This list was a list of guidelines to promote a healthy exchange of words. It was not meant to stifle or censor anyone. It was there in place to define the sandbox that we all could play in.
This was a list of guidelines that was generated back when people used dial-up modem to connect at a whopping 1200-2400-4800-9600-32k baud (whoooooo-eeeeee.. dang that's fast) using a Wyse 60 dumb terminal when it was really quite taboo to post pictures and other multimedia in the messages as not everybody had a faster modem to download the attachments *and* it also was possible that not everybody had a machine that could really handle attachments. So, we had rules to keep the fluff to a minimum so that the words posted would all count for well and not be a waste of time for those reading it. You never had a post that was a 95% from a previous message by someone and a reply that said "yes" as the only new and original words. It defined the sandbox we all played in. We called it ...
Internet Etiquette... or Netiquette
I think these are good guidelines that people would be good to abide by as it promotes respectability among others that don't necessarily think the same way as themselves. Now, for the reason of saving some space, some Netiquette Points have one or more paragraphs explaining them that I might cut out from this blog as it is a point that really isn't relative to conversations these days. If this is so.. you'll see a --snip-- beside the point.
Of the guidelines below, they are listed from #1 - #13 and then there are *other considerations* that are listed from A - G. I think that everything below is good general rules for debate.
The one that I see below that is violated the most is usually the 'other guideline E'. Where it talks about 'are you posting an opinion on the topic?' -or- 'have you become the topic?' I've written about opinions before in my blog about 'Judge and Judging' so you should have an idea of how I think on the matter.
The way I see the dominant media culture these days, is that they can't KEEP TO THE SUBJECT (topic). Back in the days of the mailing list, when there was a particular passionate subject being discussed, eventually tempers would flare and bad words would come out, and people would start to insult the *person* that has a different opinion and attempt to put them in a darker light because ... simply... they have ran out of intelligent arguments to debate the other position. They either run out of facts, ideas, notions, etc, etc, etc... they get desperate and they then feel a need to somehow bring the other messenger down because they can't combat the point given with something real, tangible, and with great flair and understanding to bring others into their corner.
The person attempting to put the others into a bad light, willfully make the other people the subject matter of the topic. Which takes the subject off of it's focus. When this happens, the moderators would have to step in, slap the person(s) on the mailing list with a warning and tell them their error that they've gone off topic and are making this a venomous argument wanting to combat the person and not the persons ideas. To be formally followed with apologies.
The same thing happens with the dominant media culture. How many times have they personally attacked those that are giving their opinions? They don't do a good job at refuting the opinions, but they sure want you to know that that person is a no-gooder type person. They'll do anything to cast a bad light upon the object of their disdain. They'll say they drive gas-guzzling cars, eat trans fat foods, expel too much flatulence helping cause a warmer climate, etc, etc, etc. These people, to the dominant media culture are the lightening rods of society. Their thoughts and ideas are not often thought of critically and dissected for anything good therein. Their ideas are normally shown to be 'stupid' and 'ridiculous' and 'full of hate'. By doing this, they show their own ignorance and lack of knowledge in the subject.
Personally, I think something good can be said about *anyone*. Maybe not much good (sometimes), but some good can be said for *everyone*. When the dominant media culture completely demonizes a person (or group of people) you know they are engaging in the same kind of activity. They can't argue logically (present debateful points against) so they must do what they can to tear the others down. If they can't bring the message down, then they feel the need to persecute the messenger.
