From: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: I REQUEST RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION...
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Reply-To: StarWatcher@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 03:18:06 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content


(Disclaimer: all of the following should be considered with a big, 
fat IMO stamped all over the place.  These are my views, and may
or may not have anything to do with reality.  :)

Gee!  A thread that has the potential to be more "discussion" than
flames!

franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes in a very long post:

: 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? 

In its current form, IRC is primarily a recreation tool.  It permits
people from around the civilized (read: internet-connected) world to
communicate with each other in an informal setting.  IRC has the POTENTIAL
to be a practical real-time communications tool for business, news, and 
for research.  That potential is probably IRC's saving quality, and what
gives it a step up on many MUDs and MUD-like entities.

Like anything else on the net (email, news, ftp, ...) IRC is abusable.
I doubt that that will change, even though IRC coders will try either
by removing commands or by implementing stiffer security measures.
For every move the "good guys" make, the evil hackers will come up with
some counter move.

Even though IRC is at this time mostly a source of entertainment,
from time to time the more hard-core lusers (myself included) can
take it too seriously, just as any entertainment source can be taken
too seriously.  As an example, I know of one person who spends all of
hir free time on IRC, frequently calling long distance or neglecting
hir children to do so.  Hir family is not well off, and they frequently
run the risk of eviction from their apartment, or having the utilities
cut off, as well as being threatened with having their kids taken away.
Yet, sie does not go out looking for work, but does travel around the
U.S. visiting net.friends, despite the fact that sie doesn't have the
money to do so.

Granted, this is an extreme case.  However, the problem lies with the
person, not with the entertainment source.  The obsessed luser is
the exception more than the rule; most IRCers (with the possible
exception of college freshmen) are perfectly able to keep their VR
and RL lives straight, even though they might overlap from time to time.

: 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?

I've always assumed that IRC was an open forum, so long as nothing falling
under legal definitions of "abuse" or "harassment" or other such beasts
occured.

: [Re: his concerns in posting a log of a conversation] 
: I would be interesting in knowing hw you folks feel about it. 

IMO, posting a log of a "normal" serious conversation without the permission
of the other major participants is bad manners, but is not necessarily
unethical.  At least you showed the courtesy of providing the other
participants with pseudonyms.

: 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?

People SHOULD, IMO, be held responsible for their actions on IRC.  Even
though IRC is a virtual reality, people should not be exempted from
ethical behaviour and the laws of {enter the appropriate jurisdiction
here, if there is one}.  That's one of the reasons that I personally
don't like faked userid's: if a person threatens or excessively
harasses me or a friend of mine, I want some reliable way to seek
appropriate recourse.

As far as "guidelines" or "actions that can be taken," I'm no lawyer,
so I can't give a definitive answer.  Perhaps the folks at eff.org
can give some insight.

I do know, however, from a lawyer that IRC, Usenet, and email might
fall under FCC regs in the US, which would mean that obscenities
and harassment on the net would be federal offenses.  It's just that
no one has checked this out with a judge...yet.

[much deleted]

: <Superman> and haven't you ever seen "net marriages"? that's a symptom that
:    something is TERRIBLY wrong with irc

Might I ask why?  IRC is currently a game, a kind of electronic theatre to
a certain extent.  Some IRCers roleplay alter-egoes, while others of us
are (somewhat) like our RL selves on the net.  "Net marriages" are just
one facet of this electronic play.  RL marriages/engagements resulting
from people having met on IRC are an interesting side-benefit (?) of
the friendships that can be formed by using IRC as a communications
tool.

[...]

: <Superman> you shouldn't want to escape, None
: <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

An "escape" is fine, so long as the person does not get carried away
(in which case the responsibility for the problem lies with the person,
not with the means of escape) and the means of escape does not harm
non-involved people.  If people are hurt, the people "escaping" should
be held responsible, not the means of escape itself.

If you'd like more insight on this, I'd suggest posting the question
"Are role-playing games inherently good or bad, and why do people hold
those different opinions" to rec.games.frp.advocacy or r.g.f.misc.
It is almost the same sort of question as you seem to be raising here.

: <Superman> that is the danger of irc - it creates expectations and images
:    that are not and should not be there

Again, the person creating those false expectations and images is at fault,
not IRC.  IRC is not alive and cannot "create" expectations, etc.  It
takes a luser to do that.

: <Superman> that's my point - irc is condoning a sort of hermit-like
:    anti-socialness...
: <Superman> a person need never leave home, because everythin they want
:    socially is available through the computer - THAT is my concern

Many of us who use IRC do so because other (in our opinions) acceptable
means of meeting people are NOT availible for some reason or another.
In my case, I am shy, and have an excessive dislike for the bars on
campus at UIUC -- the most visible means of "meeting" people in a 
non-academic setting here.  I like IRC, in that I frequently have the
opportunity to "get to know" a person without having to worry about
the silliness of first impressions, before I actually meet that person.
I met my SO on IRC, and had the opportunity to talk for long periods
of time on the computer and then on the phone before I finally got to
meet her face-to-face.  We hit it off, and we might eventually even
get RL married...but that's still a long ways down the road.  I've
made a lot of VR friendships on IRC, but when possible, I prefer extending
that into a RL friendship.  I met most of my local RL close friends
through IRC.

I could go on and make more comments about the rest of the log, but
"None" seems to have done a good job of expressing my opinions already.

Steve: I am touched by the concern you have shown for people in your
post and in your IRC conversation.  The world would be a better place
if more people were concerned about each other.  However, one of humankind's
inherent rights is the much unproclaimed right to make a mistake.
Making IRC less accessible because of your concerns would be an infringement
on that right.

--
Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher)            "A converted cannibal is one who,
StarWatcher@uiuc.edu (NeXT & internet)      on Friday, eats only fishermen."
wi.5467@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (anonymous)             -- Emily Lotney
FREE1217@UIUCVMD.bitnet (bitnet)                                               
Newsgroups: alt.irc