If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
We are having definitional cross-discussions I fear, Dilip. I think that we may actually be rather close in our views on this, but we're having trouble communicating. OR maybe we just have here some fundamental disagreement. Let's try again........
Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1703 - 23/8/26 - "There are always reasons behind opinions (unless one is trolling)."
"Opinion" - Definition - noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
"Reasons" (My use) - a set of sentences that marshal "evidence/facts" in support of some Statement someone is asserting (As we do here under The Conversation Format Protocol [TCFP])
You say that "Opinions" always have "Reasons" behind them. Using the two definitions above, this is an impossible position. Someone with evidence and someone without evidence declare something. If there are Reasons given that marshal the evidence supporting the Statement, then it is a "fact" (Of course, always open to future Challenge). But what is the case for the one without evidence. We examine the Reasons looking for clear facts in support......BUT the "Reasons" clearly do not give sufficient evidence to support the Statement! We say then that the person is "entitled to their opinion".......in other words........you don't convince me that you are making a factual/true statement on the evidence you are providing. What you have put forward is merely your opinion, not a "Generally Accepted Statement.
In our Conversation Format, the whole goal is to see whether the majority in a group accept that the Reasons given (The Evidence) do indeed, support the Statement sufficiently to designate it a "Statement of Fact", not just one of opinion.
Does this help in our understanding each other, Dilip?
Originally posted by Pargat Perrer
And this guy wants us to have a single Natural Law! The application of which would require ..... concensus? But Lordy Lordy, we cannot HAVE concensus!
And this troll argues irrelevantly just for the sake of arguing, and cannot even spell consensus.
Maybe he is the only one who does not agree with the Natural Law... not surprising, as he is simply trolling...
Says the guy who cannot spell "whether" (post 1699 in this thread).
But I, unlike Dilip, do not ascribe magical powers to correct spelling. We all know languages are difficult at best.
As for "argues irrelevantly", is it really irrelevant to argue how Natural Law is AGREED UPON? Especially when it is going to be the the one thing that guides everyone's lives under a hypothetical Libertarian regime?
Come on, Dilip, can you be any more ridiculous? You already said Natural Law is a consensus of Judges and police. But then in another post responding to Bob A., you say there can be NO CONSENSUS!
(Your post #1703 in this thread)
Again .... ROFLMAO
Just admit it Dilip .... you are steamrolled! You are the laughingstock of this thread! LOL
And this guy wants us to have a single Natural Law! The application of which would require ..... concensus? But Lordy Lordy, we cannot HAVE concensus!
ROFLMAO
And this troll argues irrelevantly just for the sake of arguing, and cannot even spell consensus.
Maybe he is the only one who does not agree with the Natural Law... not surprising, as he is simply trolling...
Bob,
There are always reasons behind opinions (unless one is trolling). But still opinions could be wrong or non-determinable. So you cannot say that two persons having some opinion should be 'accepted' as an 'agreement' (consensus, in your terms), ignoring the possibly correct opinion of the minority of one person....
This is why Sid also wishes to step back... despite your truly sincere efforts on this process.
And this guy wants us to have a single Natural Law! The application of which would require ..... concensus? But Lordy Lordy, we cannot HAVE concensus!
You have defined their Reasons as "opinions". This is very ambiguous.
Bob A (As Participant)
Bob,
There are always reasons behind opinions (unless one is trolling). But still opinions could be wrong or non-determinable. So you cannot say that two persons having some opinion should be 'accepted' as an 'agreement' (consensus, in your terms), ignoring the possibly correct opinion of the minority of one person....
This is why Sid also wishes to step back... despite your truly sincere efforts on this process.
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 26th August, 2023, 01:56 PM.
"In Libertarianism all what a troll would end up with is paying an appropriate compensation to those whose 'process' (like your statements-building effort) they disrupt with deliberately non-sensical (hence called trolling) arguments..."
My Response
I am a Democratic Marxist. I like to believe I am not a troll, but a contributor to my society.
I have very many detractors in society........I have been called "The Scourge of the Earth". I have been accused of being unnecessarily disruptive by making both Statements of Fact and Statements of Opinion. I have been told talking to me is a waste of time......I am a waste of space . My Statements have on occasion been deemed "deliberately nonsensical" (I come within your definition of a "troll").
