| |
In lugnet.general, "onyx" <onyx@flash.net> writes:
> But, from an encompassing and objective view of all posts re: this
> thread, what this little maelstrom appears to have been rubs me the
> wrong way... more or less what it has all boiled down to is the two people
> with the most pull here (say what you like, but it *is* todd's server,
> domain, etc and we all know that you can pretty much view todd and suz as
> "todd and suz", an item) bullying Huw into "voluntarily" reversing his
> actions...
I can see how you could see it that way. But it shouldn't really be
surprising that a couple of people who are so insanely in love with a
company's product that they would start a fansite devoted entirely to it,
would also be correspondingly knowledgable about publishing and legal
issues, as well as wanting to help protect the interests of the company
whose products they love so dearly.
In other words, the two people who spoke up, spoke up simply because they
know what they're talking about. For better or for worse, they live, eat,
breathe, and work LEGO, and they're not afraid to "be the bad guy" and say
something unpopular when it needs being said.
> I'm sorry if I'm way out of line here, but I'm one person who will *not* censor
> himself or his actions, and my resolve often strengthens in the face of
> external pressure to modify my behavior...
No, I don't think you're out of line at all. And no one wants you or anyone
else to censor your thoughts or actions -- only to please be careful about
legalities and leaks. (And that's coming from me as a fan, not from me as a
sysadmin. As a sysadmin, I don't care what anyone does as a fan as long as
they don't break the law, etc.)
> I feel that a member of this
> community was forced to conform to the morality of other individuals...
> personally I don't have a problem with what Huw did...
Well, like I said earlier, I *personally* don't have any problem with what
Huw did either. I think it's great. But as a professional LEGO fan (if
there is such a thing), it worries me. The information will all be coming
out legitimately very soon anyway when the sets and consumer catalogs start
showing up. I understand the rush to break news and see things, but only to
a certain point.
> I *do* understand about
> priveledged/confidential information... but I agree with those who stated they
> don't feel any truly "sensitive" information was conveyed in Huw's post/web
> page
I completely understand that sentiment. And it may even be true that there
wasn't any sensitive information conveyed. But I think that's up to TLC to
decide, not us, and that we should err on the conservative side. But again,
that's just my personal opinion, not a sysadmin's opinion, except where
legalites may be concerend. It's all the more confusing when TLC doesn't
have publicly stated policies on the website about this sort of thing,
unfortunately.
> I was really upset by Suz's post stating "this isn't an issue for a vote, you
> have to take action now"...
I think you misquoted her. She said, "This does not require a vote. It
calls for swift appropriate action. You know that. Else you wouldn't be
keeping all names out of your discussion."
What she meant was that Huw should (in her opinion) use his own moral
judgment and do what he feels or knows is right. She'd be happiest if he
agreed with her, obviously, but that's up to him. As Larry put it, "This is
a moral decision on your part, not a popularity contest. Majorities have no
business dictating moralities."
And remember also that Suzanne was posting on her own behalf, as a LEGO fan,
and not as a representative of the MIT Media Lab or as a LEGO Fellow. Her
opinion is hers alone, and is slightly different from mine, but I respect
hers nonetheless, especially because she has had so much contact with LEGO.
One place we differ is that she, as a fan, personally doesn't want to see
information like that up on sites. Me, on the other hand, I personally love
to see it. But on the professional level, we both agree that it's risky and
probably not a wise thing, even though it's totally awesome.
> basically guilt-tripping Huw into what *she*
> believes is the right thing to do... and because she doesn't see it (or doesn't
> *want* to see it) as an arguable issue, she didn't feel we as a community
> should be polled for a consensus...
I *do* see this as an arguable issue[1] (as do you), and if Huw wants to
risk any run-ins with the LEGO Company over the publication of the retailer
catalogue scans, then that's his decision and his decision alone.
But my core point is that, IMHO, Huw should be aware that publishing scans
like that may not set a good example, and that he may catch steam from TLC.
> I just feel like we all signed up to be a part of a community whose terms of
> use did not state "your words and actions will be monitored and approved of by
> the creator/administrator"... something about the duplicitous nature of saying
> "I'm not telling you what you should do, I'm just telling you that I think you
> know the right thing to do" really rubbed me the wrong way..
The reason that the LUGNET Terms of Use contain this item:
...that you do not: [...]
6. Post or transmit any information, software, or other material
which violates or infringes upon the rights of others, including
material which is an invasion of privacy or publicity rights or
which is protected by copyright, trademark, or other proprietary
right, or derivative works with respect thereto, without first
obtaining permission from the owner or right holder.
is because we don't want LUGNET to catch any flak from TLC or anyone else.
Obviously, we also don't want users to get themselves into trouble either,
even innocently.
Did Huw violate #6? I'm not sure; it's too gray an area. But it would be
irresponsible of me not to say -something- about it, given everything I've
heard about retailer catalogs over the years.
> And I firmly believe that this issue and its resolution might have been vastly
> different if it were only me (or scott arthur, tamy teed, hell, even the
> lovable johnathan wilson) who posed the idea for Huw to acquiesce
>
> > :(
What would the outcome have been?
--Todd
[1] Todd sees everything in life as arguable. :-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
105 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
|
|
|
|
