GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


archive:internet:leviatha
                      Searching for the Leviathan in Usenet
                                    A Thesis
                                  Presented to
               The Faculty of the Department of Political Science
                           San Jose State University
                             In Partial Fulfillment
                       of the Requirements for the Degree
                                 Master of Arts
                                       By
                             Richard Clark MacKinnon
                                 December, 1992
                              APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL
                              SCIENCE
                              __________________________________________
                              ___
                                       Dr. William McCraw
                              __________________________________________
                              ___
                                       Dr. Kenneth Peter
                              __________________________________________
                              ___
                                       Dr. Ronald Sylvia
                              APPROVED FOR THE UNIVERSITY
                              __________________________________________
                              ___
                                      Abstract
                      Searching for the Leviathan in Usenet
                           by Richard Clark MacKinnon
        The purpose of this thesis is to identify signs of Thomas Hobbes'
        Leviathan in the Usenet computer conferencing network.  Certainly
        nothing that the Usenet users can experience can compare to the
        Hobbesian scenario in which persons are forced to give up the
        right to govern themselves in exchange for personal safety.  This
        is certainly true on the surface, but there is another level of
        interaction within Usenet other than user-to-user.  It is the
        level of the users' "personae," and it is at this level of
        understanding that the fear of vanishing from existence is ever
        present and near.  For personae within Usenet, life can be
        described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."  And it
        is for their sakes that this researcher has searched for and
        found a Leviathan in Usenet.
                                      Contents
           Introduction ...........................................1
           Hobbes, Leviathan, and Usenet ..........................3
           Usenet is a Distinct Society ...........................8
           The Notion of Persona .................................14
           Personae are Persons ..................................21
           The Powers ............................................25
           The Pursuit of Powers .................................32
           Death .................................................37
           Living in Moderation ..................................43
           Looking for the Leviathan .............................55
           Conclusion ............................................59
           Appendix ..............................................66
           Glossary ..............................................85
           Bibliography ..........................................92
                                         iv
                                    Introduction
        The purpose of this thesis is to identify signs of Thomas Hobbes'
        Leviathan in the Usenet computer conferencing network.  Defined
        as "that mortal god, to which we owe under the immortal God; our
        peace and defence,"1 Leviathan in a computer conferencing network
        is the institution of censorship or moderation of the messages
        written by the network's users.  According  to Hobbes, living in
        fear of death or wounds disposes men to obey a common power.2
        Certainly nothing that the Usenet users can experience can
        compare to the Hobbesian scenario in which persons are forced to
        give up the right to govern themselves in exchange for personal
        safety.  This is certainly true on the surface, but there is
        another level of interaction within Usenet other than user-to-
        user.  It is the level of the users' "personae," and it is at
        this level of understanding that the fear of vanishing from
        existence is ever present and near.  For personae within Usenet,
        life can be described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
        short."3  And it is for their sakes that this researcher has
        searched for and found a Leviathan in Usenet.
        In order to argue this work, this paper is organized into short
        sections or chapters designed around major points.  The first
        chapter introduces the reader to Hobbes, _________
                                                 Leviathan, and Usenet.
        A glossary is provided to assist with technical computer
        terminology and an appendix contains relatively hard to find
        Usenet documentation.  The argument itself consists of seven
        points and a survey of two hundred randomly selected Usenet
        articles.  The survey was conducted to find measurable signs of
        the Leviathan as described in the argument.  The findings show
        the degree to which Leviathan is present in Usenet.  Each chapter
        states its purpose in the opening paragraphs and is concluded
        with a summary of the points covered therein.  In this way it is
        possible to lead the reader through the theoretical worlds of
        _________
        Leviathan and the Usenet persona.  At the end of the argument is
        a conclusion which summarizes all seven points and focuses on the
        most difficult ones.  And lastly, the thesis concludes with a
        short discussion of future research considerations.
              1Thomas Hobbes, _________
                              Leviathan, Edited by Michael Oakeshott (New
        York:  Macmillan Publishing Co., 1962), 132.
              2Hobbes, 82.
              3Hobbes, 100.
                                         1
                            Hobbes, _________
                                    Leviathan, and Usenet
           Hobbes' _________
                   Leviathan was selected for this thesis primarily
        because it is a system of knowledge developed for the purpose of
        understanding the genesis of government.  This system of
        knowledge for understanding the "matter, forme and power" of
        society, originally advanced during Cromwell's tenure, was
        published in 1651.  The controversial title implied that the
        monarchy was the political manifestation of the Biblical beast
        and the work was considered scandalous.
        Hobbes scholar Herbert Schneider explains that the choice of the
        title is curious because the mythological Leviathan is
        consistently the symbol of the "powers of evil, "4  rightfully
        upsetting the supporters of the Crown.  Yet it is clear when
        Hobbes describes the Leviathan as the "mortal god"5 on earth that
        he does not share the common diabolical connotation.  Certainly
        Hobbes was aware of this discrepancy and it is likely he intended
        for the discrepancy to further define his concept of a Leviathan
        rising from the people.  There is no doubt that such a "beast"
        would need to be menacing and powerful in order to convince
        people that their lives are safer with it than in their own
        hands.  The Leviathan is the generation of the Commonwealth, that
        entity consisting in the powers of all people which can protect
        them from their enemies.  Hobbes' critics were quick to equate
        the evil beast with government, thus putting Hobbes at odds with
        the regime indeed, with any government.  It is possible that
        Hobbes selected the Leviathan symbol in part to convey that
        government is a necessary evil given humans' inclination to
        destroy one another without it.  Even this notion brought Hobbes
        criticism as a paranoid anti-establishmentarian.  While he admits
        to a level of paranoia commensurate to being born the "twin of
        fear," he is emphatically not anti-establishment--in fact, he
        would have supported either Cromwell or the King as long as one
        of them possessed absolute power to govern as a Leviathan.  Given
        his dim view of human nature, his predilection toward paranoia,
        and the execution of the King, one cannot blame Hobbes for
        desiring peace and order at any price.
        Though never the intentional sum and highlight of his political,
        religious, ethical, and philosophical view, _________
                                                    Leviathan has
        nevertheless emerged as such.  This is because of Hobbes'
        precision in the use of language and his plain treatment and
        analysis of socially sensitive matter.  In his lifetime _________
                                                                Leviathan
        earned Hobbes the enmity of many who had formerly been his
        friends.  Today it is still popularly trivialized as a dark and
        heretical treatise written by a paranoid exile.  But Hobbes'
              4Herbert W. Schneider, "The Piety of Hobbes," in ______
                                                               Thomas
        ______ __ ___ ____
        Hobbes in His Time, eds. Ralph Ross, Herbert W. Schneider, and
        Theodore Waldman (Minneapolis:  University of Minnesota Press,
        1974), 86.
              5Hobbes, 132.
                                         3
                                         4
        admirers and students appreciate the giant work for what it is--a
        reconstitution of civil society from its most basic element.  He
        begins his book with the ambitious sentence, "Concerning the
        thoughts of man, I will consider them first singly, and
        afterwards in train, or dependence upon one another."6
        Considering that his goal is to explain governance, one would
        expect that a beginning begun with a discussion of the "single
        thought" would immediately proceed to more developed concepts
        such as the rights of kings.  Not so.  After describing the
        nature of thought, he discusses the senses, imagination, dreams,
        the development of speech, passions, virtue, and the
        categorization of all knowledge.  It is not until Chapter Sixteen
        that he defines what a person is and in Chapter Eighteen he
        finally addresses the rights of sovereigns.  It is an
        understatement to say that Hobbes is thorough in his endeavor.
        Although this thesis focuses on the generation of Leviathan (at
        the end of Chapter Seventeen), it is important to realize that
        this study covers only a quarter of the book.
        The result is a self-contained, interlocking structure with every
        word defined and every conclusion logically sound.  In the
        writing of his book, Hobbes incidentally produced the first
        comprehensive attempt at the theory of language.  In other words,
        Hobbes had to develop a theory of language to accurately describe
        his theory of the commonwealth.  Richard Tuck remarks that
        _________
        Leviathan is the "first unquestionably great philosophical work"
        in English.7  Prior to _________
                               Leviathan, all scholarly works of import
        were written in Latin, French, German, or ancient Greek.8
        Since his endeavor was intentionally comprehensive, his treatise
        is unusually suitable for examining any and all societies--
        including those that did not exist in his time and as in the case
        of Usenet, arguably do not exist now.  This is possible because
        the treatise is presented mostly in general terms, giving it
        broad applicability and timelessness.  While it is true that
        _________
        Leviathan is a product of troubled times, Hobbes' sparing
        references to Britain merely illustrate his points and do not
        confine them to that island.  Additionally, his masterful
        understanding of philosophy beyond the realm of politics is
        useful in the establishment of personae and their virtual society
        of Usenet.
        Usenet is the largest computer conferencing network in the world.
        The network is composed of an estimated 2.3 million users at
        45,000 sites worldwide.  Most sites are academic institutions or
        high technology companies, but commercial and publicly supported
              6Hobbes, 21.
              7Richard Tuck, ______
                             Hobbes (Oxford:  Oxford UP, Clarendon,
        1957),  vii.
              8And undoubtedly, Chinese and Italian.
                                         5
        access is available to any interested group or individuals.
        Usenet users can send private messages to one another via
        electronic mail.  The mail can reach many sites on the planet
        within seconds.  The users can also write public messages known
        as "articles."  These articles are divided into approximately
        4,000 thousand categories called "newsgroups."  Newsgroups range
        in topics from political theory to baseball.  The current volume
        of articles is 14,000 daily.9
        Despite its size, Usenet has no central authority which monitors
        access or content.  All control, if any, is exercised at the site
        level.  Sites determine whether to provide access to users or
        whether they want to provide a "feed" or connection to a
        potential site.  Users and sites may remain on the net as long as
        the sites that provide them with access continue to do so.
        Usenet articles are distributed using a "store and forward"
        method.  This means that when a user writes an article, the
        original article is stored at his or her site and a copy is
        forwarded via telephone or leased line to neighboring sites.
        Because the associated costs of storage and forwarding can become
        very high, economics may have more of an impact over local
        control than anything else.  A company, for example, may decide
        to restrict users from participating in any of the recreational
        newsgroups because the volume in those groups is high and their
        business value is low.  Still, some organizations may opt to
        control content for other reasons.  For example, a high school
        may decide to block participation in sexually-oriented
        newsgroups.  However, thousands of users around the world enjoy
        unrestricted access to newsgroups containing articles from the
        technologically informative to the obscene.  Depending on the
        user consulted, Usenet can be an anarchic or a highly regulated
        medium of communication.
              9Brian Reid, ______ __________ _______
                           Usenet Readership Summary (Palo Alto,
        California:  Network Measurement Project at the DEC Western
        Research Laboratory, March 1992), lines 22-28.  The lines are
        cited rather than page numbers because the document was received
        electronically without pagination.
                            Usenet is a Distinct Society
        In order to apply Hobbes' political philosophy to Usenet, it is
        important to establish the distinctness of the Usenet society.
        Distinctness assures that Usenet differs enough from the external
        world--the reality outside of Usenet--to provide a unique
        laboratory to cultivate new insights and new conclusions.  The
        argument for distinctness consists of Usenet's two-dimensional
        nature, its creation of an explicit language to describe its
        "physical" reality, its interference in the transfer of the
        social structure from the external world, and its ability to
        compensate for the lack of a complete social structure by
        developing a parallel or alternate structure to that of the
        external world.
        Although Usenet is designed to facilitate communication among
        computer users, it is restricted to written communication;
        therefore, it mitigates the amount and quality of communication
        possible among them.  Much like unintroduced penpals can never
        know the "real" persons behind their letters, Usenet users can
        never know the "real" persons behind the articles.  It is not
        possible to capture the range of interpersonal interaction with
        only the written word, transforming Usenet into a two-dimensional
        substitute for three-dimensional, "face-to-face" communication.
        As a result there is a deception in the medium that often
        distorts the meaning of a message, much as a carnival mirror
        distorts the reflection of a person:  what is "said" is not
        necessarily what is "heard," or more accurately, what is written
        is often misinterpreted.  Since ambiguity has this deceptive
        effect in the external world, Usenet participants are especially
        susceptible to ambiguous statements, implied meanings, and
        sarcastic remarks.  Whereas external world users can find clues
        to meaning in facial expressions and voice control, Usenet
        participants cannot.  But more importantly, the lack of cues
        available during "face-to-face" communication points not only to
        the absence of  faces, but to the absence of all physical
        reality.
        Lacking physical reality, Usenet users must create an explicit,
        written language to convey meaning as well as emotion, physical
        qualities, and action. As a society based in language, it relies
        heavily on symbol, analogy, and metaphor to re-create or transfer
        physical matter and actions from the external world.  But since
        these re-creations are merely metaphors for, or "analogs" of
        their physical counterparts, Usenet can never be a mirror image
        of the external world.
        Usenet users are unable to "bring" with them their respective
        social structures because the limitations of written
        communication deconstruct their external world social structure.
        These social structures consist of the norms, mores, and
        traditions which guide the users'  interaction as members of the
        external society.  The computer medium inhibits computer users
        from transferring these social structures to Usenet.  This
        inhibition resulting from the absence of or limitations on
        physical proximity, "face-to-face" interaction, and non-verbal
                                         8
                                         9
        cues, is discussed and analyzed at length in Elizabeth Reid's
        _____________  _____________ ___ _________ __ ________ _____
        Electropolis:  Communication and Community on Internet Relay
        ____
        Chat.   Reid exposes the failings of computer-mediated, i.e.,
        written,  communication as follows:
              Words, as we use them in speech, fail to express what they
          really mean once they are deprived of the subtleties of speech
          and the non-verbal cues that we assume will accompany it. . .
          . It is not only the meanings of sentences that become
          problematic in computer-mediated communication.  The standards
          of behavior that are normally decided upon by verbal-cues are
          not clearly indicated when information is purely textual.10
        The deprivation of the "subtleties" is exactly what makes
        communication and interaction among Usenet users different from a
        room full of computer users.  Computer users, as do all persons,
        learn standards of behavior from their respective social
        structures.  As Reid suggests, these standards are reinforced by
        "subtleties of speech and non-verbal cues."  But within Usenet,
        users limited to written communication are denied the full range
        of verbal and non-verbal cues customary to interpersonal
        communication and required for reinforcing behavioral standards.
        In the external world,  behavioral standards dictate that one
        should not provoke a visibly angry man, but in Usenet the
        absence, or least the distortion, of visible anger interferes
        with that standard of behavior.
        Despite the limitations of a society based upon written
        communication, Usenet users are able to compensate.  The
        "interference" or distortion caused by the written medium forces
        Usenet users to confront what Reid calls the deconstruction of
        the "traditional methods for expressing community" by developing
        "alternate or parallel methods."11  In this way, Usenet has
        become an alternate or distinct society from the external world.
        Usenet's parallel method or analog for conveying mores, norms,
        and traditions is known as "netiquette."  As the term implies, it
        is literally "network etiquette" and it helps to reinforce the
        standards of behavior that users might miss from the lack of
        non-verbal cues.  Several attempts have been made to summarize
        the norms of  "netiquette."  The most widely cited is Gene
        Spafford's series of documents12, which he compiled and edited
        from the suggestions of Usenet users.  Either heeded or ignored
        by many, the estimates of the validity of Spafford's guidelines
        vary, but they are often invoked to resolve a dispute or to
              10Elizabeth Reid, "Electropolis:  Communication and
        Community on Internet Relay Chat," thesis, (Melbourne, Australia:
        University of Melbourne UP:  1991), lines 495-505.
              11Reid, lines 200-206.
              12These documents are included in the Appendix.
                                         10
        "advise" one another.  In the following example, "Jack" from the
        University of  California at Irvine advises "Bill" from The
        Netherlands of a breach of "netiquette":
              Your reply to my post gave me mixed messages.  Some of
          your comments are cruel.  Your flame should have been sent
          directly to me via e-mail.13
        Since enforcement of "netiquette" begins with the individual
        users, consensual interpretation by the Usenet public determines
        the "law."  If a user's action offends one person in 10 million,
        that action is probably a slight breach, but nothing of wider
        concern; however, if an action results in thirty complaints, then
        it usually is treated more seriously.  "Netiquette" then, is the
        Usenet analog for the external world's system of mores, norms,
        and tradition.  While not a precise duplication of the external
        world's social structure, "netiquette" provides Usenet users with
        guidelines or standards of behavior.  Chuq Von Rospach, author of
        _ ______ __ ___ __ ____ ____ ___ ______ _________
        A Primer on How to Work with the USENET Community, writes,
              . . . for USENET to function properly those people must be
          able to interact in productive ways.  This document is
          intended as a guide to using the net in ways that will be
          pleasant and productive for everyone.  This document is not
          intended to teach you how to use USENET.  Instead, it is a
          guide to using it politely, effectively and efficiently.14
        It will be recalled that Reid suggests non-verbals cues reinforce
        the standards of behavior in the external world.  Just as
        "netiquette" developed into the Usenet analog for standards of
        behavior, a system of written cues has developed as an analog to
        reinforce those standards.  These cues, known as "emoticons" make
        use of non-standard punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and
        special keyboard characters to convey action, emotion, and
        emphasis.  An excerpt from Spafford's guidelines follows:
              The net has developed a symbol called the smiley face.  It
          looks like ":-)" and points out sections of articles with
          humorous intent.  No matter how broad the humor or satire, it
          is safer to remind people that you are being funny.15
              13All such examples are exerpts from actual Usenet
        communication.  The original punctuation and spacing has been
        left intact to preserve the intent of the message.  In the
        interest of privacy, the authors' surnames have been suppressed.
