[MUD-Dev] Attributions vs brainstorming ( or, JC vs Z :) ) ( was Wild west )

[Stephen Zepp]

coder at ibm.net wrote:
> 
> On 24/12/97 at 10:13 PM, Stephen Zepp <zoran at enid.com> said:
> >JC Lawrence wrote:
> 
> >> Seeing as you give no attributions for the relevant quotes its
> >> difficult to determine if you are referring to my implemenation or
> >> Woolcock's.  ...
> 
> >Jeez, man, whatever.  You have some incredible ideas, this list has been
> >interesting and somewhat informative, but rather too anal about
> >"ownership" of ideas/attribution.
> 
> Writing as list owner:
> 
>   You're about to see me on the other side of a bottle of damned find
> Cab/Shiraz, a couple pints of the best Belgian ale, and a Muscat that was
> to die for.  That, and the advokaat diappeared entirely too quickly.  (My
> first and only alcohol in 1997)  So minor apologies for incoherence in
> advance.  Aside from that the turkey was totally sozzled after having been
> marinating in burgundy for the last couple days...(hey, its a purple
> turkey and we don't care).
> 
>   I have a variety of reasons for requiring attributions.  As the area has
> come under question before and appears to be a slightly surprising thing
> to some, some explanation:
> 
>   Professionalism and courtesy are probably the biggest drivers.  While
> realising that this is predominately a hobbiest medium, its not entirely
> amateur.  I also come from a background where amateurs (who religously
> deny and refuse any tawdry labelling as "professionals") are often far
> more competant and knowledgeable than the working professionals in the
> field (ie the British Amateur).  Such professionalism carries with it
> characters of accuracy, respect, and precision.
> 
>   Additionally, adding that touch of formality appears to increase the
> signal strength as well as promoting greater signal depth.  More chatty
> structures seem to lead to lighter, thinner, less incisive signal, which
> is counter to the list's charter and purposes.
> 
>   Courtesy is a big button with me.  Those without manners are shunned.
> I'd rather not have members shunning other members, to whatever degree
> (which has happened on the list a couple times to date).  I'll freely
> admit I don't have the best manners, and picked up far to much of the
> English studied rudeness.  I'll also admit that this is largely a specious
> point in the days of software automated attribution.
> 
>   However, acknowledging the source of an item, acknowledging who said
> what, and other such attention to details (see professionalism above)
> indicates that you respect the others enough to not only track who said
> what, but to care to know what each person did say and that it is them who
> said that, not someone else.  It essentially comes down to granting
> importance and respect to the other posters.
> 
>   I do realise that some members have to manually attribute all their
> posts, and that this requires occassionally not insignificant extra work
> for them.  They have my respect for sticking with the attributions anyway.
> 
>   Another reason for requiring attributions is to make individual postings
> a better historical record.
> 
>   This list is archived, and those archives are commonly and regularly
> requested.  Many members also maintain their own edited archives of posts
> they find interesting.  I regularly wander thru old postings and
> ressurrect threads that I felt deserved better treatment.  As has recently
> been shown, other members do that as well.  Occassionally those
> resurrections are more than a year old.  At such ages many members don't
> have the messages which made up those threads as they were before their
> time.
> 
>   The result is that context for the text in a particular posting becomes
> unusually important.  Why did say what?  Who did come up with that idea or
> comment in that quoted piece that I now want to comment on?  Where can I
> reach them?  To a certain extent this is simple discussion/debate form in
> making audits of text/idea sources and ownership possible: You said XXX,
> but what about YYY?
> 
> >I for one don't _like_ 5 indents of
> >quoted text, and once an idea/mention has been repeated to the list 4
> >times, I don't feel it needs to be posted again.
> 
>   Actually, neither do I, and I don't require or request such.  Correct
> attribution however has nothing to do with quoting level or the volume of
> quotes used.  One could quote and attribute a single sentence fragment and
> thoroughly within the rules.  Attributing merely means stating the source
> of your quotes, not having to put the quotes in there in the first place.
> 
>   We occassionally get members over quoting in their posts.  We also get
> under-quoting.  Both are very validly arguable points.  Until it becomes
> actively annoying on either side I'm not going to worry about it.  Much
> more would stand to be gained by getting people to change their Subject:
> headers with topic changes (I'm a prime offender), and I'm not about to
> grandstand on that one either.
> 
> >Obviously, you differ
> >in your thoughts, but maybe you have nothing better to do than to read
> >the same quote 15 times as a thread progresses.
> 
>   I go through about 1,500 emails a day.  I'll let you figure the rest.
> 
> >Hell, if I don't
> >understand a reference, I look it up in the thread.  Sorta like a
> >database that stores info for the last week or something.
> 
>   A mentioned above, regularly quoted material is far older than that.  I
> also commonly quote from old postings in answer to current postings.
> Sometimes those older postings are two years old.  I would like those
> members with minimal email resources, such as no space to store old
> threads, to still be able to function fully within the list.  Such
> threading is not always possible, or desirable.
> 
> >I enjoyed it
> >while it lasted, got one or two good ideas, thought a couple were way to
> >intense for me, but I definately don't have 2 hours a day to match quotes
> >against names, or ideas against originators. Unsubscribe me if you like,
> >I'll lurk if not.
> 
>   The effort required is actually not large on a per-post basis.  As the
> other members attribute their quotes. as you reply to their postings their
> quotes will have their attributions quoted as well.  All you need do is
> merely ensure that there is an attribution line for the new text in the
> message you are replying to, essentially a single "Bubba said:...", and
> you are done as the other attributions are there already.
> 
>   Note: I don't require that you attribute every idea and piece in your
> new text, merely what you quote.  It seems there may be some confusion
> there.
> 
> > Merry Christmas!
> 
>   ...and a happy new year to all!
> 
> --
> J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
> ----------(*)                              Internet: coder at ibm.net
> ...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...

All of your points are valid, and respectable.  However, I want to brainstorm, not join a mutual admiration society. 
Ideas are great, code is great, everyone on this list participates in designing a world that is on the cutting edge of
mudding concepts in one way or another. I respect most everyone here as one above my equal, but given that point, I
don't wish to have to repeatedly make that known.  I do understand your backdating references point, and sometimes it is
difficult to track a thread, but I would much rather spend the time shaping the thread along the discussion, instead of
tagging each set of quotes and comments.  It's style, and I know how you feel about it, but seems to me that we should
all be confident enough in ourselves and our abilities, and each other's integrity, to let ideas flow instead of
worrying about who said what when.  As I said, matter of opinion.  We could debate the finer points of what you want,
and since you are the list owner, I will abide when I post.  I would however like to state that any "lack of
attribution" was not due to carelessness or disrespect, but in some cases I felt it was obvious ( that particular post,
I didn't snip a _thing_..I posted on top of someone else's post ) what was being referred, and in the cases where
attributions were lost, the quoted text wasn't for specfic referreral, but more of a "place marker" within the thread. 
I will be careful to carefully describe what I may be referring to in the future, but will also merrily clip away at old
info as any threads I'm interested in evolve..and I will work on fixing thread headers myself...

Cheers..

Zoran