From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Project B.F.D. (was: An apology)
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 06:58:12 GMT

In article <18DEC92.01304939@vax.clarku.edu> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:

>This is not a private chat-line.  It's a public forum.

I confess to remaining confused about this particular distinction.
Me, I think of chat lines as public forums. But this is a minor quibble,
since I think I see Heather's point.

>If you don't want to
>actually make newcomers feel welcome (what a disgusting, Pollyannaish idea,
>eh?) you can at least treat them with the consideration you would expect if
>you were a newcomer in a group.

I have two thoughts about this:

1) In one sense, newcomers *are* treated with more consideration. If
Tom Maddox, for example, had posted praise of THE EDUCATION OF LITTLE TREE
and had seemed to take the book at face value (in ignorance of the scandal
surrounding it), you may be sure that friends would have ribbed him about
it (and foes would have recycled it) for a long time. The newcomer in this
case received only a posting or two in response.

2) In another, more significant, sense, newcomers who get into discussions
with oldtimers are more likely to see lots of oldtimers ranked against
'em, for the reasons Mark Taranto notes, and, in particular, because the
oldtimers have a lot more context with which to interpret other oldtimers'
postings. (For example, it's more likely that a Maddox posting in praise
of LITTLE TREE will be interpreted as irony by people who know him.)

Me, I don't see much of a "clique" in the everyday sense--a deliberate
attempt to exclude people. What I see is people who know each other, and
who, at worst, are unaware that they seem to be excluding anyone.
(At best, they're treating the newcomers no differently from oldtimers,
but the vigor of the exchange itself seems intimidating.)

This lack of awareness is, of course, no excuse for being impolite. But it
does explain some of the unintentional incivility.

There ought to be a Rule of Charity with regard to the interpretation
of some of the exchanges here. 
 
>I've run into several people via e-mail who read this list and never post
>anything to it, even though they appear to be intelligent folks with
>interesting opinions of their own.  I've asked them why this is.  They all
>say something to the effect of, "because some of those people who constantly
>post will jump all over you, and it's just not worth it."

I can't speak for every case (and, yes, I've run into several of these
folks myself), but it seems to me that lots of folks are very easily
intimidated. They're not used to having their opinions exposed to the kind
of quick and seemingly ruthless critique that Usenet provides. I agree
very much that oldtimers should take reasonable steps to make newcomers
feel welcome, but they're cheating the newcomers if they soften their
opinions in order to preserve the latter's good feelings.

I recognize the hazards of generalizing from one's own experience and
preferences. But for all the irritation I feel when I find that someone
has trashed me for something I posted, I much prefer that to posters'
containing their criticisms to spare my feelings.


--Mike



-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books