Author
|
Topic: FAQ BBS Etiquette Collection (Read 51608 times) |
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.54
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
 
|
 |
FAQ BBS Etiquette Collection
« on: 2011-03-13 04:10:52 » |
 |
This thread is to entertain notions of etiquette in using the BBS in order to make the forum more readable and understandable for others, to nurture productive conversations, and as a guide to orient those new here trying understand community expectations.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.54
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
The use of chat logs on the BBS
« Reply #1 on: 2011-03-13 05:49:37 » |
|
The BBS page linking into the official IRC channel for the Church of Virus, #virus, can be found here http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=;action=chat.
Usually the channel is logged, and you can tell if this is the case if loglady is in the channel with an active voice notation by her name. Chat logs can be found here http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=;action=chatlog. Be sure to select "#virus" Channel in the view and search menus as there are many other channels on the menu, and if you don't select one the default is the alphabetical first one on the menu (currently "#ai" as of this writting). You can find out more about using the #virus IRC channel by checking out the IRC FAQ Collection at http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=31;action=display;threadid=11574.
I have often used #virus chat logs in my own BBS posts, and I have seen others do it as well. This can be very effective at promoting conversations in both places when done properly. The question has arisen on the BBS lately about the proper way to use chatlogs, and so I will outline here my way which others may copy.
There are two problems of context when posting chatlogs to the BBS. First of all you cannot tell from the chatlog who was actually present in the IRC channel when the conversation occurred. Many people may have been present and reading, but not actually chatting into the channel, so their presence will not be noted in the chatlog. Also those present and reading may decide to respond privately to the person who is typing publicly in the channel, and that won't appear in the chatlog either.
The second problem, is that conversations in the #virus channel are live and are not discreet messages like those on the BBS. A rant in the #virus channel can last for days with people leaving their keyboards for minutes and hours and returning repeatedly. Some people will even return the next day and continue the discussion with the understanding that others involved in the conversation may also be checking the chatlogs to see what was said in their last absence.
For these reasons, I suggest that it's generally a bad idea to be posting chatlogs on the BBS unless you were personally involved in the conversation. Otherwise you run a very high risk of messing up the context both for the participants in the #virus channel as well as people reading the chatlogs on the BBS, and probably rendering your message meaningless in regard to the posted chatlog. Especially when this is done to play "gotcha" games, posting chatlogs where you didn't actually participate in the conversation comes off as trollish behavior. I also suggest that when posting chatlogs, to cite it with a link to the permanent url. This can be found at the top of the chatlog clicking on the linked text where it says, "Bookmark the permanent url.". That way when others read your chatlog text they can go to the logs themselves if they have other questions about context.
The major exception to this convention is when there is a scheduled chat. See http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=43690;start=0;boardseen=1 and http://www.churchofvirus.org/wiki/VirusWeeklyChat for an example. In this case the scheduling announcement forms a reliably discreet beginning time for the relevant chatlog, and participants are on notice to a specific subject with the expectation that the chatlog will formally reflect this conversation. Therefore posting chatlogs from scheduled chats poses less of a context problem. Unless otherwise stated the presumption is that a scheduled chat lasts one hour. Of course they may carry on longer than that if participants wish to stay and continue, however since it's difficult to discern a discreet ending point after the hour it may not a good idea to be posting chatlogs too far past the scheduled hour unless you were personally involved in the continuing conversation.
I offer this only as a convention. You can of course post any chatlogs you wish as they are open to the public, however doing so in an unconventional way may draw negative judgments from others on the BBS (ie. that you are "trolling") and in the Meridion reputation system. If you think something in the chatlogs can be constructive to a BBS topic, but you weren't present, then I would suggest when in doubt to contact one of the actual participants about it before making the decision to post the chatlogs to the BBS.
Here is an example of mine on the BBS which I consider conventionally appropriate:
Re:Libya
« Reply #2 on: 2011-02-22 16:20:58 »
Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2011-02-22 17:20:58 Had a little chatty in #virus with Lucifer and Sat. Blunderov's spoiled chess game shall be avenged! 
http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=69;action=chatlog2;channel=%23virus;date=2011-02-22;time=14:41;start=0;max=63
14:41:30 Lucifer
Lucifer (~david.mcf@[death to spam].66.244.232.254) has joined #virus
14:41:30 ChanServ
Mode change [+o Lucifer] on #virus by ChanServ
14:41:35 Lucifer arrr
14:41:43 Sat avast
14:42:43 MoEnzyme ahoy, Lucifer! 
