Author: David Dory
Date: 01:19:36 10/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 22:53:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 Bob, you may be sure I complained in moderator's email. Others complained within the board posts themselves. I don't have any trouble when someone like Vincent says "that idea is shit", but posts that say "<someone> is full of shit" and other direct name-calling, are simply outside the charter, and shouldn't be tolerated, IMO. 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.