Netiquette questions

[Nameless Ghost]

So, Playground, consider this something of a research project on my part. I've a couple of questions about what is or is not considered acceptable, or not, in online communication for each of you.


I'll post my own opinions later.


-Not replying to a personal email which specifically, or indirectly, asks for or requires a response.

-Repeating messages, comments or questions when they've gone unanswered.

-Spam messaging a person who isn't responding on an IM client either to get their attention or start a conversation.

-Significant delays in replying during an IM conversation. What would be considered significant delay?

-AFKing or inactivity mid IM-conversation without warning.

-Not apologising for, or explaining the reasons for, AFK/inactivity mid-conversation.

-IMing a person whose status is clearly set to "AFK/Busy/Inactive/etc" or who has stated they're unavailable or busy.

-Not replying to, or ignoring, offline instant messages.

-Not replying to instant messages due to holding multiple conversations simultaneously. On average, how many such conversations would be acceptable to be having before a new conversation should be put "on hold".

-Significant delay in replying to an SMS text message. What would be considered significant delay?

-Not replying to an SMS text message that warrants a reply.


Bonus question!

-Making forum posts asking about netiquette.
=p

[Haruki-kun]

-Not replying to a personal email which specifically, or indirectly, asks for or requires a response.

About as rude as not answering a phone call, and requires the same analysis: Was the phone call from a friend, or someone close to you? Do you really owe them a call/e-mail back? Were they somehow in the wrong for asking you to respond?


-Repeating messages, comments or questions when they've gone unanswered.

Same as above. I don't mind re-emailing once, maybe twice, but after that I think it starts to become a nuisance.


-Spam messaging a person who isn't responding on an IM client either to get their attention or start a conversation.

Again, once or twice, but no more. Generally, if they haven't responded it's one of three things: They haven't seen the message (or aren't getting it), so additional messages are pointless, they don't have anything to respond/don't want to, in which case additional messages are badgering, or they are having some sort of issue that prevents them for responding, in which case an additional message is pretty much pointless. It is possible that they haven't seen the message and accidentally closed the window without noticing or something, which is why I think it's OK to re-message once or twice.


-Significant delays in replying during an IM conversation. What would be considered significant delay?

Depends on the importance of the conversation. In a life-or-death chat, you may want to hurry your answers a little. This is all depending on each individual case.


-AFKing or inactivity mid IM-conversation without warning.

Not rude. Life happens. Just say "sorry, something came up" out of politeness.


-Not apologising for, or explaining the reasons for, AFK/inactivity mid-conversation.

....not totally RUDE, but I think it's good practice to apologize. Explaining reasons is not necessary, though, especially if they're private.


-IMing a person whose status is clearly set to "AFK/Busy/Inactive/etc" or who has stated they're unavailable or busy.

Somewhat rude. If you really MUST, then it's understandable, or if you know that for any reason that person would accept a message from you (maybe they have a "do not disturb unless X" note), but disregarding the Busy tag entirely is usually pretty rude.


-Not replying to, or ignoring, offline instant messages.

Depends on the situation. I think it's also the same as not replying to a phone call or to a text message.


-Not replying to instant messages due to holding multiple conversations simultaneously. On average, how many such conversations would be acceptable to be having before a new conversation should be put "on hold".

Not rude at all. As for how many conversations: As many as you can comfortably hold/want to hold. There is no way to see what's going on on the other end of the chat. They might be having some sort of important issue they have to deal with first, in which case they shouldn't be bound to reply right away.


-Significant delay in replying to an SMS text message. What would be considered significant delay?

Depends entirely on what the message was about. Was it an emergency? Was it regarding something that the other person had already agreed to do or was responsible for? At any rate I think a "significant delay" is a delay that impacts negatively on the person who sent the message.... but only as long as you can believably say that it was the other person's "fault". E.g. it was a team project and the other person didn't show up to class, it was a co-worker who didn't file a report... etc.


-Not replying to an SMS text message that warrants a reply.

I'm not sure how you decide if it "warrants" a reply, but if it undeniably 100% sure warrants a reply, then not replying is rude, plain and simple.


