Higher-Fire Netiquette Document
Tyler Nally (tnally@iquest.net)
Tue, 03 Feb 1998 00:17:10 -0500
Greetings Saints in Jesus name!
Hey! You know what? It's 'bout that time again folks where we need
to remind *everyone* on the list about the H-F netiquette guidelines.
The thing is.... *absolutely* nobody's seen these except for me since
I've added a couple of things to the front of the document since they
are so often violated.... (and quite frankly I'm getting tired of sending
out e-mail saying why posts are being discarded) ....
The new points are #'s 1) e-mail attachments and 2) unbalanced post ...
This is also now viewable at the archives (as seen in the signature
file below) as well as an updated H-F FAQ with current e-mail contact
of all of the owner/moderators of H-F as well.
Happy reading saints!
Bro Tyler
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A Word about Netiquette (InterNET Etiquette)
--------------------------------------------
This document isn't an attempt to squelch the expression of the
different discussions of Higher-Fire. These guidelines are not meant to
suppress good, honest, and healthy discussions and questions. Rather,
they are here to promote harmony and unity among all subscribers. If a
discussion deviates outside one or more of these guidelines then the
parties involved should move that discussion off this list.
HIGHER-FIRE Netiquette
(This has been turned into a rant section. Do you have an email pet
peeve that you see on Higher-Fire involving netiquette? Send it in.)
1. Does the post you're sending have "attachments"?
You may or may not realize it, but your e-mail client may very well be
sending your e-mail in "chunks" called "attachments". It's common to have
e-mail delivered in MIME format. MIME stands for Multipart Internet Message
Extension (I think). Also, your e-mail client may also *code* your messages
in some kind of cryptography or html enhancements. Or, you may have a really
great testimony that's in a MS Word document that you'd like to share with
everyone on the list. If any of these are the case, you can be pretty well
assured that you're post won't be approved by the moderators.
Why?
Because not everybody on the list has software that will successfuly
decode the attachment. A very real situation. Also, realize that if you've
attached a word processing document, the listprocessor will often garble the
attachment to the point where it'll be completely unusable.
You'll probably be warned from the moderators about attachments before
they just start discarding the message from distribution. If there's a
setting for your e-mail client, set it to "Plain Text". That is the
combination that works best for all.
2. Is the post that you've sent "unbalanced" between the "old" message
(posted by someone else) exchange the "new" words you've added?
More often than not, this happens to most "newbies" to the list. What's a
newbie? A newbie is someone that's not been around the internet long enough
to know and understand the rules and protocols (do and don'ts) of sending
e-mail messages.
What do we mean by "unbalanced"? Let's say someone previously posted a
post with 57 lines of comments in it. You, in wanting to reply to the post
that you've just read, hit the "REPLY" button and the entire previous post
(e-mail headers and all) was copied into the outgoing message with some sort
of marking on the left-hand side to indicate "previously viewed material".
It copies the 57 lines of message, plus the additional 15 lines of e-mail
headers, then it copies any signature files that trail on the end of the
body of the message (another 4-6 lines) making a total of maybe 78 lines
of e-mail "before" you ever add any of your own words. You, not thinking
about it, just type your four lines of comments making the post you're
about to send in extremely "unbalanced". With a ratio of 4 to 78. Nearly
20 lines of old stuff compared to each line of new stuff. That is not a
good situation.
The "old" message can be trimmed down usually very dramatically by putting
a [snip] in the part of the text in the left-hand margin where text was cut
out of the body to signal that something was there. We, being intelligent
human beings, can recognize that when we see a [snip], we can recall back
in our memory to what the full-body of the text was that we currently aren't
viewing.
Usually a 50-100 line post can be trimmed down to 10-20 lines pretty easily.
Only keeping the amount of text to establish a context of reply. Belive
us, space can be saved.
Other no-no's along the same lines are e-mail headers and signature files
from previous posts. It's o.k. for the original poster to include a
signature file in "their" message. It's really not good to "quote"
someone else's signature file.
