61–70 of 75 posts
"I think you took my olive branch and stomped on it."
No Sam, an olive branch would have been to return the money with an apology. Better yet, what he did to you is the same thing you did to his experiment.
I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…
Sam's own actions have to stand on their own, and I have several problems with them:
1) Being a veteran of the industry Sam had to have known his actions would place the experiment at risk, bringing the goodwill to a halt. That was self-serving.
2) His actions were a misdirection and hijacking of the spirit of the experiment. The experiment was about a coffee card, not a general charity fund, not there for any one person to take over and repurpose. Sure, it was an experiment, part of which might have been stated: "How long can this last before some self-serving jerk ruins it for everybody?" Well, now we know.
3) The whole thing smacks much more of a the kind of self-aggrandizing stunt to be expected from a serial entrepreneur, rather than either real altruism or an interesting culture jam. The "yuppies buying yuppies coffee" line was laughably hypocritical.
If I may be uncharitable, to summarise: Guy: Hey, look at me guys! I did a sorta hack where you can put money on a card and people with smart phones can get free coffees! Guys: Wow, that's... cool for some reason! It feels good when putting money into this card to think that people with smart phones somewhere can get a free coffee. Guy#2: Hey! look at ME, guys! I hacked that hack thing that was somehow cool and good.…
It's an interesting character study. Jonathan takes the high road and redirects Sam Odio to the public discussion which I think is a great thing to do instead of getting caught up in a personal confrontation. Then Sam Odio responds with: I think you took my olive branch and stomped on it. In the light of what happened, you can say a lot of negative things about Sam Odio, but at least he's consistent.
Hm, I guess a lot can get lost in translation. :( That "olive branch" comment wasn't intended to be negative. I was saddened by his reply. To address your point: I am not looking for a personal confrontation...just wanting to reach out and make sure he's OK.
I wouldn't have even sent the email. Your public comments are clear enough.
But just in case the replies here arent obvious, your comment reads as self-important and also sounds like you're playing a victim when you clearly aren't. What, he has to go and apologize to you for stomping your gift?
Just in case those reading this don't know: I know Sam and would say this to his face. I'm commenting about this exchange and not about the experiment / hack.
I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…
I think the reason that giving the proceeds to charity is seen as so offensive is because the implied social contract was that people could use the card at Starbucks to buy something and they could contribute back if they felt like it. Even though Sam's intent to donate to charity is noble, the means by which he set out to achieve this lacked nobility. He took advantage of something that was on the honor system and a…
We talk a lot about game mechanics, and games have economies. The interesting stuff often happens where the game economy and the real economy intersect (gold farming for instance).
I think the error is really Starbuck's. They probably shouldn't allow a gift card to be bought with a gift card.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree with what Sam Odio did initially, but I also wouldn't exactly call publishing a screenshot of a private email from someone the "high road".
There was no private content in that mail. The whole of it could be expressed as "LOL UMAD?". I don't think I would have responded so kindly in Jonathan's place. I probably would have taken this as an opportunity to tell Sam Odio what I really think of his actions. So, yes, compared to that Jonathan absolutely took the high road. But also from a philosophical perspective, redirecting this toward the public participan…
The same way Sam violated the social contract of the experiment, I think Johnathan violated the social contract of email.
We all realize email we send could be read by anyone, but still don't want it copied and pasted in a public forum.
What Jonathan did is of course less annoying, but I still nevertheless find it of a similar nature. I think he could have still made the post and just paraphrased.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in the spirit no, but still part of the experiment. I honestly don't think Sam is going to get much heat over this from people who matter in his life. Most smart people will look at it from the experiment POV and not the emotionally charged theft and wire-fraud angles.
> I honestly don't think Sam is going to get much heat over this from people who matter in his life I agree with you there. Although as an outsider looking in to Sam's life with only this one saga to judge him by, I'd call him a morally bankrupt snake (emotionally charged - yes, but my truthful gut reaction).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jonathan doesn't even discuss what Sam made of the experiment, but just hands him to the Facebook mob.
Yes, that was the passive aggressive road, not the high road.
https://www.facebook.com/jonathanscard/posts/176232239115101