6 ms·

While Sam's post was admittedly a bit snarky, and his actions did seem a bit 'scummy.' But Sam simply contributed to the experiment. Surely others were going to

by nchlswu 15y ago

While Sam's post was admittedly a bit snarky, and his actions did seem a bit 'scummy.' But Sam simply contributed to the experiment. Surely others were going to take advantage of the system. While his actions may run counter to the 'spirit of the experiment,' it's fair game and part of the experiment. Stark didn't enforce any sort of rules for a reason. People who participated in the experiment can continue to pay it forward however they want. I don't necessarily agree with the reasons Sam cited for running his own take on the experiment, but I have to say I'm sort of surprised by the general reaction by so many -- then again, these reactions are just another outcome of the experiment. I find the following and dedication to this movement utterly fascinating. He made a statement regarding people's generosity (or illusions of generosity?) and the resultant attacks on Odio himself are even more intriguing.

jwilliams 15y ago
There seems to be a habit to define the rules of the experiment - on the basis that there are no rules - and then use this to illustrate a particular point of view as "right" or otherwise justifiable. By your definition it would have also been fine if Sam had actually gone out and bought himself and iPad. Technically fair game? Would that have been ok? Probably not to most people. Not because of the rules, but because we all have our own view of acceptable behaviour. In this case, he gamed the system and in the process poured water on some people that were having fun. I don't buy that it's a social experiment more than someone trying to be clever and game a system. So yeah. Fair game, but I can see why they're annoyed.
- nchlswu 15y ago
  > I don't buy that it's a social experiment more than someone trying to be clever and game a system. That's fair. But would you be more inclined to think of it as a social experiment if it wasn't limited to Jonathan's physical gift card? To elaborate, what if you consider the Jonathan's Card spinoffs and broader reaction to Odio's actions?
Cushman 15y ago
Sam literally did the opposite of contribute to the experiment. There is nothing he could have done which would be more disruptive. The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-penny, leave-a-penny, can survive. And in fact, it largely can, as the growing popularity of Jonathan's Card showed. That there are people who will abuse the system does not excuse the people who abuse the system— that's absurd. I'm baffled by your surprise at the reaction. Are you likewise surprised by the fact that people don't like the guy who comes up to the bowl labeled "Free Candy" and takes all of the candy, leaving none for anyone else? "But I'm just demonstrating that any system based on goodwill is open to abuse!" Well, yeah. We know. People hate that. "But I'm giving the candy to underprivileged children!" That's good for them, then. We hope they enjoy it, dick.
- sjs 15y ago
  He wasn't the only one skimming money from the card he just got the most attention for it by publicizing what he did. You might even draw the parallel to a white hat who publicizes a vulnerability rather than quietly exploiting it for profit. edit: He did skim quite a lot to prove the concept. Maybe he was seriously considering that iPad.
  - benatkin 15y ago
    I agree. If Sam Odio's post had a graph or table with the suspicious changes highlighted, and a conservative total of them exceeding the amount he took, I think fewer people would have given him grief over it.
  - Cushman 15y ago
    I could draw the parallel to a white hat who breaks into my house to steal some of my stuff, gives it to the Goodwill, and then blogs about it in order to publicize the vulnerability that I leave my front door unlocked. "Hey man, you left your front door unlocked. Anyone could have done that." I know. I leave my front door unlocked with the expectation that, in general, people won't. You're one of the bad guys. "Hey, that's unfair. It's not like I'm profiting from it. I gave it to the Goodwill." Next time you're feeling charitable, donate some of your own stuff. That's what I do. It's all the good feelings, without any of the stealing.
simonw 15y ago
The lesson I learned: if you're going to try doing something nice, don't make the mistake of calling it an "experiment" - apparently that's just an invitation for people to spoil it and call their actions "fair game".

by nchlswu 15y ago

jwilliams 15y ago

There seems to be a habit to define the rules of the experiment - on the basis that there are no rules - and then use this to illustrate a particular point of view as "right" or otherwise justifiable. By your definition it would have also been fine if Sam had actually gone out and bought himself and iPad. Technically fair game? Would that have been ok? Probably not to most people. Not because of the rules, but because we all have our own view of acceptable behaviour. In this case, he gamed the system and in the process poured water on some people that were having fun. I don't buy that it's a social experiment more than someone trying to be clever and game a system. So yeah. Fair game, but I can see why they're annoyed.

nchlswu 15y ago
> I don't buy that it's a social experiment more than someone trying to be clever and game a system. That's fair. But would you be more inclined to think of it as a social experiment if it wasn't limited to Jonathan's physical gift card? To elaborate, what if you consider the Jonathan's Card spinoffs and broader reaction to Odio's actions?

Cushman 15y ago

Sam literally did the opposite of contribute to the experiment. There is nothing he could have done which would be more disruptive. The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-penny, leave-a-penny, can survive. And in fact, it largely can, as the growing popularity of Jonathan's Card showed. That there are people who will abuse the system does not excuse the people who abuse the system— that's absurd. I'm baffled by your surprise at the reaction. Are you likewise surprised by the fact that people don't like the guy who comes up to the bowl labeled "Free Candy" and takes all of the candy, leaving none for anyone else? "But I'm just demonstrating that any system based on goodwill is open to abuse!" Well, yeah. We know. People hate that. "But I'm giving the candy to underprivileged children!" That's good for them, then. We hope they enjoy it, dick.

sjs 15y ago
He wasn't the only one skimming money from the card he just got the most attention for it by publicizing what he did. You might even draw the parallel to a white hat who publicizes a vulnerability rather than quietly exploiting it for profit. edit: He did skim quite a lot to prove the concept. Maybe he was seriously considering that iPad.
- benatkin 15y ago
  I agree. If Sam Odio's post had a graph or table with the suspicious changes highlighted, and a conservative total of them exceeding the amount he took, I think fewer people would have given him grief over it.
- Cushman 15y ago
  I could draw the parallel to a white hat who breaks into my house to steal some of my stuff, gives it to the Goodwill, and then blogs about it in order to publicize the vulnerability that I leave my front door unlocked. "Hey man, you left your front door unlocked. Anyone could have done that." I know. I leave my front door unlocked with the expectation that, in general, people won't. You're one of the bad guys. "Hey, that's unfair. It's not like I'm profiting from it. I gave it to the Goodwill." Next time you're feeling charitable, donate some of your own stuff. That's what I do. It's all the good feelings, without any of the stealing.

simonw 15y ago

The lesson I learned: if you're going to try doing something nice, don't make the mistake of calling it an "experiment" - apparently that's just an invitation for people to spoil it and call their actions "fair game".