Trashtalking is the reason I block chat. Trashtalk should have no place in chess.
@Onyx_Chess
I am surprised you could not see the contradiction.
My point was that your being aggressive does not benefit this community which you claim that it's your main motivation. I offered an opinion. You can definitely express your disagreement constructively providing counterarguments. But replying in an aggressive tone did not benefit this discussion and did not strengthen your points either. There was absolutely no reason to speak derogatory about 'people whose age ends in "ven" "elve" and "een"'. That creates a negative atmosphere that may justifiably put people off from this community.
I hope that you can now see the contradiction and conform your responses with your principles.
Concerning now your counterarguments:
1) 'The only question is, "Should someone's need to exhibit a big mouth overrule what's obviously best for the site?"'
My response to this is that this is not the question. At least not the one asked bye OP or the one I was responding to. No one mentioned 'big mouth'. My whole point was that this is just a misinterpretation of trash talking. You could have counterargued by somehow proving that trash talking is the same thing.
2) 'It is common sense'
Whenever two parties disagree it is totally pointless to invoke 'common sense' because apparently in that case it is not 'common'. So there can be no emptier reasoning than this!
So I invite you to contribute more counterarguments to my position that I will elaborate in my next post.
I am surprised you could not see the contradiction.
My point was that your being aggressive does not benefit this community which you claim that it's your main motivation. I offered an opinion. You can definitely express your disagreement constructively providing counterarguments. But replying in an aggressive tone did not benefit this discussion and did not strengthen your points either. There was absolutely no reason to speak derogatory about 'people whose age ends in "ven" "elve" and "een"'. That creates a negative atmosphere that may justifiably put people off from this community.
I hope that you can now see the contradiction and conform your responses with your principles.
Concerning now your counterarguments:
1) 'The only question is, "Should someone's need to exhibit a big mouth overrule what's obviously best for the site?"'
My response to this is that this is not the question. At least not the one asked bye OP or the one I was responding to. No one mentioned 'big mouth'. My whole point was that this is just a misinterpretation of trash talking. You could have counterargued by somehow proving that trash talking is the same thing.
2) 'It is common sense'
Whenever two parties disagree it is totally pointless to invoke 'common sense' because apparently in that case it is not 'common'. So there can be no emptier reasoning than this!
So I invite you to contribute more counterarguments to my position that I will elaborate in my next post.
So I see that most people claim that trash talking has no place in chess arguing either on the grounds of certain morals or with respect to what is better for the community as @Onyx_Chess analyzed in post #25. Both of these approaches though interpret trash talking as something that can harm the receiver. My claim is that this is not true and I will try to provide a draft for a proof:
Let's start from definitions.
Trash talking: The act of making false or unverifiable statements.
Trash talker: The person who trash talks.
Receiver: The person whom the trash talking is addressed to.
Apparently this is a very general definition of 'trash talking'. I think that any proper definition of trash talking should include a reference to the trash talker's intentions. But since this definition is more general the statement that is attempted to be proved is stronger!
Proposition: Trash talking shows either a problematic person or a very friendly one.
Proof
Here we need to analyse the possible intentions of the trash talker in order to be able to make a conclusion about the person. There are three cases:
i) the trash talker believes in the validity of the false or unverifiable statement. shows a disconnection from reality which is a serious disadvantage for any living organism.
ii) the trash talker is aware of the invalidity of their claim but they expect to be benefited by this behavior. This shows that the person has serious problems.
iii) the trash talker is aware of the the invalidity of their claim but they are willing to ridicule themselves for the sake of provoking some interaction.
In the first two cases the trash talker is a problematic person while in the last case the trash talker is a very friendly person.
Corollary 1: Trash talking in private chat is harmless for the receiver.
Proof
For the proof of this it is very important to take into account that the receiver may have no knowledge of the intentions of the trash talker as was nicely pointed out by both @etaLaskera and @RoyalbladeX. But that's been taken care of by the fact that we didn't include any reference to the intentions of the trash talker in the definition of trash talking.
So trash talking appears initially to the receiver as one statement.
i)If the statement is perceived by the receiver to be true and well intended then there must be no harm.
ii)If the statement is perceived by the receiver to be false or maliciously intended then according to the above corollary
either the trash talker has problems or is trying to be friendly. There should be no harm on the receiver neither from a statement perceived to be false nor by the realization that another person is problematic. Obviously no harm in the case the trash talker is being friendly.
