PDA

View Full Version : Netiquette Guidelines



Hugh
November 3rd, 2002, 06:07 PM
The purpose of this thread is to establish etiquette guidelines for the USMS Discussion Forums. Most of the nearly 900 forum members use common etiquette when posting. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Please use this thread to list suggestions for "netiquette guidelines" for posts on the discussion forums.

Hugh Moore
USMS Communications Committee Chair

Phil Arcuni
November 3rd, 2002, 09:28 PM
I think this thread is totally unnecessary.

This forum is remarkably well behaved, and when we sign up we are told the guidelines - and when the guidelines are violated our posts get pulled.

What I don't understand is how people get insulted when they see *other* people acting like children. It seems to be some sort of WASPish cultural insensitivity and/or bias. People communicate in different ways and tolerance is called for. When I see posts from some particular posters I feel . . . indulgent (usually, otherwise I swim a 1650 fly.) Also, it is a nice diversion after a frustrating day at work.

Obvioiusly, the complainers never grew up in the Italian/Jewish/Swedish/Scotch-Irish/Wasp household that I did!

Ion Beza
November 3rd, 2002, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Hugh

...
Unfortunately this is not always the case.
...

When was that, and what precise 'common etiquette' was broken then?

KenChertoff
November 3rd, 2002, 11:01 PM
I, unfortunately, was one of the participants in "that" thread. In fact I'm afraid I may have unintentionally started the whole mess, even though I thought I was making a perfectly legitimate comment.

I basically agree with Phil's approach and it's pretty much the one I've been following. Up to now, I've mostly succeeded at being indulgent or ignoring certain posters. This time, though, I let myself get provoked, even after I promised myself not to (I think it was the ADD remark). I'm not sure how netiquette rules can prevent that.

jean sterling
November 3rd, 2002, 11:12 PM
When your comment would not be of interest to most of the group, you should communicate with e-mail or private message. That appears to be the only problem I have occasionally observed in the discussion forums.

Ion Beza
November 3rd, 2002, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by KenChertoff

...
This time, though, I let myself get provoked, even after I promised myself not to (I think it was the ADD remark). I'm not sure how netiquette rules can prevent that.
You refer to the thread 'Not everyone in shape in California', where we debated yesterday.

Well, when reading and re-reading the thread, there is nothing wrong to have an opinion that is judged on its perceived merit by an opponent opinion, which in turn is being judged on its perceived merit, and so on until the information is supporting one side.

The entire thread has clean English in it, blunt English, but that's the value of the word 'merit' with regards to opinions and experiences.

effi
November 4th, 2002, 02:26 PM
I really agree with Jean. It doesn't have to be a "rule," but very personal swimming technique advice to one particular swimmer(and that swimmer's detailed and very individual replies) might as well be sent by e-mail. An alternative might be for the poster who wants advice to generalize the topic so that we can all benefit. A brief exchange can be entertaining or useful to all readers. But long threads that go on and on devoted to helping one swimmer or arguing with one swimmer over this or that technical point about that person's swimming style or intervals are not of general interest and belong in the realm of private discourse. What would be the reason for not consigning this to e-mail?

Ion Beza
November 4th, 2002, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by effi

...
A brief exchange can be entertaining or useful to all readers. But long threads that go on and on devoted to helping one swimmer or arguing with one swimmer over this or that technical point about that person's swimming style or intervals are not of general interest and belong in the realm of private discourse. What would be the reason for not consigning this to e-mail?
I think effi, that it is the exact value of the USMS forum discussions, to have long replies "...devoted to helping one swimmer or arguing with one swimmer over this or that technical point about that person's swimming style or intervals...", when that one swimmer is anyone interested in technical advices from knowledgeable swimmers and coaches across the US.

To me, it is hypocrisy to claim today November 4, 2002 that it is "...not of general interest...", and do the opposite April 17, 2002, when feigning general interest in the thread '500 yards prep' started by Fisch.

I am printing your 'contribution' to that thread, below.

Originally posted by effi
Ion, how are you outworking the .50 per 100 and 1.00 per 100 you describe? It sounds like you are not going at those times in workout or in races. I'm confused about what your dilemma is.
I replied April 17, 2002 to your post, with a technical answer starting with:

Originally posted by Ion Beza

I train in the 1:15 pace per 100 yards lane. ...
...

which I followed April 17, 2002 with:

Originally posted by Ion Beza

"It sounds like you are not going at those times in workouts or in races"
is wrong, as far as 1.00 and slightly sub 1:00 per 100 free goes.

