What is suitable for this forum ?

Well, I know what is supposedly, but I was surprised to see this : > >Sombody has see The Lord of the Rings yet??? > >Do you like it? ;) > > Suitable for rec.arts.movies, perhaps, but not here. Why is that ? Ok, he should have precised "off-topics", but I bet most of the guys here are or have been role palyers, and could be interested in that subject. I'm not personnaly, but I am interested in freedomof Xpression. Are you the moderator here ? If so, it is plainly your right to decise what has or hasn't its place here, but I think that sometimes speaking about something else than vampires, but with people you came to know (netwise) through VTES can also be a nice thing. Not quite friendship, but something like a feeling of belonging to a community. What do you think about it ? -- Yours, Orpheus, Prince of Nowhere http://no.exit.free.fr (onlive novel) http://cypheranima.free.fr (goth band) news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone audio...@yahoogroups.com

In message <9vomr3$ika$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@wanadoo.fr> writes: >> Suitable for rec.arts.movies, perhaps, but not here. > >Why is that ? Ok, he should have precised "off-topics", but I bet most of >the guys here are or have been role palyers, and could be interested in that >subject. Certainly. I'm sure lots of us are interested in good food, diet coke and world peace, however. Those who are interested in such discussions should subscribe to relevant groups, or general discussion groups (e.g. in the uk.* hierarchy, uk.misc has many discussions on many topics not covered elsewhere). -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D It's been a long road, getting from there to here EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA213D7E It's been a long time, and my time is finally near 668C3695D623D5D I will see my dream come alive at last, I will touch the sky And they're not gonna hold me down no more, no they're not gonna change my mind

In message <9vomr3$ika$1...@wanadoo.fr>, "Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> mumbled something about: >Well, I know what is supposedly, but I was surprised to see this : > >> Suitable for rec.arts.movies, perhaps, but not here. > >Why is that ? Ok, he should have precised "off-topics", but I bet most of No, he should've not posted it here at all, since it's a movie that has absolutely no relation to the primary topic of this newsgroup: the Vampire card game. It wasn't produced by White Wolf. It doesn't share any of the same characters, nor ideas, nor concepts. It doesn't draw from the same mythos. It doesn't even have a vampire IN the movie. Simply attaching "OFF TOPIC" to a post doesn't excuse it -- the question can quite properly be asked "look, you KNEW it was wrong, why did you do it anyway?" >the guys here are or have been role palyers, and could be interested in that Lord of the Rings is a classic fiction trilogy by Tolkien. Many RPGs owe their existence to it and have drawn heavily from it. This is not an RPG, nor has it drawn from LotR in any visible fashion. >subject. I'm not personnaly, but I am interested in freedomof Xpression. Are Isn't it interesting when people in the wrong choose to incorrectly hold up "freedom of speech!" or the like as justification for their actions, lacking no other reasonable defense? Doesn't it seem to happen an awful lot? Doesn't it make you want to just slap them and say "Sit DOWN! That has no place here -- its intent was to prevent censorship by the government, and this is neither censorship, nor does it involve the government." >you the moderator here ? If so, it is plainly your right to decise what has >or hasn't its place here, but I think that sometimes speaking about >something else than vampires, but with people you came to know (netwise) >through VTES can also be a nice thing. Not quite friendship, but something >like a feeling of belonging to a community. I think that posts like that are the primary reason "moderators" came into being in the first place -- no matter how well-meaning the individual in question, the fact remains that this is a group about V:TES, and discussions in here should at least be REMOTELY related to V:TES when they start out. If his post had been about what people thought of H.P. Lovecraft's writings, he could at least have justified it by noting that V:TES has drawn from the Cthulhu Mythos in at least two cases: Dagon's Call and Ublo-Satha. It could then have spawned a rather interesting discussion that would have been somewhat related to V:TES. I think that he would find a much better feeling of "community" for a Lord of the Rings discussion over in rec.arts.movies, where I'm sure it's going to be a hot topic for awhile. Or any of a number of more appropriate newsgroups (rec.games.frp.*, for example). -- "Grod come smash THAT vampire now."

