People are apparently not getting the reference:

http://www.byond.com/members/DreamMakers/forum?id=731404
http://www.byond.com/members/DreamMakers/forum?id=731744

Tsfreaks wrote:

I'm going to nay the post and not to be a troll but to cast my vote on the subject.

Your good right and no need to explain yourself. I didn't expect solely positive feedback right away. Disagreeing and arguing doesn't make a 'troll'.


Tsfreaks wrote:

It's just segregation propaganda.

And it is exactly meant as segregation. Selecting somebody can hardly be done without segregation.


Tsfreaks wrote:

I don't approve of the lashings people get for trying to help.

There is a difference between trying to help while capable of helping and trying to help while incapable of helping. If I were to try and teach English, I should rightfully be called to order. I'd do more wrong then good by any means for anybody inexperienced enough to listen to me.


Tsfreaks wrote:

someone posts a lame reply, I see this as an opportunity to help two people.

There is a danger to this though.
If I teach you English and you end up with the famous 'leet'-'chat'-language, don't you think you'd run into trouble when going for a job, recommending you're fluent in English and upon being tested fail completely?
Being taught wrong can often get stuck.

Schnitzelnagler wrote:

That's an interesting observation.
If abiding to good habits is the 'hard way', then wouldn't it make sense that the industry would hire people who apply bad habits in their work?
Or, in other words, why do we claim something is a good habit, if it only causes trouble? Couldn't there be some benefits?

My comments were from the perspective of that group and not of my own, right?

Smoking is crazy. People do it anyway.

"Coders" want to make games but they don't want to learn how to make games. Again, crazy but they do it anyway.


Schnitzelnagler wrote:

Since exaggeration is a valid method in literature, I'll take it as such, even though it couldn't be any more off. If somebody doesn't care for somebody else, they wouldn't try to help.

Again, my comments were from the perspective of that group and not of my own, right? Also note, that just because you help someone doesn't mean you care for them. Take Technical Support for instance. Take, the concept that your trying to help something else (BYOND) by helping the neophytes.

I realized today that my "personas" were swayed in favor of the "coders" because I was aiming to protect them to a certain degree. I designed the "Programmer" from the perspective of the "Coder" which was unfair.

Schnitzelnagler wrote:

If you approach a job interview for molecular modelling and can't answer what VESPR is about, would you really think to have a chance of even being considered? If a mechanic asks you to hand him a tool and you can't because you do not know the name, wouldn't you think that this is a massive flaw for your work? If a professor approaches the class with 'Hi dudez, how r em haning? W8 u lazy basterd' and is supposed to compare the usage of allegory in Shakespeare's work compared to Goethe the very next second, wouldn't that sound strange?

I agree that general terms and their correct usage are not very important (though they help to provide a positive impression), but specific terminology for the specific field you're trying to engage seems essential to me.

So, if you are wrongly given a title, then yes, things would go wrong when you were called into action. If you have no title, then you and anyone else have to communicate what you bring to the table without any assumptions. This is a much slower process. Especially if the process isn't templated in any way.

Americas armies used the same strategy. By telling someone your rank, they knew exactly what to expect from you and so did you even if you were actually incapable of delivering on the promises of that rank. The system works because it takes care of itself for a while. When an opportunity arises, management steps in and corrects any wrongs and then shoves the whole system back out the door to continue on its way.


Schnitzelnagler wrote:

How would you recommend that somebody new to the community would decide whom to hire as programmer? Lacking experience on the field itself, asking for an example is hardly a valid option.

By referral and example of final product. Many managers of many software companies know squat about how a program was written. They only care about how many features they get out of it by the time they release.

I think internally, titles and rankings can provide necessary useful data points.

Titles work in private or in closed circles where it's appreciated but in public, "regular" folks tend to lash out at that kind of thing because they are being reminded of their exclusion.

So... something on topic. :) I don't think it's a great idea to take social slang and try to convert it into official titles. I beleive it will backfire.

ts

Perfect example, conversation I was having with a "coder"

2:23:49 AM) them: Enemy okay as the datum?
(2:24:37 AM) me: enemies should be mobs
(2:25:29 AM) them: Well obviously.
(2:25:38 AM) them: I was saying for the datum name.
(2:26:31 AM) me: A datum is a whole different thing it's not a mob, obj, turf, or area, it's a whole new type that you create that doesn't inherit properties.
(2:26:37 AM) them: I know
(2:26:40 AM) me: I think what you mean is child.
(2:26:43 AM) them: You can assign its parent_type though
(2:26:46 AM) me: mob/enemy
(2:27:08 AM) me: If you assign it a parent type it's not a datum it's a child.
(2:28:46 AM) them: In a way, but typically when you say something like 'Is it okay is I make a ___ type datum'
(2:29:08 AM) them: They obviously mean creating a new child.
(2:29:21 AM) me: Only if they don't understand the meaning.
(2:29:42 AM) them: Usually to avoid confusion.

By using the wrong terminology to avoid confusion they were really creating more confusion.

Because I'm unoriginal: http://brajeshwar.com/2007/are-you-a-programmer-or-a-coder/