Subject:
|
Re: A tiresome tirade (Was: garbage output)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 02:47:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1021 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, (Linc Smith) writes:
> > I have been away for awhile and have only now been able to start reading
> > Lugnet again. The recent flames in *.cad were surprising to me. • However,
> > I agreed (for the most part) with their content.
> You agree with what's being said but not with how it's being said?
Yes that's it (more to that question later).
> I think this particular problem has a complex history which goes back
> several months and involves several people. It didn't materialize quickly
> or suddenly.
Agreed. Perhaps I underestimate the amount of patience that he has tried
over the months. Though still, as patient as we have been, flames (in this
case) are not likely to be the best way to a resolution. I think we have
seen venting, and although cathartic, it is not generally constructive.
Perhaps, patience were allowed to be picked at for too long (more on that
later).
> > Language has been used that can alienate an individual.
>
> Sometimes that is the goal.
But to the new and/or uninformed it looks mean and intimidating. someone
wrote:
"Yes. You have shown that you would post anything you did because you have
too much pride and are too arrogant to fix it. You don't want your ego
hurt so you whine and complain when people find errors in your parts, and
then ask THEM to point out your mistakes. All you're doing is crying for
us to shove the bottle back in your mouth so you don't have to grow up. We
have had enough of this, have you? Or are you so full of yourself that you
will continue shoving crap in our face and crying when we say it stinks
like crap? I totally agree with TL, 'check your attitude at the door.'"
I may be wrong, but aren't James' parents reading this?!? Lurkers may
interpret this as a chilly atmosphere toward less than master part authors.
You and I know this not to be true, but the personal attack (the language)
is reminiscent of Usenet. I am not defending JW or saying he is not deserve
d of such criticism, but less personally aggressive criticism can be used,
and if it doesn't work (which in my opinion it has not) banning of posts to
the *.cad.dat group for a time might be an option to explore. His parts
could be submitted to Terry for the vote -- just as normal parts would --
and rejected as substandard until they are not. I think a bit of the
problem stems from the ease in which parts can now be uploaded, downloaded,
and re-viewed by so many so quickly. I think this facility is great, but it
has a down side. How angry would the group be if JW submitted sub-standard
parts, they were rejected, and a MONTH later he did it again. Yes it would
be still be inconvenient for reviewers, but not as irritating as "look at
these", "JW theses parts need work", Ok look at these", "no these parts
still need work", "OK look at these"... and so on. If we want someone to
stop posting or stop misbehaving we have the ability to temporarily suspend
this person until they learn, or conform to the groups relatively broad
ideals of conduct. Usenet does not have this option of reason, and relies
on personal attacks (flames). Lugnet does not need too. I guess this is
where the answer to your first question comes in. I agree with what is
being said, but not how it is being said. I thought mature language and
reason followed by suspending posting privileges (if things remained the
same) would be a better solution. The mature language was used, but it
degraded when it failed to work. Back to the message quote just above; I
feel the alienation of an indvidual is not the best goal to have.
> I agree with that, and that was almost always my approach when I was a
> manager. You try to encourage desirable actions and behavior rather than
> making things personal. Making things personal only confuses the issues.
Agreed!
> > I realize attempts to rectify JW's posting tone and
> > part submissions were made, but a clear and concise ultimatum was not
> > made. I feel that the blatant disregard for such a clear and concise
> > ultimatum is the only grounds for flame or reprimand.
> *Could* an ultimatum be [fairly] made? I'm not sure what you're saying.
It would be harder... much harder, as I try think about it now :)
JW you have had the expectations of part authors explained to you by many
here in the *.cad group. It seems that there is still confusion as to what
is expected. LDraw part authors are committed to making quality parts, and
they are committed to helping other in this endeavor. Your repeated posting
and submission of substandard parts, and your unwillingness to improve these
parts to an acceptable level presents a difficult situation. You are now
asked to not publish/submit your parts until you have reached a quality
level expected of such a submission. This is not to say your parts must be
perfect, as even the best authors have flaws that are caught by others, but
they must be absent of obvious mistakes. If you continue to post
(self-admitted) poor quality parts, your posting privileges to
Lugnet.cad.dat will be suspended. You will still be free to summit your
parts to the official LDraw votes, keeping in mind that only quality parts
with few or no flaws will make it through a vote. Your suspension will be
reassessed when you have shown that you can produce parts with few or no
flaws.
We want you to continue to build parts. We want you to improve and help us
in the effort to complete the LDraw Library, but we can not spend the time
in reviewing repeatedly submitted sub-standard parts. Your continued
authoring and learning is beneficial to us and we do not wish for you to
stop trying.
