Terminating a Game

By first principles, usually yes, but (you know) there are so many kinds of us!

Yes, so this is fuzzy logic.  One cannot be certain that this was in fact hostile, but it certainly looks that way.  And strategic thinkers play the probabilities.

if anything disabling chat would be a neutral act.  it is deffinetely not a friendly one as there is no contact so along those same lines with no contact other then moving the pieces on the board to attack/defend/counterattack there can be no hostile action unless you mean by moving the pieces then isn't it that all chess games are therefor hostile events in themselves?

I can respect this view, but I still do not agree with it.

I don't agree with this view at all. The game of chess is undoubtedly "hostile", but the communication between the combattants can (and should!) be good. But if no such communication ensues, then only the game remains.

My views exactly.

As I see it, the objection is not so much that you dislike people disabling chat, which of course is entirely your prerogative, but that you would jump to conclusions about that person's character based on this act, which after all reveals nothing.  Answer these objections, and then complain about others being hostile.

We all draw inferences all the time.

Quite, but in that instance you should just shrug off any criticism of yourself as one such instance of drawing inferences.

Actually, it wasn't even really you, but some of the other posters who seemed so willing to psychoanalyse such a minor act.  That first page does leave a little bit of a bad taste.  We're not going to try forcing people to be civil, are we?

The great paradox here was that the OP complained about disabling chat (which - I agree - IS a disturbing action, but has to be accepted), and at the same time disabled = banned four discussants from this discussion thread. But I think this whole matter is now clarified & at least I am outta here now (playing chess).

Yeah I'm not really adding anything.  I'm just really bored at work

I don't think that any of us can really force anyone else to do anything, including being civil.  But when somebody is not civil, then are we out of line in calling them out?

@phobetrix  ill agree that communication should always be good, however just cause somebody chooses, or maybe is forced for all we know, to only talk to people she knows or not to talk to people she doesn't know why anybody could take that as a hostile act.  disabling the chat is really inaction techincally. 

i guess for me it comes down to this a guy is walking down a street with a sign that says don't talk to me is he being hostile not at all just doesnt want to be bother.  to me disabling chat is the same thing, now if the sign said don't ^&$#ing talk to me then yeah id say he is being hostile but disabling chat and the 2nd sign i can't make that connection.

The analogy seems apt -- who thinks that a guy with a sign saying "DO NOT TALK TO ME" has a chip on his shoulder?

maybe he does, however does it make it hositle and why is the chip there?  maybe he is having the worst week of his life and is trying to avoid making anybody else miserable, therefor leading me to believe an act of some caring/compassion instead of hostile.  but my point in making that analogy is a guy walking down the street (disabling chat) with no further information how can it be considered hostile or even lead to inferring the person is "mute" or "weird", arent we all weird in our own little ways?  we all have our perks and what not but thats what makes people interesting no 2 people are excattly the same, but does that make them hostile?  so this persons little perk is not to talk to people she doesnt know hostile i can't see how weird maybe to some but not all.

I take your point.  Nevertheless, to me, it remains weird and hostile, aforementioned caveats to the contrary notwithstanding.

no offense vance i just can't seem to get my head to comprehend why it would be considered hostile.  i guess its cause the chat is secondary to the game, but to each his own.

We can agree to disagree, and leave it at that, but I still see a huge difference between simply not chatting (something I do all the time) and removing any possibility of ever chatting (something I would never do without a good reason).  If I get abuse, as I have gotten here in this forum, then yes, I will feel free to disable chat (or analogously block someone who is being abusive).  But to use that as a first move, so to speak, when there has been no abuse?  No, it still just does not seem right, at least not to me.

Here's an apt situation, more analogous and realistic than passing a stranger on the street with a DO NOT TALK TO ME sign:

Some woman at the local gym has her earplugs on listening to her iPod while she's on the treadmill. She's there to exercise and she does not care to converse while she does just that. But the treadmill is right next to other treadmills in the popular health club. So, rather than wearing a shirt that says Please Do Not Disturb, she decides to wear the earplugs and avert her gaze to avoid eye contact.

Now, with that kind of body language (nothing hostile, just passive and non-inviting), would you intentionally disturb her just to fathom whether she wants a new friend and to also discern if she is indeed friend-material?

Even if you kind of harmlessly wave and smile to get her attention to engage, she just nods and looks away to check her pulse or scroll her music choices on her device?

By accepting your game, Vance, she nodded. By turning off chat she went back to her music or her routine. She continued to walk on the treadmill, but you claim she's not interested in being a member-in-good-standing at the club. I ask you: Is that fair?

After review your list of chosen opponents, Vance, I find it interesting that you tend to nearly only walk the treadmills next to females. And that you feel chat is practically a prerequisite for exercise. And if someone doesn't chat with you while they're trying to concentrate on their workout, then you'll storm off your treadmill (otherwise your just a walking robot, to paraphrase) and go to other parts of the gym and start complaining (without giving names, albeit) about anti-social members .

Now, read your own post in #111 (I'll wait here)....

So, having walked in her shoes, from her point-of-view (and others here in the gym) who appears, as you say, weird and hostile?