn off the SE, I'm sure he could do so at will and could
> play just as nicely as he did from April up until last week.
A "me to" on this one.
> He's not a "problem individual" to be helped or reformed -- he's playing a
> different game -- a higher level, meta-game outside the normal rules. I'm
> not defending his actions, just stating that I believe help is irrelevant • in
> this case.
IMHO I think this is the second phase in the game, and I will not be a part
of it. I think he is now looking for some rudeness from me, and the people
that maybe wanted him to be given a second "chance". And to get some
understanding from the people being rude the first time. Now that would be a
nice experiment in sociology ;-)
But I will not fall for that one... My services do not come cheap...
(I may be wrong, but everyone deserves to have an opinion, this is mine)
Play Well!, and I will now end my part of the thread and build some Lego
instead...
/Joakim, 491
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> This whole thing has gotten me thinking -- Matthew was out to prove a point,
> right? Matthew is also a jerk and has serious problems, right. But, just
> because he carried himself *very* poorly here doesn't mean he might not have
> something valuable to say to us. I'm just trying to think if there's
> anything about this community that is out of whack, like he suggested.
I think the Lugnet community needs to make a substantial effort to be
inclusive, and a major part of this is how established members conduct
themselves in the discussion groups. If someone is posting destructive
remarks, don't reply to them in the "public arena". If it's worth replying to
them at all, take it to email or .o-t-d or .admin. I think the ill-will public
posting generates far outweighs the "benefit" of flaming the offender.
Making people feel welcome is harder, and a large part of it is people finding
their own place. The lugnet.newbie idea is good although I'd suggest
lugnet.new-to-lugnet -- for me "newbie" is still too much of a jargon word.
Overall, I think Lugnet is doing amazingly well. At the moment members receive
few substantial benefits compared to casual users, yet over six hundred people
have felt that the service is worth paying for. Bravo Todd & Suz!!
--DaveL
PS I'm for allowing Matthew to keep posting, but if he goes anywhere near
yeserday's provocation again, TOS him.
| | | | | | |