-Making forum posts asking about netiquette.


I'm so offended by your lack of netiquette. :smallfrown:

Also =P

[Don Julio Anejo]

-Not replying to a personal email which specifically, or indirectly, asks for or requires a response.
Somewhat rude if it specifically asks for a response.

-Repeating messages, comments or questions when they've gone unanswered.
Fine if it's something like a forum post asking for help on a particular topic, or if the person hasn't replied for a few days to a personal message since it's possible the recipient/forumer that can help hasn't seen it or forgot. Rude if it's done every several hours or so.

-Spam messaging a person who isn't responding on an IM client either to get their attention or start a conversation.
Rude.

-Significant delays in replying during an IM conversation. What would be considered significant delay?
Look at it the same way as with texting. If you've been doing back-and-forth for a period of time and suddenly there's a delay with no "brb", it's a little annoying. If the person just takes a long time to answer, they're probably busy doing something.

-AFKing or inactivity mid IM-conversation without warning.

Annoying, not rude, but things like Jehovah's witnesses at the door do come up, literally. Just apologize or mention why it's happened.

-Not apologising for, or explaining the reasons for, AFK/inactivity mid-conversation.
I'd see it as rude, but then I'm Canadian and I apologize profusely.

-IMing a person whose status is clearly set to "AFK/Busy/Inactive/etc" or who has stated they're unavailable or busy.

It's fine but don't expect a response.

-Not replying to, or ignoring, offline instant messages.

Unless it's a specific question that doesn't need an instant response (in which case, you should probably send an email or a Facebook message), it's the same as with texting. If you haven't seen it for more than a few hours/up to a day, there's probably no point answering. Unless you want to initiate a new conversation by answering the message.

-Not replying to instant messages due to holding multiple conversations simultaneously. On average, how many such conversations would be acceptable to be having before a new conversation should be put "on hold".
Honestly, don't see how it's different to not replying in general.

-Significant delay in replying to an SMS text message. What would be considered significant delay?

If it's a new text (versus an ongoing conversation) and not from someone you text often, a day or so is considered OK (they may be busy/at work/not in the mood to talk/hanging out with their SO, etc). If it's an ongoing conversation, allow a few hours. More if recipient just went to school/work/event/etc.

-Not replying to an SMS text message that warrants a reply.
Rude unless you have a legitimate reason for not doing so. Usually taken as you don't like the person or don't consider them important enough to warrant a response.

Bonus question!

-Making forum posts asking about netiquette.
=p[/QUOTE]

[Aedilred]

So, Playground, consider this something of a research project on my part. I've a couple of questions about what is or is not considered acceptable, or not, in online communication for each of you.

I'll post my own opinions later.
I think a lot of it is context-dependent, to be honest.


-Not replying to a personal email which specifically, or indirectly, asks for or requires a response.
Depends who it's from and what the subject matter is. What is an "indirect" request for a response? Subtext? "If interested please contact"? They might not be interested, might not have picked up on the subtext, etc. They might not be interested or consider the subject matter of the email important at all. Or it might have ended up in the junk folder. If it's something actually important which really does require a reply, then sure, not replying is kind of rude.


-Repeating messages, comments or questions when they've gone unanswered.
Once or perhaps twice, depending on importance, and if you're worried that they've not seen them at all for whatever reason, would be fine. More than twice, unless it's really important, is going too far, and if it gets to that stage it's probably time to take it to a new communication medium.


-Spam messaging a person who isn't responding on an IM client either to get their attention or start a conversation.
Rude.


-Significant delays in replying during an IM conversation. What would be considered significant delay?

-AFKing or inactivity mid IM-conversation without warning.
I'll deal with these together. Significant delay varies from person to person. It can genuinely take my mother several minutes to type a response in IM and you have to make allowances for that. More than five minutes, especially if it's not a long or thoughtful response, is probably significant unless they're an exceptionally slow typer. If it's a conversation to which someone is expected to give their full attention, then a significant delay is a bit rude. But people will often IM while doing other things, or while at work, when they might get called away or distracted suddenly or without warning, so not all conversations are considered equal.

