Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules

Forum rules

(1) Posts are to be made in the relevant forum. Users are asked to read the forum descriptions before posting.
(2) Off topic posts are limited to active members who have actually posted on-topic in one of the chess-oriented sections in the past. Any user whose first post does not relate to chess will be banned permanently. Posts in the Introduction section do not count.
(3) Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Be tolerant at any time. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated.
(4) Discussions on political and religious topics are not allowed. Posts containing elements thereof will be redacted or deleted and a temporary or permanent ban may be placed upon the user.
Discussions on politics in chess organisations and the way politics affect chess are allowed.
(4a) Drug use references are not allowed and discussions on drugs are not allowed.
(5) Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If members have something to report they are welcome to bring it to the attention of moderator either by a PM or in this thread: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html
(6) If you wish to report a PM please forward the PM to a moderator and leave a post here: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html. Don't hesitate to report a PM if you believe it violates the forum rules, even if someone else has already reported a (similar) PM by the same user; having more reports makes it easier for the moderators to take action.
(7) These rules apply to forum posts as well as private messages (PMs).
(8) Members should post in a way which is consistent with "normal writing". That is users should not post excessive numbers of emoticons (smilies), large, small or coloured text, etc. Similarly users should not SHOUT or use excessive punctuation (e.g. ! and ?) in topic titles or posts.
(9) Members should use an appropriate, descriptive title when posting a new topic. Examples of bad titles include; "Help me!", "I'm stuck!", "I've got an error!", etc. Examples of good titles include; "New Game: Perseus - SomeOtherPlayer", "Two Knights Defense: Fritz Variation and sidelines", etc.
(10) Spam is not tolerated here under any circumstance.
(11) Continuously linking your own website to promote it is not allowed. You may use your signature (which will come up beneath all your posts) for this purpose.
(12) Members should refrain from posting without adding to the discussion. Posting just to increase postcount is not allowed.
(13) Combine your comments into one post rather than making many consecutive posts to a thread within a short period of time. This can be done by clicking the 'edit' button next to your post.
If your last post, which is the last in the thread, is very old you may use the following trick to make sure it's bumped up to the new posts. Click on the 'edit' button of your last post. Copy the content of the post. Click delete and delete your last post. Paste the content of the now-deleted post in a new post, add what you will and click 'submit reply'.
(13a) You are not allowed to make consecutive posts. If you post more than once without a reply from another user, all posts after the first will be deleted.
(13b) Exceptions may be made for specific types of threads.
(14) Warez are intellectual property (software/music/movies/tv-series/tv-shows/etc) either through download, serial, or crack in a manner that breaks its copyright and/or license. You are not allowed to give/link to/ask for/advocate/provide information for obtaining and the use of warez.
Bittorrent links are not allowed.
(14a) The following international treaties apply:
-Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) (Berne, 1886)
-Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) (Geneva, 1952)
-Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Marrakesh, 1994)
-World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO Copyright Treaty) (Geneva, 1996)
(15) Books published before 1920 are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez. Books published after 1920 with permission from the author are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez provided it can within reason be established that permission has been given. All other books are considered copyrighted and e-books thereof are considered warez.
(16) Usernames that contain obscene or vulgar language or denigrate individuals and/or organisations are not allowed.
(17) Users may only delete their own posts on the grounds that they constitute a severe breach of these rules. Even when this is the case, the editing of the post to effect repairs must at all times be considered first.
The emptying of posts (substituting the content by non-content) is explicitely considered a breach of this rule.
Deletion of whole batches of posts harms thread continuity and the forum as a whole and the Moderation team will take action; in the most extreme case an account may be permanently banned to preserve the posted.
(18) Administrators (Admins) and Moderators (Mods) reserve the right to edit or remove any post at any time. The determination of what is construed as indecent, vulgar, spam, etc. is up to them and not to forum members.
(19) Aforementioned Admins and Mods reserve the right to edit this list of rules at anytime.
See more
See less

Metadiscussions

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Metadiscussions

    I am involved with another forum (nothing to do with chess) where the list owner has a very strict policy against metadiscussions i.e. discussions about the discussion. At times his reprimands seem a bit over the top, but the end result is that if you do a search on a subject, you read about the subject of your search instead of post after post of bickering, involving two or three posters, with very little content related to the thread title. This policy makes the site a valuable reference source.

    I suppose there is no way to enforce this without overburdoning the modererators, who do a fine job here IMO, so let's all just try to ask ourselves before we post, "How relevent to the thread title is what I just wrote"? Does this post belong in another section, or in a PM?

