Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:51:58 10/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 2002 at 04:19:36, David Dory wrote: >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 Do you _really_ take most of what he says seriously? I don't. I always try to "consider the source"...
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.