Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:53:50 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 22:35:00, David Dory wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 20:33:06, José Carlos wrote: > >>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. > >Moderating such an active board must be a real chore. And of course, the >moderator's email function of the board went "dead", and no one knew it for a >while. > >Frankly, I agree wholeheartedly with you, Jose. I believe the moderators have >been nearly AWOL for a while, and their work, definitely below par. > >Usage is no defense for posts which include "asshole" and the like, in repeated >name calling. These are simply posts which violate the CCC charter, and the >moderators failed to yank the post, and warn the poster. > I disagree with your comment about "moderators have been AWOL". Moderators are elected to handle problems. But a problem is defined as "something reported to the moderators by CCC members." We don't read every post in every thread. I am both a moderator, _and_ a CCC member. And I read posts as a CCC member. I handle complaints when I see them, but they are (and always have been) pretty rare occurrences, except for a few mad-hatter break-outs from time to time... But if you don't complain, I'm not going to react, unless I personally see a problem that needs attention. And even then I might ignore it if no one complains. That was my moderation policy before I was elected again... >With the major funds we pay the moderators, you'd think they'd do a better job, >wouldn't you? :) > >David
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.