I disagree, I do think it’s a community issue, as well as a personal one. I don’t have the time to investigate the matter further, but I don’t understand the desire to hush it. These are serious allegations and whether one party is at fault or this is just a misunderstanding, I think it’s important we as a community know about it.
1 Like
Not at all Damir. This current approach is not working, so I’m offering advice I think will be best both for yourselves and for the Elm community.
I have only good intentions and kindness for you all.
3 Likes
Should you accept to take route a1, these would be the questions, but not the answers.
There are no right answers, that’s the exploration and community building part.
The fairness issue is also part of a discussion: is it zero sum: unfair to me, fair to you; fair to me, unfair to you? Or is “fairness” misplaced here? That’s again what I call community discussion and strengthening the community: moral questions to examine.
EDIT: I already mentioned “what is the measured community response” earlier. I don’t know. But we can find out if we work together.
Damir,
Are you open to the possibility that Rupert’s statements and actions have been misinterpreted by you? Or is there no way reasonable people can see things any other way? Would you automatically interpret someone seeing things differently from how you see them to mean that Rupert got to them?
4 Likes
Ok, you already have the answer to that, and it was in the very first communication that I sent to you:
"
I, Rupert Smith, master criminal, saw your roadmap page. Already I was thinking about the letters e c o and how they are round, and how round green circles would make an attractive motif to base my icon and visual design around.
Without really considering the offence it might cause to you, I blatantly lifted the CSS from your page and placed it onto mine. I then proudly showed off my draft website to the Elm community, and passed off those fresh green circles as my own. There was a blue circle too, and it used exactly the same hex colour as your blue because a small amount of CSS was stolen! So you knew right away what I had done.
I wrote a sketch of what I thought my roadmap would be. There may have been some influence from your roadmap, after all, I had just read it. But I did not simply copy your roadmap, the two roadmaps are not the same.
"
That is it, full, truthful and accurate disclosure of my indiscretion. I strenously deny any accusations, slander, or claims made against me beyond the three paragraphs I have written above.
3 Likes
I probably should not say this, but what the hell…
… ** snip! **
People also asked me not to reply any more to this thread, which I said I would comply with. But I could not help reading it and getting sucked back in. But I am going to try very hard to not even read it any more, or maybe I will come back in a few months for amusement. Anyway, goodbye and this time I mean it.
1 Like
I feel like the deeper problem is that Rupert hitchhiked on a brilliant marketing campaign (that got everyone excited about Elm-run) with more than awkward timing, which deeply hurt Damir (evidenced by his instant leave of the discord community). I would have been offended myself. I don’t believe, or at least am not convinced that Rupert did so in bad faith, in dubio pro reo. In my view the offence stemmed from an opportunistic in the moment act of associating his ideas with Elm-run. I agree with Damir, that this was bizarre, didn’t think more of it back then though. I would probably have felt different about it if I had experienced the intellectual theft in corporate settings as Damir has described. I’m not sure if plagiarism is the core problem though, although a case can be made for it in front of a court. The outcome of that debate in this particular case probably matters less for moving the community forward. So for me, Rupert’s first announcement was weird and I can empathize with Damir on that very well. I don’t think it was okay to piss on Rupert’s announcement either though, even though I can empathize with the motive.
In this forum we are not in a courtroom. Most bystanders here don’t like conflict and would prefer peace and love. I find it important that people can share their grieve and anger without being judged for that and calling each other out with medical diasnoses is not the kind of response that is helpful here. Continuing this conversation here will not settle the conflict and anyone who is not enjoying seeing conflict escalate would prefer this conversation locked. That said, I think it is important to talk about the circumstances that led to this conflict and what we as community should expect from our members, so that everyone feels safe. For some that is not being called out dude or guy, for others it is not having someone piggybacking on their marketing efforts. For the continuation of that discussion I’d rather have a cool-off period of 48 hours, without back and forth accusations.
Emotions are okay. Creating room for empathy is hard work. Just my thoughts.