Misinformation effi.
Below is your claim of general interest in the thread '500 yards prep':

Originally posted by effi
Ion, thanks for explaining. That is actually quite interesting. Now I understand. It is a little complicated. I wasn't being critical--I just wanted to understand because I am interested in all these 500 training strategies.
Thanks,
Effi
The entire thread can be seen here:
http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=215&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

So, because April 17, 2002 you feigned interest in the thread '500 yards prep' started by Fisch, a thread which is "...devoted to helping one swimmer or arguing with one swimmer over this or that technical point about that person's swimming style or intervals...", it is hypocrisy to claim the opposite of this November 4, 2002, by writing that the same style of thread has no "...general interest...".

Bert Bergen
November 4th, 2002, 09:38 PM
What "technical advances" can be gained from discussing the merits/problems with New York and New Jersey? Before replying, please note that though the initial discussion DID involve commuting and training facilities, it did degenerate into attacks/defenses of NY, NJ, and San Diego.

Ion, you are obviously passionate about a great many things; you are also adept in the art of raising the ire of your fellow swimmers, perhaps just to accomplish it. The common denominator in your issues with training/swimming/culture in NY, San Diego, and now (the taper issue), is YOU. You were in all three places and had concerns. A great many swimmers/athletes have long trained and enjoyed their lives in and around NY, NJ, SD, etc. You need to relax, enjoy this sport and those around you for everyday that you can. I was shocked when the initial thread put up by Cynthia (bless her heart) took on a life of any kind. I though that there was no way that the thread had a chance to grow. Silly me. We are off track and in no way helping or supporting our efforts to become better swimmers, athletes, and people. Jeez, folks, relax.

Ion Beza
November 4th, 2002, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Bert Bergen
What "technical advances" can be gained from discussing the merits/problems with New York and New Jersey?
...

What can be gained is knowing where is the best training environment.

You didn't notice this answer before?

MetroSwim
November 4th, 2002, 10:01 PM
I stand guilty of helping to fuel the fire after the gauntlet was thrown down, though I didn't think it was that far off from the direction the discussion had taken.

Therein lies the problem. It did get a personal, and for that I apologize for not taking it off-line or just letting it go after the first "volley" and letting that be my response to the merits of the argument.

I just wish the forum software could be tweaked to get the "Ignore" list to apply to e-mail notifications.

I'll work on being more considerate of everyone when next I have free time on a Saturday (or any) night. :rolleyes:

Bert Bergen
November 4th, 2002, 11:18 PM
I said, read the second part of my second sentence...and move on.

Ion Beza
November 5th, 2002, 12:50 AM
The second part of your sentence is about this:

Originally posted by Bert Bergen

...
The common denominator in your issues with training/swimming/culture in NY, San Diego, and now (the taper issue), is YOU.
...

My part in a "...common denominator..." when I came to US and when I moved across US, is to:
1) be in demand professionally so that I am in US, when only a list of professions with shortage of skilled workers are allowed;
2) manage to be in demand professionally in US in a favorable training environment, like the city of San Diego is.
3) train in the hobby of swimming without affecting the demands of that competitive profession, which could easily import others than me;
4) in my training hobby, do more workouts than others, under the coaching guidance that has the blend of conditioning and technique in it;
5) go to swimming races.

1), 2) and 3) are not as ordinary as being born here.

The swimming coach part in the same "...common denominator..." in US, I see it like this:
A) coach me with 'Aerobic', 'Anaerobic', 'VO2', 'Sprint Race' and 'Explosive Speed' with competence matching 1), 2), and 3) above, and with a positive etiquette;
B) taper me for races;
C) take charge of A) and B) when races' results show up, with adjustments.

Today, I had had a workout under the coach who trained and tapered me for the 2001 Short Course Nationals (where I overachieved after two surgeries in the late 2000), and for the 2002 Short Course Nationals (where I was well prepared but I bonked nutritionally, I think).

This coach will take charge of A), B) and C), we have a deal today, so that I will indeed "...move on.".

