Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Seismic Upgrade ..... Appeal to those who created the code

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Audra, again you have offered a germane contribution to the seismic code
creation topic, and again, some interesting response can be given. 


At 07:56 AM 5/6/99 -0700,  audra ranous  wrote:
>    As more and more people become discouraged, apathetic, and abrogate
their responsibilities in a 'representative' government, there will be more
and more regulations and 'laws' on the books addressing every nuance of our
existence on this planet.  

CG:        This would be true if you are referring to more and more
UNCHALLENGED regulations and 'laws'...  The topic at hand is one of
challenging the mechanisms by which excesses of regulations come to plague
us. As you noted, that challenging can come across as unpleasant, divisive,
scathing, etc., especially to those who enjoy being regulation mongers. 

audra ranous continues:

>Those who believe that their opinions and efforts matter--can make
a difference;  those who believe that nothing they do matters are also
correct.  It's a question of what a person believes is important--for
themselves; for their profession; for their community, et al., and what they
are willing to contribute of their knowledge and efforts toward the whole.

CG:     Yes.  Particularly for those who altruistically volunteer their
efforts to their profession and community, it can be very dismaying to
suffer criticism over their work product, or to have it rejected forcefully.
That kind of rejection is happening now in connection with the 1997 UBC
seismic provisions. Sure it hurts. But the fact that it hurts cannot be
accepted as a weapon to quash criticism or rejection. In other words,
volunteerism does not entitle the volunteer regulator to special advantages
compared to those being regulated beyond their willingness.

audra ranous' third point:

>    You can 'play the game' and learn the system to some advantage....or
you can sit on the sidelines. 

CG:     No. These two choices do not cover the range that is available.
There is the choice to reject the game as it has been offered by others, and
to impose a different game or process. That is what is going on now: This
thread is saying, "A pox on that seismic code committee game. We're not
playing it; neither are we sitting on any sidelines." 
        You know, the theme of the 1974 SEAOC Convention was "Games People
Play." Perhaps it was inspired by the 1964 Eric Berne, MD, best seller on
psychological games, of the same title. According to Berne, a "game" is like
other interactions among two or more people, but is different in that there
is an ulterior, dishonest motive below the candid purpose, and there is a
covert payoff to be gained at the expense of the "mark".
        Berne didn't identify a "Building Code" game, but it might have had
as an unseen motive exercise of control over happily creative, innovative
building design engineers, and/or a passion to "rescue" perceived victims of
current-state levels of engineering practice. Personal satisfaction is the
real goal driving the action. A payoff would be to entice opponents and
others into contributing input of their own in the belief that it would be
taken seriously, but by covert design, to actually frustrate those
"welcomed" contributors no matter what they offer: "Showed them, didn't we?"
        Dr Berne's only remedy for games as he described them is to
recognize them and refuse to play. That's what this thread's topic is
about..... Detection and rejection of the code "game" as it has been played
on us.

Charles O. Greenlaw, SE    Sacramento CA