ignatz (11/20/82)
Jerry has done a fine job with his "Etiquette" article. But there is one point I'd like to make that, I admit, I should really have mailed to him before submittal of his article. Mea Maxima Culpa. This concerns net.sources. All net users should be aware that, by submitting sources to the net, you are posting them to *anyone* who can get on the net. This includes: -people without UNIX source licenses. Therefore, DO NOT submit anything to net.sources that is covered by a UNIX source license. -people without licenses to various software packages. Therefore, even if you find a nifty fix to, say, TOTAL...Don't post it to the net at large. -people outside your own company. (BTL is *most* aware of this). If you post to the net, I believe a case can be made that you've "published" it, and may compromise your, or your companies', right to own and license it. (Any leagle beagles confirm/deny this?) In any case, anything *I* think may be proprietary or licensed, I don't pump out on the net. Now, it can be argued that "if people don't have a license and know it, they shouldn't take the <whatever> source I posted."; but still, you put yourself in a questionable position, and tempt others, by doing so. Also note that I am not aware of any particular violations of this sort; but I also think this should be noted now, before anything *does* happen. Maybe showing signs of cranky old age, or maybe just paranoia, Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz
tim (11/20/82)
"Avoid sarcasm and facetious statements." This is such a great rule. I really think the person responsible for this rule should be publicly congratulated. After all, some of us aren't mature enough to understand such things. No, I'm serious! I propose a parade in honor of this truly wonderful rule. Maybe we can get the President to attend and personally breathe on our hero. Thanks again! Tim Maroney unc!tim
jlgray (11/24/82)
After reading the "Emily Post for Usenet" I had two reactions:
1. "Finally!" a set of guidelines to allow new and infrequent
users (like myself) to access a wonderful new media without
committing atrocities.
2. Formal modes of speech, proper spelling, proper grammar and
references? I strongly hope you are not serious.
Here we have a new media which is not quite a publication (such as
a memo, book or newspaper), not quite a conversation (there is a
definite time lag between messages), and not quite a "semi-public
forum" as some people would have you believe. It's a media which
can be restricted to any one of the three by enforcing a protocol.
The one criticism of the paper is that it implied to me that it was
socially unacceptable to use the net conversationally except for
net.misc ( a play pen for the Arbitrary Chat, and the notorious
twin Discussion brothers Frivolous and Rambling), net.jokes (you
don't see many jokes with references), and of course the various
spin off nets. It's not that I think that these nets aren't
properly used, but rather that the paper implies by its writing
style that conversational usage is of little or no value.
Would you work in an environment where you could not talk or
interact with anyone except at a professional level? During your
entire work day there would be no idle conversations about your
personal lives or what you believe in and certainly no jokes or
levity of any kind. Considering for a moment the investment any
company makes in your working environment, and of course you. The
above environment might result if said company placed the same
emphasis on your "productive time" in your office as they do on
their computers.
My first point is this. There is a basic need in most people to
communicate opinions, ideas, misinformation, inquiries and most
certainly jokes. I see absolutely no reason why the Usenet
shouldn't reflect the same percentage of "unproductive time" as one
would find in the average student, technician, engineer or
scientist work place. How productive were you today, and how come
you are reading this instead of diligently working?
My second point is that one really shouldn't interfere in a
person's grammatical style, spelling, or overall structure when
that person is submitting an entry. True we can't transmit voice
inflection or hand and other body movements via the console
typewriter but how boring it would be not to try.
An enforcement of etiquette or protocol on a person's style could
limit a person's creativity. Picture the event of reading
something controversial and getting worked up into creating a
flaming reply. Do you think that after carefully editing, checking
for spelling and grammatical errors that the author would still be
incensed? Who would want to submit a flamer without the customary
"You Idiot..." or "You haven't the intelligence of a Jelly Baby
you...".
A person's style is part of his cultural heritage and personally I
have enjoyed seeing it surface from time to time. Far more
distressing to me is to read a person's apology for a spelling or
grammatical error. Gag me with a dictionary.
My third and final point is that the Usenet offers a potentially
new form of folklore which is dependent upon points one and two.
Traditionally the study of folklore, has concentrated on the
propagation of stories, rumors, jokes and any other human construct
that is passed on by word of mouth. Media like the Usenet have
very nearly approximated speech communication in some applications
and offers a new realm of study. At least I have found it
interesting. Strict protocol on a "forum" oriented net with
acceptable modes of speech would certainly put an end to this.
My reason for putting this in the net.followup instead of replying
to the author by mail was simply that I've read a number of entries
which hold the same opinion as the author. Why should they be
exempted?
Jerry Graymel (11/25/82)
I certainly agree with Jerry Gray (ixn5c.516) that Usenet should
permit the same informality as the office, with two additional
observations:
1.) All your "conversations" on Usenet may be overheard. I
don't expect my office to be bugged, and sometimes let slip
some comments that shouldn't be heard by others. We must always be
aware that our Usenet submissions are read by a lot of people.
2.) Since Usenet is new, and represents a powerful tool in our
jobs, it is worth a lot to make it fun to use. Most new users
try it out in one of the "frivolous" groups, and many of the
users would not read it at all except for the interesting,
non-work related articles.
Mel Haas , houxm!melwagner (11/26/82)
I think there is a requirement here for formality in some newsgroups and not in others. Perhaps the difference should have been made more explicit in the etiquette article - we all know which newsgroups tend to have a more formal format, where book references might be useful, where humour is allowed, but the newcomer to the net might well think that we meant all newsgroups to be as formal as the etiquette document suggests. Perhaps this distinction should be incorporated directly into the etiquette document. I would like it very much if people would put appropriate book references into announcements and such in net.general and net.followup, and would care a whole lot less in some others like net.jokes. But the technical groups (micro, audio, auto, etc) could benefit greatly from references at times. And they are almost never given there. Enough. Michael Wagner, UTCS
tas (11/27/82)
Hear, hear, to Jerrold Gray's article (a followup to a followup to ...)!
debenedi (11/30/82)
I think USENET as folklore is a great observation. Isn't it neat to think that right now, at this very moment, USENET is doing something of historical importance? Kind of makes one a bit self-conscious. Robert DeBenedictis
tim@unc.UUCP (12/22/83)
I notice that the etiquette article still contains an injunction against the use of sarcastic or facetious remarks. In the hands of a skilled writer, sarcasm is a potent tool for communication, particularly in subjective discussion. Some people don't understand sarcasm, it is true, but some people don't understand how to read either, and I don't see us pandering to them. Any intelligent and well-read person can identify sarcasm without significant effort. -- Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)
crp@stcvax.UUCP (Charlie Price) (12/30/83)
A few comments on Tim Maroney's comments seem in order. > In the hands of a skilled writer, > sarcasm is a potent tool for communication, particularly in subjective > discussion. Perhaps; probably. Sarcasm and facetiousness are significant elements of my own communication style. > Any intelligent and well-read person can identify sarcasm without > significant effort. I strongly disagree that this is the general case ON THE NET. Many net articles have the informal flavor of face-to-face communications. This seems to mostly work out even though the net is missing some of the communication paths of a normal face-to-face discussion. For subtle modes of communication this can be a problem. Sarcasm, in particular, depends on more than the words -- because part of the communication of sarcasm is knowing that what someone says is not what they mean. There are at least three things missing in net communications that I think are important to subtle personal communication. In a face-to-face encounter, body language and tone of voice communicate in addition to the words themselves. These are crucial for my own use of sarcasm and facetiousness. The emphasis I CAN provide in an article is far too limited to replace the emphasis I can provide with my voice and body. For sarcasm to be sarcasm (as opposed to a failed communication) the listener (reader) has to know that you mean something in a sarcastic way. It has to be evident, somehow, that what you mean is not what you say. Knowledge of the speaker (writer) and the subject are important here. In my own case, my more subtle sarcasm often escapes people who either don't know me well or perhaps don't know as much as I do about the topic I am being sarcastic about. If I want to be understood by a more general audience then I have to be intentionally less subtle and give people more clues (e.g. with tone of voice) that say there is something more to what I mean than the words I say. I think this is generally true and published works, for instance, are crafted so that they may be understood by a wide audience. An "intelligent and well- read person" will understand that something is sarcasm IF the communication is carefully written so that an intelligent and well-read person will understand it to be so. Some net articles containing sarcasm are written as if they were face to face communication with people who knew you and at least as much about the topic as you do. In this article, lacking the clues needed for a wider audience, the readers who don't know the poster or as much as he does about the topic of the article may find it difficult to distinguish the sarcasm. What you have at this point is no longer a "potent tool for communication" but just another way to be misunderstood. The single rule of network communications seems clear: Post articles that communicate what you mean to the the people who read them. If you don't want to be understood, why bother to post anything? Net etiquette "rules" seem to me to be no more than specific suggestions to help make net articles communicate effectively. If the spelling, grammer, and punctuation need to be right so that readers aren't distracted, then get them right. If you don't want readers to ignore what you say rather than how you say it, then don't offend them past that point. In light of this, a more accurate netiquette "rule" about sarcasm and facetiousness would be that if you use them at all, use them in such a way that the most readers will understand what you mean. If people can figure out how to do this, then sarcasm, facetiousness, and other indirect communication modes can make their articles potent communications. -- Charlie Price - Storage Technology (disk division) - Louisville, CO { allegra, amd70, ucbvax }!nbires!stcvax!crp { seismo, brl-bmd, menlo70 }!hao!stcvax!crp
pds@mit-vax.UUCP (Philip Steen) (01/04/84)
nbires!stcvax!crp: Thank you for your priceless advice regarding the abuse of sarcasm on the net! Phillip Steen nbires!eagle!allegra!mit-vax!pds