4 ms·

There are two different things to judge here, and your comment appears to conflate them. First, we can judge whether Sam’s action was “Part of the experiment.”

There are two different things to judge here, and your comment appears to conflate them. First, we can judge whether Sam’s action was “Part of the experiment.” Second, we can judge whether Sam’s action was repugnant. I think that it is possible to believe that Sam’s action was part of the experiment and also repugnant.

chrischen 15y ago
But I'm sure Sam's actions were contingent on it being an open experiment. Had Jonathan openly requested people not scrape the service do you think Sam would have broken that request to prove a point? It would only have been repugnant if Jonathan requested people not to do what Sam did. But the game had no rules and what is deemed a good or bad outcome is purely subjective. Who's to say free coffee for some is better than charity with this experiment? Just because the majority dream this specific experiment to be something that it isn't doesn't mean someone who comes along and dashes those dreams is an asshole. If you want his actions to be deemed repugnant, then setup a new Jonathan's Card experiment, define the rules the way you want with the no-scraping clause. Then wait until Sam breaks those rules. Then you can call his actions repugnant. EDIT: I'll admit it's probably not the nicest thing to do if he knew that people (wrongly) assumed their donated money would go to buying coffee for others. But the risks were clearly defined and anyone donating money should have realized that their money is actually going to the experiment, and not necessarily to buying coffee for someone.
- Kadrith 15y ago
  I don't drink Starbucks coffee, so I didn't participate in this. There was already an implicit request that this be used for something at Starbucks; otherwise why would he have used a Starbucks gift card? Does Starbucks now sell iPads? From what I've read I do think this guy would have broken an explicit request concerning scraping; he seems like just another crook that believes they are innocent and always has an excuse.
  - chrischen 15y ago
    If you think he would have broken the rules explicitly then you are simply being cynical. If you are judging him based on that speculation then you should reconsider, because I highly doubt most people you've read here actually know Sam.
- raganwald 15y ago
  If I do business with you and I’m an asshole, is my moral defence really that you should have realized I would be an asshole? We have to disentangle asshole/nice guy from legal/illegal. Being an asshole in business is legal. But that doesn’t mean it’s not repugnant. Sure, we can say that Sam has not broken Jonathan’s law, and we can argue that he doesn’t need to reverse his transactions legally. We can also argue that he was or was not acting like an asshole. Perhaps he wasn’t. But the question of whether his actions were in accordance with the “rules of the game” has very little bearing on whether they are repugnant.
  - chrischen 15y ago
    If you do business with me, and you're an asshole, your moral defense can be that you didn't know you were being an asshole. I'd personally give you the benefit of the doubt. Of course the next time you do the same thing it'll be clear. >But the question of whether his actions were in accordance with the “rules of the game” has very little bearing on whether they are repugnant. If you break an explicit rule or request, then it's clear that you knew you were being an asshole, doing things other people don't want. When that rule is not explicit, it's hard to say if you knew you were being an asshole. The rules weren't explicit, and could have very easily specified not to scrape. If Sam took advantage of anyone it would have been naive experiment participants who donated money under the false assumption it would be used for a specific purpose. But even then, Sam's actions could be interpreted as Robin Hood-esque by some. There is NO DOUBT, from the view point of the supposed victims that Sam's actions are repugnant because they go against what they wished, but so did the people who Robin Hood robbed from I bet. However, from a more global perspective, who's to say they're repugnant? Assume some of that Stark Card money actually reached some unfortunate children in the third world and made their lives slightly better... Would a non-victim really believe that to be a worse appropriation of that money than buying coffee for some first-world person (assuming the money actually reached those kids)? Many would argue that is a better use of the money, regardless of what the original experiment participants expected the money to be used for, because the experiment participants wrongly assumed in the first place.
- ugh 15y ago
  In soccer diving is not punished if the referee doesn’t see it, even if three TV cameras captured every detail. Are soccer fans wrong in being disgusted by such diving? There is no law against slamming the door close before the person behind you can enter. Are people wrong in believing that such behavior is rude? I think the belief that only following rules is enough to earn the right to never be perceived as an asshole is fundamentally flawed. There is nothing wrong with being disgusted by Sam’s actions, even if there weren’t any rules telling him not to do what he did. What he did was repugnant and part of the experiment. My reaction here is also part of the experiment.
  - chrischen 15y ago
    > In soccer diving is not punished if the referee doesn’t see it, even if three TV cameras captured every detail. Are soccer fans wrong in being disgusted by such diving? So why do they keep letting players do that? Are they requested not to do that? If so, then it is slightly different from Sam's situation. It would be similar if Jonathan had requested people not to do what Sam did. Not punished != not a rule. > There is no law against slamming the door close before the person behind you can enter. Are people wrong in believing that such behavior is rude? You shouldn't assume such behavior has ill intentions. If you don't like it, ask the person to stop doing it. Then and only then if he/she keeps doing it, you can call him an asshole. Someone is not an asshole simply for doing something you don't like. You have to dig into the intentions.
    - ugh 15y ago
      My examples are merely illustrative and not meant to be analogous to the situation at hand. I want to illustrate that there is a difference between being disgusted by something and whether or not there is an explicit rule. There luckily aren’t as many rules as there are behaviors that are considered repugnant by someone. I’m quite happy about that. In the case of the door, just imagine you had eye contact with the person who slammed the door and he grinned. At that point I’m perfectly willing to infer the intention and consider the behavior rude. Sam Odio has written a lot about his intentions, those aren’t really the issue. They are public and clear and I’m disgusted by them. Simple as that. “But it’s an experiment” completely misses the point.

chrischen 15y ago

But I'm sure Sam's actions were contingent on it being an open experiment. Had Jonathan openly requested people not scrape the service do you think Sam would have broken that request to prove a point? It would only have been repugnant if Jonathan requested people not to do what Sam did. But the game had no rules and what is deemed a good or bad outcome is purely subjective. Who's to say free coffee for some is better than charity with this experiment? Just because the majority dream this specific experiment to be something that it isn't doesn't mean someone who comes along and dashes those dreams is an asshole. If you want his actions to be deemed repugnant, then setup a new Jonathan's Card experiment, define the rules the way you want with the no-scraping clause. Then wait until Sam breaks those rules. Then you can call his actions repugnant. EDIT: I'll admit it's probably not the nicest thing to do if he knew that people (wrongly) assumed their donated money would go to buying coffee for others. But the risks were clearly defined and anyone donating money should have realized that their money is actually going to the experiment, and not necessarily to buying coffee for someone.

Kadrith 15y ago
I don't drink Starbucks coffee, so I didn't participate in this. There was already an implicit request that this be used for something at Starbucks; otherwise why would he have used a Starbucks gift card? Does Starbucks now sell iPads? From what I've read I do think this guy would have broken an explicit request concerning scraping; he seems like just another crook that believes they are innocent and always has an excuse.
- chrischen 15y ago
  If you think he would have broken the rules explicitly then you are simply being cynical. If you are judging him based on that speculation then you should reconsider, because I highly doubt most people you've read here actually know Sam.
raganwald 15y ago
If I do business with you and I’m an asshole, is my moral defence really that you should have realized I would be an asshole? We have to disentangle asshole/nice guy from legal/illegal. Being an asshole in business is legal. But that doesn’t mean it’s not repugnant. Sure, we can say that Sam has not broken Jonathan’s law, and we can argue that he doesn’t need to reverse his transactions legally. We can also argue that he was or was not acting like an asshole. Perhaps he wasn’t. But the question of whether his actions were in accordance with the “rules of the game” has very little bearing on whether they are repugnant.
- chrischen 15y ago
  If you do business with me, and you're an asshole, your moral defense can be that you didn't know you were being an asshole. I'd personally give you the benefit of the doubt. Of course the next time you do the same thing it'll be clear. >But the question of whether his actions were in accordance with the “rules of the game” has very little bearing on whether they are repugnant. If you break an explicit rule or request, then it's clear that you knew you were being an asshole, doing things other people don't want. When that rule is not explicit, it's hard to say if you knew you were being an asshole. The rules weren't explicit, and could have very easily specified not to scrape. If Sam took advantage of anyone it would have been naive experiment participants who donated money under the false assumption it would be used for a specific purpose. But even then, Sam's actions could be interpreted as Robin Hood-esque by some. There is NO DOUBT, from the view point of the supposed victims that Sam's actions are repugnant because they go against what they wished, but so did the people who Robin Hood robbed from I bet. However, from a more global perspective, who's to say they're repugnant? Assume some of that Stark Card money actually reached some unfortunate children in the third world and made their lives slightly better... Would a non-victim really believe that to be a worse appropriation of that money than buying coffee for some first-world person (assuming the money actually reached those kids)? Many would argue that is a better use of the money, regardless of what the original experiment participants expected the money to be used for, because the experiment participants wrongly assumed in the first place.
ugh 15y ago
In soccer diving is not punished if the referee doesn’t see it, even if three TV cameras captured every detail. Are soccer fans wrong in being disgusted by such diving? There is no law against slamming the door close before the person behind you can enter. Are people wrong in believing that such behavior is rude? I think the belief that only following rules is enough to earn the right to never be perceived as an asshole is fundamentally flawed. There is nothing wrong with being disgusted by Sam’s actions, even if there weren’t any rules telling him not to do what he did. What he did was repugnant and part of the experiment. My reaction here is also part of the experiment.
- chrischen 15y ago
  > In soccer diving is not punished if the referee doesn’t see it, even if three TV cameras captured every detail. Are soccer fans wrong in being disgusted by such diving? So why do they keep letting players do that? Are they requested not to do that? If so, then it is slightly different from Sam's situation. It would be similar if Jonathan had requested people not to do what Sam did. Not punished != not a rule. > There is no law against slamming the door close before the person behind you can enter. Are people wrong in believing that such behavior is rude? You shouldn't assume such behavior has ill intentions. If you don't like it, ask the person to stop doing it. Then and only then if he/she keeps doing it, you can call him an asshole. Someone is not an asshole simply for doing something you don't like. You have to dig into the intentions.
  - ugh 15y ago
    My examples are merely illustrative and not meant to be analogous to the situation at hand. I want to illustrate that there is a difference between being disgusted by something and whether or not there is an explicit rule. There luckily aren’t as many rules as there are behaviors that are considered repugnant by someone. I’m quite happy about that. In the case of the door, just imagine you had eye contact with the person who slammed the door and he grinned. At that point I’m perfectly willing to infer the intention and consider the behavior rude. Sam Odio has written a lot about his intentions, those aren’t really the issue. They are public and clear and I’m disgusted by them. Simple as that. “But it’s an experiment” completely misses the point.