Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

For gmhowell...

Comments Filter:
  • And I read sllort's response. I swear there is a journal entry in all of this, but I've aborted it 4 times in a row.

    Basically all I wanted to say is this: the Editors, like the readership, vary greatly. We all have our own ideas, likes, dislikes, and agendas. To say that "all editors are hypocrites" is crap, IMHO. I try not to be a hypocrite, and if anyone sees such, please point it out to me.

    Nice of sllort to reduce the editor diversity to a single word, however incorrect it may be.

    • I kinda saw it as a conspiracy theory blow out of proportions (which means something coming outta me).
      I don't think any of you guys would do something that radical.
    • I think part of the problem is when there is a difference between the percieved power relationship and the actual power relationship. Most of the time, people ignore the power relationship...this works - because in general, the Editors act like users.

      I think shit hits the fan when events happen which [for whatever reason] cause the Editors to use their power. There's a disconnect between the user's experience and their expectations. People who go about thinking of /. as the great democracy are suddenly reminded that there are other among them who are in control.

      The visibility of Editors makes them an easy target..and anyone who's angry with the situation is likely to lash out at the group in power, whether it makes sense or not...thus the conspiracy theories.

      I dunno...that's just how I see it.

      (and I still don't get this friend of a friend thing...because I have friends of friends that aren't listed as such. *boggle*)

    • Basically all I wanted to say is this: the Editors, like the readership, vary greatly.

      Actually I think you'll likewise find the people in this little circle of friends vary greatly on our opinion of the Editors. For example you are on most of our friends lists. Most of us have dished on Michael from time to time because he has actively insulted /. users. A lot of us had negative opinions about editor modbombing and the $rtbl blacklists. Speaking for myself however, I'm really pleased with the recent changes(I can mod again, whohoo!)

      sllort writes some interesting stuff, but I think he's a little extreme, and I think most people in the "journal crowd" feel the same way.

      • Actually I think you'll likewise find the people in this little circle of friends vary greatly on our opinion of the Editors.
        Actually, I knew this, already. It's one of the reasons I hang here: I figured I'd get a fair shake. No, the people I'm really talking about are the general Slashdot readership. I think most of our readership knows this as well, but you know how it is. Someone says something and your psyche knows that it has to put out a response ASAP before people start getting the wrong idea.

        Yes, sllort is extreme, but he does make some valid points. He needs to learn to be less extreme so his valid points show thru more than his prejudices.

    • One of the problems is that you seem to be unique in willingness to hang out with the proles. Now I'm certain Rob and the rest of the gang have 'covert' accounts. But it's hardly the same thing.

      If you've read enough FK, you'll see where he says something like: the editors, with the exception of Cliff, and a few others.

      It seems that when referring to the 'big bad evil editors', it is generally in reference to CT, jamie, michael. Maybe one or two others. But they are most visible through their news posts and the editorializing that accompanies them. The only other things we hear from them is "FK posts too much and has no life" or "things are fine just the way they are" and "posters are the minority, so who cares what they think?".

      These may or may not be the opinions of the 'editors' or of Rob, michael, et al. individually. But when this is all we see, it's difficult to think otherwise.

      Rob isn't the only one with a busy job. But lots of people with busy jobs find five or ten minutes to post a thing or two. Yes, for a while, he would be deluged with responses and moderation. But the novelty would soon wear off, much like when any other 'celebrity' posts on /.

      FK being on CT's friends list is, IMHO, a good thing. It's a sign that he isn't totally out of touch. I'm much more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has been thrust into a position of leadership and responsibility that I doubt he was entirely prepared for at such a young age.

      Someday, an interesting book could come out of this. I, for one, would really LOVE to know the arguments behind the scenes. Who really tweaks you off? Does CT ever say "Jon, that last essay was really out there"? Stuff like that. But I doubt that would happen unless some really weird stuff went down. You guys strike me as being family in a way. (Not my family, but you form your own family) With it, you have a certain degree of loyalty, even to the twit brother-in-law.

      One thing that I think IS wrong is the lack of a meta discussion. Quarterly or so, there should be a meta discussion. And you and the rest of the editors should participate. If possible, I'd cut it off after one or two days of discussion, as it could easily get out of hand.

      In a vacuum of information, people will draw their own conclusions. Unfortunately, your fellow editors have left us with rather poor examples of who 'they' are.

Artificial intelligence has the same relation to intelligence as artificial flowers have to flowers. -- David Parnas