Singing Potatoes
Previous — Main Page — Up to Archive — Next
Wednesday, 19 May 2004
Dealing with Dunderheads
Grumpy

As Webminister of the Trimarian Ministry of Arts and Sciences, I do my best to keep the site looking good and easy to use. A few weeks ago, it was brought to my attention that somebody was complaining that the site didn't work in her older browser; she couldn't navigate around the site or see the pictures. Not that she emailed me, the maintainer of the Web site, with her concerns. No, she preferred to gripe about it on an email list that I'm not subscribed to, where it wouldn't do any good. Okay, whatever. I figure if it's that important to her, she can email me directly. Still, I offered some suggestions to the person who brought it to my attention, who forwarded them to her.

As I discovered this morning, that wasn't good enough for her — and she'd rather email the Kingdom Minister of Arts and Sciences to complain, rather than email the person in charge of the Web site. While she didn't mention any problem navigating, she did complain that "some of use [sic] are using older forms of Netscape or explore [sic] and are having hard time [sic] opening and viewing" the pictures. Since she didn't provide any specifics, I had to take steps to try and reproduce her problem.

While Internet Explorer 1.0 won't run on my machine (I told it not to replace the existing DLLs, so as not to destroy the current version, and they're not backwards-compatible), Netscape 1.1 installed just fine. And, hey, look! Pictures!

Admittedly, Netscape 1.1 does have trouble navigating the site, since image maps weren't supported. However, Netscape 2.0, which is nine years old, manages to display the images and navigate the site.

But even if her complaint had any basis in reality, given that there are plenty of free Web browsers out there (including Netscape and Internet Explorer) and that other sites on the Web must also be giving her problems (since the Trimarian ArtSci site certainly isn't the only one which takes advantage of modern Web standards) wouldn't she be better served by upgrading her browser — which she acknowledges is old — instead of complaining?

Certainly not. For this is the SCA, where the squeaky wheel gets the attention.


Posted by godfrey (link)
Previous — Main Page — Up to Archive — Next
Comments
Her spelling and grammar often causes me to question the multitude of degrees she professes to hold. I imagine in college one must actually read what one writes before turning it in; couldn't that be done with an e-mail so that it makes ANY sense?
Posted by Lunchbox on 19 May 2004 11:48
One would think so, wouldn't one?

On the bright side, at least she's not writing in 13375P33K.

Posted by Godfrey on 19 May 2004 12:11
Wah! Wah! I can't possibly change anything. YOU HAVE TO CHANGE! You're oppressing me! You're such a elitist! I'm gonna tell! I'm gonna tell on you! And hey, why didn't you chose my eight year old, dusty A&S item for GW?! Wah! ...Oh, wait, I think one of the goats just died/gave birth/threw up, so I can't be at the next event to complain to you in person.
Posted by Lisa on 19 May 2004 12:31
On the other hand…

I’ve gotten my share of this kind of noise too. Most of the time I put it down to the dunderhead rule (If the dunderheads make the rules then the dunderheads rule.)

But; for the last six years or so, haven’t *we* been promoting a kind of neurotic, passive aggressive manner of dealing with problems in the SCA? Blanket policies, gang-bang politics, favor swapping awards rather than promotion based on merit, fear mongering, intimidation, even threats of physical violence. This stuff didn’t seem to be around when I first joined, or perhaps I was just blind in the geeky splendor of it all to notice?

Not that this is just in the SCA mind you, this kind of junk permeates our society. “Never take responsibility, destroy instead of build. Lie, cheat, steal as long as it means getting ahead. Be a predator, the sea is full of little fish and you’re the shark.”

It doesn’t accomplish much in the long run, other than getting people angry at each other, the rotten feelings spread. Any short term gain is swallowed up by the inefficiencies in the system.

What I fear in my naive, corn-pone way is that the SCA is too far gone to salvage even now. I hope I’m wrong, it was fun once…

G.P.




