In which case, yes, taking away their plates to wash before they've finished the cocktail meatballs would be sufficiently unexpected and outside the implicit rules of that context to be worthy of protest.
I can't recall now who linked to the concept, and I can't even recall the concept's formal name -- I think it was something like "an argument for the benefit" or some unusual term like that. All I can recall was that it amounted to the position that in any given discussion, one should first apply the benefit of the doubt to the other party. I guess that would be like assuming that mistakes are due to ignorance/innocence (unintentional) rather than malice, or that the other party genuinely means well even if their words come across harshly.
In your analogy, I think sometimes it's as though the host says, "oh, no, the meatballs weren't cooked properly, I'm going to take them away and cook them a little longer." A guest reaction that does not apply the benefit of the doubt automatically assumes there's a reason the meatballs have been removed, and that this reason is due to malice on the host's part. Is it hiding one's flaws to remove the inadequate dinner, or is it simply being considerate of your guests in not making them put time/energy (or their stomachs) into an ill-prepared meal?
And I think you're spot-on about the linkspams giving a distorted impression of a journal's purpose. They act as advertising to a broader public than originally planned, but is bad preparation the fault of the host who should've planned for five hundred guests, or is it the fault of the person who xeroxed the original invites without warning the host ahead of time?
no subject
Date: 24 Feb 2011 08:09 pm (UTC)I can't recall now who linked to the concept, and I can't even recall the concept's formal name -- I think it was something like "an argument for the benefit" or some unusual term like that. All I can recall was that it amounted to the position that in any given discussion, one should first apply the benefit of the doubt to the other party. I guess that would be like assuming that mistakes are due to ignorance/innocence (unintentional) rather than malice, or that the other party genuinely means well even if their words come across harshly.
In your analogy, I think sometimes it's as though the host says, "oh, no, the meatballs weren't cooked properly, I'm going to take them away and cook them a little longer." A guest reaction that does not apply the benefit of the doubt automatically assumes there's a reason the meatballs have been removed, and that this reason is due to malice on the host's part. Is it hiding one's flaws to remove the inadequate dinner, or is it simply being considerate of your guests in not making them put time/energy (or their stomachs) into an ill-prepared meal?
And I think you're spot-on about the linkspams giving a distorted impression of a journal's purpose. They act as advertising to a broader public than originally planned, but is bad preparation the fault of the host who should've planned for five hundred guests, or is it the fault of the person who xeroxed the original invites without warning the host ahead of time?