Back to forum
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10)
Netiquette (rules update)
11. General rules
11. 1. Netiquette
Computer assistance is authorized, as any other kind of help but in the "no-engines" tournaments.
It is possible to leave public comments for your games. No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 14:43:59)
Discussing the new rule
About this rule : "Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private."
As a player pointed out that this rule was really hard and suggested to me to punish verbal attacks only, here's my answer (to be discussed, of course) :
I did not ban provocation, I just try to limit the "discussions" that follow... Provocation calls provocation and progressively more and more, I don't think that any argument is useful when the aim is not to convince but only to provoke... So, how to limit that with clear rules ? What's exactly a verbal attack, where is the limit ? Quite hard to say... How to avoid such discussions to burn quickly ?
If you have any idea of a better rule, feel free to suggest... What most players like in this site is the friendly atmosphere... Such discussions are boring for most of them IMO.
Ulrich Imbeck (2007-09-10 15:32:24)
You can delete provocation.
Ulrich Imbeck (2007-09-10 15:35:17)
"FICGS Hardware + Software" a little bit
In the interesting Thread "FICGS Hardware + Software" you could delete now some provocation posts to make "FICGS Hardware + Software" a little bit shorter.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 15:37:43)
Of course :) .. but what is acceptable and what is not ? Not so easy, and it would even a harder rule...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 15:41:00)
"FICGS Hardware + Software"
I'll delete insulting and provocative posts if concerned players ask for and "at the moderator's discretion". Otherwise, this thread will remain as the explanation of this rule.
Ulrich Imbeck (2007-09-10 15:52:38)
kind of justice
A reaction of provocation is human. It is hard to see a provocation and not to do something. Deleting both is a kind of justice.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 16:05:19)
Not responding to provocation is a kind of intelligence IMO :) .. Rules are also there to limit some human "natural" reactions. But anyway, both will be deleted if necessary.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-09-10 18:16:25)
It depends ...
... whether provocation has to be answered or not - and in which way! It is not just a question of intelligence, it could be also a question of moral courage! Anyway - you will do it right, as already before!
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-10 18:20:05)
Thibault you have been over tolerant of abusive posting in the forum already and that has contributed to the situation. Sorry to say that but it must be obvious to anyone who has read the discussions. The key problem is personal attacks on people and not provocation. It is not acceptable to respond to a point with a string of insults denigrating person. Incidentally Thibault is it not possible simply to deny someone access to the blog so there posts cannot be seen by anyone as a punishment and they receive a message to that effect? No need to deny or retrict them access to the server as a whole. This is what ICC do in the same situation. Also if someone is punished in this way there is no need for it to be broadcast it is enough they know that their posts or responses cannot be read. So the offender carries on using the server and playing chess but cannot make posts - but of course they can read them!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 18:39:27)
"Limited access to the server" means (like ICC) that a player still can play his moves, but can't post anymore, ie. on the forum. About tolerance, I have been less tolerant in the past, but like in any game, some turned round the rules and the result was not so good. Trust me, it is not possible to say after 15 messages (provocation -> insults) who "started" and who must be banned.
Anyway, "I will always beat you ! - Show me, let's play a game !" won't be considered as provocation, but provocation about the person (including the IQ / rating 'formula') has not its place in this forum IMO.
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-10 20:58:28)
Hi Thibault for me its clear that personal attacks deserve restriction eg describing someone as a hypocrite
Mladen Jankovic (2007-09-10 21:39:51)
Your rule is unclear, or flawed. Someone responding a provocation might answer with a personal attack, or not. The originator of a personal attack should be baned, whoever he is. It is irrelevant who started it if you are after those making personal attacks, you simply ban those making personal attacks.
Your current rule is unfair in case if one of the posters engaged in the said discussion makes no personal attacks and gets baned.
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 22:39:03)
Calling someone a hypocrite, who is indeed a hypocrite, as evidenced by their behavior, is neither provocative, nor is it an insult, any more than calling someone who steals for a living a thief.
The best way to prevent chat abuse is to punish the party who STARTS it. Obviously a coward will use various devices in order to try to get away with it, such as trying to pass off the insult as a joke, etc. Thibault, despite English not being your primary language, you're clearly an intelligent enough guy to figure out when someone is trying to start an argument by being offensive. My belief is that this is the party at fault, not the person who is defending themself. But if your policy is to limit access to the first person who starts the ad-hominem or disparaging remarks, then there would not be a need for responding. But I'm not sure why you seem to be placing the focus on the the responder to an offensive post, and not the real culprit who starts the flaming in the first place. Nothing happens until someone starts something.
Obviously butting into a conversation that has nothing to do with them and ordering someone to "cool down" is clearly both provocative and offensive. (...) [moderator : partly deleted]
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 23:12:01)
That's why I think this rule is quite good... ;)
The starter (provocation only, insults leading to be permanently banned) may just see his post deleted, nothing more. Of course, provocation shouldn't lead to get a limited access immediately !
The one who responds, particularly with insults (even ie. "hypocrite", or "thief"), has a greater responsability IMO. This remains a judgement and this has nothing to do in this forum. Better is to warn a moderator.
Mladen, this is not irrelevant because provocating posts will be deleted, such discussions won't happen anymore and noone will (should) get a limited access !
Trust me, my aim is not to ban players... I and other moderators will be fair, so let's try this rule, I'll change it if it doesn't work.
Jason, insults are insults, rules are rules : No reason & no evidence will allow anyone to insult anyone in this forum anymore.
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 23:25:57)
It sounds good, just as long as you're not going to make a policy of rewarding weasels and cowards who like to needle and insult with indirect and surreptitious means. An honest and direct person should not be chastised for possessing good qualities and being upfront. Being offensive is being offensive. Taking liberties with someone and trying to condescend is just as, or more offensive than calling someone a name, especially if that name that you call them is true.
In the end, it will of course be up to your judgement.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-10 23:40:39)
That's right... To be continued :)
Ilmars Cirulis (2007-09-10 23:52:18)
Count me in.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-11 01:12:36)
Applying the rule...
I was asked to moderate some provocative posts so I deleted what I considered provocative in these posts (only), in this thread and "FICGS Hardware + Software" one...
Philip Roe (2007-09-11 03:59:50)
Your proposal is good. You should not have to make decisions about who "started" an altercation, because sometimes it will be a close call. The only way to avoid making the close calls is to decline to make any calls.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2007-09-11 07:25:33)
Also the only moderator we have is Thibault. Unfortunately he is human, so he sleeps and has other activities ... FICGS sans frontieres
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-11 14:28:51)
It's a long time ago I did not re-open the subject, but even if it's a good test to manage the site alone, of course there will be several moderators in the future.
[Chess forum] [Rating lists] [Countries] [Chess openings] [Legal informations] [Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]