« Look, just because one is on the supply side of the industry and the other is on the regulation and tariff side doesn't mean they're not both in that industry, does it? | Main | Oh, like you haven't been there. »
Eric: So... we need to have a little talk....
It's an interesting day. As we speak, Wednesday "Wednesday" White is preparing to enter a long tube that will fling her across the Atlantic. I'm going to pick her up tonight... only to see her fly back off tomorrow so she can... you know, spend Christmas with her family in a less distant land than she usually is, but still. (Stupid family.)
As a side note? Yeah, don't expect tremendous punctuality over the next couple of days. Life's good.
But, with one half of the action team in a plane, it seemed like a good time to... well, have a little chat. because I'm a bit concerned.
A few days ago, Cat Garza -- who I've recently begun to have some discussions with, usually under the aegis of the Webcomics Examiner, announced the birth of his daughter, Beatrix Cayce Garza.
This was tremendously cool, of course. As it was when Jerry Holkins, of Penny Arcade, announced the birth of his son, Elliot Jacob Holkins, back at the end of November.
In both cases, I thought Dude! I need to post a congratulatory note! Because in both cases this was tremendously cool. And because congratulating people on what is, after all, one of the defining moments of their life is the sort of thing I want to do with my time and my part of this here blog. In fact, you might remember that last year I did congratulate Mike Krahulik on the birth of his son.
(As a side note, I also mentioned that we just needed to get Holkins bred and we'd officially have them both chained to their jobs to keep providing sweet sweet food to their children. Mission accomplished, kids.)
But. I didn't post a congratulatory note for Holkins or Garza. Because I was scared someone would use the opportunity to trash the new father in the comments. Both Holkins and Garza have plenty of... whatever the opposite of "fans" are who don't seem to be able to set aside that enmity even in the short term.
Now, I figured I was being a little ridiculous. I mean, who would try to burst that balloon? Honestly. Especially among we the Snarkoleptics. We're a generally cool and froodish bunch.
Well... when I posted last week about the charity and its astounding good fortune... I figured out I was right to be concerned.
Please note, this is not a discussion of the people involved in that incident. Nor is it an excuse to trash them now. Those involved have contacted me privately to apologize. One person who needed to apologize publicly to another reader, in my opinion, did so before contacting me to apologize. We closed comments on that particular post, and this is not an invitation to reopen them. This is about me.
See... I love Websnark.
I love the venue. I love the chance to write. I love the chance to be read.
And I love the dialogue. The discourse. I love the snarkoleptics. I love having feedback. I love the debates.
But... I don't like not being able to congratulate a man on the birth of his child without feeling it might turn ugly. I don't like that at all. And I won't stand for it.
Only, I'm not entirely sure what that means. "I won't stand for it." Because I don't want to kill the discussion.
There are steps I can take. I can enable screened comments, for example, which means they wouldn't show up until I went in and said "yeah, that's kosher." Only that inexorably changes the positive aspects of our current system -- and adds a billion times the workload on the server side of things.
I can turn comments off entirely. Point people exclusively to the Snarkoleptics community to post comments on their own dime and off my server, and just write essays here. I've had a number of people suggest I do just that.
But I don't want to. I want to believe that people are basically kind and decent, and while they might get passionate, they don't get mean for no reason.
Some of our out there just started snickering. "Welcome to the internet, newbie," they snort.
Others say "hey -- I have a good reason!"
Here's the thing. I'm not a newbie. I've been doing this since 1987. I was on Usenet and bulletin boards. I've been on every iteration of the Web since the Web came to life. I've been on fora and on BBSs. I've been part of fandom. I've flamed and I've been flamed.
But I honestly believe that, barring a few people who just get off on making others miserable, the internet can be a place where people can come together, can disagree, but be polite about it. And more to the point, I honestly believe that just because we're on the internet doesn't mean we surrender the rules of basic society, of reasonable behavior, of discourse.
I work at a school. In some cases, I'm a teacher. In all cases, I'm responsible for educating my students about proper behavior online. And what has become clear, time and time again, is that the kids honestly forget there are real human beings on the other side of the electronic divide. They forget that this isn't some kind of game. This isn't some kind of contest.
It's just people. It's just communication.
