chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Mini-tournament encouraging terrorism!?!gameknot.com The mini-tournament's title is "Gaza forever stand." In the tournament's description, the following quotes are used: "I'd fight the Jews fiercely, even by means of terror." and "I would join a terror organization." Please remove this tournament. Gameknot should not be a site for such sentiment. Thank you. |
||
|
chessnovice 04-Feb-09, 13:36 |
... I have to argue in favor of keeping the mini-tournament. Strictly, there is no rule working against the theme, and I don't think that mini-tournaments ought to be held to the same standards as the GK-moderated forums are. I think that the quotes you cited also need to be put back into their context (which the mini-tournament does). The first is a quote by an Israeli politician, citing a schoolchild that expressed that if he were Palestinian he would do whatever he could to defend his people. The second is a quote from the same politician, citing Ehud Barak's response to what he would do if he were a Palestinian under the same circumstances. Taken into context, I find the quote more contemplative than at all offensive. It's not so much a "promote terrorism" thing as it is a "I would be desperate to protect what I thought was my land if I were them, too" thing. Mini-tournaments and open games are going to inevitably subject to differing cultural opinions. You're not going to agree with all of them. That's what happens when you're on a website that is accessible internationally. I think it would be a major mistake for GK to start moderating games based on the fact that they do not fall in line with conventional political stances of the United States. I disagree with you that the tournament should be removed. I think that we all can be grown-up enough to ignore the mini-tournament if we disagree with their stance on the Gaza conflict. |
||
|
chessnovice 04-Feb-09, 14:47 |
... In the future, though, it might be more appropriate to just send a private message to gameknot_com about your concerns. |
||
|
Gameknot |
||
|
Community Standards |
||
|
I kind of agree with the deletion because of the appearance if impropriety - even if that was not the intent of the creator. It was bound to cause problems because of the nature of the content. When in doubt, leave it out. This is not a political forum. Regardless whether it actually promoted terrorism (which I don't think it actually did), it definitely had an inappropriate political tone to it. |
||
|
kingdawar 05-Feb-09, 05:06 |
Deleted by kingdawar on 05-Feb-09, 12:15.
|
||
|
No. Incidentally, a few years ago I was invited to join a team that had been created to express solidarity with a certain political standpoint (no name, no pack-drill). I declined, of course, not particularly in sympathy with their standpoint, gave my reason and wished them luck. It never would have occurred to me to suggest this team should be deleted owing to its apparent expression of a political standpoint. Why should it? So far as I was concerned, these people had a perfect right - if GK had no objection itself - to form a team. If it transgressed GK rules, then GK could sort it. I hope GK isn't playing favorites... |
||
|
ganstaman 14-Feb-09, 21:30 |
|
||
|
chessnovice 14-Feb-09, 22:32 |
gangstaman I'm not sure if you were able to spot the MT description in time before deletion, but the quote in the description was not a support of terrorism in any way. I don't intend to be on the bad side of GK in posting this link, but I do believe it's cogent to the discussion. I'm not forcing anyone to click the following link, and I'm not encouraging that the merits (or demerits) of the article be discussed here. I'm just showing what was said solely for the sake of reference only. www.haaretz.com The first two paragraphs are what was quoted in the MT. And I think it can plainly be seen that the quote has nothing to do with encouraging anyone to join a terror organization. Levigun, whether it was intentional or not, grossly misrepresented the theme of the minitournament. The article actually demonstrates understanding -- it is an "I can understand why they are angry" thing, rather than an "I support the activity" thing. The only way to take offense is to not read the quote completely. And that's something that's more the fault of the reader than the author. As sad as it is, the conflict with Israel does have relevance with the culture of Palestinians. So I saw this more as a cultural MT than a conflict-encouraging MT. Had the MT creator actually outright said that he supports terrorism or outright posted anti-Israel rhetoric, that would have most certainly been crossing the line. But simply acknowledging the existence of a conflict, at least in my eyes, is not crossing the line. It seems like this was an overly-cautious move that comes across rather one-sided. Maybe GK sees things differently, though? |
||
|
ganstaman 15-Feb-09, 08:10 |
chessnovice My comment was in response to ionadowman's comment: "Because of the concerns of one person, who failed fairly to represent the situation, a perfectly legitimate gathering of players was squashed." Otherwise, I think I saw the MT before deletion, but I can't remember it much. The MT did present the quotes that levigun mentioned in his first post, right? You said in the second post that the MT put them into context -- how was this done? If not done well enough, then the quotes very much come off as supporting terrorism. I don't think gk.com wants new members to come by and get the wrong impression, which is why I imagine that it wasn't obvious enough where those quotes came from or what they really meant. Still, I see a big difference between a MT quoting support for the Palestinians and one quoting violence against Israel. One focuses on the culture while the other on conflict. Something I realize I didn't say clearly (or at all?) is that I know that the quotes don't actually support terrorism. But they surely come off like that. Are there no better quotes to explain the situation that can't be easily misinterpretted? Presentation matters a lot. |
||
|
chessnovice 15-Feb-09, 13:12 |
gangstaman Like I said, the conflict with Israel is rooted, for better or for worse, in Palestinian life right now. It's also important to remind you that the MT was not quoting "violence against Israel". Perhaps they come off like they are supporting terrorism when you only glance at words selectively, but like I said it's not the fault of the MT creator that the reader misunderstands. It's the reader's fault for making an incorrect judgment before reading and comprehending fully. |
||
|
ganstaman 15-Feb-09, 19:29 |
|
||
|
chessnovice 15-Feb-09, 20:06 |
... The mini-tournament copied and pasted the first two paragraphs of the article I linked, and cited the author as "Yossi Sarid, an Israeli politician". |
||
|
ganstaman 16-Feb-09, 05:24 |
:) |
||
|
As quoted they suggested that if Israeli leaders admitted that being born Palestinian they would join a terrorist organization, then it was somehow OK what the terrorist organizations were doing...as if they had some sort of legitimacy. Granted, that interpretation is somewhat ambiguous; but I definitely can see how some people could take it that way. The original article that was quoted was careful to make the distinction when quoting those politicians; the mini-tournament did not. I reiterate my support for GK having deleted it. Although I did not take MT as real support for terrorism, I can see how someone close to the situation could legitimately interpret it that way. Good decision on GK's part. But because of the ambiguity of the circumstances, I hope the deletion of the MT was as far as GK went. |
||
|
ganstaman 16-Feb-09, 19:04 |
|
||
|
chessnovice 17-Feb-09, 00:04 |
Deleted by chessnovice on 17-Feb-09, 00:05.