Further, these days I often use IM (usually the hated Facebook chat, since the demise of MSN) in a delayed-response fashion anyway; immediate responses are neither required nor expected.


-Not apologising for, or explaining the reasons for, AFK/inactivity mid-conversation.
Perfectly acceptable.


-IMing a person whose status is clearly set to "AFK/Busy/Inactive/etc" or who has stated they're unavailable or busy.
Depends. Sending them something that anticipates or demands an immediate response, yes. Sending them a message to test the waters to see whether they're actually there, that should be fine. Many people (self included) have used "busy" and "offline" as filters to weed out messages that are either unimportant or from undesirable conversationalists right now.


-Not replying to, or ignoring, offline instant messages.
Fine.


-Not replying to instant messages due to holding multiple conversations simultaneously. On average, how many such conversations would be acceptable to be having before a new conversation should be put "on hold".
It depends on the speed and importance of each conversation. Three is probably about the maximum if you're constantly chatting, but up to ten would be perfectly feasible if they're proceeding at a more leisurely pace. Moreover an important conversation, should probably supersede an one about random blather, regardless of which came first or how quickly the chat is going.


-Significant delay in replying to an SMS text message. What would be considered significant delay?
Significant delay could be anything from five minutes to over 24 hours depending on context and time of day. People aren't always in a position to reply or may not be checking their phone. Depending on context and importance, somewhere between totally negligible or a little rude.


-Not replying to an SMS text message that warrants a reply.
Reply merely warranted? Somewhere between negligible and slightly off. Reply required? Kind of rude, depending on important.

As I say, there are all sorts of factors to take into account, though, and context - as well as the identity of the person expecting a reply - is all-important. There are a few people with my IM or phone contact details who are rather clingy, and a number who I don't even like. I don't feel so obliged to adhere to an arbitrary code of messaging ethics when they contact me as I do when it's someone I actually have an interest in talking to.

[Manga Shoggoth]

These all depend on a lot of extra context (like who the message is from and whether I am dealing with work or home.

-Not replying to a personal email which specifically, or indirectly, asks for or requires a response.

Depends. At work, if the message is nothing to do with me (a depressingly frequent occurance) I see nothing wrong with ignoring it. The "indirectly" bit is also important - what is indirevt to one person is often non-existant to me.

-Repeating messages, comments or questions when they've gone unanswered.

Depends on context again - in most cases this is OK as messages to get missed.

-Spam messaging a person who isn't responding on an IM client either to get their attention or start a conversation.

Not acceptable.

-Significant delays in replying during an IM conversation. What would be considered significant delay?

Depends on circumstance - at work the delays may be because I have to look things up before I can answer or I may have other people breathing down my neck. At home, less so.

-AFKing or inactivity mid IM-conversation without warning.

See above answer.

-Not apologising for, or explaining the reasons for, AFK/inactivity mid-conversation.

Again, depends. At home I would be holding a direct conversation and would expect interuptions to be dealt with accordingly. At work there are many factors that might cause delays, and often there is simply no time to explain.


-IMing a person whose status is clearly set to "AFK/Busy/Inactive/etc" or who has stated they're unavailable or busy.

Not acceptible outside genuine emergency.

-Not replying to, or ignoring, offline instant messages.

Depends - see prior answers.


-Not replying to instant messages due to holding multiple conversations simultaneously. On average, how many such conversations would be acceptable to be having before a new conversation should be put "on hold".

If you are dealing with more than about 2 or 3 IM conversations the that should be the limit. Not "put on hold", but not start the conversation.


-Significant delay in replying to an SMS text message. What would be considered significant delay?

Infinify. I don't even check text messages. I would prefer not to have a mobile phone at all.


-Not replying to an SMS text message that warrants a reply.

See above. If your question is so urgent it shouldn't be asked using SMS.


-Making forum posts asking about netiquette.

Perfectly acceptible.

