Re: Netiquette

From: Daniel Koepke (dkoepke@CALIFORNIA.COM)
Date: 05/16/98

On Sat, 16 May 1998, Tony Robbins wrote:

->        I think a lot of us have decided simply to respond with RTFC,
->RTFM, RTFF, and, while the victim may need to do these things, it isn't
->really helpful nor does it help anybody else by posting THAT message to
->the list.

A RTFC/M/F is a whole lot more helpful than your message.  And it
does, BTW, help to post that message to the list -- if people start to
realize we're _not_ going to start coding their MUD for them, telling
them exactly what to do step-by-step to do even the most basic of
things, then we're either going to lose a lot of clueless newbies, or
a lot of clueless are going to start reading what's right in front of
their faces.  Well, at the least, it helps just as much as your
message does.

->        I have sent out a few RTFC's and the like in the past also.  It
->doesn't help, the people just ignore it as a flame.  Perhaps we can think
->of something more constructive.

If you have a suggestion, give it.  However, there is _nothing_ more
constructive than telling the newbie to just read their own code,
manual, and/or the FAQ.  Considering they have all these resources
convenient (I can't imagine how or why they wouldn't), don't need to
waste time writing an email message, or wait for a response.  Not even
giving them code is as constructive.  There is NO substitute for
inspiring someone to look for themselves -- even if that inspiriation
comes in the form of a short and sharp RTFM.

->Over a 6 month period, I have watched a lot of deterioration (I
->remember, even then, we helped newbies to the list) on this list
->over time.

I seem to recall the list being worse off 6 months ago.  And, if I
remember correctly, it was a whole helluva' lot worse before that,
what with the newbie flame war(s).  (And we all know that a message
has to be fairly severe for me to even consider it a "flame" -- that
should give you some idea of what a "flame war" would be like.)

->  * When you go to post a message, look at it, and decide if it is code
->related.  Clues would be "I wrote this piece of code, but I can't see the
->error in it.  Can you look at it?" and "Here is a section of
->act.informative.c."  This makes it easier to determine how we're trying to

I think I understand what you mean, but it's not clear ... You intend
to tell people to include as much (relevant) information as possible,
right?  This is just as common sense as RTFC, RTFM, and RTFF.  Yet,
people fail to do it.  If -- as you say -- RTFx messages don't work,
then what makes you believe your message will?

->  * Don't use little stars for bulleted lists.

That we agree upon.

Speaking of RTFF, had you done so, you would have included an ObCircle
at the bottom of your post (like I always do...:).

Hmm, I'm currently looking into fuzzy logic for mobiles.  Anyone have
any thoughts on it?

-dak : "The price is wrong, bitch." -- Adam Sandler speaking to Bob
                                       Barker in Happy Gilmore

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST