FA+
Shop
Hypothetical Reaction
15 years ago
For more of your favorite Overlord please visit: http://heisyourleader.blogspot.com/
Allow me to propose to you a hypothetical situation, using a bit of hyperbole to illustrate.
A real estate agent sells you a house. You like your house, it isn't perfect, but it does the job. A while later you learn two things. One, your real estate agent suppressed testimony about a crime that may or may not have occurred. Two, your house is built on top of a leaking radioactive waste dump. Which is your primary concern? A) The real estate agent's moral fiber. Or B) the toxic waste?
If you answered "A", congratulations, you have died of radiation poisoning. If you answered "B", congratulations, you didn't.
In case you haven't worked it out yet, yes, I am talking about the recent drama that has overtaken FA. I tend to avoid weighing in on issues here. It doesn't do any good, and a month from now nobody will remember it happened. I am making an exception, not so much to weigh in on the issue, but to weigh in on the nature of the drama itself.
My point is simple: Objectivity. Practical concerns first.
I do not know the entire truth of the supposed rape that was supposedly covered up, and neither do you. It seems to me that if someone was raped that they should go to the police, or a shelter, or to family, not to a website administrator. Doesn't prove it didn't happen, doesn't prove it did. We don't know. Whether or not the crime occurred, the incident still calls into question the professionalism of the administration. Crime or no crime, and while I believe the administrator's action has been exaggerated, this concern is still valid.
However, what we do know is that website security was compromised. What we don't seem to know (though we really should) is the extent of the damages. It's really not as bad as people seem to think it is. Notes were taken. That is all. And, chances are, not from you. Odds and logic dictate that if you are one of the few people who read my journals that you are not one of the 41 people who were compromised. Remember the Hitchhiker's Guide - Don't Panic. You're fine. And while I believe the severity has been exaggerated, this still calls into question the overall security of the site, and while panic is unfounded, this concern is still valid.
Okay, now we have the premise. Now the conclusion.
Neither concern is worth the uproar, but both concerns have validity. However, they need to be prioritized properly. As I hope I illustrated early on, fix the house first, the rest comes later. The security concerns are an immediate, quantifiable, and practical problem. Starting a moral crusade against the admin(s) isn't likely to encourage them to solve it in a timely manner. If the moral concerns are that important to you, you will remember them after the site is fixed. A repair which is, to whatever extent it can be, apparently, already in progress.
The short version: The moral concerns are valid, but they have their place. That place is right behind the immediate practical concerns.
The super-short version: Chill out. Think first. Talk second.
A real estate agent sells you a house. You like your house, it isn't perfect, but it does the job. A while later you learn two things. One, your real estate agent suppressed testimony about a crime that may or may not have occurred. Two, your house is built on top of a leaking radioactive waste dump. Which is your primary concern? A) The real estate agent's moral fiber. Or B) the toxic waste?
If you answered "A", congratulations, you have died of radiation poisoning. If you answered "B", congratulations, you didn't.
In case you haven't worked it out yet, yes, I am talking about the recent drama that has overtaken FA. I tend to avoid weighing in on issues here. It doesn't do any good, and a month from now nobody will remember it happened. I am making an exception, not so much to weigh in on the issue, but to weigh in on the nature of the drama itself.
My point is simple: Objectivity. Practical concerns first.
I do not know the entire truth of the supposed rape that was supposedly covered up, and neither do you. It seems to me that if someone was raped that they should go to the police, or a shelter, or to family, not to a website administrator. Doesn't prove it didn't happen, doesn't prove it did. We don't know. Whether or not the crime occurred, the incident still calls into question the professionalism of the administration. Crime or no crime, and while I believe the administrator's action has been exaggerated, this concern is still valid.
However, what we do know is that website security was compromised. What we don't seem to know (though we really should) is the extent of the damages. It's really not as bad as people seem to think it is. Notes were taken. That is all. And, chances are, not from you. Odds and logic dictate that if you are one of the few people who read my journals that you are not one of the 41 people who were compromised. Remember the Hitchhiker's Guide - Don't Panic. You're fine. And while I believe the severity has been exaggerated, this still calls into question the overall security of the site, and while panic is unfounded, this concern is still valid.
Okay, now we have the premise. Now the conclusion.
Neither concern is worth the uproar, but both concerns have validity. However, they need to be prioritized properly. As I hope I illustrated early on, fix the house first, the rest comes later. The security concerns are an immediate, quantifiable, and practical problem. Starting a moral crusade against the admin(s) isn't likely to encourage them to solve it in a timely manner. If the moral concerns are that important to you, you will remember them after the site is fixed. A repair which is, to whatever extent it can be, apparently, already in progress.
The short version: The moral concerns are valid, but they have their place. That place is right behind the immediate practical concerns.
The super-short version: Chill out. Think first. Talk second.
Also; whatever the current admin scandal is, it's likely people-oriented, easy to think you understand, and emotionally charged right? Hard to get worked up over a security issue that's probably so technical all of three people here would even recognize an explanation of it as English. XD