Some Thoughts from SHAKSPER's Editor Regarding Netiquette

What follows are suggestions for collegial conduct on SHAKSPER. They are voluntary and are not in and of themselves reasons for censure or expulsion. A summary of the main points to be used as a quick reference is followed by a lengthily message explaining the reasons behind the suggestions.

SELF-MODERATION

• "Count to ten" before hitting the reply key.
• Be civil toward other members.
• When a thread becomes individual members talking with each other rather than posting messages that are responding to substantive issues raised in the thread, take the discussion off-line.
• Consider that some exchanges may be more appropriate offline than online, such as congratulations, thank yous, and I-said-you-said exchanges (see http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2002/1361.html).

SELF-GOVERNMENT

• Select one or two threads to respond in any one day.
• Keep responses as brief and to the point as possible. Occasional long posts are perfectly acceptable, but the ideal is to limit submissions to a screen or two of text.

PRE-FORMATTING SUBMISSIONS

• If your name does not appear in the FROM line or does not appear correctly (i.e., account is in the name of a spouse, partner, companion, alias, etc.), sign your name at the bottom so that I can cut and paste it next to your e-mail address. You may include your title, academic affiliation, geographical location, or similar information, but signatures should be kept to a maximum of three lines.
• Do not copy and re-send the message to which you are replying or automatically include the entire original post or digest. Quote, paraphrase, copy and paste, or cite your correspondent by name; give as much of the context as you can to clarify the nature of your reply.
• If you "cut and paste" information from another Internet or electronic source, which often results in irregularly spaced lines of text, then pre-format that text to be sure that the information is word wrapped and does not require me to spend extra time re-formatting the text for distribution.
• Avoid the temptation of simply cutting and pasting entire online articles and reviews and forwarding them directly to the list. Posters should judiciously quote and summarize and then provide the URL.

SUGGESTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO CONTRIBUTIONS YOU CONSIDER FOOLISH, MYOPIC, MISTAKEN, OR BORING

• Don't bother reading them; use the delete key.
• Ignore them. Responding to a message often just provides the original poster with the opportunity to continue with the argument that you object to.
• Address those submissions indignantly; be courteous but be indignant.

[Note: A version of this message was mailed to the members of SHAKSPER on Saturday, March 26, 2005.]

I thought that I would take the opportunity to reflect briefly on the current state of SHAKSPER from my perspective of being its editor for fifteen years, on my ideas about self-moderation and self-government, on my requests for members to pre-format their submissions, and on my suggestions to members for dealing with messages they object to.

On the whole, I think the conference is active and healthy. There are currently more than 1,300 members from Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Bosnia, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Croatia/Hrvatska, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, England, Fiji Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, the United States, Wales, and Yugoslavia. Our current membership includes Shakespearean textual scholars and bibliographers, editors and critics are members, but so are university, college, and community-college professors, high-school teachers, undergraduate and graduate students, actors, theatre professionals, authors, poets, playwrights, librarians, computer scientists, lawyers, doctors, retirees, and other interested persons. The great variety of backgrounds, interests, and levels of sophistication of the SHAKSPER community is an integral part of what makes the discussions so wide-ranging.

SHAKSPER, like Shakespeare studies as a whole, is a strange beast (neither fish nor foul). Some members are prominent scholars; others are individuals with a deep interest in the works. Those of us who are members of the profession (or industry if you prefer) are not generally known for our gentility. Further, Shakespeare studies both inside and outside the academy appears often to be a magnet for persons with strongly held beliefs, beliefs that many others consider as existing on the margins of the credible. These two circumstances are often sources of contention on the list.

Over the years, I have sent out many messages about my ideas and pleas for self-moderation on the part of list members. I would like to review some of what I have said and add another idea that of self-government.

For some time now, I have out of necessity taken a more active role as moderator and refused to post many more messages than I have in the past. On the other hand, I have on advice from the SHAKSPER Advisory Board decided not to impose guidelines. But I want to make it clear that I have absolutely no desire to mini-manage ever single submission that I receive. Additionally, SHAKSPER is not a newsgroup nor was meant to be one. Practices that are acceptable on less formal electronic media are not appropriate to this list. So I ask members to exercise self-moderation.

One suggestion I have made is to request that members "count to ten" before hitting the reply key. For a compilation of some of these requests see http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2001/0061.html.

I also ask that members display a degree of civility toward each other.

Further, when a thread becomes individual members talking with each other rather than posting messages that are responding to substantive issues raised in the thread, then the discussion should be taken off-line and conducted privately between the persons involved.

Similarly, some exchanges are more appropriate offline than online. I made a list of suggestions that include congratulations, thank yous, I-said-you-said exchanges, and picking your fights. For a more detailed explanation, see http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2002/1361.html.

I also request the members consider exercising a degree of self-government.

Please try to select only one or two threads to respond to in any one day and try to keep responses as brief and to the point as possible. Occasional long posts are perfectly acceptable, but the ideal is to limit submissions to a screen or two of text.

Also, I ask that members pre-format their submissions to make my job of preparing the daily digest easier.

If your name does not appear in the FROM line or does not appear correctly (i.e., account is in the name of a spouse, partner, companion, alias, etc.), sign your name at the bottom so that I can cut and paste it next to your e-mail address. You may include your title, academic affiliation, geographical location, or similar information, but signatures should be kept to a minimum of three lines.

Do not copy and re-send the message to which you are replying or automatically include the entire original post or digest. Quote, paraphrase, copy and paste, or cite your correspondent by name; give as much of the context as you can to clarify the nature of your reply. If you "cut and paste" information from another Internet or electronic source, which often results in irregularly spaced lines of text, then pre-format that text to be sure that the information is word wrapped and does not require me to spend extra time re-formatting the text for distribution.

Along these lines, I have asked ( http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2002/2399.html) that members avoid the temptation of simply cutting and pasting entire online articles and reviews and forwarding them directly to the list. Posters should judiciously quote and summarize and then provide the URL.

One more issue and then I will be finished. I have three suggestions to the matter of what does one do when one finds another's contributions to be foolish, myopic, mistaken, or boring?

First, don't bother reading submissions from such persons; use the delete key.

Second, as I was implying in my "Unproductive Threads" posting ( http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/0412.html ), ignore them. Responding to a message often just provides the original poster with the opportunity to continue with the argument that you object to.

Or, third, address those submissions indignantly; be courteous but be indignant.

Thank you for your consideration,

Hardy M. Cook
Owner-Moderator-Editor of SHAKSPER