[admittedheretic]

Title says it all.

	18:27 <Synamon>: admittedheretic, please refrain from chatspeak, thanks 18:28 <admittedheretic>: what is it i said that is "chatspeak?" 18:28 <Synamon>: u for you, ur for your 18:28 <admittedheretic>: LOL 18:28 <admittedheretic>: oops 18:28 <cannotseethe>: (07:24:35 PM) admittedheretic: u see, u are the lost cause 18:29 <admittedheretic>: is that cheatspeak too?

I never got an answer regarding if "LOL" is chatspeak? Is it?

[Synamon]

It is, yes.

The rest of the conversation was:

	Synamon: this chatroom is an extension of the forum admittedheretic: i beg to differ nowt: beg away. Synamon: you can read the rules for the chatroom here: http://intjforum.com/faq.php?faq=chat#faq_ircrules admittedheretic: Where does it say I can't type "u" instead of "you" Akzis: "6. Type legibly. Do not type in ALL CAPS, use excessive chatspeak, or chat in languages other than English."

The forum rule that is summarized from is this one:

	7. Post Legibly Please do not make posts in ALL CAPS, custom-format posts in a manner that breaks up the visual continuity of the thread, or otherwise make posts difficult for users to read. Post in English (we can not moderate other languages), use paragraphs in extensive posts, and avoid '1337 sp33k' or 'chatspeak' (substituting u for you, 2 for too, etc) altogether.

[admittedheretic]

Banned from chat becuase of such. I don't know if it is more hilarious or pathetic.

[Synamon]

I guess you found out what happens when you don't abide by the rules. The ban will be lifted after 24 hours, future ban durations will increase as necessary.

[cheerbear]

	Originally Posted by admittedheretic
	Banned from chat becuase of such. I don't know if it is more hilarious or pathetic.

Sorry admittedheretic, but I really like this rule of the chatroom; if it were not in place and enforced, I'd probably personally not continue to go in.
I got eye surgery a couple years ago which makes reading on a computer a challenge at times, and to go into the chatroom where the text "moves" even more so. So why should I have to put up with yet another inconvenience?

Admittedly, I use "lol" frequently (hey, I love to laugh!), but technically, that's more of an acronym or abbreviation, and easy for everyone to understand. Replacing numbers for letters and shortening words to one letter--just doesn't make much sense to me.

[admittedheretic]

	Originally Posted by cheerbear
	Sorry admittedheretic, but I really like this rule of the chatroom; if it were not in place and enforced, I'd probably personally not continue to go in. I got eye surgery a couple years ago which makes reading on a computer a challenge at times, and to go into the chatroom where the text "moves" even more so. So why should I have to put up with yet another inconvenience?

I'm not at all suggesting we abolish all rules. I sometimes unintentionally type "u" instead of "you." I'm not going to inconvenience myself to monitor every post I type before I hit the enter key. It would practically be impossible for me to do so. I'm sorry that every tenth time I type the word "you" I leave out two letters causes you so much grief. I guess I'm not a worthy enough person from your perspective to put up with. I'm just confused being things are as such that you would apologize.

	Admittedly, I use "lol" frequently (hey, I love to laugh!), but technically, that's more of an acronym or abbreviation, and easy for everyone to understand. Replacing numbers for letters and shortening words to one letter--just doesn't make much sense to me.

And how many times have you been banned? Technically it is chatspeak and thus frequently saying such is subject to getting one banned.

I find it very hard to believe that "LOL" is easier to understand than "u." "u" Sounds the same as "you." Lawl doesn't elude to laughing out loud.

[cheerbear]

Originally Posted by admittedheretic

I'm not at all suggesting we abolish all rules. I sometimes unintentionally type "u" instead of "you." I'm not going to inconvenience myself to monitor every post I type before I hit the enter key. It would practically be impossible for me to do so. I'm sorry that every tenth time I type the word "you" I leave out two letters causes you so much grief. I guess I'm not a worthy enough person from your perspective to put up with. I'm just confused being things are as such that you would apologize. And how many times have you been banned? Technically it is chatspeak and thus frequently saying such is subject to getting one banned.