              14Chuq Von Rospach, _ ______ __ ___ __ ____ ____ ___ ______
                                  A Primer on How to Work With the USENET
        _________
        Community.  Compiled by Gene Spafford, 1987, lines 14-16.  See
        the Appendix for the complete text.
              15Von Rospach, lines 112-114.
                                         11
        This guideline emphasizes the use of emoticons to convey humor in
        order to avoid the consequences of ambiguous or sarcastic
        statements, but does not show the variety of possibilities, as in
        the following examples:
              Steve,
                      hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaa
  • sniff* waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh
              I laughed, i cried....that post was GREAT! :-)
              Amusedly,
  1. Mirth-
        In this message, "-Mirth-" from the Massachusetts Institute of
        Technology, has no difficulty sharing his or her amusement with
        an earlier "post" or message of  Steve's.  Note the use of the
        asterisks in "*sniff*" to convey action as opposed to simply
        saying "I sniffed," as is done later.  Of course, the
        capitalization in "GREAT" indicates emphasis, presumably
        enthusiasm given the presence of the "smiley."  Consider the next
        example from a user at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada:
              You know, I agree with everything you said. However, you
          loosely fall into the dweeb category by admitting you actually
          READ most of the damn thing. It brings no fame to its creator,
          but only humiliation to the human species (or does Kibo not
          fit into the homo sapien sapien category? Maybe there is a
          better division for an individual who's life is overwhelmed by
          USENET? homo sappy postus?)    *shakes his head, almost
          embarassed that he has a 4 line .sig, let alone a 950 line
          one*
        This article is an excerpt from a discussion on whether having a
        "950 line"  signature on an article is a violation of
        "netiquette."  The Canadian user agrees that a lengthy signature
        is a violation and becomes embarrassed when he realizes that his
        own "4 line .sig" is considered too long by most interpretations
        of "netiquette."  He conveys this realization by using asterisks
        to simulate the shaking of his head.
        To summarize, it is important to establish the distinctness of
        Usenet from the society of the external world so that new
        insights and new conclusions may be cultivated from the
        application of Hobbes' political philosophy.  This distinctness
        is established by Usenet's explicit language for conveying
        meaning, emotion, and action to a two-dimensional environment.
        Although Usenet users are able to compensate for the lack of a
        physical reality, their parallels or "analogs" with the outside
        world have resulted in a distinct reality of their own.
                               The Notion of Persona
        The high level of interaction between Usenet users in their
        distinct society results in the development of "personae."  The
        following discussion explores this development, the personae's
        ability to portray Usenet users to one another, the derivation of
        their "actions" from words, and the conditions for their
        existence.
        Usenet is distinguished from other written media by the level of
        interaction among its users.  A printed newspaper, for example,
        offers its readers a one-way medium.  Generally, a newspaper is a
        medium for the writers to communicate to their readers and not
        with them; however, the Opinion/Editorial page does provide for
        selected reader response.  There the opinions expressed are
        personal and not necessarily the view of the newspaper's staff.
        These opinions may be compelling or inane, but it is the names
        attached that remind one that there are individuals at the
        source.  These individuals, through the interaction of their
        opinions, briefly create a sense of community.  Granted, such a
        community is a fleeting one at best, for often the emergent
        dialogue is not a dialogue at all, but a set of coincident
        monologues submitted in reaction to a piece of news.  Any
        repartee is unintentional and possibly staged--selected--by the
        editor to represent a diversity of views.  In Usenet, dialogue is
        spontaneous and unedited, and the individuals at the source are
        users who frequently contribute on a regular basis.  The most
        active users contribute over fifty articles per week each.16
        This high level of interaction among Usenet users creates a more
        permanent sense of community than among a newspaper's readership.
        Accordingly, this high level of interaction among users provides
        opportunities to develop relationships.
        It has been established that the medium of written communication
        interferes with the transfer of the users' external world social
        structures into Usenet.  By the same means,  written
        communication interferes with the transfer of the users'
        personalities and unique qualities as well.  The result is the
        creation of "personae" which are as distinct from the users as
        Usenet society is distinct from the external world.  The external
        world of the users is a world of myriad objects to be sense-
        perceived ultimately to be desired or avoided.17  The nature of
        the users' known universe possesses physical characteristics that
        can be sense-perceived either directly or indirectly via
        technological extension of the senses or a combination of these
        accompanied by scientific deduction.  Words signify the memory of
              16UUNET Technologies, Inc., ___ __ ____ __________ __ ____
                                          Top 25 News Submitters by User
        __ ______ __ ________ ___ ___ ____  _ _____
        by Number of Articles for the Last  2 weeks (Falls Church,
        Virginia: July 24, 1992).
              17Hobbes, 48.
                                         14
                                         15
        sensory experience and thought18, but the physical things of the
        external world exist independently of the words which describe
        them.  Though important, words are not required for the existence
        of the things to which they refer.  But within Usenet, words are
        the sole means of characterizing the network's universe.  Thus,
        wordsmanship in Usenet is a far more valued skill than it is in
        the external world.  Consequently, possession or lack of this
        skill can inadvertently give the Usenet user a radically
        different persona from him or herself.  Accordingly,  a command
        of written language can empower a persona in Usenet beyond the
        relative strength of its user in the external world.
        The degree to which Usenet users resemble their personae seems to
        vary.  The representation of a user within Usenet is the
        attempted transfer of the user's individuality into a Usenet
        persona.  The user has some control over the representation and
        the extent to which the persona resembles himself or herself.  A
        representation is transparent when the user attempts to represent
        him or herself as he or she is; a representation is translucent
        when the Usenet persona is only a shadow of the user; and
        accordingly, a representation is opaque when the persona does not
        resemble the user at all.
        A user can spend a great amount of energy wondering about the
        "real" users behind the personae with which he or she interacts.
        In all cases where there is no direct knowledge of another user,
        if one cares, one must rely upon the word of that user as to
        whether that persona is an accurate representation.  Since it is
        in effect that user's word which is in question, relying upon it
        offers little relief.  Without direct or revealed knowledge, the
        pursuit of the true nature of representations is a matter for
        speculation.  Therefore, until the full truth is known, it is a
        common and expedient practice  to "forget" about the users behind
        the personae  so that any purported resemblance or dissimilarity
        of personae to users can be treated as if it does not matter.19
        Since Usenet is a medium for communication, any resemblance it
        may have to external world society necessarily must be reduced to
        written form.  Physical actions such as activating a computer or
        restricting access to another user's account are actions
        completed by users and not by their Usenet personae.  Users have
        physical form and are able to manipulate physical objects such as
        power switches and keyboards, but their Usenet personae have no
        physical form.  Therefore any interaction among  personae must be
        derived from the written words of their users.  Note that actions
        derived from written messages do not correspond exactly to those
        of the respective users.  For example, the action of a persona
              18Hobbes, 33.
              19We commonly "forget" complications for the sake of
        simplicity.  For example, it is simpler to think of the sun
        "rising" than it is to think of the earth turning.
                                         16
        which is "smiling," corresponds to the action of a user who is
        typing.  Although the action of "smiling" is derived from the
        words that the user types, the actions do not correspond exactly
        because the user may or may not be smiling and the persona is
        probably not "typing."
        It is the high level of interaction among Usenet users which
        gives their personae "life."  In fact, a single response to one's
        statement is sufficient to generate a persona.  That response,
        though minimal, is the foundation of existence within Usenet.  It
        is obvious that a response implies a cause or stimulus worthy of
        reaction; however it is less obvious that by implication it
        signifies an acknowledgement of that cause.  In terms of "cause"
        and "effect," a characteristic of the effect is the
        substantiation of its cause's existence.  In terms of Usenet, a
        response substantiates the existence of a statement.  This may
        seem trivial until it is recalled that Usenet personae are
        created as a result of the interaction among Usenet users.  This
        interaction consists of the cycle of statement and response.  The
        existence of the personae, therefore, is tied to that cycle.
        One may wonder why interaction is a prerequisite for a persona's
        existence.  In a written world such as Usenet, there is a
        stricter burden of proof for existence than Descartes requires in
        the external world.  A user can read and contemplate the words of
        another user, but unless there is a visible, i.e., written,
        response via his persona, the action of reading and contemplating
        goes unnoticed.  If a user is unnoticed, then he or she is not
        interacting with other users.  Because personae are created as a
        result of interaction, reading and contemplating alone are
        insufficient to generate or maintain the existence of a persona.
        As shown, "Cogito ergo sum" is an insufficient measure of
        existence within Usenet.  If all users kept their thoughts to
        themselves, they certainly would be assured of their own
        existences, but Usenet would be reduced to a non-interactive,
        indistinct, written medium.  Without some sort of response beyond
        interior cogitation, there is nothing to be perceived by other
        Usenet users.  "Network existentialism" is therefore more
        skeptical than Decartes' externalism can account for.
        However, a dialectical approach can be used to establish a
        measure for existence  within Usenet.  Whereas "I think,
        therefore I am" is insufficient for this purpose, so too is "I
        write, therefore I am."  Again, without a visible response, a
        written statement remains isolated and apparently unperceived--a
        persona's existence is neither generated nor substantiated.  A
        further modification to the premise results in, "I am perceived,
        therefore I am."  Suddenly the Usenet user is no longer alone,
        for to be perceived requires another.  The visible response, "I
        hear you" generates and substantiates the existence of the first
        user's persona, whereby a reply would perform the same function
        for the second user's persona.  The visible response is evidence
        of perception.  Without that response, the perception remains as
        an interior cogitation of the would-be respondent and does
        nothing to substantiate the existence of either user's persona.
                                         17
        The visible cycle of cause and effect, the users' statements,
        responses, restatements, and correspondence ensures the viability
        of the personae of both users.  When extended beyond them to the
        multitude of the personae within Usenet, the existence of all of
        them is assured.
        Where the parallel between dialectical existence in Usenet to
        independent existence in the external world might be difficult to
        follow, the parallel for the quality of life is more apparent.
        As in other aspects of the comparison of Usenet to the external
        world, persona existence is distinct from user existence.  Users
        require air, food, water, and other essentials for basic
        existence.  Personae, lacking physical form, do not require
        physical sustenance; nonetheless, they are dependent upon three
        essential conditions for existence.
        The first condition is the continued association between the user
        and the persona.  The loss of the user's access to Usenet severs
        the association to his or her persona.  Once Usenet loses its
        utility to the user, the continued association to the persona is
        threatened.  In other words, a persona's existence is dependent
        upon a user's access to Usenet; and a user maintains access to
        Usenet so long as Usenet remains useful.
        The second condition is the visible demonstration of presence.
        While Usenet may have great utility to a passive user,20 the lack
        of interaction with other users does not create a persona which
        exists in a way previously defined as existence within Usenet.
        The passive user remains outside the boundary of Usenet existence
        and his or her actions are unnoticed to "life" within.  This
        study concerns itself with those users who choose to participate.
        The third condition is that the participation is continuous.  A
        persona belonging to a user who is prevented, unable, or
        unwilling to continue to participate will continue to exist until
        the memory of that existence is forgotten by the other users.
        In summary, the two-dimensional nature of Usenet, caused by the
        medium of written communication, forces the development of
        personae among interacting users.  Further, the derived actions
        of the personae from the words of the users are distinct from the
        physical actions of the users.  Also there is sufficient
        distinctness to allow users to "forget" that they are interacting
        with representations of other users and not the users themselves.
        Finally, the personae exist dialectically21 and will continue to
              20A passive user is a user who does not or cannot
        communicate with other users, e.g., while using a library's
        online catalog.
              21
                Prior to the "first cause," participant A is isolated in
        silence and unaware of "self" and "other"--existence is
        undefined.  Participant B, like A, is also alone and ignorant.
        Spontaneously, participant A wonders aloud, "What is my purpose,
        if any?"  B, surprised by the break in the silence and the
        presence of another, replies, "I don't know, but let's find out
                                         18
        exist as long as Usenet retains its utility to the users and the
        users continue to participate continuously via the cycle of
        statement and response.
        together."  The phenomenon of mutual awareness implies the
        simultaneous awareness of the other and the self.  This
        rudimentary confirmation of existence-dependent-upon-another,
        i.e., co-existence, is sufficient enough to allow participants A
        and B to pursue the purposes of their existence together.
                                Personae are Persons
        Having established the distinctness of Usenet's society and its
        persona population, it is possible to proceed with a preliminary
        parallel to _________
                    Leviathan.  Establishing the parallel between persons
        and personae will allow for the subsequent application of Hobbes'
        political philosophy to Usenet.  This parallel is established in
        the following discussion of Hobbes' definition of "person," the
        actions of personae, and the special form of representation known
        as "impersonation."
        Hobbes writes,
              A person is he, _____ _____ __ _______ ___ ___________
                              whose words or actions are considered,
          ______ ___ ____ __ __ ____________ ___ _____ __ _______ __
          either his own, or as representing the words or actions of
          _______ ___
          another man . . . When they are considered his own, then is he
          called a _______ ______
                   natural person:  and when they are considered as
          representing the words and actions of another, then is he a
          _______ __ __________ ______
          feigned or artificial person."22
        Having established that personae represent users to one another
        in Usenet, this definition seems to suggest that personae are
        indeed persons.  To explain, according to Hobbes a persona
        represents the "words or actions of another man." Indeed, a
        persona represents the words and actions of a user.  Further,
        Hobbes defines "personation" as "to act or represent oneself."23
        This being the precise purpose for personae in Usenet,
        "personation" is alternately definable as the "generation of a
        persona."  Therefore, in terms of Hobbes, Usenet users must
        "personate" themselves via personae because written communication
        prevents the users from acting and representing themselves in
        person.  In other words, personae are the Usenet analogs for
        persons in the external world.
        While it is true that a persona's actions represent the actions
        of a user, the distinctness of the persona from the user allows
        for the distinctness of the persona's actions.  Recall that all
        persona actions must necessarily be derived from the written
        responses of the users.  When a user writes a hostile message to
        another user, his or her persona in effect "attacks" the persona
        of the recipient.  Whether a persona is actually responsible for
        or "owns" the "attack," Hobbes writes:
              Of persons artificial, some have their words and actions
          _____
          owned by those whom they represent.  And then the person is
          the _____
              actor; and he that owneth his words and actions, is the
              22Hobbes, 125.  Hobbes tends to emphasize with
        capitalization and italics.  This emphasis will be preserved in
        all selected passages and quotations.
              23Hobbes, 125.
                                         21
                                         22
          AUTHOR:  in which case the actor acteth by authority.24
        Strictly interpreted, personae are "artificial persons" because
        their words and actions are owned by the users whom they
        represent, but since it is common and expedient to "forget" that
        personae are representations of users, it is possible to
        understand how a persona's actions can be interpreted as the
        persona's own.  Although Hobbes does not say specifically, he
        suggests that accountability for one's own actions is the
        consequence of acting as "owner" of the actions or with
        "authority."25  Accordingly, the expedience of "forgetting" may
        lead one to treat a persona as the author of its actions,
        thereby expecting accountability from the persona for the
        actions.  This is an unrealistic expectation, given that a
        persona is but a representation of a user who is the owner of its
        actions.  From this it follows that a user seeking to evade
        accountability for his actions might attempt to exploit the
        expedience of "forgetting" by acting through another user's
        persona.  By impostering or "impersonation," he or she can create
        a persona that appears to represent the personality and unique
        qualities of another user.  Because of the expedience of
        "forgetting" and the uncertainty regarding the degree of
        representation (transparent, translucent, or opaque) between
        users and personae, "impersonation" is a more serious violation
        of trust in Usenet than it is in the external world.  Reid
        writes, "The illegitimate use of  [personae] can cause anger on
        the part of their rightful users and sometimes deep feelings of
        guilt on the part of the perpetrators."26
        "Impersonation" is classified as an opaque representation since
        the persona is intended to represent someone other than the user
        behind it; however, not all opaque representations are
        impersonations.  A user seeking complete anonymity for personal
        privacy reasons might consider an opaque representation; however,
        a translucent representation is more common.  A translucent
        representation is typified by the user who wishes to interact via
        a pseudonym.  For the same reasons that an author would elect to
        use a pen name, a translucent representation is useful in masking
        the user's identity in certain situations.  When the user is not
        seeking to evade accountability for his or her actions, he or she
        is not "impersonating."
        To review, having established the distinctness of Usenet's
        society and its persona population, it is possible to proceed
        with a preliminary parallel to _________
                                       Leviathan.  This parallel
        establishes that personae "act or represent the words or actions"
              24Hobbes, 125.
              25Hobbes, 126.
              26Elizabeth M. Reid, "Electropolis: Communication and
        Community on Internet Relay Chat" (thesis, University of
        Melbourne, 1991), lines 1139-1141.