3. Have you captured more of the original post than is necessary?
If the first original word of your response isn't on the first page of
your post, you've got a problem. Don't quote someone else's entire
post to reply to it. Simply copy the relevant parts. Many mailers
have a function that will automatically copy the entire post putting in
the ">"s for you. Use this function with caution, and if you do use
it, delete the irrelevant lines. It's annoying to have to page down
about 4 times before you can read any fresh material. It also takes up
precious disk space because it makes your post larger.
4. Is the title of your post consistent with the subject therein?
5. Is your signature file longer than six (4-6) lines long?
6. Would you say it to the person's face or at church sanctuary
or fellowship hall?
If not, don't say it on Higher-Fire.
7. Are you angry?
If the primary motivation for the post is vindication or revenge, cool
off first. Go kick a file cabinet, bite your dog, grab a hamburger and
french fries and chocolate milk shake, eat some ice cream, have a cup
of coffee, and pray before you reply.
8. Is the other guy flaunting his ignorance?
Even when someone else's argument is stupid, to tell them so rarely
causes them to change their mind. Instead, they can often become
defensive and flood the list with even more stupid arguments. So don't
inflict that on the rest of us. The only thing worse than a stupid
argument is the defense of a stupid argument.
9. Has the message been spell-checked for errors?
Sometimes, the thought-finger coordination doesn't produce perfectly
spelled documents sent to the list. We've all endured our share of
typographical errors in reading and writing. Is there a spell checking
function built into the emailing program? Or could the document be
produced and then checked by invoking an spelling utility? It might be
in your best interest to find out. Spelling errors imply that the
composer may seem to be ... "not smart." I realize, that in all cases
this isn't possible. But I can only think that correcting the spelling
errors by re-reading the message before resending it can only help.
I've heard that a good way to do that is to read the document from
bottom to top while reading left to right. That might make you look
harder at what was just written so you might not miss anything.
10. Is the subject line relevant?
Subject lines like "What?" are cute, but not very helpful to those who
have to sort their mail by subject.
11. Keep subject lines up-to-date.
One problem that arises here is a matter of taste. Some people want
Subject: lines to change as fast as the topic drifts; others complain
that when Subject: lines change, they can't follow the discussion.
One good way to handle this is to change the Subject: line when the
topic has drifted significantly, but to include a reference to the old
Subject: line. This is an old Usenet tradition, and it might look
like this:
>Subject: Jesus Name Baptism (was: Re: Baptizing in the Titles of God)
12. Does your posting mention Hitler? Nazis?
Godwin's Law: When Hitler or Nazis are brought up in a
thread, it has been going on too long.
If someone compares you to Nazis, Satanists, or some other repulsive
form of human being, you've won the argument, because they have nothing
rational left to say. Leave it at that....
13. Does your post repeatedly bash another's opinions, integrity, or
intelligence?
Such an action may result in an internalization of directed shame.
We're all born in sin. And shaped in iniquity. And saved by grace.
We don't need someone else (other than ourselves) heaping words that
cause bad feelings. In a world that is constantly picking and tearing
down the saint with relentless fervor, do we need brothers and sisters
of like faith to do the same?
Does the casting down of another's belief system put you on the
pedestal of a prizefighter that's just gone for the kill? If you said
it and later realized your error, would you willing and able to gather
enough humility to apologize to that person and others on Higher-Fire?
My pastor would quote scripture saying "Out of the abundance of the
heart, the mouth speaketh." In this case, "Out of the abundance of the
heart, the fingers type." A man is defiled by what proceeds out of his
mouth. Does the potential poisonous post you're about to submit reveal
something that might show an inner condition of the heart that needs
more attention than the submission of the post?
-------------------------other considerations-------------------------
A. Does your post contain WORDS that are in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS!!!
Caution should be used when posting in ALL CAPS because it is commonly
equated to SHOUTING very loudly. Many folks can be offended by
CONSTANT or ABUSE OF CAPITAL LETTERS in a MESSAGE because of its STRONG
EMPHASIS.
If you want to emphasize words in a sentence. Maybe you should try
using double-quote marks "like this" to draw attention, or maybe
asterisks *like this*, or possibly even underscores _like this_.
There are times when writing in a CAPITAL LETTERS may be appropriate.