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:9vomr3$ika$1...@wanadoo.fr... > Well, I know what is supposedly, but I was surprised to see this : > > > >Sombody has see The Lord of the Rings yet??? > > >Do you like it? ;) > > > > Suitable for rec.arts.movies, perhaps, but not here. > > Why is that ? Ok, he should have precised "off-topics", but I bet most of > the guys here are or have been role palyers, and could be interested in that > subject. I'm not personnaly, but I am interested in freedomof Xpression. Are It probably has little to do with freedom of expression. No one is saying he should talk about movies. Just not here. Its merely a location issue, not a content or self worth problem. -- Aaron The Nosferatu Stuff

Orpheus wrote: > > Well, I know what is supposedly, but I was surprised to see this : > > > >Sombody has see The Lord of the Rings yet??? > > >Do you like it? ;) > > > > Suitable for rec.arts.movies, perhaps, but not here. > > Why is that ? Because it's not a topic for discussion in rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad. > Ok, he should have precised "off-topics", No, he shouldn't have. That has nothing to do with proper netiquette. Posting only on-topic is proper netiquette. You need to understand that just because you see somebody do something once in a while doesn't make that behavior correct. > but I bet most of the guys here are or have been role palyers, and could > be interested in that subject. That's possible. And that was probably his logic in the matter. But it's irrelevant. Subscribing to this newsgroup does not indicate interest in fantasy movies, however much crossover in interest there may exist between the two subjects. > I'm not personnaly, but I am interested in freedomof Xpression. The problem is that one man's "freedom of expression" is another man's off- topic noise, an irritation. The resolution between the two issues is to look at what this tool, Usenet, is intended for and how it is intended to be used. It was intended to all free of expression within only specific subjects which are spelled out in the official newsgroup charter. That charter is agreed upon when the newsgroup is formed. Although there may be a means of changing newsgroup charters (I'm not sure of that issue), it hasn't been done, so the expectation is that people post _on-topic_ in this forum, as spelled out in the newsgroup charter. "Garou" can have his freedom of expression in the newsgroup for which his post is topical. If one doesn't exist, he has the freedom to propose one and discover if it has enough interest to be created. Otherwise, what at question is not his freedom to express but his freedom to disrupt. > Are you the moderator here ? This is an unmoderated group, obviously. Had Derek been the moderator, he either would not have permitted the post to be disseminated or he would not object to the fact that it was disseminated since he would have had the power to stop it. The authority for topical content, whether a group is moderated or unmoderated, is always the existing newsgroup charter. Sometimes people will vary in their opinion of whether a given post is within the topics spelled out by the charter but in this case, I don't think there's much question. > If so, it is plainly your right to decise what has > or hasn't its place here, but I think that sometimes speaking about > something else than vampires, but with people you came to know (netwise) > through VTES can also be a nice thing. It can be a nice thing. But it is not a nice thing to do so here. Fred

