3 ms·

Is this intentional ragebait? Calling IMs "actual communication" is .... odd. Email all but guarantees more thoughtful replies than IM. I'll agree that the exa

by elric 1y ago

Is this intentional ragebait? Calling IMs "actual communication" is .... odd. Email all but guarantees more thoughtful replies than IM. I'll agree that the example of simply tagging someone in a long quoted thread is not the way to go. The sender should have included a summary and an explanation of why the new recipient is suddenly added.

bee_rider 1y ago
I think maybe it is ragebait, (maybe unintentional). In particular, it is phrased as an argument against email threads in general, but then we have: > Innocently, you click into the top email. The only text is "[Your Name] see below." IMO this is bad behavior and it is right to push back. The person forwarding the email should provide context: what’s going on and why am I being included, what’s expected of me here? If I’m just told to “See Below,” ok, I’ll see it. I’ll interpret that at an FYI for me, no deliverables requested (of course, an FYI might include the information about the needs of somebody who’s ass I need to kiss). — The ragebaity thing is to have a general rant against something pretty normal, but to only have an example based on obviously bad behavior. Is that Motte-and-bailey? Not sure, but it doesn’t pass my sniff test.
Spunkie 1y ago
It reads as straight up intentional ragebait to me. Especially when they say in the middle they already don't read email threads and use AI to summarize. But they still place a call to action at the end to not send email threads. Why would they want less context to feed their AI? If mods on high granted the power I would certainly downvote this submission.
kop316 1y ago
Agreed, the original thesis makes sense, but then it sort of goes off on a tangent of don't send any email threads. If I get tagged on an email like this, I respond with something along the lines of: "what is the intention here? is it an ask or do i need to do something? do I need to be aware of something? please advise". This generally gets me a summary so I know what I am doing.

by elric 1y ago

bee_rider 1y ago

I think maybe it is ragebait, (maybe unintentional). In particular, it is phrased as an argument against email threads in general, but then we have: > Innocently, you click into the top email. The only text is "[Your Name] see below." IMO this is bad behavior and it is right to push back. The person forwarding the email should provide context: what’s going on and why am I being included, what’s expected of me here? If I’m just told to “See Below,” ok, I’ll see it. I’ll interpret that at an FYI for me, no deliverables requested (of course, an FYI might include the information about the needs of somebody who’s ass I need to kiss). — The ragebaity thing is to have a general rant against something pretty normal, but to only have an example based on obviously bad behavior. Is that Motte-and-bailey? Not sure, but it doesn’t pass my sniff test.

Spunkie 1y ago

It reads as straight up intentional ragebait to me. Especially when they say in the middle they already don't read email threads and use AI to summarize. But they still place a call to action at the end to not send email threads. Why would they want less context to feed their AI? If mods on high granted the power I would certainly downvote this submission.

kop316 1y ago

Agreed, the original thesis makes sense, but then it sort of goes off on a tangent of don't send any email threads. If I get tagged on an email like this, I respond with something along the lines of: "what is the intention here? is it an ask or do i need to do something? do I need to be aware of something? please advise". This generally gets me a summary so I know what I am doing.