Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1
    Banned Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    17,988

    Why are dictionary definitions banned?

    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?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    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.

    Due to COVID-19, Germany is running out of sausages and cheese.
    The government considers this to be the Wurst Käse scenario

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkeon View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    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.

  6. #6
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,802
    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.

  7. #7
    Banned Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    17,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorrowseer View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Void Lord Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In some Sanctuaryesque place or a Haven
    Posts
    42,298
    I suspect the post was snarky or being rude.
    #TeamLegion #UnderEarthofAzerothexpansion plz #Arathor4Alliance

    Warrior-Magi

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    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 ?

    Due to COVID-19, Germany is running out of sausages and cheese.
    The government considers this to be the Wurst Käse scenario

  10. #10
    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.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by schwarzkopf View Post
    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.
    Professor Johnston often said that if you didn't know history, you didn't know anything. You were a leaf that didn't know it was part of a tree. ~Michael Crichton, Timeline

  12. #12
    Banned Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    17,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Glormon View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Aeluron Lightsong View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    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.
    Professor Johnston often said that if you didn't know history, you didn't know anything. You were a leaf that didn't know it was part of a tree. ~Michael Crichton, Timeline

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Glormon View Post
    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.

    Due to COVID-19, Germany is running out of sausages and cheese.
    The government considers this to be the Wurst Käse scenario

  15. #15
    Banned Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    17,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Glormon View Post
    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"

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by schwarzkopf View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post
    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.
    Professor Johnston often said that if you didn't know history, you didn't know anything. You were a leaf that didn't know it was part of a tree. ~Michael Crichton, Timeline

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Glormon View Post
    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.

    Due to COVID-19, Germany is running out of sausages and cheese.
    The government considers this to be the Wurst Käse scenario

  18. #18
    Banned Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    17,988
    Quote Originally Posted by schwarzkopf View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Glormon View Post

    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.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Glorious Leader View Post

    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.
    Professor Johnston often said that if you didn't know history, you didn't know anything. You were a leaf that didn't know it was part of a tree. ~Michael Crichton, Timeline

  20. #20
    The Lightbringer Darknessvamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Hour of Twilight, Caverns of Time
    Posts
    3,459
    I've never had issue with it and they've been in my signature for at least... two years now?
    Argus' Nightmare Continues With Shadowlands
    Daily reminder that Steam has never had a monopoly on PC Gaming, don't mistake age and popularity for domination.
    Because people don't understand words: Forced and Necessity

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •