Re: can someone please explain what this blog tagging this is all about?

On Jan 16, 12:14 pm, hjr.pyth..._at_gmail.com wrote:

>
> Funnily enough, not one of the people who participated in flooding
> OraNA provided warning of what they were about to do, giving me a
> grace period in which to brace myself for the coming storm. Of course,
> when the flood hits, none of the blog owners whose material got swept
> out of the front couple of pages of OraNA were given a grace period in
> which to squirrel away their content-rich posts for later re-
> submission, either.
>
> In short, what you describe so eloquently **happened to me** (and lots
> of others).
>
> Now, when I point this out, I am told I am over-reacting, behaving
> like a spoilt child, dictating what others may post on their own blogs
> and all the rest. When you describe **exactly** the same sense of
> deprivation from a useful technical resource, I'm supposed to
> understand and make sympathetic noises.
>
> The double standard involved here would be funny if it wasn't so
> annoying.
>
> > If you have become disenchanted with the actions of a small proportion
> > of a community,
>
> How small? I don't hear the chorus of "we agree". I have maybe a
> couple dozen emails saying "we privately agree", but that's about it.
> Looks to me like the majority at least passively accept whatever
> happens (which is the way of majorities, I suppose).

It goes deeper than that. You talk of community, and the actions of those within. Well, sometimes groupthink works, and sometimes it doesn't. See Abilene paradox, Pluralistic Ignorance, Communal reinforcement, etc. on wikipedia or your favorite real references. Your apparent intent to help solve the meme virus and it's future variants may have been laudable, and you could have done things to engender sympathy, but the shutdown is seen by many as a tweener petulant frenzy, stamping your feet and crying and taking your ball home.

>
> > i can sympathise with the "to hell with you all, i
> > shall take no further part" attitude.
> > At which point i would then expect such a website to be just left as
> > is - no further updates. Or at least left up for a couple of months
> > before mothballing.
>
> Your expectations have no bearing on the matter, just as my
> expectations of OraNA functionality had no bearing on the matter. It's
> a pretty exact parallel, actually.
>
> > To take the action of completely withdrawing a website, and even going
> > to the extent of clearing google web caches to prevent any access to
> > articles seems drastic, almost spiteful.
>
> Indeed. I can well imagine it looks that way to you. Try applying some
> of Frank's homely advice from this very thread: you didn't pay for
> Dizwell. Therefore you have no right to expect any particular level of
> service or availability. Dizwell not available? Go visit some other
> website and -as he so eloquently put it- get on with life.
>
> Right, irony out of the way, I will say that the *principle* here is,
> "I no longer agree to participate in or support a community of vandals
> and selfish, unthinking pranksters". Strict adherence to that
> principle requires me to clear Google caches. It's not spite, but
> logic, therefore.

Biting back my sudden urge to give a bunch of Final Solution links, I'll just say check out the Lewis Caroll reference: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/29/071029fa_fact_martin

>
> > I would be curious to know if any other long time dizwell site users
> > have been left feeling like they have had the rug pulled from under
> > them?
>
> You've had material you never paid for removed by its author from
> general circulation.  That's all. I get no pleasure from having done
> so, but the principle of the matter requires me to have done so.
> Instead of complaining about the effect, complain about the cause.

I think you do have self-defined positive reinforcement. Seeing Britney running around naked in a store might be more entertaining, though.

>
> > The crux of his argument seems to be that blog spamming/chaining by
> > the wider oracle community has rendered a site he frequents, useless.
> > He is thus inconvenienced (and deduces that others are likewise
> > inconvenienced).
> > I would counter that his response of withdrawing his site has also
> > inconvenienced people, albeit a smaller subset of the oracle
> > community, that which uses his site.
> > Various circular arguments could then be spun out, but my point here
> > is this - how can inconveniencing the dizwell site users resolve his
> > situation?
>
> It's not designed to *resolve* the situation. It's a **response** to a
> situation. A situation that has happened. It is impossible to take
> back the disruption to OraNA. It is impossible to take back the
> personal abuse I received for daring to voice the thought that sending
> a chain letter is irresponsible. It is impossible to take back the
> fact that large swathes of the Oracle blogging community continue to
> post "It was just a bit of fun".

The difference is, orana has moved on. As expected by people when you complained. I've seen water and electric utilities disrupted longer than orana.

You ought to know by now any statement you make can engender abuse, one chiding people about their behavior is bound to. Chiding a whole group is bound to get a lot.

>
> I'm not seeking to change history or people's opinions. I'm responding
> to what has happened.
>
> > Are dizwell site users expected to mobilise our forces and extinguish
> > all blog spammers with extreme prejudice?
>
> I've posted in this thread what would have made a difference.
>
> > How exactly can we apply pressure to fix things?
> > Should we be expected to try and fix things?
>
> Strangely enough, the idea of "community" depends very heavily on the
> first syllable of that word: "co". You do indeed have a co- and equal-
> responsibility to condemn that which damages and inconveniences
> others.

For what value of damages and inconveniences? Your perception is obviously different than other's. It couldn't be otherwise. Balance between the perceptions is unattainable. Do more people condemn what you have done than condone it? Silence may be support, acquiescence, neutral or shunning. Most people in most communities believe some are more equal than others.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
"I Want to Take You Higher"
It's official:  Ike Turner died of a cocaine overdose.  Approximately
10 miles from my house.