                                         23
        of their users.  Additionally, expedience allows one to treat a
        person's words or actions as the persona's own.  This being
        Hobbes' definition for "personation," personae are therefore the
        Usenet analogs for persons in the external world.  Further, a
        user may exploit that expedience and "impersonate" another user
        to evade the consequences of his or her actions.  Finally, this
        preliminary parallel between Usenet and _________
                                                Leviathan clears the way
        for further analysis of the latter and the development of analogs
        within the former.
                                     The Powers
        Given the preliminary parallel between personae and Hobbes'
        "persons," it is possible to establish a further parallel between
        _________
        Leviathan and Usenet. Hobbes explains that persons possess
        certain powers.  The discussion continues with the consideration
        of these powers and development of their Usenet analogs.  On the
        subject of power, Hobbes begins,
              _______ _____
              Natural power, is the eminence of the faculties of body,
          or mind:  as extraordinary strength, form, prudence, arts,
          eloquence, liberality, nobility.  ____________
                                            Instrumental are those
          powers, which acquired by these, or by fortune, are means and
          instruments to acquire more: . . .27
        Three of these natural powers are severely limited in their
        transfer to Usenet society because Usenet personae lack physical
        form.  They are strength, form, and arts.  Obviously, physical
        strength is irrelevant in any environment devoid of physical
        things, but a Usenet persona can have strength relative to other
        personae.  In terms of Usenet, strength is one's ability to
        "execute an attack."  It will be recalled that the action of
        "attack," like all actions in Usenet, must be derived from the
        cycle of statement and response.  Therefore, "strength" in Usenet
        is one's ability to write a potent or even, vehement statement.
        The power of "form" comes from one's physical makeup.  In
        essence, it is the effect that one's appearance has on others.
        According to Hobbes, "form is power; because being a promise of
        good, it recommendeth men to the favour of women and
        strangers."28  Like "strength" it transfers poorly into Usenet
        because personae lack physical form.  Yet it has an analogous
        counterpart:  "form" in terms of Usenet, comes from the
        impression one makes on others, not with one's physique, but with
        one's words.  Even a pseudonym can convey form, as "Spartan"
        brings to mind images of frugality and warriors and "Damsel"
        connotes femininity and distress.  "Form" can extend to actual
        word choice when academic language can make a persona "appear"
        more scholarly, or when language laden with scientific jargon
        might bring to mind images of laboratory coats and measurement
        instruments.  Granted, while these images are not the clear,
        consistent images conveyed by "form" in the external world--in
        fact, they probably vary depending on the perceiver--they do
        serve to add a "face" to a name and a personality to the words.
        It is only natural to want to "fill in the blanks" that Usenet's
        analog for "form" leaves empty.
        Regarding the power of arts, Hobbes writes,
              27Hobbes, 72.
              28Hobbes, 73.
                                         25
                                         26
              Arts of public use, as fortification, making of engines,
          and other instruments of war; because they confer to defence,
          and victory, are power:  and though the true mother of them,
          be science, namely mathematics;  yet, because they are brought
          into the light, by the hand of the artificer, they be
          esteemed, the midwife passing with the vulgar for the mother,
          as his issue.29
        Since Usenet is a non-physical environment, the notion of
        "defence," like that of strength, must be derived from the cycle
        of statement and response.  Having established that "strength" in
        Usenet is one's ability to write a potent statement, then it
        follows that "arts" in Usenet, because they "confer to defence,"
        must be one's ability to write a rebuttal.
        In contrast, the powers of "prudence" and "liberality" are
        transferred to Usenet almost completely.  "Liberality" is
        intended by Hobbes to mean "generosity."  He writes,
              Also riches joined with liberality, is power; because it
          procureth friends, and servants:  without liberality, not so;
          because in this case they defend not; but expose men to envy,
          as a prey.30
        "Liberality" can be combined with things other than riches to
        produce the same effect.  Consider the act of restraining oneself
        from easily humiliating a subordinate in public or the act of
        freely and genuinely offering one's assistance to the
        uninitiated.  These acts of kindness bolster one's liberality.
        Additionally, they are actions easily transferred to written
        form.
        On the subject of prudence, Hobbes writes,
              When the thoughts of a man, that has a design in hand,
          running over a multitude of things, observes how they conduce
          to that design; or what design they may conduce unto; if his
          observations be such as are not easy, or usual, this wit of
          his is called PRUDENCE;  and depends on much experience, and
          memory of the like things, and their consequences
          heretofore.31
        Here Hobbes explains that "prudence" comes from "much experience"
        leading to "unusual observations" or insight.  A person's
        prudence transfers to his or her persona because they share one
        and the same mind and experiences, despite the fact that
        expedience may permit one to "forget" this fact.  Only when one's
        writing ability interferes with one's attempt to communicate
              29Hobbes, 73.
              30Hobbes, 72.
              31Hobbes, 61.
                                         27
        prudently does a persona seem less prudent in Usenet than the
        user does in the external world.
        Unlike the previously discussed powers, where it is clear that
        some have more exact Usenet analogs than others, the transferral
        of "nobility" to Usenet presents difficulty.  Hobbes explains,
              Nobility is power, not in all places, but only in those
          commonwealths, where it has privileges:  for in such
          privileges, consisteth their power.32
        One's privileges come from the recognition by others of one's
        rank or nobility.  Unless one conveyed one's nobility through a
        pseudonym or name such as "Dr. Oakeshott" or by the use of
        revealing information such as "My father, Senator Kennedy says .
        . . ," it is not likely that external world nobility will have
        relevance to Usenet society.  Additionally, in cases where
        external world nobility is transferred, the privileges and
        respect are not as forthcoming as expected.  Perhaps this is
        because persons of nobility, accustomed to the "trappings" of the
        elite, find that without these "trappings" in Usenet, their
        nobility is nothing more than words.  However, nobility does
        exist in Usenet.  Users such as Spafford, the frequently cited
        authority on "netiquette," seem to enjoy much deference when
        "making appearances" in Usenet.  For example, because Spafford is
        famous, other users may be less visibly critical of his
        statements while he is "present."
        "Eloquence," is possibly the most important power in Usenet.
        Hobbes probably included eloquence among the powers because it
        enables one to communicate, not only functionally, but with
        finesse.  Hobbes writes:  "Eloquence is power, because it is
        seeming prudence."33  The skill of writing enables one to have
        "a way with words" or eloquence.  Moreover, in a world where
        words are primary to existence and serve as the sole mode of
        communication and activity, their importance cannot be
        exaggerated.  In _____ ________
                         Emily Postnews, author Brad Templeton reminds
        the uninitiated user that "sloppy spelling in a purely written
        forum sends out the same silent messages that soiled clothing
        would when addressing an audience."34  On the other hand,
        actually wearing soiled clothing while accessing Usenet has
        absolutely no effect on one's persona.  The premium that Usenet
        places on spelling, and writing skills in general, inflates the
        Usenet analog for eloquence beyond its relative worth in the
        external world.
              32Hobbes, 73.
              33Hobbes, 73.
              34Brad Templeton, _____ ________
                                Emily Postnews, compiled by Gene
        Spafford, 1991, lines 241-245.  See Appendix for complete text.
                                         28
        Hobbes discusses additional powers which rely on or operate in
        conjunction with those already considered.  Among those
        additional powers are "affability" and united power.
        The power of "affability" seems similar to that of "liberality."
        "Liberality" was described earlier with the examples of public
        restraint with subordinates and generosity with the use of one's
        powers.  Strictly speaking, these qualities of graciousness more
        accurately describe the power of "affability."  If one reviews
        Hobbes' definition of "liberality," one will notice that
        "liberality" is power when "joined" with riches.  Clearly, Hobbes
        is concerned with "riches" when he writes of "liberality" because
        "it procureth friends, and servants."  Hobbes believes that
        "liberality" or generosity with one's riches is a power because
        friends and servants contribute to one's defense.
        The external world concept of "riches" does not easily translate
        into a world without physical or material wealth, but the
        development of the analog is possible nonetheless.  In the
        external world, money is used to barter for goods and services.
        In Usenet, goods do not exist.  On the other hand, services are
        abundant:  sharing one's knowledge is a service.  Assisting a new
        user is a service.  These services may be traded in Usenet
        analogously to their trade in the external world.  Therefore, the
        Usenet analog for "riches" is "services."  This conclusion
        returns one to the original observation that "liberality" and
        "affability" appear to share the same definition. With respect to
        Usenet, indeed they do.
        Finally, the power of united power or power "united by consent"
        is described below:
              The greatest of human powers, is that which is compounded
          of the powers of most men, united by consent, in one person,
          natural, or civil, that has the use of all their powers
          depending on his will."35
        It is premature to discuss why persons would want to unite their
        powers in a single person before it has been considered why they
        would want to pursue powers for themselves.  But since Hobbes
        includes this power with the rest, it is important to note that a
        power "which is compounded of the powers of most men" is the
        "greatest of human powers."  While this may be true in the
        external world, the nature of Usenet's written medium may
        subordinate united power to the power of "eloquence," since it is
        "eloquence" which enables users to create the environment where
        unity takes place.
              35Hobbes, 72.
                               The Pursuit of Powers
        Given the discussion of Hobbes' "powers" and the development of
        their respective analogs in Usenet, it is possible to discuss and
        develop the pursuit of powers in the external world and in
        Usenet.  This will be done by examining the benefits of power,
        the need for continuous participation to retain one's powers, and
        the effect of using one's powers to confront or compete with
        another person or persona.
        With respect to the benefits of power, Hobbes writes,
              [Powers] . . . are the means and instruments to acquire
          more:  as riches, reputation, friends, and the secret working
          of God, which men call good luck.36
        The benefits of power then are riches, reputation, friends, and
        good luck.  One will discover that these benefits are in some
        instances powers themselves, and that the pursuit of power
        appears to be an end in itself.
        Riches are perhaps the most difficult of the benefits of power to
        transfer to Usenet society.  In the external world, riches are
        clear--they are the signs and objects of material wealth, such as
        money and possessions.  Given that Usenet lacks a physical
        environment, an analog for material wealth, money, or possessions
        is nonsensical.  However, it has been established that
        "services," as in sharing one's knowledge, is the analog for
        "riches."
        Reputation is significant in both the external world and Usenet.
        It is the most important benefit of power in Usenet society.
        Hobbes does not provide a simple definition with which one can
        grasp the full meaning of reputation; in fact, he defines
        reputation contextually in the definitions of other powers.
        Consider the following passage:
              Reputation of power, is power; because it draweth with it
          the adherence of those that need protection.  So is reputation
          of love of a man's country, called popularity, for the same
          reason.  Also, what quality soever maketh a man beloved, or
          feared of many; or the reputation of such quality, is power;
          because it is a means to have the assistance, and service of
          many.  Good success is power; because it maketh reputation of
          wisdom, or good fortune; which makes men either fear him; or
          rely on him. . . . Reputation of prudence in the conduct of
          peace or war, is power; because to prudent men, we commit the
          government of ourselves, more willingly than to others.37
        Broadly defined,  reputation is the publicly held estimate of
        one's worth.  With that in mind, Hobbes' definition of reputation
              36Hobbes, 72.
              37Hobbes, 72-73.
                                         32
                                         33
        in the context of other powers make more sense.  This being the
        case, reputation is the publicly held estimate of one's powers.
        For example, one may be an excellent cook known only within the
        private circle of one's friends, but once one establishes a
        reputation outside of that private circle, the estimate of one's
        excellence may be held publicly.  In this case, the power of
        one's prudence in cooking is amplified by one's reputation, and
        Hobbes tells us that in the first line of that passage when he
        says "reputation of power, is power."  It is in this sense of
        power begetting power that the importance of reputation is
        heightened in the external world.  To the extent that reputation
        is the most important power in Usenet, the following discussion
        of the Usenet analog for reputation is critical.
        In Usenet, one's powers, such as strength and eloquence, are
        expressed by participating in the cycle of statements and
        responses.  Only in this way can one's powers be perceived,
        substantiated, measured, and ranked by others.  The resulting
        comparisons made among personae establish the public estimation
        of one's worth.  This reputation-making process of comparison and
        worth is supported with the following two quotations from Hobbes:
              "Virtue generally, in all sorts of subjects, is somewhat
          that is valued for eminence; and consisteth in comparison."38
              "For let a man, as most men do, rate themselves at the
          highest value they can; yet their true value is no more, than
          it is esteemed by others."39
        Indeed, Hobbes makes it clear that reputation serves to set a
        "market price" for one's worth.  He implies that although
        reputation can amplify one's strengths, it can expose one's
        weaknesses to greater scrutiny, thereby devaluating others'
        personal estimate of those strengths.  And with respect to
        Usenet, reputation is the collective memory of the comparisons of
        past cycles of statement and response.
        Hobbes believes that the possession of friends is a benefit of
        power.  The Usenet "public" that forms one's reputation consists
        of many personae, some of which are one's friends.  During the
        cycle of the statement and response, the participants and the
        observers rate and compare the participants' expressions of their
        powers.  This comparison reveals degrees of affinities among
        personae, that is, they may "take sides" on an issue.  These
        affinities are guided by what is described by Hobbes as
        passions,40 which include but are not limited to appetite,
              38Hobbes, 59.
              39Hobbes, 73.
              40Hobbes, 47.
                                         34
        desire, love, aversion, hate, joy, and grief.41  Those personae
        whose passions move them together out of common affinity become
        friends, supporters, and allies.  Those whose passions
        disassociate them may become enemies.  A persona's friends enable
        it to establish and build its reputation, thereby increasing its
        power, whereas its enemies seek to discredit it, thereby reducing
        its power.  There is no inherent quality such as "good" or "evil"
        that distinguishes one's friends from one's enemies; what is
        knowable is only that the former seek to support and increase
        one's power, and the latter seek its attenuation.
         The benefit of power known as "luck" describes one's ability to
        "know the secret working of God."  Certainly Hobbes does not mean
        direct knowledge of God, but he does want to acknowledge the
        power of those who tend to draw "stronger hands" than others.
        The most important analog for luck in Usenet is one's ability to
        draw friends.  While it is true that one's friends come from
        those who observe one's actions, luck guides one to act
        fortuitously in places likely to attract many and the most
        reliable of them.
        In order to acquire the benefits of power, it is necessary to
        continuously participate in the cycle of statement and response.
        Although reputation is a benefit of power and a power, because it
        amplifies the other powers, the duration of that effect becomes
        important.  If one's reputation is held by the public in
        collective memory, it follows that one's reputation is
        recalculated after each participation, with the readjusted
        reputation replacing the older reputation in the collective
        memory.  Thus one's reputation lasts until it is forgotten.  As
        one's reputation fades from memory, so fades one's power.
        However, to fade completely violates the condition of existence
        for continuous participation; therefore, to avoid the fading of
        one's power and the cessation of existence, one must continuously
        participate in the cycle of statement and response.
        To summarize, the objects or benefits of power are riches,
        reputation, friends, and luck.  Of these benefits, reputation is
        the most important in Usenet because it is a benefit of power and
        a power in itself.  It enables one to increase one's power by
        amplifying beyond the private circle into the public arena.  By
        subjecting one's powers to perception, substantialization,
        comparison, and rating, reputation is created by participating in
        the cycle of statement and response.  Reputation sets the "fair
        market" value for one's worth which may be higher or lower than
        one's own estimation.  Reputation is stored in the collective
        memory of past participation in the cycle of statement and
        response.  And finally, the duration of one's reputation depends
        upon one's continuous participation in the cycle of statement and
        response.
              41Hobbes, 50.
                                       Death
        Where previously, the definition of power, its benefits and their
        Usenet analogs have been discussed, it is possible to explore in
        terms of Usenet, the pursuit of power, the notion of "death," and
        the competition for powers.
        The possession of certain benefits of power, such as reputation,
        is power in itself; however, possession of power alone seems not
        to be enough.  In revisiting the following passage on power, it
        is important to focus on Hobbes' use of "more:"
              [Powers] . . . are the means and instruments to acquire
          more:  as riches, reputation, friends, and the secret working
          of God, which men call good luck.42
          Hobbes does not say, for example, that powers are the means to
        acquire riches, reputation, friends and good luck.  He says that
        powers are the means to acquire "more."  This suggests that
        Hobbes believes that the simple acquisition of powers is not
        enough.  In fact, it is clear from the following passage that
        there is no limit as to how much can be acquired:
              And the cause of this, is not always that a man hopes for
          more intensive delight, than he has already attained to; or
          that he cannot be content with a moderate power:  but because
          he cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he
          hath present, without the acquisition of more.43
        As can be seen, the acquisition of "more" assures one's present
        power and "means to live well."  This implies an active life of
        acquisition, not a leisurely life where one waits for power to
        come to him or her.  Hobbes is saying that if one wants the
        assurance of one's "present means to live well," one must acquire
        "more."  Hobbes is very clear on this point when he uses the word
        "restless" in the following passage.  Note that "restless" should
        not be interpreted  as "fidgety," but rather, more literally as
        "without rest":
              So that in the first place, I put for a general
          inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of
          power after power, that ceaseth only in death.44
        This indictment of "mankind" clears the way for a discussion of
        "death."  According to Hobbes, death in the external world is the
        cessation of all movement, for men consist of a complex
        combination of motions ranging from one's limbs to one's
              42Hobbes, 72.
              43Hobbes, 80.
              44Hobbes, 80.
