Message-ID: <3B055F2F.9F096251@csi.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:43:11 -0400
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
Organization: No Conspiracy Here...
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,fr,ru,es,it,ga,de,ja,gd,eu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction,rec.games.int-fiction
Subject: Re: Newbies, elitism, flames and social dynamics
References: <9e2p38$sri$2@news.lth.se> <9e39fl$puu6$1@ID-62041.news.dfncis.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.34.37.104
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.34.37.104
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 990209080 208.34.37.104 (18 May 2001 14:04:40 EST)
Lines: 112
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!lnewspeer00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!ams.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:87157 rec.games.int-fiction:63091

Roger Firth wrote:

> "Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> wrote in message
> news:9e2p38$sri$2@news.lth.se...
> > OK, I'll probably regret posting this, but sometimes one has a moral
> > obligation to speak even if it leads to personal discomfort.
>     [lots of very sensible stuff]

I share the sentiment, incidentally.  About the only argument I might have
for it was that, in the earlier, linked post, the number '2' might be better
for the 'Z' in "jazz"...I mean, using the '5' is kind of silly...


> Magnus, I would certainly agree with your cafe community analogy;
> that seems to me, for better or worse, exactly how r.*.i-f operates.
> It's always been my impression, from way back when I was one
> myself, that newcomers are _invariably_ treated with courtesy in their
> early days:

Ah--I think I might see the beginnings of the "opposing" viewpoint, here.
Maybe it has something to do with the "time compression" that is inherent to
the medium.  Let me clarify this, and put it into something vaguely
resembling thought-out English:

A newcomer can subscribe to a newsgroup and find himself flooded with...oh,
let's just try it as an experiment...subscribing to rec.games.int-fiction
gives me 481 messages, of which 244 are apparently distinct from
rec.arts.int-fiction, which I've been subscribed to for a bit longer  Add
750 messages (almost exactly) for that group, incidentally, for just under a
thousand unique messages, total, between the groups.  An obvious approach to
this deluge is to respond to any and all that catch your interest,
especially requesting information which isn't yet clear to you and voicing
your opinions where you disagree with someone.

Look at the result from the viewpoint of the reader, then:  One person has
gone through "old stuff," dredged up random points, and disagreed with
them.  The same person has also "obviously" not given any thought to reading
the background information (as some questions could easily be answered
there).  The conclusion is obvious, though not necessarily correct:  The
person is trying to cause trouble.  Responses come, ranging from "gentle
nudges" (which, incidentally, are very hard to phrase so that they don't
sound/read as patronizing) to flat-out attacks.

We are now in "cornered, wounded animal" mode, and our hypothetical newcomer
must defend himself at all costs.  A good sign that this has happened?
Shouting someone down because "anyone can post whatever they want."  At this
point, well, "lather, rinse, repeat," I guess, as this spirals out of
control.

What was my point...?  Oh, that's right.  If you keep it moderate in terms
of bandwidth and tone, you won't be able to "get away with" everything, but
nearly any content will be responded to with far more politeness than I
would ever expect; I'm speaking from experience, by the way, as a rather
recent newcomer to the "arts" side of the fence, who indeed had a run-in or
two with others early on.

[...]

> Which is why I get concerned to hear that, for example, Mike P felt
> he was "pretty much fair game for everyone" -- it simply doesn't
> accord with my recollections. Are we really this unfriendly to all
> and sundry? I'd hate to think so, though I'm starting to have doubts.

I don't read rec.games.int-fiction, myself, but I've seen overreaction, but
not non-understandable overreaction.


> Or is it maybe that the occasional nastygram sticks in the mind
> far far more than the regular nice-guy stuff?

This is almost certain.  Remember the high caliber of writers we have around
here.  When they get angry, they can cut pretty deep, and it's memorable.


> I could certainly
> understand newcomers, having watched the recent bloodbath from
> the sidelines and not being alert to the nuances of social
> ineptitude that slowly but surely lead up to it, being (needlessly)
> fearful of calling the same wrath down upon their own heads.

Well, there's that, too.  Coming in, not at the "simmer" stage, but during
the "rolling boil," which ends with a single person screaming about their
(possibly misunderstood, fictionalized, or invented) persecution followed by
quiet comments of "good," makes it very easy to misinterpret the situation.


> I think perhaps that's the point at which the cafe analogy breaks
> down. In real life, face to face, there are many ways, verbal and
> physical, in which the group would instantaneously signal to the
> intruder that his behaviour was inappropriate. The Usenet options
> are more limited, the timeframes much less helpful, the sensitivities
> more widespread. And, once started, the fire is damned difficult to
> extinguish.

I believe it's the timeframe more than the medium.  It's hard to express
discomfort to someone via Usenet without posting statements to that effect.
However, as I've mentioned elsewhere, it is not impossible to phrase these
comments so that they reflect the intent behind them (and only the intent).

Text is extraordinarily good at conveying tone/emotion, as readers of
Shakespeare, Carroll, Twain, and hundreds of other novel authors have shown
us many times.  For something a little "closer to home," replace those names
with Plotkin, Nelson, Short, Gentry, and a host of others who have shown
similar control over the narrator's "voice."  One might consider that a form
of elitism, but I happen to think it's fair to give preferential treatment
to those people who are capable of expressing controversial ideas in a
non-confrontational manner, and I also firmly believe that everyone is quite
capable of posting that way if they wish to be.

[...]


