From: asamonte@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Just some loser...)
Subject: Re: I REQUEST RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION...
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 23:30:43 GMT
Organization: Nothing worth mentioning...
Summary: Stop now!  Don't read it!  It's too long... I warned you... 
Keywords: answers answers answers

Ugh...another one of my long posts...

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) was telling me...
>This posting is intended to address two questions which I am certainly
>curious to hear your thoughts on. The first question is the validity
>of IRC's merits, and how it affects different individuals. Is it too
>abusable? Is it solely a source of entertainment or a haven for
>the socially repressed and lethargic? From my conversations with
>various people, I have come to the conclusion that we see both types
>on IRC, but the important question that remains is "how many of each?"

First I would like to mention...that's three questions.  But, actually
I don't think irc is too accessable.  There is 2 or 3 limiting factors.
First, the person has to have access to a modem and the net.  The majority
of people in the world don't have that.  Second, they have to know about irc
before hand.  It's not something you can really 'stumble' upon.  Third
You have to be able to get to it.  Usually that irc is installed on their
site (though people can use telnet clients, that's why it was or 3)

Question 2:  IRC is what you make of it.  It doesn't force any certain things
on you.

Question 3:  The question is hard to answer.  Because I doubt many people
are that one sided.  I'm sure people do a lot of both.


>   As well, I have addressed another question of interest in this conversation.
>Exactly what are the guidelines of censorship and privacy on IRC if any?
>This was initially addressed when the individual whom I had the conversation
>with was not happy about me including his/her words on the topic. However,
>even after assuring the person of a proper pseudonym, they were not
>satisified. Seeing a waste of a good topic with value to all, I overlooked
>his/her concerns in the process and have posted the conversation which
>I fully consider to be 50% my own. I would be interesting in knowing hw
>you folks feel about it.

Well this was discussed earlier...Some poeple to ask are Elizabeth Reid (Ireshi)
or talk to some of the people at the EFF (in the legal dept)  Most of the
states laws on electronic communication can be found on ftp.eff.org in
some bizzare EFF directory.  But the laws are so general and stupid they
could apply to anything.  And if you are talking to someone else in another
country?  Well even more complications.

>Also, stemming from this - should an individual
>be responsible for what they say and do on irc? I have seen many a rude
>and suggestive statement on irc which could be considered harassment
>or libel - is there no guideline or action that can be taken for this
>type of behavior?

Hmm, here's 2 more questions, bringing the running total to 6.  Not a man
of your word are you?

>
>[Original question was phrased to the #hotsex audience along the lines of:
>   "Don't you feel foolish spending your time on a channel #hotsex when 
>   irc and hotsex are paradoxical, and can't exist together?]

Seven.
><Superman> face it - irc is bad for almost EVERYONE - few exceptions

Hasty statement.  Who says?  By your standards, everything is bad for almost
everyone.  I know ltos of people who have real lives that just suck.
And not EVERYONE uses irc to the extremes that you are claiming (I'm not saying
no one does though)

><Superman> I don't thinK i agree with you - people can only exist in such a
>   frail and superficial environment if EVERYONE plays the game

There is no where in life where everyone plays the same.  People have their
own rules...epsecially in real life...it's no worse than IRC.

><Superman> if there's one guy in a magic show shouting "IT"S FAKE! IT"S
>   FAKE", then it takes the fun out of the magic show right?

Not really, most people know it's a fake...but I would think they would 
throw the guy out for being disruptive.

><Superman> besides - truth hurts, but truth makes sense... they know they're
>   wasting their time

Why are they wasting their time?  The same can be said of just about any
recreational activity.

><Superman> shouldn't need one - if you need a break, go read a book - but
>   don't immerse yourself into delusions of a social environment that don't
>   exist

Well, the social environment does exist...it's just not as well defined
as other social environments.  IN reading a few papers on virtual reality
they compare a virtual society to the old west.  We're like pioneers.  There's
no real set of established laws...but what we do and decide will affect poeple
to come.

><Superman> reading and watching t.v. don't conjure images of friends you don't
>   have

Really now?  from someone who has  a nickname of Superman, or Superboy
I'm surprised how you can say reading and watching tv hasn't conjured images
of you being someone you're not.

><Superman> you on the other hand refuse to see the other peole at the end of
>   the screen for what they REALLY are

What am I, REALLY?

><Superman> in fact, as you deal with me, you have a mental image of me and
>   how I think already
><Superman> when it is rarely close to the true image
><Superman> that is the danger of irc - it creates expectations and images
>   that are not and should not be there

I agree wholeheartedly.  That's why I try not to ever have expectations
about people.  People are almost never the same as how I might have
pictured them.

But don't you see how it's just the opposite, yet almost identical to real
life?  Let's say you meet someone new.  All you have to go on is their
appearance mostly (just the opposite from irc) and in many cases, your inital
impression of people in RL is not how they are really.


><Superman> as we speak, #hotsex, being the most populated channel on irc has
>   once again turned into a virtual sex frenzy (as told to me by Magic in
>   any case.
><Superman> doesn't that prove MY point more than yours?

Not really.  It's like me going down to some seedy part of the city
and saying.  See, doesn't this prove my point about real life?


><Superman> and people's "personas" as you call them should be the same as
>   their real personalities - otherwise that's when things become unhealthy

So you're saying fantasy is bad.  It is bad to read a book an to pretend
you're actually in the story.
It's bad to watch a movie and get involved with the plot.
It's bad to dress up and go to a renissaince faire and pretend you're someone 
else.

><Superman> that's my point - irc is condoning a sort of hermit-like
>   anti-socialness...


Oh puhleeze!  No one forces you to irc.  There's no chain linking me
to my keyboard (except the one I put there all by myself)
I can say cars condone fatal car accidents, and that's a lot more unhealthy
So how about we start with getting rid of your car?  Or any other 
exmaple cn be substituted with relative ease.


><Superman> a person need never leave home, because everythin they want
>   socially is available through the computer - THAT is my concern

Doubtful.  Haven't you ever talked to someone long enough for you to want
to meet them? 

><Superman> I fully believe that irc is addictive just like anything else
><Superman> and to think that they can all snap right out of it and revert to
>   their somewhat bland social lives is unrealistic

It can be...but it doens't happen to everyone.  Lots of people are addicted
to caffeene...do we ban it?  Some people are addicted to breathing, should
we stop doing that too?  When people are used to doing something and then
it gets taken away, of course they're gonna complain.


><Superman> okay, then I'm glad you sort of agree with me. The thing is, irc
>   is much EASIER to do than anythign else...
><Superman> given the choice of looking for somethign to do, and irc - many of
>   them choose irc

The same can be said of reading or TV...but you don't seem to want to accept
that.  Watching TV is a lot easier than going out.  Reading a book is 
a lot easier than talking to friends.  YOu said 'well that doesn't interfere
with real life'  Well if they watch tv instead of going out or read instead
of tlaking to friends, that fits your definition of being harmful to people

>*None* anyways, as I was saying, if I post a rebuttal to your ideas, it will
>         be far better for me to rewrite it...I care deeply about my writing
>         and refuse to put my name or even a psuedonym to something that I
>         dont consider a best effort.

Sounds like a politician.

-Alex

-- 
Newsgroups: alt.irc