Hi Avi >> Depending on one's upbringing, some words will be either rude or blatantly >> offensive, while a different culture may consider the same words nothing >> special.
My personal opinion, FWIW, is that cultural expectations go far beyond what is or isn't considered appropriate language. Not that I in any way wish to diminish the importance of that factor, just that I believe it's only the most obvious of a network of potential traps in cross-cultural communication. Some cultures, for example, prefer directness over what others would term tact. Then again, for some people, the direct approach can be extremely offensive. To compound this, what may or may not seem tactful, direct, harsh or abrasive may depend upon linguistic structures and stylistic nuances which differ between languages (and even dialects or regional variations), countries, classes, etc. Add this to the burden of communicating outside ones first language and the chances of misinterpreting/being misinterpreted in some way grow considerably. I've seen this cause serious problems even in face-to-face communication: online, with many fewer non-verbal cues (which admitedly are also culturally-dependent) the problem increases yet further. OTOH, cultural diversity is a fantastic opportunity to break the boundaries of our own ideas and explore new avenues of perception and communication. Perhaps sometimes we'll get things wrong. Perhaps, if we're lucky, someone will point this out to us when we do. And thereby we grow. >> In other words, fairness in moderation is a lost cause :-) > Hggdh, courtesy is fine, but I disagree that it is impossible to be fair. ICAM. And, on the whole, the TB lists are among the fairest I know - especially bearing in mind the diversity of participating cultures. I'd say the standardised and non-inflamatory moderation messages go a long way towards this fairness. > But a good moderator must be like a judge - either s/he sets aside personal > likes and dislikes or s/he must recuse herself/himself. And, even then, should > a mistake occur (as is eventually somewhat inevitable), then a moderator must > realize that s/he is just a human being. At that time s/he must come down off > her/his elevated seat and humbly apologize. An apology at such times actually > enhances her/his prestige rather than diminishes it. Agreed, and I've seen some good examples recently where our moderators (and please let me say here that I personally think they do great work!) have done a very good job of explaining their actions and even apologising when they know a trout is deserved, say, more by a thread than by a specific poster. I don't recall seeing any examples of moderation being conducted on the basis of personal prejudice. (But then, I would say that, not having been 'not singled out'. :) ) >> But, let's move on to bias. Every moderator is biased. This is no big deal -- >> we are *all* biased, one way or another --, see above. The difference is >> understanding that one is biased, and trying to find out if the >> inbred/developed bias is acceptable (to one's ethical being). Agreed. >> So, yes, Marck is biased. So are you. So am I. Yet I do not find Marck's bias >> selective on whom gets the whip. He is doing what he is tasked to and, as far >> as I can see, doing it as correctly as possible, even if I do not completely >> agree with it. And... the fact that I do not agree with it does not bring any >> demerit to his moderation. > there seems to be some contradiction in your argument. I don't see how you can > say that you disagree with what someone is doing and then express the opinion > that it is being done "as correctly as possible". Not wishing to put words in anyone else's keyboard, but I know I've had this experience. I see a moderator step in (or not) and think perhaps I'd have done things differently. This doesn't mean things *should* be/have been done differently; there's just more than one approach, and several may be perfectly valid in any given situation. > We all know how diligent the moderators are about calling people to task for > top-posting and neglecting the use of a sig delimiter. But when it comes to > the area of "bad language" or "swearing", a huge amount of it just gets > ignored. Top posting and lack of cutlines are both straightforward issues: binary, one might say. Bad language, I suppose, is not: so many different lines that might be crossed, but only the moderators have the chalk to draw them with. I think they do the best they can under a very complex set of sometimes-conflicting social 'rules'. Perhaps our discussion of this topic will make a difference to prosecution of this policy (or people's opinions on the subject) in the future. > Okay, I can live with that. But to call me down for "swearing" and use of "bad > language" when by no stretch of my imagination at least was that the case > (rather, I was objecting to the use of "bad language") - and at the same time > ignore much more blatant examples - well, I just refuse to accept that. If it helps, I really don't think you were being singled out for personal attack. I agree I've also seen some linguistic misdemeanors passing uncommented, but strongly suspect they were genuinely unnoticed. The subject of the thread and concentration of forbidden words in one place I think may have tipped the balance. -- Groetjes Natasha The Bat! 3.5.0.31 on Windows XP Professional 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.5.31 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
