gambit2000 wrote:
To get back to the point, I think we are talking about how to close a game in a cordial manner, whether you've lost or you've won.
What do you mean "to get back to the point"? That's precisely what we've been discussing.
Chess etiquette
Sort:
TheGrobe wrote:
gambit2000 wrote:
To get back to the point, I think we are talking about how to close a game in a cordial manner, whether you've lost or you've won.
What do you mean "to get back to the point"? That's precisely what we've been discussing.
I realize that. It's just that the last couple of posts seemed to be veering too far deep into the etymology of cyber-handshakes.
Jul 25, 2011
0
#24
TheGrobe wrote:
All the more reason to be explicit. Just as the written word can easily be misconstrued online, so can a cyber-handshake. Just yesterday I had someone go through all of the formalities described above, but somehow I still felt it was insincere (I think it was because he described what I felt was too much eye contact). What can I do, though? I have to give him the benefit of the doubt....
Occasionally a written comment can provide a hint as to the state of mind of a would-be hand gripper. Did he happen to write "Bite me you luzer" just before presenting his handshake proposal?
Jul 25, 2011
0
#25
As far as I know, it is theoretically impossible to create a logical handshake using only asynchronous communication protocols. It's the two generals problem.
[COMMENT DELETED]
bobbyDK wrote:
what about a simple "thanks for the game/fight".
*gasp* That's so rude; it could be misconstrued as sarcasm or that you are thanking them for the rating points. - How can you deliver such vile insults?
bobbyDK wrote: I never thought it as being rude.
Exactly; if you want to get by in today's society, you must be ready to think anything as being anything at a moment's notice.
Especially on the Internet, where you should assume that the intent of every interaction is to convey the maximum possible offense.
TheGrobe wrote:
Especially on the Internet
That's irrelevant.
How dare you sir.
Jul 25, 2011
0
#34
oinquarki wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Especially on the Internet, where you should assume that the intent of every interaction is to convey the maximum possible offense.
That's irrelevant.
I think it's totally spot on -- except that I would add that the point of every interaction is to convey the maximum possible offense, while appearing on the surface to be perfectly friendly.
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote: I think it's totally spot on -- except that I would add that the point of every interaction is to convey the maximum possible offense, while appearing on the surface to be perfectly friendly.
Are you insinuating that I'm fat?
Jul 25, 2011
0
#36
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote: . . . the point of every interaction is to convey the maximum possible offense, while appearing on the surface to be perfectly friendly.
Ah . . . you mean the Trojan handshake . . .
Jul 25, 2011
0
#37
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote: . . . the point of every interaction is to convey the maximum possible offense, while appearing on the surface to be perfectly friendly.
Ah . . . you mean the Trojan handshake . . .
+1
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote: . . . the point of every interaction is to convey the maximum possible offense, while appearing on the surface to be perfectly friendly.
Ah . . . you mean the Trojan handshake . . .
I thought that was when one of the two parties had some form of virus protection.
All the more reason to be explicit. Just as the written word can easily be misconstrued online, so can a cyber-handshake. Just yesterday I had someone go through all of the formalities described above, but somehow I still felt it was insincere (I think it was because he described what I felt was too much eye contact). What can I do, though? I have to give him the benefit of the doubt....