The RAW seem to show that etiquette is a general skill and specialisations are available in gang, corporate, etc but that means that a brilliant corporate face guy with etiquette 6 (corporate +2) has a etiquette of 6 for any other situation, e.g. street, mafia, etc, which just seems wrong.

The characters at the back of the book in the friends and foes section (e.g. halloweeners gang member on p275) have etiqette written a different way, e.g. etiquette (street) 3, which means they know how to talk street and could presumably specialise in the gang they're in and they they do not get to use their etiquette skill in any non-street situations.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this.

I'm thinking that the Gangers in the back is a typo, and that their Skill is supposed to read 'Etiquette 3 (Street +2)', and follow all the normal rules.

Remember that there are a large number of modifiers for social tests that may factor into any situation.

If I remember correctly, the Etiquette skill was handled slightly differently in previous editions to reflect this, but personally, I'm happy with it carrying over to some extent between cultures. Etiquette is about recognizing boundaries and acting on feedback. Whilst being part of that culture helps, someone who is good at social situations in one environment will be able to use a lot of the same techniques and aptitudes in another.

Also:

Grunts are listed in short hand, as they need quick and readable stats for there short lived use.
Its not a typo as ALL grunts share this trick in Etiquette only showing the specialization total.
Grunts aren't likly to use there Etiquette outside there normal environment, even less likly during gameplay so they only display the specialization.
Its also not Etiquette 3(+2) becasue that would make Etiquette the ganger's highest skill. Its the total as the ganger will never use Etiquette for anything but street.


If you look at sample runners and contacts they spell out the whole skill as they are important enougth that they would be using there skill outside their pond during the course of the game.

Etiquette does not mean that the PC knows one particular situation, but that he is able to naturally "fit in", that is, he gets the feel of the place, and acts accordingly. Etiquette allows the PC to avoid making errors that will make him seem out of place.
For example: the PC is introduced to a gang. He quickly scans around and sees how the "tough guys" speak to each other and defer to each other: he will mimic their behavior in a credible way.
The specialisation should be interpreted as the PC feeling particularly at ease within a given situation (corporate/gang/other), but at the core, Etiquette means that your character is good at analysing how the people around him behave, and most importantly at acting the part. I think that Etiquette is more akin to being a credible actor; thus it is closely related to Con.
From what I understand of your question, you see Etiquette as already knowing how to behave in a given situation, which would in my book rather be a Knowledge Skill (I see Etiquette as being able to improvise the right behavior, based on a quick observation).

Both the first and second parts of the post are important, He at no point doesn't understand how the RAW treats etiquette he simply says how he doesn't agree with that method.

His confusion is, as to why in one part of the book etiquette is written etiquette 3+2(street) or something similar.
While under grunts its written as etiquette (street) 3. As if it applied only to street and would have specializations towards various gangs. (this of course isn't true as I explain in my first post)

Your post does not address his actually question as to why the skill appears to be handled under different rules in two parts of the book

ah its hard to offend to me, which is why I so easily offend others.

Now I think the point he brings up is he doesn't like the general etiquette rule. I can understand his reasoning, as proper etiquette among street gangs is totally different then from Mafia, to Yakuz and the corps.
You Knasser (and Ben) do a good job of explaining why Etiquette is a general skill. Treating it as the ability adapt more then practical knowledge of the customs. This also as how the RAW treats it.
Now from a pure mechanical point this is nessesary. With all the cultures shadow runners run into having to take four or five etiquette skills would be to big an investment. Thats why I think they chose to handle etiquette so generally.

In the grunts section, I believe they list the etiquette skill combined with the specialization as grunts don't usually stay around long enougth to use etiquette at all let alone in social ciricles outside there norm.

Yeah a ganger investing more in Etiquette that skill then any other doesn't make sense to me. Which is why I assume its the total, a grunt will never use its Etiquette outside its specialization, at least not when the PC's are around.

Haven't we long ago established that many of the grunt statistics in the back of SR4 were copied from SR3 and retain SR3 equipment and other things that don't appear in SR4 yet? I would attribute those etiquette miscues to the this.

Besides, there are lots of inconsistencies in the sample grunts (for example, the Red Samurais are supposed to have a Full Body Armor, but have a Body Attribute of only 4, instead of the "required" 5 for the FBA).

yep, that's why I used quotation marks
but I think it makes no sense that so-called elite units would choose an option where they suffer penalties, and that is especially true for the Tir Ghosts: what are they doing with armors that will reduce their Agility and Reaction by 1? (especially since chameleon suits would be more in keeping with the "invisible warrior"-thing they're supposed to be)

Well this is a throw back to, the grunts were copied over from SR3, but perhaps that form fiting quality means something. Its form fitting body armor.

Hey people, apolgies that the vagueness of my original post caused a 'fight'. I actually deliberately kept it vague, so that people wouldn't focus on one particular aspect. I was interested in opinions from various viewpoints (interpretion of RAW, errata etc). I usually try to generate a discussion (on a discussion forum!) rather than just ask a yes/no question.