> Simply attaching "OFF TOPIC" to a post doesn't excuse it -- the question > can quite properly be asked "look, you KNEW it was wrong, why did you do > it anyway?" Ok, I understand that, and everyone here made their point while still being correct. I don't want to start another off-topic thread, but now there's one thing I can let pass : "I'm not personnaly, but I am interested in freedomof Xpression. Are" > > Isn't it interesting when people in the wrong choose to incorrectly hold > up "freedom of speech!" or the like as justification for their actions, > lacking no other reasonable defense? I'll remind you that I had no action to justify, nor to defend, and that I was enquiring of something, because I wanted to know if this place was one were you could express yourselve (the answer being : yes, but not on off-topics) or not. I have been in some lists were moderators were petty tyrants, and didn't like it. > Doesn't it make you want to just slap them and say "Sit DOWN! I hope that isn't directed at me. I'm not one to abuse of my "recourse to the law" (as a matter of fact, quite the opposite), and I could well argument any position if it was a worthwile one rather than just say "it is my right because we're in a democracy (relatively speaking) so I'll do as I please". That position is about as silly as any other blindfolded opinion ("god said it so it's good" ; "the TV said it so it's true" etc.). Oh, and if anyone tried to slap me, even if I'm Jesus's age when he got crucified, right now, I'd just slap his face much harder... :-) That has > no place here -- its intent was to prevent censorship by the government, > and this is neither censorship, nor does it involve the government." I understand. For me, freedom of speech is not only an amendment (I'm not under US law anyway) but a way of thinking. The explanations given to me satisfy me plainly, I understand that everything cannot be discussed here, I was just surprised of the way it was done ("shut up, I redirect you"). Now, I also understant that you can't explain these things in detail every time, which is why I had some trouble understanding what top-posting was at first (not very cleat when you're not used to it). But still, I just wanted to make sure I was on a forum of which I approved the laws and behavior. Had it not been the case, I would have had the choice between shutting up anyway and accept it, or leave. As it is, I can stay without any problem. :-) > I think that posts like that are the primary reason "moderators" came > into being in the first place -- no matter how well-meaning the > individual in question, the fact remains that this is a group about > V:TES, and discussions in here should at least be REMOTELY related to > V:TES when they start out. Ok, your point, as everyone else's, is made. If someone wants, they can make another forum where VTES players discuss of off-topics things only, right ? CU in freedom-land (the net, not the rest of the world). -- Orpheus [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9vposa$1l6$1...@wanadoo.fr>, Orpheus <orph...@wanadoo.fr> writes: >I understand. For me, freedom of speech is not only an amendment (I'm not >under US law anyway) but a way of thinking. No-one's stopping you having freedom of speech. But in the same way that you'd probably be told to shut up if you started talking in the middle of a business meeting about this nice new cuddly Pokémon toy you'd bought (because it was off-topic), off-topic stuff generally isn't wanted here if it doesn't have peripheral relevance. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:9vposa$1l6$1...@wanadoo.fr... >The explanations given to me satisfy me plainly, I >understand that everything cannot be discussed here, I >was just surprised of the way it was done ("shut up, I >redirect you"). Now, I also understant that you can't >explain these things in detail every time,which is why I >had some trouble understanding what top-posting was >at first (not very cleat when you're not used to it). Every time I have a problem on this forum its been for just that reason... people writing in such an abrupt fashion as to seem to belittle the person they are trying to correct. Brevity of language is one thing, talking down to another using brevity as an excuse is quite another. As for the issue of off-topic posting, as far as I am concerned Jyhad players are a community, and as such if the person who posted the LotR movie question feels close enough to the people of this forum to want to discuss an item he thought would be of interest to the rest of the community then I don't have a problem with it. If I don't want to read it then I won't, but I sure won't waste forum space telling him not to do it. Just my opinion of course. Matt

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote in message news:9vq58f$590$1...@nntp2-cm.news.eni.net... > > "Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message > news:9vposa$1l6$1...@wanadoo.fr... > > >The explanations given to me satisfy me plainly, I >understand that > everything cannot be discussed here, I > >was just surprised of the way it was done ("shut up, I >redirect you"). > Now, I also understant that you can't >explain these things in detail every > time,which is why I >had some trouble understanding what top-posting was >at > first (not very cleat when you're not used to it). > > Every time I have a problem on this forum its been for just that reason... > people writing in such an abrupt fashion as to seem to belittle the person > they are trying to correct. Brevity of language is one thing, talking down > to another using brevity as an excuse is quite another. > > As for the issue of off-topic posting, as far as I am concerned Jyhad > players are a community, We are a JYHAD community. Not a Pokemon community. Not a Magic: The Gathering community. Not an alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.hamsters.duct-tape community. A JYHAD community. > and as such if the person who posted the LotR movie ...which has nothing to do with the community of which he is now a part... > question feels close enough to the people of this ...JYHAD... > forum to want to discuss an ...JYHAD.. > item he thought would be of interest to the rest of the ...JYHAD... > community then I don't have a problem with it. If I don't want to > read it then I won't, but I sure won't waste ...JYHAD.. > forum space telling him not to do it. See, this is not a large, open prairie with several hundred people wandering about blabbering on all different topics, whenever they feel like blabbering about something new. This is a large room, with a single door, above which reads a sign that says "THIS IS THE JYHAD ROOM. ALL DISCUSSIONS INSIDE THIS ROOM ARE TO REVOLVE AROUND JYHAD IN SOME WAY. THANK YOU." Better? (Maybe we should put this sign up in the newsgroup FAQ somewhere...) > > Just my opinion of course. Of course. > > Matt Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

<snip> > > Ok, your point, as everyone else's, is made. If someone wants, they can make > another forum where VTES players discuss of off-topics things only, right ? > This already exists. It is called alt.games.jyhad IIRC. Jeff "Lasombra" Thompson and i are the only people who ever go there, and i haven't been for months. Incidentally, "People" is used here in the strict sense, as alt.games.jyhad is fairly regularly polluted by pornographers and pyramid-sellers [it serves a useful function as a spam-trap]. There have been some good OT posts there, though, at least in the past.

