Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

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 ( #1052356=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Who gave (and continues to give) Tye McQueen his authority for his autocratic domination of PerlMonks?
in thread Who gave (and continues to give) Tye McQueen his authority for his autocratic domination of PerlMonks?

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.


Comment on Re^3: Who gave (and continues to give) Tye McQueen his authority for his autocratic domination of PerlMonks?
Re^4: Who gave (and continues to give) Tye McQueen his authority for his autocratic domination of PerlMonks?
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Sep 04, 2013 at 15:17 UTC

    That's an interesting and thoughtful response; for which I thank you.

    I've been trying to shut this thread down, but that deserves at least some response. so I'll hope you'll forgive me for picking out and responding to one line of your post:

    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?

    Never did I suggest that the Gods should disappear; nor even that Tye should not be a God.

    If you read the title question carefully, I asked how did it come about that one person came to exercise such total and capricious will over the running and maintenance of this site.

    It is well documented that Tye & I do not play well together, but it was not a "personal" thing. I wasn't seeking to depose him, nor offering to replace him. Just questioning whether his authority was achieve by accident or design; and whichever, whether it is a good thing.

    Then someone -- I unfortunately blamed Tye, but have since been convinced (reliably informed) to the contrary -- messed with my account. For daring to ask the question.

    And thus, the question and the debate that might have been, has been effectively dodged & defused into a "just BrowserUk shouting the odds" event. Clever management.

    You'll note that no one from management has even attempted to respond to the question. Whatever comments they have made have been either righteous indignation or sock-puppeted poison-the-well distraction. Cleverly stage-managed and silently supported.

    But, that mostly came after the general apathy was evident; and thus overkill.

    There is nothing to be done; because they won't even address the question. And will use every means -- fair or foul -- to suppress it. They hold the cards, and that's the end of it.


    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
      > You'll note that no one from management has even attempted to respond to the question. 

      what you call "shaking" is actually pretty offensive!

      not feeding trolls is an appropriate strategie.

      Cheers Rolf

      ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1052356]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-11-29 09:53 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My preferred Perl binaries come from:














    Results (204 votes), past polls