Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 17:20:19 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 19:02:53, José Carlos 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 was determined not to answer your posts anymore, but I think I should not >take that extreme position, so I'll try to explain what you say above. > This is off topic, and I apoplogyze for it, but I think it can be >constructive. This is a miracle somehow, because I had the same opinion about answering you and so I commented only when Bob came into the debate. So far about my orientation on specific persons. The truth is I'm not. But I saw that your wrote some interesting analysis. Let's see if I can find some thoughts myself in response. > You enjoy dicussing. No mater what the topic is, you enjoy discussing. You can >defend one side, and then move to the other side, just for the fun of finding >arguments for and against. That is both interesting and not completely true. 1) I am interested in a possibly complete, complex analysis of a problem 2) but I am not interested just to say the opposite of yesterday's statements out of fun. >That's fine, essentially. I like it too, from time to >time, but I just can't do it in english. I just can't express what I think. > When two people discuss for the fun of discussing, that's ok. But if I try do >seriously defend some idea, and I find someone in front of me who is just >playing, I think I understand what you want to say. It seems to be very easy for me. You are a chess programmer. CCC is basically the site where programmers could discuss. I am not a programmer, so you think that I should behave myself and if I wanted to play somehow, I could do it somewhere else but not in a debate with you. So far that seems very reasonable. But is it also true? Is it the correct description of my intentions? - I don't think so. In the case of SSDF I had the strong feeling that you were the player who tried to disturb my serious points. I didn't play. You can take a look again at the data. You can see yourself that you came out of the blue and tried to show all my points wrong, more so,as pure nonsense. But the point is that I know that my critic is justified.And as you could read yesterday I also discussed it with Bob Hyatt. In a absolutely calm atmosphere. Without offenses. And although we couldn't find consense. But that doesn't interest me. I know that mypoints are correct.But let's see how you continue. > I prefer to stop there. No problem as long as the other one accepts I >don't want to discuss anymore and forget about me. But that's not your case; you >like to have the last word, you like to provoke, you always say something that >has to be answered. And that's disturbing, under those circumstances. The bottom >line is that I don't want to talk to you anymore, which is not good for you nor >for me. That is a point I can't understand. I see no problem if you decided not to talkto me anymore.You can't influence me either positively nor negatively. Look, wecan't expect that all people would talk with us. I write my posts as good as I can and that's it. I would never change my opinion just to please a friend. If he expected such he could never more be a friend. I do not write to win but to find the right view. I do notwantto have the final word.When I see dissense I like to clarify my position. Perhaps that is then what gives you that impression. > Besides, you have the bad habit of speaking as if you knew everything, even if >you're speaking of something you got no idea. How do you know that? Could you give me soem examples, some, because you spoke of an attitude. If you believe this, then you simply have not paid good enough attention of my topics. When I post and where I keep myself out of it. But I had the impression that you take yourself only so serious because you are a programmer. And that must be wrong, because a programmer must not be someone with a better knowledge in all parts of science. He could well be just a specialized expert. I won't repeat the German term here. You surely would misunderstand it. > Again, this can be funny under >some circumnstances, but not anyone wants to play with you. So sentences like >"let me give you a lesson" can be offending in some cases, and ridiculous in >most. Yes, that must be painful at times. What I find ridiculous is your split behavior. Above you declared that you had difficulties with English and now again you are trying to teach me about some bad expressions. Look,let me give you a lesson, that is as if I would say, do you want to bet with me? Because then I am very certain about my view. And I have discovered some fallacies. But did I use the expression so often? I don't think so. Perhaps you still have not digested the case when I wrote it and NO lesson followed at all. Yes, then it was a deep joke! But I can't remember the reason for that joke. But alsosuch things are very normal and human. Often I talk about 103% certainty. Now you may guess what that could mean logically. Right. I am exaggerating. And even that what I found so certain couldn't be certain at all... But if you have difficulties with English, such jokes are painful, that's correct. > If you stick to arguments, I'll enjoy speaking with you. If you make a circus >out of every thread, I'll simply ignore you. Couldn't we be precise and say that I do make circus only sometimes, and not always? > Someone, very important here, once told me "Rolf can be very interesting when >he speak of computerchess; shame he almost never does". Yes, I knowhim. But he can't understand that talking about CC is difficult. And I prefer to be silent if I don't understand. And also I'm not one of the many good testers. I think I have too few computers... > >>I am quoted with two terms (unethical, criminal) but he did not quote how >>I was insulted. The moderation knows when I was insulted. > > If you read my post objectively, and I know you can, you'll see that I really >didn't mean the person, but the fact. I don't care who insults first. I just >don't like insulting / provoking threads. Don't you like thought inspiring threads? Pity. You see the difference? Personal insults,ok, that should be banned. But provoking theses to CC traditions? Why that should be censored? I don'tknow youpersonally, but it might well be that you don't like the suspense of thought processes. Of course then I must be very dangerous in your view. But others might say that I'm important. This is a problem of levels and perspectives. > I didn't use your name. I used those words that I find out of context (you of >course know it) just as an example. Not meant as a personal reference. But isn't it strange that you found two expressions I used, the criminal was tongue in cheek, personally insulting? I mean honestly that goes too far! > >>[ok, that is only a little remark, many other aspects could be added, but >>that is not the site here] >> >>Rolf Tueschen > > I you decide keeping the same kind of behaviour as so far, I just ask you for >one thing: don't use my name in your posts anymore. Look,if I respond on a post by Bob where Bob answered on your post, by force I must quote your name. You are the beginner of the whole thread here. You simply can't censor your own name. But if I would make jokes about you or worse, some insults, then you were right and you could well complain to the moderation. But I would never do that. Here I tried to explain why you were offensive although you didn't insult with bad mouth. > But sincerely, I'd prefer you'd discuss ideas with me in a serious way. Yes, that would be fun. But note, I'm not a programmer. So it depends on your own knowledge in other interesting topics of CC. I think this is logical. Let me add the following. Behind the curtains there were surely some bets about how long I would survive here in CCC until I would again, and here you see what fairy tales are worth. Because certain fairy tales have been told about my past in rgcc. As if I insulted the whole world two times a day. I already mentioned that in the German CSS I was accused for using (in German) a too extreme diplomatic speech. So in other words because I was polite and concentrated on the arguments I was defamed. That is easy to do. Two or three people are sufficient to convince the moderation of CSS that this anonymous 'Schachfan' is disturbing the peace of the forum. I realI was diplomatic and didn't disturb a thing. But the uproar of a few is the disturbance and they fell provoked by my diplomacy. I hope you can follow me on that one. So if moderators have no own ethics they can decide that the diplomat is the provoking man and not those who are complaining without a cause. BTW in soccer we have the new rule that those who simulate a foul get a warning! That can lead to exclusion if you had already a warning before! So, that is probably what Bob meant with ethical problems of CC. I mean it's strange if critical questions to SSDF should be held under a taboo. On my own page I described that when I came into the net in 1996, I had a period of perhaps 15 years where I thought about CC on my own. Now would you say that you have thought as long before you started your career as programmer? Could you understand why it's often very easy for me to follow the experts if it's not about technology? So, sure I fall off my chair if I read certain things. Especially at the occasion when GM play computers. So, I leave this thread. I think such a debate is valuable. And perhaps we can meet again in another topic. Excuse my typing here, I'm on my back flat on the bed and sometimes the dividingtool doesn't function so that several words are together. Rolf Tueschen > > Best regards, > > 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.