8 Likes
-
I was open to it, of course. I did start exactly with the same position as @michi-zuri: I thought the outburst bizarre. Having skimmed the site with about page looking like a CV, concluded Rupert thought that was his ticket to find a job, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a couple of days. I assumed it’s just basic fight for attention. Roadmap copy did upset me. Left the community as I was upset that nobody raised the question of plagiarizing. Didn’t want to be in the same space. Then I mostly ignored the thing after the whole February outburst, complaining a few times privately.
The trigger was a mention on Slack of something from my announcement thread on Jun 2, which then made me go check if the plagiarized page is still up, and then I saw all the retroactive changes.
So the strategy is active, it’s not an isolated incident. The message is continuously and closely aligned according to the strategy I described. I can’t have misinterpreted that. -
I believe any reasonable person would ask for evidence, like Marten did above, and then evaluate that evidence, explore it to come to own conclusion or ask for more and engage in a rational exploration like you do here. I think it’s just critical thinking.
I’d like to hear a rational person come forward with arguments that this was a “nudge” or “inspiration,” four months in the past. It’s weird, but the timing and wording is just too close for comfort.
Sadly, Louis made a clear threat that continuing in that direction will lead to loss of reputation, so not everybody will want to interpret that evidence in public. -
No paranoia on my side. But I do hold that the strategy is insidious and gets to people. Especially without a discussion like this that names it and exposes. The keyword is insidious.
If Martin says something along the lines of let’s see if both your projects collapse under excessive LLM weight, without ever having seen what I do, then yes, I assume the strategy is working perfectly and it got to him. He didn’t take sides: it just comes out as a natural assumption that two things are unfortunately linked.
Damir, I think you (might) be misinterpreting happyraul’s questions…
(happyraul… if I’ve misread/misunderstood you let me know and I’ll edit/delete)
1 Are you open to the possibility that Rupert’s statements and actions have been misinterpreted by you?
Are you seeing/reading the same words/reality as (possibly) the rest of us?
2 Or is there no way reasonable people can see things any other way?
Nope, anyone that disagrees isn’t part of the community and is insidiously conspiring against me.
3 Would you automatically interpret someone seeing things differently from how you see them to mean that Rupert got to them?
Is anyone disagreeing with you ‘against you’ and on ‘their’ side, is everyone against you?
Princess Bride reference for shits n giggles
“insidious”
“you keep using that word, I don’t think it means what you think it means”
Footnote:
Damir
It’s what drove a younger Evan away from public exchange of ideas. How many interesting conversations and Elm features did we never see?
No, I think this sort of crap drove Evan away.
1 Like
Jason, I can only answer to this one.
This is the definition I use (per Merriam-Webster):
causing harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed; especially: having a gradual and cumulative negative effect
Can you please confirm you understand the meaning of the word in the same way? Or is there a cultural connotation in your part of the world that would make it not mean the same for you?
First, I would like to say that I agree with Louis pov here. I don’t wanna add any more fuel to the fire and the objective of this message is to try to reach some common understanding.
Now, english is not my first language, so I might be missing a lot of context here, but after reading all of this is still not clear to me what as the harm done in this case. I’m sorry if this should be obivous by now.
So I would like to ask @damir what is the material harm Rupert’s actions have inflicted on the elm-run project? And the context for this question is just to clarify, in a more material way, why is this issue deserving of all the energy being poured into it.
I don’t say that in a way to disqualify the harm, I just want to understand and maybe, if there is a tangible way of understanding this, everyone can see their place and properly adjust, apologize, etc.
Thank you!
@eberfreitas You are spot on here with your clarifying question.
The material harm. Tangible way of understanding.
Clearly hard to connect with what’s going on. Hence the use of insidious: causing harm in a way that is gradual or not easily noticed; especially: having a gradual and cumulative negative effect.
An extremely damaging phenomenon, stealthy as heck. That’s why it causes so much burnout in organizations and destroys lives.
The most direct metaphor I can give you:
Wild bees make the honey; humans find the hive and take the sweetness.
Let’s go with the conservative end of the damage. It’s very risky to go into quantification as it will be followed by low-quality posts that will banalize in many different ways. I’m assuming you’re a more sophisticated participant.
