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

marc fawzi marc.fawzi at gmail.com
Thu May 21 09:49:52 CEST 2009 

Like in mathematics, to us, the number 1 is different than all other numbers.

Indiviuality. Not at the expense of the whole but for the benefit of
the whole, which is one.

Don't know if thath makes any bleeping sense but I feel 1 for all is
as important an ideal as all for 1.

Says the French Musketeers :)

Can't get any cheesier than that.

I'm sorry I went over the edge on this one but the death of
individuality as the norm is very scary, still after all this time
spent cultivating commonality

But that's just me.
.
Marc

On 5/20/09, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> I tend to agree with a common agreement if it does not undermine the way I
> work.
>
> I need all the threads in one place for continuity of thought since I'm
> handling 10,000 things mentally at once, so I like to see all threads in a
> given message reply chain all on the same page as I compose each reply.
> This
> way I save short term memory for use as a cache rather than permanent
> store.
> It's a very basic model for multitasking that I have grown used to. I think
> it would upset my process to do it the other way and since people can elect
> to filter me out I leave it to them to do that rather than undermine the
> way
> I process my replies.
>
> As far as equating netiquette to the herd. I did not co-author the
> netiquette. I wasn't asked my opinion of it. Some people put it together
> and
> others decided to follow. I'm completely out of the loop on it and so are 2
> billion other people who did not participate in drafting that wikipedia
> page
> on Netiquette. Some are inclined the herd, and some are not. Hence, the
> association between herd and netiquette in this context.
>
> Marc
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Michel Bauwens
> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Marc,
>>
>> why equate netiquette necessarily with the herd? It's a voluntary
>> standard
>> and rather than a lowest common denominator, it aims to set a ethics of
>> communication.
>>
>> I understand, and find it legitmate, that you want to opt out of it. The
>> problem for me is where we put our efforts, and not all of us find it
>> interesting to put it in particular activities, such as finetuning a high
>> volume of outgoing messaging.
>>
>> But I find your dichotomy, that only focus on exit, to extreme.
>>
>> I find that this sheds light on the individual vs. collective dichotomy,
>> and how they can be seen as integrated, from
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Primary_vs_Secondary_Individual-Group_Mentality
>>
>> Primary vs Secondary Individual-Group Mentality From P2P Foundation Jump
>> to:
>> navigation<http://p2pfoundation.net/Primary_vs_Secondary_Individual-Group_Mentality#column-one>,
>> search<http://p2pfoundation.net/Primary_vs_Secondary_Individual-Group_Mentality#searchInput>
>>
>> A distinction made by Heb Shepard, summarized by Rosa Zubizarreta:
>>
>>
>> *from the perspective of "primary mentality", 'individual' and 'group'
>> are
>> experienced as opposite...* in order to have a strong group, it appears
>> that we need to 'give up' some of our individuality; conversely, to be
>> 'individuals', it appears we need to 'distance' ourselves from the
>> group...
>>
>> *in contrast, from the perspective of "secondary mentality" 'individual'
>> and 'group' are experienced in a synergistic way*: the MORE room there is
>> for people to be individual and unique and eccentric, the stronger a
>> group
>> we will have; conversely, the more real support i can feel from the
>> group,
>> the more individual and unique and eccentric i can be...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [edit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Primary_vs_Secondary_Individual-Group_Mentality?title=Primary_vs_Secondary_Individual-Group_Mentality&action=edit&section=1>
>> ] Citation
>>
>> Rosa Zubizarreta:
>>
>>
>> "[what's crucial is] whether we are experiencing the 'two sides' [of
>> individual and collective] as a 'zero-sum game', where the MORE room
>> there
>> is of one, the LESS room there can be for the other...
>>
>> OR instead, as a potential synergy, a 'creative tension' where the
>> well-being of each, enhances the well-being of the other....
>>
>> Herb Shepard, one of the pioneers of organization development, wrote
>> years
>> ago about the distinction between what he called "primary mentality" and
>> "secondary mentality"....
>>
>> from the perspective of "primary mentality", 'individual' and 'group' are
>> experienced as opposite... in order to have a strong group, it appears
>> that
>> we need to 'give up' some of our individuality; conversely, to be
>> 'individuals', it appears we need to 'distance' ourselves from the
>> group...
>>
>> in contrast, from the perspective of "secondary mentality" 'individual'
>> and
>> 'group' are experienced in a synergistic way: the MORE room there is for
>> people to be individual and unique and eccentric, the stronger a group we
>> will have; conversely, the more real support i can feel from the group,
>> the
>> more individual and unique and eccentric i can be...
>>
>> i think that what Shepard was referring to as a 'mentality' (whether
>> primary or secondary) resides not just within each of us, as individuals,
>> but also, within a group, or culture, or social arrangement...
>>
>> not just in 'individual consciousness' OR in 'group structures', but in
>> BOTH...
>>
>> so we as individuals, we can always discover or create ways to 'resist'
>> structures that are organized along the lines of 'primary mentality',
>> and,
>> find ways to create forms of social interaction, that support 'secondary
>> mentality"....
>>
>> AND, at the same time, the social forms of organization, _do_ affect
