Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:22:16 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 17:49:45, Bob Durrett wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 14:29:32, José Carlos wrote: > >> I'm sorry to bring this up, but I really need clarification, and I guess >>others might as well, hence I post it here instead of asking the moderators by >>email. >> From the charter: >> >>*** >>Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and >>post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response >>messages: >> >>1 Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess >>2 Are not abusive in nature >>3 Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others >>4 Are not flagrant commercial exhortations >>5 Are not of questionable legal status. >>*** >> >> I almost everyday see posts that, in my eyes, contradict points 1,2 and 3. I >>won't use personal names here. I just want clarification on what is "abusive", >>what is a "personal attack" and when off-topic is acceptable. >> I read direct insults like "idiotic". I read more sutile insults expressed in >>the context of the sentences, like using the terms "unethical" or "criminal" in >>fuzzy paragraphs. I read things like "you are..." or "you don't know shit >>about...". I read sutile ways of saying "you have no idea" or "you can't think", >>included in long and non clear sentences. >> I've fallen into these things a couple of times. And nothing has happened. I >>guess it has to be a repetitive behaviour to deserve a reaction from the >>moderation team. However, I see this repetitive behaviour all the time, and >>still nothing happens. >> My questions: how should a post look like to be against the charter? What >>should be the moderator's reaction to that? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> José C. > >Jose, people are human. They tend to say what they are thinking before thinking >too much about how their words will sound. You are right that the bulletins >could be more polite sometimes. But, on the other hand, it is necessary to make >allowances in the interests of getting ideas expressed. > >Let me draw an anology: > >Linguists say that word definitions are determined by usage. All modern >languages are "living" in the sense that word definitions change over time as >usage changes. This is extended to familiar word groupings as well. > >Well, the meanings of the words and phrases you have cited are also determined >by usage here at CCC. Certain words and phrases found here would be regarded as >exceptionally rude in polite society. But this is a closed group. This group >has developed it's own, sometimes odd, way of speaking. > >Please try not to be overly offended by such things here. Remember that "what's >acceptable" here at CCC is determined by usage. > >The definitions of "abusive in nature," "personal and/or libelous attacks," >"flagrant," and "questionable" are all determined in this closed group by usage. > Once certain words or phrases come into common usage here at CCC, they no are >no longer to be regarded as violating the rules. > >CCC lingo is like a new language. You have to learn the language to communicate >well at CCC. > >Bob D. Jose is arguing on certain vocabulary. And sure sometimes the words are the problem. But often I see a completely normal lingual behaviour and still offenses. And in special Jose was in my focus at times. I can explain that phenomenon. The moment I post critical points against SSDF (just to give some example) by force one or two special posters will react. Now if we forget about open offenses, often the way how simple questions are presented is intellectually insulting. At least my experience is that these questions' only meaning is the confusing of the basic question. Instead of focussing the critical point such questions veil the main problem. In university that would by definition be regarded as disturbance or ad hominem or simply low levelled. But here such questions are politically allowed. The bad side of it is the following: sometimes when I discover such intentions I try to react on that level. But you should never do that because then the moment has come for the one who disturbed. In the archives you can find a few such postings from Jose. It ended in a typical bar exchange of unpleasent friendliness. Such dialogues: "What did you say?" "But I didn't say something." "No, no, I could here you say ... and what was that what you meant with it?" (etc) Such behaviour can become very aggressive no matter that the wording still is absolutely polite. So that becomes a poker game. I stayed to my intented innocence and Jose gave up in the end. (If I had reacted in emotional ways - how I really felt - I surely would have got a moderation warning.) But how deeply he felt unconfortable you can see in his posting here. I am quoted with two terms (unethical, criminal) but he did not quote how I was insulted. The moderation knows when I was insulted. [ok, that is only a little remark, many other aspects could be added, but that is not the site here] Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.