I think of all of you as my friends. And I say things here that inflame passions. And I accept, as part of the cost of doing business, that you guys will insult me, sometimes. That's why the rule is as it is. "You get to insult Eric, when he writes an essay. But you don't get to insult each other." The point is to provide feedback. The point is to present opposing points of view. The point is to tell me I'm full of shit when I need to be told that.
The point is not to be mean to people, just because you can be. Or puncture someone else's balloon for no damn reason except you can.
I remember telling a friend, back when the incident happened last week, that the worst part -- more than disgust, more than shock, more than even what was said -- was the sheer disappointment I felt. I had asked people, just that once, to say nice things or not say anything at all. And I said to that friend that I had learned my lesson.
Maybe. And maybe not. Because I'm here, right now. And I'm being stupid enough to come out on stage and say "guys? We need to remember the spirit of what we're doing here. We want to discuss issues, and debate theses, and knock around ideas. Not people. Okay?"
Okay?
Because I like what Websnark has become too much to just give up on it.
Congratulations, Cat. Congratulations, Jerry. May you both know all the joys that new life brings, and may both kids grow up to be a thousand times cooler than you are, in every way, so that you both become bitter old men while your children win Nobel Prizes and discover life from the Andromeda Galaxy.
As for me? I need to finish cleaning the bathroom. Wednesday's coming for dinner.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at December 19, 2005 11:03 AM
Comments
Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 19, 2005 11:23 AM
Okay, here's my snarky add-on:
May Jerry's kid become a lawyer who makes a living by embarassing Jack Thompson at every turn.
As for Cat... umm... I have no idea who you are, so congrats.
Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 19, 2005 11:25 AM
Give her a pedicure for me.
Comment from: Abby L. posted at December 19, 2005 11:26 AM
RAWR I HATE THE PENNY ARCADE DOOOODES.
But babies are awesome. :D Hooray for babies!
Comment from: miyaa posted at December 19, 2005 11:30 AM
1. I guess that would explain why the last two topics that Wednesday has started with came with no chance to talk about the post. I've found if you make people to go another forum completely to comment about a subject, they generally won't without a courtesy link to the posted subject or a summary of what you are commenting about (we're lazy that way). And, it's not going to take away the potential for rude comments or to have a flamer so explosive that it could shut down Snarkoleptic, too. And not necessarily by you either, Eric. (Incidentially, I just purchased Lynne Truss's new book, Talk to the Hand about the decline of courtesy in our civilisation as we know it, including how the Internet has doomed civility and courtesy, along with the print media. Very, very, very interesting subject that's worth another post sometime in the future. Worth the $20 I paid for it.)
2. I also think congratulations are best made in private and not in public, unless there's a point you want to make about the people involve. Private thanks yous and congratulations mean more to that person than a public shout-out.
3. See, the thing about the Internet is that most of us haven't actually met you face to face, and until we do, text interaction isn't the same thing as face-to-face interaction and the possible threat of being us to death if we said something completely out of line. (I'd suggest about developing a Snarkcon, but I fear it would take place a posh bar where everyone would drink Scotch and that would be pretty much what everyone would remember from that night.)
I really should get back to my book.
Comment from: Chris "Slarti" Pinard posted at December 19, 2005 11:59 AM
While I can't say anything definitive on point 1, I imagine it's at least partly because the last time she had comments allowed didn't work out as well as we should really hope and strive for.
I have no particular opinion either way on point 2.
Point 3, on the other hand... I'm pretty sure that "we've never met face-to-face" isn't really an excuse for not having acquired a fundamental understanding that this site's authors, along with everyone else who posts comments, are people and that we should engage in civil discourse with one another. We should all know this by now, and act accordingly.
Comment from: Scarybug posted at December 19, 2005 12:07 PM
Re: Point 3
See, I've usually found to opposite to be true for me. The fact that I have to write something out completely before I hit post means I have a little extra time to realize that maybe I should be saying what I'm about to say.
Re: Being a n00b
The problem with Usenet was always that whenever you went to a new group, you were a newbie all over a gain, no matter how long you'd been using usenet. The only group I remember being civil to newbies was rec.arts.int-fiction.
Comment from: Escushion posted at December 19, 2005 12:10 PM
I have nothing for agreement with all of this. There's no reason people can't just be decent over these things. I think taking the time to post on this in such detail and length is admirable, as it points out what shouldn't have to be pointed out, but does need to be pointed out.
