Subject:
|
Re: Social Engineering (was: Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:06:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
519 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