If you need to find out how it would sound, write the message with the
choice words in CAPITAL LETTERS. Then read it back to yourself. If
the words or phase that is EMPHASIZED by the capital letters sounds a
little peculiar when you repeat the CAPITALIZATION at a "shouted level"
in your mind, it's probably too strong of an emphasis and you need to
choose a different way to *emphasize* words without _shouting_ at the
other saints.
B. Are you monopolizing the conversation by posting too much?
Instead of replying at length to each message in a thread, compile your
replies into one post. This forces you to think about such things as
structure and reasoned argument as you pull together the many lines of
thought in a thread. It is also much more pleasant to read.
C. Are you writing to the list, or just agreeing with the sender?
If the main message of your post is to say "Amen!" or "I agree
totally," please send the post privately. Readers don't usually do a
tally to see how many people agree with a particular point of view.
The point of posting to Higher-Fire is to add to a discussion, blessing
people on the list, or other reasons of saint edification. Sending a
post that quotes someone else at length and then just saying "Amen" at
the bottom does not add to the discussion. It merely adds volume to
the list. If you want the person to know you support them, tell them
so in private mail.
If you feel an "Amen!" is absolutely necessary, please include
something fresh as to how the previous post blessed you, effected you,
caused you to think more deeply about something.
D. Has someone else already said what you want to say?
Read all the posts from HIGHER-FIRE (at least with the subject you want
to reply to) before you reply. It's nice to be the first to offer a
suggestion, or make a reply, or ask a question in response to a post,
but because we are all from different parts of the world and we don't
all get mail at the same time it is impossible to always be first.
Make sure someone hasn't beaten you to the punch, and if they have,
keep quiet and just follow along in the thread until you CAN add
something unique.
As an aside, the H-F archives are kept on the WWW at
http://eli.wariat.org/upc/net/higher-fire/
E. Are you posting an opinion on a topic, or have you become the
topic?
F. Are you being disruptive?
G. Has the discussion ground to a halt?
Sometimes, a discussion reaches the point where it is clear that
neither person is going to convince the other. It is often best, in
these instances, to bow out gracefully.
Finally, do not subscribe to the theory that "some things just demand a
reply!" Nothing demands a reply. Sometimes it requires restraint to
keep from replying, but there's nothing wrong with remaining silent. I
only know of one time that Jesus got angry and started shouting, even
though there were many provocations. And when he did, he wasn't
defending himself, he was defending the sanctity of the house of God.
------------------------This Netiquette Document----------------------
This document will be on-hand by the moderators of the list.
Eventually, it'd be a good thing to add this document to the
Higher-Fire archives at Prairienet for quick and near-immediate
retrieval. This document will also be sent automatically to the
composer of the message when the spirit of the message goes against the
spirit of the Higher-Fire list upon the rejection of a post. That will
give the poster a chance to retract, reword, rethink, rebuild,
re-whatever is necessary to the message so that it will comply with the
above mentioned guidelines and bring glory to God.
I recommend you keep a copy of this document as a tool of measure to
judge what you are about to write and send to the recipients of the
Higher-Fire list.
--
Bro Tyler Nally <tnally@iquest.net> <tgnally@prairienet.org>
ICQ: http://www.mirabilis.com/3658585
Higher-Fire Oneness Apostolic Emailing List
Send To: listproc@prairienet.org
a) Subscribe SUB HIGHER-FIRE Your Name
b) UnSubscribe UNSUB HIGHER-FIRE
c) Postpone Mail SET HIGHER-FIRE MAIL POSTPONE
d) Resume Mail SET HIGHER-FIRE MAIL ACK
e) Change to H-F Digests SET HIGHER-FIRE MAIL DIGEST
f) Check H-F Settings SET HIGHER-FIRE
g) Review H-F Subscription REVIEW HIGHER-FIRE
H-F Homepage : http://www.prairienet.org/upci/h-f.html
H-F Nettiquette : http://www.elilabs.com/upc/net/higher-fire/netiq.html
WWW Archives : http://www.elilabs.com/upc/net/higher-fire
H-F F.A.Q. : http://www.elilabs.com/upc/net/higher-fire/FAQ.html
H-F Channel : http://www.elilabs.com/upc/net/higher-fire/pointcast
H-F QuickTour : http://www.prairienet.org/~tgnally/HigherFireTour.html
H-F Questionaire : http://www.prairienet.org/upci/questions.html