4 ms·

The reason the blame is taken as a team is so that methods are put in place to prevent those problems in the future. If it were simply a blame game those issues

The reason the blame is taken as a team is so that methods are put in place to prevent those problems in the future. If it were simply a blame game those issues would not be resolved. Humans do not operate on pure reason, and if you decide to do the blame game they will rarely resolve the underlying issue that caused the problem in the first place. The blame game is a stupid game, and as we know playing stupid games wins stupid prizes. It isn't about eliminating recurring problems, it's having the highest chance of reduction. If someone continually performs poorly then thats management's responsibility to replace them.

crimsonalucard1 6y ago
> If it were simply a blame game those issues would not be resolved. Humans do not operate on pure reason, and if you decide to do the blame game they will rarely resolve the underlying issue that caused the problem in the first place. The blame game is a stupid game, and as we know playing stupid games wins stupid prizes. I never said play the blame game. I never said the team must not take the blame. Please don't put words into my mouth. I literally said it's the teams fault and the individuals fault. Both parties must take responsibility. Take it this way, if a single team member repeatedly makes mistakes then is it the teams job to put methods in place just for that team member? Or is it the teams job to help that team member as an individual? The blame game is a stupid game so don't play a blame game. Take responsibility both as a team AND as an individual. The team taking the blame exclusively is AVOIDING individual responsibility. It is not a sign of a healthy team. I am essentially saying the solution is not so clear cut. The team can't always take the blame just to "avoid a blame game." The reality of the universe is that problems aren't always team level problems, that problems at the individual level exist as well. To exclusively avoid addressing problems at the individual level is a stupid and delusional endeavor and you also win the stupid prize for ignoring reality. >If someone continually performs poorly then thats management's responsibility to replace them. This is called blaming an individual then firing him. It entirely contradicts your main argument. I didn't even go there yet, I advocated blaming the individual than helping him improve as a team. You immediately cut his head off and let management do the dirty work.
Volundr 6y ago
It's also that we (the team) failed to put steps in place to prevent the problem. The person who pushed the button that took down prod is only the last person who made a mistake. Plenty of mistakes were made before, otherwise their mistake would've been a non-issue. If your system can't tolerate one person's mistake, it's not robust. None of this means you can't praise a whole team (you should! The original statement just said you CAN praise individuals), or discipline team members who regularly show poor judgement.
- crimsonalucard1 6y ago
  >or discipline team members who regularly show poor judgement. Isn't this contradictory with the original premise? If you discipline an individual you are blaming the individual. You're saying you can praise individuals and you can discipline individuals and you must also follow this: "Good teams don't blame individuals. You can praise individuals, but you take blame as a team." Do you not see the contradiction? I'm literally getting voted down because of slightly miffed feelings. Despite all of this the logical correctness of my statement stands and you have inadvertently agreed with every aspect of my statement.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Blame is for incidents. Discipline is for patterns. Also, just a bit of friendly Internet advice, this isn't the best way to interface with people: > Despite all of this the logical correctness of my statement stands and you have inadvertently agreed with every aspect of my statement.
    - crimsonalucard1 6y ago
      >Also, just a bit of friendly Internet advice, this isn't the best way to interface with people: Well I'm getting massive vote downs and the original poster literally called what I'm stating as initializing stupid blame games to win the stupid prize. Kind of rude and insulting. I think it's reasonable to say that my reaction is reasonable given the attack. It's not exactly the real world on HN either as people are harsher than normal, ruder and less receptive of differing opinions. I would say that Giving people a piece of "friendly advice on interfacing with people" won't exactly win you any friends either. If you teach people things using that methodology you will get a retaliatory response whether it's on the internet or the real world as the tone is a bit domineering and elitist. >Blame is for incidents. Discipline is for patterns. This doesn't make sense to me. I can't blame people for patterns? I can't discipline people for incidents? The sort of short and terse elegant expressiveness of the phrase ultimately hides a statement that makes no logical sense. Typically someone is blamed first before he is disciplined. Both go hand in hand. Either way, you're probably just trying to say that let the team get blamed but if you see patterns then blame the individual. Not as elegant but no linguistic tricks that decorate ultimately illogical statements to appear as philosophies of life.

crimsonalucard1 6y ago

> If it were simply a blame game those issues would not be resolved. Humans do not operate on pure reason, and if you decide to do the blame game they will rarely resolve the underlying issue that caused the problem in the first place. The blame game is a stupid game, and as we know playing stupid games wins stupid prizes. I never said play the blame game. I never said the team must not take the blame. Please don't put words into my mouth. I literally said it's the teams fault and the individuals fault. Both parties must take responsibility. Take it this way, if a single team member repeatedly makes mistakes then is it the teams job to put methods in place just for that team member? Or is it the teams job to help that team member as an individual? The blame game is a stupid game so don't play a blame game. Take responsibility both as a team AND as an individual. The team taking the blame exclusively is AVOIDING individual responsibility. It is not a sign of a healthy team. I am essentially saying the solution is not so clear cut. The team can't always take the blame just to "avoid a blame game." The reality of the universe is that problems aren't always team level problems, that problems at the individual level exist as well. To exclusively avoid addressing problems at the individual level is a stupid and delusional endeavor and you also win the stupid prize for ignoring reality. >If someone continually performs poorly then thats management's responsibility to replace them. This is called blaming an individual then firing him. It entirely contradicts your main argument. I didn't even go there yet, I advocated blaming the individual than helping him improve as a team. You immediately cut his head off and let management do the dirty work.

Volundr 6y ago

It's also that we (the team) failed to put steps in place to prevent the problem. The person who pushed the button that took down prod is only the last person who made a mistake. Plenty of mistakes were made before, otherwise their mistake would've been a non-issue. If your system can't tolerate one person's mistake, it's not robust. None of this means you can't praise a whole team (you should! The original statement just said you CAN praise individuals), or discipline team members who regularly show poor judgement.

crimsonalucard1 6y ago
>or discipline team members who regularly show poor judgement. Isn't this contradictory with the original premise? If you discipline an individual you are blaming the individual. You're saying you can praise individuals and you can discipline individuals and you must also follow this: "Good teams don't blame individuals. You can praise individuals, but you take blame as a team." Do you not see the contradiction? I'm literally getting voted down because of slightly miffed feelings. Despite all of this the logical correctness of my statement stands and you have inadvertently agreed with every aspect of my statement.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Blame is for incidents. Discipline is for patterns. Also, just a bit of friendly Internet advice, this isn't the best way to interface with people: > Despite all of this the logical correctness of my statement stands and you have inadvertently agreed with every aspect of my statement.
  - crimsonalucard1 6y ago
    >Also, just a bit of friendly Internet advice, this isn't the best way to interface with people: Well I'm getting massive vote downs and the original poster literally called what I'm stating as initializing stupid blame games to win the stupid prize. Kind of rude and insulting. I think it's reasonable to say that my reaction is reasonable given the attack. It's not exactly the real world on HN either as people are harsher than normal, ruder and less receptive of differing opinions. I would say that Giving people a piece of "friendly advice on interfacing with people" won't exactly win you any friends either. If you teach people things using that methodology you will get a retaliatory response whether it's on the internet or the real world as the tone is a bit domineering and elitist. >Blame is for incidents. Discipline is for patterns. This doesn't make sense to me. I can't blame people for patterns? I can't discipline people for incidents? The sort of short and terse elegant expressiveness of the phrase ultimately hides a statement that makes no logical sense. Typically someone is blamed first before he is disciplined. Both go hand in hand. Either way, you're probably just trying to say that let the team get blamed but if you see patterns then blame the individual. Not as elegant but no linguistic tricks that decorate ultimately illogical statements to appear as philosophies of life.