General Feedback

[ajqtrz]

[Edit added]
The "The above" in the following paragraph was the title of the post. It was a quote from another thread, but, since that post violated Inno rules, so did quoting it in the title of this post. Sigh. The iddea is that sometimes we use abbreviations which when expanded with the words for which the abbreviations stand, causes us to "say" in our minds the very words the rules say we can't use. Using abbreviations is, as I suggest, a way "around" the rules, and that is/was the focus of my discussion.

So here's what I said in my original post, sans that which was removed by the moderator.
----------------
The above was used in another post and I almost responded to it in that post but that would have just gotten the whole thing off track and I didn't want that. But the question was asked and while I don't know the answer, I do question the form of the question itself. Here are my thoughts.

What does one say in one's head when one sees an abbreciation? It's an abbreviation for? And if you can't say what it's an abbreviation for without breaking some rules, how is it okay to use it in a post? But one of the bigger problems to which this points is that people sometimes either don't think about what they are writing and how their audience will take it, or they figure the rules can be skirted because, "hey I didn't exactly do anything specifically wrong, did I?" It's called "legalism" and from a moral and ethical point of view it's generally considered a poor choice in moral decisions.

In other words, rules should be taken in the spirit of their intention as much as possible. Probably better to err on the side of caution. Only lawyers spend countless hours trying to present why things like "is" should mean something different than "is" in this or that context. The rest of us might just consider the spirit of the rule and follow that. Yes, there can be disagreements about what the rule is, but falling back on the exact definition of a word or phrase is often just an excuse for having ignored the spirit of the rule in the first place, and trying to get away with it.

Sadly it's often the the same thing that people do when they find an exploit and use it. They argue that since they can get away with it, it's perfectly okay. Or purchasing wins because you have more money than the next guy. You want to claim that because you are at a higher ranking it means a better player than the other guy who doesn't have the money to compete with you? Really?

Anyway, the quote above is probably innocent. I doubt the poster even considered it other than he/she uses in everyday speech and/or writing. And since nobody ever said anything about it it must be perfectly okay. But like I said, I doubt they even thought about it's use. But maybe now they will?

And finally, what do we mean by offended? After all, the usual response to these kind of things is to question the one who is "offended" and ask, why? In this we suggest the whole thing is a tempest in a teakettle and the one complaining is just an old something...sourpuss, fuddy-duddy or whatever. But that direction is nothing more than name calling since it doesn't answer the question of whether the behavior demonstrated was in the spirit of the rules or not. Would the answer to the question of obeying the spirit of the rule and paying attention to your writing really depend on the "offended" one's emotional state? I think not.

AJ

 

[Iyapo]

The above was used in another post and I almost responde

The above? There is no above. If the mod removed the above then I guess whatever it was violated the spirit or the letter of the rules.

 

[Lelanya]

Thanks for snitching on the 'Awesome' player.

 

[Dopeykr]

Is that another one of those words or phrases.

 

[Dew Spinner]

The above was used in another post and I almost responded to it in that post but that would have just gotten the whole thing off track and I didn't want that. But the question was asked and while I don't know the answer, I do question the form of the question itself. Here are my thoughts.

What does one say in one's head when one sees an abbreciation? It's an abbreviation for? And if you can't say what it's an abbreviation for without breaking some rules, how is it okay to use it in a post? But one of the bigger problems to which this points is that people sometimes either don't think about what they are writing and how their audience will take it, or they figure the rules can be skirted because, "hey I didn't exactly do anything specifically wrong, did I?" It's called "legalism" and from a moral and ethical point of view it's generally considered a poor choice in moral decisions.

In other words, rules should be taken in the spirit of their intention as much as possible. Probably better to err on the side of caution. Only lawyers spend countless hours trying to present why things like "is" should mean something different than "is" in this or that context. The rest of us might just consider the spirit of the rule and follow that. Yes, there can be disagreements about what the rule is, but falling back on the exact definition of a word or phrase is often just an excuse for having ignored the spirit of the rule in the first place, and trying to get away with it.

Sadly it's often the the same thing that people do when they find an exploit and use it. They argue that since they can get away with it, it's perfectly okay. Or purchasing wins because you have more money than the next guy. You want to claim that because you are at a higher ranking it means a better player than the other guy who doesn't have the money to compete with you? Really?

Anyway, the quote above is probably innocent. I doubt the poster even considered it other than he/she uses in everyday speech and/or writing. And since nobody ever said anything about it it must be perfectly okay. But like I said, I doubt they even thought about it's use. But maybe now they will?

And finally, what do we mean by offended? After all, the usual response to these kind of things is to question the one who is "offended" and ask, why? In this we suggest the whole thing is a tempest in a teakettle and the one complaining is just an old something...sourpuss, fuddy-duddy or whatever. But that direction is nothing more than name calling since it doesn't answer the question of whether the behavior demonstrated was in the spirit of the rules or not. Would the answer to the question of obeying the spirit of the rule and paying attention to your writing really depend on the "offended" one's emotional state? I think not.

