So essentially you're proud of stealing huge amounts of money from a fund set up by people for a specific purpose, and then you channel this money to suit your own needs while claiming moral superiority?
You know, even if the money you stole for "the little children OMG think of the children" really reaches the intended recipients, which it probably won't if this is a typical 3rd world development fund, you still betrayed everybody's trust and you're actually proud of it.
Sam Odio is either the worst kind of stealing hypocrite out there, or he's genuinely living in a cardboard box under a bridge giving all his money away to charity. I think I can guess which one is the case.
I apologize for the tone of this post, but the sheer amount of arrogant jerkiness on display here actually makes me angry; and that's saying something.
On the plus side, I suppose now we know who kept on abusing the card (people were wondering in other threads).
The social experiment revealed that there are in fact people miserable enough in this world to senselessly steal from such a good will fund. In fact, so miserable that they see fit to even brag about it and pretend to themselves their actions were noble. The experiment revealed that the name of one such miserable person is Sam Odio.
You're equivocating. If it is a social experiment, then it is not a good will fund. It cannot be both. Social experiments (like, say, Chain World: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/15/the-cult-of-minec...) are morally neutral; good will funds have an expectation of moral imperative by those involved. It's the difference between, say, a PvP and PvE server—both allow you to play a game, but what in one is called "bad behavior" is in the other called "emergent gameplay."
Of fucking course it can be both a social experiment and a good will fund. It's a fucking social experiment about a good will fund for crying out loud.
You people are really starting to stretch, what is really going on here? Do you hate coffee? Starbucks? People who drink at starbucks? People with money? People who aim to show that most people are basically good? What is it?
Are you trying to speak to the reference class that includes me? I don't drink coffee (I dislike the taste, but I wouldn't say I hate it), but I also don't have a Starbucks anywhere close enough to me that I would bother to visit it. The only thing I've done with this card is read about it.
Now, what I am is a game designer. What I'm trying to say by calling this a "social experiment," is that a system has been created here with technical restrictions, but no social restrictions—rules, but not norms. Just because, at first glance, it shares some attributes in common with systems that do have norms, such as good will funds, does not mean that that is what it is. Basically, what we're talking about here is a game.
Note that what something is and what something was designed to be are entirely different facts about that thing. The game I mentioned above, Chain World, was designed to be a semi-religious experience in the passing of a unique gameworld from one person to another. However, the system, as expressed through its rules, does not hold to that experience; instead, it is largely a game of keep-away and fundraising where whoever has the game, makes the rules, and the aspect of the playing of the "inner game" (the one on the USB stick) has fallen away almost entirely.
Similarly, although the intention behind this social experiment might have been to create a charity, the system as expressed through its rules does not make for a charity. It makes for something between gambling and leaving money laying on the street. It would be very simple, technically, to enforce socially-normative usage of the card such that it would be a charity—but that was not done, which means that a charity was not the strict intent, leaving people free to interpret the intent of the game as they please.
Also, if you think an experiment like this could possibly demonstrate "that most people are basically good," you're quite far off—the fact that the system is voluntary to join, and that consequences from inside the system do not leak outside, creates what in game design is called a Magic Circle[1]: a division between the social norms of the outer and inner "realities." When such a division is created, a new set of norms (a "social contract") is established between the players of the game, usually reflecting game-theoretically-optimal behavior considering the technical restrictions of the game world. For example, in the social contract of the players of a fighting game, the exploitation of bugs in the game to win is both allowed and encouraged.
Those who try to apply the social norms of the outer reality (such as fairness, generosity, etc.) to the reality within the magic circle, are usually considered to be wrong-headed by those who form the community of players of a game. They are called "scrubs"[2], and they call the tactics of the game's community "cheap." Basically, this is what you seem to be doing.
