Well we differ, and here is where the core difference is:
I know what I can control and what I can't. How Scott or anyone IS happens to be on the list of things we DON'T control. As ambassadors to the hobby, what we can control is important. It's important because the hobby is attractive, and that attraction is what can get people to consider why it's attractive, and part of that is how it works as it does.
The expectation that it's all share and share alike is the norm for those in the hobby. Been true for a long time. That is why I have followed it for so long, and why I participate when inclined to do so. Communicating why that's of value is the best case move. From there, people make their choices. That's as good as it gets.
When newbies walk in, those norms can be seen. Where there is friction, any number of things can and will happen. How that goes is what I'm speaking to, and the "D" in QED. IMHO, no amount of shitty contributions, guilt, shame, anger, etc... will get somebody to participate on terms that are better aligned to the norms. Often the result is just a turn off, and people quietly leave the scene. Sometimes, they push back to make a point. My point here is the end game isn't good.
On the other hand, keeping the door open, interacting, building trust, making friends, sharing the fun parts to be shared, etc... shows how attractive the thing is, and the "door is open" for more. They can come to a place where maybe it makes sense for them, however they get there. Nobody can force that. Building walls does nobody any good.
Finding common ground to build on does everybody good, without doing any bad. That's my point. We only benefit in the end.
A similar thing happened with Ian's project. Did it change anything? No. Will it ever? No.
I like Ian, I like Scott, and in fact, I pretty much like everybody. Even RT
Seriously, RT is cool. I don't agree with everybody, and how I would play it isn't how they may be inclined to play it. But, positive advocacy toward this hobby can rope more and better people in, more and better works, and it's all fun. Negative advocacy, shame, fear, anger, etc... just turns 'em off. The common bond here is the hobby. We need to respect that and demonstrate it's worth to others, not turn them off, or there won't be others, and it dies off.
I have no doubt this scenario would have played out differently had it been a net positive. The hobby is as attractive as we, the ambassadors of it, make it out to be. Where we do a good job on that, it grows and life is good. Where we do not, it shrinks, gets stale, and life is not good.
Edit: You said this: Problem is, we're a love-oriented community, much as it might pain some of our gruffer members to admit it. The best members try to give more than they take, and try to treat each other like friends.
Yeah, exactly. Growing that circle only happens when we keep the higher ground, door open. We didn't do that in this case, and so we lose out. No fault on that, only reality. I'm not blaming anybody for anything, simply stating that there could be better choices, and in the future people should consider them. Doing that is in all of our collective interests. Not doing that might feel good, but it's a net loss overall. This is why I'm a common ground, keep the door open kind of guy. No matter what the other party chooses to do, I benefit from that perspective. In other words, keeping the positive on the table means it could happen.
Negative? Door closed, next. Why do that? There is no gain. Frankly, there could be losses. Setting the expectation that we have some entitlement to a lot of what happens is a road nobody wants to go down. People who do have the right to check that just might decide some folks need to learn a lesson. Nobody wants that, and it could very well happen.
I'm done again. Negative gets everybody nowhere, and I'll stand on that point, this discussion case in point.
Edited by potatohead, Sun Jan 1, 2012 4:34 PM.