Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:56:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2337 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> <3885C764.F1AF855@eclipse.net> <FoLCpu.CzB@lugnet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> James Brown wrote:
> >
> > Yup, that was clear. I don't quite get "the chain of management...follow" -
> > are you saying that the boss(es) of the scapegoat should also get punished?
>
> In many (but not all) cases - yes.
>
> > That's exactly it. Even in this fairly simple scenario, responsibility
> > diffuses fast. What you're talking about (seems to me) is punishment WAY
> > out of proportion to the crime. If make a typo in a training document,
> > that might have lead to somebody getting killed down the road, I should get
> > thrown so far in debt I can't ever climb out? Even more extreme, I'm
> > getting the message here that my proofreader, who missed the typo, should
> > get tossed down there with me. And my manager, who didn't hire someone
> > that doesn't make typos. (Just to be clear - if my typo DID lead to someone
> > getting killed, well, yes, I should get thrown so far into debt my head
> > spins - but that's it. MAYBE my proofreader, if it can be shown beyond
> > reasonable doubt that they are also negligent, but that's it.)
>
> OK, I'm in your scenario now. People dying as a result of _anything_ is
> pretty serious. Your typo is a problem. You should be punnished
> reasonably, but maybe not so much that your head spins - in this case.
> Your proofreader who must have been negligent is similarly responsible.
> In this specific case, I think that whoever designed a system by which a
> typo could lead to death - or allowed the working system to degenerate
> to that point should get the big bill.
Yup, I agree, but you missed the phrase "might have lead". If there's no
clear indicator as to where the responsibility lies, how can it be arbitrarily
assigned? That just screams "WRONG" to me.
<snipped bits about the Pinto>
Yes, I agree with this instance - Individuals at Ford made decisions - very
clearcut. I have a problem with the arbitrary assigning of responsibility
when the lines are blurred.
> > Punish the company, yes. Punish the people shown to be responsible *beyond
> > reasonable doubt*, yes. But punish everyone who might have had something to
> > do with it? That last seems to be what you're advocating, and I can't get
> > my head around that.
>
> I think that my examples in the note probably bring our views closer in
> line. Is that so?
Sort of. At the very least, we're understanding each other better.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| <3885C764.F1AF855@eclipse.net> <FoLCpu.CzB@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) In many (but not all) cases - yes. (...) OK, I'm in your scenario now. People dying as a result of _anything_ is (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 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
|
|
|
|