AJ

What one Mod is against, another Mod won't have a problem with, so good luck with figuring that out!

 

[mucksterme]

Well since a mod destroyed your post I have to assume you were talkling about someone using words where they replaced letters with symbols.
Like, " I ate an @pple " or " I fell down the $tair$ "
On one hand I agree with you. The person is trying to skirt the intent of the rules. On the other hand, I often think if someone recognizes what " %ic**py&" means then how are you hurting them? And I purposely say "hurting" rather than "offending". Offending is too subjective. You can find someone getting offended with pretty much anything you say. If I say "AJ is a strawberry head." AJ might just laugh it off, but someone else says, "Oh that is terrible. Some people are allergic to strawberries." These things also often vary according to nationality or other social group. I know there is a word the British are quite fond of that is considered quite disgusting in the US. There are also words that have different meaning according to where you are from. For example. If you are German, be careful you never offer strudel to an Australian or you just might find a cobbler in your coop.
But I stray from whatever the subject is.
Not knowing for sure what the "above" was in OP, I think I agree with you.
But, I think we also must be careful about declaring what is offensive.

 

[Katwick]

It's actually a pretty fundamental subject:

• What does the law SAY? Is the Napoleonic Code approach, as practiced in most of Europe and in Louisiana.
• What have people actually DONE? Is the Precedent Law system that we're familiar with.

In the American Legal System EXTREME examples make GOOD law, because the standard argument is What MY client did is similar in all important aspects to XWZ example, although not as extreme, so the ruling should follow established precedent.

So it's sort of pointless to argue about what language people "should" use. The better argument is whether, or not, the language distracts from the point that they are trying to make. If you look like an idiot, there's a good chance that your point is idiotic as well.

 

[ajqtrz]

Well since a mod destroyed your post I have to assume you were talkling about someone using words where they replaced letters with symbols.
Like, " I ate an @pple " or " I fell down the $tair$ "
On one hand I agree with you. The person is trying to skirt the intent of the rules. On the other hand, I often think if someone recognizes what " %ic**py&" means then how are you hurting them? And I purposely say "hurting" rather than "offending". Offending is too subjective. You can find someone getting offended with pretty much anything you say. If I say "AJ is a strawberry head." AJ might just laugh it off, but someone else says, "Oh that is terrible. Some people are allergic to strawberries." These things also often vary according to nationality or other social group. I know there is a word the British are quite fond of that is considered quite disgusting in the US. There are also words that have different meaning according to where you are from. For example. If you are German, be careful you never offer strudel to an Australian or you just might find a cobbler in your coop.
But I stray from whatever the subject is.
Not knowing for sure what the "above" was in OP, I think I agree with you.
But, I think we also must be careful about declaring what is offensive.

I agree that what is offensive may be very difficult to say because offensive is a subjective experience. However, the question is not what words offend, but should we be offended by the lack of respect for the law or rules, no matter out of which system they come? Disrespect for the rules is probably a character flaw when a person does it consciously and then argues that, strictly speaking, what he/she did wasn't against the rules. Is society hurt by that attitude? And if so, should we (generally continue) to note such behaviors, and possibly take actions to correct them. And such disrespect, I do believe, is harmful to society in general, especially if it's not dealt with.

On a more complex level we have words and phrases that stand in as expressions of our emotional state. Some of them indicate a stronger or more intense feeling. Those words or phrases, I think, should not be used carelessly, which is what some people do. The careless use of those intensity markers is generally due to a lack of vocabulary or, perhaps, laziness? The problem for the one over-using them is two fold.

First, if you use them all the time you have no where to go to express those times you really, really want people to know the intensity of your experience. Using them all the time then, contracts the range of emotion you can express, while using them very, very sparingly, makes those who know you sit up and take notice when you do use them. That's my philosophy and I can tell you it works. In 26 years of being the boss I used such language twice. In both cases it shocked my employees and things changed. Had I not had those words to use as intensifiers I doubt people would have quite understood my ire to be as bad as it was. So I'm not against the words, I'm against their willy-nilly use in everyday speech.

Second, using such language puts barriers between people. Yes, people hear them all the time and yes, people are free to use them (in most places). However, ask yourself this question: "I anyone truly or potentially offended if you DON'T use such language?" Do they even notice? And if almost nobody, or actually nobody, is offended by your NOT using such language, and a few people are (and there are a few people in every crowd) when you DO use such language, why not play the odds and avoid offending anyone needlessly? Needlessly, since any offense that is not needed, no matter how small, is probably better than no offense. Sometimes, I think some would argue such language is needed, and I agree, but using it needlessly is my point.