                                         37
                                         38
        dreams.45  These motions, "begun in generation, and continued
        without interruption through their whole life"46 distinguish the
        living from the not.
        The Usenet analog for life is also derived from motions, the
        motion of the cycle of statement and response, and it is
        predicated upon the satisfaction of the three conditions for a
        Usenet persona's existence:  enough utility to assure the
        continued association between the user and the persona, the
        visible demonstration of one's presence via a persona, and
        continuous participation in the cycle of statement and response.
        Without the satisfaction of these conditions, a persona cannot
        exist.  It is clear from the conditions that utility and
        participation are essential:  Usenet must remain useful to the
        user and the user must continuously assert the existence of his
        or her persona by participating in the cycle of statement and
        response.
        The effect of participation in this cycle is the creation and
        development of one's reputation.  Those personae whose
        reputations are highly valued attract a sufficient number of
        responses with which to perpetuate additional cycles for
        statement and response.  Those personae with poorly valued
        reputations may at first generate an intense cycle based on
        criticism of another and defense, but often come to be ignored
        and forced to face exclusion, obscurity, and thereby "death."
        For example,  well-regarded personae only need to participate
        occasionally to insure that they are not forgotten, because the
        resultant cycle of statement and response will generate enough
        interest to maintain their reputations, and thereby their
        existence.  It is also possible that little known personae may
        establish temporary notoriety for themselves by making outrageous
        statements before returning to obscurity after their cycle has
        run its course.
        By far, the great majority of personae enjoy neither fame nor
        ignominy, for their participation merely consists of "skirmishes"
        and banter.  To illustrate this case, it is common for one to
        state an opinion, draw criticism, and rebut it.  The participants
        in this short cycle are then compared, rated, and their
        respective reputations adjusted in the collective memory.  But
        consider the case where one is subjected to an undue amount of
        criticism.  If the "assault" is without merit, as in the second
        illustration, one may choose to ignore it; but if the criticism
        is based on truth, one may feel compelled to defend his or her
        reputation.  Hobbes explains this compulsion as a "right" when he
        says,
              THE RIGHT OF NATURE, which writers commonly call ___
                                                               jus
              45Hobbes, 23-27.
              46Hobbes, 47.
                                         39
          ________
          naturale, is the liberty each man hath, to use his own power,
          as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature;
          that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing
          any thing, which in his own judgment, and reason, he shall
          conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.47
        As it has been shown, reputation is the "tote board" of a
        persona's existence within Usenet; therefore, to defend one's
        reputation is to exercise one's natural right to self-
        preservation in Usenet.  But even relatively minor "skirmishes"
        can lead to larger "battles," because the drive to acquire "more"
        can accelerate the cycle of statement and response into a
        reputation-making machine.    Consider the effect of the
        "perpetual and restless desire of power after power" and the
        lengths that Hobbes believes a person will go to assure the
        acquisition of "more."  In Usenet, the analog for an attack
        designed for quick reputational gain is called a "flame."
        Perhaps named for their inflammatory nature, "flames" tend to be
        ad hominem, argumentative, and often have little to do with the
        original discussions in which they develop.  The extremely
        personal nature of "flames" often draws one to respond
        reflexively with a statement even more insulting or offensive
        than the original.  Again, the motivation to participate in such
        an exchange is to publicly defend one's reputation.  A cycle
        containing ad hominem exchanges can gain momentum very quickly,
        attracting outside attention to its participants.  As the number
        of observers increases, the reputational stakes of the
        participants increase.  This has the effect of luring some of the
        observers from the "sidelines" into the cycle as well, causing
        the spread of the"war."  Sometimes compared to "storms," because
        they appear without warning, wreak havoc, and subside just as
        unpredictably, "flame wars" can start over spelling, grammar,
        semantics, or any seemingly trivial issue.
        Since "flame wars" can dominate or otherwise interfere with the
        discussion of non-participants, the "wars" tend to diminish the
        utility of Usenet to those non-participants.  Since utility is
        among the conditions of existence within Usenet, if enough non-
        participants feel the utility of their participation in Usenet is
        substantially threatened by a "flame war," the warring
        participants have nothing to gain reputationally and much to
        lose.  In fact, once a "flame war" loses its audience, the
        participants not only lose those who would judge and compare
        their actions, but more importantly, a war offensive, annoying,
        or useless enough to drive away its observers will probably cause
        a net loss to the reputations of its participants.
        Although "flame wars" are generally discouraged because they are
        so disruptive, they persist, and are commonly found in newsgroups
        oriented toward social issues and controversy.  However, the
        relatively sedate technical discussion newsgroups have their
        share.  The notoriously disruptive, and futile, cycle of "Macs
              47Hobbes, 103.
                                         40
        are better than PCs" is a recurring "flame war" which many users
        try to extinguish as quickly as it begins, by refusing to
        participate.  It should be noted that a special newsgroup,
        "alt.flame," exists for the specific purpose of being a place
        where one can participate in a "flame war" without being
        disruptive to the discussions in the rest of the newsgroups, a
        sort of "O.K. Corral."  It is common to see someone write, "Let's
        take this discussion to alt.flame."
        The following passage from _________
                                   Leviathan may shed light on why
        "flaming" and contention in general occurs:
              ____ __ __________ ____ ___________
              Love of contention from competition.  Competition of
          riches, honour, command, or other power, inclineth to
          contention, enmity, and war:  because the way of one
          competitor, to the attaining of his desire, is to kill,
          subdue, supplant, or repel the other.48
        In the preceding passage, Hobbes suggests that persons engage in
        lethal competition in order to acquire powers and their benefits.
        In terms of Usenet, "flaming" allows them to increase their
        reputations at the expense of others.
        In summary, it is clear that personae must restlessly participate
        in the cycle of statement and response, which is primary to their
        existence within Usenet and which allows them to acquire more
        powers, as in reputation.  It is also understood that such
        continuous participation, especially that of "flaming," is
        contentious and that one's reputation is subject to damage.  The
        question remains, how contentious can the Usenet environment for
        participation become, before the conditions to maintain the
        existence of one's persona become so difficult to meet that one
        is driven to surrender his or her powers to a single authority?
              48Hobbes, 81.
                                Living in Moderation
        This section includes a discussion of an actual Usenet example of
        the cycle of statement and response, the alternatives to the
        outright surrender of one's powers, and the submission to
        moderation.  The following series of articles are messages from a
        Usenet newsgroup oriented towards the discussion of evil.  Topics
        in the newsgroup drift between "tales from the dark side"49 to
        the plotting of murder.  This example is the beginning portion of
        a cycle of statement and response involving five personae
        discussing the fate of one of their teaching assistants and the
        moral and legal implications of the discussion itself.  The
        personae are "Paul" from the University of Maryland at College
        Park, a user at Youngstown State University,  a user at Malaspina
        College,"Jon" from Netcom Online Communications Services, and a
        user at the University of Maine.  All articles are included in
        their entirety without editing to preserve the "realism" of the
        discussion.  Paul writes,
              With one single, simple, trivial, insignificant event, my
          life has been thrown into utter chaos.
              I'm graduating this semester, or was. My TA insists I did
          not turn in a significant amount of assignments for her class.
          This is incorrect, and I have no way of proving it to her. As
          such, see [___
                     sic] is giving me an F. Despite the large amount of
          work I did, and my good test grades, she will not even
          consider a D.  Mind you this is an insignificant little one
          credit Physical Education course. I explained that I had no
          money to take a course during the summer ($300), was leaving
          in the summer for Ca., was on my way to grad school, and that
          this little incident was really fucking up my life. She
          proceeded to give me, while power-tripping and in an
          authoritative manner, the 'real world and responsibility'
          speech. As though this fucking class and this little blonde
          puke were representative of the real world. Needless to say, I
          am irate.
              What I would like from you are suggestions to make her
          life a living hell. I considered killing her, or driving by
          her house with an uzi, but I don't want to go to jail, at
          least not over her. Any suggestions from the subtle to
          extravagant will be considered. Nothing she could easily trace
          me to.
              I anxiously await your response.....
        Paul is apparently disappointed with his poor grade, but it is
        never clear whether he actually intends to act on the advice he
        solicits or whether he is simply attempting to gain sympathy from
        others by sharing his plight.  His first response arrives from
        the University of Maryland user.  It will be recalled that this
        response satisfies Paul's conditions for existence--it proves
              49John Gilmore, ___________ _________ ____________ ____ _
                              Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies, Part I,
        edited by Gene Spafford, 1992, line 147.
                                         43
                                         44
        that he is not isolated and alone:
              Heh... I'm starting to like this gal.  She must really
          like watching you squirm.  Heh.  You could post her name,
          address, etc so every horny geek can give her a call.  A
          slight description, so they can pretend that they know her
          well... scare the hell out of her.  My guess, though, is that
          she'd like it too much.  Ah well...
              Don't you see it??????  Come on, man... it *IS*
          representative of the whole world.  You are getting dicked
          over in a way you never ever expected!!  Some small
          "insignifigant" person is ruining your life. You better learn
          fast... or you are not going to fare well at all.
              Why are you so worried about her misery being traced to
          you?  She doesn't mind that *you* know how very screwed you
          are.  *SHE* doesn't mind telling you *to your face* exactly
          how she is going to do it.  Illegal is bad...yep.  Proof  is
          tricky... but avoidable.  I suggest printing this out,
          (assuming you save it), and deleting it immediately.
              Okay... right now I'm more on her side than yours... but
          since you asked....
              Two words:  Sexual Harrasment.
              Just as difficult to prove/disprove as the homework issue.
          Just as likely to ruin her life.  I mean... how would you like
          to be the girl who was *so* desperate to find a date, she was
          blackmailing her student?  Heh.
              No offence to you... but this works even better if you are
          unattractive.
              :)
              Actually... this may even be what she is trying to do...
          how do *I* know?  You said you handed the HW in, right?
          Okay... so she "lost" it.  Maybe she wants something in return
          for "finding" the homework.  Start telling all your friends
          how she keeps coming on to you, and got really pissed when you
          turned her down... and that she hinted that she would ruin
          your grade if you didn't play along.  About this time, you
          want to start recording conversations with this babe... keep
          saying that you are *desperate* to do well in this class...
          you'd do *anything* to make up for it... what could you do?
          You, obviously, may want to edit out these portions of the
          conversation.  :)  See what responce you get.  Ask her out.
          Bring sex into the conversation.  Go back, now, and mention to
          your friends that she *really is* going to ruin your grade
          since you didn't play along.  Get really upset.  Become
          hysterical... say that you don't really care and that you'll
          go ahead and do what she wants... you just want to graduate.
          Call her with someone in the room.  Assuming that she didn't
          want you to trade affection for your grade... I'n sitll not
          ruling this out as a possibility... she will most probably
          turn you down quite loudly.  Your friend may even overhear
          this if she is *really* loud.  As some of your friends to help
          decide what you should do.  Eventually, this will come to
          someone's attention... etc.  If things don't look good, keep
                                         45
          telling the school authorities that you are going to take the
          matter to a more public setting if they don't fix things with
          your grade.  This usually makes them jump.  Even if she
          doesn't get in trouble... you should most certainly get your
          grade.  Depending on how well you play it... you might even
          get to make $$$ writing about it... touring... etc.  Don't
          make up dates and times that you cannot account for her
          location.  If you say she was harassing you and she was with
          30 people playing nude twister... your story is shot to hell.
          Write stuff down, and memorize it.
              Ok.  You have the tools... it all depends on how well you
          play it
              ....Send me a copy of your book.
              Take Care.
        Note the tone of the Maryland user's response.  At first he or
        she mocks Paul by "siding" with the teaching assistant, but
        eventually the user describes a plan of action.  Also note that
        the user has to resort to non-standard punctuation,
        capitalization, and asterisks to convey emphasis since the
        traditional non-verbal methods of controlling voice pitch and
        volume are unavailable.  There is even the presence of emoticons
        to indicate that the user is smiling at those points in the
        response.  But again, it is still uncertain whether this user
        expects his or her advice to be taken seriously or whether the
        exchange is merely an exercise to help Paul vent his frustration.
        The next response to Paul's statement comes from Youngstown State
        University.  Generally, only two personae are needed to
        substantiate one another's existences, but in this case, this
        third user from Youngstown, rather  than Paul, serves to
        substantiate the existence of the Maryland user:
              If by some chance, you can get her address & soc. security
          number, I have heard that a really effective harassment goes
          like this:
               Call the I.R.S.
              Say, "I'm (name of TA ), and I think I made a mistake on
          my 1040,       could you check your records?"
              Supply address & social, if asked for them.
              With luck, she gets audited.
              Probably kinder to just shoot her.
        This response clearly contains more humor than the previous two,
        provided that one agrees that death is preferable to a tax audit,
        but it is still difficult to tell whether or not this is a
        harmless, but "dark" discussion or a conspiracy to commit a
        felony.  The fourth participant, a user from Malaspina College is
        apparently not amused when he or she writes,
              Please consider the implications of this conversation.
          This is an extrordinarily offensive and demeaning exchange
          with possible legal implications. Your conversations
          contribute to the oppression of women and completely undermine
          the human values you profess to acquire at college. Remember
                                         46
          that your commentari}iesare read by many people throughout the
          world and reflect not only on you, but on the institutions you
          represent.  All of us in the college and university community
          have a strong personal responsibility to ensure that our
          colleagues--women in particular--are protected from abusive,
          offensive, demeaning, belittling, harrassing, and threatening
          language. There is NO EXCUSE for this exchange in any
          conference.  Fourteen women in Montreal were massacrd 2 years
          ago by a man whose ideas reflected the same crap you are
          exchanging. I am profoundly disturbed and ashamed that people
          who profess intellectual skills will engage in this kind of
          hate exchange. I am new to conference activity but fully
          intend to do whatever is necessary to protect my colleagues
          from thissort of abuse.
        This user is risking confrontation by "scolding" and attempting
        to shame the other users for their actions.  Despite the name of
        the current newsgroup, alt.evil, this user is convinced that this
        discussion has no place in "any conference." In the terms of this
        study, this user is "attacking" the reputations of the other
        three.  The first user to respond to the "attack" is Jon from
        Netcom:
              Who died and appointed you net.cop?
              What a joke!  You could easily argue that this TA's
          actions contribute to the oppression of men.  Further, as to
          the "values" one acquires at college, this is bullshit.  The
          only "values" most people learn at college is what case of
          beer is cheapest, or how best to make money.
              Pahleeezee.  I think you give it more importance than it
          has.  Especially in this newsgroup, which exists to promote
          and discuss evil.  Not social responsibility.  There are news
          groups for that purpose.  Just look.  You would probably be
          happier there.  Sorry, but this group is not going to mutate
          into alt.fuzzy.warm.feeling.inside because it bothers you.
              Don't you get it?  *This is alt.evil*.  It is a newsgroup,
          not a conference.  It is not about social responsibility.
              Good luck, idiot.  Have you ever heard of *Freedom of
          Speech?*  You are clearly living in a fantasy world, and
          appear to believe you somehow are powerful.  Ha Ha Ha.  What a
          shit head you are.
        Note that Jon's first sentence, "Who died and appointed you
        net.cop?" is extremely sarcastic and rhetorical.  Its intent is
        not to elicit a truthful response, but to embarass the Malaspina
        College user for assuming an authoritative role.  Jon then
        proceeds to return the "attack" by questioning the validity of
        the values acquired at college.  This tactic actually pits Jon's
        "prudence" in college experience against that of the user from
        Malaspina, and may actually have more of a bearing on the
        calculation of his reputation than everything else that he says.
        After this point, his response quickly becomes an ad hominem
        attack, mocking the Malaspina user and calling him names.  This
        message is an example of a "flame," and as such, it is
        interesting to observe that aside from the first sentence, it
                                         47
        does not specifically have anything to do with Paul's original
        statement.
        The fifth and final user in this example is from the University
        of Maine:
              No moralizing on who's right or wrong, we are talking
          about evil not ethics.  sugar in the gas tank should
          crystalize in the fuel lines, or use sand and ruin the engine,
          figure a way to give her lice (there's a# of varieties esp.
          pubic) or plant drugs on her etc. If you or any of your I.M.F.
          team are captured thesecretary will disavow any knowledge of
          your actions. -HAVE FUN
        Again, note the humorous tone.  Given that all of the responses
        had elements of humor, it is entirely possible that the Malaspina
        College user violated an alt.evil norm by dispelling their
        fantasy plot.  The Malaspina user also may not have "picked up"
        on the humor given the interference of the medium and the
        inadequacies of emoticons and other devices to convey non-verbal
        information.  Of particular interest in this last message is the
        opening sentence, ". . . we are talking about evil not ethics."
        By stating the purpose of the cycle and the newsgroup, this user
        effectively pits his "prudence" in alt.evil interaction against
        the previous two users'; and by immediately returning to the
        topic at hand with the remainder of his message, this user is
        attempting to extinguish the disruptive "flames."
        It will be recalled that these articles are only the first five
        in a cycle of statement and response.  It should also be noted
        that the number of observers of this cycle, if any, is unknown,
        but that this figure is estimated to be five times the number of
        participants.50  At the conclusion of each statement or response,
        the participants and the observers privately estimate the worth
        of each participant:  the sum of that worth, held in the
        collective memory, is their reputation.
