Author: José Carlos
Date: 15:40:18 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. I agree. >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. What you say is conceptually very reasonable. What I find difficult is to connect that with reality. I mean, people have different ways of expressing ideas, that's indeed obvious. And in this group, I'd say near 50% are non-native english speakers. I make mistakes in my syntax and grammar, many people do, but most understand each other without problem. Good so far. But if to say you're wrong I need to say "you're a lunatic if you think that", your "usage" argument is not strong enough, IMHO. It's so easy to say "I believe you're wrong because...". >The definitions of "abusive in nature," "personal and/or libelous attacks," >"flagrant," and "questionable" are all determined in this closed group >by usage. So you say it depends on the person that "asshole" is an insult or a way to express "I believe you're wrong"? Not acceptable, IMHO. > Once certain words or phrases come into common usage here at CCC, they no are >no longer to be regarded as violating the rules. Should we write a list with them so that we can easily check? I'm here for more than three years (and I don't know that list!), but people sign everyday; they for sure would feel offended if they get "you're a lunatic" as an answer, don't you think? >CCC lingo is like a new language. You have to learn the language >to communicate well at CCC. > >Bob D. I don't think _anything_ should be allowed, but if you say so, and if it's common consense, I'll accept it, of course. José C.
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.