|laziness, impatience, and hubris|
Re^3: Who gave (and continues to give) Tye McQueen his authority for his autocratic domination of PerlMonks?by ig (Vicar)
|on Sep 04, 2013 at 14:30 UTC||Need Help??|
In short, those are interesting thoughts, quite right, it seems to me, but I still don't know, don't have authority or influence to make a difference and am not enough motivated to try (my fault, not yours).
Making choices between costs and benefits is an essential commonplace of life. Some constraints on freedom to choose are necessary to prevent or deal with offensive choices but limit choice too severely, even for 'good', and the world would be a miserable place. At the extreme, one would have no choice but to do what is 'best' at all times - a complete lack of freedom. It would be horrible. But, without the freedom to make sub-optimal choices, there is no freedom - a real dilemma.
Then there are the challenges of arbitrating what is better and what is best, particularly given conflicts of interest. Better for me might be worse for some, or many. In general, it would be. If not, just give everything to me and let me do according to my whims. Let me be the capricious, ultimate authority beyond which there is no appeal. Trust me - given absolute authority, I'll do what I want, even if it's not in my best interests.
Appeal is interesting. Somewhat the opposite of offend. One can hardly, or perhaps not at all, appeal by offending, at least it seems unlikely to be successful. Thus, it is natural to fear that an appeal might be offensive, regardless of to whom one is trying to appeal.
I guess you fear to offend one and hope to appeal to another of the gods (a.k.a. the management). This presumes an arena of gods (irresistible forces and immovable objects in constant turmoil, I would expect, if not merely lazy) at turns capricious and arbitrary or susceptible to the appeals of mere mortals. But, in the end, is an arena of contending gods any better than a single god? One's victories might be short lived and at the expense of great effort and sacrifice. My recollection of the classics (of which, I confess, I know little but I believe are a repository of considerable wisdom) is that the gods were not kind or gentle with those that chose other than to avoid them. Most fared badly. The stories are, I think, a testament to human experience, worth heeding.
Perhaps the world (or, at least, PerlMonks) would be better without gods, neither many nor one. Or if we were all gods - all invincible, always able to continue the struggle. This would be good, at least for those who enjoy the struggle.
If there are no gods, how are decisions to be made? How is anything to be done, for better or worse, without being no sooner done than undone?
Apropos this, I stumbled on a novel (for me) concept today: in a society which broadly purports to prefer markets to central planning, the most powerful players, one might say the ultimate manifestation of human endeavour, are corporations - centrally planned and controlled. It is a contrast and contradiction difficult to reconcile.
What would be better for PerlMonks: a market of ideas, appeals and offenses, give and take, in which everyone seeks to optimize their outcome and expends time and resources to investigate, negotiate and enforce contracts, or a central authority which is, in some ways, more efficient but, inevitably, wrong from the perspective of some or many?
I don't know. And, even if I did, or thought I did, it's not mine to decide or control.
I think it is important to keep in mind that after 10 years of contributing and (I don't mean to be rude, but I think, in honesty, one must admit it is true of you and me and all of us) sometimes offending others, you are, after all, still here. I wouldn't want it otherwise and it gives me hope that the gods are not too capricious or arbitrary or too easily offended or too vindictive or too final and irrevocable in their judgements.
I think apathy is the greater impediment to change but there is always the possibility of it and appeal to all concerned will be most effective, in the long run, at least for those of us who do not have authority. This, combined with tolerance and forgiveness.