Subject:
|
Re: A tiresome tirade (Was: garbage output)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 06:59:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
967 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, ldsmith@pfc.forestry.ca (Linc Smith) writes:
> [...]
> > > 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. [...]
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 keeping in mind is that the .cad.dev group is a
pretty techy bunch of folks -- many people born and raised and hardened on
Usenet and Dilbert and math books.
In other words, while I'd be very sorry to see heavy flamage going on in a
place like .build or .general, and even in .cad, I'm not *too* worried about
occasional flamage in .cad.dev or .robotics, for instance. Perhaps this
differentiation is misplaced, I don't know. On the other hand, I'd hate to
see flamage in a happy little subgroup of .robotics like .robotics.rcx.nqc
-- even though this is a group of extremely techy folks.
Could it be the case that the perceived size of a group affects whether or
not (or to what degree) flames are acceptable by the group's participants or
outsiders? Certainly, flames are more "expected" in larger groups since
there is more randomness and more potential for conflict.
> [...] I am not defending JW or saying he is not deserved
> 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.
This is a good suggestion, IMO. Unfortunately, there is no ruling body of
the .cad.dev group, which is comprised mainly of former L-CAD subscribers.
This makes a decision to do something this drastic into a political
situation -- possibly simple, possibly complex -- I'm not sure which.
> 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.
Suspension of posting privileges is very easy to carry out. I don't think
JW has broken any rules, however, which could justify something so drastic
without some sort of group decision process. That is, the L-CAD list (now
the lugnet.cad.dev newsgroup) is nearly a pure democracy in its decision
making process, and I don't think there are anything but implicit rules of
conduct with respect to the creation of parts.
I do not understand the interpersonal relationships and political landscape
of the group well enough to feel confident formally suggesting the
ostracizing of one of its members via suspension of posting privileges (or
an ultimatum to that effect).
However, if one of the group's "elders" -- say, Terry or Jacob -- were to
take the lead and put forth such a suggestion in a formal way, it would be
my duty to support whatever decision the group made (as long as it was
arrived at fairly).
> [...]
> > *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 :)
> [...]
> 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.
That sample ultimatum sounded great. Pass it on to Terry and Jacob and see
what they think. It (or a slightly revised version) could probably be aired
on .cad.dev for a few days, and pending no complaints it could be put into
effect. Or maybe it would have to be voted on, I don't know. I don't want
to get quite that involved in rule-making at that level.
> [...]
> 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.
Me too. It is very difficult to judge someone's age accurately without
knowing. I felt *SO* terrible when I learned that Chris A. was only 13,
after having flamed him so harshly without giving thought to his age. For
some stupid reason I assumed was at least 25. Anyway, here is that
situation in a nutshell:
http://www.lugnet.com/news/fullthread.cgi?lugnet.robotics:2694
http://www.lugnet.com/news/fullthread.cgi?lugnet.admin.general:777
It is particularly unfortunate that Chris never felt welcome enough to come
back since then, even after his posting privileges to the .robotics group
were restored. I really screwed that one up. But -- live and learn.
> 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.
Indeed. Very good point. Although flames are never appropriate toward
relatively younger people, suspension of posting privileges (temporarily,
hopefully) -- with a tactfully worded ultimatum in place of flamage -- is an
effective tool that can be used at any age.
> 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?
I don't know; he hasn't said. He was given a perfect opportunity to
disclose it, but he chose not to. I *think* he mentioned that he had
graduated high school.
> Anyway just a side note that may not apply in this case.
Exactly. JW is too intelligent to be a completely clueless child.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A tiresome tirade (Was: garbage output)
|
| Todd: [...] (...) That feels just like when kids refer to me as "the man". ;-( (...) I must admit that I haven't (cared to?) read all JW's posts on Lugnet, but from the ones I have read it appears that he has a different attitude to LDraw parts (...) (26 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A tiresome tirade (Was: garbage output)
|
| Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) However, (...) Yes that's it (more to that question later). (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 11-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
|
|
|
|
