Call Two Possibilities
From Praxis101Wiki
Lets brainstorm what we might like to talk about on Call 2 on August 30. Also, please RSVP below:
- Preliminary Agenda
- The Clock
- Blog tagging suggestion
- Discussion: Suggestion: Generative aspects of "us/them"?
- Mentoring Requests
- There was a request for guidance on WikiPosting (Bill to assist)
- There was a request for assistance getting ChatIRC working outside of a call session (Bill over-committed?)
CallTwoNotes
Participating (See intros for some of these folks on CallOneNotes - if you haven't introduced yourself, do it here!)
- BillAnderson http://praxis101.com/blog (and http://edge_city.blogspot.com)
- NancyWhite http://www.fullcirc.com/weblog/onfacblog.htm
- ElanaCentor http://funnybusiness.typepad.com/funnybusiness
- KoanBremner
- DeniseTanton http://dailydoseofdlt.blogspot.com
- GraceDavis http://gracedavis.typepad.com/
- DennisHamilton http://orcmid.com/blog/
- RobertHolder
- JayAllen http://www.thezeroboss.com/
- DebraRoby http://astitchintime.blogspot.com/
- LisaWilliams http://www.cadence90.com/wp/
Regrets
- EdwardVielmetti: http://vielmetti.typepad.com 2005-08-26 Can't make that date, attending an NSF workshop on some similar topic - the us/them relationships between the people using ultra high speed networks and those who build same.
Thinking about the Agenda
- orcmid:2005-08-23 Ah, kinda soon. But then, could follow-on better. I'm game. If you keep to the hours, Bill Anderson and I need to figure out how to move our regular Tuesday call. We'll talk among ourselves ...
- 2005-08-26: OK, I am hot to continue. There are two concerns that I have with regard to blog protocol (the Person-2-Person kind) that interest me.
- Comment protocol. I am a fan of "living room rules" with regard to civility, essentially how ad hominem assertions are dealt with. David Weinberger states the policy quite simply on his comment form on the bottom of articles. Shel Israel articulates the Living Room Rules in terms of the behavior you can expect, although in the case in which he says he applied it, I am amazed at the posts that he tolerated as within the policy. What strikes me about the motivation behind the Living Room Rules is that it was formulated in part because people confided that they were reluctant to comment because of others who were aggressive attackers of fellow commenters.
- There's a new ugly wrinkle that has come up about comment protocols. A blogger is being sued for allowing misinformation to be posted in the comments of others. The problem is that the blog site was one where there was a comment policy and inappropriate comments were deleted. This is claimed to have created an implicit liability for errors and misrepresentations in the comments that were allowed to remain. So there can be a fact-checking problem. I have no idea whether the suit will prevail, but the chilling effect will be felt immediately, I'd think. Dave Taylor has the scoop.
- Safe Space. That leads me to my concern about providing a safe space anywhere that I sponsor conversations, including for blog commenters. This past Spring I obtained a license for use of the Safe Space symbol on my web sites and that includes my blog pages. I haven't used it so far because there are some materials I need to provide on what it signifies, what people can count on, what people never have to account for with me (in person, in business dealings, and in shared cyberspaces), and what they can expect from others who share those niches of cyberspace that I sponsor. When I complete my current MS dissertation crunch, it is one of the first things I'll be at work on in October. I am interested in promoting tolerance and honoring diversity in cyber-conduct, and my use of the symbol is intended to support and invite that.
- Comment protocol. I am a fan of "living room rules" with regard to civility, essentially how ad hominem assertions are dealt with. David Weinberger states the policy quite simply on his comment form on the bottom of articles. Shel Israel articulates the Living Room Rules in terms of the behavior you can expect, although in the case in which he says he applied it, I am amazed at the posts that he tolerated as within the policy. What strikes me about the motivation behind the Living Room Rules is that it was formulated in part because people confided that they were reluctant to comment because of others who were aggressive attackers of fellow commenters.
- Distinction Zone. This raises a point that one of Grace's commentors said. There is a difference between the Coulters and Frankens who are being paid to do their schtick and others. There is a difference between those who want to create a snarky persona and enjoy that and others who don't. There are those that really want to converse. Like in the living room. And sometimes we want to have the freedom to switch. So indicators might be useful. But dang, such overhead! NW
- 2005-08-26: OK, I am hot to continue. There are two concerns that I have with regard to blog protocol (the Person-2-Person kind) that interest me.
- GraceDavis: Thanks so much for the email, Nancy. I'll be present and hopefully we'll have some members of my Loyal Opposition on hand. Will we have an agenda? Could we make this a regularly scheduled event? Would IRC chat be available?
- NancyWhite Yes, lets try and get an IRC set up. I like the way JerryMichalski does his for http://www.yi-tan.com where you only have to click a link. Anyone know how to set that up? I'm not an IRC geek. As to agenda, we have to collectively invent one!
- DebraRoby: Hope I am doing this OK. (I'm a wiki-virgin). I will be present because this is part of a personal agenda:advocating for civility in discussions. This can begin with the "simple" reminder to observe the "the golden rule".. but it goes much further, I suspect.I'm blogging my reasons for getting involved... it should be posted on Monday.
- GraceDavis My friend JimmieB of The Sundries Shack blog published an entry on the issues of us/them: http://sundriesshack.com/?p=1981# Here are his personal guidelines in discussing sensitive/political issues:
- 1. Never take it personally until the other person makes it so. When that happens, the discussion is over and I’ve already “won”.
- 2. Always assume that the other person is as informed as I am and is arguing in good faith until they demonstrate otherwise. If they lack facts I have, I’ll provide those facts. If the other person insists on completely disregarding those facts when they might have moved their position, then they’re not arguing in good faith anymore. They’re just hanging onto an ideology and the debate is over
- 3. Always assume that the other person honestly wants to make the country and the world the best place it can be for the most people possible until they prove otherwise.
- RE: IRC chat - I too am not an IRC geek, but I wanted to throw that out as it was used for the yi-tan weekly talks.
- Agenda? What to choose from all that we covered last week? I do know I'd like to discuss guidelines, maybe even develop a 'blogger's pledge' for civilized discourse, as I mentioned in the comments to Jimmie's post above.
- I like the idea bout the blogger's pledge.
- EXPERIMENT: An IRC channel will be open at irc.freenode.net/usthem. For those that have used IRC I'm hoping this will work. It's an empirical question. - Bill
- I've never gotten mIRC to work nor freenode either, but I know trying it out at a scheduled event isn't going to work for me. So I'll be on the call. If we could setup some sort of between call practice and training, that would be good. Otherwise, I'm about to remove mIRC from my machine and try something else. Jabber? What? (Gtalk?, when they set it up for federating?). Meanwhile, won't it be weird to have some on IRC and some on voice conference. That sounds like an awful back-channel condition.
- Lisa Williams: I'm planning on participating in today's call. I don't know the number but I frequently use IRC, so I'm going to hop on the channel at 11PST/1EST.