Now, of course, if you really see the card as a charity, and not a game, then you'll tend to be angry at the people who do see it as a game—just like people are angry at the financial industry for seeing US debt as a game instead of some moral imperative to fix, or like people are angry at pharmaceutical companies for seeing drug creation as a game instead of a moral imperative, or like people are angry at spammers for seeing selling viagra as a game instead of a moral imperative (to not do, in that case.) But none of these people will change, because the systems they're participating in create incentives for their (game-theoretically-optimal) behavior, rather than for what, outside the magic circle, would be "moral" behavior. To change the behavior, you either redesign the game to have different incentives—or you destroy the magic circle by allowing the consequences to leak, such as by making certain in-game actions have out-of-game legal consequences, and thus make the game into whatever sort of moral system it would be in regular, polite society.
I am referencing the distinct group of people who appear to be defending Sam Odio. What seems to be going on is there are a few members of society, Sam Odio seemingly included, who believe that since Sam Odio was "participating" in the experiment that we should not criticise his actions. This shows an aborted understanding of right and wrong, for it is very possible for Sam Odio to both have participated in the experiment (I object to the suggestion that he did, but lets ignore my objection for now) and for Sam Odio to have acted in a morally reprehensible fashion deserving of a great deal of criticism. The more I think about it now this morning, the more I realize that this sounds like a case of aspergers.
Sure, it's goodwill... just the really empty kind of goodwill that makes everyone feel good but nobody actually better off.
Sorry, I probably came off more condescending than I intended. I'm only trying to inject a measure of perspective. People (yourself included) are acting like this was a "miserable" and "disgusting" thing to do. He could have stolen the money and never said a word (which would have been lame), but he played within the bounds of the experiment by reporting his contribution.
"People (yourself included) are acting like this was a "miserable" and "disgusting" thing to do."
I am not acting like it is, I am saying that it is.
And yes, I know that I am doing that... since I am doing it. Regardless of wither or not it was within the bounds of the experiment it was an asshat thing to do.
Such a person is acting within the anticipated and accepted guidelines of the experiment. People put in money knowing and expecting people to do exactly that. When Sam Odio took money from the card he was taking it for reasons not intended by the people who put it in. Therefore, unlike proposed but actually non-existent person that drinks $600 worth of coffee in a week (give me a fucking break), he is stealing.
I guess it's about as bad as someone who buys $600 worth of coffee and never contributes any money. That's 200 $3 coffees, or almost 3/4's of a years worth assuming one a day. Of course, this is also in the span of weeks.
Communism, Nazism and any other 'isms are all considered social experiments. I am not comparing your actions to those, but you cannot hide behind a statement like that.
Godwin's Law isn't a value judgement; it's merely an observation. It's neither good nor bad that a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is likely to occur in any sufficiently-lengthy online discussion.
(Though people may use it as a sign a conversation has jumped the shark, it need not be.)
The rule of thumb is that unless you are discussing 1930s international politics, if you need to refer to Hitler in order to make your point, then you have already lost the argument. Any point worth making has more appropriate ways of making it.
No, you've lost the argument when you've failed to make your point. I don't believe that to be the case here. "Reductio ad Hitlerium" isn't a real logical fallacy, it's just a joke someone made up and we've allowed to perpetuate.
You misunderstand the purpose of logical fallacies. They do not indicate when someone has lost the argument. In fact, the belief that this is the case is itself a logical fallacy.
Well, if he stole enough to buy an iPad, that's a large chunk of the missing money from the card right there.
I'm willing to bet most of the other people stealing from the card aren't rich and successful YC graduate entrepreneurs either but somehow that makes what he did much worse in my opinion. He's also a rich guy lecturing people on how they should be donating every little bit of their excess money to charity. I'm sorry but something about this whole constellation is making my blood boil.
You aren't the only one. Stomping on other people's fun because you'd prefer they donate is deeply irritating. I haven't been able to read the article, yet, due to a 500 error, but whatever charity is receiving this should be upset that they're being associated with this asininity.
That'd be way disproportional. And there could be a totally unrelated people who might suffer from the result of that experiment. Just get the money back on the card.
As a side effect he can claim the karma points for the entire good deed he described, on his own account. Then his experiment would get a much nicer feel.
