 | | | | | |
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!
| | | | | | |