14:42:52 Lucifer Yo, Mo!
14:43:10 Lucifer how goes the battle?
14:43:22 Sat Mo 1 Crabs 3
14:43:30 MoEnzyme ah, yeah. Libya is the next domino to fall, just waiting.
14:43:54 Lucifer that's a good bet
14:44:08 Sat How about Yemen or Baharain?
14:44:12 MoEnzyme My secret forces of insurrection are slowly taking over the world on regieme at a time.
14:44:27 Sat Mo's sooo Illuminatti
14:44:29 MoEnzyme those will take a little longer. I think Libya is next.
14:44:44 Sat I gues Shrub was right.
14:44:47 Sat * Sat grins
14:44:51 Lucifer heh that's what I was thinking
14:44:58 Lucifer Dubya is vindicated!
14:44:58 Sat ^8
14:45:01 Sat lol
14:45:03 Lucifer ^8
14:46:03 Sat And since Mo claims it's his plan we know know the mind behind the Neocon Conspiracy!
14:46:18 Lucifer diabolical!
14:46:18 MoEnzyme Although according to http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20110212_WOC160.gif Yemen is pretty high on the list.
14:47:26 MoEnzyme I know!
14:48:22 MoEnzyme * MoEnzyme and googlebot have been keeping our NeoCon credentials top secret . . . until NOW Now that it's too late for the sheeple of the world to resist our evil influence.
14:48:26 googlebot When I was a kid my favorite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school we'd all go play in his cave, and every once in a while he would eat one of us. It wasn't until later that I found out that Uncle Caveman was a bear.
14:48:35 MoEnzyme MuuuuuuuuuaaaaaHaaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
14:49:57 Lucifer all hail the man behind the curtain!
14:50:20 Lucifer * Lucifer bows before the Mighty Mo
14:50:40 Sat * Sat grovels
14:51:18 MoEnzyme * MoEnzyme throw scraps from the table to Sat and Lucifer, saving the juiciest leftover for googlebot!
14:51:20 googlebot If any man says he hates war more than I do, he better have a knife, that's all I have to say.
14:51:50 Lucifer today the Squid enjoyed a slice of ham and commented how much he likes "pig juice"
14:52:01 Sat * Sat likes pi jiuce too
14:52:08 MoEnzyme mmmmmmmmmmm, pig juice! Yummy!
14:52:17 Sat I like cow juice as well
14:55:54 MoEnzyme Gadafi has already lost the eastern half of the country, the entire foreign diplomatic corps, and lots of his police and military have defected. It's just a question of how much pathetic tenacity he has in him before he accepts the inevitable.
14:56:45 Sat * Sat experiences deja Mo
14:56:54 MoEnzyme So Libya is the next one. Yemen could be soon behind.
14:56:55 MoEnzyme http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20110212_WOC160.gif
14:56:59 MoEnzyme heh, Sat
14:57:34 Sat We're definitely much better conversationalists in #virus.
14:58:09 MoEnzyme Well, I'm still getting used to demonpop. It's a different crowd.
14:58:20 Sat * Sat nods
14:58:24 MoEnzyme though seemingly compatible.
14:58:32 Sat it is the internet
15:03:22 MoEnzyme Blunderov is all over this Arab uprising thing. I suppose it's his continent anyways, but apparently he was playing internet chess with someone in Libya when Gadafi pulled the plug . . . http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=69;action=display;threadid=43683
15:03:58 Lucifer Blunderov directly oppressed by Gadaffi!
15:04:07 Lucifer no chess for you!
15:04:22 Sat denied!
15:04:27 MoEnzyme * MoEnzyme nods
15:04:34 MoEnzyme denied!
15:05:07 MoEnzyme Gadafi must die for ruining Blunderov's chess game!!
15:05:28 MoEnzyme * MoEnzyme punches some commands into his secret computer to make it so.