[Remmirath]

These responses all assume that one actually knows the person who is sending them messages and has no good reason to ignore them. I find it perfectly acceptable to ignore strangers or people who have been bothering one with inane things.


-Not replying to a personal email which specifically, or indirectly, asks for or requires a response.

Surely such an e-mail should be replied to -- unless the person who sent the e-mail will be seen very shortly (one day or less) by the person receiving the e-mail, in which case I believe it to be acceptable to wait and talk to them in person. In some cases the e-mail should be replied to even so, such as if it asks for a list of things.


-Repeating messages, comments or questions when they've gone unanswered.

After a long enough period of time, if a response is needed, I consider this to be acceptable. Attempting a different form of communication instead may be more fruitful.


-Spam messaging a person who isn't responding on an IM client either to get their attention or start a conversation.

Certainly not acceptable.


-Significant delays in replying during an IM conversation. What would be considered significant delay?

I suppose, if one has entered into an IM conversation, one ought to reply at roughly the same rate of speed one would in a conversation. Therefore, I would say that what constitutes a signifcant delay varies based on the circumstances. Some allowance should be made for very slow typists, but generally I could consider five or ten minutes with no warning significant.


-AFKing or inactivity mid IM-conversation without warning.

Unless there turns out to be a good reason for it later (something needed immediate attention, computer error, or such), I would say this is rude.


-Not apologising for, or explaining the reasons for, AFK/inactivity mid-conversation.

As follows from my last answer, I would consider this rude.


-IMing a person whose status is clearly set to "AFK/Busy/Inactive/etc" or who has stated they're unavailable or busy.

Acceptable only under certain circumstances, such as if that were the only contact you have for that person and you need to get a message to them somehow, but generally not. If an alternate means of communication, such as e-mail, is available, then it should be used.


-Not replying to, or ignoring, offline instant messages.

Depends on the message. If it's something like "Hi! How are you?" there's little point to replying to it much later. If it is a question or some information that has not become invalid in the intervening time, it should probably be replied to.


-Not replying to instant messages due to holding multiple conversations simultaneously. On average, how many such conversations would be acceptable to be having before a new conversation should be put "on hold".

I would not think it particularly reasonable, myself, to carry on more than one conversation at a time. This seems more a question of logistics and personal preference, but once one has reached the number where one is not giving decent attention to each conversation, that is certainly too many.


-Significant delay in replying to an SMS text message. What would be considered significant delay?

Twenty minutes to half an hour, I suppose. It takes far longer to type a text message than to type an instant message or e-mail. Generally I would say that they occupy a grey area between instant messages and e-mail, so it ought to be replied to fairly rapidly, but not as rapidly as an instant message by the nature of it.

... Although I would also be inclined to say that using them at all is a breach of etiquette and that one really ought to just send an e-mail instead, I know there are circumstances under which they are useful (needing to make a phonecall but being in a place too loud to call or in a place one should not speak).


-Not replying to an SMS text message that warrants a reply.

Same as anything else that truly warrants a reply: not acceptable. It is, I would say, perfectly acceptable to make this reply through an alternate and less annoying means of communication, however.

[Don Julio Anejo]

... Although I would also be inclined to say that using them [SMS messages] at all is a breach of etiquette and that one really ought to just send an e-mail instead, I know there are circumstances under which they are useful (needing to make a phonecall but being in a place too loud to call or in a place one should not speak).

Eh, depends who you're talking to. For example, I much rather people text than call me for anything non-urgent as it gives me the freedom to respond how/when I choose to and does not force me into having a conversation that I'm not in the mood for. I am also unavailable many parts of the day (i.e. shower, driving, sleeping late, work) and don't like being disturbed/seeing missed calls and then finding out they were for a completely inane reason like "I'm bored, entertain me right now" when I call back later. Especially that almost everything important can be said via text, and sending/composing them is way faster than email.

[TuggyNE]

-Not replying to a personal email which specifically, or indirectly, asks for or requires a response.

Rather rude, but potentially acceptable.


-Repeating messages, comments or questions when they've gone unanswered.

