Author: José Carlos
Date: 03:05:51 10/12/02
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. > >With the major funds we pay the moderators, you'd think they'd do a better job, >wouldn't you? :) > >David Actually my questions were not about these moderators. I was asking about the general critera that should be applied, the general concept of "insult" or "attack", and the general comsecuences violating the charter should have. I'm interested in "what can I expect", nothing more. Thanks for your answer anyway. 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.