Thus, my points in this are: first, the engagement in actions which skirt the rules is harmful in the long run to the social group; and second, the wide spread and careless use of such language is unwise.

AJ

 

[mucksterme]

However, the question is not what words offend, but should we be offended by the lack of respect for the law or rules, no matter out of which system they come? Disrespect for the rules is probably a character flaw when a person does it consciously and then argues that, strictly speaking, what he/she did wasn't against the rules. Is society hurt by that attitude? And if so, should we (generally continue) to note such behaviors, and possibly take actions to correct them. And such disrespect, I do believe, is harmful to society in general, especially if it's not dealt with.

I have to comment on this part of your essay.
This "character flaw" is responsible for a family hiding Anne Frank in their attic. This character flaw created America, ended segregation and got women the right to vote.
Some might think I'm being hyperbolic. You might say that does not relate to the rules on a web forum.
Perhaps reasonable people would say trying to subvert foul language is no great civil rights case. And they'd be right.
Could there be rules on a private forum that are worth fighting? I think yes. Maybe it's an American thing. But I think it is ridiculous that there are rules against voicing disagreement with the Powers That Be. That rule seems like a German thing.

Perhaps, like what is offensive, character flaw is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[ajqtrz]

I have to comment on this part of your essay.
This "character flaw" is responsible for a family hiding Anne Frank in their attic. This character flaw created America, ended segregation and got women the right to vote.
Some might think I'm being hyperbolic. You might say that does not relate to the rules on a web forum.
Perhaps reasonable people would say trying to subvert foul language is no great civil rights case. And they'd be right.
Could there be rules on a private forum that are worth fighting? I think yes. Maybe it's an American thing. But I think it is ridiculous that there are rules against voicing disagreement with the Powers That Be. That rule seems like a German thing.

Perhaps, like what is offensive, character flaw is in the eye of the beholder.

Actually, if you understand the "higher law" theory of morality you can see that the comparing skirting the rules in this game have no "higher law" justifying them. All the other examples you give used the higher law to circumvent local rules. In this manner they were, in fact, paying homage to the spirit of the law in general...to be fair and just to all members of society.

The character flaw of which I speak isn't a personal opinion, but a well known and noted problem with some people going all the way back to Socrates. The idea of a person flaunting the social mores (or laws) for his/her personal advancement (or even perhaps a group of which he is a part), by using what is usually called "rationalizing" is generally seen as disloyal to the social group of which he/she is a part. Those who skirt the rules without the least bit of higher law reason for doing so except for personal benefit are of a different character and that character, from a social point of view, I think, is flawed.

AJ

 

[ajqtrz]

Thanks for snitching on the 'Awesome' player.

It is difficult to discuss a players actions with whom you disagree and hide the identify of the player if anybody chooses to go looking. So what are we to do when we run into behavior we find unwise or disrespectful? If we say nothing we risk the behavior continuing. If we speak, does that mean we are really a "snitch?"

On a related tangent, the whole idea of "snitching" being a negative is, in my opinion, one of those unexamined assumptions people make that, once they actually think about it, becomes a rather weak idea. Here's my take. I live in a community. I want that community to be peaceful and prosperous for all, in no small part because I'm part of the "all" of the community. Some behaviors decrease the overall peace and prosperity of the community. Those behaviors are usually at least at the edge of legality, often just plain illegal. Whether they should be or not is another question. They are illegal or supportive of illegal activities. In fact, they detract from the peace and prosperity of the whole by actions which seek to take from the whole (usually individuals living in the community) the things they should, I think, not have to worry about losing. Since these behaviors are a detriment to the community as a whole should they be reported to those who can at least punish the wrong doers? My own self interest would say yes.

Against this there are those who are in the subgroup who support such activities. They are the ones who enforce the silence of their members when their members have knowledge of such behaviors. If they report the details of the wrong doers they are considered wrong doers by the subgroup. On the other hand, if they don't report the wrong doing, or what they know about it, they are considered wrong doers by the larger community.

In the end then, it's the group with whom they identify that determines if their "snitching" is a negative or a positive. Certainly the group supporting wrong doing would call it a negative. The larger, law abiding group, if they don't subscribe to the idea that the one doing the "snitching" should have more loyalty to the subgroup of which he is a part than to the larger group, would call his silence wrong doing. So, in the end, you have to ask which group should demand more loyalty, the one concerned with increasing the peace and prosperity of the many, or the one concerned with increasing the prosperity of their members, the few, at the expense of the many? In my book, since I am a believer in the idea that "all men are created equal," I hold that the group which contains the vast majority of citizens should be the group to which a person gives their loyalty and for which they do all of which they can to increase their peace and prosperity.

