c.g.d.* culture
Brandon J. Van Every
distinct developer culture. I think it's a sane developer culture, I don't
have any beefs with it, but I am reminded that it is a specific one.
Sometimes I've brought my Usenet ways to other people's projects, and I've
been surprised at the lack of common ground. Often the hangup is people are
expected to be *extremely* easygoing. When I ask people what I think is
basic project information, i.e. sanity checking, they often feel threatened
and irritated that they've even been asked to think about it.
Culturally, I think c.g.d.* denizens have a fairly high "Constructive
Conflict" threshold. I think online communities that evolve elsewhere may
have a much lower Constructive Conflict threshold. Something to note when
criticizing how other people do business. There may be no way in hell it
would work for you, but it might work for them?
I'm curious if anyone else has applied their c.g.d.* sensibilities elsewhere
in their lives, and run into land mines as a result.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
Taking risk where others will not.
Tom Sloper
>
>Sometimes I've brought my Usenet ways to other people's projects, and I've
>been surprised at the lack of common ground.
Usenet ways belong on usenet. Can you give us a specific example?
>Often the hangup is people are
>expected to be *extremely* easygoing.
My experience in the industry is that people are expected to be easygoing
yet professional, polite, and to interact with others in a manner conducive
to cooperative teamwork.
>When I ask people what I think is
>basic project information, i.e. sanity checking, they often feel threatened
>and irritated that they've even been asked to think about it.
Can you give us a specific example of a question you asked that inexplicably
threatened someone? Together with the context, exact wording, and your tone
of voice?
>Culturally, I think c.g.d.* denizens have a fairly high "Constructive
>Conflict" threshold.
You mean "we not only dish it out but we can take it as well"? Is that what
you mean? That's all well and good, but if you dish out the kind of crap we
dish each other all the time on usenet, then hoo boy, no wonder you had
problems. More on this below.
>I'm curious if anyone else has applied their c.g.d.* sensibilities
elsewhere
>in their lives, and run into land mines as a result.
When I go to England or Japan, I drive on the left side of the road. When I
am in Japan, I speak respectfully, and politely, and bow a lot. How does the
saying go, "When in Rome..." (you CAN finish the saying, can you not?)...
When internet novices venture into cyberspace, they have to learn a thing
called "netiquette." Sounds like you need to remember that the foundation of
that word is "etiquette," a word that talks about "rules" for people to get
along with people in the real world.
On the internet (and that includes the newsgroups), we are somewhat faceless
individuals - hardly people at all. So it's harder to remember to be civil
in this sort of environment. But we deal with these circumstances as well as
we can, because it's just the way the net is. We adapt. We improvise. We
overcome.
Most of us find it easier to be nice when dealing with real people, face to
face (we can read subtle clues like body language, facial expressions, tone
of voice, and so on). I have heard that there are people who have
difficulty relating well with other people - difficulty reading these subtle
interpersonal clues. You might try to consider the possibility that you are
among this group. (I am not saying that you are. I've never met you. I'm
just saying.)
>Cheers,
Right back atcha (Bud Light raised - I don't happen to have a Lager Shandy
or Sapporo handy just now).
Tom
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> Landon's posts (with no further information) would not be welcome in
> any message board I know.
What about on chat channels? I wonder if chat channels have a totally
different culture. I've never spent any time on them, but somehow Landon's
project reminds me of sensibilities I've encounterd on chat channels.
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> Can you give us a specific example of a question you asked that
> inexplicably threatened someone? Together with the context, exact
> wording, and your tone of voice?
Sorry, I don't have those powers of recollection. :-) But I'll try to make
note of those things if it happens again.
>> Culturally, I think c.g.d.* denizens have a fairly high "Constructive
>> Conflict" threshold.
>
> You mean "we not only dish it out but we can take it as well"? Is
> that what you mean? That's all well and good, but if you dish out
> the kind of crap we dish each other all the time on usenet, then hoo
> boy, no wonder you had problems. More on this below.