15:07:29 MoEnzyme Heh, when they come for him, he'll be asking things like "Is this because I bombed my fellow countrymen with military aircraft?" And they'll be like, "hell no! Far Worse, PUNK!! You ruined Blunderov's chess game!!!!"
15:08:06 MoEnzyme * MoEnzyme nudges googlebot to follow through on the threat.
15:08:07 Sat fear the wrath of the interupted chess master.
15:08:08 googlebot Sometimes I think the world has gone completely mad. And then I think, "Aw, who cares?" And then I think, "Hey, what's for supper?"
15:09:00 Lucifer very insightful, googlebot
15:09:03 googlebot ask the rhino
15:09:15 Lucifer How did googlebot know I was thinking of the rhino?
15:09:19 googlebot super
|
at:http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=69;action=display;threadid=43683
And here are a few more examples:
Re:Egypt
« Reply #10 on: 2011-02-18 13:46:43 »
Has evidence for alien life been found?
« on: 2011-03-06 20:43:04 »
Re:Has evidence for alien life been found?
« Reply #2 on: 2011-03-09 12:36:01 »
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:FAQ BBS Etiquette Collection
« Reply #2 on: 2011-03-13 18:25:14 » |
|
On a point of order.
When a subject is raised on a particular thread, even when it is apparently off-topic, particularly when it pertains to an individual or individuals or the practices of particular individuals, then, baring a mutual agreement to move inappropriate material to some more appropriate place, it is always appropriate to respond to that topic there, and to leave the responses there, even if the person who initially raised that subject is dishonest enough to delete or edit their posts in order to make the responder seem to be making off-topic posts.*.
This should serve as a strong reason for people not to comment on others and to avoid introducing extraneous subjects in threads they wish to keep clean. According to prior practice, any thread, even significant FAQ threads, containing personal attacks by any party are eligible for moderation to the pit, leaving only a redirection pointer. While this is regrettable in the sense that anyone can force threads off the public areas of the BBS, it is a consequence of the BBS software not permitting unmarked deletion and forcing a moderator to move a complete thread rather than individual posts.
As the CoV previously preferred not to have moderators other than Lucifer, who also has a life to lead, any vestigial untidiness on the BBS is the responsibility of the posters.
A further criticism of comments made in this alleged FAQ, which are blatantly aimed at the practices of identifiable people other than the FAQ initiator, would be that when people discuss the same topic, people or practices in logged facilities of the CoV, then it is always appropriate to quote it, as it is blatantly disingenuous to allege that the responder is "quoting out of context" as it is quite apparent from the logs what the context is.**
Finally, this section is not appropriate for discussing or developing a practice or policy, which should occur on the wiki ( or elsewhere as agreed as per http://www.churchofvirus.org/wiki/PolicyProposals ) and only once the practice is accepted by means of a vote should a FAQ should be written describing the accepted practice. As such I recommend that Lucifer move this thread to a more appropriate location and as soon as this post is made, I will submit this thread for moderation.
*Yes, I'm looking at Mo Enzyme, the initiator of this alleged FAQ, who has repeatedly made this his practice.
**Yes, I'm still looking at Mo Enzyme, the initiator of this alleged FAQ.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.54
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:The use of chat logs on the BBS
« Reply #3 on: 2011-03-13 19:25:00 » |
|
Since we finally had a regularly scheduled chat today, I would point BBS members to this as a good example of how to properly post chat logs for a scheduled chat, as I discussed above:
http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=63;action=display;threadid=43702;start=0;boardseen=1
This was today's scheduled chat - the first one in almost four years - and so I think this is good etiquette in doing so. It's not exactly a policy, but I think it's fairly readable and understandable which is one of many things that BBS etiquette is all about anyways. Plus with the helpful link to the permanent URL, the BBS user can easily reference the archived chatlogs if they would like to see the context in which the chat actually took place. We are hoping to make better use of the #virus IRC this way for both scheduled and unscheduled chats so I think these are good things to clarify. If anyone disagrees about what is proper etiquette in these matters this thread is a good place to clarify such things and state their rationales.
MoEnzyme
ps. next two message consolidated into this one as separate quotes.
Quote:MoEnzyme
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 2157
Reputation: 8.47
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
Re:FAQ BBS Etiquette Collection
« Reply #4 on: 2011-03-14 13:26:51 »
Another important difference between chatlogs and BBS posts lies in the fact that Google Bing and other internet search engines cannot search the chatlogs. BBS posts on the other hand can appear in these searches. Therefore chatlogs really aren't public in the way that BBS posts are. So when a person posts things from the chat logs where they weren't actually involved in the conversation, that's really dragging something into public in a way it was likely not intended. That's probably even more significant than the other issues of context I mentioned above.
« Last Edit: 2011-03-14 13:31:16 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator Logged
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow) |
Quote:MoEnzyme
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 2157
Reputation: 8.47
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
Re:FAQ BBS Etiquette Collection
« Reply #5 on: 2011-03-15 at 00:30:41 »
Hermit,
I've read your point of order. As this is a FAQ and not a normal discussion thread, within a few days I'm going to delete these later messages of mine and edit my second message relating to chatlogs to consolidate all the points into one message making it a single message and hence more readable. The issues regarding chatlogs haven't changed. As they aren't as public as the BBS (not searchable via google etc.), posting chatlogs in which the poster didn't actually participate certainly alters the privacy/publicity expectations unlike quoting material already on the BBS. My finally edited chatlog FAQ will emphasize this point more prominently in addition to the other issues of context. I will also edit out the bad examples as they upset you, although they remain bad examples of etiquette. Indeed I'll go ahead and delete them out now since that's easy enough. Otherwise I'm keeping the rest of the material so far, only editing it down into the second message on this thread and deleting my later messages here within this week. You've made some issue about my deleting messages, so this is my notice to you . Perhaps that topic might make another useful item in the BBS etiquette collection.
ps at approx 13:40:00 3/15/2010 - not to keep adding more messages as this isn't a real discussion thread, yet to address Mermaid's query in the next message -- this isn't an issue of putting up extra privacy bars. The bars are already there. Chatlogs are not searchable via Google - that's the way it already works. Since I'm going to delete this post within the week I'll take the liberty of using graphic metaphor I used on another thread with you to make this clearer for you. Posting material from the chatlogs you didn't participate in amounts to metaphorically and unilaterally ripping off the privacy bars yourself and grabbing material which wasn't so public (you retrieve someone else's turd out the toilet) and placing them in a much more public place (and place it on your dining room table for group discussion.). If you have some better points to make about it, please feel free to share, preferrably in a ps or other sort of edit to your message, so we don't keep making this FAQ thread unnecessarily longer.
« Last Edit: Today at 14:03:41 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator Logged
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow) |
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.47
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:FAQ BBS Etiquette Collection
« Reply #4 on: 2011-03-15 12:08:26 » |
|
I am a simple person. So I will put it simply. If a house has it's doors and windows thrown wide open, can a passerby be asked to feel free to peek into the house through one window, but admonished when he looks into another. It's the same house after all.
One would assume that a progression of events occurring on a straight time line can be narrated even if it is witnessed through two different windows. If something has to be hidden, windows should be barred.
I guess the question boils down to...does cov needs barred windows? Does it look like a cathedral through one window and screams CRIBS through another? Why not pick one theme and stick to it? Why confuse passerbys and lure them into entering the building?
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.54
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:FAQ BBS Etiquette Collection
« Reply #5 on: 2011-04-05 23:31:08 » |
|
To Hermit, Mermaid, and any others objecting to the FAQ regarding the use of chatlogs I refer you to the corresponding free for all thread I've created for venting your objections. To date, I've noted nothing changing in our online environment which alters any of my preceding points. So this message is simply notice to you that I will be editing/deleting/consildating my points down to my second post on the FAQ thread for ease of future readings. If you wish to vent in an ongoing discussion, grievances, etc. then I refer you to the appropriate free for all thread on this topic http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=43713;start=0;boardseen=1 as my posts on this FAQ thread are henceforth subject to editings/deletions for ease of reading as a FAQ as I've previously noted here and yet note again for your convenience.
Love,
Mo
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