A perfect example of the dominant media and someone that became a lightening rod literally overnight is Joe the Plumber of Ohio. A regular guy in Ohio tossing a football around in his yard when the Obama campaign came through. Eventually Obama himself came up to Joe and was given an opportunity to ask a question and then comment. Well, the rest is history. Joe the Plumber became an enemy of the dominant media culture (and the Obama campaign). The lightening bolts would surely follow sometime soon. Yep... it wasn't long before we learned about a lien on Joe's house (Joe learned of it too then). Joe's past marital life, etc. We also learned that there were un-authorized accesses into Joe's driver's record in the State of Ohio. It didn't take long before the dominant media culture had proverbially given Joe an informational examination of proctological depths. This should never happen. Joe should never have become the subject of the matter. Joes words and thoughts.. yes. Joe and his family... no. All because, what Joe said couldn't really have any real tangible arguments levied in opposing manner. The dominant media couldn't dissect Sen. Obama's words and just let them slide... so they had to discount and tear down everything humanly discoverable about Joe the Plumber.
The dominant media doesn't understand why their ratings are falling like a petrified turd in a swimming pool. Or why their like-minded newspapers have readership that is in the tank as well and might be about to go out of business. It's because of their behavior that the people of the USA that see this kind of activity and choose not to engage to choose the wares of the dominant media culture. Viewer ship goes down coupled with fewer readers. For them, they think it's a noble thing to tear down the different lightning rods that they just love to throw lightening bolts at all the time. To them, if the lightning rods didn't exist, they'd be free to think, say, and publish anything.
End of tyle ....
For your reading pleasure (if that is possible) this is the sandbox of Netiquette that we used for several years as the guidelines for conversation.
A Word about Netiquette (InterNET Etiquette)
This document isn't an attempt to squelch the expression of the different discussions of the mailing list. These guidelines are not meant to suppress good, honest, and healthy discussions and questions. Rather, they are here to promote harmony and unity among all subscribers. If a
discussion deviates outside one or more of these guidelines then the parties involved should move that discussion off this list.
Mailing List Netiquette
(This has been turned into a rant section. Do you have an email pet peeve that you see on the mailing list involving netiquette? Send it in.)
1. Does the post you're sending have "attachments"? --snip--
2. Is the post that you've sent "unbalanced" between the "old" message posted by someone else) exchange the "new" words you've added? --snip--
3. Have you captured more of the original post than is necessary?
If the first original word of your response isn't on the first page of your post, you've got a problem. Don't quote someone else's entire post to reply to it. Simply copy the relevant parts. Many mailers have a function that will automatically copy the entire post putting in the ">"s for you. Use this function with caution, and if you do use it, delete the irrelevant lines. It's annoying to have to page down about 4 times before you can read any fresh material. It also takes up precious disk space because it makes your post larger.
[modern note: disk space isn't the problem these days. More disk space can be found on a USB flash drive and carried in your pocket than can be found on dozens of machines back then easily. The problem now a days is people don't think critically enough about the material previously viewed, read, or otherwise digested to know how to snip the important parts out so that not everything is being fully regurgitated back in a reply. Editing skills play a large part in this.]
4. Is the title of your post consistent with the subject therein?
5. Is your signature file longer than six (4-6) lines long?
6. Would you say it to the person's face or at church sanctuary or fellowship hall?
If not, don't say it on the mailing list.
7. Are you angry?
If the primary motivation for the post is vindication or revenge, cool off first. Go kick a file cabinet, bite a sock, grab a hamburger and french fries and chocolate milk shake, eat some ice cream, have a cup of coffee, and maybe even pray before you reply.
8. Is the other guy flaunting his ignorance?
Even when someone else's argument is stupid, to tell them so rarely causes them to change their mind. Instead, they can often become defensive and flood the list with even more stupid arguments. So don't inflict that on the rest of us. The only thing worse than a stupid
argument is the defense of a stupid argument.
9. Has the message been spell-checked for errors?
Sometimes, the thought-finger coordination doesn't produce perfectly spelled documents sent to the list. We've all endured our share of typographical errors in reading and writing. Is there a spell checking function built into the emailing program? Or could the document be produced and then checked by invoking an spelling utility? It might be in your best interest to find out. Spelling errors imply that the composer may seem to be ... "not smart." I realize, that in all cases this isn't possible. But I can only think that correcting the spelling errors by re-reading the message before resending it can only help. I've heard that a good way to do that is to read the document from bottom to top while reading left to right. That might make you look
harder at what was just written so you might not miss anything.
10. Is the subject line relevant? --snip--
11. Keep subject lines up-to-date. --snip--
12. Does your posting mention Hitler? Nazis?
Godwin's Law: When Hitler or Nazis are brought up in a thread, it has been going on too long.
If someone compares you to Nazis, Pedophiles, or some other repulsive form of human being, you've won the argument, because they have nothing rational left to say. Leave it at that....
13. Does your post repeatedly bash another's opinions, integrity, or intelligence?
Such an action may result in an internalization of directed shame. We're all born in sin. And shaped in iniquity. And saved by grace. We don't need someone else (other than ourselves) heaping words that cause bad feelings. In a world that is constantly picking and tearing down common people with relentless fervor, do we need others of like interests to do the same?
Does the casting down of another's belief system put you on the pedestal of a prizefighter that's just gone for the kill? If you said it and later realized your error, would you willing and able to gather enough humility to apologize to that person and others on the mailing list?
Pastors would quote scripture saying "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh." In this case, "Out of the abundance of the heart, the fingers type." A man is defiled by what proceeds out of his mouth. Does the potential poisonous post you're about to submit reveal something that might show an inner condition of the heart that needs more attention than the submission of the post?
-------------------------other considerations-------------------------
A. Does your post contain WORDS that are in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS!!!
Caution should be used when posting in ALL CAPS because it is commonly equated to SHOUTING very loudly. Many folks can be offended by CONSTANT or ABUSE OF CAPITAL LETTERS in a MESSAGE because of its STRONG EMPHASIS.
If you want to emphasize words in a sentence. Maybe you should try using double-quote marks "like this" to draw attention, or maybe asterisks *like this*, or possibly even underscores _like this_.
There are times when writing in a CAPITAL LETTERS may be appropriate. If you need to find out how it would sound, write the message with the choice words in CAPITAL LETTERS. Then read it back to yourself. If the words or phase that is EMPHASIZED by the capital letters sounds a little peculiar when you repeat the CAPITALIZATION at a "shouted level" in your mind, it's probably too strong of an emphasis and you need to choose a different way to *emphasize* words without _shouting_ at the other members.
B. Are you monopolizing the conversation by posting too much?
Instead of replying at length to each message in a thread, compile your replies into one post. This forces you to think about such things as structure and reasoned argument as you pull together the many lines of thought in a thread. It is also much more pleasant to read.
C. Are you writing to the list, or just agreeing with the sender?
If the main message of your post is to say "Amen!" or "I agree totally," please send the post privately. Readers don't usually do a tally to see how many people agree with a particular point of view. The point of posting to the mailing list is to add to a discussion, blessing people on the list, or other reasons of member edification. Sending a post that quotes someone else at length and then just saying "Amen" at the bottom does not add to the discussion. It merely adds volume to the list. If you want the person to know you support them, tell them so in private mail.
If you feel an "Amen!" is absolutely necessary, please include something fresh as to how the previous post blessed you, effected you, caused you to think more deeply about something.
D. Has someone else already said what you want to say?
Read all the posts from mailing list (at least with the subject you want to reply to) before you reply. It's nice to be the first to offer a suggestion, or make a reply, or ask a question in response to a post, but because we are all from different parts of the world and we don't all get mail at the same time it is impossible to always be first. Make sure someone hasn't beaten you to the punch, and if they have, keep quiet and just follow along in the thread until you CAN add something unique.
E. Are you posting an opinion on a topic, or have you become the topic?
F. Are you being disruptive?
G. Has the discussion ground to a halt?
Sometimes, a discussion reaches the point where it is clear that neither person is going to convince the other. It is often best, in these instances, to bow out gracefully.
Posts
