[++] Self-discipline
Russ Allbery
I know I've seen some people who use this scattered around Usenet, but not
very many. The self-regulatory aspect of it appeals to me, and the
guidelines seem rather straightforward and generally a good idea. I don't
think the specific rate limits that are advocated (one opinion post per
thread per forty-eight hours in particular seems wrong for a social
discussion group) are appropriate for all newsgroups, but for technical
newsgroups with a reasonable array of posters they seem about right.
The only thing that strikes me as somewhat annoying is the advocated
practice of putting the lapel in the Subject header. Changing the Subject
header of every thread in which one participates strikes me as something
that would get rather unpopular quickly. It does have the advantage of
advertising, though.
I wonder if putting the lapel in the Summary line would be a reasonable
alternative. How many newsreaders display the Summary by default?
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Georg Bauer
<r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>The only thing that strikes me as somewhat annoying is the advocated
>practice of putting the lapel in the Subject header.
The general ideas might be good, but the lapel and the label are quite
annoying ideas. Ok, BM is quite annoying, too, so that is just fitting ...
I still remember the the bad word fights between Meyer and Stroustrup - BM
and posting something about self discipline? That's the right guy to do
this.
And in the long run, it's just another form of netiquette, so I don't
think it will work better or worse than those. It might only heat up some
discussions about the not-so-good parts of his ideas _because_ the
advertisement factor.
Another problem: it can only regulate those that are longer on the net and
within the community to learn about it, just like the netiquette. But look
at problematic places: clpm, to name one, doesn't have an
old-hand-problem, it has a
hey-I-am-a-cool-developer-how-do-I-open-a-file-in-perl problem (ok, one
might argue that clpm has at least _one_ old-hand-problem, but that is
just part of the interieur). How shout BMs idea help with the september
syndrome? Do AOL people read SELF DISCIPLINE more than they read emily
postnews?
Every start of a new semester I can see the very same problem around here,
when new students get access to the net and start posting. There is only
one cure: nail emily posthead to their foreheads with a very big nail gun.
Oh, and I am very sure that most of those pests today they call
"newsreaders" won't show any headers beside the default ones (ok, there
often is some way to access those additional headers, but AOLs won't find
that key). So your idea - although it _should_ work - wouldn't (IMHO).
If you want to get ideas like those to work, there is only one way: get
MS, Dejanews and friends, NS and AOL to integrate those things as fixed
rules (with a possibility for override) into their "newsreaders". Let's
face it: most users today won't use a decent newsreader worth it's name,
they will use something like the above programs. And so they will use what
is there and will follow the "default rules". And since there are none,
they won't follow any.
There was once the idea of the GNKSA for newsreaders (of course, it only
addresses a small part of the problem, but IMHO an important one). On the
Mac, several newsreaders adhere to that seal. And look at what NS or MS
deliver to the Mac: nothing compliant. They break every single rule that
is in GNKSA. How should little AOLer know what's wrong, before half the
net tells him? If just every new AOLer behaves wrong _once_ in his
net-life, you have several thousand annoying postings per day - enough to
produce most of this septembers fallout, if you take the reactions to
those postings into account, too.
bye, Georg
Richard Kettlewell
> The only thing that strikes me as somewhat annoying is the advocated
> practice of putting the lapel in the Subject header. Changing the
> Subject header of every thread in which one participates strikes me
> as something that would get rather unpopular quickly. It does have
> the advantage of advertising, though.
IMHO it's a fundamentally bad idea to put facts about the author into
the subject line, due to the way its copied into new messages by the
client software (i.e. it's in the subject line above not because I'm
following the 'self discipline' rules but because my newsreader copied
what you wrote).
> I wonder if putting the lapel in the Summary line would be a reasonable
> alternative. How many newsreaders display the Summary by default?
Why not a URL in the .sig? That would fit the reasoning describing in
the rationale section for rule 1 and be simultaneously less obtrusive
and more informative.
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
>> I wonder if putting the lapel in the Summary line would be a reasonable
>> alternative. How many newsreaders display the Summary by default?
> Why not a URL in the .sig? That would fit the reasoning describing in
> the rationale section for rule 1 and be simultaneously less obtrusive
> and more informative.
The theory behind the lapel, as I understand it and as at least some
people use it, is that you can scorefile on it. Hard to do that in a sig.
Possible (although slow) in the Summary header. Keywords would be
slightly better, but it's persistant, which isn't what you want.
Meg Worley
I've never been very comfortable with the whole rigmarole.
It strikes me as a replay of the netiquette we're all familiar
with, plus a heavy overlay of pointless regulation. All
the talk of members, the strained anagrams, the quantification
that doesn't fit *anyone's* optimum contribution potential...
it just makes me really uncomfortable. And the name --
I don't mean to summon up the ghost of the Lesser Godwit,
but SELF-DISCIPLINE is just too, too reminiscent of the
Hitlerjugend and Dianetics.
After you posted the URL, Russ, I reread it (it's been
a couple of years, since I taught that Rhetoric, Netoric
course). And I just gotta say, anti-membrous though it
be:
I love a tract that decries spelling and grammar mistakes
while containing them.
Rage away,
meg
--
m...@steam.stanford.edu Comparatively Literate
Peter da Silva
Richard Kettlewell <rich...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>IMHO it's a fundamentally bad idea to put facts about the author into
>the subject line, due to the way its copied into new messages by the
>client software (i.e. it's in the subject line above not because I'm
>following the 'self discipline' rules but because my newsreader copied
>what you wrote).
That's OK. If the lapel pin isn't the first thing on the line you ignore it.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
Executive Vice President, Corporate Communications, Entropy Gradient Reversals.
Richard Kettlewell
> That's OK. If the lapel pin isn't the first thing on the line you
> ignore it.
-If- you know what it's supposed to mean, or have absolutely no idea
what it means. But if you only have half an idea, it'd be easy to
misinterpret it.
Richard Kettlewell
> The theory behind the lapel, as I understand it and as at least some
> people use it, is that you can scorefile on it. Hard to do that in
> a sig. Possible (although slow) in the Summary header. Keywords
> would be slightly better, but it's persistant, which isn't what you
> want.
True, though perhaps the rationale should mention this application if
that's what the theory is! Hmm. The Message-ID is in the overview,
so perhaps something unique in the message-id would satisfy this
requirement. Messy, though.
Peter da Silva
Richard Kettlewell <rich...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>-If- you know what it's supposed to mean, or have absolutely no idea
>what it means. But if you only have half an idea, it'd be easy to
>misinterpret it.
If you don't know what it means then you're supposed to go to the web page
and learn about it. It's advertising.
Phil Homewood
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
> <URL:http://www.eiffel.com/discipline/>
>
> I know I've seen some people who use this scattered around Usenet, but not
> very many.
I don't think I've ever seen it.
> The self-regulatory aspect of it appeals to me, and the
> guidelines seem rather straightforward and generally a good idea.
Very UsenetIIish in parts.
> The only thing that strikes me as somewhat annoying is the advocated
> practice of putting the lapel in the Subject header. Changing the Subject
> header of every thread in which one participates strikes me as something
> that would get rather unpopular quickly. It does have the advantage of
> advertising, though.
It strikes me as somehow... I don't know, pretentious. Cliqueish.
Silly, in a way. Yet I can't explain why.
> I wonder if putting the lapel in the Summary line would be a reasonable
> alternative. How many newsreaders display the Summary by default?
Not this one. But it can of course be asked to with one line of config.
X-Lapel-Pin:, anyone?
--
Phil Homewood d...@atat.dotat.org ph...@rivendell.apana.org.au
Member, Australian Public Access Network Association
Kai Henningsen
> In article <ylogge8...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
> > <URL:http://www.eiffel.com/discipline/>
> >
> > I know I've seen some people who use this scattered around Usenet, but not
> > very many.
>
> I don't think I've ever seen it.
And somehow, after having read this thread, I feel absolutely no urge to
go and read it.
> It strikes me as somehow... I don't know, pretentious. Cliqueish.
> Silly, in a way. Yet I can't explain why.
In the same way as MENSA.
It *is* possible to misbehave while apparently following all the rules;
this sure looks like a candidate.
> X-Lapel-Pin:, anyone?
I might mention that I don't wear pins of any sort, and avoid clothes with
advertizing. I'm not a bulletin board.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)