2235: Group Chat Rules

|< < Prev Comic #2235 (November 29, 2019) Next > >|

Group Chat Rules

Title text: There's no group chat member more enigmatic than the cool person who you all assume has the chat on mute, but who then instantly chimes in with no delay the moment something relevant to them is mentioned.

Explanation

This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by MATHEMATICAL OBJECT WITH NO UNDERSTANDING OF JURISPRUDENCE. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

In this comic Randall is outlining the rules of a group chat. The rules start off by addressing some common behaviours associated with group chat, but then becomes increasingly bizarre, before finishing with an apology for "all of the notifications".

Once you've sent a typing notification, you have to say something, c'mon.

Show you care by trimming the tracking junk off links you paste.

Do not talk about Fight Club (1999). This is a reference to the 1999 film Fight Club, where the main character forms an eponymous "Fight Club," an underground club for men to fight recreationally. The first "rule" of Fight Club is "do not talk about Fight Club", which Randall parodies in this comic, by making a rule to not talk about the film Fight Club.

There are two types of chats: those with a relevant group name, and those where the name is random nonsense that changes regularly. Only the second kind are good.

Where mentioning it elsewhere, always just refer to it as "the group chat" to create an aura of exclusive mystery.

Periodically part of the group will split off to form a new chat with everyone minus one person. This is how group chats reproduce; don't draw attention to it.

Robert's Rules of Order are optional but encouraged.

The enumeration, in these rules, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This is a reference to the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which entitles people to rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Per Wikipedia, this right was included because "future generations might argue that, because a certain right was not listed in the Bill of Rights, it did not exist."

Sorry about all the notifications.

Transcript

This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.

[Title at the top of the comic]:

Rules for this group chat

[A numbered list of 10 rules]:

1. Once you've sent a typing notification, you have to say something, c'mon.
2. Show you care by trimming the tracking junk off links you paste.
3. Do not talk about Fight Club (1999).
4. There are two types of chats: those with a relevant group name, and those where the name is random nonsense that changes regularly. Only the second kind are good.
5. Where mentioning it elsewhere, always just refer to it as "the group chat" to create an aura of exclusive mystery.
6. Robert's Rules of Order are optional but encouraged.
7. Periodically part of the group will split off to form a new chat with everyone minus one person. This is how group chats reproduce; don't draw attention to it.
8. Since there's no algorithmic feed, the responsibility for injecting lots of garbage no one asked for falls on you.
9. The enumeration, in these rules, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. Sorry about all the notifications.

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

Discussion

5884 × 9286 pixel image??

When I open this page (https://xkcd.com/2235, in case there's any confusion), I get an enormous image that bleeds far past the right and bottom of the page. Turns out that the image is 5884 × 9286 pixels. Has this been seen before? -- Dtgriscom (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Randall must have uploaded the wrong image size. I assume he'll fix the comic shortly. 172.68.211.52 19:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

11) I don't care if any generalised 'group chat' software does newest-first or oldest-first as default (and if you can resort to the other order, most-upticked, or whatever) but if it allows inclusion of prior comments, please DO NOT ENCOURAGE TOP-POSTING, particularly when reply-pyramids can carelessly form with recless abandon, and often beyond the "this post is too long, click here to expand" point you often get. - Honestly, I just think a dose of more widespread peer-directed Usenet Netiquette (pre-Eternal September, definitely pre-Outlook Express) could do a lot of people good as well. Randomly split people up into 1990-ish sized cohorts for a 'training period' of socialisation until they can safely 'graduate' to the globally undelineated cohort. 162.158.155.110 20:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok boomer, I'll be off your lawn in a moment. In the mean time I think there's a cloud up there which can't hear you. 172.69.22.122 20:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, as long as IP_ADDRESS started an ancient flamewar (top vs bottom posting), how about using vi vs emacs when editing your chat stream? Also should we have a Designated Hitter or not? Cellocgw (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Eugh, Godwin's Law manifest. Oh, hang on, HitTer? Sorry, as you were.

Anyone got any ideas about (4)? The only group chat I know of which constantly changes their group names to different random nonsense is the Chapo Trap House Discord. 172.69.22.122 20:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This might just be something that he has experienced personally. All of the large group chats of which I've been a member have exhibited this behavior. In fact, I thought it was pretty weird that no one on here had heard of this before. I related to it immediately. Moosenonny10 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

If there is a public example please add it. 172.68.132.155 23:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the sort of group chats that he's talking about don't have public examples. At least for us younger people, group chats via SMS are the second most common form of peer communication (behind Snapchat). -neverdroptop In my experience, constantly changing irrelevant chat names is a behaviour of chats with large numbers of messages and nothing ever being important or relevant - the kind where noone needs a bot because the posters are already spamming enough irrelevant stuff. So for me, it fits well with the rest of the list.

Does anyone think that (10) means that all of the rules were sent as separate messages and the last one's just an apology for doing that? 172.69.63.83 22:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Good call. 162.158.255.244 22:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The initial explanation for 8 doesn’t seem right - the given examples of email notifications and source code commits are by definition not “junk that nobody asked for” (since such integrations require intentional setup) and are “algorithmically generated” only in a strictly literal sense. To me this is clearly a reference to social media platforms. 188.114.111.151 08:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that it is talking about Facebook/Twitter and the "newsfeed" style random crap you might find interesting 172.68.242.16 12:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Occasionally I can see that my typing indicator has triggered without me actually typing anything, which is disconcerting, as I then feel obliged to type something... --162.158.158.93 10:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I was amused by “Alternatively, a person could be excluded from a chat to hide things from them, such as to plan a surprise for them.” By my estimation, one person is suddenly excluded from a group chat “to plan a surprise for them” approximately .2% of the time. The other 99.8% of the time, it is to gossip about that person. Miamiclay (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to the implication that the Ninth Amendment does not reasonably apply to any list of rules. 172.69.22.68 05:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Community reference?

I think number 5 may refer to the TV show commmunity, since in the series, the main characters participated in a "study group", same generic name. 108.162.212.173 15:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Why do we think the title text refers to Kibo? I don't see any evidence supporting that. 162.158.79.167 20:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

An obvious reference by omission. (non-obvious)

I can't help but notice there's no rule that says a dog can't play basketball.