You’re bragging about being manipulative?
It's literally an instruction manual for using indirect methods of communication and influence to get people to do what you want. It's practically adtech for the self.
Ignoring the dangers of having charismatic power over people, I don't know under what circumstances it is ethical to manipulate someone, and I certainly wouldn't brag openly about it.
> Declare that there are too many admins and that there needs to be a stricter policy to define who can be an admin.
> Take it on yourself to define (or redefine) that policy and present it to the system owner in your organization. Make sure you fit the new definition and make sure that staple admins are also included.
> No one remembers why you’re admin, but you’re setting the rules now so no one can dispute it. Victory!
What are we even discussing here? This is such a indicator of bad character.
But hey you never know, some sociopaths will totally write something like this.
I really don't think this is ambiguous. It's very clearly meant to be funny rather than serious.
Taking individual sentences in isolation is one thing.
Taking them in the context of the entire post is another. In the context of the entire post, I see plenty of ambiguity in this sentence.
Edit: and I've just now remembered what a great laugh I had reading some of the language in "The Anarchist Cookbook" even though all those non-traditional fire recipes were certainly meant to be used for some kind of malicious act :)
If you try to remember people's names is that manipulative? If so, why do we apologize for forgetting people's names? If we write down the names of people we meet, is that manipulative or is it just being organized?
If you do it badly, yeah that's weird.
Step 1: Become admin
Step 2: Say there are too many admins now, redefine the requirements for admins to fit you
Step 3: Stay admin, while others don’t qualify
Huh? This is cool?
It could be taken that way, but the problem is that the author deliberately puts it in terms that make that ambiguous.
A much less ambiguous way to put it would have been:
1. Help out an existing admin by fixing something they care about fixing but are too busy to fix themselves.
2. Repeat step 1. enough times that there is general recognition in the organization that you can fix problems and will do so responsibly.
3. Approach the powers that be and point to your track record established in steps 1. and 2. as evidence that (a) another admin is needed to help carry the load, and (b) you are the right person for that job.
4. Get appointed as an admin.
The author's process might be essentially the same as the above, but it might not; there are various signs in his writeup of the latter, that might be valid signs or might just be his whimsical way of speaking. And if his process isn't the same as the above, then he's doing more than just acting responsible and thereby earning positions of responsibility.
Where the real divergence comes is this:
"8. Make sure to keep helping out anyone who wants to fix problems with the system. If you become a roadblocker, you will allow someone else to do step #1 and you might lose your access when that person reaches step #6."
Notice that in my steps 1. through 4. above, no existing admins get punted. So there's no need for someone who reaches my step 4. to take steps to prevent others from starting at my step 1. and working their way through the process. And someone who was genuinely concerned for the well-being of the organization would be open to the possibility that, just as the admins who were there before him weren't able to take care of all the problems, there might come a time when the admins including him might not be able to either.