Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:00:10 -0500 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
A while ago we discussed questions regarding flaming or hypercritical
criticism. Jim Fructerman has some thoughts on this which I thought were
worth sharing. Jim is President of Arkenstone, which makes such popular
products as the Open Book and Atlas Speaks.
kelly
>From:
"Jim Fruchterman"<[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
>
> This is a short essay on flaming and email listservs, because I think
> it would be helpful to share my philosophy on the topic.
>
> 1. The existence of Flaming.
>
> As many internet old-timers can tell you, flaming has been with us for
> quite a while. Flame mail is electronic mail messages that are sent
> that
> would be unacceptable due to their tone, language and personal
> attacks in
> most other forms of media. Other, more learned observers have analyzed
> this phenomena, and have expressed opinions on why people send email
> messages with sentiments that they would never express in
> person. Perhaps
> it's the asynchronous nature of the media, the immediacy of the send
> button, or the captive audience.
>
> 2. How to respond to flames.
>
> Some people think you can fight flames with flames. I believe they are
> wrong. People who flame have strong opinions (often negative) and are
> looking for attention. Responding in kind usually justifies their
> negative attitudes, and leads to escalation in the war of words.
> Disagreements over important and material points of interest to people
> on an email list get obscured when one party supports its side with
> contending that the only way the opposing side could reach a different
> conclusion is to be intellectually or morally dishonest, mentally
> defective and so on.
>
> The best way to respond to flames is to ignore them. You can't start
> a fire if there's nothing to burn. When people send flame mail and
> find that nobody answers them, they start thinking about why that is
> the case, and take a more constructive tack to getting their ideas
> across.
>
> 3. Why listserv moderators don't want to kick flamers off lists.
>
> Revoking a person's participation in an electronic list is a remedy of
> last resort. The Internet encourages free speech as much as possible.
> Many people who resort to flame tactics have important contributions
> to make, even if their behavior in the social context of an email
> community is unpleasant. The solution is to encourage responsible
> behavior, rather than coerce or forbid it.
>
> This should be done in private emails, not public criticism. One
> person's flamer is another person's advocate.
>
> Jim Fruchterman
>
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask] In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
|
|
|