Post by thread:[OT] Moderation and list policy progression

> #4 They could read anything on the PIClist and not get upset. > They could choose to ignore anything they considered a > waste of time. They would not have to be protected by > "nanny" moderators because ..... see #1 > They could differentiate between useful information and > ad hominems. They might even exceed fish self-awareness > by recognizing the water they swim in. Unfortunately we are neither angels, nor governed by angels. Moderation is a necessary evil.

Interesting thought, but that assumes that the conversation is one way, and that only one side of the conversation needs to compromise. I submit that when both parties understand their audience, and attempt to communicate meaningful, useful, and positive information, the results of the conversation are far better than otherwise. A similar, possibly cliche, quote is, "Make sure everyone you talk to is better off for having talked to you." Certainly not always possible, but I see no reason why technical information can't be transferred in such a manner. -Adam On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:14 PM, YES NOPE9 <spam_OUTyesTakeThisOuTnope9.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Just think how great it would be if people were at the Phase 2 level. > > #1 Insults would not bother them. They would simply extract > any useful information from the utterance. > > #2 They would not be offended by generalizations since they > realize they are unique. > > #3 They would not support positions just because they always > did before , their friends support the position, the country they > live in "supports" the position , their "religion" supports the > position. > > #4 They could read anything on the PIClist and not get upset. > They could choose to ignore anything they considered a > waste of time. They would not have to be protected by > "nanny" moderators because ..... see #1 > They could differentiate between useful information and > ad hominems. They might even exceed fish self-awareness > by recognizing the water they swim in. > > Gus > > > PROGRESSION ( fractional values allowed ) > 0 Lizard brain > 1 phase 1 > 2 phase 2 >

M. Adam Davis wrote: > A similar, possibly cliche, quote is, "Make sure everyone you talk to > is better off for having talked to you." But back here in the real world, this is bad advice as a blanket statement. Once you've decided part of the solution is to get the moron fired, you clearly want him not to be better off after you talk. ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistKILLspam@spam@embedinc.com> wrote: > M. Adam Davis wrote: >> A similar, possibly cliche, quote is, "Make sure everyone you talk to >> is better off for having talked to you." > > But back here in the real world, this is bad advice as a blanket statement. > Once you've decided part of the solution is to get the moron fired, you > clearly want him not to be better off after you talk. Honestly, if he's that bad at his job I can only imagine he'll be significantly better off in a different line of work, so as far as I'm concerned they would be better off having been told the truth about their skills. But you can _generally_ tell them the truth without adopting an offensive line of discussion. Regardless, I don't know the whole thing holds up when applied to the piclist. Can you tell with the simple messages people post here as newbies that they are truly stupid and should get lost (ie, fired from the list)? It's easy enough in a design review, but email messages don't communicate enough to tell whether the design is stupid because the person is incapable of learning the right way, or the person simply lacks the skills and experience to do it the right way but are otherwise interested and capable of learning. I must be thinking about this too much. I'm now travelling down the path of, "If people are devices, then they communicate using APIs. What are the characteristics of the API, and how to best communicate to get the device to perform the intended action, or incorporate the information into their memory." If only life were so simple. Unfortunately no one sticks strictly to the english dictionary, which would be a fine standard if people didn't color the words and phrases with their own perspective, connotations, experience, interpretation, etc. On the other hand.... hmmm... How Olin, would you mind publishing your API? If we get everyone to do this, then we can generate a translator and end all incompatibilites in one fell swoop! ;-D -Adam

> > On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Vitaliy wrote: > >> #4 They could read anything on the PIClist and not get upset. >> They could choose to ignore anything they considered a >> waste of time. They would not have to be protected by >> "nanny" moderators because ..... see #1 >> They could differentiate between useful information and >> ad hominems. They might even exceed fish self-awareness >> by recognizing the water they swim in. > > Unfortunately we are neither angels, nor governed by angels. > > Moderation is a necessary evil. I would like to believe that practicing evil is never a good idea. Of course, having said that , I fail in my efforts often. Moderation is a mistake more often than not. Gus

The API idea sounds great. Not stupid. Way to go AD ! Gus {Quote hidden}> On Feb 22, 2010, at 3:56 PM, M. Adam Davis wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclistKILLspamembedinc.com > > wrote: >> M. Adam Davis wrote: >>> A similar, possibly cliche, quote is, "Make sure everyone you talk >>> to >>> is better off for having talked to you." >> >> But back here in the real world, this is bad advice as a blanket >> statement. >> Once you've decided part of the solution is to get the moron fired, >> you >> clearly want him not to be better off after you talk. > > Honestly, if he's that bad at his job I can only imagine he'll be > significantly better off in a different line of work, so as far as I'm > concerned they would be better off having been told the truth about > their skills. But you can _generally_ tell them the truth without > adopting an offensive line of discussion. > > Regardless, I don't know the whole thing holds up when applied to the > piclist. Can you tell with the simple messages people post here as > newbies that they are truly stupid and should get lost (ie, fired from > the list)? It's easy enough in a design review, but email messages > don't communicate enough to tell whether the design is stupid because > the person is incapable of learning the right way, or the person > simply lacks the skills and experience to do it the right way but are > otherwise interested and capable of learning. > > I must be thinking about this too much. I'm now travelling down the > path of, "If people are devices, then they communicate using APIs. > What are the characteristics of the API, and how to best communicate > to get the device to perform the intended action, or incorporate the > information into their memory." > > If only life were so simple. Unfortunately no one sticks strictly to > the english dictionary, which would be a fine standard if people > didn't color the words and phrases with their own perspective, > connotations, experience, interpretation, etc. > > On the other hand.... hmmm... > > How Olin, would you mind publishing your API? If we get everyone to > do this, then we can generate a translator and end all > incompatibilites in one fell swoop! > > ;-D > > -Adam

Olin Lathrop wrote: >> A similar, possibly cliche, quote is, "Make sure everyone you talk to >> is better off for having talked to you." > > But back here in the real world, this is bad advice as a blanket > statement. > Once you've decided part of the solution is to get the moron fired, you > clearly want him not to be better off after you talk. Woa! :-O You want to punish the guy AFTER he's been fired. Why? I've had to fire a number of people over the years, and though the last time I had to fire someone it wasn't any easier than the first time, I learned that there is a right and a wrong way to do it. The right way means the person shakes your hand, and walks away with their dignity intact. Vitaliy

Vitaliy wrote: >> Once you've decided part of the solution is to get the moron fired, >> you clearly want him not to be better off after you talk. > > Woa! :-O You want to punish the guy AFTER he's been fired. Why? Bad wording on my part apparently. I meant getting fired as the not being better off part. I was also assuming in this situation someone else is doing the actual firing. ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.