> See, this is not a large, open prairie with several hundred people wandering > about blabbering on all different topics, whenever they feel like blabbering > about something new. When I read this newsgroup I read what interests me and ignore the rest. If other people did this instead of tearing people a new a**hole over things like off-topic posting and netiquette it would be a friendlier community by far. If Sorrow were to become a father, I would not begrudge him newsgroup space to tell us so. If Peter were to get married, same thing. Would it have been ok if the fellow in question (the original LotR poster) had put "Don't add your thoughts to this thread, instead email me at mailto:st...@things.com to the mail? That way he throws out a quick line to anyone in the Jyhad community who may wish to talk about LotR topics and then doesn't tie up too much newsgroup space. Because frankly, I'd rather get imput on the movie from people I already trust (ie the newsgroup community here) rather than some people I've never met on alt.movies or whatever. Just a different perspective. Matt

Matt Latham wrote: > As for the issue of off-topic posting, as far as I am concerned Jyhad > players are a community, and as such if the person who posted the LotR movie > question feels close enough to the people of this forum to want to discuss > an item he thought would be of interest to the rest of the community then I > don't have a problem with it. If I don't want to read it then I won't, but I > sure won't waste forum space telling him not to do it. You have a right to your opinion, as long as you understand that it isn't really relevant at this time. Had you participated in the discussion which led up to the vote that created this newsgroup, you could have contributed to charter that got voted on. But I don't really see how you could interpret this philosophy into a succinct statement that will tell people in advance whether their post is off-topic or not. What certain people (yourself included) may fail to understand is that the topicality issue in newsgroups isn't something that's continually up for discussion and reinterpretation on an ongoing basis. We can't "take a straw vote" of the current regulars or something and decide to change the philosophy of the group midstream. I suppose the current population of a newsgroup can affect the content by what they choose to object and react to. And as you say, if they don't want to loudly complain every time someone introduces some off- topic thread that may have distinct crossover interest, then chances are the practice will continue to some degree or another. Just be aware that your lack of concern about it does not change the fact that it's (at least technically) wrong and that others have a perfect right to complain and request the practice cease if they find it to be a problem for them. Fred

Matt Latham wrote: > When I read this newsgroup I read what interests me and ignore the rest. If > other people did this instead of tearing people a new a**hole over things > like off-topic posting and netiquette it would be a friendlier community by > far. I've already posted on this before. The choice people may have in terms of selecting which articles they read is ignores the point that they have to find it first. When a newsgroup is cluttered with a lot of off-topic threads and a high noise to content ratio, that can get to be a challenge. The problem with your philosophy is the slippery slope thing. It's not too bad right now and it may never be a problem in this group. But it's not a bad thing to make it clear that off-topic threads are at least not *supposed* to appear here lest people get the idea that this newsgroup has no limits. It's much easier to keep the problem in check then to fix it after it's gone bad. As for tearing new holes in people, I agree that if people overreact to fairly minor things - especially when it's just a newer poster who just didn't understand the rules - that can be bad, too. Then newer posters and lurkers start to get the idea that this is a mean, cold place full of highly irritable people and it's better to keep your thoughts to yourself than to share them lest you accidentally step on someone's toe. I hope everyone will contribute to keeping these discussions as civil as possible. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3C20E456...@removethis.com... I suppose the current population of a newsgroup can > affect the content by what they choose to object and react to. Excellent. As I said I have no problem with people objecting to the incorrect use of netiquette or off-topic posting. It's HOW they object that I have a problem with. I only raise the issue when someone has been talked down to by said objector. To me it's worth a few extra words to "soften the blow" of criticism if it helps salve a human beings feelings. (Something I learned though the Newsletter debacle) Matt

In message <9vposa$1l6$1...@wanadoo.fr>, "Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> mumbled something about: >> Isn't it interesting when people in the wrong choose to incorrectly hold >> up "freedom of speech!" or the like as justification for their actions, >> lacking no other reasonable defense? > >I'll remind you that I had no action to justify, nor to defend, and that I >was enquiring of something, because I wanted to know if this place was one >were you could express yourselve (the answer being : yes, but not on >off-topics) or not. I have been in some lists were moderators were petty >tyrants, and didn't like it. Yep. Petty tyrantism is a bad thing. But trying to paint me as a terrible person who doesn't support free expression just because I suggested that he should keep the forum on-topic is never going to fly, and I'm going to call "bullshit" on it every time someone drags it out. >> Doesn't it make you want to just slap them and say "Sit DOWN! > >I hope that isn't directed at me. I'm not one to abuse of my "recourse to >the law" (as a matter of fact, quite the opposite), and I could well The law doesn't apply here, so all you were REALLY trying to do is drum up public support by trying to portray me as an evil monster who's against all free expression. It's not something I'll EVER tolerate silently. >satisfy me plainly, I understand that everything cannot be discussed here, I >was just surprised of the way it was done ("shut up, I redirect you"). Now, And here you AGAIN resort to hyperbole, completely mis-stating what I said in an effort to produce a "bad guy" where there is none. If there hadn't already been a long, detailed conversation in the past week about off-topic posts, then I might have added some reasons. However, I assumed that he has been reading the group and had already read that discussion, so a brief suggestion of where that thread might be more appropriate was suitable. It is generally much better to step in and say "please, not here" at the START of a thread, when people will read it and say "yeah, he's right, not here" ... and not respond in the first place, as opposed to trying to stop a thread once five or six responses have been posted to it (where people will read and respond to something else before ever reading the "please, not here" post). I redirected followups for a very good reason -- generally, people who post off-topic are relatively new to USENET, which is why they don't understand why it's a bad idea to do so. Those same people generally mash "reply" automatically, and so it's an excellent idea to make sure that any replies go to a more appropriate location (since replies to the thread will be off-topic as well, such as this one). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] These are all good points, and I understand and respect them. I just worry that we get so wrapped up in "what is right" that we forget that when you write something, its your creation. People tend to take criticism, specifically abrupt criticism, of their creations personally, and "softened" criticism can often get the point across better than brusque criticism. Matt

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote in message news:9vqn3l$28o$1...@nntp1-cm.news.eni.net... > > > See, this is not a large, open prairie with several hundred people > wandering > > about blabbering on all different topics, whenever they feel like > blabbering > > about something new. > > When I read this newsgroup I read what interests me and ignore the rest. Me too. Good policy. > If > other people did this instead of tearing people a new a**hole over things > like off-topic posting and netiquette it would be a friendlier community by > far. Agreed. And if people didn't post off-topic, and if they knew netiquette, no one would have to talk to anyone about these issues, and it would be a friendlier community by far. > If Sorrow were to become a father, I would not begrudge him newsgroup space > to tell us so. If Peter were to get married, same thing. I would, since this is rec.*GAMES*.*TRADING-CARDS*.*JYHAD*, not rec.sorrow-is-a-daddy or peter-finally-found-some-chick. When LSJ became a daddy, it was posted here NOT by him, but by Steve Wieck, and some people posted a few replies. It WAS off-topic, but LSJ is one of the people that occupies a rare place in the Jyhad/WW world, and a few messages of congratulations were understandable. Now, you saying that people should feel free to just start talking about anything they feel like talking about, and then saying that everyone should just ignore the hundreds of messages that are now being posted to what used to be a readable, known-topic newsgroup, in a time-consuming, vain attempt to try to find the messages they want to find... well, as you can see, that is just plain ridiculous. As long as you understand the consequences of what you are proposing, then I don't have any problem with you acting like a Malkavian. > Would it have been ok if the fellow in question (the original LotR poster) > had put "Don't add your thoughts to this thread, instead email me at > mailto:st...@things.com to the mail?" No, since the MESSAGE would have been off-topic. > That way he throws out a quick line to > anyone in the Jyhad community who may wish to talk about LotR topics and > then doesn't tie up too much newsgroup space. And he is STILL posting off-topic. You can't get around the fact that this guy is posting off-topic. And you can't get around the fact that the understood, CORRECT use of any newsgroup is for discussing THE TOPIC OF THE GROUP. So, you (and your example) are still in the wrong. > Because frankly, I'd rather get imput on the movie from people I already > trust (ie the newsgroup community here) rather than some people I've never > met on alt.movies or whatever. Then grab their emails from messages on the newsgroup (or whatever), and email them privately. <constructive criticism> Why don't you start a Yahoo group based on Jyhad players talking non-Jyhad talk? That would be a neat place to go to, and would solve many of the problems you seem to have with this newsgroup. I'd even frequent it on a regular basis. </constructive criticism> > > Just a different perspective. As long as you understand that your side is the INCORRECT, not different, perspective, that is what matters in this discussion. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEcharter.net> wrote in message news:<u22a7gf...@corp.supernews.com>... > "Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote in message > news:9vqn3l$28o$1...@nntp1-cm.news.eni.net... > > > If > > other people did this instead of tearing people a new a**hole over things > > like off-topic posting and netiquette it would be a friendlier community by > > far. > > Agreed. And if people didn't post off-topic, and if they knew netiquette, no > one would have to talk to anyone about these issues, and it would be a > friendlier community by far. These kinds of things (off topic postings and netiquette gaffs, for example) are a good test of the mettle of this group. If the Net Police would follow their own darn rules (see Noal McDonalds posting from the charter on a different thread) and NOT lambaste people who make errors of posting and instead used private emails and polite speach to do so, then truly the community becomes friendly. > <constructive criticism> > Why don't you start a Yahoo group based on Jyhad players talking non-Jyhad talk? > That would be a neat place to go to, and would solve many of the problems you > seem to have with this newsgroup. I'd even frequent it on a regular basis. > </constructive criticism> > Nope. My problem isn't that I WANT off-topic posting. My problem is that some people think it's more important to be right and tell people that and forget that people's feelings are involved. I'd rather read one off-topic post than read 6 posts denegrating said person for off-topic postings. You tell me to get emails from usenet and use those to discuss off-topic items. I do. I ask those who find breaches of netiquette and off-topic posting so offensive to do the same and explain to the people doing it in said mail instead of holding them up to ridicule, thats all. Frankly, if Off-topic posting were to get worse or better it would make very little impact on my newsgroup enjoyment. However, I know that it bothers some people so I don't post off topic. (Except to defend the feelings of others, like this whole thread, which is off Jyhad topic but in-topic for a newsgroup use refresher). As proven by Noal in his posting, anyone who corrects publically (and impolitely I might add) people who breach netiquette are also Incorrect, and hence those that defend them are incorrect, just as I am incorrect for defending the off-topic poster. So in conclusion, the off-topic poster was wrong to post. When you play a game you play by the rules. I recind any defense of off-topic posting, as it is against the rules. There is no room in these rules for interpretation or flexability for understanding. Matt

