October 19 2003 EhBC Online Discussion

October 19, 2003 EhBC Online Discussion

<ModBot> This message is generated by Moderator Bot, ModBot for short. I've set an automatic message that reads as follows...
<ModBot> Welcome to or regular Sunday night discussion. Please refrain from sending "hi" and "bye" messages until after 10 pm. Also note that the discussion is being logged. If you wish to remain anonymous, you should change your nick. Tonight's discussion topic is "More About Protocol". The discussion is unmoderated. Enjoy!
<`abi> I was hoping that we might focus on protocols within relationships tonight LadyNichola ... but certainly the floor is open
<LadyNichola> Okay, question to all... Is there a way to narrow the scope of "Protocol" as a topic?
* BernieRoehl settles in for the discussion
<PoE> so just so i'm clear. we're not talking about internet protocols ;)
<LadyNichola> Protocol covers a lot of ground
<PoE> ;)
<PoE> http etc is excluded.
<PoE> (yeah yeah i know it was a bad joke)
<jewel`{F}> i read a very interesting article on Protocol vs Etiquitte
* SpikeLee listens to jewel.
<SpikeLee> So then, what exactly is the difference?
* BernieRoehl smiles @ PoE
<jewel`{F}> in it they deifned Etiquitte as the manners in general, ones pretty much accepted by the community
<jewel`{F}> such as no touching or speaking with the dominant in a relationship first
<jewel`{F}> and protocols being those rules set up in a relationship
<SpikeLee> And protocol then?
<`abi> what sorts of protocols have people here developed in their relationships?
<LadyNichola> Seems to Me that protocol has a diplomatic quality to it... more to do with negotiation, peacekeeping, setting boundaries
<arhiannah> in that case then....wouldn't etiquette just be a part of the protocol?
<jewel`{F}> like the rules Master has for me that i am to use the honorifics with those that have earned it by His guidelines for me
<PoE> no. i think the etiqutte could be defined more as the defining the use of manners.. where as the protocol would be How such things would be used..
<LadyNichola> Hence: The forms of ceremony and etiquette observed by diplomats and heads of state.
* PoE will brb
<PoE> that might help clarifyt
<jewel`{F}> Bernie may i post the definitions from the article please?
<BernieRoehl> By all means, jewel
<jewel`{F}> An etiquette:
<jewel`{F}> Is a generally recognized convention, but is not a rule.
<jewel`{F}> Generally applies in the community as a whole.
<jewel`{F}> Is not "enforceable" (although failing to follow it can get a person disliked in a hurry).
<jewel`{F}> Is almost (but not completely) universally recognized in the community.
<jewel`{F}> Is usually, but not always, followed.
<jewel`{F}> Is based on common sense.
<jewel`{F}> Is usually based on concepts of politeness.
<jewel`{F}> A protocol:
<jewel`{F}> Is a rule, and not a convention.
<jewel`{F}> Is something that has been explicitly communicated and accepted.
<jewel`{F}> Is particular to a relationship, and not to the community as a whole.
<jewel`{F}> Is something those outside the relationship can NOT be expected to know or to follow.
<jewel`{F}> Is enforceable within the relationship, but not outside it.
<jewel`{F}> Can be (and often is) different or distinct from normal etiquette.
<SpikeLee> so, for example, a finger kiss could be considered ettiquette as opposed to protocol?
<`abi> do you think that protocols evolve jewel?
<jewel`{F}> i do, as a relationship grows
<jewel`{F}> whether between a Dom and sub or even just in the friendships
<`abi> what sorts of things did you start with jewel?
<`TimberWolf> and does etiquette change with styles....like fads?
<LadyNichola> hmm, not sure I agree with the article's premise..
<LadyNichola> good point TimberWolf
<SpikeLee> Why's that Nichola?
<LadyNichola> We talk about "observing protocol" or "high protocol"...
