Author: José Carlos
Date: 16:06:53 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 18:50:55, Bob Durrett wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 18:22:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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 > > > >Rolf, you have a most interesting post there. > >Based on your expressed ideas, one might consider expanding the "usage idea" >from words and phrases to more complex manners of communication and behaviors in >general. > >We are getting into what I call "CCC Ethics" here. : ) > >What is acceptable in this closed society is determined by usage. If everybody >accepts certain ways of speaking or other behaviors, then: > >THEY BECOME ACCEPTABLE BY VIRTUE OF COMMON USAGE. > >Cannibalism is reported to have been [or is] acceptable in certain closed-group >societies. So, . . . why not the less damaging CCC behaviors? > >Anyway, if we all behave no worse than the moderators, we will all be OK. > >[Hyatt said "that is pure bull snot" for example.] > >: ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) > >Bob D. Ok, but what if that usage is not accepted for all? Should the rest just leave the group? What are the rules for accepting / rejecting that usage? If I start insulting people, will that be accepted just and only if I do it all the time? Isn't it strange: I insult once and that's bad. I insult a million times and that's good because it's normal usage. I'm really confused :) 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.