We’ll do napkin math here. Assume the following:
- A salary burden of 20k/mo. (Let’s go with that amount just for the napkin math. I am a senior CTO, so that should easily be believable, even though this is imaginary napkin math).
- I work on this full-time, so the project cost is at least 60k per quarter.
- There are three phases: Q1: closed dev + recruitment marketing, Q2: validation in a limited group + launch marketing, Q3: wide open beta + release marketing.
- Dev: Dec-Feb, validation: Mar-May, open beta Jun-Aug. Launch on Sep 1.
I asked the community to help me edit the announcement post for Mar 1, so those are actual deadlines with witnesses.
So that’s 60k of r&d to get to validation, the ticket to buy people’s time to even look at it.
That’s before any marketing. As @michi-zuri said, “a brilliant marketing campaign.”
Let’s zoom in on that moment in time: target Mar 1 known to the closed group of 400+ (date changed on Feb 23, was to be feb 24 originally due to my bday the next day). Look at Rupert’s bizarre outburst on Feb 24: “There was some anticipation that we would be able to try out elm-run for the first time today, so I decided to fill that gap …”
He had privileged information and stole a slot that cost 60k to prepare. Literally got that validation money and all the marketing he didn’t even know how to execute (it’s not a putdown, just a fact: you can gather that from fragments in these discussions: keeps saying he was throwing it around for years without any traction).
Remember, validation is in a closed group, a limited pool of possible attention hours.
The slot is taken; even if you go for it, you’ll have smaller validation group (consequently delayed validation, more cost). If you open the source, the plagiarizer will now suck in all the code, analyze, take useful parts, and get even more value out of you and more “it’s the same thing.”
So you go into another dev cycle, this time to build in defensive protection: boom, 60k more.
By now, the plagiarizer forced you over budget by 60k and earned 60k in free r+d, free marketing he couldn’t get off the ground for years, and delayed your public release for a cycle.
This is open source, and even though money is mentioned, I’m giving this for free. But! What if someone uses this to earn a living? What if someone could have had this today and execute a small gig to earn some money with knowledge of Elm? That person also lost since the plagiarizer delayed the release of my product to make space for his slower-developing product.
I have a client with an e-commerce solution that is losing money due to slowness. The day I launch elm-run, I can fix a lot of those problems and increase my clients revenue. Let’s put that at 100k in lost opportunity for revenue for those three months.
So, direct damage: minimum 120k. Indirect, in delays and opportunity cost to me and others: massive, >> 100k. Plus a free ride on marketing/devrel that alone would cost him six digits if he had to pay for it.
That brings us back to what’s being plagiarized here: the larger idea: r&d and marketing.
Every time I do something public, Rupert adjusts his message in hopes of convincing you that we’re the same. Whatever I do, the attention will be equally divided and 50% of all expenses and value creation will always go from me to him. I’m literally force to give him that value.
That’s why that seemingly ridiculous adjustment to “bytecode” on Jun 3 and vehement justification why he did it. He says something, people go “If will be interesting to see both of your projects…” “you both…” I say something, people go “You and Rupert…”
Hence “another compiler,” “compilers are like busses…” and so on. That’s why when I say “runtime” on Jun 2, he has to adjust to “runtime” on Jun 3. It HAS to be the same. It has to say “enterprise support” so that it is perceived same. That goal is literally leeching 50% of all value creation on my side. He HAS to keep the roadmap design similar. Same, same, same, you both…
Read that in this very thread, as I pointed out already. Martin’s post: "… interesting to see how both your and Damir’s… " Read all other posts in that light.
Hopefully now you can appreciate the meaning of insidious. It’s hidden, non-tangible and extremely easy to take down through simple putdowns, emotional outbursts, empty phrases, deflections over “starting first,” “not good for community” and so on.
Is the damage tangible enough and believable to you?
Remember the beginning of this answer: expect now a metric ton of posts that will belittle this because we gave people concrete things to attack. So far it was abstract, so some answers were “for shits and giggles” but now there are concrete attackable numbers. Disregard those. Disregard blanket statements. Look for arguments and actions.
Note that so far nobody here took down my argumentation and there are more and more people that do find the arguments compelling and agree that this is serious plagiarism at play; Rupert included (see his choice B in his “what do you want” post).