No, I really don't think that it is disproportional. Sam Odio hasn't apologized let alone returned the money. In fact, he just tries to justify his actions. I would say it is likely that this is symptomatic of his ethical and moral attitude in general.
Seriously tho, it seems like this backlash is getting a bit out of hand. There was a silly, whimsical social experiment, and this guy had a silly, whimsical hack on it, now people are calling to destroy his business and run him out of town on a rail. So it wasn't the best decision, so what? Let's keep things in perspective here, friends.
Excuse me if I don't find statement made after the fact by him such as "is pursuing art (or whatsver) admitting to yourself that you value art more than world hunger? After all, that's how you're allocating your resources." to be "silly" or "whimsical", but rather condescending and pretentious.
Nobody is saying that we should destroy his business. People are saying that we should avoid supporting it.
As for running him out of town on a rail? Well actions like this are not exactly acts of good community building...
Even though I don't agree with what this guy is saying I don't think this comment should have been downvoted, if you don't agree say so, downvoting is not for that!
Downvotes are "supposed to" be for comments that don't contribute to the conversation, not for a view that you disagree with. The only problem with this rule is that it is universally ignored. :p I got a billion upvotes on my original comment because people agreed with me more than because I was particularly insightful. I reflected upon this phenomenon here: http://twitter.com/#!/_sequoia/status/102066922274832384
It was stated that this was a social experiment. Given the fact that everyone knew what would happen, I hardly think this constitutes abuse. Diverting the money to a more worthy (in his view) cause, as some people were using it to buy food for the homeless, should have been an expected outcome.
As a social experiment, if I leave my bike on my front lawn over night for weeks, eventually it will be stolen. Everybody expects this to happen eventually. Does this excuse the thief?
Nope, but if you say "here is my bike, anyone can use it for whatever they want. Really, whatever. Go nuts." and then having someone say "I know, I'll send this bike to kids in Africa who don't have a bike!" doesn't count as theft.
We’re speaking to different arguments. Your point appears to be that Jonathan setting up the experiment and the people paying into the experiment did so with the understanding that other people could do whatever they wanted with the money, and the OP has done whatever he wanted with the money.
My point was simply that given any situation, the fact that we expect something to happen doesn’t automatically excuse any of the participants of responsibility for their choice. I am not judging the OP, merely pointing out that “everyone’s expectation of outcome” is not a valid defence if he has done something wrong. If you believe he hasn’t done anything wrong for other reasons, that’s fine, carry on.
As you say, this doesn't excuse any of the participants. I find it disappointing, however, that this experiment failed to account for a very probable outcome.
Please don't get me wrong. I love the spirit in which this experiment was conceived. At the same time, it's a shame that such an obvious miscalculation scuttled the whole thing so soon. It isn't easy to keep a good thing going.
the phenomena of golden calf has been known for millennia.
Condense enough value into one spot/artefact, and you'll get some people attracted to and mesmerized by it, the people who can't control themselves around it, coming close and touching it, not necessarily to privatize, just to feel and be around it and be associated/connected with it exactly like it happened with Odio. It is strange though that the triggering threshold for such behavior happened to be that low (ie. for anybody working in hi-tech and living in Bay Area) - iPad/$600 - that is surprising result of the experiment.
>Diverting the money to a more worthy (in his view) cause
there is big difference between diverting your own money from buying coffee/movies/etc to a supposedly more worthy cause (ie. act of charity) and diverting somebody else's money (such an act has different names and none of which is charity). How much of his own money he diverted to such a worthy cause?
You know, even if the money you stole for "the little children OMG think of the children" really reaches the intended recipients, which it probably won't if this is a typical 3rd world development fund, you still betrayed everybody's trust and you're actually proud of it.
Sam Odio is either the worst kind of stealing hypocrite out there, or he's genuinely living in a cardboard box under a bridge giving all his money away to charity. I think I can guess which one is the case.
I apologize for the tone of this post, but the sheer amount of arrogant jerkiness on display here actually makes me angry; and that's saying something.
On the plus side, I suppose now we know who kept on abusing the card (people were wondering in other threads).