>> us...
>> making one or another form of mentality, more likely... Our ways of
>> talking
>> and thinking and organizing ourselves, tend to be rooted in one or the
>> other
>> mentality.....
>>
>> i think it's also important to recognize, that these forms or structures,
>> that embody and support these different kinds of consciousness can be
>> 'habitual' and 'informal', rather than 'explicit/formal'... so even when
>> a
>> community has rejected the conventional forms of organization which could
>> be
>> seen as embodying primary mentality (voting, majority rules, bureaucratic
>> structures, etc...)
>>
>> it's still the case, that the community will tend to have a particular
>> 'culture', or 'way of doing things'... and that culture will not
>> necessarily
>> be 'secondary' since as individuals, we still tend to carry the "primary
>> mentality" within us, even in the absence of conventional forms of
>> organization...
>>
>> so the desire to 'belong', to 'get along', to 'not be excluded from the
>> group', along with the internalized belief, that to do so, we need to
>> 'not
>> make waves', can tend to silence a lot of potential divergence and
>> encourage
>> conformity to the prevailing cultural norms... (the 'groupthink'
>> phenomenon....
>>
>> i think this may connect in some way, with what Danah Boyd was pointing
>> to,
>> about her concern with the wikipedia community's adulation of the
>> media...<http://p2pfoundation.net/Primary_vs_Secondary_Individual-Group_Mentality?title=I_think_this_may_connect_in_some_way,_with_what_Danah_Boyd_was_pointing_to,_about_her_concern_with_the_wikipedia_community%27s_adulation_of_the_media...&action=edit&redlink=1>
>>
>> so, to whatever degree a community does _not_ have effective ways of
>> creating containers for divergent perspectives and ways of being,
>> effective
>> ways in which difference and conflict can transform into greater
>> creativity,
>>
>>
>> people will _still_, tend to experience an 'either-or', between 'being
>> themselves', and 'being a part of the community'... even in the absence
>> of
>> the formal structures that embody primary mentality...
>>
>> this is _not_ something we can "think ourselves out of", in my view,
>> although, theory can be helpful...
>>
>> we need to create, the EXPERIENCE, of "safe places for the fullness of
>> our
>> individuality to manifest itself, IN THE CONTEXT OF, shared space..."
>>
>> [[this is the purpose of a kind of facilitation which focuses on
>> DIVERGENCE, not convergence, in a way that allows authentic (emergent)
>> convergence to take place freely, of its own accord...
>>
>> my experience of much of conventional facilitation, is that it is on the
>> "reductionist collectivism" end of the spectrum...:-) ]]
>>
>> without alternative structures that welcome individual creativity and
>> divergence within a shared space, all we know is what we DON'T want, and
>> so
>> we tend to throw out the formal structures that embody primary mentality
>> (voting, majority rules, bureaucratic structures, etc.) without having
>> anything to put in their place...
>>
>> as the critics of consensus and deliberation have pointed out, these
>> "primary mentality" structures often do give SOME protection to the
>> minority
>> perspective. However i am NOT arguing here, in 'favor' of them... i am
>> simply pointing out that, _without_ those formal structure ,AND, _without
>> anything else_, to take their place, we can become even MORE vulnerable
>> to
>> the pull of cultural conformity that operates, generally implicitly,
>> often
>> throughinformal networks, status and influence, 'the way things are done
>> around here', etc. etc. etc."
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:22 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To me, maintaining our individual ways while also cooperating with the
>>> like-minded on projects/ideas of interest works better than subscribing
>>> to
>>> common rules. It's not the same as anarchy. Its' the freedom from rules
>>> that
>>> don't work for us and that wouldn't hurt anyone for us if we don't
>>> follow
>>> them (as others can simply avoid interacting with us when we break those
>>> rules. It's there choice. It's my choice. Choice is key. I don't buy
>>> that
>>> abiding by 9and defending) common rules/principles is better than the
>>> freedom to make our own choices.
>>>
>>> Choice is very important. The commons does not take choice away. The
>>> herd
>>> does. Big difference.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Michel Bauwens
>>> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> We can also try to follow the netiquette rules as a voluntary
>>>> agreement,
>>>> and let those like Marc who feel strongly against it to continue in
>>>> what
>>>> works for them. Still, if more people follow that agreement, it would
>>>> have
>>>> beneficial effects anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I have started cutting out long threads, which is not helped by Google
>>>> hiding them,
>>>>
>>>> Michel
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:44 AM, marc fawzi
>>>> <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>>>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>
>>>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>>>
>>>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>>>
>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>>>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Marc Fawzi
>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>
>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>
>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>
>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marc Fawzi
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>


-- 

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

More information about the p2presearch mailing list