Where can I find the source code for Elm-run @damir ? I didn’t realise it was open source, I’d love to take a look and validate it!
3 Likes
@damir we talked in person at length about this on elm camp and I feel your frustration with the situation. The points you raise are valid and everyone should seriously consider them. But I think you are also unfair to @rupert and project your personal nightmares into him.
You and him are quite different personalities. It’s clear even from how you communicate here. You’re used to run businesses, do pitches, consider things from market fit angle. It’s completely understandable. And I also grew up in post eastern block shithole in not well off family and had to work hard and compete nonstop to get anywhere. And I can only imagine you had it even worse with all the shit that happened in your country which did not at all happen in mine. I see that but do you think most people who participate on this forum do understand that?
I don’t believe Rupert intentionally does anything you say or even is person you think he is. What if he is just nice guy who doesn’t see things the way you do? You said he had a career in corporate environment… Do you think that taught him to compete so much with peers? Don’t you think he is more likely conditioned to fit into a team and tolerate all sorts of BS? Why do you think he is after you? I don’t think at any step, even if he would do exactly what you say he did, he does anything with malicious intend. He does things he likes to do because he finds them interesting. He looks for inspiration because that’s what everyone does. In fact I doubt he could come up with as elaborate plan to fuck you over even if he would want to because he grew up in society which is too polite and too trusting to teach him how to go about that.
You two exchange sentences in the same language in this whole thread but it all of that is falling on a def ears between the two of you. Because neither of you is actually trying to see the point of view of the other person. All you hear are words you feel obliged to dispute in next round.
Perhaps Rupert should be a bit more careful and avoid stepping on your toes going forward. He already knows that given you already showed him you’re willing to go into confrontation he is not ready to have. This whole thread is exactly that. Believe me you already made that point.
What I think you should do is to give him a benefit of the doubt. There is no other way. Do you really think he is this evil mastermind trying to suck life and money out of you? And if you do who do you think will appear as a reasonable one out of you two to most people?
Also I think we should not even engaging in any form of public trail in between the two of you. We’re neither judges nor jury. There is no way we will convict either one of you of anything in here. The drama will fade and the day after both of you will still be around. You don’t need to like each other, I doubt you even could after this even if you would both genuinely try. That’s fine. I don’t even expect any of you to apologize. I don’t think you could do it with straight face and I don’t think he should do it just because is too British not to. Just try to coexist.
Plus we all know that if either or both of you succeed your whole thing will get re-implemented in Rust anyway because that’s the only morally correct thing there is in software engineering… At that point the real drama will begin.
13 Likes
Read much, Louis?
Depending how we bring this to a close, I planned to have this small allegory about how plagiarism → burnout plays in organizations.
Considering the reputation you had at the point of your first engagement in this thread, I saw you as a good analogy to the role of a “direct manager” to the victim and the perpetrator. (In the movies, that’s the character that says to the victim “Come on, we’re all playing on the same team! Go back to work!”).
Leadership entails certain duties. Your responsibility is to the community; not taking sides and dropping shits n giggles, no matter how much someone pushes your buttons.
Now I need you to get your act together and help us reach closure as a community.
I see. Well whenever you decide to open source it I’m sure many people will be very interested to read it and check it out. I know I will!
Not sure what you mean RE my being Rupert’s manager. I’ve never met Rupert, and I don’t hold any related leadership position.
@turboMaCk, I saw how long you took to carefully formulate this reply. I really appreciate you for this, as I do many of you in this thread that express concerns through thoughtful posts, and those of you who wrote directly.
For me, that is the concretization of the phrase community building.
I’d like to take a direction towards closure today.
Are you willing to engage me on the following points?
There’s a fork in the road to closure somewhere about here.
On one path, I feel that I’m not heard: every elaborate answer I give is met with @lpil 's derailment or “we understand your frustration, but… you both…”.
On that path I have to keep pushing using very harsh and pointed words, point you to an earlier post that negates the main thrust of your message, remind you that we believe it is actions, not words. Just keep going, rip poor Rupert apart and have him go into tailspin and post “In defense…” posts that will hang there for posterity and that I’d rather have removed for his sake.