        Given this detailed discussion of the cycle of statement and
        response, it is useful to recall the remaining question:  how
        contentious can the Usenet environment for participation become,
        before the conditions to maintain the existence of one's persona
        become so difficult to meet, that one is driven to surrender his
        powers to a single authority?  The following discussion prepares
        one to answer by first considering the alternatives to the
        outright surrender of one's powers.  For this purpose the
        following passage from _________
                               Leviathan is useful:
              _____ _________ ____ ____ __ _____  ____ ____ __ ______ __
              Civil obedience from love of ease.  From fear of death, or
          ______
          wounds.  Desire of ease, and sensual delight, disposeth men to
              50Brian, Reid, ______ __________ _______
                             Usenet Readership Summary (Palo Alto,
        California:  Network Measurement Project at the DEC Western
        Research Laboratory, March 1992), lines 22-28.  See Appendix.
                                         48
          obey a common power:  because by such desires, a man doth
          abandon the protection that might be hoped for from his own
          industry, and labour.  Fear of death, and wounds, disposeth to
          the same; and for the same reason.51
        From this passage it is clear that Hobbes recognizes that the
        rest-less "pursuit of power after power" takes its toll on
        persons who are as inclined to ease as they are to contention.
        The balance between these opposing desires appears to be the
        "fear of death, and wounds."  It follows then, that it is the
        fear of death and wounds that persuades persons to abandon their
        pursuit of powers and surrender themselves to the power of
        another.  This notion is apparent in Usenet, but it appears that
        there are other alternatives short of complete surrender.  As
        discussed, one may ignore a user who interferes with the utility
        of one's access to Usenet.  Additionally, to solve disputes and
        facilitate the interaction, one may voluntarily adhere to the
        general principles described as "netiquette" as outlined by
        Spafford.  Next to be discussed is an actual example from Usenet
        which invokes Spafford's guidelines and the practice of using
        "kill files" to systematically ignore disruptive users.
        It will be recalled that Gene Spafford compiles and distributes a
        series of guidelines designed to facilitate the smooth
        interaction between Usenet participants, but since there is no
        Usenet government to enforce them, the guidelines remain
        informal.  Nonetheless, many individuals voluntarily abide by
        them and insist that others do the same.  In the following
        example, "David" attempts to persuade "Bill" to use some self-
        restraint and conform to Spafford's guidelines:
              Why don't you respond in private mail, and ask the person
          you are sending to to summarize. This prevents clutter, which
          this posting is as well. If everyone posted a response to
          every PC related hardware question they saw, this newsgroup
          would quickly become too bulky to work with.
        In this article, David is responding to an earlier message of
        Bill's.  Apparently, Bill had previously responded publicly to
        someone else's question.  In all likelihood, the question was a
        common one and Bill's response was a common answer.  Tired of
        seeing both "frequently asked questions" and their responses,
        David asks Bill in this article to observe the Usenet "courtesy"
        of responding to such questions in private.  It should be noted
        that David is relying on the following section from Spafford's
        guidelines:
              One of the biggest problems we have on the network is that
          when someone asks a question, many people send out identical
          answers.  When this happens, dozens of identical answers pour
          through the net.  Mail your answer to the person and suggest
              51Hobbes, 81.
                                         49
          that they summarize to the network.  This way the net will
          only see a single copy of the answers, no matter how many
          people answer the question.52
        In Bill's response to David, "IMHO" is the common abbreviation
        for "in my humble opinion":
              My understanding is that these groups are for the
          unfettered exchange of  information. IMHO, too much band-width
          is used attempting to restrict use of the NET. I, for one,
          like to read like the answers. It's a lot easier for everyone
          than E-mailing the posters and asking them to share
          individually. Lot of recipients of NET-knowledge do NOT take
          the extra effort to summarize. It's easy enough to ignore
          threads which have nothing to offer. We're a divers bunch..
          one person's "clutter" may be another's insight. There are
          first-timer joining these groups every day. Remember our
          roots. I have no problem with FAQ being FAQs. (Frequently
          Asked Questions being Frequently Answered Questions)
        Obviously Bill opts to ignore Spafford's guidelines and runs the
        risk of being ignored by those he annoys with his "clutter."
        Concerned that already too much time has been spent discussing
        the issue, David replies,
              I suggest this is way off the topic of comp.sys.ibm.pc, if
          we really have to continue this discussion let's finish it in
          email.
        David could be right.  "comp.sys.ibm.pc" is a technical newsgroup
        for the discussion of IBM personal computers.  Participants
        receive hundreds of messages daily and very few have the patience
        for non-technical discussions in the newsgroup such as Bill's and
        David's.  It is very likely that both Bill and David are already
        being ignored.
        Sometimes the situation arises where a user will offend or annoy
        another so severely that simply ignoring the user runs the risk
        of  encountering him and being offended and annoyed at a later
        date.  To remedy this situation, Usenet users have at their
        disposal a utility known as a "kill file."  Basically an
        electronic filter, a "kill file" allows a user to screen out or
        block the message of another user.  A "kill file" can contain the
        names of several users and sites, as well as offensive words,
        effectively preventing the display of potentially unwanted
        messages.  Note that a "kill file" does not actually destroy
        Usenet articles, but merely shields the owner of the file from
        their existence.  "Kill files" are an extreme method of self-
        censoring because they take the power of decision away from the
        "kill file" owner.  Many users still prefer to run the risk of
              52Von Rospach, lines 176-181.
                                         50
        re-encountering annoyances than to subjugate themselves to an
        automatic censor; however, the following example of gratuitous
        "flaming" makes the originator of the statement a prime candidate
        for countless "kill files" within reading range of the message:
              WHAT?!?!?! You deleted the FUCKING expletives you PUSSY-
          STARVED DICKSUCKING BASTARD? What the FUCK kind of newsgroup
          do you think this is?
              This aint FUCKING rec.tv.family-channel.
              Leave the FUCKING expletives in, it annoys the SHIT out of
          me when ASSHOLES [do that] . . .
        However, the threat of "kill files" do not necessarily prevent or
        curb disruptive behavior.  Mark from Denver illustrates this:
              So put me in your kill-file, dac.  Simple solution.  What
          makes you think I give a hoot about *what* you think of my
          writing?  I post for my own enjoyment.
              Not yours.  Live with it.
        Of course, Mark should probably think twice about such a
        challenge if his name begins to appear in too many "kill files."
         As the amount of clutter or "noise"53 increases, more and more
        users voluntarily submit to "moderation."  A moderated newsgroup
        prevents unapproved statements from being distributed.  All
        statements are submitted to a moderator who screens the messages
        for content, posts the appropriate ones, and rejects the ones he
        feels are unfit for the discussion.  In the case of a moderated
        newsgroup, the moderator has tremendous control of one's network
        existence.
        The price or reward for such restraint is the decrease of noise
        and the increase of relevant information.  Moderated newsgroups
        are not without problems and as David reminds us, "one person's
        'clutter' may be another's insight."  Additionally, the degree of
        censorship varies from moderator to moderator.  In the case of
        "comp.dcom.telecom," a moderated newsgroup dedicated to
        telecommunications issues, many individuals are unable to
        tolerate its highly-opinionated moderator, Patrick Townson.  As a
        result, they have created an alternative or unrestricted
        newsgroup called "alt.dcom.telecom."  To this day Pat's group
        remains very popular while the much smaller alternative group is
        commonly cluttered with articles critical of  him.  This offers
        little choice for users who desire the volume of messages in the
        moderated group, but deplore Pat's degree of restraint.
        To summarize this section of the discussion, the maintenance of
        the existence of a persona requires users to continuously
        participate in the cycle of statement and response.  As a result
              53The commonly used term for "clutter,"  which comes from
        the technical phrase "signal-to-noise ratio," which basically
        means that the less interference there is, the cleaner the signal
        will be.
                                         51
        of this participation, the users both establish or maintain their
        persona's reputation and benefits from the utility of Usenet.  As
        a matter of participation, the users may receive challenges to
        their statements or "actions" and may also challenge the
        statements or "actions" of others.  In rare cases, they may
        participate in or observe a cycle that generates "flames" or
        escalates into a "flame war."  This sort of message and other
        messages they find personally uninteresting, offensive, or
        annoying decreases the utility of Usenet for them and threatens
        the existence of their persona.  To protect themselves from this
        threat, they have the alternatives of ignoring the offensive
        articles, requesting that offensive users conform to
        "netiquette," "killing" the offensive users by placing them in
        their "kill file," or participating in a moderated newsgroup.
                             Looking for the Leviathan
        It has been established that in a contentious environment,
        offensive or uninteresting articles may diminish Usenet's utility
        to its users.  As a result, users may opt to restrict their
        participation to the moderation of another user.  In terms of
        Usenet, too many attacks and disruptive actions by other personae
        threaten their existence to the point that they may consider
        surrendering themselves to the control of another persona.  It is
        on this level, the level of the personae, that Hobbes' _________
                                                               Leviathan
        operates.  The following discussion describes and analyzes a
        random survey of the participation within Usenet and the degree
        to which the participation is moderated.
        If one were to search for a Leviathan in Usenet, one would
        obviously begin with the moderated newsgroups because the
        discussions therein consist of articles previously approved by a
        "common power."  However, there are other less obvious
        indications of restraint such as conformity to or compliance with
        "netiquette" as a general guide to behavior; and conformity to or
        compliance with Spafford's more specific set of guidelines.
        A survey was conducted on a randomly selected sample of two
        hundred Usenet articles.  The articles were selected from a list
        of 3,971 existing newsgroups with each group having equal chances
        for selection.  A computer program was written to randomly select
        a newsgroup from the list from which it randomly selected an
        article.  The selected article became part of the sample
        population.  If the newsgroup did not contain any articles, the
        computer program selected another newsgroup until the sample
        population was equal to two hundred.
        After the sample population was determined, each article was
        examined for signs or indication of a Leviathan.  These
        indicators were operationalized as "Leviathan Factors" with each
        increase in factor representing a greater sign or indication of
        coercion.  The "Leviathan Factors" (LF) are described as follows:
        Leviathan Factor       Description
                                         55
                                         56
                  0         No signs of coercion to conform or
                            self-restraint.
                  1         Unmindful conformity to/compliance
                            with "netiquette" such as the use of
                            "emoticons" or other characters to
                            convey physical actions.
                  2         Reference to "netiquette" as means of
                            conformity/compliance.
                  3         Reference to Spafford's guidelines.
                            More specific than LF 2.
                  4         Article is from a moderated newsgroup
                            or is otherwise censored.
                    Table 1.  The operationalization of Leviathan
        The factors are at the ordinal level of measurement such that LF
        4 means "more Leviathan" than LF 3, but it does not mean than LF
        2 represents twice as much as LF 1.  Given the operationalization
        of Leviathan as "Leviathan Factors," it was possible to read each
        article and ask:  Does this article contain any signs of coercion
        to obey a common power?  If an article contained more than one
        indicator, then it was coded with the greatest LF for which it
        satisfied the requirements.  The findings help one to conclude
        "how much" of a Leviathan is present in Usenet.  A survey of the
        sample population produced the following figures shown in Table
        2,
                         LF          Frequency     Percentage
                          0             162           81.0
                          1             14             7.0
                          2              3             1.5
                          3              2             1.0
                          4             19             9.5
                        Total           200           100.0
            Table 2.  Articles containing progressive signs of Leviathan
        Based on the data, 9.5% of the articles surveyed showed the
        greatest amount of Leviathan (LF 4), and 81% showed no signs of
        Leviathan (LF 0).  It was expected that there would be
        progressively fewer articles with each increasing factor of
        Leviathan, but the unusual distribution for LF 1-3 suggests
        possible operationalization problems.  In retrospect, it was not
        correct to identify "emoticons" as a form of Leviathan because
        they are signs of compensation for the medium of written
        communication and not necessarily signs of compliance to or
        conformity with "netiquette."  The unexpectedly high number of
                                         57
        observations coded LF 1 bear this out.  Additionally, the sample
        size did not support a five-way breakdown with any degree of
        accuracy between the extremes of LF 0 and LF 4.  This resulted in
        a negligible difference between the number of observations coded
        LF 2 and LF 3 from which a meaningful conclusion can be drawn.
        In order to account for operationalization and sample size
        problems, the data can be presented in Table 3 in a way to
        emphasize the measured extremes.
                 LF               Frequency          Percentage
                 0-1                 176                 88
                 2-4                 24                  12
                Total                200                 100
                   Table 3.  Articles showing signs of a Leviathan
        Presented in this way, the articles are divided into two
        consolidated categories.  The first category, LF 0-1, consists of
        articles with no measured signs of a Leviathan, including
        "emoticons" which are indicators of compensation and not
        coercion.  The second category, LF 2-4, consists of articles
        which do contain signs of a Leviathan.  This category describes
        the range of articles including those in which someone asks
        another to observe "netiquette" to articles submitted under
        moderation.  Based on the findings, some measure of Leviathan is
        present in 12% of the articles surveyed.
                                     Conclusion
        The conclusion consists of a summary of the major points, a
        discussion of the quantitative study, and a consideration of the
        avenues for research.
        This study has sought to establish seven major points.  First,
        Usenet is a distinct society because the exclusively, written
        medium keeps much of the three-dimensional, external world out.
        Second, personae are created by the interaction of Usenet users.
        A user always interacts with the personae of other users because
        it is impossible to interact ___________________
                                     three-dimensionally via a written
        medium.  This always being the case, expediency allows one to
        "forget" that interaction is via personae.  Third, Hobbes helps
        prove that personae are persons within Usenet.  Fourth, like
        persons, personae have powers, although they may be different.
        Fifth, users participate in Usenet to maximize its utility, thus
        persona existence is tied to user participation and utility.
        Sixth, participation may become contentious or uninteresting,
        thereby decreasing Usenet's utility and threatening personae
        existence; however, users can increasingly subject their
        participation to restraint.  Seventh, to maximize Usenet's
        utility and to maintain personae existence, some users may decide
        to allow another person to control or moderate the extent of
        their participation, thus controlling or moderating the existence
        of their personae.
        The following is a review of each point:
        1.   ______ __ _ ________ _______ _______ ___ ____________
             Usenet is a distinct society because the exclusively,
        _______ ______ _____ ____ __ ___ __________________ ________
        written medium keeps much of the three-dimensional, external
        _____ ____
        world out.  With the help of Elizabeth Reid's work, it has been
        established that the written medium of Usenet "filters" or
        interferes with communication among users.  The effect of this
        interference is the "deprivation of the subtleties" of verbal and
        non-verbal communication.  Reid's research suggests that such
        subtleties reinforce the standards of behavior in the external
        world.  Without that reinforcement, Usenet users have had to
        develop "alternate or parallel" standards of behavior such as
        "netiquette" and Gene Spafford's guidelines.  This compensation
        for the shortcomings of the medium plus the development of new
        written language subtleties known as "emoticons" has enabled
        Usenet to become a society distinct from that of the external
        world.
        2.   ________ ___ _______ __ ___ ___________ __ ______ ______  _
             Personae are created by the interaction of Usenet users.  A
        ____ ______ _________ ____ ___ ________ __ _____ _____ _______ __
        user always interacts with the personae of other users because it
        __ __________ __ ________ ___________________ ___ _ _______
        is impossible to interact three-dimensionally via a written
        _______  ____ ______ _____ ___ _____ __________ ______ ___ __
        medium.  This always being the case, expediency allows one to
        ________ ____ ___________ __ ___ _________
        "forget" that interaction is via personae.  This is perhaps the
        most difficult point to establish because it relies upon the
        notion of "persona."  Furthermore, it is the most critical point,
        because it is on the level of the personae, not the users, upon
        which Hobbes' _________
                      Leviathan operates.
        To review the notion of "persona," one must understand the
        perspective of the user.  From the user's standpoint, he or she
                                         59
                                         60
        accesses Usenet because it satisfies some personal need that is,
        it has utility.  During the course of accessing, the user may
        decide that writing an article, rather than exclusively reading,
        will increase Usenet's utility.  When the user drafts the article
        it is probable that he or she has one or more recipient users in
        mind.  It is here that the notion of "persona" arises.  If the
        user thought about what information was used to create the
        "image" of the recipient in mind, the user would discover that
        surprisingly little is actually known.  Yet, gender, stature,
        appearance, intelligence, and other characteristics are somehow
        attributed, sight unseen, to the recipient user.  This is only
        natural for the user to want to "fill in the blanks" which the
        written medium leaves open.  Moreover, if the user realized that
        any information garnered about the recipient user was probably
        unverified externally to Usenet, he or she should come to the
        conclusion that the recipient user may bear little resemblance to
        the user he or she has in mind.
        This distinction between a user in Usenet and the "actual" user
        in the external world is in the concept of "persona."  Although
        the user preparing to send the message may not realize it, as far
        as other users are concerned, he or she is a persona as well.
        Therefore, all users of Usenet interact with one another via
        personae.  Moreover, the personae are perceived to engage in a
        range of pursuits which is derived from the words of the users.
        For every exchange of articles at the level of the users, there
        is an analogous "action" at the level of the personae.
        Furthermore, the existence of the personae depends entirely upon
        the users' willingness to continue accessing Usenet.  With this
        complex duality always present, it is often expedient for users
        to "forget" the dichotomy between user and persona, but for the
        purposes of this thesis, it can never be forgotten because it is
        on the level of the personae upon which the concepts of _________
                                                                Leviathan
        are established to operate.
