Subject:
|
Re: The Friendliest Site On The Internet. (Was Re: A little self examination?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 19:30:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
521 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