>
> Most of us find it easier to be nice when dealing with real people,
> face to face (we can read subtle clues like body language, facial
> expressions, tone of voice, and so on). I have heard that there are
> people who have difficulty relating well with other people -
> difficulty reading these subtle interpersonal clues. You might try to
> consider the possibility that you are among this group. (I am not
> saying that you are. I've never met you. I'm just saying.)
People are actually quite surprised how easy it is to interact with me in
person. It's in virtual mediums where I really bludgeon people. :-)
Nathan Mates
Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Landon's posts (with no further information) would not be welcome in
>> any message board I know.
>What about on chat channels? I wonder if chat channels have a
>totally different culture. I've never spent any time on them, but
>somehow Landon's project reminds me of sensibilities I've encounterd
>on chat channels.
I know several where his general attitude of "go here" followed by
a blowup when people ignored him would get him taunted/kicked/etc. I
think it generally comes down to an experience level-- the more times
one has seen people come in with such an attitude, the less patience a
group has with them. Part of that comes down to etiquette-- lurking
first to see what is acceptable behavior on a group. Part of that is a
general reaction to the same mistakes being made over and over again,
and people jump straight to the "won't work" phase w/o all the niceties.
Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/
# Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
# NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors
# think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein
Graeme
news:0ZLeb.6448$ee2.53...@news-text.cableinet.net:
> I'm x-posting this to a.c.2kad as it's pertinent to criticism of the
> new Judge Dredd game, the companies response to criticism, and the
> back slapping group-think of the newsgroup.
I believe it would also be pertinent to recommend to any interested c.g.d.*
readers that they take a stroll through the Google archives to see exactly
how an individual can cause multiple newsgroups to reach the conclude that
they're an ill-tempered troll who rapidly resorts to personal abuse when
their opinions and assertions are challenged. Or, in fact, when a company
representative attempts to respond to criticism in a civilised and
professional manner.
Graeme
--
http://members.optusnet.com.au/graeme
"I stayed up all night playing poker with tarot cards.
I got a full house and four people died." - Steve Wright.
Charles E. Hardwidge
>the conclude that they're an ill-tempered troll who rapidly
>resorts to personal abuse when their opinions and
>assertions are challenged.
A little fact checking might show how genuine concerns and differences of
opinion were met with a less than open minded approach, and how flaming and
trolling by the established group inflamed an already delicate situation.
It's a classic case of wounded pride looking for a scapegoat.
>Or, in fact, when a company representative attempts to
>respond to criticism in a civilised and professional manner.
When you put civilised and professional criticism forward, and a
non-critical group treats it as an antibody would a foreign body a little
head knocking can and does produce wonders, though group members who did
concede the point may be rapidly reabsorbed into the hive mind.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge.
Brandon J. Van Every
> and people jump straight to the "won't work" phase w/o all the
> niceties.
Must admit I'm giving *tremendous* benefit of the doubt to Landon's project.
Handsprings and backflips of benefit of doubt. I have a morbid curiosity to
join their project under an assumed name and lurk, just to find out if
they're doing anything I'd find remotely surprising. :-)
But in the best case, what is there to learn? That a project can succeed,
even if it uses a managerial style I would never tolerate? Operatively,
that lesson has no value to me.
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> I believe it would also be pertinent to recommend to any interested
> c.g.d.* readers that they take a stroll through the Google archives
> to see exactly how an individual can cause multiple newsgroups to
> reach the conclude that they're an ill-tempered troll who rapidly
> resorts to personal abuse when their opinions and assertions are
> challenged. Or, in fact, when a company representative attempts to
> respond to criticism in a civilised and professional manner.
If you changed the word "troll" to the word "person," I'd agree. Nothing
about being ill-tempered, abusive, or impatient makes one a priori a troll.
We have to be careful of the trap described in my .sig.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"Troll" - (n.) Anything you don't like.
Usage: "He's just a troll."
Hamhead
of terror, but there ya go! I believe I'll try bashing my head on my desk
next and see what I get from that, hell maybe the next revolution in gaming
would come out of this!
*crosses fingers*
Later,
Ahmad
"Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:blfth5$bc12o$1...@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de...
Brandon J. Van Every
> Wow, didn't expect to see anyone learn anything from Landon's posting
> spree of terror, but there ya go! I believe I'll try bashing my head
> on my desk next and see what I get from that, hell maybe the next
> revolution in gaming would come out of this!
> *crosses fingers*
I think the lesson to be extracted from bashing one's head against a desk,
is that it's a pointless waste of energy. One might say something similar
at viewing Landon's posts as a "spree of terror." Who's really being
terrified? I'm still not sure why Mark had such a hostile reaction to
Landon in the first place. My guess is that's Mark's way of "helping"
Landon. Certainly it became a hornet's nest. I knew my own comments
wouldn't be taken well, since we were all "on Landon's case," but I made
them anyways. The group had an "immunity response," it seemed pretty
willing to inform all parties that "people really don't have to put up with
this kind of project management." I was certainly a champion of that
sentiment, although I had a different way of expressing it.
Everyone could have just ignored Landon's posts. Did Landon learn anything
from it? We won't know... but we probably did plant the seeds of an idea.
We don't have the power to change people directly, but if enough seeds get
planted from enough people, over very long periods of time (i.e. years)
people do change.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> I think the lesson to be extracted from bashing one's head against a desk,
> is that it's a pointless waste of energy. One might say something similar
> at viewing Landon's posts as a "spree of terror." Who's really being
> terrified? I'm still not sure why Mark had such a hostile reaction to
> Landon in the first place. My guess is that's Mark's way of "helping"
> Landon. Certainly it became a hornet's nest. I knew my own comments
I didn't have a particularly hostile reaction to his request, that was
you reading entirely too much into it. I don't know what your damage is
there, and I don't want to know (see my .sig; Fred speaks for me). I
merely held him in potential contempt. I've seen a billion identical
"JOIN MY TEAM I CAN'T DO ANYTHING BUT I'LL BE YOUR LEADER" offers
before. Landon was remarkable only in his spamming.
He refuses to answer questions or elucidate himself in public or in
email, and until he does, if ever that happens, taking him seriously is
stupid.
I bust my ass writing indie RPGs (rarely other kinds of games; I write
what I like playing). Until recently, entirely solo. I've got a couple
of volunteer artists now who'll be contributing to Umbra, which dearly
needs it, so that's cool. But that never would have happened if I'd
just whined on a bunch of newsgroups. I wrote games, got them out
there, people liked them, and THEN they wanted to help. That's the
effective and honest way to get things done. You want to lead a game
development team, make at least a demo of your game.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"I believe in communication. If I communicate with you every so often,
you'll be bothered by what I say enough that you won't ask me to, which
means more sleep for me." -Something Positive, 2003Sep22
Brandon J. Van Every
> Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_a...@yahoo.com>
> wrote on Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:07:49 -0700:
>> I think the lesson to be extracted from bashing one's head against a
>> desk, is that it's a pointless waste of energy. One might say
>> something similar at viewing Landon's posts as a "spree of terror."
>> Who's really being terrified? I'm still not sure why Mark had such
>> a hostile reaction to Landon in the first place. My guess is that's
>> Mark's way of "helping" Landon. Certainly it became a hornet's
>> nest. I knew my own comments
>
> I didn't have a particularly hostile reaction to his request, that
> was you reading entirely too much into it.
Ok, if that's your take, my feedback is thus: your pointed questions were
*very easy* to read as hostile. If you are honestly unaware how / why your
questions could have been construed as hostile, as opposed to just saying
"Well people *shouldn't* take my comments as hostile, they don't have a
right to," then I can only recommend that you think back to every time in
your memory where someone gave you such feedback. I bet you'll see a
pattern. I say that as someone who has certainly proferred many
less-than-helpful questions.
> I don't know what your damage is there,
For instance, I don't construe that as hostile, because I'm thick skinned, I
know your personality from long experience, and we've even met and discussed
things in person before. But a random person could certainly take such a
comment as hostile.
> and I don't want to know (see my .sig; Fred speaks
> for me). I merely held him in potential contempt.
You don't understand how holding people in potential contempt comes across
as hostility?
> I've seen a
> billion identical "JOIN MY TEAM I CAN'T DO ANYTHING BUT I'LL BE YOUR
> LEADER" offers before. Landon was remarkable only in his spamming.
Haven't seen too many myself, but I've seen a few. They don't cause me any
grief worthy of response. I'm curious what grief they cause you? Because
you are clearly motivated to respond negatively. What's your stake in it?
> He refuses to answer questions or elucidate himself in public or in
email,
I don't think you e-mailed him. I did, and I got clarifying responses. If
terse and not entirely satisfactory.
> and until he does, if ever that happens, taking him seriously is stupid.
I disagree. I treat people as provisionally worthwhile, as opposed to
provisionally holding them in contempt. I *check* before assuming they're
just another garden variety 20-something project idiot. I don't know if I'm
benefitting any more or less than you are, having this optimistic approach,
but I don't think my approach is stupid. Rather, it seems to be based on
knowledge, empiricism, and a little less ego than I might otherwise have.
What if I have something to learn?
> I bust my ass writing indie RPGs (rarely other kinds of games; I
> write what I like playing). Until recently, entirely solo. I've got
> a couple
> of volunteer artists now who'll be contributing to Umbra, which dearly
> needs it, so that's cool. But that never would have happened if I'd
> just whined on a bunch of newsgroups. I wrote games, got them out
> there, people liked them, and THEN they wanted to help. That's the
> effective and honest way to get things done. You want to lead a game
> development team, make at least a demo of your game.
Ah, so now we have the root of the personal stake, which is pretty much as I
suspected all along. Joe X comes along and does open source indie game
development differently than you do. You think he's supposed to do it Your
Way, not His Way. You don't think it's possible for his way to work, and
you label it "dishonest." I detect a note of sour grapes here, the idea
that someone *might* succeed with less effort than you personally had to
exert.
I think Landon's mindset is probably more like, he wants people who are easy
for him to communicate with. Making them come to his forum and participate
in his private, moderated list is a filter. If people can make it past that
filter, he can take them seriously. Certainly, he's "selecting for" people
that are easy for him to work with, and I can't a priori call that
dishonest. He never said he wouldn't tell people stuff, he said you have to
come to his turf if you want to be taken seriously.
Now, I personally would never accept that style of management. I also
suspect that Landon and his group don't actually have the skill to get
anything done. But I haven't investigated that, so I cannot be sure. I
feel I have to give benefit of the doubt that his approach could work, even
if I think it's unlikely.
I wrote some other young inexperienced buck the other day about his
managerial style. It was a want ad on SourceForge for help with some game
project. It said something like, "You have to be this, this and that. You
have to discuss stuff with the other coders every week. You have to make
check-ins every week." I wrote this guy and told him that in volunteer
projects, you don't tell people what to do, you ask them nicely. I was
deliberately belittling and dismissive, giving him hard-headed advice if he
was willing to swallow a bitter little pill. Reading between the lines, I
was clearly letting him know what a rank amateur at project organization he
was. He wrote me back with you don't know jack, what's your point other
than to get in a pissing match, I won't play that game, blah blah blah. I
told him, I don't have any stake in the success or failure of your project,
my ego isn't on the line. Just trying to give advice that will prove useful
when your project dies and you're wondering, "Now what?" Food for future
thought, he certainly wasn't going to accept it at the time, in the harsh
way I gave it to him.
Now, thinking outside my own box of how things "should" work, he *might*
actually get some suckers that he can abuse and Nazi around for awhile.
There's that old Eurythmics song, "Sweet Dreams," about how some of 'em want
to get used by you! But eventually 2 realities are going to emerge: (1)
people don't like being treated that way on a regular basis, (2) people
don't have time, let alone organizational skill, for mandatory meetings and
code check-ins "every week." Even students have homework, parties to go to,
games to play. I take these 2 things as Fact, and that's my ego talking.
As far as I'm concerned, those aspects of volunteer project management never
go away.
Why did I bother to write him? Because I've screwed up at this sort of
thing before, and maybe if I dispense some free advice, someone someday will
make less of the same mistake. They'll have to be stubborn and make their
own mistakes the first time no matter what, but when they fall flat on their
face, they might think about the "I told you so's."
Plus, I enjoy bashing people who deserve it. If you think it's your job to
boss people around, I think a quick kick in the nuts is warranted. I wonder
if we can teach people that there are consequences for Dilbertism, before
they get real jobs?
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
>> I didn't have a particularly hostile reaction to his request, that
>> was you reading entirely too much into it.
> Ok, if that's your take, my feedback is thus: your pointed questions were
> *very easy* to read as hostile.
You're the only one complaining about my questions. To me, it looks
like you want everyone else to only ask questions your way.
>> I've seen a
>> billion identical "JOIN MY TEAM I CAN'T DO ANYTHING BUT I'LL BE YOUR
>> LEADER" offers before. Landon was remarkable only in his spamming.
> Haven't seen too many myself, but I've seen a few. They don't cause me any
> grief worthy of response. I'm curious what grief they cause you? Because
> you are clearly motivated to respond negatively. What's your stake in it?
Nothing, really. I spent a few moments on it, and that was it. The
spamming was annoying, though, and that set my tone more than anything
else. Since he continues to spam, not from ignorance now but from
malice, I'm even less inclined to be gentle.
>> He refuses to answer questions or elucidate himself in public or in
> email,
>
> I don't think you e-mailed him. I did, and I got clarifying responses. If
> terse and not entirely satisfactory.
I certainly did. No answer.
>> I bust my ass writing indie RPGs (rarely other kinds of games; I
>> write what I like playing). Until recently, entirely solo. I've got
>> a couple
>> of volunteer artists now who'll be contributing to Umbra, which dearly
>> needs it, so that's cool. But that never would have happened if I'd
>> just whined on a bunch of newsgroups. I wrote games, got them out
>> there, people liked them, and THEN they wanted to help. That's the
>> effective and honest way to get things done. You want to lead a game
>> development team, make at least a demo of your game.
>
> Ah, so now we have the root of the personal stake, which is pretty much as I
> suspected all along. Joe X comes along and does open source indie game
> development differently than you do. You think he's supposed to do it Your
> Way, not His Way. You don't think it's possible for his way to work, and
> you label it "dishonest." I detect a note of sour grapes here, the idea
> that someone *might* succeed with less effort than you personally had to
> exert.
Bzzt, wrong answer. Nothing could be further from the truth. You're
a game programmer, not a psychologist, Brandon.
I've seen many "Hey, let's make a game together" projects since the
late '80s, and participated in several. They always end the same way:
politics and failure. The ones that end worst are those where the
"leader" is a non-contributor.
In business software development, a manager who can't actually do
anything productive can still be somewhat useful for organizing people.
In online projects, managers have been actively harmful in every case
I'm aware of.
The *only* distributed projects that actually work out are where
there's working code to begin with, and then other people join the very
small core team. Usually the core team is either one person or a
handful of friends who know each other in person. And, to be honest,
it's rare for the contributors to bring more than 10% to a project,
total.
My way is a very limited subset of that: I develop complete games
solo, and then sometimes I'll see if anyone's interested in contributing
anything else. There have been a great many successful projects that
don't work like I do, and they're probably better for it.
> I think Landon's mindset is probably more like, he wants people who are easy
> for him to communicate with. Making them come to his forum and participate
> in his private, moderated list is a filter. If people can make it past that
> filter, he can take them seriously. Certainly, he's "selecting for" people
> that are easy for him to work with, and I can't a priori call that
> dishonest. He never said he wouldn't tell people stuff, he said you have to
> come to his turf if you want to be taken seriously.
Based on my experience of the type, that's giving him entirely too
much credit for forethought. I suspect he just wants the ego boost of
having more people use his little webboard.
Brandon J. Van Every
> Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_a...@yahoo.com>
> wrote on Thu, 2 Oct 2003 21:05:06 -0700:
>> Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>> I didn't have a particularly hostile reaction to his request, that
>>> was you reading entirely too much into it.
>>
>> Ok, if that's your take, my feedback is thus: your pointed questions
>> were *very easy* to read as hostile.
>
> You're the only one complaining about my questions. To me, it looks
> like you want everyone else to only ask questions your way.
Just because I'm the one to point out something about your choice of
personal style, doesn't mean I'm the only one who notices it. And I think
it's inaccurate to say I'm "complaining" about your questions. Rather, I've
offered you some feedback on how you come across. I have an engineering
attitude towards the whole thing: your approach engenders certain
predictable results. If those are the results you want, fine, whatever.
>> What's your stake in it?
>
> Nothing, really. I spent a few moments on it, and that was it. The
> spamming was annoying, though, and that set my tone more than anything
> else. Since he continues to spam, not from ignorance now but from
> malice, I'm even less inclined to be gentle.
I can't take the idea that Landon posted out of malice seriously. He posted
to get people for his project. Just because you have a beef with the style
of his posts doesn't make him malicious.
>>> He refuses to answer questions or elucidate himself in public or
>>> in email,
>>
>> I don't think you e-mailed him. I did, and I got clarifying
>> responses. If terse and not entirely satisfactory.
>
> I certainly did. No answer.
Well, if you e-mailed him after you expressed your public hostility to him,
or used a similar tone in your e-mail, he would be justified in ignoring
you. He didn't ignore me, I got 2 or 3 responses before being labeled a
person "who doesn't think carefully" and asked not to e-mail him anymore.
This was surely because my tone became more pointed as time went on.
>>> I wrote games, got them out
>>> there, people liked them, and THEN they wanted to help. That's the
>>> effective and honest way to get things done.
>>
>> You think
>> he's supposed to do it Your Way, not His Way. You don't think it's
>> possible for his way to work, and you label it "dishonest."
>
> Bzzt, wrong answer. Nothing could be further from the truth.
> You're a game programmer, not a psychologist, Brandon.
Your remarks above are contradictory. You clearly think You Know Best for
Landon. You have such a tiff with how Landon does things that you label him
"malicious."
>> I think Landon's mindset is probably more like, he wants people who
>> are easy for him to communicate with.
>
> Based on my experience of the type, that's giving him entirely too
> much credit for forethought. I suspect he just wants the ego boost of
> having more people use his little webboard.
It's possible. But despite my morbid curiosity on the matter, I'm not
disruptive enough to go find out for sure.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes wrote:
>> Bzzt, wrong answer. Nothing could be further from the truth.
>> You're a game programmer, not a psychologist, Brandon.
> Your remarks above are contradictory. You clearly think You Know Best for
> Landon. You have such a tiff with how Landon does things that you label him
> "malicious."
No, I labeled his attitude "malice" because of his one response so far.
I don't care what's best for Landon, I care what's best for me, which is
not to see spam.
Anyway, enough of this.
Brandon J. Van Every
>> that you label him "malicious."
>
> No, I labeled his attitude "malice" because of his one response so far.
There is nothing remotely malicious about Landon's "kiss off" post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=46e4f4ff.0309301554.7c9a40e3%40posting.google.com
It was hostile, but he was reacting to hostility he had already received.
Maliciousness is, like, when someone tries to prove what a horrible person
someone else is. Landon isn't remotely guilty of that, he simply said
(using different words), Buzz Off!