        3.   ______ _____ _____ ____ ________ ___ _______ ______ _______
             Hobbes helps prove that personae are persons within Usenet.
        With the notion of "persona" having been established, it is
        possible to establish a preliminary parallel to Hobbes' political
        philosophy in _________
                      Leviathan.  This is done by using Hobbes'
        definition of "person" to prove that personae are indeed analogs
        for persons in Usenet.  This proof clears the way to apply
        Hobbesian theory to personae rather than users.
        4.   ____ ________ ________ ____ _______ ________ ____ ___ __
             Like persons, personae have powers, although they may be
        __________
        different.  During this stage of the discussion, further
        parallels are drawn from Hobbes' "persons" to Usenet personae.
        These parallels include the several powers which Hobbes suggests
        are possessed in persons.  Among these powers are "extraordinary
        strength, form, prudence, arts, eloquence, liberality, and
        nobility."  From these powers of the external world, Usenet
        analogs are developed to "fill in the blanks" or add form and
        personality to the images of one another in the minds of all
        users.  Of these powers, "eloquence," is supreme in Usenet
        because finesse in language is highly valued in a world of words.
        5.   _____ ___________ __ ______ __ ________ ___ ________ ____
             Users participate in Usenet to maximize its utility, thus
                                         61
        _______ _________ __ ____ __ ____ _____________ ___ ________
        persona existence is tied to user participation and utility.
        Here the benefits of powers are examined by analyzing Hobbes'
        relevant passages and developing Usenet analogs.  It is
        established that the personae, like persons, are inclined to
        pursue "power after power" to insure their "present means."  On
        the level of the users, this pursuit of power is actually a
        continuous cycle of statement and response intended to maximize
        the utility of Usenet.  Their reputations are the "collective
        memory" of their participation in the cycle.  As long as
        continuous participation is provided by the users, the existence
        of their personae is insured.
        6.   _____________ ___ ______ ___________ __ ______________
             Participation may become contentious or uninteresting,
        _______ __________ ________ _______ ___ ___________ ________
        thereby decreasing Usenet's utility and threatening personae
        __________ ________ _____ ___ ____________ _______ _____
        existence; however, users can increasingly subject their
        _____________ __ __________
        participation to restraint.  As a matter of participating in the
        cycle of statement and response, users may encounter offensive or
        insulting articles called "flames."  These articles and others
        which "clutter" the various newsgroups threaten the utility of
        Usenet to the users.  To bolster utility, users have several
        alternatives other than moderation.  They may ignore the
        offensive or uninteresting articles, conform to the "netiquette"
        standards of behavior, or block the display of "clutter" from
        their screens.  On the level of the personae, the "flames" are
        perceived as "attacks" which ultimately threaten their existence.
        In "fear of wounds, or death," they may be forced to surrender
        themselves to the protection of a common power.
        7.   __ ________ ________ _______ ___ __ ________ ________
             To maximize Usenet's utility and to maintain personae
        __________ ____ _____ ___ ______ __ _____ _______ ______ __
        existence, some users may decide to allow another person to
        _______ __ ________ ___ ______ __ _____ ______________ ____
        control or moderate the extent of their participation, thus
        ___________ __ __________ ___ _________ __ _____ _________
        controlling or moderating the existence of their personae.  In
        this point, a sample cycle of statement and response is analyzed
        leading to the discussion of moderation as the last resort to
        coping with the "clutter" or "noise" in the newsgroups.  On the
        level of the personae, moderation represents the joint surrender
        of their individual powers to common power for the purpose of
        preserving their existence in a hostile environment.
        The quantitative portion of this study raises provocative
        questions regarding trends towards moderation in a forum hailed
        by many as a "modemocracy" and a realization of the "global
        village."  A future study could track the frequency of the
        Leviathan in Usenet over a period of several months.  These data
        could be contrasted with the failure of a completely moderated,
        alternate to Usenet formerly known as "InModeration."  Perhaps
        the combination of moderated and unmoderated newsgroups in Usenet
        points to the utility of "choice" and "freedom" which
        "InModeration" might have underestimated.  Additionally, refined
        operationalization and a larger sample size might provide more
        insight into the less obvious manifestations of the Leviathan in
        Usenet.
        Although this thesis has been limited to the Hobbesian
        perspective on the origins of government, future researchers
        should be encouraged to employ other theoretical visions to the
                                         62
        study of Usenet, or of the internet in general.  The simple act
        of searching for proof within the internet may more readily
        fasten the theories' nuances in a student's mind than traditional
        philosophical study.  Where social studies were always possible,
        internet studies present an equally complex, but more easily
        observable, self-documenting society.
        This theorist also recognizes and encourages the need for more
        behavioral research.  While normative study is valuable in its
        own right, numerical analysis of internet society is needed.  It
        is important to know the distribution of the various degrees of
        representation of users by personae, how the number of users
        affects the generation of  government, and the number and types
        of and reasons for selecting one polity over another.  These
        lines of inquiry do not, of course, cover the entire range, but
        they do suggest that the entirety of political science can
        benefit from internet studies.
        Political scientists are not the first social scientists to
        explore this very new area.  Current research in internet studies
        reveals that insufficient ethical guidelines are available for
        guiding research and there exists considerable debate over how to
        proceed.  For example, this researcher is the sole political
        scientist on a large, research team which is investigating
        computer mediated communication.  Due to the global distances
        between them, the researchers are represented by personae which
        include scholars of English, communication, linguistics, theater,
        sociology, and history.  The qualitative portion of the research
        involves content analysis of the communication of a specific
        group of network individuals.  Issues of privacy and intellectual
        property have arisen.  It is still an unresolved question whether
        the research team should admonish the subjects and then seek
        their permission for further study to be conducted.  It is still
        uncertain whether the study requires a human research waiver.  It
        is still debatable if this kind of analysis is closer to literary
        criticism than behavioral science.  It is still unknown whether
        published research should give the subjects credit for their
        statements or should withhold their names to protect their
        identities.  Despite these compelling questions, the computer
        allows one to cross traditional boundaries--it enables the writer
        to measure and the scientist to write--and to mix and combine
        elements from previously disparate fields.  The problems
        described, of course, issue from the combination of scholars of
        literature with social scientists.  A solution probably lies in
        acknowledging the unresolved nature of that combination once the
        interdisciplinary novelty subsides.  The point, however, is that
        fertile ground for research has been uncovered and that the
        process of how it should be tilled has begun.  To miss the
        opportunity to influence the process would be a major misfortune
        for political science.
                                      Appendix
        This section contains some of Gene Spafford's guidelines because
        they may not be readily available to most readers.  No permission
        was obtained because the documents are freely distributable.  The
        guidelines are reprinted here in a smaller point size to preserve
        their original format and page layout.  Despite this
        accommodation, there are still some formatting problems because
        the margins in the original documents are much narrower than is
        permitted in a thesis.  Additionally, this appendix contains four
        computer generated maps based on Brian Reid's ______ __________
                                                      Usenet Readership
        _______ ______
        Summary Report for April 9, 1991 and a glossary of technical
        terms.
        Original-from: chuq@sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
        [Most recent change: 7 September 1987 by spaf@purdue.edu (Gene
        Spafford)]
                      A Primer on How to Work With the USENET Community
                                     Chuq Von Rospach
  • You now have access to Usenet, a big network of thousands of computers. Other documents or your system administrator will provide detailed technical documentation. This message describes the Usenet culture and customs that have developed over time. All new users should read this message to find out how Usenet works. *
  • (Old users could read it, too, to refresh their memories.) *
          USENET is a large collection of computers that share data with
        each other.
          It is the people on these computers that make USENET worth the
        effort, and
          for USENET to function properly those people must be able to
        interact in
          productive ways.  This document is intended as a guide to using
        the net in
                                         66
                                         67
          ways that will be pleasant and productive for everyone.
          This document is not intended to teach you how to use USENET.
        Instead, it
          is a guide to using it politely, effectively and efficiently.
          Communication by computer is new to almost everybody, and there
        are
          certain aspects that can make it a frustrating experience until
        you get
          used to them.  This document should help you avoid the worst
        traps.
          The easiest way to learn how to use USENET is to watch how
        others use it.
          Start reading the news and try to figure out what people are
        doing and
          why.  After a couple of weeks you will start understanding why
        certain
          things are done and what things shouldn't be done.  There are
        documents
          available describing the technical details of how to use the
        software.
          These are different depending on which programs you use to
        access the
          news.  You can get copies of these from your system
        administrator.  If you
          do not know who that person is, they can be contacted on most
        systems by
          mailing to account "usenet".
                   Never Forget that the Person on the Other Side is
        Human
          Because your interaction with the network is through a computer
        it is easy
          to forget that there are people "out there." Situations arise
        where
          emotions erupt into a verbal free-for-all that can lead to hurt
        feelings.
                                         68
          Please remember that people all over the world are reading your
        words.  Do
          not attack people if you cannot persuade them with your
        presentation of
          the facts.  Screaming, cursing, and abusing others only serves
        to make
          people think less of you and less willing to help you when you
        need it.
          If you are upset at something or someone, wait until you have
        had a chance
          to calm down and think about it.  A cup of coffee or a good
        night's sleep
          works wonders on your perspective.  Hasty words create more
        problems than
          they solve.  Try not to say anything to others you would not
        say to them
          in person in a room full of people.
                                           Be Brief
          Never say in ten words what you can say in fewer.  Say it
        succinctly and
          it will have a greater impact.  Remember that the longer you
        make your
          article, the fewer people will bother to read it.
                       Your Postings Reflect Upon You -- Be Proud of Them
          Most people on USENET will know you only by what you say and
        how well you
          say it.  They may someday be your co-workers or friends.  Take
        some time
          to make sure each posting is something that will not embarrass
        you later.
          Minimize your spelling errors and make sure that the article is
        easy to
          read and understand.  Writing is an art and to do it well
        requires
          practice.  Since much of how people judge you on the net is
        based on your
                                         69
          writing, such time is well spent.
                                    Use Descriptive Titles
          The subject line of an article is there to enable a person with
        a limited
          amount of time to decide whether or not to read your article.
        Tell people
          what the article is about before they read it.  A title like
        "Car for
          Sale" to rec.autos does not help as much as "66 MG Midget for
        sale:
          Beaverton OR." Don't expect people to read your article to find
        out what
          it is about because many of them won't bother.  Some sites
        truncate the
          length of the subject line to 40 characters so keep your
        subjects short
          and to the point.
                                  Think About Your Audience
          When you post an article, think about the people you are trying
        to
          reach.  Asking UNIX(*) questions on rec.autos will not reach as
        many
          of the people you want to reach as if you asked them on
          comp.unix.questions or comp.unix.wizards.  Try to get the most
          appropriate audience for your message, not the widest.
          It is considered bad form to post both to misc.misc, soc.net-
        people,
          or misc.wanted and to some other newsgroup.  If it belongs in
        that
          other newsgroup, it does not belong in misc.misc, soc.net-
        people,
          or misc.wanted.
          If your message is of interest to a limited geographic area
        (apartments,
                                         70
          car sales, meetings, concerts, etc...), restrict the
        distribution of the
          message to your local area.  Some areas have special newsgroups
        with
          geographical limitations, and the recent versions of the news
        software
          allow you to limit the distribution of material sent to world-
        wide
          newsgroups.  Check with your system administrator to see what
        newsgroups
          are available and how to use them.
          If you want to try a test of something, do not use a world-wide
        newsgroup!
          Messages in misc.misc that say "This is a test" are likely to
        cause
          large numbers of caustic messages to flow into your mailbox.
        There are
          newsgroups that are local to your computer or area that should
        be used.
          Your system administrator can tell you what they are.
                              Be Careful with Humor and Sarcasm
          Without the voice inflections and body language of personal
          communications, it is easy for a remark meant to be funny to be
          misinterpreted.  Subtle humor tends to get lost, so take steps
        to make
          sure that people realize you are trying to be funny.  The net
        has
          developed a symbol called the smiley face.  It looks like ":-)"
        and points
          out sections of articles with humorous intent.  No matter how
        broad the
          humor or satire, it is safer to remind people that you are
        being funny.
          But also be aware that quite frequently satire is posted
        without any
          explicit indications.  If an article outrages you strongly, you
          should ask yourself if it just may have been unmarked satire.
                                         71
          Several self-proclaimed connoisseurs refuse to use smiley
        faces, so
          take heed or you may make a temporary fool of yourself.
                                   Only Post a Message Once
          Avoid posting messages to more than one newsgroup unless you
        are sure
          it is appropriate.  If you do post to multiple newsgroups, do
        not
          post to each group separately.  Instead, specify all the groups
        on a
          single copy of the message.  This reduces network overhead and
        lets
          people who subscribe to more than one of those groups see the
        message
          once instead of having to wade through each copy.
                       Please Rotate Messages With Questionable Content
          Certain newsgroups (such as rec.humor) have messages in them
        that may
          be offensive to some people.  To make sure that these messages
        are
          not read unless they are explicitly requested, these messages
        should
          be encrypted.  The standard encryption method is to rotate each
          letter by thirteen characters so that an "a" becomes an "n".
        This is
          known on the network as "rot13" and when you rotate a message
        the
          word "rot13" should be in the "Subject:" line.  Most of the
        software
          used to read usenet articles have some way of encrypting and
          decrypting messages.  Your system administrator can tell you
        how the
          software on your system works, or you can use the Unix command
        "tr
          [a-z][A-Z] [n-z][a-m][N-Z][A-M]". (Note that some versions of
        Unix
          don't require the [] in the "tr" command.  In fact, some
                                         72
        systems will
          get upset if you use them in an unquoted manner.  The following
          should work for everyone, but may be shortened on some systems:
                tr '[a-m][n-z][A-M][N-Z]' '[n-z][a-m][N-Z][A-M]'
          Don't forget the single quotes!)
                             Summarize What You are Following Up
          When you are following up someone's article, please summarize
        the parts of
          the article to which you are responding.  This allows readers
        to
          appreciate your comments rather than trying to remember what
        the original
          article said.  It is also possible for your response to get to
        some sites
          before the original article.
          Summarization is best done by including appropriate quotes from
        the
          original article.  Do not include the entire article since it
        will
          irritate the people who have already seen it.  Even if you are
        responding
          to the entire article, summarize only the major points you are
        discussing.
                                 When Summarizing, Summarize!
          When you request information from the network, it is common
        courtesy to
          report your findings so that others can benefit as well.  The
        best way of
          doing this is to take all the responses that you received and
        edit them
          into a single article that is posted to the places where you
        originally
          posted your question.  Take the time to strip headers, combine
        duplicate
          information, and write a short summary.  Try to credit the
        information to
                                         73
          the people that sent it to you, where possible.
                               Use Mail, Don't Post a Follow-up
          One of the biggest problems we have on the network is that when
        someone
          asks a question, many people send out identical answers.  When
        this
          happens, dozens of identical answers pour through the net.
        Mail your
          answer to the person and suggest that they summarize to the
        network.  This
          way the net will only see a single copy of the answers, no
        matter how many
          people answer the question.
          If you post a question, please remind people to send you the
        answers by
          mail and offer to summarize them to the network.
               Read All Follow-ups and Don't Repeat What Has Already Been
        Said
          Before you submit a follow-up to a message, read the rest of
        the messages
          in the newsgroup to see whether someone has already said what
        you want to
          say.  If someone has, don't repeat it.
                           Be Careful About Copyrights and Licenses
          Once something is posted onto the network, it is effectively in
        the public
          domain.  When posting material to the network, keep in mind
        that material
          that is UNIX-related may be restricted by the license you or
        your company
          signed with AT&T and be careful not to violate it.  You should
        also be
          aware that posting movie reviews, song lyrics, or anything else
        published
                                         74
          under a copyright could cause you, your company, or the net
        itself to be
          held liable for damages, so we highly recommend caution in
        using this
          material.
                                 Cite Appropriate References
          If you are using facts to support a cause, state where they
        came from.
          Don't take someone else's ideas and use them as your own.  You
        don't want
          someone pretending that your ideas are theirs; show them the
        same respect.
                             Mark or Rotate Answers and Spoilers
          When you post something (like a movie review that discusses a
        detail of
          the plot) which might spoil a surprise for other people, please
        mark your
          message with a warning so that they can skip the message.
        Another
          alternative would be to use the "rot13" protocol to encrypt the
        message so
          it cannot be read accidentally.  When you post a message with a
        spoiler in
          it make sure the word "spoiler" is part of the "Subject:" line.
                              Spelling Flames Considered Harmful
          Every few months a plague descends on USENET called the
        spelling flame.
          It starts out when someone posts an article correcting the
        spelling or
          grammar in some article.  The immediate result seems to be for
        everyone on
          the net to turn into a 6th grade English teacher and pick apart
        each other's
          postings for a few weeks.  This is not productive and tends to
        cause
                                         75
          people who used to be friends to get angry with each other.
          It is important to remember that we all make mistakes, and that
        there are
          many users on the net who use English as a second language.  If
        you feel
          that you must make a comment on the quality of a posting,
        please do so by
          mail, not on the network.
                                   Don't Overdo Signatures
          Signatures are nice, and many people can have a signature added
        to their
          postings automatically by placing it in a file called
        "$HOME/.signature".
