Why are dictionary definitions banned?

[Glorious Leader]

Communication relies on a shared understanding of language. The meaning of words matters. If an individual is going to challenge the meaning of a word because it suits their argument why is punishable to provide an actual definition as a common reference?

[Darkeon]

Communication relies on a shared understanding of language. The meaning of words matters. If an individual is going to challenge the meaning of a word because it suits their argument why is punishable to provide an actual definition as a common reference?

Because moderation in this website is mostly based on a subjective basis. You can easily get away with blatant insulting with Mod#912, but you got caught by Mod#128 that is super offended by dictionary definitions.

My suggestion: If an argument benefits from you actually explaining words to the people involved, stay away.

[schwarzkopf]

Communication relies on a shared understanding of language

As someone with ASD, I've found that there are two types of language.

There is literal language, and there is social language.

Literal communication is like running your car without oil, you end up with gears grinding up against each other.

This is a social forum and thus social language used by neurotypical persons is used.

It does of course mean that ASD sufferers like me are treated poorly, but that's life.

[Jotaux]

Because moderation in this website is mostly based on a subjective basis. You can easily get away with blatant insulting with Mod#912, but you got caught by Mod#128 that is super offended by dictionary definitions.

Thats why I try to see which mod infracted me so I know what the rules are in different threads.

Like one time where I was infracted for saying "So you're saying you're bad at jokes". They refused to tell me which mod infracted me and there was no edit to the post indicating which mod did it.

[Sorrowseer]

I am pretty sure the reason is because 'using dictionary definitions' is actually not aiding a discussion, its being used to demean or belittle another persons opinion. I doubt I am wrong in that assumption.

[Endus]

I've pointed to definitions plenty and, to my knowledge, never been infracted for it.

I suppose it could be considered baity in certain circumstances, the same way LMGTFY links are, but if you're posting a good-faith correction, it shouldn't be an issue. Could also have been a mod warning to drop a derail that your post contributed to, or something.

[Glorious Leader]

I am pretty sure the reason is because 'using dictionary definitions' is actually not aiding a discussion, its being used to demean or belittle another persons opinion. I doubt I am wrong in that assumption.

When the person you're discussing with decides to simple challenge the meaning of a word, thats not aiding the discussion either and if you aren't permitted to provide a shared reference (I.e the definition of the word in question) the discussion can't really proceed.

- - - Updated - - -

I've pointed to definitions plenty and, to my knowledge, never been infracted for it.

I suppose it could be considered baity in certain circumstances, the same way LMGTFY links are, but if you're posting a good-faith correction, it shouldn't be an issue. Could also have been a mod warning to drop a derail that your post contributed to, or something.

It was a discussion revolving around what constitutes "progression". The individual i was discussing insinuated that "progression" only occurred when an obstacle was overcome. The root of word progression ("progress") indicates no such thing but the individual i was discussing advised me I was using the word incorrectly.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I suspect the post was snarky or being rude.

[schwarzkopf]

It was a discussion revolving around what constitutes "progression".

As an example - I sometimes quote the definition of 'grind' in relation to gaming to show that WoW no longer has a grind.

However - popular thought is that WoW does involve a grind, so bringing up the facts just makes people get salty and makes people think I'm a troll.

So - should I post the facts or not ?
Or is social cohesion in the forum more important than the facts ?

[KOUNTERPARTS]

I would have to imagine it's the context in which person A is offering up the definition of the word as a counter to person B's challenge that they aren't applying said word correctly (whether it supports their argument/narrative or they are just trolling/flaming).. and the manner in which it's being delivered. We don't need to "name and shame" the mods that particularly sensitive on this website.


In the end it always comes down to each individual mod's subjective perception... as most of these threads on S&F are complaining about.

[Glormon]

As an example - I sometimes quote the definition of 'grind' in relation to gaming to show that WoW no longer has a grind.

However - popular thought is that WoW does involve a grind, so bringing up the facts just makes people get salty and makes people think I'm a troll.

So - should I post the facts or not ?
Or is social cohesion in the forum more important than the facts ?

Difficult to say, I'd argue that these words "transform" depending on who uses it. The state of progression or what constitutes a grind is to subjective to be able to say anything as "fact" unless you can get a community consensus, which doesn't exist.

[Glorious Leader]

Difficult to say, I'd argue that these words "transform" depending on who uses it. The state of progression or what constitutes a grind is to subjective to be able to say anything as "fact" unless you can get a community consensus, which doesn't exist.

Well then that makes communication incredible difficult. If one can simple dispute the meaning of a word whenever it suites their argument then we're basically talking semantics and NOTHING constructive can be derived from that.