<LadyNichola> the details of which would be the etiquette
<cujo_> etiquette can and does change depending on culture...or relationship(s)
<PoE> i think most of this is too deep for me at this point...
<LadyNichola> two people in a relationship could have two different sets of rules
<SpikeLee> How does one know what ettiquette is acceptable for that matter? Are not all people's views on that different?
<LadyNichola> (Mistress can do "A", slave can do "B")
<LadyNichola> But both are observing protocol
<PoE> SpikeLee
<`TimberWolf> you ask
<jewel`{F}> to start with abi, Master just expected me to try my best, to alway be polite, no more than i would be in nilla life, and using Sir alone for Him was fine, then as we grew together, He expected me to call Him Master and my behaviour is more formal with some we know
* `abi nods to jewel
<`TimberWolf> protcol dictates when unsure about what the proper ettiquette is you ask
<`TimberWolf> :)
<SpikeLee> However PoE, I believe that a lady should be greeted a certain way.
<LadyNichola> Agrees with TimberWolf
<LadyNichola> Absolutely...
<PoE> SpikeLee indeed. but if unsure of the reaction. .. ask.
<PoE> or dive in
<PoE> and face the consequences
<jewel`{F}> when ever one is unsure of something they should ask
<LadyNichola> As TW says, there arent rules of etiquette that govern every situation
<LadyNichola> Sometimes even the proper protocol is vague...
* Goddess_A listens for a bit before tossing in any comments
<SpikeLee> Nichola, Pm?
<LadyNichola> Ultimately, one wants to do that which is respectful to others...
<PoE> not necessarily
<BernieRoehl> That raises the deeper question -- what is the purpose of protocol? It clearly serves some purpose (or we wouldn't be using it), but what do we feel that purpose is?
<Goddess_A> a code of conduct BernieRoehl
<jewel`{F}> they do if they want to be continued to be welcomed at events and in the community
* PoE has always had the notion that protocols were designed to dictate actions for certain situations
<Goddess_A> without protocol we would have choas (which is fun sometimes) ;) but.. necessary
<MasterGuny> protocols give the relationship structure boundaries
<melissa{G}> the same could be said of vanilla events...
<melissa{G}> or relationships
<LadyNichola> .... Have an idea...
<Goddess_A> what makes this lifestyle appealling, for me, is the protocol.. I think vanilla relationships bend and break because of a lack of boundries
<LadyNichola> Maybe "etiquette" governs _what_ to do... "protocol" governs how to figure out what that actually is
<Goddess_A> the constant fight for control (vanilla)
<Goddess_A> protocol are rules of conduct... etiquette are rules governing social behaviour...
<Goddess_A> the difference is really only the setting
* Natasa frowns and can't do a .rev
<Natasa> Hello
<Goddess_A> sociallly acceptable behaviour = etiquette (and horseshit because society is flawed)
<`TimberWolf> or how about "protocols are simply the rules we live by"..."ettiquette is how we live by them ie the style with which we apply those rules"
<DarkAngel^> MMmmm a quiet bunch ,,,,
<Goddess_A> when I train a sub/slave, etiquette is one of the first things I cover...
<SpikeLee> Mmmm I like that phrasing TimberWolf
<Goddess_A> if one doesn't know the rules of behaviour.. everything they do that follows will be tainted with error
<melissa{G}> it sounds like it still goes down to the basic "do unto others...."
<Goddess_A> do unto others melissa{G}? where are you going with that?
<delyssa> Etiquette: The practices and forms prescribed by social convention or by authority. Protocol: The forms of ceremony and etiquette observed by diplomats and heads of state
<MasterGuny> yuk
<`TimberWolf> thank you girl ..oxford consise says about the same
* delyssa nods
<delyssa> yuk?
<`TimberWolf> oxford concise does too
<LadyNichola> I think TimberWolf has a point here
<MasterGuny> politics
<Goddess_A> words are relative... you can define the term "protocol" til you're blue in teh face.. it's practiced differently by everyone
<MasterGuny> rather `TimberWolf definition
<SpikeLee> Is 'old guard' protocol vastly different from newer protocol?
