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