On the other path, you engage my answers in rational public discussion and the path leads to closure for everyone, including the victim. (I still maintain this until we reach a different closure as a community). Because every proposal so far is about _let’s just stop here _, but it doesn’t provide closure for everyone.
I’d really like to take this second path, and I’d love to see a lot more blue-header posts. I’d love to experience a community resolution that engages on those points.
I’d like to follow @michi-zuri :
For non-English-native members here: “to engage someone on those points” means “I read and understood your answer and your argumentation. I can agree on argument A, but cannot agree with B… because…”, or “I need to see more compelling evidence… before I can engage because this is based on a perspective of recounting of an event, but until someone that was there provides more input…”.
Ask clarifying questions like @pit , @happyraul , @WhileTruu and others asked, but then follow up my answers with rational examinations of provided points. That’s the “engagement” I have in mind. Not, “I don’t find this convincing” without elaboration.
This is not a court, it’s not public cancelation, it’s not a witch hunt. It is a hard discussion where a group can come to common understanding and clarity, and grow as a group and individual members.
If you feel or think this is a community, and you were unsure about what it means to be a community, and whether being a member of a community brings anything in terms of benefits and duties, then let’s explore that. This is one of the better opportunities for that in quite a while.
You’ve repeatedly called Rupert an “annoying echo” and a “parasite,” continually described his actions as “insidious,” “suffocating,” and as “bizzare outbursts.” Your communication has been very aggressive and confrontational, with most messages being multple paragraphs of ranting.
It is clear you’re irritated. It’s OK to be irritated, but communicating this way is at-best (and evidently) unproductive and at worst actively harmful.
What concerns me are your repeated attempts to use discussions of “community building” as a way to continue attacking other community members. Your messages eliciting “civilized” and “rational” discussion are mixed between angry responses directed at those that have disagreed with you. You’ve dismissed good-faith attempts to de-escalate the situation, and childishly branded anyone that has tried to do so as part of a “no inconvenience brigdate.”
Bluntly I think your actions in this thread have been actively damaging to the community – regardless of Rupert’s actions. You yourself have conceded that you will continue to “keep pushing using very harsh and pointed words” and “keep going, rip poor Rupert apart and have him go into tailspin.” To plainly state that this is one valid path for the discussion to continue down is not acceptable.
This is, regrettably, precisely what Louis and others warned against as for me I can not seriously consider any discussion around community conduct being led by, or involving, you. The way you communicate is not befitting of a safe space, and if this is something you are genuinely hoping to foster I implore you to reflect on how you’ve carried yourself here and consider how a more productive outcome could have been achieved instead.
18 Likes
Thank you @hayleigh.
You say precisely: “You’ve repeatedly called Rupert … a “parasite.””
I used that word on two occasions: once or twice before I quit that Discord you were part of and used it specifically as a verb (“to parasite on other’s work” I believe). There’s a world of difference in my mind in saying “you exhibit parasitic behavior” and “you are a parasite.”
Now I searched this thread and indeed, I did write “and it just flows back to the parasite.” My bad, should have re-read and come up with a verb form. But still, exactly once, not repeatedly.
So that accent on “repeatedly” means you remember the previous instance from February, right?
A few people reached out privately after that incident in February. You were not among them, and I’m told no discussion about a productive outcome of that episode ever took place in that space.
In that light, how would you like me to reflect on how a more productive outcome could have been achieved?
For me words matter. I do believe that the pen is mightier than the sword, and words sharper than blades. As a victim, I’m defending myself with words and am trying to be as precise as possible, and I do know that some words come across as hostile to some people. But then again, this is a public confrontation.
How would a safe space look like for me to get closure on this matter, given the stealth nature of the problem, and my explicit explanation that it is impossible to defend oneself in a closed space? Is there a way to sketch that?
Can you engage me on that? Can you please teach me how to feel heard?
I admit I’m a little surprised by that message, given you’ve “applauded” a very ironic and critical post from @Jason. Certainly, off-handed criticism (or off-handed support to criticism) doesn’t seem to me to be a show of good faith, and makes me doubt you when you talk about safe spaces.