| |
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, 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, 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
|
|
| |
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, 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?
|
|
| |
> 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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
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!
|
|
| |
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, 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.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.)
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
