| |
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!
|
|
|