Ah, you're probably right there wasn't a need for the apology, but you seemed distraught and I didn't want to disagree with you in the event you get even more so. You're talking to an ENFP remember, we don't like to argue.
*takes apology back*

And you're kind of funny--I already said I'd leave if I saw too much of that, so why would you suggest you'd cause me grief? Closing a window is hardly any grief or much effort. Neither is typing two more letters; you have 2,000+ posts, I'm assuming you've had some practice.

Wikipediea, Wiktionary, and Urban Dictionary told me it was an acronym and abbrevation, so that's what I went on, and perhaps there's some more leeway there, I don't know, I wasn't there. But, it does specifically say in the rules not to use "u". And I can't believe I'm getting into such a discussion, but aside from "lol" I frequently use "haha" as well, and as soon as a moderator tells me not to do something, I knock it off, maybe that's the difference?

I don't think it's that difficult not to get banned from chat. I've seen you in there quite frequently, so you obviously seem to like it. Why all this drama then?

	Originally Posted by admittedheretic
	I find it very hard to believe that "LOL" is easier to understand than "u." "u" Sounds the same as "you." Lawl doesn't elude to laughing out loud.

Um, it's text, so we're reading the "u", not hearing it like in a real-life conversation. No one actually says "lol" or "laugh out loud", not that I know of.

[True Rune]

I think it's a stupid rule based off emotions/petty preferences. It's fine for the forum, it really is. But to extend it to the chatroom is ridiculous.

[nowt]

Sometiumes, I'lul suay u four nuo reasuon aut alul.

Guosh, Iu houpe thuat's okuay.


.

Edited for clarity.

[dontmesswithme]

@nowt: Ifuck certainfuckly thifucknk ifuckt's ofuckay! Nfucko worrfuckies!

[Synamon]

	Originally Posted by nowt
	Someticuntmes, I'lcuntl scuntay ccuntunt focuntr ncunto reascunton acuntt alcuntl. Gcuntosh, Icunt hocuntpe thcuntat's okcuntay.

Do you have Tourcuntettes Syndrome?

---------- Post added 06-27-2010 at 08:25 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by nowt
	Sometiumes, I'lul suay u four nuo reasuon aut alul. Guosh, Iu houpe thuat's okuay. . Edited for clarity.

Ah, you are Canadian.

[admittedheretic]

Would somebody be able to cuntpaste the chat log so that I could cuont how many times I said you in cuontrast to u?

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by True Rune
	I think it's a stupid rule based off emotions/petty preferences. It's fine for the forum, it really is. But to extend it to the chatroom is ridiculous.

Granted, i'm not on chat much... but "omg ur so random lol!" is just as unappealing in a forum as it is anywhere else. If anything, it would be more annoying in chat because (if it was allowed) people would be able to post such nonsense faster than they could on the forum

[zibber]

I kind of like that rule.

[AngryGroceries]

No chatspeak in the chatroom.

Hmm.

I understand the want for more formal discussion in the forum... but for places like the chatroom or even the lounge, that's petty to the point of irrationality. Saying it hurts your eyes is ridiculous, and claiming it is inconvenient is even more so. Being annoyed to the point of stupification by chatspeak is more immature than the immaturity you claim it demonstrates.

I'm pretty sure most of us will continue coming to the forum regardless of that rule, and it's not like there is a law against stupid rules, but just because you can doesn't always mean you should.

My two cents.

[crabnebula]

This is a good rule. I support this rule.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by AngryGroceries
	No chatspeak in the chatroom.

That's just a formal resemblance between the two terms.

[phej]

	Originally Posted by AngryGroceries
	No chatspeak in the chatroom.

The intjf irc channel has its rules and the rules will be mostly upheld. If you don't agree with it, then do not participate in it.

[SelfMadeBum]

I'm in the chatroom all the time. I don't want to feel like I'm intercepting texts or IMs between two teenage girls.

[BingeArtist]

It's certainly been my experience here that Synamon is somewhat..."petty". And I can certainly see how admittedheretic would take offense to being harassed over using "u" in place of "you". Even if the rule were THAT important to her, I think she obviously could have handled the situation in a more "diplomatic" matter. For example, she could have jokingly said something like, "what's this...you're too lazy to write out 'you' today, huh?", and the situation probably would have quickly resolved itself with no "complaint thread" in Support. As they say, you catch more bears with honey than vinegar.

But, c'est la vive. If using vinegar is just how Synamon rolls, then so be it.

[Hide="Pun"]Personally, I'd rather have "Synamon rolls" with honey [/Hide]

[JohnDoe]

Well I think there is a pretty good argument for not being undiplomatic just to be undiplomatic.

[SelfMadeBum]

Originally Posted by BingeArtist

It's certainly been my experience here that Synamon is somewhat..."petty". And I can certainly see how admittedheretic would take offense to being harassed over using "u" in place of "you". Even if the rule were THAT important to her, I think she obviously could have handled the situation in a more "diplomatic" matter. For example, she could have jokingly said something like, "what's this...you're too lazy to write out 'you' today, huh?", and the situation probably would have quickly resolved itself with no "complaint thread" in Support. As they say, you catch more bears with honey than vinegar. But, c'est la vive. If using vinegar is just how Synamon rolls, then so be it.

Synamon did not do the kicking. She did, however, issue a warning, followed up by another moderator.

It was after numerous warnings that he was kicked.

[BingeArtist]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum
	Synamon did not do the kicking. She did, however, issue a warning, followed up by another moderator. It was after numerous warnings that he was kicked.

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about concerning a lack of diplomacy.

See, when someone is treated harshly and abusively (ie, issued a warning) over a simple mistake, the natural human response is to keep committing the same mistake out of spite. Hence, the end result in this fiasco was several warnings followed by a kicking...and followed further with a complaint thread in Support.

My contention is that, if only they had used a modicum of diplomacy from the get-go, instead of a hurtful and demeaning warning, then admittedheretic would have gladly ceased use of "u", and the whole situation would have become a non-issue.

[SelfMadeBum]

Originally Posted by BingeArtist

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about concerning a lack of diplomacy. See, when someone is treated harshly and abusively (ie, issued a warning) over a simple mistake, the natural human response is to keep committing the same mistake out of spite. Hence, the end result in this fiasco was several warnings followed by a kicking...and followed further with a complaint thread in Support. My contention is that, if only they had used a modicum of diplomacy from the get-go, instead of a hurtful and demeaning warning, then admittedheretic would have gladly ceased use of "u", and the whole situation would have become a non-issue.

The warning was issued in several ways by several moderators. Admittedheretic has no legitimate bone of contention, because he was warned several times and told what the result would be if he did not comply. How that warning is issued, as long as it is legible, should not be an issue. The message was given, repeatedly, and received.

Further, you're assuming intent on Admittedheretic's part that is absent. He said himself he substitutes "you" for "u" subconsciously, so his continued use was not meant to fly in the face of the approach of the moderators at all.

His complaint is not about how he was penalised, but why.

First warning:

	(7:28:11 PM) Synamon: admittedheretic, please refrain from chatspeak, thanks

Last warning:

	(7:53:22 PM) cannotseethe: admittedheretic: please stop the chatspeak. last warning.

Yeah, those mods are b-r-utal.

[BingeArtist]

Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum

The warning was issued in several ways by several moderators. Admittedheretic has no legitimate bone of contention, because he was warned several times and told what the result would be if he did not comply. How that warning is issued, as long as it is legible, should not be an issue. The message was given, repeatedly, and received. Further, you're assuming intent on Admittedheretic's part that is absent. He said himself he substitutes "you" for "u" subconsciously, so his continued use was not meant to fly in the face of the approach of the moderators at all. His complaint is not about how he was penalised, but why.

Look, what you're saying is perfectly logical, so I shan't argue with you.

However, I feel you should step back and look at the big, human, picture.

How a person is treated almost unquestionably infuences his behavior. And that's why I feel admittedheretic wouldn't have continued to misbehave if only he were treated with dignity and compassion from the beginning.

And yes, while admittedheretic made no explicit complaint about "how" he was penalized (as opposed to "why"), I don't think too much reading between the lines is necessary here in order to understand the full situation. Think about it: admittedheretic probably knows it would be a wasted endeavor to complain about his treatment, and is only complaining about the "why" part because he knows that approach has a better probability of getting a positive response (ie, some measure of vindication on his part).