Suggo is not the only person by any means with his viewpoint. And it will serve anybody well in life to stick to their convictions no matter what they are, and no matter how many people disagree with you.
I happen to disagree with him. But I respect that he hasn't given up or caved in and is willing to restate his position many more times than should be necessary.
If you want to take that viewpoint, rudeness/politeness becomes, if not irrelevant, then at least severely less important.
". . . yes, people wore knee-high socks when that was seen as the done thing to do. But then people realised that was silly, and it stopped."
How come I wasn't informed of this change!
next you will be saying paisley ties are out, or white belts
Define "experienced"
It's the traditionally used euphemism for "good."
LOL! A masterpiece of backhanded praise.
Rael dons his robe and sceptre
filled with pomp and stately tread
Kupov hisses, spits and stutters
calls him a big poo-poo head
Rael reads back a thesaurus
(knowing insults never bore us)
two homonyms soon trade abuse
(Suggo? Suker? I'm confused)
while mjbickley brings up Bentham
(and dons the gown that Rael lent him)
Yoshirools has left the topic
SuiteLycee wants it locked up quick
while I'm left all alone to wonder:
"Where the hell is victhestick?"
people quote their Funk & Webster
amidst the cussin and the din
with gavels banging, people shouting
(like halloween at the UN)
I've turned to harvesting my vine-o
(rather than whine, I'll be a wino)
Because you're dressed up as a bat.
I think I've come up with an idea for a comprimise between suggo and everyone else.
How about we simply have the option to play games with players that are ok with stalling, and players that aren't? This way, stallers can continue to stall, and people that don't like stalling won't have so much drama to whine about. Everyone seems to win!
I check the games of people who challenge me and if I see in any of their lost games that they like to play on in ridiculous positions I dont play them. The problem comes in when I am in a tournament or a team event in which I cannot "filter" these jerks. What to do ? I like tournies too much to quit them and I also like playing for teams/groups. Oh well.... maybe there should also be a "jerk rating" for net play based on such things as rude remarks, timing out, playing on in ridiculous positions, etc ? Then there could be tournies where a jerk rating over a certain thing isnt allowed ? Imagine, jerk free tournaments ?!!
Y A W N
jerk ratings would work well for fora too.
I do like playing in tournies, just imagine how much more enjoyable they would be though minus the jerks ! I do NOT like playing chess with inconsiderate/rude/ill mannered people though. ( jerks )
Suggo, on the internet you meet so many people that a personal blacklist would be next to useless. And one that was shared among many people would be subject to abuse (E.G. a jerk rating).
Anyways though, if we want this thread to conclude without a lock we need to come up with some sort of comprimise IMO.
With regards to being polite, the large majority does rule. As politeness is a social convention, the *only* real barometer of what is rude and what is not is what the community thinks.
And here the community thinks otherwise to you.
Or maybe you still have no satisfactory answer to this point, other than twaddle. Correct?
So, basically no answer at all then. Yes, when it comes to rudeness, the large majority (as at least evidenced from this thread and others - we have no other evidence) IS correct. That's the very definition of what is considered rude - what the community thinks is rude. Keep it up...
Try reading a book.
I played a game yesterday wherein my opponent had a rook, a bishop, and a couple of pawns. I had a rook and a couple of pawns. He got me in a compromising position and I resigned. About 1 second after resigning, a note popped up, "resign the game!"
I thought, "Damn, I wish'd I'd seen that message before resigning!" Had I, I would have continued in a ridiculously lost position.
I've related this story only because I wish I would have followed Suggo's advice--though I've been an ardent opponent of his line of thinking. I still am an opponent, but this was the exception that proved the rule.
For the record, I'm not trying to convince Suggo -- I'm well aware that the attempt is futile.
Although my posts are often directed at him, the actual intended audience are those that might be drawn into believing that his position has any kind of validity. By highlighting the hypocrisy and contradiction in what he's arguing I'd hope that at least one reader has drawn back from the brink of folly and realized that what Suggo is attempting to defend is in fact indefensible.
You see, at the end of the day I am not trying to press my ideals so much as I am merely resisting Suggo's.
Resisting? I'm not trying to get you to play or act any differently within your chess games Grobe...of course the same can't be said about you. So what are you resisting? My argument the whole time, and it has never waivered, is to let the other player do as they wish without pressure to act in a different way because someone else believes he should do so.
Just so that I'm clear, your argument now only pertains to the confines a game of chess? Seems awfully arbitrary....
Who took offense? Did marvellosity take offense because your book was on manners and didn't state the very definition of rude!?
I think it is nice of you to try and help out marvellosity by finding a book for him. Maybe you could find where he might find the very definition of rude to be what the community says it is. I am sure if you did that he wouldn't take offense then!
Very well.
But again, do you have children?
That can't be relevant to the question at hand...
Why is that? I was playing a few online games here at chess.com where I had ridiculously won positions and my opponents refused to resign.
I said to each one of them "do you believe that you can win or draw this position? If not, could you please resign?".
Of course neither of them did so I was forced to keep playing these games for weeks. They are tournament games as well. This is probably the main reason that I usually restrict my chess playing to live chess.
I consider it wrong of people to not resign in these situations against halfway competent opponents, but I consider far worse to suggest for them to resign. Just my opinion.