Author: José Carlos
Date: 17:33:06 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 19:48:57, Bob Durrett wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 18:40:18, José Carlos 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. >> >> 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? > >Indeed! But maybe "offending" is acceptable behavior here, as evidenced by it's >common usage at CCC. It's OK to offend, apparently. Fun, even! > >> >>>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. > >Jose, I agree with you. Perhaps you failed to notice my wierd sense of humor. > >Truly, there are certain globally accepted standards of conduct, and they should >be followed, within reason. That's why the panel of moderators was set up. >However, please don't discount the possibility that there may be some truth in >the "common usage makes right" idea. [Sort of like "Might Makes Right."] It is >real, even if misguided. > >All of us need to guard against trying to impose our own standards, however. >Some of my "Christian Ethic" might be regarded as offensive to members of >non-christian societies, for example. Remember, this is an international >bulletin board, even though spoken in the CCC version of English. > >Bob D. Agreed. That's why I ask. I want to know what others think. Thanks. 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.