[p2p-research] Netiquette (was: Re: leaving this list)

Wed May 20 23:38:37 CEST 2009

It's called netiquette but it is essentially an agreement between the vocal
minority to enforce rules of behavior on the rest of society.

I don't share what is supposedly a 'mass agreement' when it comes to
communication. I have my own agreement, and it goes like this:

If someone cannot bear to read what I send due to the style or content they
can set a filter in under 3 seconds to junk my replies.

If someone wants me to adopt a supposedly mass agreement called 'netiquette'
that I did not sign on to they are being coercive. Join the herd . Join the
herd because the herd knows better. I don't agree. I think retaining all
threads in the same message as new replies come up is easier for me since I
always want to see all threads of a reply in one place.

So it's not just a matter of wanting to rebel against 'the herd knows
better' falsehood (see Unwisdom of
Crowds<http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com/2006/07/07/web-25-from-hunter-gatherer-to-democratic-society/>)
but it is a logical thing for me to want to have all replies to a given
topic in the same message. My brain likes it better that way. Are you going
to argue against the methods I've developed for navigating my world? Again,
if you don't like it or it does not work for your brain to have all replies
in one message feel free to set a filter to junk my replies. It works well
for me and the other method does not, and only incentive to adopt the other
method is coercion by the herd and peer pressure, which is a dangerous
pattern. If something works well for an individual and the herd can live
with it (by setting a filter) then why should the individual go out of his
way to accommodate the herd? If the herd wants to reject the individual
because the individual does not obey the herd rules or the herd taste then
that's a herd mentality the individual should not be wasting their time
arguing with.

Again, it works for me and it does not hurt the herd to filter out my
messages, nor would it hurt me, as I'm hear for the experiment behind the
experiment, not the experiment itself. And so far it's  been pretty
mediocre, nothing shocking or unexpected.

But there is always more to learn.

The herd can live with me using a way that is optimal for myself. The herd
can filter me out or kick me out of its body. But I won't change a way that
works for me to accommodate others when others CAN accommodate themselves
(by setting up a filter or agreeing as a herd to ban me) Either way is
perfectly fine, but i suspect it's all just bitching and moaning since they
can setup a filter but they'd rather complain to have me change what works
for me. What a brain fuck that is!

So the answer is still: NO.

Give me a better argument, or setup a filter.

It's totally ridiculous that this is happening in a p2p research group.

Critical thinking re: group vs individual? where did that go? isn't that
part of the foundation of p2p theory? or is everybody assuming this is about
the herd? like it is everywhere?

Marc

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Christian Siefkes <christian at siefkes.net>wrote:

> Hi marc, Marco, all,
>
> marc fawzi wrote:
> > Attempt to promote superficial, judgmental, arbitrary rules always get
> the
> > same response from me, Marco: NO.
>
> The rules Marco proposes to adhere to are far from arbitrary; they come
> from
> a set of very thought-out and long established recommendations for online
> behavior called Netiquette <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette>.
> There
> even is an RFC for it: http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html, which says,
> among other smart things:
>
> * Be brief without being overly terse. When replying to a message, include
>  enough original material to be understood but no more. It is extremely
>  bad form to simply reply to a message by including all the previous
>  message: edit out all the irrelevant material.
>
> That's really a courtesy for the reader which allows him/her to see to what
> exactly you're replying to and to easily focus on the new things in your
> message (rather than all the old stuff you're merely quoting). I know that
> editing out takes a little bit of your time when writing a message, but its
> time which you save your readers since they don't have to read/skim over
> all
> the things which you could have cut out. It's a courtesy, but I don't think
> that courtesy is unimportant.
>
> It may also a question of inclusiveness, since the extremely lengthy mails
> on this list (due to the fact that mail length increases linearly with
> thread line if each new mail contains all the old mails from the same
> thread, and since threads on this list tend to become quite long) take a
> long time to download for people with slow Internet access, and since they
> can become expensive to download for people to still pay be the minute or
> by
> download volume. If you're on a fast broadband connection, that may sound
> irrelevant to you, but I doubt that everyone is in that lucky
> situation--esp. since we're talking here in an international context.
>
>
> Some other useful guidelines from the Netiquette:
>
> * A good rule of thumb: Be conservative in what you send and liberal in
>  what you receive. You should not send heated messages (we call these
>  "flames") even if you are provoked. On the other hand, you shouldn't be
>  surprised if you get flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames.
> * Remember that the recipient is a human being whose culture, language, and
>  humor have different points of reference from your own. Remember that
>  date formats, measurements, and idioms may not travel well. Be especially
>  careful with sarcasm.
> * Wait overnight to send emotional responses to messages. If you have
>  really strong feelings about a subject, indicate it via FLAME ON/OFF
>  enclosures. For example:
>
>    FLAME ON:
>    This type of argument is not worth the bandwidth it takes to send it.
>    It's illogical and poorly reasoned. The rest of the world agrees with
>    me.
>    FLAME OFF
>
> * Mail should have a subject heading which reflects the content of the
>  message. [That means: whenever the topic of a thread changes--as it
>  usually does over time--please adjust to subject line to reflect the
>  changed topic (as I did in the subject of this line). Again, that's a
>  courtesy which takes a few seconds of your precious time, but it's really
>  just a few seconds and it's helping your readers.]
> * If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb is no longer than
>  4 lines. Remember that many people pay for connectivity by the minute,
>  and the longer your message is, the more they pay. [I don't adhere to the
>  rule of thumb, but I still think that shorter is better.]
> * Messages and articles should be brief and to the point. Don't wander
>  off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post messages solely to
>  point out other people's errors in typing or spelling. These, more than
>  any other behavior, mark you as an immature beginner.
> * Avoid sending messages or posting articles which are no more than
>  gratuitous replies to replies.
> * When sending a message to more than one mailing list, especially if the
>  lists are closely related, apologize for cross-posting.
> * If you are caught in an argument, keep the discussion focused on issues
>  rather than the personalities involved.
>
> These guidelines are meant to make communcation easier, smoother, and more
> agreeable for everyone involved. They are not arbitary, let alone
> superficial or judgmental.
>
> Ignore them when you must, but adhere to them when you can.
>
> Best regards
>        Christian
>
> --
> |-------- Dr. Christian Siefkes --------- christian at siefkes.net ---------
> |   Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/   |   Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
> |   Better Bayesian Analysis:           |   Peer Production Everywhere:
> |   http://bart-project.com/            |   http://peerconomy.org/wiki/
> |------------------------------------------ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
> There is a direct correlation between quality of coffee and quality of
> code.
>        -- Dr. Heinz M. Kabutz, The Java Specialists' Newsletter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090520/a14fc568/attachment-0001.html>