So, since "snitching" is generally about reporting to the larger, more legally situated, group, I find the whole "no snitching" thing to be sad because it claims the loyalty of the person over his/her larger society. In any case, we should remember, those in the dark seek to remain in the dark by hiding their actions. Their fear is nothing more than the worry that the larger group will discover the ways they are lessening peace and prosperity. "Snitching" may be one way to bring some light. And I think we should all want more light.

@mucksterme You have a good point when you ask how anybody is hurt by the use of tools to skirt the rules (for a lack of a better descriptor). You point out that "harm" is different from "offense," but I'm not certain it is. After all, unless you reduce harm to strictly physical injury and the pain that comes from that, there is emotional harm as well. "Offense" is probably in the category of "emotional pain" as a response to something, like words. So the distinction, to me, may not be as clear as you seem to think. In any case, though, we need not ask ourselves "what's the harm," since one would suppose those making the rules have seen the harm or offense and wish to restrict it from their platform. After all, would Inno have such rules if there were no harm? Or would they enforce those rules if they believed there was no harm in a few choice symbols standing in for a good old fashioned: (you name the vocabulary needed here).

What I think about your opinion though is that you have minimized the harm (or offense) by making the behavior minor. In other words, you may have got the cart before the horse in saying the thing done is not that harmful/offensive so why make a big deal of it? In debate that's called poisoning the well in that you assume the conclusion and use it to prove your point. The question you don't answer in your view is, "how do you know it's not that harmful/offensive?"

Here's how I see the logic of your position: Everyone's reactions to such language should be mild to none. Why? Because such language is not that harmful/offensive to me, so it should not be to anyone else.

But what if it is? What if it is needlessly harmful/offensive to another player? In other words, if it's use is not needed -- meaning communication would not be seriously lost if it weren't used -- should it be allowed to be used? Even if you disagree and find yourself having little to no reaction to such language, does that mean your reaction is the only one possible? In the long run Inno has probably seen enough of such language to understand it does or may harm/offend someone. And they have made rules about it, lest people be harmed/offended and leave the game.

Finally, if you think those who might be harmed/offended by such language shouldn't be, the thing is, pain is subjective. I feel pain and discomfort, and you feel the same, but we often feel them as a response to different things and with different degrees of intensity. So, since I can't climb into your skin, nor you mine, I think it best err on the side of caution when it comes to potentially (unneeded) verbal expressions.

AJ

 

[mucksterme]

I want to make clear, because I don't think I have yet

I was not really defending people's right to " k*l$$pm##1 "
I personally don't much care either way. The times I have done anything like that it generally reads like " I don't $%**q+ " . So people can fill in whatever makes them happy. I am even careful to not make the word four letters (symbols) long.

My comment was more about what I read you as saying it is always wrong to question authority.

Anyway. That's all I wanted to say. I don't really take pleasure in never ending back and forth debates and semantics arguments.
For that I recommend my buddy Ash.

 

[Chimaera1234]

@ajqtrz OK, Boomer.

 

[crackie]

On the topic of weird forum rules, I want to say the image size rule is somewhat nonsensical and impractical. From a tech perspective, the forum is functionally responsive, meaning images will be resized automatically to fit the various viewports if one switches from desktop to tablet/mobile view. Therefore, anything that is bigger than the width of mobile will auto scale to fit mobile view and will not be too large. Secondly, screens, whether mobile, tablet, laptop, or monitors, have different pixel densities for the same size. For example, a 21” screen can have any sort of max resolutions. A screen can be SD, HD, Full HD, 2k, or 4k. A max limit of 640x480 is arbitrary and possibly set for technology of the 1990s, but this is the year 2023. Do you know how small a 640x480 image appears on a 4k monitor? The same 640x480 image might take up 2” of someone’s screen or 5” on another. Therefore, a set image size by pixel value is not a good arbitrator of good viewing experience. While prob well-intentioned when it was created, it reads like it’s made by someone who does not understand technology and the different ways in which the forum can be accessed and read, but tailored to whoever’s very specific viewing preferences at the time. If images need a max size, fine, but 640x480 in 2023 ain’t the right number.

 

[Katwick]

We're leaving out one major factor.

The IGNORE button, including the Ban Stick and the milder Freeze tools that the Mods can wield.

"We're not interested; go away." is a permissible position. Being gooey polite just empowers the miscreants.

You don't HAVE to watch Train Wreaks.

Shall we include thread hijacking?

 

[Tehya1]

FWIW, I read for a living, so when I hit a wall of text in a game forum, it better be captivating or my eyes grey it out. For example, @crackie your post was very informative for a literary type who also loves technology. I do remember responsive design from one of the cs classes that I took when I decided to change careers and then realized that I would be competing with kids who grew up with computers when I graduated.

Any other text walls might have been greyed out by my eyes, or I just didn't have anything to add.

 

[mucksterme]

FWIW, I read for a

tl:dr