Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 16:59:40 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 19:06:53, José Carlos wrote: >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. At ICC, you can do two things: (1) You can censor anybody. (2) You adjust your settings to screen out offensive words. Maybe CCC should consider doing these things. Worth consideration, anyway. They would go a long way to respond to Jose's valid concerns. Bob D.
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.