In message <978c2422.0112...@posting.google.com>, Matt Latham <sv...@chartermi.net> writes: >As proven by Noal in his posting, anyone who corrects publically (and >impolitely I might add) people who breach netiquette are also >Incorrect, No, Noal did not prove anything of the sort. FYI28 does not support Noal on this issue. The text he has cited does not say what he appears to want it to say. However, public correction from time to time means that anyone lurking is aware of the situation. Or it happens all over again. And again. And again. And again. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:T6eQltBk...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <978c2422.0112...@posting.google.com>, Matt Latham > <sv...@chartermi.net> writes: > >As proven by Noal in his posting, anyone who corrects publically (and > >impolitely I might add) people who breach netiquette are also > >Incorrect, > > No, Noal did not prove anything of the sort. FYI28 does not support > Noal on this issue. The text he has cited does not say what he appears > to want it to say. Reposted for completeness from Noal: ------------------------------------------------------------------ RFC1855 (a.k.a. FYI128): Messages and articles should be brief and to the point. Don't wander off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post messages solely to point out other people's errors in typing or spelling. These, more than any other behavior, mark you as an immature beginner. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Netiquette, by Virginia Shea: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/rule10.html If you do decide to inform someone of a mistake, point it out politely, and preferably by private email rather than in public. Give people the benefit of the doubt; assume they just don't know any better. And never be arrogant or self-righteous about it. Just as it's a law of nature that spelling flames always contain spelling errors, notes pointing out netiquette violations are often examples of poor Netiquette. _____________________________________________________ This seems pretty clear to me. Don't post off topic (as you want) AND don't correct people in public, especially don't correct people in public in an arrogant or self-righteous way. Those are rules I can easily live with. Matt