Like ordinary conversation, this is OK once, and after that it gets progressively tackier.


-Spam messaging a person who isn't responding on an IM client either to get their attention or start a conversation.

Pretty lame, do not want.


-Significant delays in replying during an IM conversation. What would be considered significant delay?

Delay depends on context, both immediate and larger; sometimes a friendship is used to, I dunno, half-hour pauses, but if you switch from 10s response times to 10 minutes it feels weird.


-AFKing or inactivity mid IM-conversation without warning.

Slightly annoying but not really avoidable in all cases.


-Not apologising for, or explaining the reasons for, AFK/inactivity mid-conversation.

Less cool. Not gonna trigger instant hate, but not really a good thing to do either.


-IMing a person whose status is clearly set to "AFK/Busy/Inactive/etc" or who has stated they're unavailable or busy.

Depends on context. I have a friend who's always nothing but Away, even when she's actively typing to me, and even when she's dead asleep. Since we have distinctly different schedules this can make things a little awkward at times.


-Not replying to, or ignoring, offline instant messages.

About like not replying to an email normally.


-Not replying to instant messages due to holding multiple conversations simultaneously. On average, how many such conversations would be acceptable to be having before a new conversation should be put "on hold".

If you don't reply at all to an existing conversation, that's uncool, but if it's a new one slightly less bad; either way, though, anything other than "gah, too much talking, need to slow down a bit and sort through all these convos" (or words to that effect) is at least a little rude.


-Significant delay in replying to an SMS text message. What would be considered significant delay?

-Not replying to an SMS text message that warrants a reply.

Since I don't have a cell phone Imma let everyone else answer this.


-Making forum posts asking about netiquette.

Oh dude, so much nono here you don't even know. :smalltongue:

[Lorsa]

-Not replying to a personal email which specifically, or indirectly, asks for or requires a response.

That depends entirely on who it's from. It has little to do with it being an email or not; if someone that is a friend asks you a question it's polite to answer. If some random person is trolling or scamming you then ignoring is the best option.


-Repeating messages, comments or questions when they've gone unanswered.

I've always thought this was bad form but I've learnt the hard way that some people simply miss things and thus they might actually WANT you to repeat them. So I would say repeating an unanswered message is quite fine.


-Spam messaging a person who isn't responding on an IM client either to get their attention or start a conversation.

There are few things as annoying as people spamming you when you don't really feel like talking to them.


-Significant delays in replying during an IM conversation. What would be considered significant delay?

This depends on the conversation in question. Some types of conversations is okay to simply drop and stop responding to altogether where others are not.


-AFKing or inactivity mid IM-conversation without warning.

Again, depends on the conversation. Basically this is the same as the above as it is usually impossible to know if what is the cause of the delay.


-Not apologising for, or explaining the reasons for, AFK/inactivity mid-conversation.

Again, it depends entirely on the type of conversation. As said before, some conversations come with the idea that it's simply okay to drop it whenever whereas others do not.


-IMing a person whose status is clearly set to "AFK/Busy/Inactive/etc" or who has stated they're unavailable or busy.

Don't disturb people who don't want to be disturbed. On the other hand, they are still online which means if whatever you have to say is important enough it's quite all right.


-Not replying to, or ignoring, offline instant messages.

Depends on the message (wow, I am really repeating myself). For example "Hi, what are you doing now?" isn't very useful to answer to if it's an offline message whereas "Can we meet on sunday?" would be. So it is dependent on the relevance.


-Not replying to instant messages due to holding multiple conversations simultaneously. On average, how many such conversations would be acceptable to be having before a new conversation should be put "on hold".

Some people are better at multi-tasking than others. Personally I prefer to have personal intimate conversations with only one person whose full attention is on me but if it's just mostly trash-talking anyway then who cares? So wait! It depends on the conversation (have I said that before?)!


-Significant delay in replying to an SMS text message. What would be considered significant delay?

The point with SMS text message is that people are supposed to answer at their leisure.


-Not replying to an SMS text message that warrants a reply.

This is annoying but if you really want a reply then CALL.