Corollary 2: The people that get offended by trash talking are unreasonable.
It just follows from Corollary 1.
I am aware that there are many points in the above reasoning that need further elaboration but that's what the forum is for! I am looking forward to your contributions to either conclude the proof or disprove it! I just thought I should offer a different perspective which didn't seem to have been taken into account so far.
Let's start from definitions.
Trash talking: The act of making false or unverifiable statements.
Trash talker: The person who trash talks.
Receiver: The person whom the trash talking is addressed to.
Apparently this is a very general definition of 'trash talking'. I think that any proper definition of trash talking should include a reference to the trash talker's intentions. But since this definition is more general the statement that is attempted to be proved is stronger!
Proposition: Trash talking shows either a problematic person or a very friendly one.
Proof
Here we need to analyse the possible intentions of the trash talker in order to be able to make a conclusion about the person. There are three cases:
i) the trash talker believes in the validity of the false or unverifiable statement. shows a disconnection from reality which is a serious disadvantage for any living organism.
ii) the trash talker is aware of the invalidity of their claim but they expect to be benefited by this behavior. This shows that the person has serious problems.
iii) the trash talker is aware of the the invalidity of their claim but they are willing to ridicule themselves for the sake of provoking some interaction.
In the first two cases the trash talker is a problematic person while in the last case the trash talker is a very friendly person.
Corollary 1: Trash talking in private chat is harmless for the receiver.
Proof
For the proof of this it is very important to take into account that the receiver may have no knowledge of the intentions of the trash talker as was nicely pointed out by both @etaLaskera and @RoyalbladeX. But that's been taken care of by the fact that we didn't include any reference to the intentions of the trash talker in the definition of trash talking.
So trash talking appears initially to the receiver as one statement.
i)If the statement is perceived by the receiver to be true and well intended then there must be no harm.
ii)If the statement is perceived by the receiver to be false or maliciously intended then according to the above corollary
either the trash talker has problems or is trying to be friendly. There should be no harm on the receiver neither from a statement perceived to be false nor by the realization that another person is problematic. Obviously no harm in the case the trash talker is being friendly.
Corollary 2: The people that get offended by trash talking are unreasonable.
It just follows from Corollary 1.
I am aware that there are many points in the above reasoning that need further elaboration but that's what the forum is for! I am looking forward to your contributions to either conclude the proof or disprove it! I just thought I should offer a different perspective which didn't seem to have been taken into account so far.
To address now the initial question: "To trash talk or not to trash talk" it is important to take into account what @Onyx_Chess mentioned in post #25, namely what will benefit the community.
On the one hand if we refrain ourselves from trash talking we lose a very convenient facilitator of socializing. On the other hand it is a matter of fact that several people get offended over trash talking and may get estranged from the community. Fortunately there exists already a solution to this. It is called blocking.
Taking these into account I think that refraining from trash talking makes the interaction in this community poorer for no benefit other than satisfaction of the irrationality of some of its members (if of course we accept the validity of Corollary 2 in post #43).
So I propose to whomever likes socializing by trash talking to keep doing it trusting that that the people who do not like it will filter them out!
On the one hand if we refrain ourselves from trash talking we lose a very convenient facilitator of socializing. On the other hand it is a matter of fact that several people get offended over trash talking and may get estranged from the community. Fortunately there exists already a solution to this. It is called blocking.
Taking these into account I think that refraining from trash talking makes the interaction in this community poorer for no benefit other than satisfaction of the irrationality of some of its members (if of course we accept the validity of Corollary 2 in post #43).
So I propose to whomever likes socializing by trash talking to keep doing it trusting that that the people who do not like it will filter them out!
@Loosy
Other players shouldn't have to resort to blocking players because they're being rude. If your intent is to be friendly, you're clearly failing if the other person feels the need to block you.
As others have said, in general, it's okay with people you know, but it comes across as rude if you start trash-talking random strangers.
Other players shouldn't have to resort to blocking players because they're being rude. If your intent is to be friendly, you're clearly failing if the other person feels the need to block you.