Oh, and he called us foolish. I think it's quite a stretch to say Landon is
malicious for calling us foolish. I don't think it's just becuase of my
thick skin. I'm trying to reach back to grade school, to think how utterly
emotionally damaging such an epithet could be. "You... foolish...
Foolish... FOOLISH!!!" Please imagine strident finger pointing as the words
are spoken. Man, I'm sure we'd scrap in the playground over that one!
> I don't care what's best for Landon, I care what's best for me, which
> is not to see spam.
Do I need a .sig for "spam" like my one for "trolls?" His posts were terse,
repetitive, and on topic. That's not spam.
> Anyway, enough of this.
Fair enough.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"Troll" - (n.) Anything you don't like.
Dan Olson
>> I don't care what's best for Landon, I care what's best for me, which
>> is not to see spam.
>
> Do I need a .sig for "spam" like my one for "trolls?" His posts were
> terse, repetitive, and on topic. That's not spam.
I'd have no problem classifying his 3-5 reposts (cross-posted no less) as
spam. I'd also have a hard time considering them on-topic. This isn't a
group for recruiting, a group for vaporware, or a group for posting the
same thing as many times as possible, so it's hard to find a place for
them.
Brandon J. Van Every
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 22:56:31 -0700, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>>> I don't care what's best for Landon, I care what's best for me,
>>> which is not to see spam.
>>
>> Do I need a .sig for "spam" like my one for "trolls?" His posts were
>> terse, repetitive, and on topic. That's not spam.
>
> I'd have no problem classifying his 3-5 reposts (cross-posted no
> less) as spam. I'd also have a hard time considering them on-topic.
He never cross-posted. He multi-posted, varying his messages slightly for
the different groups. The record will show, below, that this was done in
the majority of instances to make them more topical for each group.
> This isn't a group for recruiting,
comp.games.development.industry is absolutely for recruiting. From the
group's Charter, culled from
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=901007906.10168%40isc.org, and which
BTW I wrote, along with all the other c.g.d.* Charters: "This is the
preferred group for job offers, discussions of
salary/compensation/royalties, the importance of getting a C.S. degree,
breaking into the industry, and so forth." And note please, the operative
word is "preferred." Not "required."
> a group for vaporware,
The concept of "vaporware" is not addressed in any Charter of the c.g.d.*
hierarchy. 80% of discussions on c.g.d.* are about theoretical issues or
incomplete projects, i.e. vaporware.
> or a group for posting the same thing as many times as possible,
Which Landon didn't do. Landon posted at intervals of 4..5 days. This is
not "as many times as possible" by any stretch of the imagination, Landon
wasn't some spambot churning out posts every few minutes. "Landon posted
frequently" is a fair charge. Now, tell me where in the Charters it says
you can't post frequently?
> so it's hard to find a place for them.
Let's look at how hard it really was.
4 posts on Sep. 12, 2003.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:comp.games.development.*+author:Landon&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=9&as_min
y=2003&as_maxd=12&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2003&filter=0
The subject lines of the *.industry, *.design, and *.programming.misc posts
are all topical. *.art isn't, but it does mention a need for 3d modeling.
2 posts on Sep 20, 2003.
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_ugroup=comp.games.development.*&as_uauthors=Landon&as_drrb=b&as_mind=20&as_minm=9&as_miny=2003&as_maxd=20&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2003&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Subject line for *.art isn't topical, but does mention need for 3d modeling.
Subject line for *.design is topical.
*.design and *.programming.misc posts are topical. *.art post doesn't say
anything about art.
All topical.
2 posts on Sept 30, 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_ugroup=comp.games.development.*&as_uauthors=Landon&as_drrb=b&as_mind=30&as_minm=9&as_miny=2003&as_maxd=30&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2003&lr=&num=100&hl=en
*.design post topical. "Kiss off!" post justified.
