In the 90s we had so much discussions about netiquette on usenet. It seems naive now.
But we didn't have mods then which I think makes a difference.
Fidonet Rules (2014)
11–20 of 53 posts
Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)
#12Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)
#13Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)
#14The reason why I posted this, was that I find it kind-of interesting for the "culture wars" that plague public discourse - especially in the US, but with a global fall-out - where a number of topics are mis-used as either political maces (don't annoy others) or/and to claim a victim status (don't be easily annoyed), therefore making them radioactive for everybody else who does not want to engage in the game.
Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)
#15Good rules, I've been guilty of breaking both but I find things are a lot more pleasant if I don't.
People violating these rules on social media are big neon warning lights. Mute, and move on with your life. There are so many intelligent and pleasant people out there in cyberspace.
Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)
#16We do understand humans are involved,right? This is the only chance for success. You can only forgive if you can manage the hurt. You won't be annoyed if you've already made up your mind not to be. (excepting children and loud noises, of course.)
Emphasis on the "excessively"; my comment here is annoying for being pedantic perhaps, but it's manageable. Excessive annoyance crosses a threshold to being a troll.
Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)
#17In the 90s we had so much discussions about netiquette on usenet. It seems naive now.
Yours truly have translated RFC 1855 to Hungarian some three decades ago.
Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)
#18In the 90s we had so much discussions about netiquette on usenet. It seems naive now.
I remember a lot of arguments about how a signature should look…
You could have just had your Geek Code in there to be efficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Code for the people who didn't get to experience it
Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)
#19Re: Fidonet Rules (2014)
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember a lot of arguments about how a signature should look…
About the number of bytes a signature was supposed to be....
80 bytes was the limit in Italy.
At that time in Italy we did not have free local phone calls, every call would be billed based on its duration.
Now imagine being a Fidonet sysop who on a volunteer basis was running a computer at home 24/7, often having a second phone line dedicated to the computer (at the time even more expensive) to make sure that your users would not clog your home landline making you unreachable all day. Plus overnight your system would need to dial up and connect to your hub and exchange all data produced by your user's discussions (echomail). All the costs were on the sysop and the national hubs in Italy would then exchange with a system running in Belgium or the Netherlands, system which would in turn then exchange with USA. Flat rates did not exist (at least in Italy), and no sysop was asking (at least in Italy) end users to contribute with money or a subscription.
That is why content was moderated in the first place, to avoid off topic discussions that would waste byte and increase the bills. For this reason you would also need to limit signatures, tag-lines and so forth to 80 bytes, which IMHO are more than enough for a signature, unless you want to add ASCII ART to it.