I've had bad experiences with online discussions, whether through forum posts or email, and I feel that it is determined by the social implications to responding or not responding to asynchronous communiqu├ęs.

I am a fan of Halon's razor, and thus, upon sending a multipartite correspondence, you either

(approximately by severity of transgression, from low to high)

A non-response is, by Halon's razor, more easily forgiven, as, even if the message is delivered, it is possible that the recipient is too busy to respond.

An impartial response, however, indicates that the message has been read, but through some part of the reader has failed to respond to the entire message. I personally place a great deal of ire upon responses of this kind, because it indicates that the message has been read, but the reader did not deign to reply to all points, or did not attempt to inform you that they are to busy to respond to all points.

Even following Crocker's Rules, maximizing information includes the importance the recipient places upon your communication. The fact that the recipient has read the message but decided against replying properly to all points shows a certain disregard for message.

So if you ever reply to a message, please ensure that you address all points, even if it is that you don't have enough time to address the issue. At the very least you will be asked to respond to the same point again.

Tagged with logic
Posted on2015-06-25 01:08
Last modified on2015-07-01 05:45

Comments (0)