We hope you see this ultimatum as fair. It is not punishment, but simply an
attempt to insure that general rules of conduct are adhered to and Lugnet
can be enjoyed by us all. Please feel free to answer to this in
Lugnet.admin.general or directly to me (you Todd) and voice any confusion
you may have.
I am sure you could do better, but there is a ultimatum... lucky for us his
parts aren't even borderline, and making the decision of whether it is
sub-standard or not would not be difficult if he continues on the tack he is
on.
> > I hope that he has not left our community and
> > will instead try to produce the type of product that is expected (he
> > would gain _much_ respect from me if he would stay in the face of such
> > pointed public flames).
>
> I can see that point of view. Definitely. But IMHO, he really ought to
> take a complete break from LDraw parts creation and go practice up on
> *basic* skills like 3D coordinate geometry and attention to detail *first*
> before continuing on any more LDraw parts. After he masters the basic
> skills, he can come back and blow us all away with amazingly accurate • parts.
>
> That would gain my total respect!
I totally agree... he needs work and he could easily become a great author
if he works on quality over quantity... he has determination, I will give
him that. I think suspension might have/could accomplished something close
to what you describe. Calling him lazy, rude, arrogant; accusing him of
throwing crap in our faces (even if it is true) will not work as well. NB I
realize those aren't your words, but they are just an example of some of the
tone of the flames so far.
> I hope that he does give it up. I seriously, very much hope that he does.
What!?!
> At least for now.
oh OK :)
> He very much needs to practice on 3D work -- and maybe someday he can be
> good -- but his current technique is a tragic waste of time, effort, • talent,
> energy, etc. given how consistently poorly it is received by the LDraw
> community. It hasn't gotten better, it's only gotten more obviously worse.
> Putting up bad stuff for public consumption, over and over, and refusing to
> go buy or borrow real LEGO, is not a formula for earning respect.
Agreed.
> > I am not saying that JW's actions were not frustrating, or rude in some
> > respects. I hope that he can _glean_ (from replies to his posts) the
> > rules of conduct and part authoring expected, because flames are seldom
> > read as a corrective suggestion by the target.
>
> That's the challengingest part!
Very very true, but if done, the most expedient.
> > I don't think anything really major has transpired here, but it is
> > experience that should used the next time user behavior needs to be
> > addressed.
>
> yeah.
Side note:
In situations like this we should remember that Lugnet user who refused to
adhere to posting on-topic to the correct groups. Even after simple worded
corrections followed by suggestions and then warnings, he continued to post
off-topic. The user was posting and ignoring rules with the maturity of a
twelve year old... and he was. I always think back to that suspension of
privileges when something like this is going on. I ask myself how old is
this person is he 25 and arrogant, or 14 and immature, or 11 and confused.
It is an interesting study that I think of everyone online as my own age.
Even if he is 12, or 10 there still needs to be rules enforced for the good
of the community and their enjoyment of Lugnet. But would anyone shout at a
kid of 12... "you are arrogant", "you are wasting my time", "your parts are
crap", "you are lazy", "stop crying". The perceived anonymity of the
internet does funny things to a societal norms online. Who knows how old he
is... I didn't pick up on any admissions of age in his posts, perhaps you
know, or I missed it? Anyway just a side note that may not apply in this
case.
LINC
|
|
Message has 6 Replies:
 | | Re: A tiresome tirade (Was: garbage output)
|
| (...) Good point -- Very Good point. Yet -- is it intimidating to the uninformed because of a lack of context in the flames? -- (too much tacit knowledge?) -- or just because of any kind of flamage is mean and intimidating? One thing (maybe) worth (...) (26 years ago, 11-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: A tiresome tirade (Was: garbage output)
|
| (...) Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. (Not that there's anything wrong with being old.) By "elders" I just meant "old-timers" or "well-versed participants" in the sense of people who have been around the group for a long time and know the ins and (...) (26 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: A tiresome tirade (Was: garbage output)
|
| <MPG.117c140e7a3029c...ugnet.com> <3713B241.81475A2B@bigfoot.com> <slrn7h7oee.3vc.cjc@...S.UTK.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) We're talking about his RTL posting antics. (...) OK, acknowledged, (...) (26 years ago, 14-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | RTL differences
|
| (...) What do/did you like better about RTL than your local group, since you like both? Can you compare and contrast them? --Todd (26 years ago, 17-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: RTL differences
|
| <MPG.118290bfd9444b8...ugnet.com> <371FA247.CE42959@bigfoot.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Good Luck, many places just ignore rmgroup control messages so ATL is probably always going to exist (...) (26 years ago, 23-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A tiresome tirade (Was: garbage output)
|
| (...) You agree with what's being said but not with how it's being said? (...) I think this particular problem has a complex history which goes back several months and involves several people. It didn't materialize quickly or suddenly. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 10-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
19 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
|
|
|
|
