Subject:
|
Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:39:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1161 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Verdier wrote:
r
> I would
> say if the community chooses to do this, everyone should very carefully
> examine their personal motives for creating this award. If you just want to
> show appreciation for the good and hard work someone has done, that can be
> accomplished by sending some email to the person saying great job. If you
> make this award a more 'official' way of doing that and make it a way of
> drawing people in that is a good thing.
For what it's worth, this is pretty much exactly what I had in mind
(still not speaking for Larry).
> If it becomes a way of excluding
> 'socially undesireable' people, I think it is a bad idea.
I agree absolutely with respect to the merit awards. With respect
to the service award, I can't say that socially disruptive behavior
isn't relevant. If someone thinks that bad language is particularly
damaging to the community, to the degree that it could outweigh a
potential honoree's good works, I can't say they're wrong.
> > proposed that it be voted by the broad-based general membership
> > of the yet-to-be-organized organization, so the voting members
> > could apply whatever criteria they like.
>
> I can see this as nothing other than a popularity contest, if it is
> implemented as you describe it. Popularity contests are fine as long as you
> recognize them as such, and don't try to pretend it is something else.
Since people who do good things tend to become popular, some aspect
of popularity is inevitable and appropriate. I don't expect it to
be exclusively popularity based - there are several people I like,
but wouldn't consider eligible for this sort of award, and others who
are prime candidates, but aren't universally popular. I think most
people can understand the distinction.
> I don't see how you can give an award from below.
Happens all the time. You don't have to be a master carpenter to
know if a chair is any good (1).
> For an award to be meaningful it has to be from people knowledgeable
> on that topic. Once you form that knowledgeable commitee to give out these
> awards, it has the potential to become an elitist group.
I believe that the SIG members will collectively be sufficiently
knowledgeable to make such a decision. They all will have at least
an interest in their field, and might possibly have some additional
qualifications (yet to be determined), and will have the benefit
of each others expertise. This isn't the way crafts guilds usually
work, and it may not be what Larry had in mind (haven't heard from
him lately), but I think that it would work.
1- paraphrase of something I vaguely recall Dr Johnson having
said in defense of literary critics.
--
Steve Jacquot
sj5w@virginia.edu
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?
|
| (...) You're carrying on just fine. If this nascent idea cannot be implemented except as a popularity contest, I would oppose it. NMRA models are judged without names attached, and many of the MM criteria the NMRA put in place are at least partly (...) (26 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?
|
| Steve Jacquot wrote in message <368A4443.41C6@kali....ia.edu>... (...) dole (...) interpersonal (...) what. (...) I tend to be cynical, and distrust organizations in general. A random sampling of webpages that focus on hobbies has led me to believe (...) (26 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
39 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
|
|
|
|
