Author: José Carlos
Date: 18:39:46 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 20:20:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. I think we can agree in the middle of the way, that is, you _sometimes_ enjoy jumping from one side to the other, or changing slightly your original point for something new that is not what you said at the begining, but makes the discussion (itself, not the contents of it) more interesting. >>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. Not exactly. I'm totally amateur on chess programming. I don't spend more than one or two hours a week on chess programming. I'm a programmer, yes, but I usually do "prosaic" accounting, management and all that boring programming. >CCC is basically the site where programmers could discuss. I am not >a programmer, so you think that I should behave myself An important point here. It doesn't matter being programmer or not in regard to behaving. It's not about the profession. >and if I wanted to play somehow, I could do it somewhere else but not in >a debate with you. Yes and no. I think I didn't express myself correctly in this point in my previous point. It's not that you (or anyone) can't play in a debate with me. There can be serious debates, and funny debates. If someone starts making jokes in the middle of a serious debate, I simply lose interest. I think that's normal, isn't it? >So far that seems very reasonable. But is it also true? Is it the correct >description of my intentions? - I don't think so. Good. Now I'm interested in your explanation of your intentions, but don't forget that it's not only what you intend; it's also what people receive from you. If the former is different from the latter, there's a communication problem somewhere. >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. I don't remember what the SSDF thing is. If you mean about the rating calculations, I think you're completely wrong. But you were playing there, IMO. If you want to discuss the topic again, seriously, I'd be happy to do it. But don't play... ;) >But the point is that I know that my critic is justified. I'd rather use the word "think" instead of "know" in that sentence. >And as you could read yesterday I also discussed it with Bob Hyatt. I missed it. You know, I can't read CCC much. I have too many problems in my life now, and 99.99% of my time is already scheduled. >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. I don't understand this. You discuss something you know you're correct. There's no consense, but it doesn't interest you. Maybe it's because of the languaje, but I can't understan the logic. >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. The problem is clear. If people come here to talk, and then some people start not talking to someone else, the original reason for coming here is contradicted. There's no problem if I don't talk to my neighbour, because I don't live in this house to talk to neighbours, but we come here to talk. >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. And I don't get your point here at all. It's not about being friends nor changing our opinion to please anyone. It's about having fun talking about something that we all find interesting. >I do not write to win but to find the right view. Let me disagree here. I think you write to win many times. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but I have that impression. >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. It's not _what_ you say. It's _how_ you say it. You might have a valid point, but there's no need to repeat again and again "I'll explain this to you", "I'll give you a lesson" and so on. If you want examples, search the archives. You use that formula all the time. And I usually try to pay attention to the topics, but it's very easy to hide a good point behind unnecesarily pedantic wording. >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. Ok. My time to correct a wrong impression. Computerchess is not something I'm an expert at. Just an amateur. There're many people here for who I have great respect. And that's because I've observed, along the years, how wise they are. I'm nothing but someone who enjoys computerchess. >And that must be wrong, because a programmer must not be someone >with a better knowledge in all parts of science. I have studied some other things besides computerchess. Not that it matters here, but I want to say it. Physics is one of my passions, for example. >He could well be just a specialized expert. I won't repeat the German >term here. You surely would misunderstand it. Sure. I can't speak german :) >> 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. This is a very important point. I'm not teaching you anything here, less about expressions. I'm only telling you how is your wording seen from outside you. I'm almost sure you know it, but I'm repeating it anyway. But don't say I'm teaching anything. >Look,let me give you a lesson, So? You just want to bother me? Or is this a joke? >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. But make sure your jokes are understood, plz. >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? Yes, that's right. >> 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... No. That's not the meaning of the sentence. The meaning is "when he speaks seriously". BTW, it's not who you think :) >>>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? Inspiring is about ideas. Provoking (in the sense used above) is about psycological reactions. Inspiring is fine, of course. >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. I'll supose you don't imply an offense here. Ok. But now read what you said. It implies I don't like to think, so it implies I'm stupid. Well, possibly I misunderstood you, but your sentense is fuzzy enough to admit several interpretations. That's bad for communication process. And as answered before, I don't have anything about inspiring ideas. And believe me, I love to think. My frieds say I think too much... >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. And this is out of place, of course. In summary: I don't like to think -> I'm stupid; you're important but I can't see it because my views are too narrow. This is what makes your valid points to dissapear in the mess... :( >> 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! I found other examples, not just those. Please, notice that it's not important only what you think is insulting. What the other people think is also important. So, if you think "criminal" is not insulting, but other people does, you should consider not using that word. >>>[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. Don't put words in mouth that I didn't say. I didn't say censor. I just _asked_ for it. >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 alreadya warning before! I'm not interested in your past. >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. I'm sorry but I can't just take your word on how much you know. It takes time to gain respect from others. At least in my case. I admire and respect according to facts, not words. >So, I leave this thread. I think such a debate is valuable. And perhaps we can >meet again in another topic. I agree. José C. >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.