Formal - Japanese protocol (or not) - debate in detail (11)

The other thread is here:

http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/ukds/146...

The aim of this thread is to create a detailed agreed protocol which a "foundation group" is happy to adopt and use.

I'm still not convinced that the Japanese terms do not cover all the necessary areas - but I am convinced that a number of others find them alien and possibly risible.

As a thread-starter, here is a list of the contexts I think we need an expression for:

A person you regard as of similar status and towards whom you have no duty of care or responsibility for service - but for whom you have respect.

A person you regard as of similar status and towards whom you have no duty of care or responsibility for service - but for whom you have LITTLE OR NO respect (personlly someting I think we should do without 0 but it's there for debate).

A person with whom you have no formal relationship but towards whom you feel some duty of care.

A person with whom you have no formal relationship but towards whom you feel some responsibility for service.

A person with whom you have no formal relationship but whom you regard as a teacher or mentor.

A person with whom you have no formal relationship but whom you regard as a pupil.

A person with whom you have agreed a formal relationship as teacher/mentor.

A person with whom you have agreed a formal relationship as pupil.

A person with whom you have a formal relationship and toward whom you have a formal duty of care.

A person with whom you have a formal relationship and to whom you have an obligation of service.

A person who has responsibility for your life.

A person for whose life you have taken responsibility.

I wonder if that's exhaustive.

Please remember - use the other thread if you want to critique the general concept: this is for people who want to create a new,dynamic, protocol.

Regards to all,

Belasarius

Edited Fri 22 Jun 07, 2:32 PM by Belasarius

Firstly, protocol may be hard for a sub who is committed to a Dom/me who does not him/herself enjoy or value it. Or is committed to one who sees protocol as only applying to him/herself. And that Dom/me would obviously not want to use the honorifics themselves. For a sub that then put him or her in the unenviable position of having to explain that they are not allowed to use the honorifics...and of possibly offending good friends.

Secondly I suspect the overriding barrier is one of practicality. Most of us have enough issues keeping up with usernames, let alone adding a range of honorifics with subtle meanings. And without constant usage there is no familiarity

The first issue, I guess could be ignored as you chose to join in or not...and as a sub you chose who to submit to.

The second might be best solved if the honorifics were built into personal networks, a bit like the 'blue' highlighting and the free text comments and if we could pick from a list of honorifics like a list of emoticons... Then they might generally become more widespread.

I personally don't think it matters whether the words are japanese, latin, greek or croatian. It might help to use english words with some kind of contextual relevence - but the catch is that all existing language has underlying significance - and even some 'made up words' (e.g. in the jabberwocky).

I am sorry this is not more constructive.

Kumiko-chan (for now at least) - that is most constructive, except that making it real ads a burden to Tanos' life - and I expect he's enough on his plate.

nevertheless, thanks

Nothing is as down or as up, as us.

This sounds like it would be appropriate and informative. Thankyou Pezzie

Rotti

If life were made of moments then you'd never know you had one.

Relationship has a lot of baggage doesn't it. Why not use the term "connection" here. Again, the system proposed should enable a person to describe all the connections named by erotica above (please see the first post in the thread).

Edited 22 Jun 07, 4:26 PM by Belasarius

regarding that point, wouldnt a simple lack of any title indicating respect cover it? as in, if you were to apply a title/word to others whom you knew, to know someone but apply no word for them would indicate that you did not deem them worthy of anything.

Altho I suppose it could get confusing if people weren't sure whether u knew them but didn't respect them, or just that you didn't know them.

"I want what I want when I want it, what is so immature about that?!" - Jackie, That 70's Show

This is most sensible, I think - perhaps one miht use san for anyone would did not know and otherwisw not use an honorific if known and regarded as equal?

How do you mean this would be used? ie for people to indicate what title they would use towards someone in their network connection?

Something else that's not been stressed so far (I think) is the way this used to be done with introductions. The Estate people proposed something similar several years ago, with a protocol for doing introductions (including titles) to indicate relationships:

http://www.slaveregister.com/wiki/Estate_protoco...

Unlike the Victorians, we don't have a tradition of formally introducing people, exchanging cards etc as a way of making it clear where people stand in relation to the introducer, exactly how their name is spelt (very very useful in a world with IC, MySpace and email!), and what their contact address is.

Maybe that's part of the answer too?

Regards,

Tanos

www.tanos.org.uk

I would like to see something like this used in networks, yes: I think it would be quite informative.

I have to see, I am also in favour of people being introduced to eachother by mutual acquaintances - which networks make possible.

However, this is still something that relies on mass participation and I, sadly, think that unlikely.

Best to you,

BeLuS