    Edit; I just read the forum rules and all of this is covered. Seems like saying it again with different words is a good idea though.


    Victor
    Last edited by bluesman; 04-18-2013, 02:14 PM.

  • #2
    The only problem I see with this is, in order to really do this.. one would need to break copy write laws OR look like computer analysis.

    I am not really sure where "Bickering" has occurred. But in a lot of the posts I see, it's debating on theory. That IMO can't be avoided if true learning is to take place. Also, in order to debate theory you have to have subject matter that has to do with the post, and you must discuss this. It's part of the learning process. If we dismiss meta-discussions so to speak, you might as well take out the forums and create a wiki.

    I mean what are you suppose to do? Someone says they believe something. The next person claims opposite and that they believe the person is wrong, and the previous person is suppose to back down? Where has the skills and promotion of debates and competition gone?

    I don't down the people that debate it. I like it.. But there are a few people that I know will not back down no matter how right or indifferent I am or others are. So when I back off from a debate it is because I know I cannot banter with the person.

    I don't know if I agree with this (The post). It's a little to passive-aggressive for me. There shouldn't be fear of insulting someone, and people really shouldn't get insulted off little stuff. Now, I suppose if someone was to threaten my life or my family, I might rightly come slightly unglued. But on average (Aside from minor slips here and there) I am pretty level headed. As is most of the people I have seen. The problem comes when thin skins come in and can't handle minor debates.

    Seems most of the time, there is little battles and when both parties are at fault and one goes a little far, the powers that be reprimand the one that went a little far and they don't point out that everyone is doing something. <shrug> Not that I care really. Just giving my half cent. If I am wrong I am wrong, at least the opinion was said.

    I am a proud supporter of the GM Igor Smirnov way of teaching. If you would like to see the system and want to try out his teaching methods please follow this link: http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/...?id=1517_2_3_1

    If you have questions/want a tutor inquire with messages. I am going to rewrite my web page and it will also go here.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think some folks are just better with people than others. In a discussion, it’s just fine to disagree and tell someone they are wrong, especially if they ARE wrong; that’s how we learn.

      But personal attacks are where most of the problems lie. Cmonster ribbing me about being a 1500 in another thread is obvious locker room banter (was to me, anyhow), but outright calling someone a troll is not only counterproductive but also quite obviously offensive.

      To be honest, I’d never heard the term metadiscussion. I understand what it means, but there are fine lines everywhere that make such a rule really hard to constantly enforce.

      For instance, on the metal detecting forum I’m a part of, TONS of people thank other people for good information. Now, while that doesn’t add TO the discussion, necessarily, it does two other things: it lets everyone know the info was good/helpful, and it keeps the good/helpful thread topped.

      Meh. Most of this is common sense, I would think.
      Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

      An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

      My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree with that.
        I am a proud supporter of the GM Igor Smirnov way of teaching. If you would like to see the system and want to try out his teaching methods please follow this link: http://chess-teacher.com/affiliates/...?id=1517_2_3_1

        If you have questions/want a tutor inquire with messages. I am going to rewrite my web page and it will also go here.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, that sounds like gravy to me.
          Alexander Alekhine is my chess hero.

          An eerie chess short story: The Empty Chair

          My newest chess story: Gamble: A Supernatural Chess Tale

          Comment


          • #6
            A metadiscussion, then, is a discussion about a discussion--am I understanding correctly?

            I think it's an interesting idea. I'm not sure how one would catalogue the levels of discussion, though.
            "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Skwerly View Post
              To be honest, Id never heard the term metadiscussion. I understand what it means, but there are fine lines everywhere that make such a rule really hard to constantly enforce.
              That's why I suggested we try to self police. I noticed on your last post of the gambit thread you redirected to here. Thank you. As it stands #44 through 47 of the gambits thread have nothing to do with the thread i.e. meta. If I were a visitor and wanted to read about gambit play and hit on those posts. I would just think, well this is a waste of time and move on. Those posts don't suggest that good info was posted, just the opposite. They tell me people are argueing about, well I can't even tell what they are argueing about. It seems like they are argueing about argueing. Is this the gambit thread? I'm outa here.

              Victor

              Comment


              • #8
                you're absolutely right, Victor.

                I've deleted the posts you mentioned.

                Good-catch, and thank you!
                "They work at the pace of amnesia."--M. Bloch

                Comment

                Working...
                X