Posted by Guy on 21 May 2004 08:30
But; for the last six years or so, haven't *we* been promoting a kind of neurotic, passive aggressive manner of dealing with problems in the SCA?

"We"? I've lost friends because I went to them directly and said "Hey, you shouldn't be doing this." (But quite frankly, if such people are willing to throw away a friendship because they're more interested in "power", good riddance to them.)


Blanket policies, gang-bang politics, favor swapping awards rather than promotion based on merit, fear mongering, intimidation, even threats of physical violence.

Threats of physical violence? That's a new one on me. I am very disappointed at the return of "gang-bang politics" to the Laurels' circle. We had pretty much eliminated that, but now it's back. I don't know if it's because some of the "old-school" Laurels have returned, and they brought the Old Ways back with them, or because we've added a number of people to our ranks who are more used to the political machinations of another Peerage. Quite frankly, I don't care who's responsible, I just want it to stop.


This stuff didn't seem to be around when I first joined, or perhaps I was just blind in the geeky splendor of it all to notice?

I don't know. From some of the tales I've heard about Trimaris before I moved here, it seems like the problem's always been around.


Not that this is just in the SCA mind you, this kind of junk permeates our society. "Never take responsibility, destroy instead of build. Lie, cheat, steal as long as it means getting ahead. Be a predator, the sea is full of little fish and you're the shark."

And that's just what parents do to get their kids into the right preschool...

Posted by Godfrey on 21 May 2004 09:00
This stuff was always around, but as a newer person, our eyes were still clouded with naivety and the concept of the club. Now that we are in for the many years that we have been, it's just easier to see it all happening. I was blinded by the geeky spendor too, and I still wish I was. But a whiner is a whiner is a whiner. Passive aggressive behavior is for spineless wimps - and I'd
Posted by Lisa on 21 May 2004 16:06
...rather complain to your face than complain to someone else because I think that's just cowardly. And that's what his initial post is all about. He dealt with the problem and the person didn't want to hear it and whined to someone higher up the food chain. He took responsibility to explain the situation and offer solutions. The person in question just wants to constantly complain that "the man" is keeping them down. I got no patience for that crap. Help yourself, dammit!
Posted by Lisa on 22 May 2004 00:01

Threats of physical violence? That's a new one on me


Yes, physical violence, I know of at least three occasions where this happened, the last was less then six months ago. I’ve heard rumors of at least one “blanket party,” which from the description, sounded like a KKK lynching that stopped short of hurting people.

I once counseled a chap who’d received a “you better lay low or *we’ll* beat the living crap out of you” word from someone at an event. These were not newcomers BTW; both had been in the SCA many years and should know better. I *hope* someone does that to me someday because this kind of thing would right then and there. I have no truck with bullies or intimidation; it has no place in society, real society and certainly not in the SCA.


I don't know if it's because some of the "old-school" Laurels have returned, and they brought the Old Ways back with them, or because we've added a number of people to our ranks who are more used to the political machinations of another Peerage. Quite frankly, I don't care who's responsible, I just want it to stop.


I can certainly understand, the powerbase will shift back and fourth, power and influence in the SCA is a transitory thing at best. It will stop, something will take its place, you can be guaranteed of that. If its any consolation I hear exactly the same words from what you might call “the other side.” Perhaps both factios have the same problems and perhaps, just perhaps the solution lies in another realm besides conflict.

Lisa sez..


This stuff was always around, but as a newer person, our eyes were still clouded with naivety and the concept of the club. Now that we are in for the many years that we have been, it's just easier to see it all happening. I was blinded by the geeky spendor too, and I still wish I was. But a whiner is a whiner is a whiner. Passive aggressive behavior is for spineless wimps - and I'd ...rather complain to your face than complain to someone else because I think that's just cowardly. And that's what his initial post is all about. He dealt with the problem and the person didn't want to hear it and whined to someone higher up the food chain. He took responsibility to explain the situation and offer solutions. The person in question just wants to constantly complain that "the man" is keeping them down. I got no patience for that crap. Help yourself, dammit!


It is cowardly; on number of occasions I’ve too have had to sit down with dear friends, tell them that I was disappointed etc-etc. Painful? You bet. Much less than the alternative. I agree with you however, we all make our own choices and its better to face who we are than to run around and try to run blame on others for our own shortcomings. (Anyone still using Netscape 2.2 is either doing it as a museum display or a real dope, but that’s another subject.. or is it? :)

Posted by Guy on 22 May 2004 08:35
Yes, physical violence, I know of at least three occasions where this happened, the last was less then six months ago. I've heard rumors of at least one "blanket party," which from the description, sounded like a KKK lynching that stopped short of hurting people.

Reeeeeeally? Who did this? And to whom? Were the victims smart enough to call the police and press assault-and-battery charges?

If its any consolation I hear exactly the same words from what you might call "the other side." Perhaps both factios have the same problems and perhaps, just perhaps the solution lies in another realm besides conflict.

"Side"? I'm not on a "side". The problem comes from people who feel they have to treat other human beings like shit in order to obtain their goal of "power" and "importance" in a dress-up hobby club; who feel that the rules of the game we're playing don't apply to them if they get in the way of these goals; who feel that their danglies and circlets actually make them better than everyone else; who are more interested in building "power bases" and "voting blocs" than in waiting until their candidates actually meet the requirements before bringing them up for a vote; who do "favors" for the Crown in hopes of getting awards for their candidates, friends or significant others, rather than waiting for them to achieve them by their own merits.

If such people think of me as "the other side" for holding them in contempt for their actions, so be it, but that's their categorization, not mine. I don't see sides. I see people who realize that it's just a hobby, and people who can't make a distinction between hobby and real life, between decent behavior and selfishness.

Posted by Godfrey on 22 May 2004 12:39
Reeeeeeally? Who did this? And to whom? Were the victims smart enough to call the police and press assault-and-battery charges?

Of course not; the people involved either did not perceive their experiences to be real threat or were actually intimidated to the point of changing their awful behavior or whatever triggered the threats. I don’t expect others to believe me, I’m also not inclined to place names on rumors (not in this forum anyway.)

If such people think of me as "the other side" for holding them in contempt for their actions, so be it, but that's their categorization, not mine. I don't see sides. I see people who realize that it's just a hobby, and people who can't make a distinction between hobby and real life, between decent behavior and selfishness.

You’re holding people in contempt? Egad! Have you told them this? ; )

So true, in the perceptions of many people, the SCA *is* real life. It’s all they have, if you look at how many are holding marginal jobs, not educated, not really doing anything outside with themselves outside of the SCA. We have a mass of sullen, bitter folks who are very frustrated that they cannot attain the *status* they crave. SCA status For whatever good that would do them. It is selfish, and stupid. Status and respect are not synonyms, at least not in my book.

Posted by Guy on 24 May 2004 07:06
Guy, no offense, but I'm really sick of the SCAdian propensity to go "Hey, SOME PEOPLE did this really nasty thing. Who? Oh, I can't say."*

If it's just a rumor and you're unsure of its veracity, then don't pass it on. If it actually did happen (you did claim you'd counseled one of the actual victims), then you're protecting the perpetrators by letting them operate under the cloak of anonymity.

* Or my personal favorite, "SOME PEOPLE said this really nasty thing about you. Oh, I can't tell you who, because they said it in confidence."

Posted by Godfrey on 24 May 2004 07:47
I’m sick of that too, which is why I didn’t say “I won’t tell people,” I said “I won’t mention names in a public forum,“ It seems prudent; at least to me.

Actually; I think the whole idea that this is significant is rather strange. This kind of tale has been circulating for decades, I was under the impression they were general knowledge. Truthfully I don’t put a lot of stock in them. If you want details you can speak to me in private but I’m not sure why you would want to.

But I take your point. I’m unsure of the veracity of some, not all. Am I protecting the perpetrators? You bet! I’m protecting a lot of people. In every case we seemed to have people using poor judgment, not habitually violent people casually threatening others.

There is little point in dredging up the past except this. Santayana's dictum suggests that we need our past, we need to remember it, not sweep it away and forget about it. The only other reason I can think of is, “to be forewarned is to be forearmed,” which I’ve already mentioned.

So WHO said this nasty thing about me??!! Who, WHO?

G.P.

Posted by Guy on 25 May 2004 05:30
I'm sick of that too, which is why I didn't say "I won't tell people," I said "I won't mention names in a public forum,"

And yet, if you were disposed to answer the question, you could have emailed me (or at the very least, indicated a willingness to speak face-to-face about it).

Actually; I think the whole idea that this is significant is rather strange. This kind of tale has been circulating for decades, I was under the impression they were general knowledge.

Outside of some of the more troglodytic Knights seeming to think that personal combat is an acceptable method of supporting a rhetorical position, I've never heard of physical threats — or actual violence — used as a tool of political manipulation. Not in the East Kingdom, not in Trimaris, not on the various SCA-wide newsgroups or mailing lists I've read.

If you want details you can speak to me in private but I'm not sure why you would want to.

Why? I make it a point to always ask for names whenever someone makes a vague accusation like that. I hate the SCA anonymous rumor mill; it's hurtful, discourteous and dishonorable. At the very least, putting people on the spot for names has greatly reduced their attempts to involve me in the rumor mill. And at best, on those shockingly rare occasions when I actually got a name, I've been able to go and get the other side of the story.

Am I protecting the perpetrators? You bet!

I'm sorry; my mistake. I thought you were condemning them.

Posted by Godfrey on 25 May 2004 11:04
Hmm, it seems we have a difficulty here;

I’m not condoning such behavior; I’m not condemning it either. Somehow I don’t see things in such black and white terms. I accept this as a part of human nature. When I see it I try to deal with it as best I can. All I can do is ensure that I’m never brought to the point of contemplating such an action myself. In these cases; In dubiis non est agendum.

*I* haven’t made any accusations, should I? I was making a comment in passing I.E. “(there have even) been threats of physical violence.” Later, because you questioned the sincerity of my statement, I mentioned one or two examples. That was all; the accusations don’t seem to be coming from here. If you think that these statements qualify as “accusations,” well I don’t really agree but what is said is said.

“And yet, if you were disposed to answer the question, you could have emailed me (or at the very least, indicated a willingness to speak face-to-face about it).”

Jeff; I’m always willing to discuss this or (nearly) anything else. As I said; I will not send you an affidavit via email, here in this forum or by any other means. But discuss it face to face? I have no problem with that; you are always welcome.

Actually; I’m happy you have this attitude, perhaps if more people in the SCA were able to confront those who cause them upset, we would have an organization closer to some of chivalric ideals we are said to follow.

Hope to see you soon.


Posted by guy on 25 May 2004 13:23

I'm not condoning such behavior; I'm not condemning it either.

My mistake, then; I interpreted this as a condemnation of it:

But; for the last six years or so, haven't *we* been promoting a kind of neurotic, passive aggressive manner of dealing with problems in the SCA? Blanket policies, gang-bang politics, favor swapping awards rather than promotion based on merit, fear mongering, intimidation, even threats of physical violence. [...] this kind of junk permeates our society.

If that's not a condemnation, then I apologize for misunderstanding your intent. And yet, if you don't think "fear mongering, intimidation, even threats of physical violence" are worthy of condemnation, you're not person I thought you were. But that's your right.

Actually; I'm happy you have this attitude, perhaps if more people in the SCA were able to confront those who cause them upset, we would have an organization closer to some of chivalric ideals we are said to follow.

Unfortunately, confronting those who act poorly is branded as "rudeness" in the SCA. Judging from observation, the concepts of "courtesy" and "chivalry" require remaining silent when someone's acting like an ass.


Posted by Godfrey on 25 May 2004 13:40