Looking at this data, it seems to me that Landon is:
- guilty of posting more frequently than necessary to reach most people on
Usenet
- guilty of multiposting more than necessary to reach most people on c.g.d.*
- not guilty of posting the same thing "as many times as possible"
- guilty of posting in a flaky manner to *.art
- not guilty, otherwise, of posting off-topic
- THUS FROM THE ABOVE, not guilty of spamming
- guilty of ignoring requests for public info about his project
- not guilty of being inaccessible (I got private e-mail replies from him)
- guilty of being an unsatisfactory project manager in many people's opinion
- not guilty of malice
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
Taking risk where others will not.
Dan Olson
> Dan Olson wrote:
>> This isn't a group for recruiting,
>
> comp.games.development.industry is absolutely for recruiting.
I guess you learn something new every day. It turns out that there is a
group on Usenet that doesn't bristle at offers of employment from people
with hotmail addresses. Huh.
As for cross-posting versus multi-posting, you're right, but I don't see
how changing two words in each post suddenly makes them on-topic in every
group (hint: they're not).
Based on your verbose defense of this poster (who I would think only
deserves passing attention) I have amended my opinion. I still think that
his posts are spam, but only because of his persistence. If by some
technicality they can be considered on-topic somewhere then I guess I'd
just chalk up his first round of posts to inexperience with Usenet. I'd
score his second and third round of posts as spam, and any future round of
posts as "screw you guys, I'll post whatever I want" posts.
However, as with all hotmail-wielding "project" managers, I think the best
reaction is to chuckle and ignore, rather than getting involved in a
threads about how we can learn about ourselves from our reactions to
multi-posting teenagers. You'll note from that sentence that my getting
involved in this thread was against my better judgment, but I'm still
learning how to keep my mouth shut.
If you want the last word, it's all yours.
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> As for cross-posting versus multi-posting, you're right, but I don't
> see how changing two words in each post suddenly makes them on-topic
> in every group (hint: they're not).
Well then you didn't look at the factual record of Landon's posts, which I
took some pains to provide in complete detail. It's very clear that he was
on topic everywhere but *.art, and he was only slightly flaky about that.
If you don't see how changing two words can make something on topic, then
you need to stare at it longer until you see it. Wanting to dislike
something doesn't make you correct or justified.
> Based on your verbose defense of this poster (who I would think only
> deserves passing attention) I have amended my opinion. I still think
> that his posts are spam, but only because of his persistence. If by
> some technicality they can be considered on-topic somewhere then I
> guess I'd just chalk up his first round of posts to inexperience with
> Usenet. I'd score his second and third round of posts as spam, and
> any future round of posts as "screw you guys, I'll post whatever I
> want" posts.
Landon is guilty of posting more frequently and crossposting more than
necessary to reach most people in c.g.d.*. That does not make him a
spammer, it makes him more pushy than the community average. I think if he
had posted at intervals of 10 days rather than 4 or 5, nobody would be
justified in having a beef with him. Usenet is an anarchy and people are
entitled to pitch their projects as they see fit.
> However, as with all hotmail-wielding "project" managers,
I'm posting from a yahoo.com account. What's your beef with hotmail
accounts? Disposable Usenet accounts are a valid anti-spam defense. My
life is *much* easier since I went to this approach. I couldn't just
provide a bogus e-mail: my ISP doesn't have a news server, and the free news
server I'm using requires a valid e-mail address as a matter of policy. I
have a real e-mail address that you can contact me at. Landon has a real
website and a real forum you can participate in.
> I think the
> best reaction is to chuckle and ignore, rather than getting involved
> in a threads about how we can learn about ourselves from our
> reactions to multi-posting teenagers.
Chuckle and ignore might have been fine. Chuckle, sneer, and witch hunt is
another matter entirely. If you are going to hang a man, hang him for what
he's guilty of. Don't just label and brand people because you don't like
how they do things. Tolerating different personal styles is a good mindset
to have in any event, and who knows, "the other guy" might actually have a
point or two as to why he's doing things differently.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"Troll" - (n.) Anything you don't like.