In the current Capitalist society of Canada, fortunately, I do have free speech, and I am entitled to march to my own drummer. I have never had a court case launched against me for my speech or writing (No Libel [Published]; No Slander [Oral]).....not yet anyway..........though my Fb page just got a warning from Mark that somehow my TRN group is breaching Fb Standards ????
It sounds like under a Libertarian government, I am going to be making all kinds of "compensation payments" to my peers (sigh) who believe that I am harming them, somehow, and that the Natural Law is not going to protect me.
(Edited slightly) "[A member of our CT Group proposes a Statement, with Reasons, that they believe to be generally accepted on negative climate change [or the issue could be, for example, whether Libertarianism would lead to more court-time or less]. One person supports the Statement with Reasons. One person Challenges the Statement.] Result: 2 persons in the group (Proposer and Supporter) support the Statement, using only "opinions"; 1 person opposes the Statement (also using opinions). Question: Would that speaking up by the two supporters (The majority) mean anything worthwhile to anyone?"
My Response
You have defined their Reasons as "opinions". This is very ambiguous.
It is generally accepted in science that all "Fact Statements" [ E.g. Unicorns exist] are simply what we believe to be true at this date. We have drawn this conclusion based on all available scientific and experiential evidence we have been able to gather together. Such Statements are always tentative - open to challenge as new inconsistent data emerges. But their main characteristic is that they are extensively "evidence-based". So we call these Statements, with the evidence as Reasons, "Statements of Fact".
So you are maintaining that all CT'er Statements/Reasons are mere "opinion". You hold that we CT'ers never research, have no expertise, don't go to scientific sources, and have neither fact nor knowledge when we say something. Basically we are ignoramuses blathering words together, meaning nothing.
I can only ask that you look at your elitism.
The Work of this CT Negative Climate Change Group
The Statements we have produced on negative climate change have been lauded by a number of my friends as "great" and "keep the process going". I guess they also know nothing, and it is just "opinion".....no facts or knowledge there....nope!
Bottom Line - CT'ers in our group often compose very good scientific Statements of Fact (Not just mere opinions).
[Note: Sid's Statements and Supporting Reasons have to be broken into parts, given the character limitation for a post on CT, given they are so extensive. I may think he is using bad scientific research, or that he is misinterpreting it. But I do believe that Sid believes his Statements are "Statements of Fact" (Not just mere opinion). He is a good researcher and uses many citations of his sources. He castigates me regularly for ignoring his "factual information". As a matter of fact, I often assume Sid's facts are correct, and if so, I usually see this as problematic, since we are often on opposite sides of an issue. The task is how to position facts, what is the context, are they complete, are they significant on the issue in play, etc?]
Libertarians believe that Pargat Perrer (And maybe others who the Libertarians determine to be trolls) should, in this CT thread on negative climate change:
1. Have his posts retroactively deleted/with no right to post in the future - reason - his posts never make any valid contribution, he is only trying to cause trouble, and always is just wasting the time of this CT group?
2. Be banned from the CT negative climate change thread forever (Even if other CT'ers in the group, and elsewhere on CT, believe he sometimes does have legitimate contributions)?
3. Have his membership in CT revoked, and be forever banned from rejoining?
No. These three actions would be reasonable only in a system we now have (a strange mix of Capitalism, Socialism bordering on Marxism, and neo-Fascism). In Libertarianism all what a troll would end up with is paying an appropriate compensation to those whose 'process' (like your statements-building effort) they disrupt with deliberately non-sensical (hence called trolling) arguments...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 26th August, 2023, 12:20 PM.
1. By "consensus" do you both mean what I want to reach for "SOME" Statements, "general acceptance by the majority of a group"? I say time and time again ad nauseam that I do not seek "unanimity" (Though that is nice to achieve when possible).
2. If yes, why are the two of you against a group managing to reach, for SOME Statements, general acceptance? The Statements are definitely enlightening to those with little knowledge of the issue. I have sent friends of mine the various lists of various Statements, and the unanimous result has been: "These Statements are great!" and "Keep these projects going!" Yes it takes both time and effort to compose these Statements. Are you both saying that the groups that have adopted the Conversation Format are just wasting their time? That they should never have adopted it? That the Statements the groups, through sweat and tears, have made, are not worth the pixels to show them on any monitor?