|
||
|
chessnovice 17-Feb-09, 00:07 |
lttr To be clear, there was definitely no stated interpretation that, as you put it, "if Israeli leaders admitted that being born Palestinian they would join a terrorist organization, then it was somehow OK what the terrorist organizations were doing". There wasn't even a suggestion of that belief. There was no difference in the wording in the article and the MT. As you've reiterated support for GK's deletion of the MT, I have to reiterate my disappointment. Are we really supposed to be content with catering to those who make an incorrect interpretation? If there were a MT made for Iraq War vets with quotes from Jalal Talabani praising the effort, should it be shut down because of those in Iraq who view the US presence as an illegal invasion (I'm not saying one way or another what I think about the issue, but rather I'm trying to demonstrate that there appear to be equivalencies that we would give a more understanding attitude towards)? Where is the line drawn if we are being moderated on simply presumed offense? Extrapolated to an absurdity, should I be cautious to wish mini-tourney players "good luck", on the potential that someone might interpret that as me saying that they will need it? |
||
|
That is my point. The direct quote from the article failed to include the rest of what the writer said. The author of the article made a clear statement that he did not support terrorism in any shape or form and even disagreed with those who made the statements that he quote from. The creator of the MT did no such thing. Although I don't think the MT creator deliberately took it out of context, a cursory look at the quote could in fact be interpreted that way. It is quite common that people who 'spin' to their advantage do exact this. It is very subtle and highly effective. The suspicious mind asks why they would create a tournament based on this at all, unless it was to spin it for clear propaganda purposes. I don't think levigun's interpretation was wrong at all, even though my interpretation was different at the time. So I don't think GK is catering to one person's inaccurate perception. I really can see how it can be interpreted that way. I'm am sure levigun is not the only one sensitive to this issue. I congratulate GK for having picked up on this. |
||
|
chessnovice 17-Feb-09, 08:32 |
lttr As I've said several times before, it is not the MT creator's fault for a reader's improper interpretation. I suspicious mind would certainly suspect that the MT was created for propaganda purposes, but remember that a suspicious mind is LOOKING for reasons to find fault in something. I think a regular mind can accept that it is a cultural MT revolving around a region that is currently mired in conflict. levigun's interpretation was absolutely wrong, because he picked up citations without consideration to who actually said them and why. Had he actually thought about what he was reading instead of looking for a reason to have a reflexive appalled reaction, I think the sensitivity would be alleviated. You're right that GK isn't necessarily catering to one person's inaccurate perception, but it is nevertheless catering to an inaccurate perception -- whether it is an individual or a small group of individuals is inconsequential. I do not believe GK ought to be moderating based on simply the possibility that someone might be sensitive to their own misinterpretation. |
||
|
Without the rest of the article, those two paragraphs are taken out of context. So levigun has a point and is not wrong - perhaps just a little sensitive about it. The title of the MT would suggest that levigun's opinion was not nearly as contrived as some believe. You have your opinion. It is a legitimate one. Others are entitled to their own. How can you call someone else's perception inaccurate? That is how they see it. Their perception is simply their perception. Accuracy generally has more to do with recall. Whether their claims are truthful is an entirely different question. |
||
|
Neither one of us is going to convince the other. Let's just agree to disagree. It was not our call anyway. GK made the decision and that is final. |
||
|
chessnovice 17-Feb-09, 16:29 |
... What I definitely will agree with you on is that we're both probably going to be firm in our beliefs, and that the best that can be accomplished here is the "agree to disagree" conclusion (with acceptance to the fact that what's done is done). I just hope that GK does take my concerns into consideration should another scenario like this arise. I do believe there is an unfortunate trade-off between the site covering itself and the freedom of the community. Both are important, for sure, but an excess in either direction isn't healthy towards progress. |
||
|
blueearth 27-Feb-09, 10:48 |
Levigun was not the only one |
Log in 
