| |
In lugnet.admin.general, "Adam Howard" <abhoward10@hotmail.com> writes:
> > There's no way to vote out a whole person if that person has repeatedly
> > demonstrated an inability to create parts that pass?? Why would you not
> > want to silence a noise at its source? I don't understand.
>
> Todd, I think you're making this too personal. Vote against a part not a
> person.
I thought parts were created by people. If you vote against a person, you
effectively vote against a whole collection of parts all at once, which
seems to me a much more efficient way to filter out rubbish.
But I should stop questioning the precepts and procedures of LDraw parts
creation, since I'm not a parts author. I'm mainly just dumbfounded by the
permissiveness and elasticity of the process and by the relatively high
levels of tolerance for ineptitude.
> > > In defense of Jonathan: He is obviously very enthusiastic about the
> > > LDraw project.
> >
> > Why does enthusiasm count more than quality? I don't understand.
>
> Did I say that?
No, you didn't say that. I assumed you meant that a show of enthusiasm was
enough of a plus in your book to warrant showing someone extra leniency.
That's certainly my philosophy, but only to a point.
> But in answer to your question look at kids in school: You
> start out not knowing much and the quality of your work is poor, but if you
> are enthusiastic about a subject you learn as much as you can about it and
> gradually your quality improves. It doesn't mean that enthusiasm is more
> important than quality it just means without enthusiasm in something your
> quality won't improve (those who are born geniuses are exceptions).
When I look at kids in school, I see the same problem, only different. In
school, there's always someone in the classroom to play the gadfly or class
dunce, but you typically don't have to see their work day in and day out,
and the teacher can ask them to shush if they're being annoying.
You might have to work with them in a small group on some special short-term
project, but you don't have to grade their essays, correct their papers,
point out all their errors, answer all their questions. That's the
teacher's job.
Unlike newsgroups, schoolrooms aren't typically N-to-N communication
paradigms; schoolrooms are N-to-1 and 1-to-N. It's changing very slowly
over a bit toward N-to-N, and that's good, but most of the job of helping
improve someone's work still falls upon the teacher, not the other students.
Even in N-to-1 and 1-to-N schoolroom paradigms, students self-organize into
private, smaller N-to-N study groups when they need to. But in those cases,
of course, it's extremely rare for an annoying person to be admitted.
Natural byproducts of N-to-N communication include isolationism (forced and
voluntary) and cliques. That's basic sociology and anthropology, and it
happens everywhere.
> [...]
> I don't know what to say here. I like to see the good in all people and
> think he is trying to be carefull. And again voting is the means for
> checking part quality. However, if the group decides we need a screening
> committee for parts, made by unproven authors, before they are submited for
> the official vote then we need to do that. I feel I fall into this group
> and wouldn't mind doing this. Then as our quality improves the screening
> commitee could graduate us by giving us direct vote submission priveleges.
> How do people feel about that solution?
I think that sounds like a wise idea!
> Remember I try to see the good in everyone. You could take his post here a
> number of ways, another less noted is that he was making a jest. In other
> words he knew his position with the group and he was just trying to make a
> bad joke.
I suppose there are worse ways to put one's foot in one's mouth.
> I really didn't want to get involved with this discussion, but it seemed to
> be snowballing more and more. One thing I don't think has been mentioned is
> commending Jonathan for acknowledging to the group that he is aware of the
> problems he is causing and that he is going to actively try to correct them.
Only after six months of painful complaints by people -- publicly and via
private email. And only after beginning to fathom how close he may actually
be to the edge of lion pit (by correctly reading into additional not-so-
subtle hints that have been dropped in the past 7 days by various people).
The timing of his acknowledgement is unfortunate for him because it makes it
look as though he's only doing this as a last-gasp rather than something
true from the heart (which should have happened months ago). I do commend
him, however, for starting a brand-new thread admitting he was wrong. That
takes some amount of courage. I was pleasantly surprised.
> He has started to use capital letters.
I think that may count a lot toward his being taken more seriously by
people.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:37b46f3c.152373...net.com... (...) Any part author can tell you the reason for this. Part authoring is such a slow and sometimes painful process that the thought of excluding someone who is (...) (25 years ago, 13-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) Adam, I hate to beat a dead horse, but I neglected to point out perhaps the most significant flaw with the "kids at school" way of looking at this. I agree, enthusiasm is a great thing!! And it goes a *loooong* way toward fostering effective (...) (25 years ago, 14-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:37b3f4c3.121015...net.com... (...) That (...) Todd, I think you're making this too personal. Vote against a part not a person. (...) it (...) group (...) I honestly don't know what to do here. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
146 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
