[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Reconciliation? [formerly "Re: apologies"]
From:       "Joshua J. Berry" <des () condordes ! net>
Date:       2008-06-14 9:23:02
Message-ID: 200806140223.02862.des () condordes ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Saturday 14 June 2008 01:43:58 Mark A. Taff wrote:
> On Friday 13 June 2008 18:45:27 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > In an emotionally-charged conversation, it's easy to read animosity
> > where none was intended, sometimes when where none was present. That's
> > why IMO the strategy you (Mark) cite above is the WORST possible
> > strategy in such a situation. I'm curious, actually, under what
> > circumstances you feel that strategy is "highly effective". (I'm
> > assuming that your intention is *not* to troll ;-).)
>
> Matthew: Tit for tat is a strategy from game theory.  You can check out
> wikipedia for an overview:

That might have actually worked for you had you not started off by provoking 
Aaron (and many of the rest of us).  Whether you intended to do so, or were 
misinterpreted, the outcome was the same.  You touched off a death spiral from 
the very beginning.

Funny thing is ... in my experience, and in the experience of most people I've 
talked to about this, death spirals happen a *lot* in social situations using 
unmodified tit for tat.  (Elementary school playgrounds, anyone?)  As Matt 
said, it's easy to infer a defection when none actually occurs.

Please modify your strategy to take this into account.  Or, at the very least, 
please don't take things said here so personally.  Most of the time, it's 
really not worth getting upset over.

-- Josh


-- 
Joshua J. Berry

"I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere."
    -- /usr/games/fortune


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]