| |
In lugnet.admin.general, "Anders Isaksson"
<isaksson.etuna@REMOVEebox.tninet.se> writes:
> Todd Lehman skrev i meddelandet <37b47be5.155614673@lugnet.com>...
> > In lugnet.admin.general, "Anders Isaksson" wrote
> > >
> > > Well, throwing people out of the door is not the most pedagogic (w/sp?)
> > > way of teaching them, is it?
> >
> > You seem to suppose that everyone who's willing to learn some craft is worth
> > taking the time to teach that craft.
>
> I didn't _suppose_ anything, I just wrote down a gut reaction.
OK, I'll go back and answer the question (with my own *opinion*, naturally!)
even though it may have been a rhetorical question. No, throwing people out
the door is *not* the most pedagogic way of teaching them. Of course not.
(Pedagogic meaning "of, relating to, or befitting a teacher or education.")
But I thought you were opining that pedagogic ways were always better for a
group than throwing someone out. Maybe they are, 99% of the time. But in
that last 1%, isn't it sometimes better to throw someone out so that they
don't spoil the group? Only as a last resort, of course.
(BTW, by "...suppose that..." I meant "...believe, conjecture, or opine
that...")
Anyway, to be clearer on what I meant two messages backstream, I don't for a
second hold it as a personal belief that everyone who's willing to learn
some craft is worth taking the time to teach that craft. Everyone has a
right to learn a craft, IMHO, but that doesn't mean that they have a right
to waste the time of teachers. Taking the time of teachers is a privilege,
not a right. Some people should be left either to find the one insanely
willing teacher who's willing to teach them, or learn it on their own, or,
if they fail and they can't find anyone to help them, well then, too bad for
them. That's life. They should find something else to do. Or someplace
else to learn!
> When a group starts throwing people out, it's the beginning of group decay.
Or the end of the decay, depending on how you look at it.
Groups have to be able to throw people out (occasionally) to stay healthy.
Otherwise the group degrades.
I submit to you that *because* we haven't thrown Jonathan out yet, this
group is less healthy than it was six months ago. We've lost Joshua, Mike
Stanley, and we almost lost Jeff "Onyx" Boen a second time. Who knows who
else. And certainly this *thread* isn't healthy to the group (unless you
think of it as some sort of immune system working to figure out what to do).
Actually, that's it...think of it like an immune system. While blood cells
attacking a virus (or however it works). Does your body welcome bad things
into it? Yes, of course. Can it survive with bad things in it? Yes, of
course. Does it let them stay very long? Well, no, hopefully not -- it
attempts to purge anything which isn't beneficial to it. What would happen
to your body if you didn't have an immune system to fight the occasional
random bad thing?
> Some people
> will always be on the side of the outthrown, and start complaining of the
> treatment he/she got, you get factions, and fighting.
Are you saying that you oppose the concept of throwing someone out, or that
you're concerned about the mechanics and after-effects of process?
Doesn't the amount of fighting depend on how consensus is arrived at? If
you threw someone out on a 4/5 or 2/3 majority vote, for instance, that's
quite a different thing than throwing someone out on a 1/2 majority vote.
I agree that throwing someone out is a potentially dangerous thing to a
group. However, that social danger has to be weighed against the social
danger of allowing a person to stay in a group, yes?
BTW, I'm curious about thoughts on what BryceMcG wrote
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=2604
about yellow-belts and black-belts...
"Why in the world would I tutor someone that is rude and disrespectful
of me? Also if I had a choice of losing a black belt (or in this case
many) or keeping one yellow belt I would obviously lose the yellow belt."
I thought that was an excellent analogy (and the whole post too).
> Soon you'll have more throw-outs, and sooner or later you end up with a small
> 'elite' that makes all the decisions, and most others are off (or considered
> 'off').
A small elite here already influences all decisions (not necessarily _makes_
those decisions, but influences them). As it should be, of course: the
more knowledgeable and experienced about something you are, the more your
opinions should count (and do count, in practice, in dynamic social
systems).
I don't see how throwing someone out necessarily escalates (or degenerates)
into a small elite. That seems to me like a worst-worst-case scenerio, the
probability of which being 0.0000001% or something like that.
> I realize the group has a problem here, but I don't think the best solution is
> throwing people out. _Every_ other way to solve the problem _should_ be tried
> first.
Do you remember the person who identified himself as "Mandroid" in RTL?
How long did it take before (apparently) 99% of everyone in RTL wished he
could be thrown out? A month? A week? Half a week? A day? Would it have
made sense to try to solve the problem every other way before throwing him
out? How many people did Mandroid cause grief and cause them to stop
reading RTL during those weeks?
> I think a 'screening team' for parts is a good idea for _helping_ new authors,
> but I don't know how that could stop anyone from sending in new parts directly
> to the list.
It probably wouldn't, other than through peer pressure or written
procedures, which would probably count for a lot, if that were done.
> In the same way, throwing anyone out does not take away their
> possibilities to send direct email to others, so it's still only 'sweeping the
> problem under the carpet'.
It doesn't stop them from strapping a bomb to their chest and walking into a
public building, either. What's your point?
> > Whatever happened to independent learning?
>
> I don't understand what you mean with this question, perhaps my lack of
> English?
Oh, I mean, whatever happened to people learning something on their own by
lurking quietly, reading web pages carefully, studying the craft, and
figuring things out themselves, at least to some modicum of competency,
before jumping into the waters and splashing around?
> How could you ever learn anything without interacting with others?
Books. Web pages. Archives.
> How could anyone realize the 'LDRAW standards' without communication/
> cooperation with the rest of the group?
By lurking. By listening. By watching.
--Todd
[followups to .admin.general -- this is getting too off-topic for .cad.dev!]
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| Todd Lehman skrev i meddelandet <37b47be5.155614673@...et.com>... (...) of (...) I didn't _suppose_ anything, I just wrote down a gut reaction. When a group starts throwing people out, it's the beginning of group decay. Some people will always be on (...) (25 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