3. Intelligently composed generally accepted Statements, with scientific sources, have nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with science. And people are sorting out which scientists are doing real science, and which scientists are prostrating themselves to some ideology.
4. We'd be making some fu*king progress " in both the pandemic and climate change in the wider public discourse [Sid's words]" if they adopted TCFP instead of both sides just yelling at each other, and demonstrating against each other with sloganeering placards.
Bob A (As Participant and originator of "The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)
Bob, if 2 support a statement using only opinions, and 1 opposes it (also using opinions), as in the issue of weather Libertarianism would lead to more court-time or less, would that 'agreement' (your consensus) by the majority mean anything worthwhile to anyone?
So..........Libertarians fight for freedoms.......and, especially free speech? Right?
BUT.........
Libertarians believe that Pargat Perrer (And maybe others who the Libertarians determine to be trolls) should, in this CT thread on negative climate change:
1. Have his posts retroactively deleted/with no right to post in the future - reason - his posts never make any valid contribution, he is only trying to cause trouble, and always is just wasting the time of this CT group?
2. Be banned from the CT negative climate change thread forever (Even if other CT'ers in the group, and elsewhere on CT, believe he sometimes does have legitimate contributions)?
3. Have his membership in CT revoked, and be forever banned from rejoining?
Dilip....do you see nothing wrong with this picture?
If you are not saying this, then please be more concise in your posts, and advise us what you do mean re the participation in groups of individuals who someone considers a "troll" (And I have seen you operate quite independently of Sid, at times).
Bob A (Somewhat surprised CT'er, who just contributed time and effort to compile a good set of STATEMENTS on Libertarianism, which generally imply good intentions on the part of this particular political philosophy)
1. By "consensus" do you both mean what I want to reach for "SOME" Statements, "general acceptance by the majority of a group"? I say time and time again ad nauseam that I do not seek "unanimity" (Though that is nice to achieve when possible).
2. If yes, why are the two of you against a group managing to reach, for SOME Statements, general acceptance? The Statements are definitely enlightening to those with little knowledge of the issue. I have sent friends of mine the various lists of various Statements, and the unanimous result has been: "These Statements are great!" and "Keep these projects going!" Yes it takes both time and effort to compose these Statements. Are you both saying that the groups that have adopted the Conversation Format are just wasting their time? That they should never have adopted it? That the Statements the groups, through sweat and tears, have made, are not worth the pixels to show them on any monitor?
3. Intelligently composed generally accepted Statements, with scientific sources, have nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with science. And people are sorting out which scientists are doing real science, and which scientists are prostrating themselves to some ideology.
4. We'd be making some fu*king progress " in both the pandemic and climate change in the wider public discourse [Sid's words]" if they adopted TCFP instead of both sides just yelling at each other, and demonstrating against each other with sloganeering placards.
Bob A (As Participant and originator of "The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)")
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Saturday, 26th August, 2023, 11:42 AM.
the emphasis would be on the exchange of ideas rather than agreement.
And what purpose would 'agreement' serve, anyway? After all, we are not in a Democratic Marxism society (thankfully) where there has to be an agreement on every aspect of our complex lives which everyone has to acknowledge and abide by (in other words, a myriad of unnecessary and often contradictory laws, helping only the lying lawyers)…
Sorry Bob, but the whole essence of your approach, "consensus," has now been abused in both the pandemic and climate
change in the wider public discourse.
Consensus has zero to do with science and everything to do with politics. I am no longer interested in participating.
And also Bob, trolling must be making your task very frustrating, as you cannot make the troll pay for wasting everyone's time...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 26th August, 2023, 09:49 AM.
Sorry Bob, but the whole essence of your approach, "consensus," has now been abused in both the pandemic and climate
change in the wider public discourse.
Consensus has zero to do with science and everything to do with politics. I am no longer interested in participating.
. My Statements have on occasion been deemed "deliberately nonsensical" (I come within your definition of a "troll").
Leave a comment: