Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 12:14:23 10/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
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. > 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'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. FWIW, I think your English is excellent, clear, and expressive. > 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 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. > Besides, you have the bad habit of speaking as if you knew everything, even if >you're speaking of something you got no idea. 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. > 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. > Someone, very important here, once told me "Rolf can be very interesting when >he speak of computerchess; shame he almost never does". > >>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. > 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. > >>[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. > But sincerely, I'd prefer you'd discuss ideas with me in a serious way. > > 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.