At that, congratulations to parents and the new babies.
Comment from: Imaria posted at December 19, 2005 12:14 PM
Note from a websnark n00b:
I suggest putting a little gold star besides entries that are just supposed to be about good, wholesome stuff. And if anyone crosses the line in a gold star entry, let the fires burn.
Any time you've gone out of your way to say that kind of behaviour is unacceptable, people have watched themselves. I think they just need the warning that they're making a mistake. People aren't evil here...they're just not paying attention all the time ;]
Comment from: Comus posted at December 19, 2005 12:28 PM
Imaria,
On the occasion referred to, the people who were being unpleasant were being so deliberately and knowingly, for whatever reason that seemed good to them at the time.
A direct plea didn't stop them.
I don't think that little gold stars for good behaviour would have stopped them either.
You just have to accept that, in a publicly accessible forum such as this one, some people are going to behave like jerks sometimes. (It depends on your definition of jerk, of course)
Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 19, 2005 12:31 PM
I just wished someone's kid to become a lawyer. Some might argue that's pretty damned evil.
As for public shout-outs... I don't know. I'm really setting myself up for even commenting on this (but out of respect for Eric, use the email address in my Typekey profile if you want to take shots at me over this), but sometimes, it feels more significant to say things publicly.
For example, we could all email Eric and say that he was really gracious for donating money to a children's hospital in the name of Websnark's readers. But in a way, isn't it better that he gets credit for that here?
Comment from: monkeyangst posted at December 19, 2005 12:42 PM
But... I don't like not being able to congratulate a man on the birth of his child without feeling it might turn ugly.Oh come on... there's very little chance of the child turning ugly just because you wrote about it!
Comment from: monkeyangst posted at December 19, 2005 12:43 PM
Oops. Sorry. Dangling modifiers and what not. :)
Seriously, congratulations to Cat on the birth of what I'm sure will remain an adorable child.
Comment from: vilious posted at December 19, 2005 12:54 PM
Can't you hide or delete comments, and shut particular people out? Those are pretty standard enforcement tools. I can't say I have seen any need for them, but they can be used as warnings, surely.
I have come to think that not getting angry at others online is not wholly a matter of good character. Fact is, I don't get mad at people because I care more about what people say than I do about people. This is the way they teach one to be in school, but lately it seems to me that there is something peculiar and cold about it. It makes for good manners online, but has disadvantages elsewhere.
This is not a call for bad manners, but for some sympathy for those who get all excited and forget themselves.
Comment from: Escushion posted at December 19, 2005 12:57 PM
"Oh come on... there's very little chance of the child turning ugly just because you wrote about it!"
I don't know; I've seen Websnark do some pretty powerful things for webcomics.
But that would make good incentive for behaving on the Snark comments.
-Eric: "If you don't talk nicely, your first-born will be made UGLY!"
Comment from: chalcara posted at December 19, 2005 1:08 PM
I'm just kinda happy that you decided to write about this, Eric.
I already was afraid that comments were closed, the incident stuffed under the carpet and ignored as good as possible; until the lingering frustration breaks out and breaks this page.
It's good this is not happening now. :)
Comment from: Darrin_Bright posted at December 19, 2005 1:16 PM
I understand what you're trying to express, but the concept of "Free Speech" is dedicated not only to the idea that everyone should have a place to swim, but also forbids any guarantees about how clear or healthy the water should be. Even the intentions of those who want to poop in the pool are held sacred.
Fortunately, even the most vitriolic of the Anti-PVP Crusade are easy to ignore.
Congats to all the fellow new fathers out there. Really Super-Important Parent Tip #1: MYLICON! (AKA Simethicone) We would have never survived the first night without it.
Comment from: Howard Tayler posted at December 19, 2005 1:19 PM
I congratulated Jerry personally (well... personally via email). His news post was touching.
As a father of four and uncle of.. umm... sixteen (?), I can tell you that the miracle of childbirth, the instant holiday of welcoming a tiny, helpless newcomer into your home never gets old.
It's like the ultimate running gag. Imagine a joke that you can tell over and over and over without changing much, and having it kill every time. Childbirth is like that, only less "ha-ha" and more "Hurray! Hey, look, it pooped!"
Comment from: Eric Burns posted at December 19, 2005 1:21 PM
You know, I really need to jump in here.
This isn't a free speech issue.
It really, really isn't.
Every person reading these words (who, you know, is American. Your Nation May Vary) has the right to express their opinions. Every person here can also go out, spend money, get hosting, install blog software, and post that opinion.
However, when I'm paying for the soapbox, you don't have a "right" to post here. Any more than you have a right to walk into a lecture hall and begin lecturing.
I choose to solicit commentary. And right now, my rules of expected behavior have been lax. They may need to tighten. That's what we're discussing.
However, if I choose to tighten them, there's no Constitutional point to prevent me from doing so. I own this particular joint.
What is fair is that everyone here know what expected behavior is, so they have a chance to act accordingly.
Comment from: Howard Tayler posted at December 19, 2005 1:23 PM
re: Free speech -- just because everybody is allowed to speak their mind doesn't mean Eric has to let them speak it here.
I moderate my communities aggressively. People talk about whatever they want, but as soon as I get offended, or I sense that others are getting offended (usually in the case of overt ad hominem attacks, flame-wars, or the use of profanity/obscenity), I delete the posts. Those people can keep talking someplace else. THAT's free speech.
Neither Eric nor anyone else who hosts a discussion community is required to keep your trash on public display.
Comment from: Shaenon posted at December 19, 2005 1:24 PM
Dude, you should just ban people. Put Wednesday in charge of it. Guys love a hot chick threatening to tie them down.
What? It works for Warren Ellis.
Comment from: Eric Burns posted at December 19, 2005 1:28 PM
Dude, you should just ban people. Put Wednesday in charge of it. Guys love a hot chick threatening to tie them down.
...well, it would spike readership....
Comment from: larksilver posted at December 19, 2005 1:34 PM
The fact that I have to write something out completely before I hit post means I have a little extra time to realize that maybe I should be saying what I'm about to say.
Here, here. When I'm surprised, in person, by an unexpected bit o'nastiness, or someone being overly aggressive, I ... well, my mother always said that I turn into a block of very polite ice. After that, it's not a matter of what I say anymore, it's that I've just frozen someone out of the building. If I speak my mind, they're generally even worse off, and so am I.
However.. online, having to think about my posts means that at least a good 80% of the snarkish things I would like to say get filtered out - probably more like 95%. It's not because the people online are any more or less real to me, it's that, for me at least, I have a chance to stop the sarcastic or just downright bitchy comment that really, really, wants to come out.
It also gives me time (nearly always) to look again at the post I'm responding to, and realize that maybe they weren't trying to be a jerk, and even if they are, maybe I shouldn't be.
Shaenon: HA!
Howard: Aren't they awesome when they first get here? Granted, by the time they're three, there are definitely times when you want to give them away for a while.. but still, they're way cool.
Congrats to the new dads, and one bit of advice: Practice the technique of covering their private bits (boy or girl) immediately after taking off the diaper, or you'll be sorrrrrrryyyyyyyy...
Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 19, 2005 2:09 PM
I congratulated Jerry personally (well... personally via email). His news post was touching.
It's me, I said. I'm the one who sang to you was my sigquote last week.
Dude, you should just ban people. Put Wednesday in charge of it. Guys love a hot chick threatening to tie them down....well, it would spike readership....
"Spike" in this context makes me nervous.
Comment from: Darrin_Bright posted at December 19, 2005 2:25 PM
Sorry, Eric. I was spouting off from the wrong Afternoon Special. What I was trying to say was "Free Speech is a Bitch", which, despite any degree of insightfulness, isn't all that helpful or, as you pointed out, applicable to the discussion.
I should have followed my other train of thought, which was if you follow the "Free Speech" argument too far, you get... well, the current mess Wikipedia is in (which Skeletor just NAILED dead on, I might add.)
Comment from: Christian posted at December 19, 2005 2:38 PM
There are all sorts of different people in the world, and learning who is which is simply a necessary process of discovering truth. Those who are really only around to make trouble will likely get bored once they're not indulged with the attention they crave, and those who usually mean well but made a mistake will likely repent. Then you get the joy of welcoming the prodigal sons/daughters back, your faith in (some) people being restored, and a lovely new peace for the time being. As for the following...
I need to finish cleaning the bathroom. Wednesday's coming for dinner.
Does your commode doubles as part of your dining room set, or are you planning on serving lots of Mexican food?
[And arrgghh. First post, please 'scuse -- why no paragraph breaks in the preview? How to box-quote something?]
Comment from: Dire posted at December 19, 2005 2:46 PM
"The fact that I have to write something out completely before I hit post means I have a little extra time to realize that maybe I should be saying what I'm about to say."
I am kinda like this as well, except that it gives me a chance to overanalyze what I was going to post. I usually spend 1 minute writing a post, 5 minutes editing and rewritting it, and then I usually end up just deleting it and don't post anything. (Just hit the post button, its right there and won't hurt a bit.)
Comment from: Chris "EDG" Anthony posted at December 19, 2005 3:23 PM
Dire, I sympathize. Every time I start to post a comment, I'm compelled to stop and ask myself "is actually expressing my opinion going to be more worthwhile than sitting back, not saying anything, and avoiding the drama?".
Usually, it's not.
Comment from: Marcus Gr. posted at December 19, 2005 3:27 PM
I think, at least on a semi-civilized community like this one, even the nastiest individuals can hold back on the vitriol when it comes to congratulating someone on their kids. I don't think you needed to worry about this one, Eric.
Comment from: ranlab posted at December 19, 2005 4:16 PM
Speaking of the Penny Arcade guys and Cat Garza, it should be noted that Eric's tennet of ' We want to discuss issues, and debate theses, and knock around ideas. Not people. 'and the idea that you can passionately find fault with an idea without making unrelated personal attacks about and to the people that have those ideas extends even to the work he looks at and critiques: He didn't find it to be particularly reasonable when the PA guys seemed to be making fun of Cat Garza personally more than the theory he espoused which is what they really disagreed with in the first place.
To that end, Eric, I don't think it's a question of tightening rules or banning people but a question of making your philosophy and values known a little more up front so people have less of an excuse to ignore them. This issue of arguing the idea but respecting the individual seems to be really important to you and seeing as this is your forum on your server space, you should be allowed to expect that of we, your guests.
So maybe just a little reminder sign along the lines of 'No Poisoning the Well' or something you feel sums your request up better linked to a more thorough explanation for those who require it placed where folks can't claim ignore it might be enough.
Comment from: Kail Panille posted at December 19, 2005 4:46 PM
This is a very important topic, and the discussion it spawns will certainly be illuminating and important, but, waaaay back up in the fourth post:
(I'd suggest about developing a Snarkcon, but I fear it would take place a posh bar where everyone would drink Scotch and that would be pretty much what everyone would remember from that night.)
(emphasis mine)
Snarkcon! Snarkcon! Snarkcon! Snarkcon!
That is all.
Comment from: Tyck posted at December 19, 2005 5:03 PM
I am fully in favor of a Snarkcon, although it would almost certainly be held somewhere I wouldn't be able to attend. Maybe Eric can wang up a guest of honor invite to the next PvP convention and we can all piggyback Snarkcon on it.
Comment from: Elizabeth McCoy posted at December 19, 2005 5:07 PM
Congrats to the new parents. Get your sleep while you can. Remember, the gypsies will not pay enough for it to be worthwhile to auction them.
Comment from: Marcus Gr. posted at December 19, 2005 5:19 PM
Oh yeah, and Bernie Hou of Alien Loves Predator deserves a shout out as well, for the beautiful twins (a boy and a girl!) he and his wife had in July!
By the way, a "Snarkcon" sounds like a robot that transforms into a snark. And like merchandising gold!
Comment from: Chris "Slarti" Pinard posted at December 19, 2005 5:32 PM
In which case, I move for the con to be named "Snarkticon", 'cause it sounds better to have another sound between the k/hard-c, 'cause it riffs on the Sharkticons, and because maybe then Dave Van Domelan will do some relevant toy modding for it. :-)
Comment from: Kendra Kirai posted at December 19, 2005 5:38 PM
D'oh. Slarti, you jerk, you stole my idea! Hehehe
By the way..I've been meaning to ask. Do the letters EPU mean anything to you?
Comment from: Maritza Campos posted at December 19, 2005 6:16 PM
Free speech is a myth.
That being said, congratulations to Cat! 2005 was a very good year for webcomic parents. Say, in future conventions, all our kids can play together! ^.^
Maritza
CRFH.net
Comment from: Robert Hutchinson posted at December 19, 2005 6:20 PM
Shaenon: I think that would be . . . oh, phooey, there's a term for it. Negative reinforcement, maybe (pun noted)? The ones being nice to Weds would be the ones not getting threatened with down-tying.
Dire: You forgot "and then you finally post, and five other people said what you were going to say in the last 30 seconds".
(Edit time for this post: 15 freaking minutes.)
Comment from: Chris "Slarti" Pinard posted at December 19, 2005 6:24 PM
Why, yes, Aaron. Yes, they do.
Comment from: Tangent posted at December 19, 2005 6:47 PM
*shiftyeyes* Scoooooooooooooooooooooooooootch!!!!
*ahem* Sorry about that.
Freedom of Speech is misinterpreted. What Freedom of Speech actually means is I can say the government of the United States sucks, and should be replaced with something workable. It doesn't mean I can say anything nasty about my fellow Americans.
Yes, we Americans tend to take an inch and run for a mile. ;)
Rob H.
P.S. - Congrats to all the new dads and moms out there. May you find much joy and happiness in this new time of your lives... and of your children. Rob
Comment from: Thomas Blight posted at December 19, 2005 7:25 PM
You know, I'd want to go to a Snarkon just so I could make a joke to Eric about Q-List Celebrities having their own continuum. Yes, a Star Trek joke.
A little more on topic now: Yay webcomickers' babies!
Comment from: Dave Van Domelen posted at December 19, 2005 8:07 PM
RoboWeds and RoboSnarky are Snarkticons.
Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 19, 2005 9:19 PM
Snarkon, snarkon... que sang impur abreuve nos sillons...
Sorry, it just scanned so well.
Comment from: John posted at December 19, 2005 9:35 PM
While this is a cute post, why not just say "In the future, comments which cross the line will be deleted," and take it from there?
You're only contributing to the drama with this sort of emo navel-gazing. :p
Comment from: kirabug posted at December 19, 2005 10:13 PM
Wednesday's coming for dinner.
Tell her we said hi? :)
Comment from: William_G posted at December 20, 2005 12:22 AM
3. See, the thing about the Internet is that most of us haven't actually met you face to face, and until we do, text interaction isn't the same thing as face-to-face interaction and the possible threat of being us to death if we said something completely out of line.
This is interesting to me because I always found the idea of an internet "Community" rediculous. True frindship/ love can have it's seeds via the electronic medium, but it's a love/friendship of the idea put forward, not of the person itself. The person itself doesnt exist electronically. There MUST be person to person contact for these things to have any validity.
So while I like the representation of a lot of people online, that doesn't mean I like them as a person. I don't know the person. How can I like them? And the same goes in the other direction. But the ideas, concepts, and most importantly: personal representations they put forward, you can love or hate them all you want.
So yeah, there are people on the other end of the web, but what's on the web are nothing more than the concepts they put forward. You can love and hate those things all you like. But if you don't know the person, you don't have the call to say you love or hate them.
So yeah, there are "people" on the internet I dislike. But if I met them in person, I'd happily buy them a beer to see what the real person is behind the ideals they put forward.
Then I can decide if I'm going to run them over in the parking lot a few times.
...
I'M JOKING!
...
I'd hire a hitman anyway.
Comment from: William_G posted at December 20, 2005 12:43 AM
Oops, double post
Comment from: William_G posted at December 20, 2005 12:44 AM
Or not.. Damned computer, dont lie to me!
Comment from: J Ryan Beattie posted at December 20, 2005 1:34 AM
Clearly, technology has it in for William G for rejecting its silicon love.
Comment from: dagbrown posted at December 20, 2005 3:00 AM
Actually, the Eric-gets-to-turn-off-comments feature suits me surprisingly well as a way of stopping nuisances in their tracks. After a couple of iterations of a "you just ruined that perfectly good thread for everybody!" smack, the nuisances might learn to behave.
Of course, out there in the ugly land of Practise rather than the beautiful principality of Theory, things are Likely To Be Different.
Comment from: Amanda W posted at December 20, 2005 3:36 AM
William G -- text on the 'net is just one form of communication (entirely verbal). In person, you get nonverbal communication as well. Either way, you are still only getting "an idea of a person" -- the only person who knows the whole person is that person himself, as he inevitably is a different person around other different people. If any of that makes sense.
Essentially, one dimension of communication is missing on the Internet, but that doesn't mean you aren't communicating with a real person. If one person in particular puts forth a different "idea" of himself online than he does offline, that is his own doing, his own choice -- it's not inherent in the medium, any more than you only put an "idea" of yourself forward on the telephone vs. meeting in person. Yes, the telephone lacks much of the dimension of NVC.
But that doesn't make the person communicating a different person. Just adds obstacles to communicating as effectively as in person. Just like being online and communicating solely in text means you completely lack NVC, and have to make up for it how you can, and step around where it's going to be completely missing. But if there's a different persona put forth online, well, that's the person's doing, not the computer's.
Two cents and all that. And my heartfelt congrats to the new parents -- I look forward to when I can join their ranks ;)
Comment from: KenM posted at December 20, 2005 3:44 AM
Man, with that last post I'm flashing back to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. (Well, Kant's ideas, but I've never actually read the Critique of Pure Reason. Just plain no time yet.) But yeah, the whole idea of the sense data of a person, and the ideas they input, as compared to the a priori idea of an individual you assume to be hiding there, but who you can't define except as a source of sense data/ideas.
Yeah, I guess that wasn't going anywhere. Yay babies!
Comment from: Freemage posted at December 20, 2005 3:54 AM
There's a problem with the 'turn off comments' option. For every guy who steps out of line and gets the message when they get tempbanned, or whatever, there's at least one more (or frequently more) who turn the banning itself into an issue. They behave worse when the tempban ends, and if they get permanently banned, they take the ten to fifteen seconds required to acquire a new internet 'persona' and come back to make even more profound trouble.
I've even seen cases where someone I regarded as fairly intelligent and level-headed went off on a crusade like that. Sure, it's ultimately pointless--but then, some people are pointless.
The only magic bullet is to fully moderate comments. As noted by Eric, this is absurdly time-intensive, requiring the moderator(s) to review each and every post individually. If Websnark wants to go that way, Eric would be well-advised to find about 5 or 10 people he really trusts to be impartial and unbiased in their decisions to assist with the filtering.
Comment from: Dire posted at December 20, 2005 4:33 AM
Chris: Glad to know that I'm not the only one.
Robert: That's why I usually open a new tab to post and then update the original to check just before posting.
Plus posting always makes me feel like I am making a commitment to the thread and I feel the need to keep checking and respond to any responders (rerespond? Does that make the original post a spond?).
Comment from: dagbrown posted at December 20, 2005 8:35 AM
Freemage: That's why I like Eric's current implementation. It's not "Hey, you, Mr. Individual, you're banned. Time out, dude." It's "alright, guys, that's it. Conversation over. Y'all shut up now, y'hear?" When one guy decides to ruin it for everyone, he really does ruin it for everyone. And that suits me just fine.
Comment from: William_G posted at December 20, 2005 9:33 AM
In person, you get nonverbal communication as well.
Well, that's where the important differnce is: You are aware of the person. You understand the feelings, and intents. I mean, if I say, "Fuck me" you'll be able to tell if it's an invitation, or an exclamation, or the name of my girlfriend.
(In this case, it's an invitation.)
And while I fully admit that I suck at not doing it, we ARE just getting bitchy at some text. I think we all know this, which is why almost all of us, Eric included, gets up in arms.
So, when me and (say) Scott Kurtz start bitching at each other, we're not bitching at the person. We're angry at text. It's stupid, but it shows that it's not the person we're fighting, just the ideas and concepts.
Seriously, if I met anyone I've ever had problems with on the web in person, I would invite them to sit down for drink or two. Kurtz, Krahulik, Holkins, Coffman, the recent addition of David Willis.. All of them.
And if we all decided each other were worthless cocksuckers afterwards, then fine.
But what we see on the web. This isnt a human being. It's text. It's easier to get angry at it because the human is not there.
Stupid? Sure.
But understandable. And I always assumed that this was something that is understood.
Comment from: William_G posted at December 20, 2005 9:35 AM
Oh yeah... Babies are cute, but I'd chop off my own sack before I'd have one of my own.
Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 20, 2005 10:10 AM
But what we see on the web. This isnt a human being. It's text. It's easier to get angry at it because the human is not there.
Stupid? Sure.