As others have said, in general, it's okay with people you know, but it comes across as rude if you start trash-talking random strangers.
@Loosy "So I propose to whomever likes socializing by trash talking to keep doing it trusting that that the people who do not like it will filter them out!"
A valiant effort. I'll simply quote Sarg0n here:
"You can do what you want but one wrong word in the chat to me and you are blocked and reported."
---***---
Terms of Service - Fair Play and Community Guidelines:
"Users who don’t behave with good conduct may have their account banned or closed without warning, and their content removed from the site."
---***---
I've been saying one thing from the start, it's not worth it. But whoever wants to risk it, your choice
A valiant effort. I'll simply quote Sarg0n here:
"You can do what you want but one wrong word in the chat to me and you are blocked and reported."
---***---
Terms of Service - Fair Play and Community Guidelines:
"Users who don’t behave with good conduct may have their account banned or closed without warning, and their content removed from the site."
---***---
I've been saying one thing from the start, it's not worth it. But whoever wants to risk it, your choice
@Loosy
1. "There was absolutely no reason to speak derogatory about 'people whose age ends in "ven" "elve" and "een"'." - Loosy
a) I spoke derogatorily about adults who behave like children.
b) The fact that you make no distinction between how a child behaves and how an adult behaves, perfectly explains everything about you and your cohorts in this thread.
2. After your smattering of ad hominem, strawmen, and gaslighting fallacies, almost in in an "oh yeah I forgot to address the argument" moment, you opened up a subsequent post (#44) that basically amounts to:
"*I* prefer rudeness; therefore, Lichess would be better off with more rude people because *I* am here to prefer it that way."
You're trying to pretend that you're arguing #3 from post #25.
You are actually still arguing #1.
Like this. This is what you're doing. This is how you look:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejn4YBOOntM
3. My first impression of this site was civil, cordial, sportsmanlike, friendly and welcoming. I couldn't wait to return.
That first impression, alongside the site layout and the programming and adminning, has made me Lichess for life.
The idea that most people facing a "You Suck" in the chat box after their first game here would feel the same, is WRONG.
It is obvious common-sense that: "You suck." ≠ "Wow, that was a great game. Well played."
I can see why you would object to my use of "common-sense" and then attempt to obfuscate and gaslight it into some realm of 'unclear subjectivity'.
It is not unclear.
It is not subjective.
Most people prefer polite professionalism over rude adolescence.
That's a fact, and it's also common-sense because it's not counter-intuitive.
It's easy to see and easy to understand.
It's common-sense.
1. "There was absolutely no reason to speak derogatory about 'people whose age ends in "ven" "elve" and "een"'." - Loosy
a) I spoke derogatorily about adults who behave like children.
b) The fact that you make no distinction between how a child behaves and how an adult behaves, perfectly explains everything about you and your cohorts in this thread.
2. After your smattering of ad hominem, strawmen, and gaslighting fallacies, almost in in an "oh yeah I forgot to address the argument" moment, you opened up a subsequent post (#44) that basically amounts to:
"*I* prefer rudeness; therefore, Lichess would be better off with more rude people because *I* am here to prefer it that way."
You're trying to pretend that you're arguing #3 from post #25.
You are actually still arguing #1.
Like this. This is what you're doing. This is how you look:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejn4YBOOntM
3. My first impression of this site was civil, cordial, sportsmanlike, friendly and welcoming. I couldn't wait to return.
That first impression, alongside the site layout and the programming and adminning, has made me Lichess for life.
The idea that most people facing a "You Suck" in the chat box after their first game here would feel the same, is WRONG.
It is obvious common-sense that: "You suck." ≠ "Wow, that was a great game. Well played."
I can see why you would object to my use of "common-sense" and then attempt to obfuscate and gaslight it into some realm of 'unclear subjectivity'.
It is not unclear.
It is not subjective.
Most people prefer polite professionalism over rude adolescence.
That's a fact, and it's also common-sense because it's not counter-intuitive.
It's easy to see and easy to understand.
It's common-sense.
To be fair i wish they said you suck, a compliment would insult my intelligence
Fide laws of chess:
12.6 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.
12.6 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.
@Loosy Definition of your trash talk definition: very poor.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.