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

[Wittel, Andreas]

Marc,
 
how does your unchained and unashamed version of individualism which you so strongly associate with p2p become reconciled with the p2p ethos (Article 1. P2P Interactions, section D)
 
D. Peer interactions are judged (by others who aspire to a p2p ethos) as qualitatively superior if linked to contributing to a commons <http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons> . 
 
In order to get my point, you would obviously have to replace the commons with what you call the herd.
 
Andreas
 
PS Like you I have a fair amaount of scepticism that the majority always gets it right. But your celebration of me me me first is not a model that is sustainable.

 
________________________________

From: p2presearch-bounces at listcultures.org on behalf of marc fawzi
Sent: Wed 20/05/2009 22:38
To: Christian Siefkes
Cc: Marco Fioretti; p2presearch at listcultures.org
Subject: Re: [p2p-research] Netiquette (was: Re: leaving this list)


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



This email is intended solely for the addressee.  It may contain private and confidential information.  If you are not the intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone.  In this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error.  Opinions and information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University.
Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free.  This is in keeping with good computing practice.