Bonus question!

-Making forum posts asking about netiquette.
=p

I think the question should be more like "-Not replying to a forum post asking about netiquette." to make it more in line with the other questions.

[huttj509]

Ok, I'm a bit confused by some of the responses regarding the AFK/Busy tag message.

I interpret that tag as "I'm not here/responding right now, but if you'd like to leave a message, you can."

If it's more a situation of "I don't want message windows popping up," why are you signed into the IM service?

Given some (most) of the responses to that bit, it really feels like I'm missing something.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Ok, I'm a bit confused by some of the responses regarding the AFK/Busy tag message.

I interpret that tag as "I'm not here/responding right now, but if you'd like to leave a message, you can."

If it's more a situation of "I don't want message windows popping up," why are you signed into the IM service?

Given some (most) of the responses to that bit, it really feels like I'm missing something.

Well, on the work system I have no choice in the matter - if I am logged in then people can IM me - it's all part of the integrated system...

[Crow]

So, Playground, consider this something of a research project on my part. I've a couple of questions about what is or is not considered acceptable, or not, in online communication for each of you.


I'll post my own opinions later.


-Not replying to a personal email which specifically, or indirectly, asks for or requires a response.

-Repeating messages, comments or questions when they've gone unanswered.

-Spam messaging a person who isn't responding on an IM client either to get their attention or start a conversation.

-Significant delays in replying during an IM conversation. What would be considered significant delay?

-AFKing or inactivity mid IM-conversation without warning.

-Not apologising for, or explaining the reasons for, AFK/inactivity mid-conversation.

-IMing a person whose status is clearly set to "AFK/Busy/Inactive/etc" or who has stated they're unavailable or busy.

-Not replying to, or ignoring, offline instant messages.

-Not replying to instant messages due to holding multiple conversations simultaneously. On average, how many such conversations would be acceptable to be having before a new conversation should be put "on hold".

-Significant delay in replying to an SMS text message. What would be considered significant delay?

-Not replying to an SMS text message that warrants a reply.


Bonus question!

-Making forum posts asking about netiquette.
=p


1. Rude

2. Depends. Sometimes the responses are just not the ones the poster is looking for, and sometimes the responses are something the poster doesn't like. In the first case, it is acceptable if they clarify what they are looking for, in the second case, it's just dumb. If they have received no response whatsoever, I have no problem with them posting again.

3. Not acceptable

4. Depends. If they are busy with other things, they should tell you that so you can just try to catch them later.

5. Same as 4.

6. Same as 4.

7. Depends. Sometimes you just need to tell somebody something, and you're not looking for a reply.

8. If the message is one that a reply would normally be expected for, then you should reply, even if it is to say that you aren't really up to discussing whatever it is at the time.

9. Bugs the hell out of me, but I'm not sure if I would consider it necessarily rude.

10. Depends on the delay. If they have a reason, sure. If they just don't feel like replying right then, rude. At least tell the person you're not up for texting right then.

11. Rude, unless they are away from their phone or can't use it for some reason. Basically the same as 10.

[Haruki-kun]

Ok, I'm a bit confused by some of the responses regarding the AFK/Busy tag message.

I interpret that tag as "I'm not here/responding right now, but if you'd like to leave a message, you can."

If it's more a situation of "I don't want message windows popping up," why are you signed into the IM service?

Given some (most) of the responses to that bit, it really feels like I'm missing something.

Back in MSN Messenger days, I would log in while doing homework. I might be too busy with homework to answer any random chat that pops up while simultaneously using the client to communicate with my classmates about the homework, asking for help, or to communicate with teammates if it was a team project. I need the service to work, but not to chat.

Similar situations happen with Facebook these days: You might use it as a communication tool with your teammates but at the same time not be open to chatting with other people.

[Elemental]

Well, I was going to answer each question, but alas, my computer crashed when I had all but finished typing up my responses. So, as such, I'm only going the bonus question:

Making forum posts concerning the etiquette of using the Internet is only unacceptable if you try and tell people how to act. Otherwise, it's fine.