Chiff and Fipple Forums

david_h wrote:I was thinking of something less judgemental than , something like "I am not sure about that".

It might be difficult to express that exact shade of meaning in a little smiley. When I want to express it, as I do occasionally, I use:

Ummm...

which is about what I use in speech for the same purpose.

Tunborough wrote:It might be difficult to express that exact shade of meaning in a little smiley.

Good point, and good suggestion. But I have to use the mouse-over text to find out what some of those we have mean.

david_h wrote:No. I was thinking of something less judgemental than , something like "I am not sure about that".

:-/ (traditional text smiley!)

Peter Duggan wrote:

david_h wrote:No. I was thinking of something less judgemental than , something like "I am not sure about that".

:-/ (traditional text smiley!)

Yes. I used that on thesession until the graphic was changed to something that I don't read that way. Is that how most people interpret :-/ ?

david_h wrote:Yes. I used that on thesession

It's always been 'undecided' to me, but Google's also suggesting 'confused' or 'wry face'... :-/

until the graphic was changed to something that I don't read that way.

Precisely my point about auto-converted text-to-graphic smileys!

david_h wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:Again, being mobile-friendly may make some difference, and this is what I'm hoping we can apply and find out.

A Poll maybe? Or does the board have statistics on the device types that open pages?

It's beyond polls at this point; we already touched upon the matter on page 8 of this thread, and ventures are even now being made.

If we have statistical resources like that, I'm unaware of them. But I think it's safe to assume anyway that mobile users are in force enough to count.

david_h wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:... We also had an eye-rolling smiley (I assume that's pretty close to what you're referring to, david_h) but over time the Powers that Be deemed it to be just plain rude, so out it went, too.

No. I was thinking of something less judgemental than , something like "I am not sure about that". Maybe its some of the usage of that puts me off using it.

Actually, I usually use it in good fun, myself. A "mock baleful gaze", if you will. But I have to pick my battles in that case and be reasonably assured that the recipient will understand. Adding a wink after it helps if I'm not 100% sure. If I've ever used it in all seriousness, it's not often; instead, I prefer to resort to print and say outright what I mean to say.

As for "not sure about that", I usually resort to . It covers a fair amount of ground. But normally I'd just say, "I'm not sure about that." Depends on my mood, I suppose.

When emotikons were invented, I thought they were a witty, inventive use of ASCII. I didn't use them, because I think that I have enough control of tone that they're unnecessary. Or rather, that using them would be a concession that my command of tone is sub-optimal.

But when the internet started substituting gross animated cartoons for subtle, elegant emotikons, I got annoyed. Witty and Subtle are high value adjectives in my universe. Gross and Obvious are the reverse. Smilies are the latter. I disapprove.

:wink is WAY less witty than ;), IMO.

Oh, well. I'm afraid my standards are a bit more elastic. Sure, if I found myself posting on a forum that didn't provide them, I wouldn't fret over it; I'd get by without emoticons just fine. I'm pretty sure I'm up to it. But since we do have them here, I simply see them as part of the communicative palette available to me, and I think they can be a boon to those for whom written communication poses difficulties. We can't all be slick writers, nor can we force improved writing on people. As I said earlier, posting on message boards is not the same thing as drafting doctoral theses. I think it would be unreasonable to now deprive the general membership of them on purpose, just because I might personally find smileys too boorish for my liking.

Absolutely. That's why I think we should have smilies, despite the fact that I personally abhor them and refuse to use them. My refusal is a personal choice. As a collective choice, I'm aware that our culture has moved on, and there's no point in pouting about that.

Nanohedron wrote:Today [Nov. 12] we had two new signups, with a third being a spammer who got shown the door. IIRC I had four applicants yesterday with three of them good, but of course it's not always like that. Still, I can also say it's not out of the ordinary, either.

And yet another new member today so far, with 2 spammers shot down. This is all pretty normal. It's far more unusual if we go through a few days with no sign-ups at all. As I said, we're not lacking for new membership in the slightest.

Participation is the issue. Can't force that out of people. And we're not going to even think of extracting a pledge for a minimum level of participation or they get sacked; that would be idiotic, to say nothing of being most unChiffworthy.

Tunborough wrote: You may continue with your opinion to the contrary, but it is ill-served by your descent to ad hominem.

When someone posts "I dislike X" and your response is "X", you're being a jerk. When you're called on it take your lumps like a man and move on.

s1m0n wrote:When someone posts "I dislike X" and your response is "X", you're being a jerk. When you're called on it take your lumps like a man and move on.

Apparently, s1m0n, ribbing is something that's lost on you.

Not at all, but there's no immunity consensus on ribbing. If you get back what you gave, it's screamingly hypocritical to then holler "ad hominum".

s1m0n wrote:Not at all, but there's no immunity consensus on ribbing. If you get back what you gave, it's screamingly hypocritical to then holler "ad hominum".

Well, I guess here's where I whip out the .

There IS a matter of degree at play here. Ribbing is in no way equal in force to calling someone a jerk. It's a reasonable assessment, and on this site we're called upon to be reasonable people. Would you use a hammer to swat a fly? I do think Tunborough's use of the words "ad hominem" might be cause for reflection. One might even thank him for the reminder.

Well, you're the mod. I'm not going to challenge your opinion, but it won't change my behaviour, either.

And I'm extremely careful about ad hominum. I'll characterise behaviour, or conduct, but never character. I'll attack people on the basis of the former, but never the latter.