- - - Updated - - -

I suspect the post was snarky or being rude.

"Please post constructively - refrain from quoting dictionary entries at other users."

Was the infraction which I should also mention in and itself is not very constructive. I mean other than walk away theirs really nothing offered on how to respond to people who simple resort to semantics when they decide the meaning of a word is only good to support their argument.

[Glormon]

If one can simple dispute the meaning of a word whenever it suites their argument then we're basically talking semantics and NOTHING constructive can be derived from that.

The meaning of words change all the time, its not that unusual in something as fast moving as the internet generation to experience it in droves.

Your not wrong that it generates scenarios in which two parties don't agree. Ultimately thats fine, agreeing-to-disagree are fine in situations that are conversations that carry no risks of harm like one in a forum.

[schwarzkopf]

The state of progression or what constitutes a grind is to subjective to be able to say anything as "fact" unless you can get a community
consensus, which doesn't exist.

Exactly my point - the dictionary definition of 'grind' presents a clear fact, but the community consensus disagrees.

So should we respect the community or the facts - that is the dilemma of posting definitions.

[Glorious Leader]

The meaning of words change all the time, its not that unusual in something as fast moving as the internet generation to experience it in droves.

Your not wrong that it generates scenarios in which two parties don't agree. Ultimately thats fine, agreeing-to-disagree are fine in situations that are conversations that carry no risks of harm like one in a forum.

Well then at the very least it makes little sense to punish an individual when he tried to provide a definition that shares a common frame of reference. To be blunt I dont care if somebody thinks up really means down, its not true even in post modern land but what's worse is to infract somebody on the grounds that its not constructive while blatantly ignoring the fact that just disputing what words mean themselves totally derails the conversation.

If I can't a post a definition on what the word progress means because its not constructive then it has to be equally if not less constructive to simple state "oh that's not what the word means you don't know what that word means"

[Glormon]

Exactly my point - the dictionary definition of 'grind' presents a clear fact, but the community consensus disagrees.

So should we respect the community or the facts - that is the dilemma of posting definitions.

If I was forced to lean into one direction I'd lean towards the community. Since at large its usually the community (majority?) that ultimately decide definitions in social conversations. Not that it's a great reason to pick that side, but its the one historically that usually occurs.

- - - Updated - - -

If I can't a post a definition on what the word progress means because its not constructive

I wonder if its less that you posted the definition and more so that potentially thats -all- that was in the post? Maybe if you went into more of a breakdown within the post itself taking segments apart to use rather than letting the definition itself do all the work.

Not sure, I have no context for the conversation.

[schwarzkopf]

If I was forced to lean into one direction I'd lean towards the community. Since at large its usually the community (majority?) that ultimately decide definitions in social conversations. Not that it's a great reason to pick that side, but its the one historically that usually occurs.

Exactly - the majority of people (who are neurotypical) dictate social meaning, whilst those like me who are ASD will be berated for using literal meanings.

The summary is - (to the OP) - posting literal definitions is dangerous, because it can be disruptive to the smooth flow of conversation.

And after all - the moderators are here to keep the peace, not adjudicate facts.

[Glorious Leader]

Exactly - the majority of people (who are neurotypical) dictate social meaning, whilst those like me who are ASD will be berated for using literal meanings.

The summary is - (to the OP) - posting literal definitions is dangerous, because it can be disruptive to the smooth flow of conversation.

And after all - the moderators are here to keep the peace, not adjudicate facts.

Well thats a problem because I'm not discussing with a community as a gestalt but in this particular case an individual who in no way shape or form represents the community at large either of the game or this forum or even the narrowest slice of players that he might theoretically be affiliated with.

Why is posting definitions disruptive but just flagrantly engaging in semantics to derail an argument not?

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder if its less that you posted the definition and more so that potentially thats -all- that was in the post? Maybe if you went into more of a breakdown within the post itself taking segments apart to use rather than letting the definition itself do all the work.

Not sure, I have no context for the conversation.

I could buy that, I could even accept the argument that posting dictionary definitions is just clutter to a large degree and doesn't really progress the discussion. I just don't see how deciding that the word has an arbitrary meaning which is not in actuality the meaning of the word is not equally also as unconstructive.

It really just reeks of mod is subjective doesn't like your argument to be honest.

[Glormon]

It really just reeks of mod is subjective doesn't like your argument to be honest.

Or there's a history to the definition posting and they just have a blanket response to it, which is also a possibility.

[Darknessvamp]

I've never had issue with it and they've been in my signature for at least... two years now?