From: PL190827@TECMTYVM.MTY.ITESM.MX (Marco A Pinones Inclan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.mexican
Subject: Re: Lista moderada
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:01:21 GMT
Organization: Instituto Tecnologico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

On Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:34:03 EDT javier cruz mena said:
>      ?A quien va dirigida esta respuesta? Supongo que alguien dijo

Para todos, pero en especial a IQAN0@CC.UAB.ES:Francisco Valdes

>      ?Nos contara'n estas reglas alguna vez? Me cae que ya ni es con

Claro que si. Adjunto el 'mail manners' que puede ser obtenido en
el listserv del nodo Bitnic con el comando: sendme mail manners
Reglas de etiqueta para llevar un grupo de discusion por buen camino.

>      Finalmente: ?hay o no hay condiciones para establecer el tra'fico
>en ambos sentidos entre s.c.m. y Mexico-l?

Si ponemos un moderador de por medio, no hay inconveniente.
Saludos,

        Marco Pinones
        Mexico-l

BITNET Network Information Center                       MAIL MANNERS 4/87
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUCOM           P.O. Box 364, Princeton, NJ 08540           609-520-3377


4/87                 The Phenomenon of FLAMING

The following was from: Toward an Ethics and Etiquette for Electronic
Mail written by Norman Z. Shapiro and Robert H. Anderson prepared for the
National Science Foundation and published by The Rand Corporation.


     Perhaps the attribute of electronic mail systems that most
distinguishes them from other forms of communication is their propensity
to evoke emotion in the recipient--very likely because of
misinterpretation of some portion of the form or content of the
message--and the likelihood that the recipient will then fire off a
response that aggravates the situation.  Possible causes for this
phenomenon include:

 - Difficulty in determining the formality of a message from its
     appearance.
 - Attempts at humor, irony, sarcasm, and wit are often misinterpreted.
 - Cues such as body langauge are lacking in electronic mail.
 - The ease of an immediate "reply" encourages "off the top of the head"
     responses.
 - Electronic messages containing hasty or ill-chosen words can stay in
     electronic inboxes or can be printed in a way (injet, etc.) that
     gives them an importance never intended.
 - Although anonymity is often mentioned as a factor, we have observed no
     significant difference in "flaming" between remote correspondents
     who don't know each other personally, compared with communication
     among people who know each other.

     What can be done to minimize the problems of escalating emotions
that arise?

 - Carefully label messages that have a deliberate emotional content.
     Sometimes just the annotation "Flame!  Flame!" alerts the reader
     to the fact that the writer knows he or she is being emotional.

 - Resist the temptation to fire off a response.  Write the response,
     file it away, and wait 24 hours.  Reconsider the response later, in
     the light of a new day (and perhaps a rereading and reinterpretation
     of the original message).

 - Use alternative media to break the cycle of message-and-response.  A
     telephone call or personal conversation can do wonders, when we can
     use body language, eye contact, and the other cues we've developed.

     Much of the problem seems to stem from the lack of cues that
electronic mail affords its readers.  Perhaps the technology that spawned
electronic mail can help reduce the misunderstandings it creates.  One
can imagine message systems in which the boldness of the characters
displayed is a function of the force with which the keys are hit.  More
certainly (because the systems are in prototype form already) there will
be systems in which the characters will be accompanied by voice
annotations, so that the humanity and state of the sender will be
retained and "read" by the recipient.

     In the meantime, caution, awareness, and an evolving ethics and
etiquette of electronic communication will certainly help.

3/87
                 The Ethics of Computer Conferencing

                             John R. Cook


                               ABSTRACT

The objectives of the present study were twofold.  First, an attempt was
made to assess the extent to which some traditional moral principles
governing face-to-face communication have gained acceptance by the users
of computer conferences.  This was done by assessing the prevailing
community standards for computer conferencing on Compuserve's CB and on
BITNET's Relay.  The assessment was carried out using email and other
message facilities on both of these networks to distribute a 24-item
questionnaire entitled Questionnaire for Users of "CB's" and Other
Computer "Chats".  The second objective of the study was to explore some
approaches that might be taken towards distributing questionnaires and
collecting data over computer networks.

The 25 CB and 112 Relay users participating in the study tended to be
male, undergraduate students in their mid-twenties and their average
level of education was that of a college sophomore.  Six of the CB users
also turned out to be Relay users.  In terms of their use of electronic
journal and mail services, the largest portion of Relay users (21%) were
Psychnet subscribers, followed by NetMonth (17%) and COMSERVE (16%).

CB users were found to be much more reluctant to participate in the study
than Relay users, as evidenced by their lower response rate.  Also, Relay
users were found to be more accepting of a proposed rule requiring users
to register their true names and identities before signing onto the
system.  Otherwise, their was a high degree of similarity in the
responses of the CB and Relay users on this survey.

The moral or ethical standards for computer conferencing revealed by the
survey were found to be largely consistent with the moral principles
governing face-to-face communication.  One difference between computer-
mediated and face-to-face communication was suggested by the conference
users' greater acceptance of practices such as adopting nicknames that
are considered sexually provocative or sharing details of one's intimate
personal relationships on a public channel.  However, when CB and Relay
users were asked to evaluate the potential benefits of computer
conferencing, they appeared to discount the importance of some of these
practices, in a way that brought them back in line with traditional moral
principles governing face-to-face communication.

In conclusion, it seems we do tend to attach importance to the same sort
of activities both on- and off-line.  In this respect, several
traditional moral principles governing face-to-face communication have
been found to be accepted by the users of computer conferences.  One area
where discrepancies between our on-and off-line ethical standards do tend
to occur, is in the larger range of behaviors we are willing to consider
as morally acceptable in other conference users.

This is an abstract of the full paper, which is still in preparation.
For a copy of the full paper you may send your electronic mail address to
John R. Cook, UD118169@NDSUVM1.Bitnet, and a copy of the paper will be
send to you when available.

Special thanks to John R. Cook for permission to redistribute this
abstract.


                     ELECTRONIC MAIL ETIQUETTE

Ever wonder how your electronic mail messages are perceived?  Ever
receive a message that caused you to respond too hastily?  The likelihood
that the recipient will react negatively, inappropriately, or completely
misinterpret the meaning of your message is probably one of the most
important phenomena in electronic mail systems.  Toward an Ethics and
Etiquette for Electronic Mail, published by the Rand Corporation with
support from the National Science Foundation, discusses issues related to
the use of electronic mail and the effect of these systems on the quality
and appropriateness of communication.  More importantly, it presents a
set of guidelines that should help lead to effective electronic mail use.

Readers should be familiar with electronic mail systems or considering
adopting them for individual or institutional use.  Copies are available
for $4 from The Rand Corporation, Publications Department, 1700 Main
Street, P.O.  Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90406-2138.  Ask for publication
R-3283-NSF/RC.