          Don't overdo it.  Signatures can tell the world something about
        you, but
          keep them short.  A signature that is longer than the message
        itself is
          considered to be in bad taste.  The main purpose of a signature
        is to help
          people locate you on the net, not learn your life story.  Every
        signature
          should include your return address relative to a well known
        site on the
          network.  Your system administrator can give this to you.
                                Summary of Things to Remember
               Never forget that the person on the other side is human
               Be brief
               Your postings reflect upon you; be proud of them
               Use descriptive titles
               Think about your audience
               Be careful with humor and sarcasm
               Only post a message once
                                         76
               Please rotate material with questionable content
               Summarize what you are following up
               Use mail, don't post a follow-up
               Read all follow-ups and don't repeat what has already been
        said
               Be careful about copyrights and licenses
               Cite appropriate references
               When summarizing, summarize
               Mark or rotate answers or spoilers
               Spelling flames considered harmful
               Don't overdo signatures
        (*)UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T.
  1. ———-
              This document is in the public domain and may be reproduced
        or
              excerpted by anyone wishing to do so.
  1. ———
        Gene Spafford
        Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN
        47907-2004
        Internet:  spaf@cs.purdue.edu   uucp:
        ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf
                                         77
        Original-from: mark@cbosgd.att.com (Mark Horton)
        [Most recent change: 17 September 1987 by spaf@purdue.edu (Gene
        Spafford)]
        This message describes some of the rules of conduct on Usenet.
        The rules
        vary depending on the newsgroup.
        Some newsgroups are intended for discussions and some for
        announcements
        or queries.  It is not usually a good idea to carry on
        discussions in
        newsgroups that are designated otherwise.  It is never a good
        idea to
        carry on "meta-discussions" about whether a given discussion is
        appropriate -- such traffic mushrooms until nobody can find
        articles
        that belong.  If you are unhappy with what some user said, send
        him/her
        mail, don't post it.
        Before posting, think about where your article is going.  If it's
        posted to a "comp", "news", "misc", "soc", "sci", "rec" or "talk"
        newsgroup, it will probably go to the USA, Canada, Europe, Korea,
        and
        Australia.  Certain articles are only of local interest (e.g.
        used car
        ads) and it is inappropriate to post them to the whole world.
        Use the
        "Distribution" feature to restrict distribution to your local
        area.  If
        you don't know how to use this feature, read "Frequently
        Submitted
        Items" in another article in news.announce.newusers.
        Don't post announcements regarding major news events (e.g. the
        space
        shuttle has just exploded!) to news groups.  By the time most
        people
        receive such items, they will long since have been informed by
        conventional media.  If you wish to discuss such an event on the
                                         78
        net,
        use the "misc.headlines" newsgroup.
        Announcement of professional products or services on Usenet is
        allowed;
        however, since someone else is paying the phone bills for this,
        it is
        important that it be of overall benefit to Usenet.  Post to the
        appropriate newsgroup -- comp.newprod -- never to a general
        purpose
        newsgroup such as "misc.misc".  Clearly mark your article as a
        product
        announcement in the subject.  Never repeat these -- one article
        per
        product at the most; preferably group everything into one
        article.
        Advertising hype is especially frowned upon -- stick to technical
        facts.  Obnoxious or inappropriate announcements or articles
        violating
        this policy will generally be rejected.  This policy is, of
        course,
        subject to change if it becomes a problem.
        Some newsgroups are moderated.  In these groups, you cannot post
        directly, either by convention or because the software prevents
        it.  To
        post to these newsgroups, send mail to the moderator. Examples:
        Newsgroup      Moderator      Purpose
  1. ——– ——— ——-
        news.announce.important cbosgd!announce Important announcements
        for everyone
        comp.std.c               cbosgd!std-c        ANSI C standards
        discussion
        comp.std.unix       ut-sally!std-unix   ANSI Unix standards
        discussion
        comp.std.mumps      plus5!std-mumps     ANSI Mumps standards
        discussion
        comp.unix           cbosgd!unix         Discussion of Unix*
        features and bugs
                                         79
        Some newsgroups have special purpose rules:
        Newsgroup      Rules
  1. ——– —–
        news.announce.importantModerated, no direct postings, important
        things only.
        misc.wanted         Queries, "I want an x", "Anyone want my x?".
        No
                            discussions. Don't post to more than one
        xxx.wanted.
                                      Use the smallest appropriate wanted
        (e.g. used car
                                      ads to nj.wanted.)
                                      Requests for sources, termcaps,
        etc. should go to the
                                      "comp.sources.wanted" newsgroup.
        rec.humor                Clean humor only; anything offensive
        must be rotated;
                                      no discussions -- humor only.
        Discussions go in
                                      rec.humor.d
        rec.arts.movies          Don't post anything revealing part of a
        movie
                                      without marking it (spoiler) in the
        subject.
        rec.arts.*                    Same as movies -- mark spoilers in
        the subject line.
        news.groups              Discussions about new groups: whether to
        create
                                      them and what to call them.  Don't
        post yes/no
                                      votes, mail them to the author
        misc.test                     Use the smallest test group
        possible, e.g.
                                      "test" or "ucb.test".  Say in the
        body of the
                                      message what you are testing.
        It is perfectly legal to reproduce short extracts of a
        copyrighted work
        for critical purposes, but reproduction in whole is strictly and
                                         80
        explicitly forbidden by US and international copyright law.
        (Otherwise,
        there would be no way for the artist to make money, and there
        would
        thus be less motive for people to go to the trouble of making
        their art
        available at all.  The crime of theft is as serious in this
        context as
        any other, even though you may not have to pick locks, mask your
        face,
        or conceal merchandise.)
        All opinions or statements made in messages posted to Usenet
        should be
        taken as the opinions of the person who wrote the message.  They
        do not
        necessarily represent the opinions of the employer of that
        person, the
        owner of the computer from which the message was posted, or
        anyone
        involved with Usenet or the underlying networks of which Usenet
        is made
        up.  All responsibility for statements made in Usenet messages
        rests
        with the individual posting the message.
        Posting of information on Usenet is to be viewed as similar to
        publication.  Because of this, do not post instructions for how
        to do
        some illegal act (such as jamming radar or obtaining cable TV
        service
        illegally); also do not ask how to do illegal acts by posting to
        the
        net.
        If you have a standard signature you like to append to your
        articles,
        put it in a file called .signature in your home directory.
        "postnews"
        and "inews" will automatically append it to your article.  Please
        keep
        your signatures concise, as people do not appreciate seeing
                                         81
        lengthy
        signatures, nor paying the phone bills to repeatedly transmit
        them.  2
        or 3 lines are usually plenty.  Sometimes it is also appropriate
        to add
        another line or two for addresses on other major networks where
        you can
        be reached (e.g., ARPA, CSnet, Bitnet).  Long signatures are
        definitely frowned upon.  DO NOT include drawings, pictures,
        maps, or
        other graphics in your signature -- it is not the appropriate
        place
        for such material and viewed as rude by other readers.
        If you post an article and remember something you've left out or
        realize you've made a factual error, you can cancel the article
        and (if
        cancelled quickly enough) prevent its distribution.  Then you can
        correct whatever was wrong and post a new copy.  In "rn" and
        "readnews", an article that you posted can be cancelled with the
        "C"
        command.  Be aware, however, that some people may have already
        read the
        incorrect version so the sooner you cancel something, the better.
  1. -
        Gene Spafford
        Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN
        47907-2004
        Internet:  spaf@cs.purdue.edu   uucp:
        ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf
                                         82
        Original-from: ofut@gatech.edu (A. Jeff Offutt VI)
        [Most recent change: 7 September 1987 by spaf@purdue.edu (Gene
        Spafford)]
        I would like to take a moment to share some of my knowledge of
        writing
        style.  If you read the pointers below, remember: it's easy to
        agree
        that they make sense but it's much harder to apply them.
        References:
         Cunningham and Pearsall, "How to Write For the World of Work"
         Strunk & White, "Elements of Style"
        The above references are both excellent books.  Cunningham is a
        standard in Tech writing classes and won an award for the best
        tech
        writing book from the Association for Teaching of Technical
        Writing.  I
        was lucky enough to take a class from him as an undergraduate.
        Strunk
        is a standard in college composition classes.  Other ideas here
        come
        from my own experience on the net and hints from other people.
        This is a "long article". The rest of it is simply a list of
        pointers.
                       Writing style:
  • Write *below* the readers' reading level. The avg. person in
        the US
           reads on a 5th grade level. The avg. professional reads on
        about the 12th
           grade level.
  • Keep paragraphs short and sweet. Keep sentences shorter and
        sweeter.
           This means "concise," not cryptic.
                                         83
  • White space is not wasted space – it greatly improves
        clarity.
  • Pick your words to have only *one* meaning. Vagueness is
        considered
           artistic by literary critics.  We are not being literary here.
  • People can only grasp about seven things at once. This means
        ideas in a
           paragraph, major sections, etc..
  • There are several variations on any one sentence. A passive,
        questioning
           or negative sentence takes longer to read.
                       Net style:
  • Subtlety is not communicated well in written form - especially
        over a
           computer.
  • The above applies to humor as well. (rec.humor, of course, not
        included.)
  • When being especially "flame-boyant", I find it helpful to go
        the bathroom
           before actually sending.  Then, I often change the tone
        considerably.
  • Subject lines should be used very carefully. How much time
        have you
           wasted reading articles with a misleading subject line?
  • References need to be made. When you answer mail, you have
        the original
           message fresh in your mind.  When I receive your answer, I
        don't.
  • It's *much* easier to read a mixture of upper and lower case
                                         84
        letters.
  • Leaving out articles (such as "the," "a," "an," etc.) for
        "brevity"
           mangles the meaning of your sentences and takes longer to
        read. It saves
           you time at the expense of your reader.
  • Be careful of contextual meanings of words. For instance, I
        used "articles"
           just now.  In the context of netnews, it has a different
        meaning than I
           intended.
  • Remember - this is an international network.
  • Remember - your future employers may be reading your articles.
        'Nuff said.
        These pointers are all easily supported by arguments and
        research.
        There's a lot more to say, but....
  1. -
        Gene Spafford
        Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN
        47907-2004
        Internet:  spaf@cs.purdue.edu   uucp:
        ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spafOriginal-author:
        brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
        Archive-name: emily-postnews/part1
        Last-change: 30 Nov 91 by brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
  • *NOTE: this is intended to be satirical. If you do not
        recognize
          it as such, consult a doctor or professional comedian.  The
          recommendations in this article should recognized for what
          they are -- admonitions about what NOT to do.
                                         85
                       "Dear Emily Postnews"
             Emily Postnews, foremost authority on proper net behaviour,
             gives her advice on how to act on the net.
        =================================================================
        ===
        Dear Miss Postnews: How long should my signature be? --
        verbose@noisy
        A: Dear Verbose: Please try and make your signature as long as
        you
        can.  It's much more important than your article, of course, so
        try
        to have more lines of signature than actual text.
        Try to include a large graphic made of ASCII characters, plus
        lots of
        cute quotes and slogans.  People will never tire of reading these
        pearls of wisdom again and again, and you will soon become
        personally
        associated with the joy each reader feels at seeing yet another
        delightful repeat of your signature.
        Be sure as well to include a complete map of USENET with each
        signature, to show how anybody can get mail to you from any site
        in
        the world.  Be sure to include Internet gateways as well.  Also
        tell
        people on your own site how to mail to you.  Give independent
        addresses for Internet, UUCP, and BITNET, even if they're all the
        same.
        Aside from your reply address, include your full name, company
        and
        organization.  It's just common courtesy -- after all, in some
                                         86
        newsreaders people have to type an *entire* keystroke to go back
        to
        the top of your article to see this information in the header.
        By all means include your phone number and street address in
        every
        single article.  People are always responding to usenet articles
        with
        phone calls and letters.  It would be silly to go to the extra
        trouble
        of including this information only in articles that need a
        response by
        conventional channels!
  1. —–
        Dear Emily: Today I posted an article and forgot to include my
        signature.  What should I do?  -- forgetful@myvax
        A: Dear Forgetful: Rush to your terminal right away and post an
        article that says, "Oops, I forgot to post my signature with that
        last
        article.  Here it is."
        Since most people will have forgotten your earlier article,
        (particularly since it dared to be so boring as to not have a
        nice,
        juicy signature) this will remind them of it.  Besides, people
        care
        much more about the signature anyway.  See the previous letter
        for
        more important details.
        Also, be sure to include your signature TWICE in each article.
        That
        way you're sure people will read it.
  1. —–
        Dear Ms. Postnews: I couldn't get mail through to somebody on
        another
        site.  What should I do? -- eager@beaver.dam
                                         87
        A: Dear Eager: No problem, just post your message to a group that
        a
        lot of people read.  Say, "This is for John Smith.  I couldn't
        get
        mail through so I'm posting it.  All others please ignore."
        This way tens of thousands of people will spend a few seconds
        scanning
        over and ignoring your article, using up over 16 man-hours their
        collective time, but you will be saved the terrible trouble of
        checking through Usenet maps or looking for alternate routes.
        Just
        think, if you couldn't distribute your message to 30,000 other
        computers, you might actually have to (gasp) call directory
        assistance
        for 60 cents, or even phone the person.  This can cost as much as
        a
        few DOLLARS (!) for a 5 minute call!
        And certainly it's better to spend 10 to 20 dollars of other
        people's
        money distributing the message then for you to have to waste $9
        on an
        overnight letter, or even 29 cents on a stamp!
        Don't forget.  The world will end if your message doesn't get
        through,
        so post it as many places as you can.
  1. —–
        Q: What about a test message?
        A: It is important, when testing, to test the entire net.  Never
        test
        merely a subnet distribution when the whole net can be done.
        Also put
        "please ignore" on your test messages, since we all know that
        everybody always skips a message with a line like that.  Don't
        use a
        subject like "My sex is female but I demand to be addressed as
                                         88
        male."
        because such articles are read in depth by all USEnauts.
  1. —–
        Q: Somebody just posted that Roman Polanski directed Star Wars.
        What
        should I do?
        A: Post the correct answer at once!  We can't have people go on
        believing that!  Very good of you to spot this.  You'll probably
        be
        the only one to make the correction, so post as soon as you can.
        No
        time to lose, so certainly don't wait a day, or check to see if
        somebody else has made the correction.
        And it's not good enough to send the message by mail.  Since
        you're
        the only one who really knows that it was Francis Coppola, you
        have to
        inform the whole net right away!
  1. —–
        Q: I read an article that said, "reply by mail, I'll summarize."
        What
        should I do?
        A: Post your response to the whole net.  That request applies
        only to
        dumb people who don't have something interesting to say.  Your
        postings are much more worthwhile than other people's, so it
        would be
        a waste to reply by mail.
  1. —–
        Q: I collected replies to an article I wrote, and now it's time
        to
        summarize.  What should I do?
                                         89
        A: Simply concatenate all the articles together into a big file
        and
        post that.  On USENET, this is known as a summary.  It lets
        people
        read all the replies without annoying newsreaders getting in the
        way.
        Do the same when summarizing a vote.
  1. —–
        Q: I saw a long article that I wish to rebut carefully, what
        should I
        do?
        A: Include the entire text with your article, particularly the
        signature, and include your comments closely packed between the
        lines.
        Be sure to post, and not mail, even though your article looks
        like a
        reply to the original.  Everybody *loves* to read those long
        point-by-point debates, especially when they evolve into name-
        calling
        and lots of "Is too!" -- "Is not!" -- "Is too, twizot!"
        exchanges.
        Be sure to follow-up everything, and never let another person get
        in
        the last word on a net debate.  Why, if people let other people
        have
        the last word, then discussions would actually stop!  Remember,
        other
        net readers aren't nearly as clever as you, and if somebody posts
        something wrong, the readers can't possibly realize that on their
        own
        without your elucidations.  If somebody gets insulting in their
        net
        postings, the best response is to get right down to their level
        and
        fire a return salvo.  When I read one net person make an
        insulting
        attack on another, I always immediately take it as gospel unless
        a
                                         90
        rebuttal is posted.  It never makes me think less of the
        insulter, so
        it's your duty to respond.
  1. —–
        Q: How can I choose what groups to post in?
        A: Pick as many as you can, so that you get the widest audience.
        After all, the net exists to give you an audience.  Ignore those
        who
        suggest you should only use groups where you think the article is
        highly appropriate.  Pick all groups where anybody might even be
        slightly interested.
        Always make sure followups go to all the groups.  In the rare
        event
        that you post a followup which contains something original, make
        sure
        you expand the list of groups.  Never include a "Followup-to:"
        line in
        the header, since some people might miss part of the valuable
        discussion in the fringe groups.
  1. —–
        Q: How about an example?
        A: Ok.  Let's say you want to report that Gretzky has been traded
        from
        the Oilers to the Kings.  Now right away you might think
        rec.sport.hockey would be enough.  WRONG.  Many more people might
        be
        interested.  This is a big trade!  Since it's a NEWS article, it
        belongs in the news.* hierarchy as well.  If you are a news
        admin, or
        there is one on your machine, try news.admin.  If not, use
        news.misc.
        The Oilers are probably interested in geology, so try
        sci.geo.fluids.