In message <9vsvvr$t96$1...@nntp1-cm.news.eni.net>, Matt Latham <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> writes: >> No, Noal did not prove anything of the sort. FYI28 does not support >> Noal on this issue. The text he has cited does not say what he appears >> to want it to say. > >Reposted for completeness from Noal: >RFC1855 (a.k.a. FYI128) It's FYI28, by the way. >Messages and articles should be brief and to the point. Don't wander >off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post messages solely to >point out other people's errors in typing or spelling. These, more than >any other behavior, mark you as an immature beginner. This does not say what Noal and you both appear to think it says. >Netiquette, by Virginia Shea: >http://www.albion.com/netiquette/rule10.html This is not FYI28. FYI28 is an Internet standard. This is not. >This seems pretty clear to me. Don't post off topic (as you want) AND don't >correct people in public, especially don't correct people in public in an >arrogant or self-righteous way. If people will continue to ignore simple corrections, it is quite likely that the tone will deteriorate. If people refuse to lurk in a medium before using it, it is quite likely that they will find themselves making mistakes due to their own inability to find out how it works before posting. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:sxkvHjVPJhI8Ew$v...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > >Messages and articles should be brief and to the point. Don't wander > >off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post messages solely to > >point out other people's errors in typing or spelling. These, more than > >any other behavior, mark you as an immature beginner. > > This does not say what Noal and you both appear to think it says. Really? To me it says exactly what I think it says, namely dont post off topic and don't correct someone merely for spelling or typing errors. It says be brief, not be rude, abrupt, or demeaning. Its the next part that says what I dearly want followed on this forum. > >Netiquette, by Virginia Shea: > >http://www.albion.com/netiquette/rule10.html The stuff on that link, like resolve issues privately and politely, giving people the benefit of the doubt, etc, is the good stuff. > > If people will continue to ignore simple corrections, it is quite likely > that the tone will deteriorate. If people refuse to lurk in a medium > before using it, it is quite likely that they will find themselves > making mistakes due to their own inability to find out how it works > before posting. So basically "I can be as rude as I want to be as long as the point gets across, because the Internet Standard FYI28 does not explicitly say not to be rude." Frankly I think Virginia got it right, but you don't seem to agree. This is fine. People aren't always gonna agree. Matt

In message <9vt50f$1j3$1...@nntp1-cm.news.eni.net>, Matt Latham <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> writes: >> This does not say what Noal and you both appear to think it says. > >Really? To me it says exactly what I think it says, namely dont post off >topic and don't correct someone merely for spelling or typing errors. Exactly my point. This does not say what Noal and you both appear to want it to say. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > > However, public correction from time to time means that anyone lurking > is aware of the situation. Or it happens all over again. And again. > And again. And again. I don't think anyone here doubts that your intentions are good... top-posting does tend to get confusing and it *should* be stopped. It is more the manner in which you post, which I am sure is not intended to come out as abrasive and condescending as it often appears. People sound much more obnoxious in text than they do in person. Well, except for me... I am actually *far* more obnoxious in person, but I digress. Perhaps you could try to correct people in a way which is not as... condescending. You probably don't think that you are coming across so, but I assure you that it is not just newbies that feel this way. Frederick Scott (I think) also gave a newbie the lesson recently and did it in such a way that he was kindly thanked for his efforts rather than flamed or quietly resented. Regardless of FYI's or RFC's or KRCG's (which most newbies would obviously not know how to access), if an effort is made I think we can avoid these ridiculous off-topic flame-wars. Cheers, WES

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote: > Frankly I think Virginia got it right, but you don't seem to agree. Apparently, the people that wrote his precious FYI128 also agree. It's in the bibliography. Regards, Noal

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >Netiquette, by Virginia Shea: > >http://www.albion.com/netiquette/rule10.html > > This is not FYI28. FYI28 is an Internet standard. This is not. Really? Perhaps you may want to review your USENET history. The "Ten Core Rules of Netiquette" (excerpted from her book) are the foundation of FYI28 (read the bibliography) and most newsgroup netiquette rules. Never mind that netiquette corrections *are* off-topic and thus forbidden by FYI28. Noal

In message <bb705c59.01122...@posting.google.com>, Noal [ quoted text not captured ] It's FYI28, by the way. However, since the document is cited but its content is not adopted, this might tell you something about what they thought about putting it into an Internet standard. YMMV. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <bb705c59.01122...@posting.google.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes: >> This is not FYI28. FYI28 is an Internet standard. This is not. > >Really? Perhaps you may want to review your USENET history. The "Ten >Core Rules of Netiquette" (excerpted from her book) are the foundation >of FYI28 (read the bibliography) and most newsgroup netiquette rules. And FYI28 did not adopt the aspects you appear to want it to have; you have yet to cite anything from FYI28 which supports you on this issue. If aspects of the other document also refer to this, it is not as if the issue was not in the mind of the writers. Drawing conclusions is left as an exercise for the interested student. [ quoted text not captured ]

I remember the good ole days when a polite request was enough to stop one of these runaway threads. I hope this is just a sign of new growth (even though it seems to be the old timers). Anyway, please take the discussion to email if you care to continue discussing off-topic things like WTF66 or whatever. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/