[edited from email to and from "/*" a.k.a. mjmh@bu.edu] From: "Paul A. Estin" To: mjmh@bu.edu cc: estin Subject: Re: Kateri's Challenge: Original vs. Current alt.callahans Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 01:16:05 -0500 Paul the Snark, whom you hadn't even noticed was back in the Place, sidles up to you, unbeknownst to the other patrons.... [...] BTW, I just this week learned how to use a better newsreader (one that allows far easier filtering and skimming), although I doubt I'll be returning to alt.callahans with much frequency. I *had* been thinking of using the present topic as a jumping-off point to mention why I originally left a.c suddenly back in March '93 (I never did give a proper "good-bye" post, mostly because anything I wrote at that time would've just made me look bitter). In any case, given the ugly turns of the present conversation, I think I'll take a pass. If you're curious, though, the quick version of the reason is : "Because I finally broke myself of the illusion that alt.callahans is the Place that Spider invented." For several reasons. Here is one: Jonathan looked around at us, on the verge. "All of you really want to hear this?" Nods, murmurs, one way or another everybody said yes. "You'll listen nonjudgmentally." Doc Webster folded his hands across his great belly and said, "No, we're human beings. But *good* judges come in a spectrum between fair and merciful, and I'd have to say this group definitely falls on the merciful end of things." "We wouldn't forgive Hitler," Long-Drink said by way of clarification. Jonathan, of course, assumed the Drink was using the word "wouldn't" in the subjunctive, rather than the simple past tense. "In that case, it... ah... might be touch and go," he said. "But we heard him out first," Long-Drink added. - Spider Robinson, _The Callahan Touch_, pp. 47-8. The above passage doesn't sound at all like the a.c I knew of in early '93. Most folks on a.c would err on the side of passing no judgment whatsoever, while the rest would flame anything that moved. And I doubt that conditions have changed for the better since then. The Snark Paul Andrew Estin "Haiku's inventor U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology must have had seven fingers estin@umich.edu on his middle hand." --BAA23412.802764966/kimbark.uchicago.edu-- From: mjmh@crsa.bu.edu (Michael J.M. Holmes) To: "Paul A. Estin" Subject: Re: Kateri's Challenge: Original vs. Current alt.callahans Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 12:25:00 -0500 [...] >BTW, I just this week learned how to use a better newsreader (one that >allows far easier filtering and skimming), although I doubt I'll be >returning to alt.callahans with much frequency. I *had* been thinking >of using the present topic as a jumping-off point to mention why I >originally left a.c suddenly back in March '93 (I never did give a >proper "good-bye" post, mostly because anything I wrote at that time >would've just made me look bitter). In any case, given the ugly turns >of the present conversation, I think I'll take a pass. Ugly? Is it really that bad? I had hoped it was staying fairly civil... a couple of Patrons have mentioned to me that they have renewed interest in alt.callahans due in part to the discussion Kateri started. I really don't want it to be a good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, old way vs. new way kind of thing... it's my belief that there is value in a lot of different styles of presentation, and some of the elements of the 'old callahans' that might be missing in the 'new callahans' could be successfully and usefully re-integrated... not re-creating the 'old' but putting a new spin on the current callahans. >If you're curious, though, the quick version of the reason is : >"Because I finally broke myself of the illusion that alt.callahans is >the Place that Spider invented." That I can understand. I know a lot of people become disappointed or disillusioned when they find this out. I don't think I did, because I don't think I really expected it to be... I mean, how can a place made up of dozens of individual personalities really re-create a place inhabited by personalities who were all created by a single personality (Spider). I think we can try to come close, but it would be amazing to me if we really were able to do that. > For several reasons. Here is one: [...] >The above passage doesn't sound at all like the a.c I knew of in early >'93. Most folks on a.c would err on the side of passing no judgment >whatsoever, while the rest would flame anything that moved. And I >doubt that conditions have changed for the better since then. *sigh* No, probably not that much. Though some of us are trying. Thanks, Snark (or Paul, whichever you prefer!) I do appreciate your comments. And I hope that you do feel free to contribute publically, if the situation seems right for you. take care, mike /* "Happiness Will Prevail!!!" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From: Paul Estin To: mjmh@crsa.bu.edu (Michael J.M. Holmes) cc: estin@umich.edu Subject: Re: Kateri's Challenge: Original vs. Current alt.callahans Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 15:40:24 -0400 No public posting yet, though I'm happy to carry on through email. (In general, I'm hesitant to post unless I feel both comfortable and strongly-opinionated... which leads to the odd effect that people assume I'm strongly-opinionated about *everything*. :-) [...] >>would've just made me look bitter). In any case, given the ugly turns >>of the present conversation, I think I'll take a pass. >Ugly? Is it really that bad? I had hoped it was staying fairly civil... a >couple of Patrons have mentioned to me that they have renewed interest in >alt.callahans due in part to the discussion Kateri started. Well, since James is a friend and I've met Kitten twice in RL, it's not very pleasant to see them fighting. And I don't wish to take sides publically. >I really don't want it to be a good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, old way vs. >new way kind of thing... it's my belief that there is value in a lot of >different styles of presentation, and some of the elements of the 'old >callahans' that might be missing in the 'new callahans' could be >successfully and usefully re-integrated... not re-creating the 'old' but >putting a new spin on the current callahans. I'm hesitant to comment on old vs. new, because I don't have time to fully read all the posts on a.c currently, so I don't feel that I can make a truly informed judgment. However, that fact *itself* speaks volumes-- it's hard to imagine retaining as good a sense of "coherent community" when it's nearly impossible to read all the posts anymore. Anyway, I'm too pessimistic to say merely, "Gosh, things were much better in my day." My point is, they weren't that hot then, either. And I think I know why. Most of my problems with a.c are/were true of Usenet in general. In a nutshell: it's too big, and there's too much loss of civility due to anonymity. I don't mean just anonymity in the extreme sense of "Ha! I can be an asshole because no one really knows who I am!" It's that there is a value to meeting people FACE-TO-FACE, and the effects carry over into other forms of communication. Once two people meet in RL, it's much easier for them, when there is a disagreement, to give each other the benefit of the doubt. For example, a person is likely to respond to a potentially inflammatory remark with "what do you mean by that?" instead of assuming the worst. When I left a.c, I co-founded a mailing list. Currently membership stands at 23, a good number I think, and we're aided in our quest for civil general-topic discussion by the fact that many of us have met in RL (indeed, a majority of us went to the same college). In fact, I think I've met all but one of the members in RL at some point. My personal comparison? While a.c provides more diversity, and allows people to meet new people, the mailing list is better for "general purpose discussion." The signal-to-noise ratio is *much* better; in fact, I digest everything because I realized I'd want to save about 40% of it anyway. Not only are the topics more to my liking, but there is much less time spent arguing in circles, explaining and reexplaining misunderstandings and misconceptions, hearing arguments I've already *heard* and rejected (or incorporated into my thinking), and, of course, flaming. We have a history; people have reputations and memories. That just can't be duplicated on a large "open" group like a.c. (One other note: originally a.c was a great place in part *because* of the anonymity-- I could express a personal worry to people who had some *distance* from the situation. I realized I had lost that aspect of a.c when my biggest personal problem was my (now ex-) SO... since she was also on a.c! It would have been very crude to bring up relationship problems and accusations in that forum. So I settled for using a.c for only "general purpose discussion" until finally, as I noted above, the negatives outweighed the positives.) However, as much as I prefer my mailing list, even *we* have had our problems. I note that the two people who *did* choose to leave, due to "not fitting in", had only met one other person (me) on the list. I don't think the arguments that ensued were due to inherent disagreements so much as due to each side "not really knowing" the other, and so failing to give the benefit of the doubt. *I* knew wasn't really so callous as to suggest , but others on the list interpreted him that way. Anyway, my main point is, I've come to the conclusion that it's nearly impossible to duplicate the effects of face-to-face meeting (though realtime communications like MUDs and MUCKs come much closer to doing so than email and postings). When the "newbie" rate is excessively high (as it has been on Usenet for years), it *is* impossible for everyone to be sufficiently "socialized". Further thoughts... I suppose different people must have different levels of ability to "sustain the illusion" of a coherent group and place. Clearly those people on a.c who now feel betrayed by Didi were able to "sustain the illusion" much more than I did; I never truly *felt* like she was a real person. But my guess is that, over time, the only people who will be able to sustain the illusion are going to disproportionately be those who are out of touch with *Real* Life. My own period on a.c corresponded with starting grad school, when I felt very lonely in RL. Also, I went to three RealSpace Gatherings in 1.5 years, so I *did* meet many people face-to-face in RL. But eventually I lost the ability to sustain the illusion of a "real place"-- instead, I realized I was posting messages to a huge number of people who remained silent, and getting responses *only* from those who misconstrued what I said. >Thanks, Snark (or Paul, whichever you prefer!) Either is fine, it's the same me. :-) Paul Andrew Estin U. Michigan, Dept. of Psychology, Cognition and Perception Area "The Psi Corps is your friend... Trust the Corps." estin@umich.edu