                                         91
        He is a big star, so post to sci.astro, and sci.space because
        they are
        also interested in stars.  And of course comp.dcom.telecom
        because he
        was born in the birthplace of the telephone.  And because he's
        Canadian, post to soc.culture.Ontario.southwestern.  But that
        group
        doesn't exist, so cross-post to news.groups suggesting it should
        be
        created.  With this many groups of interest, your article will be
        quite bizarre, so post to talk.bizarre as well.  (And post to
        comp.std.mumps, since they hardly get any articles there, and a
        "comp"
        group will propagate your article further.)
        You may also find it is more fun to post the article once in each
        group.  If you list all the newsgroups in the same article, some
        newsreaders will only show the the article to the reader once!
        Don't
        tolerate this.
  1. —–
        Q: How do I create a newsgroup?
        A: The easiest way goes something like "inews -C newgroup ....",
        and
        while that will stir up lots of conversation about your new
        newsgroup,
        it might not be enough.
        First post a message in news.groups describing the group.  This
        is a
        "call for discussion."  (If you see a call for discussion,
        immediately
        post a one line message saying that you like or dislike the
        group.)
        When proposing the group, pick a name with a TLA (three-letter
        acronym) that will be understood only by "in" readers of the
        group.
                                         92
        After the call for discussion, post the call for flames, followed
        by a
        call for arguments about the name and a call for run-on puns.
        Eventually make a call for "votes." USENET is a democracy, so
        voters
        can now all post their votes to ensure they get to all 30,000
        machines
        instead of just the person counting. Every few days post a long
        summary of all the votes so that people can complain about bad
        mailers
        and double votes.  It means you'll be more popular and get lots
        of
        mail.  At the end of 21 days you can post the vote results so
        that
        people can argue about all the technical violations of the
        guidelines
        you made.  Blame them on the moderator-of-the-week for
        news.announce.newgroups.  Then your group might be created.
        To liven up discussion, choose a good cross-match for your
        hierarchy
        and group.  For example, comp.race.formula1 or soc.vlsi.design
        would
        be good group names.  If you want your group created quickly,
        include
        an interesting word like "sex" or "activism."  To avoid limiting
        discussion, make the name as broad as possible, and don't forget
        that
        TLA.
        If possible, count votes from a leaf site with a once-a-week
        polled
        connection to botswanavax.  Schedule the vote during your relay
        site's
        head crash if possible.
        Under no circumstances use the trial group method, because it
        eliminates the discussion, flame, pun, voting and guideline-
        violation
        accusation phases, thus taking all the fun out of it.  To create
        an
                                         93
        ALT group, simply issue the creation command.  Then issue an
        rmgroup
        and some more newgroup messages to save other netters the trouble
        of
        doing that part.
  1. —–
        Q: I cant spell worth a dam.  I hope your going too tell me what
        to
        do?
        A: Don't worry about how your articles look.  Remember it's the
        message that counts, not the way it's presented.  Ignore the fact
        that
        sloppy spelling in a purely written forum sends out the same
        silent
        messages that soiled clothing would when addressing an audience.
  1. —–
        Q: How should I pick a subject for my articles?
        A: Keep it short and meaningless.  That way people will be forced
        to
        actually read your article to find out what's in it.  This means
        a
        bigger audience for you, and we all know that's what the net is
        for.
        If you do a followup, be sure and keep the same subject, even if
        it's
        totally meaningless and not part of the same discussion.  If you
        don't, you won't catch all the people who are looking for stuff
        on the
        original topic, and that means less audience for you.
  1. —–
        Q: What sort of tone should I take in my article?
        A: Be as outrageous as possible.  If you don't say outlandish
        things,
        and fill your article with libelous insults of net people, you
                                         94
        may not
        stick out enough in the flood of articles to get a response.  The
        more
        insane your posting looks, the more likely it is that you'll get
        lots
        of followups.  The net is here, after all, so that you can get
        lots of
        attention.
        If your article is polite, reasoned and to the point, you may
        only get
        mailed replies.  Yuck!
  1. —–
        Q: The posting software suggested I had too long a signature and
        too
        many lines of included text in my article.  What's the best
        course?
        A: Such restrictions were put in the software for no reason at
        all, so
        don't even try to figure out why they might apply to your
        article.
        Turns out most people search the net to find nice articles that
        consist of the complete text of an earlier article plus a few
        lines.
        In order to help these people, fill your article with dummy
        original
        lines to get past the restrictions.  Everybody will thank you for
        it.
        For your signature, I know it's tough, but you will have to read
        it in
        with the editor.  Do this twice to make sure it's firmly in
        there.  By
        the way, to show your support for the free distribution of
        information, be sure to include a copyright message forbidding
        transmission of your article to sites whose USENET politics you
        don't
        like.
                                         95
        Also, if you do have a lot of free time and want to trim down the
        text
        in your article, be sure to delete some of the attribution lines
        so
        that it looks like the original author of -- say -- a plea for
        world
        peace actually wrote the followup calling for the nuking of
        Bermuda.
  1. —–
        Q: They just announced on the radio that the United States has
        invaded
        Iraq.  Should I post?
        A: Of course.  The net can reach people in as few as 3 to 5 days.
        It's the perfect way to inform people about such news events long
        after the broadcast networks have covered them.  As you are
        probably
        the only person to have heard the news on the radio, be sure to
        post
        as soon as you can.
  1. —–
        Q: I have this great joke.  You see, these three strings walk
        into a
        bar...
        A: Oh dear.  Don't spoil it for me.  Submit it to rec.humor, and
        post
        it to the moderator of rec.humor.funny at the same time.  I'm
        sure
        he's never seen that joke.
  1. —–
        Q: What computer should I buy?  An Atari ST or an Amiga?
        A: Cross post that question to the Atari and Amiga groups.  It's
        an
        interesting and novel question that I am sure they would love to
                                         96
        investigate in those groups.  There is no need to read the groups
        in
        advance or examine the "frequently asked question" lists to see
        if the
        topic has already been dealt with.  In fact, you don't need to
        read
        the group at all, and you can tell people that in your query.
  1. —–
        Q: What about other important questions?  How should I know when
        to
        post?
        A: Always post them.  It would be a big waste of your time to
        find a
        knowledgeable user in one of the groups and ask through private
        mail
        if the topic has already come up.  Much easier to bother
        thousands of
        people with the same question.
  1. —–
        Q: Somebody just posted a query to the net, and I want to get the
        answer too.  What should I do?
        A: Immediately post a following, including the complete text of
        the
        query.  At the bottom add, "Me too!"  If somebody else has done
        this,
        follow up their article and add "Me three," or whatever number is
        appropriate.  Don't forget your full signature.  After all, if
        you
        just mail the original poster and ask for a copy of the answers,
        you
        will simply clutter the poster's mailbox, and save people who do
        answer the question the joyful duty of noting all the "me (n)s"
        and
        sending off all the multiple copies.
  1. —–
                                         97
        Q: What is the measure of a worthwhile group?
        A: Why, it's Volume, Volume, Volume.  Any group that has lots of
        noise
        in it must be good.  Remember, the higher the volume of material
        in a
        group, the higher percentage of useful, factual and insightful
        articles you will find.  In fact, if a group can't demonstrate a
        high
        enough volume, it should be deleted from the net.
  1. —–
        Q: Emily, I'm having a serious disagreement with somebody on the
        net.
        I tried complaints to his sysadmin, organizing mail campaigns,
        called
        for his removal from the net and phoning his employer to get him
        fired.  Everybody laughed at me.  What can I do?
        A: Go to the daily papers.  Most modern reporters are top-notch
        computer experts who will understand the net, and your problems,
        perfectly.  They will print careful, reasoned stories without any
        errors at all, and surely represent the situation properly to the
        public.  The public will also all act wisely, as they are also
        fully
        cognizant of the subtle nature of net society.
        Papers never sensationalize or distort, so be sure to point out
        things
        like racism and sexism wherever they might exist.  Be sure as
        well
        that they understand that all things on the net, particularly
        insults,
        are meant literally.  Link what transpires on the net to the
        causes of
        the Holocaust, if possible.  If regular papers won't take the
        story,
        go to a tabloid paper -- they are always interested in good
        stories.
                                         98
        By arranging all this free publicity for the net, you'll become
        very
        well known.  People on the net will wait in eager anticipation
        for
        your every posting, and refer to you constantly.  You'll get more
        mail
        than you ever dreamed possible -- the ultimate in net success.
  1. —–
        Q: What does foobar stand for?
        A: It stands for you, dear.
  1. -
        Gene Spafford
        Software Engineering Research Center & Dept. of Computer Sciences
        Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-1398
        Internet:  spaf@cs.purdue.edu phone:  (317) 494-7825
                                      Glossary
        Address:  If a computer is multiuser or belongs to a network,
           addresses are used to differentiate the various users.  An
           address is often the user's name, such as "rich" or
           "spartan."  To differentiate between the "rich" using
           "SJSUVM1" and the "rich" using "portal," an addressing scheme
           is used, e.g., "rich@portal."  This is pronounced "rich at
           portal."  This form of addressing is known as "internet-
           style."  Other forms of addressing exist, such as
           "portal!rich," but internet-style addressing is emerging as
           the standard form of address across networks.
        Bulletin board system:  Also known as "BBS."  See "conferencing."
        Computer: At its most basic level, it is an electronic device
           capable of carrying out millions of instructions per second.
           The instructions it executes are determined by its
           programming or software.  The software enables the computer
           to performs tasks such as word processing, numerical
           calculation and communication.
        Conferencing:  This is a form of electronic mail which requires a
           specialized type of communication software.  Rather than
           being sent to a specific user, a message is distributed
           across the network or internet as an open letter.  These open
           letters are organized by the conferencing software into
           categories of interest, such as "cat lovers" and "Italian
           culture."  Users subscribe only to the categories that
           interest them and ignore the rest.  Tens of thousands of
           personal computers around the world are dedicated to
           providing conferences between their users.  Known as
           "bulletin board systems" or BBS's, they provide a important
           source of information for users with similar interests.  Some
           BBS's belong to a network of BBS's using the same
           conferencing software.  This allows local users to
           "conference" with users at other sites.
        E-mail:  Users can send written messages to one another using a
           special form of communication software called electronic
           mail.  Provided that both users' sites have electronic mail
           and that both sites belong to gatewayed networks, electronic
           mail is an amazingly fast and efficient way for users to
           communicate.  The Internet network (not to be confused with
           the general term "internet") spans the globe and transmits
           mail between sites within seconds.  Slower networks, such as
           Fidonet, can take hours or even days.  Mail delivery is
           limited by the speed of the slowest network along the
           delivery route.  For example, if a machine is a gateway
           between the Internet and the Fidonet networks, mail can take
           seconds to reach the gateway via the Internet and then a few
           days to reach its destination site within Fidonet.
                                         85
                                         86
        Feed:  The Usenet connection between two sites.  The site that
           provides the connection "feeds" the site that wants it.
        Fidonet:  A network of personal computers running the Fido
           bulletin board system software.
        Gateway:  A computer that belongs to at least two networks and is
           registered with each network's NIC.  A gateway computer
           allows users and computers from one side of the gateway to
           communicate with users and computers on the other side.  A
           machine serving as a gateway to several networks can be a
           sort of network hub.  The proliferation of gateway sites has
           facilitated the linking of previously isolated networks.  The
           global community of linked networks is known as the
           "internet."
        Internet:  The internet is the global community of linked
           networks.  It is essentially a network of networks.  The
           National Science Foundation's network or NSFNet is
           confusingly known as the Internet.  The Internet is a high-
           speed network linking the nation's military and research
           institutions with corporations and foreign institutions
           around the world.  While only a part of the internet, the
           Internet is considered its backbone because of its high-speed
           connectivity.  Because of  increasing demand for commercial
           access, the Internet is being restructured as the National
           Research and Education Network (NREN).  Management for this
           new network will be contracted out to a consortium of private
           corporations.
        Kill file:  Blocks the display of the articles originating from
           the users and sites listed in the file.
        Moderation:  A moderated newsgroups requires all users to seek
           approval prior to posting an article.
        Multiuser:  See "user."
        Networks:  One or more computers linked for the purpose of
           communicating or of sharing resources such as printers and
           disk drives.
        Newsgroup:  The categories of discussion available via Usenet.
           There are currently approximately 4,000.
        Site:  This is another term for a computer.  Most often it is
           associated with multiuser computers or computers in a
           network.  Sites have names such as "SJSUVM1," "sjsumcs," and
           "portal."  These names are used to differentiate one computer
           in a network from another.  A similar term is "node."  A node
           almost always refers to a computer in a network.
        System Administrator:  Each user is regulated by his site or
           system administrator and each administrator relies upon his
                                         87
           neighboring site administrators for connectivity within the
           network.  Generally, the administrator is liable for the
           actions of his users, but there is a debate over the extent
           of this liability.
        Usenet:  The largest conferencing system in the world.  The
           Usenet software is used by sites within the UUCP network.  It
           is composed of an estimated 10 million users at one million
           sites whose messages are divided into over a thousand
           categories called "newsgroups."  It is claimed that its
           volume of messages is doubling every two months.  To
           participate in Usenet, a site must have Usenet software and
           be a node within UUCP or the Internet.  Usenet messages can
           spread to other networks via gateways.  These gateways
           convert messages to the format used by their own network's
           conferencing software.  In this manner, Fidonet users can
           receive Usenet messages as Fido "echoes," as they are called
           in the Fidonet conferencing jargon.
        User:  The person who operates the computer.  The user operates
           the computer via software.  The user interacts with the
           software usually via a keyboard, video monitor and printer.
           A "single-user machine" is a computer that can only
           accommodate one user at a time.  A "multiuser machine" is a
           computer that can interact with several users simultaneously.
           This implies that the computer has more than one keyboard or
           point of interaction.  A point of interaction is commonly
           known as a terminal.
                                         88
                                         89
                                         90
                                         91
                                    Bibliography
        Blum, Deborah.  "Studies on Beauty Raise a Number of Ugly
            Findings."  ___ _________ ________
                        San Francisco Examiner.  16 February 1992, B10.
        Bowle, John.  ______ ___ ___ _______
                      Hobbes and His Critics.  New York:  Barnes and
            Noble, Inc., 1969.
        Eachard, John.  ___ _______ _____ __ ______ __________
                        Mr. Hobbs's State of Nature Considered.
            Liverpool:  Liverpool UP, 1958.
        Frey, Donnalyn and Rick Adams.  _____  _ _________ __ __________
                                        !%@::  A Directory of Electronic
            ____ __________ _ ________
            Mail Addressing & Networks.  Sebastopol, California:
            O'Reilly and Associates, 1990.
        Galvin, Christopher J.  "Micropopulists Speak Up."  __________
                                                            Compuserve
            ________
            Magazine, July 1991, 12.
        Hobbes, Thomas.  __________
                         Leviathan.  Edited by Michael Oakeshott.  New
            York:  Macmillan Publishing Co., 1962.
        James, D.G.  ___ ____ __ ______
                     The Life of Reason.  London, New York, and Toronto:
            Longmans, Green and Co., 1949.
        Horton, Mark.  Untitled.  Part of a series of documents compiled
            and distributed by Gene Spafford, news.announce.newusers
            Usenet newsgroup, 1987.
        O'Brien, Michael.  "Playing in the MUD."  _________ ________
                                                  SunExpert Magazine,
            May 1992, 19.
        Offut, A. Jeff.  Untitled.  Part of a series of documents
            compiled and distributed by Gene Spafford,
            news.announce.newusers Usenet newsgroup, 1987.
        Reid, Brian.  ______ __________ _______ ______
                      Usenet Readership Summary Report.  Palo Alto,
            California:  Network Measurement Project at the DEC Western
            Research Laboratory, March 1992.
        Reid, Elizabeth.  "Electropolis:  Communication and Community on
            Internet Relay Chat."  thesis, University of Melbourne,
            1991.
        Ross, Ralph, Herbert W. Schneider, and Theodore Waldman, eds.
            ______ ______ __ ___ ____
            Thomas Hobbes in His Time.  Minneapolis:  University of
            Minnesota Press, 1974.
        SRI International, _________  _______ _______
                           Internet:  Getting Started.  Menlo Park,
            California:  SRI International, Network Information Systems
            Center, 1992.
        Brad Templeton.  ____ _____ ________
                         Dear Emily Postnews.  Part of a series of
            documents compiled and distributed by Gene Spafford,
                                         92
                                         93
            news.announce.newusers Usenet newsgroup, 1991.
        Tuck, Richard.  ______
                        Hobbes.  Oxford and New York:  Oxford UP, 1989.
        Von Rospach, Chuq.  _ ______ __ ___ __ ____ ____ ___ ______
                            A Primer on How to Work with the Usenet
            _________
            Community.  Part of a series of documents distributed by
            Gene Spafford, news.announce.newusers Usenet newsgroup,
            1987.
        Warrender, Howard.  ___ _________ __________ __ ______
                            The Political Philosophy of Hobbes.  Oxford:
            Oxford UP (Clarendon), 1957.
        Wolin, Sheldon.  ________ ___ ______
                         Politics and Vision.  Boston:  Little, Brown and
            Company, 1960.
                                         94
/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/archive/internet/leviatha.txt · Last modified: 2000/11/18 16:51 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki