Do you have a target precision / accuracy for early-notifying?
Are you concerned about capriciousness? It’s a negative effect on a community if one mod bans/fires someone for illegible reasons. In the case of hiring/firing it has compliance risk.
Is there actually a problem with people knowing something isn’t going to work out, then sitting on it for a while anyway? I’m really guessing in these situations you’d find they think there’s big complications, or possibly a hidden process reason, with acting too early.
By the way I think I replied to your pro-DIY article. I think a theme between the two is you didn’t identify that these things are tradeoffs. At best, you’re insightful that people go too much in the other direction, but you didn’t articulate what that other direction is, or why they might sometimes do it. Ideally you have something more like a rubric or pros/cons lists for when to go one way or the other.
I will say that bad people who are around too long sometimes become destroyers is a novel point to me. I would have simply modeled them as linear lost time, joy or effort. I don’t know if “revenge tour” bad people are easily screenable early and don’t know these 4 cases well enough.
Also to your point—I looked at the case of one of the “banned” users. You can tell the mod who banned them wanted moral points for being cautious and democratic but not for being fast or effective. They didn’t seem to ascribe a cost to being too cautious.
Also I wouldn’t condense and repeat our list of enemies. It’s not respectful to them, gives them publicity, risks reopening the conflict. It’s supposed to be in the past. I looked into one of them and he was banned on bad terms. Torres—to my knowledge—you can mention because it’s on civil terms and it’s more like a professional disagreement, but I don’t have full context here. Dunno about the other 2.
By the way I think I replied to your pro-DIY article. I think a theme between the two is you didn’t identify that these things are tradeoffs. At best, you’re insightful that people go too much in the other direction, but you didn’t articulate what that other direction is, or why they might sometimes do it. Ideally you have something more like a rubric or pros/cons lists for when to go one way or the other.
I think this would be actively bad for a set of internal company principles! Facebook’s central motto was “Move fast and break things” not “Move fast and break things in this situation, but not in this other situation”. The latter doesn’t really work as a principle!
The conditional for all of these principles is “what I think is the right choice for someone working at Lightcone”. Much of the force of these principles comes from conditioning on our specific context. The force of a company culture principle comes from all the behaviors that are appropriate in other contexts that it rules out as not being appropriate in this context.
Using Facebook’s >10 year old mimetic motto as evidence for anything is not great. They’re current motto is something like “move fast on stable infrastructure.”
You’re going pretty far by saying if you like weighing tradeoffs, then Lightcone isn’t for you. I would call that pretty low-autonomy culture. It’s not “make your own decisions,” it’s “make these decisions.” In engineering how this plays out is: always say you can get it done really fast no matter what.
Do you have a target precision / accuracy for early-notifying?
Are you concerned about capriciousness? It’s a negative effect on a community if one mod bans/fires someone for illegible reasons. In the case of hiring/firing it has compliance risk.
Is there actually a problem with people knowing something isn’t going to work out, then sitting on it for a while anyway? I’m really guessing in these situations you’d find they think there’s big complications, or possibly a hidden process reason, with acting too early.
By the way I think I replied to your pro-DIY article. I think a theme between the two is you didn’t identify that these things are tradeoffs. At best, you’re insightful that people go too much in the other direction, but you didn’t articulate what that other direction is, or why they might sometimes do it. Ideally you have something more like a rubric or pros/cons lists for when to go one way or the other.
I will say that bad people who are around too long sometimes become destroyers is a novel point to me. I would have simply modeled them as linear lost time, joy or effort. I don’t know if “revenge tour” bad people are easily screenable early and don’t know these 4 cases well enough.
Also to your point—I looked at the case of one of the “banned” users. You can tell the mod who banned them wanted moral points for being cautious and democratic but not for being fast or effective. They didn’t seem to ascribe a cost to being too cautious.
Also I wouldn’t condense and repeat our list of enemies. It’s not respectful to them, gives them publicity, risks reopening the conflict. It’s supposed to be in the past. I looked into one of them and he was banned on bad terms. Torres—to my knowledge—you can mention because it’s on civil terms and it’s more like a professional disagreement, but I don’t have full context here. Dunno about the other 2.
I think this would be actively bad for a set of internal company principles! Facebook’s central motto was “Move fast and break things” not “Move fast and break things in this situation, but not in this other situation”. The latter doesn’t really work as a principle!
The conditional for all of these principles is “what I think is the right choice for someone working at Lightcone”. Much of the force of these principles comes from conditioning on our specific context. The force of a company culture principle comes from all the behaviors that are appropriate in other contexts that it rules out as not being appropriate in this context.
Using Facebook’s >10 year old mimetic motto as evidence for anything is not great. They’re current motto is something like “move fast on stable infrastructure.”
You’re going pretty far by saying if you like weighing tradeoffs, then Lightcone isn’t for you. I would call that pretty low-autonomy culture. It’s not “make your own decisions,” it’s “make these decisions.” In engineering how this plays out is: always say you can get it done really fast no matter what.
That… is not a thing I said, or even anywhere close to what I said. I think you can do better than this and figure out what I meant to say.
txt
Ok, I… think your stint of commenting on at least my posts on this site is over. These are obviously not productive comments.