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

[marc fawzi]

Its not me first. That would be immoral. But it is me that I am
responsible for. I am not responsible for what the herd does.

I have a certain way of managing discussion threads and that way works
for me. The herd can choose to filter me out and so can anyone within
the herd. Why should the herd want me to accomodate it and forget
about my need? When the herd can accomodate itself by filtering me out
with just a few clicks? Why should I undermine my way of doing things
to accomodatr the herd's will when the herd can accomodatr itself by
itself snd allow both itself and myself to have our needs met.

I don't assume that the herd cares about the opinion of the
individual. It cares about the common opinion or what the vocal or
powerful minority present as the common opinion.

Why should anyone be ashamed of standing up for themselves against the
herd mentality?

Why should I ask not what I can do for myself but what I can do for
the herd? Asking the latter is how wars are justified. The German
youth asked what they can do for the herd not what they can do for
themselves. Hitler won.

So it is not about me first. It is about meeting my needs as long as
they do not hurt anyone who does not want to be hurt. If someone does
not want to filter me out but instead wants me to abandon my way and
join the herd's way, it would be idiotic to accomodatr them and ignore
my need when they could accomodatr themselves by just filtering me
out, without me having to ignore my need to satisfy the herd.

Marc

On 5/20/09, Wittel, Andreas <andreas.wittel at ntu.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>


-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi