Forum OpenACS Q&A: Are we finished here?

Collapse
22: Are we finished here? (response to 1)
Posted by Todd Gillespie on 04/04/01 11:17 AM
Okay, my inbox has logged about 30k of messages mostly filled with eisegesis of Mr. Zamboob's lack of tact. I'd like to appeal to reason, or else Godwinate this thread.

I have noticed 3 facinating things reading this thread:

  • The facination with aD borders on the religious.
  • Some people here are having a real hard time classifying the new aD into a 2-slot morality structure.
  • BBoard has a ways to go, technically, to provide constructive conversation without resorting to the admin's ICBM of moderation, the ban/censor.
First of all, everyone in this thread who is talking, and does not, nor has not, work[ed] for arsDigita, please stand up. What the hell do you want?? -- that is not a rhetorical question. Why is there a host of 3rd party advocates/assailants posting here about aD's future, motivations, and purity of spirit?
I suspect that there is a strong desire amongst some here for aD to remain an island of engineering purity, a open source avalon where "they do things right"; the 1001st face on Cambell's god - the happy geek. It's a perfection myth: "if aD can succeed as a completely transparent, OS company of propeller heads, then so can I." If this description fits anyone, I suggest you get over it -- accepting myth in the face of conflicting reality is rarely beneficial.

Secondly, must everyone here grade aD as either good or evil? This was the straw that broke me open:

At the beginning, it was about honesty. Now that has all been replaced with marketing. Fundamentally, no matter how crudely he put things, Jim's concerns were _valid_. If ArsDigita was really OK, they would've taken the opportunity to calmly address his comments, not just ignore and ban him. -- Mike Bruce
Is this some kind of litmus test? "Aha, you're using the Dark Side of the Source!" C'mon, people, we're working with authentic humans here - milage & behavior will vary.

Lastly, the structure of bboard. Jim Zamboob was flaming, plain and simple - personal attacks, no new info, lack of serious questions. He caricatured what everyone knows, and tried to insult some people on the way. 'What do you want, a cookie?'. But there must be a better way to run the bboard. A ban is like exising a virtual tongue - he can no longer speak, but staggers around nuisancing everyone and becomes the center of attention for a while. And he can always get a new account - red queen game, anyone? 7 years of Usenet tells me that the best response for dealing with flamers is still a fast vgrep & a 'mark read, next msg' key.

Chris Rasch: I like some of your bboard ideas - in particular an explicit definition of banning rules. I don't agree about courtesy; it's just so personal. Most of my design meetings are pretty combative -- different standards. I think a better litmus is "are you stating new information?" || "are you asking an earnest question?". I'm not sure about the 'penance' fee to reinstate accounts, but I would enjoy calling it "sacrament to the church of akira".

Jon Griffin: why yes, quite a few of us have 'slurped the code' - since 3.2. And the robot, I should add. I am bit puzzled, though, by your phrase "proprietary java [apps]" - these words are not dependent. If English was Normalizable, you would be violating 2NF.

Eve: props for the coolness to enter an anti-aD flamefest, dispense tech wisdom, and leave. You need a fan club.

Anyone: I assume Adam Farkas is taking it easy ATM, but will we be seeing much of him 'round these parts in the future?