Tom Ellison
November 5th, 2002, 01:46 AM
Ion:
I DO NOT write this as a criticism toward you. I am not shooting arrows at you here. I am simply attempting to share what Bert may have meant in his post regarding "YOU".
It is readily apparent to us all that you have overcome monumental obstacles to be where you are today. In fact, I have been told by others how difficult your life was in Europe and during your immigration to this country via Canada. You suffered great adversity and overcame this to become a very positive citizen of this great Country. This is admirable to say the least!
Having said that, perhaps your delivery and underlying motivations on many of your posts could use a little self evaluation. Your horn has tremendous validity in being blown. YOU ARE A WINNER to have survived what you did. But, when a horn is continually blown by the owner...often it becomes an irritant as opposed to a positive attribute.
Some of the posts suggest you take a more mild approach. What I think they mean by this is an approach that is less inclined to bringing praise to you from your own horn blowing efforts...as opposed to having the praise come from your humble, quite, and less self-serving efforts. Again, I HUMBLY say this to help you..and to help others perhaps deal with some of your posts.
I know well of what I speak here Ion. I have made a serious jerk of myself on a few occasions on these posts being to passionate or single minded in my views on a few posts. Many, many Masters Swimmers admire your tremendous accomplishments that overcame horrible conditions. Give others time to get to know you before your posts nudge them away from you. Often, people put up shields that prohibit them from getting to know you before you had a decent chance.
Kindest regards,
Tom Ellison

Bert Petersen
November 5th, 2002, 02:58 AM
I found this neat little button on my computer.... "OFF"
Remember, you don't have to read anything you don't like.

Ion Beza
November 5th, 2002, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
Ion:
...
Having said that, perhaps your delivery and underlying motivations on many of your posts could use a little self evaluation.
...
Kindest regards,
Tom Ellison
I see what you mean here, and in your entire post.

Alright: I will do this "...self evaluation." before posting in the future.

Paul Smith
November 5th, 2002, 10:55 AM
Ion, I think Tom has done an incredible job of communicating what others perceptions of you via a forum such as can be and given some good advise.

Early on in the old forum you defended yourself and told of your relationships with teamates which is very different than the somewhat hostile ones you encounter in these one way exchanges. I've meet you and agree that you are very different in person than your posts imply.

Part of this I beleive is cultural; I worked for a French company for 5 years, have been to Romania twice and continue to go to Europe once or twice a year, all in all I've had the pleasure to visit over 30 countries around the world.

What I have found is that often times the humor that exisits in many folks with english as a second language (particularly Europeans) is often taken very poorly by Americans who haven't spent much time in Europe or other parts of the world (Aussies and Kiwi's have made sarcasm an art form!).

I'd also say that it goes the other way as well, particulalry when communication is via email, letters of forum boards where a subtle smile that lets the other person know that what was said was "tongue in cheek" is missed, something I've seen you do!

Train Hard, Rest Hard!

Bert Bergen
November 5th, 2002, 11:05 AM
The last three posts were WONDERFUL!! Great job by everyone communicating positions. Positive, positive, positive...

ALM
November 5th, 2002, 11:13 AM
I love the USMS discussion forums, but not when they degrade into personal attacks. I think that proper "netiquette" should include stimulating conversation and argument, but not personally insulting any one individual.

Also, remember that we all have an "ignore list". Go to "Account Info", and click on "Edit Ignore List". The "ignore list" allows you to enter an individual's name. From then on, it will block all posts by that individual.

For example, if you don't want to view posts by me, go to your "ignore list" and enter 'Anna Lea'. My posts will magically disappear from all discussion threads when you view them. (I wouldn't recommend doing this if you're a Registrar, however!)

KenChertoff
November 5th, 2002, 01:13 PM
I think it would help if there were LESS use of the "quote" feature. In fact, I wouldn't mind at all if Jim could find a way to disable it. I would rather see posters simmply summarize the issues they want to address whenever possible.

The "quote" feature makes it too easy to take someone's words (inadvertently or not) out of context and, in effect, challenge them with it. It also allows multiple, almost simultaneous, challenges that seem directed AT a specific person (even if that's not intended). It may be a weakness of mine, but I for one find it difficult to ignore a comment that seems to be directed at me -- I don't think I'm alone in that. The result is that a discussion can quickly turn personal, and become a fight.

I realize that quoting can make it easier to let readers understand a comment. Just understand that it can be misused and use it only when it's needed to make your comment understood.

jean sterling
November 6th, 2002, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by MetroSwim


I just wish the forum software could be tweaked to get the "Ignore" list to apply to e-mail notifications.


Great idea. I have a VERY small ignore list, but I find that any thread I have contributed to in the past comes to me as an e-mail which includes posters on my ignore list. This, of course, makes the ignore list ineffective to say the least.