<LadyNichola> It seems that way to Me Syr Spike
<jen{SE}> i wonder if that is part of the problem there is not standard basic protocol
<SpikeLee> Does anyone have any preference for old vs new?
<LadyNichola> Well, Syr Spike, this speaks to jen's point...
<LadyNichola> Old Guard does have a standardized set of protocols
<Goddess_A> we can't expect to set a "standard basic protocol" for the entire world... different cultures, societies, and lifestyles must bend to their own standards.. if it didn't .. we wouldn't even be doing what we enjoy
<SpikeLee> [nodding] I think I'm fairly familiar with them.
<LadyNichola> New Leather is a little more
<LadyNichola> flexible?
<LadyNichola> Ithink W/e could come up with a list of standardized protocols for Old Guard
<LadyNichola> I'd have a tough time coming up one for "New Leather"
<SpikeLee> Could you pinpoint the differences?
<Natasa> i'd like to hear the list
<private-beauty> would agree with flexible LadyNichola but wonder if that is a good thing
<LadyNichola> Well, you pays your money, you takes your choice
<LadyNichola> Personally, I find that rigid protocol... adds flexibility to play.
<SpikeLee> How so?
<LadyNichola> I think it adds more flexibility to play (and other interactions) because you don't have to think about "what's right"... you just focus on the task at hand
<SpikeLee> good point.
* Foster boggles
<Natasa> well, what are the standard protocols?
<LadyNichola> Old Guard protocols?
<Natasa> yes
* `TimberWolf bows
<LadyNichola> I'd say that Old Guard protocols are characterized by almost excessive courtliness, an obsession with preserving respect
<Goddess_A> rigid protocols add flexibility?
* Goddess_A laughs
<LadyNichola> That's My opinion Goddess, Yes
<Natasa> hmm, but the list of the protocols or rules is what i was wondering about
<SpikeLee> I find myself unsure about what to call whom, how to address people etc.
<LadyNichola> But then, I'd never laugh at your opinion ...
<Goddess_A> I was laughing at the oxymoron
<jen{SE}> following strict protocols make it easier when you are starting out, less likely to put foot in mouth
* Foster scratches his goatee a bit
<LadyNichola> It is only apparent oxymoron.
<LadyNichola> Rigidity of protocol... Flexibility of play...
<Goddess_A> huh?
<Goddess_A> we digress...
<Natasa> rigid protocols actually are more helpful to maintain the power balance over a long period of time, even moreso than at the beginning
<LadyNichola> As I say... one choice of many...
<LadyNichola> quite so
<DarkAngel^> I can see how a pre set understanding of rules/structure does allow more focussing on areas to explore/play
<Natasa> but i still wanna see/hear about this OG list of protocols (:
<Goddess_A> I have extremely rigid protocols, however I wouldn't say it make play more flexible... simply more structured.. in my opinion
<Natasa> (or power imbalance lol )
* Foster wants to hear the pannies version of OG too
<LadyNichola> Goddess...Don't your rigid protocols allow you to go further with Your desires?
<yummy> what are some examples of your protocols
<moonstar> i think perhaps flexibility isn't the best choice of wording... the way i think of flexibility anyway...
* LadyNichola thinks moonstar may be right
<Goddess_A> no LadyNichola, I go further when it is right, not because protocol is kept.
<SpikeLee> Perhaps, freedom would be a better word.
<LadyNichola> sure... or greater range
<Goddess_A> I think I understood where you were going though
<jen{SE}> i am trying to figure out protocol and play, that is one area SE really doesn't have any, play is play, outside of the standard no limits there is no defined protocol when playing
<moonstar> rigid protocol infers a strict set of guidelines... flexibility infers that those guidelines are bendable.. which is the oxymoron.. i think maybe adventersome... or freedom to experiment within said guidelines might be a better way to say it.
<DarkAngel^> I have seen you play jen{SE} ,,, I see lovely protecol ,,
<Natasa> i personally make my own protocol, but i'd still like to hear about OG protocol (:
<DarkAngel^> Protocal even
<Foster> Natasa.. please
<Foster> pansexual OG idea of protocol
<delyssa> or perhaps protocol doesn't give more "freedom" or "flexibility" but it serves to enrich the varied interactions and experiences one has in this community?
<Foster> don't lump
* Natasa is pansexual, huh?
<Foster> nah..
<Natasa> lol
<Foster> you're just fun
<Goddess_A> I think it's rather simple in fact...
<Goddess_A> why do we always make everything difficult? ;)
<PoE> human nature
<PoE> :)
<`abi> I think that relationship protocols help to provide link between the scening and the relatioship dynamics
<PoE> to winnow out the weak
<PoE> so that the strongest survive.
<Natasa> lol PoE
<PoE> its true though.
<Foster> i dunno PoE, i've seen a lot of weak asses surviving out there
<Natasa> no, i think we think too much
<PoE> Foster
<Natasa> but i dont mind it
<LadyNichola> Notwithstanding the Darwinian value of protocol, I think abi has a point.
<PoE> 'weak' is relative
<Goddess_A> protocol is necessary, to the degree in which the individual desires. and without it, chaos would ensue. systems are necessary. structure is important in a d/s relationship.
<Foster> very true PoE
* LadyNichola fully agrees with Goddess_A
<melissa{G}> weak for you, Foster .....or weak to them....that, i would think is a matter of perception
<Foster> i don't consider 'them'
* Natasa laughs and goes to make some lemonade
<Foster> you can only go by your own standard of perception, then apply it to a sociological mean
<Foster> but that's more philosophical, instead of your topic here
<LadyNichola> To support Goddess_A's point - WIthout protocol, this discussion would be chaotic
<Goddess_A> the hierarchial structure of the system is what creates a nearly (and I say nearly because nothing is perfect) perfect relationship. I like to compare it to a miliary hierarchy.. rank is required and respected.
<SpikeLee> Am I to understand that OG protocol is much closer to military style rank and order.
<Foster> indeed and OG is paramilitary in nature
<Goddess_A> military
<Goddess_A> I'm not talking about OG at all
<Foster> it was founded by ww2 gays coming back and establishing a certain amount of para discipline based on their military training
<Goddess_A> ah
<LadyNichola> Amusing, Foster, but not accurate
* SpikeLee thinks that explains my admiriation for OG style
<Foster> oh?
<Foster> fascinating
* Foster checks his BoP, 14 and HCC patches
<Foster> well my my
<Foster> sister
<Foster>
<DarkAngel^> that sounds like the beginnings of leather that I have heard ,, not OG
<Foster> tell this old fag a thing or two
* PoE grins
<LadyNichola> I think you'll find that "Old Guard or High Protocol dates back further
<Foster> OG was based on the foundation of leathersex
* Goddess_A grins
<Foster> no
<Foster> High Protocol does
<Foster> not OG
<LadyNichola> Okay.. splitting hairs a bit here...
<Foster> OG was actually brought from europe style of snuff discipline in the various SM houses
<Foster> but OG is purely an american term
<LadyNichola> My point too Foster... as in "The hole in the wall club"
<BernieRoehl> Most people say that "Old Guard" had a number of antecedants, so pinpointing a specific origin is difficult.
<Foster> most people would be wrong as well
<Goddess_A> splitting hairs is what protocol is about
<BernieRoehl> Perhaps
<Foster> then again, people began calling pansexuals OG
<Goddess_A> fine tuning the rules of conduct
<Foster> began establishing heteros as OG
<Foster> I was even told that there are no gays in OG
<Foster> funny that
<Foster> besides me...btw..
<Foster> any fags here?
<SpikeLee> define fag
<Foster> homosexual male
<Foster> not a cig
* PoE isnt a ciggarette or a torch, ;)
<Goddess_A> lol
* Foster grins
* PoE also isnt homosexual..
* SpikeLee doesn't qualify.
<PoE> but DAMN there are some cute boys out there
* Foster would adore ya madly if you were tobacco right now, mate
<LadyNichola> Not sure how this relates to protocol...
<PoE> heh.
* BernieRoehl thinks it would be interesting to move the discussion back to the subject of protocol
<Foster> this convo keeps mentioning OG
<Goddess_A> lol
<Foster> in fact, i believe YOU even mentioned a 'list'
<Foster> funny funny
<Foster> well enjoy your lil pansexual hurrah
* Foster blows a kiss to the crowd
<LadyNichola> Yeah...
* Natasa chuckles as he gets pissy and leaves
<DarkAngel^> interesting
<LadyNichola> kinda makes you go...hmm
<PoE> indeed.
<BernieRoehl> Anyway...
<LadyNichola> seems there was insufficient protocol there to support a civilized discussion
* melissa{G} chuckles softly
<private-beauty> the things you see when you don't have a gun
<SpikeLee> Now, back to OG versus new leather. Can anyone illustrate the main differences between the two?
* BernieRoehl smiles at Foster's demonstrated lack of protocol
<DarkAngel^> does OG not require respect to other's with clear and defined manners ?
<LadyNichola> I think so DA..
<DarkAngel^> perhaps I should have said Protocol ,, not OG
<LadyNichola> Old Guard, Old Leather, Old School...
<LadyNichola> High Protocol...
* jen{SE} is old, old is good
<aymelek> isn't the OG simply much more "proper" in older terms of speaking?
<SpikeLee> I am familiar with the terms m'lady, though I'm afraid I'm too new to appreciate the subtle differences.
<LadyNichola> All variations on a more rigid world view (D/s world that is)
<melissa{G}> from what i have seen....in my limited RL experience....OG appears to have a more formalized set of rules and protocol....sort of like the maiden auntie that insists on "high tea"
<SpikeLee> How would that translate into practice?
<melissa{G}> new leather seems, in contrast, to have a looser style....less formal
* LadyNichola nods
<melissa{G}> but no less valid
<aymelek> formal was exactly the word i was looking for
<PoE> oy vey. I read that as 'loser style'
<SpikeLee> Are there preferences in the room as to who prefers what style?
* moonstar giggles.
<melissa{G}> oh heavens, wouldn't THAT have been a faux pas?
* melissa{G} smiles
<LadyNichola> I think (respectfully) that would be a divisive question Spike
* PoE is casual and less formal 99% of the time. but I see a place, and a need for formal protocol
<jewel`{F}> no matter what you call it, the formality of there being different stations in the community, knowing them, knowing where you fit in and the proper behaviour of those stations is something that isn't as focused on now a days
* SpikeLee listens
* yummy is not a train, i don't need a station
<`abi> perhaps not in the culture at large jewel ... but I think that there are many relationships which have it as an internal focus
<DarkAngel^> I see the only limitation on establishing a "New Community Protocol" as the requierments for new people to be properly mentored or schooled in the responsibilities before being allowed a level of power
<DarkAngel^> the fresh off the internet "Uber Dom" whould run amok
<LadyNichola> Sounds a little elitist DarkAngel...however, I agree
<`abi> I think it's the only way that it works
* PoE shrugs.
<`abi> you simply can't have that kind of culture without a structure to support it
* DarkAngel^ knows this as he has had to sit down a few newbie power mad "Masters" eager to order all subs to provide their phone numbers ,,, because he is a "Master"
<melissa{G}> until you know the ins and outs of a communities' protocol it behooves newcomers (and established players) to be respectful and follow the "universal rules" of protocol, if you will
<aurelle> yuck
<`abi> and I don't think that we are ever likely to see it as the norm for the wider BDSM community ...I think that eventually, subcultures (so to speak) will evolve
<DarkAngel^> not elitest LadyNichola ,, simply that we as a community would have to self-structure,, and self-mentor
<melissa{G}> yuck?
<LadyNichola> Not disagreeing with you DarkAngel... just raising the counter argument to formality
<aurelle> the so called Masters
<LadyNichola> I actually think We do a pretty good job of defining ourselves already..
<jen{SE}> *smiles*, Dom's do not by nature "follow", many like to have their own version of protocol followed, how do you come up with a common set that most Dominants would agree.
<melissa{G}> i have noted that the subs themselves can often deal most effectively with the Internet UberMasters
* melissa{G} smiles
<DarkAngel^> understandably LadyNichola ,, and I also recognize my words certainly do sem on the surface elitist ,,,
<LadyNichola> Although it was raised frivolously before... there is a Darwinian element
<DarkAngel^> the old problem of ,,, who watches the watchers
<aurelle> i am always very impressed by someone who fails to ask me if i am a top or bottom within the first five minutes. it gives me a sense of the person
* LadyNichola is watching DarkAngel like a hawk
<DarkAngel^> LOL
<cujo_> protocols balance relationship, gives them boundaries and definition at whatever level....protocols change with relationships,
<`abi> he's sort of hard to miss in that white suit
<cujo_> I agree aurelle
<delyssa> it glowed!
* SpikeLee watches everyone.
<ModBot> There are only about five minutes left in the formal part of tonight's discussion. Does anyone have any last-minute thoughts on the subject?
<DarkAngel^> I do certainly both like and support formality ,,, but how may we respect the variation of kink ,,, when so many different forms of address are preffered
<SpikeLee> Protocol, is confusing.
<jen{SE}> protocols for me are a good place to come home to, they do not always work well in the public, but basic protocal and etiquette will serve me at home and with friends.
<BernieRoehl> Question... do people feel there's still life in this topic? If so, we can certainly continue it next Sunday.
<yummy> i understand protocols in a relationship but i don't see that we need them in the community.. unless you are the one I have submitted to you, I'm a person and you are a person.. I'm going to relate to you as a person not by your bdsm role
* PoE shrugs. I try to be polite, and read each situation to the best of my aiblilty...
<PoE> and if i come short.
<PoE> I can always apologise.
* DarkAngel^ is never polite *Demonic Chuckle*
<PoE> DA
<aurelle> lol
<shareena^> i don't either yummy. I would not be allowed to call another Sir
<LadyNichola> "In this above all things, to thine own self be true. Therefore, let no man call thee false"
<BernieRoehl> That raises the question of what to do when relationship-based protocols and group protocols collide
<melissa{G}> but you would certainly be polite and respectful, yes, yummy ?
<MasterGuny> we have protocol Meetings in Whitby called Tops and bottoms..it draws about 40 people a month from the community that do like them
<LadyNichola> I don't care what your rules are... so long as you have some.
<MasterGuny> and most attend other venues and munches
<melissa{G}> and that is really all that we can ask of anyone that we have just met
<DarkAngel^> very good point BernieRoehl
<yummy> i'd be polite melissa{G}
<PoE> BernieRoehl
<PoE> or protocols
<PoE> as it were.
* BernieRoehl smiles
<PoE> not that i think *I* ever have that problem
<PoE> (yet)
<LadyNichola> Tough one Bernie... some of the rules may be incompatible.
<PoE> thanks bernie.. a nice philibuster before the discussion formally ends...
<PoE> *Grin*
<yummy> can you respect rules but still not follow them?
<PoE> sure.
<shareena^> yes yummy
<BernieRoehl> So... continue with the topic next time, or move to something new? Everyone can pm me with their votes
<PoE> follow the 11th commandment...
<ModBot> Well, that's it for the formal part of the discussion. The discussion log is now closed. It should be processed and uploaded to the www.ehbc.ca website soon. Please feel free to continue chatting informallly. Have a good night, everyone!
<ModBot> Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion.