Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but in general I think this is where Backstage intends to differ from Chatsubo. Over there, this might be par for the course. Over here, they want to guide the conversation gently into a slightly different tone.

Then it definitely needs to be made plain that it is not a slightly different tone, but a monumentally different one.

This is a community that's sawtoothed around the edges. I think I might have been srs when quoting Tennyson.

[Lillith Blackheart]

I'm a guy.

Ghost and I don't have much of a history.

Prior to my 2 month absence and my inevitable return, Ghost and I have only really communicated directly (not counting on here in that one thread) about four times that I can recall.

But as to this:

They read the text 'cold

No, they're not reading the text cold. That's the point. If you had read my initial post in this thread cold you would not have perceived it as hostile. You instead read the text as 'hot'.

Therein is the rub, and what Ashar was trying to say here:

Text is an inherently cold medium. Lillith and I know that on some level, I expect.

Aggression isn't cold. Aggression is hot. Aggression is passionate. Rational is cold.

Read the text cold, I implore you.

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

However, not everyone who reads these forums is part of that group or knows that Ghost and Lilith have such a history, and we're trying to create an atmosphere that is welcoming.

'Everyone who knows me knows I don't mean any harm' doesn't work when a new player checks out the site. They read the text 'cold'.

Well, point is point, but if the impact of their phrasing has nothing to do with them - if in fact it is for the benefit of interaction between others around them - then just save them the bother since you're already PMing them and edit their posts.

Or, you could make clear precisely for whose benefit the requested change in phrasing is, but really, that's taking it past reasonable or amicable and into pathetic. There's friendly overtures to account for language, and then there's constantly walking on eggshells. I refuse the latter; if I get banned for it, so be it. If you have to edit my posts or flood my inbox with PMs constantly, I can only nod and smile, or leave.

That does not preclude me from working at accomplishing the former.

[Lillith Blackheart]

I hope you'll agree that the text that was left intact (the great majority of it) is far from butterflies and honey or gumdrops and lollipops...

With regard to the difference between "I disagree" and "you are incorrect", I'll elaborate again that I see the two phrases as being quite different:

"I disagree" = I see your point, but I have a different opinion.

"You are incorrect" = I see your point and it is wrong, my opinion is the only correct one.

Havo: I didn't name names because I wasn't really all that upset about it, it was just an example that was one of my causes of concern.

The thing about it is you're misquoting here (though you do quote it correctly later). It's not the comparison of "I disagree" and "You are incorrect". It is the comparison of "I disagree" and "I think you are incorrect". Simple paraphrase "I don't think that's right". Which is exactly what you mean when you say "I disagree".

I will contend this unto my dying breath!

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

Aggression isn't cold. Aggression is hot. Aggression is passionate. Rational is cold.

Read the text cold, I implore you.

And the buzzer rang out.

Nah. It's like that one post Wanoah made concerning politeness on chatsubo - it's all the little bits of language that get lost in translation from speech to text that make something truly neutral.

"I don't like that." versus "Oh, well, um...It's just not really my kinda thing, you know?"

You and I, Lillith, have a predilection for cold tones; I just also have one for hot ones.

We're not hitting a neutral point. And it may be arbitrary or mainstream, but the adoption of neutral tones IS the established means of communication in much of the known world, if you expect to avoid a clobbering. In your case, you're just not inherently cold enough in your phrasing to put people out sufficiently to earn one.

And yes, you can be an uber-moderator and still be biased about this while fulfilling the functions of stringent administration of a board just fine an' dandy.

[Lillith Blackheart]

You didn't really disagree with what I said by what you stated, though, Ashar.

Cold is uncaring. It is indifference. It is pure, unadulterated logic. You can't really read something as being "cold" and think it's aggressive. A woman giving the cold shoulder is not striking you with it. She's turning it away in disregard.

If one reads what someone wrote "cold", then what they will read is a post from a person that really doesn't care about the final verdict. Not neutral, but entirely non-combative as they are indifferent to the end result.

If someone sees a post as hostile, aggressive, or combative, they are reading the text as "hot", not "cold".

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

And yet, cold is not amicable.

They're going for amicable.

Can you manage amicable and rational? If not, it seems your only penalty is a stack of PMs at the moment.

[Ciarente]

I apologize for my lack of clarity. I meant it in this sense:

"When coming to a text 'cold' without the benefit of extra information ..." Texts and contexts: introducing literature and language study, Adrian Beard, p 11

[Havohej]

The thing about it is you're misquoting here (though you do quote it correctly later). It's not the comparison of "I disagree" and "You are incorrect". It is the comparison of "I disagree" and "I think you are incorrect". Simple paraphrase "I don't think that's right". Which is exactly what you mean when you say "I disagree".

I will contend this unto my dying breath!

Fair enough; I amend:

"I think you are incorrect" = I see your point and I think it is wrong, I think that my opinion is the only correct one.

I suspect we'll agree to disagree here, but to me the addition of "I think" alters the context much less than the addition of the word "may" or transposition of the phrase "I disagree" as opposed to "(I think) you are incorrect."  Yes, I agree that they mean essentially (but not exactly) the same thing; I think there's a great deal of value in the cliché "It's not what you say, it's how you say it."

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

Ciarente L. Roth, it is not even six AM where you are. Stop moddin' this forum and go have a morning untouched by our insanity : /

[Lillith Blackheart]

@ Havo:

"I think you are incorrect" = I see your point and I think it is wrong, I think that my opinion is the only correct one.

No. You're adding more than is there. "I think you are incorrect" = I see your point and I think it is wrong (STOP)."

If it was ". . ., I think that my opinion is the only correct one" then it would have been worded differently worded.

Unless you are meaning to imply that "I disagree" = I see your point and I think it is wrong, I think that my opinion is the only correct one.

If so why allow people to say they disagree? Do you see where I am going here?

@ Cia: Duly noted.

@ Ashar: Amicable: Peaceable. Easily handled. Cold rational is generally peaceable. Though from what you are implying I assume you meant amiable, in which case... no, I'm not an amiable person.

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

Yeah, I might've, tired.

And yeah, you kinda are. You're being one to me, right now, as per my expectations of...amiability? Whatever. Other people have different benchmarks for it; I just don't expect to get my head bitten off and consider that a BIG FUCKING RAINBOW-SMILE from folks because I'm basically from hell.

[Havohej]

@ Havo:

"I think you are incorrect" = I see your point and I think it is wrong, I think that my opinion is the only correct one.

No. You're adding more than is there. "I think you are incorrect" = I see your point and I think it is wrong (STOP)."

If it was ". . ., I think that my opinion is the only correct one" then it would have been worded differently worded.

Unless you are meaning to imply that "I disagree" = I see your point and I think it is wrong, I think that my opinion is the only correct one.

I already detailed exactly how I take "I disagree"; that wasn't it.

What it hinges on is the word "incorrect" and its synonyms (i.e.: "wrong").  The extra stuff (i.e.: I think that my opinion is the only correct one) is implicit in the choice of those words.  They carry an undesirable connotation.  I don't know how to be more clear in explaining my position.

[Lillith Blackheart]

I already detailed exactly how I take "I disagree"; that wasn't it.

What it hinges on is the word "incorrect" and its synonyms (i.e.: "wrong").  The extra stuff (i.e.: I think that my opinion is the only correct one) is implicit in the choice of those words.  They carry an undesirable connotation.  I don't know how to be more clear in explaining my position.

No, they do not carry an undesirable connotation. They carry an undesirable connotation to you, and what I am trying to understand is exactly why they do. "Incorrect" is just a word. "I think this is incorrect" is just a roundabout way of saying "I disagree with this statement". There is no implication of "My opinion is all that is right" in that statement unless the reader opts to put it there.

If you were to tell me (which you have in not so many words) that my viewpoint on something was something you thought wasn't correct, I would not in any way take the implication that you were saying "Shut up, you're stupid and I'm right" or "Your opinion is wrong and mine is the only correct one". So what I am trying to understand is why do you?

Why do you choose to add additional context to the statement when that context was not there? You even stated yourself that "upon further reading I could tell that's not what you're saying" or something near to those words. If you see the context of the entire statement and see that what you have decided to arbitrarily add to the statement ex post facto in your own mind, the question is why?

This is almost as though one is fishing for things to moderate. You have the context of the original statement, and it shows clearly that what you decided to read into it initially was not there. Why would you then continue to argue that there was anything wrong with how it was worded, as the additional statements you continue to add to the end of it contextually have no relevance to the original statement?

[Silver Night]

Except no moderation was performed, Lilith. Also, it has that connotation for many people. Perhaps you didn't realize that, but Havo PMed you and let you know.