But understandable. And I always assumed that this was something that is understood.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I'm speaking in person or in online text I'm reflexively trying to present my thoughts and feelings as honestly and clearly as possible. It could be argued that my text persona is more accurate a representation of my true self because of, say, the half hour I spent composing a two-paragraph Websnark comment (not this one) in order to get it just right.
On the other hand it could be argued that that half hour lends the comment a lack of spontaneity and an intellectualized sheen that obscures my true self despite my genuine intention.
I think the gripping hand is, neither medium is necessarily truer, they're just different with their own benefits and flaws.
Comment from: larksilver posted at December 20, 2005 10:10 AM
Hmm. I met my significant other online, spending many long hours, over months, getting to know him. Of course, eventually, there was a meet-and-greet, and before that there were telephone conversations galore, but the kernel of our affection was developed in an online environment. I loved the man, not the idea, long before I knew what he smelled like.
I knew him as Clouddancer for a long time before I knew him as Robert. Heck, my nephew still calls him Cloudy. Thus, I have to firmly disagree that we cannot know the person behind the text. It's a matter of time, patience, and honesty.
What you see on the internet, here, is me. Snarky on occasion, but generally a freakin' Mary Sue, and that's okay with me. I know that some people take great delight in pretending to be one thing, and "fooling them all.muhahahaha"... but it's not true of all of us. So, as usual, it's best to take each individual as a unique individual, and not make great sweeping statements.
However, if you're unsure if that's a real person on the other end? Perhaps buyin' them a beer is a good thing... but I'd rather have hot cocoa.
Comment from: Scarybug posted at December 20, 2005 11:03 AM
It's harder to pull off than it is online, but people can be quite ingenuine in person too.
I mean, ever been to L.A.?
Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 20, 2005 11:11 AM
Oh, I don't think Los Angeles is any worse about it than any other place. Maybe they're more obvious about it there, but it kind of makes sense. It's a city that gleefully promotes itself for its manufacture of illusion - it's much easier to peek behind the curtain and see how fake everything is when so many people are in the fiction business.
Comment from: Scarybug posted at December 20, 2005 11:54 AM
It fills me with warmth and glee to know that Mike Krahulik's son will always be willing to come down from Colony to help his father fuse with the core mind.
Comment from: J Ryan Beattie posted at December 20, 2005 1:42 PM
William, there are plenty of misunderstandings in person as well. Even when people aren't trying to be false, it's still possible to thoroughly miss what they're trying to say. Sometimes it's possible to clarify. Just because you can see a person doesn't mean you can magically know what they're really like.
The internet just means you lose a degree of information, which means people have to be more careful to clarify what they mean and ask others to do the same. If the other person wants you to know what they're like, and you're patient, you'll probably learn what they're like, or at least as well as you'd learn in person. I submit that it's impossible to truly know anyone completely, even if you know them for years. If they don't want you to find out what they're like, or you don't take the time to learn, you'll never know. Which is just how it is in person.
Comment from: Amanda W posted at December 20, 2005 5:31 PM
Really, in person, you only ever get "an idea of a person" too -- you just get one more way to get that idea.
I mean, yeah, we're all reacting to "ideas of people" here. But you are in real life too. This is just a different medium for communicating those ideas, is all. If the idea isn't accurate -- that's the fault, again, of the person, not the medium.
Comment from: Amanda W posted at December 20, 2005 5:33 PM
Also, I agree with J Ryan Beattie. Hit on the point very well.
Take some communications courses, people!! ;)
Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 21, 2005 2:08 AM
We're reacting to William's argument as if his thesis were We're not ourselves on the internet when it's really We're not perceived by each other as selves on the internet, and I started it and I apologize.
Comment from: Merus posted at December 21, 2005 3:30 AM
Dammit, Eric, if you're going to start serving up top-tier commentary, I'm going to have to start reading again, and then I have to invoke the I Contain Multitudes clause. And no-one wants that.
But Merry Christmas to one and all, anyways.
Comment from: William_G posted at December 21, 2005 9:37 AM
We're reacting to William's argument as if his thesis were We're not ourselves on the internet when it's really We're not perceived by each other as selves on the internet, and I started it and I apologize.
That's pretty much it. And I maintain that until the human contact is initiated, we never will be able to make humans of the text they put out. We can can try, but we simply have gone through a million years of evolution for contact via monitors. Even widspread text communication is a recent thing.
So, lacking that human contact, we anthropomorphize the text.
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)