Inappropriate Emoticons

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by boatman61

As stated by a previous poster.. one is free to choose whether or not one uses them.. he does not, I do...
This does not mean one is the product of a home broken by alcoholic child abuse, social deprivation and a lack of education... or of a malicious and vindictive nature...

I'm not sure how you read that into Bash's post. I certainly didn't. His point, as I read it, is that very few misuse the emoticons and that this misuse is inevitable as long as we are required to play nice.

[zeehag]

but is same word twice-- i think he gets one more chance......

[IdoraKeeper]

See? I knew it!

[NotQuiteLost]

I don't think you can police intent, which is why historically laws and codes of conduct have been just that: codes of conduct. It's not that you have to automatically give a pass in every situation where you think there is a psuedo-violation occurring, but more often than not the benefit of the doubt must be applied.

Emoticons are actually a fairly useful outlet, in my opinion. They allow people to express their childish/sarcastic/angry/frustrated condition, while simultaneously allowing the readers an opportunity to take the hint. If it's all words, it would get awfully serious, and people would start looking for the hidden meaning a lot more, which is absolutely devastating to an online community's health.

Add more emoticons if you're concerned with their proper use. Then, when you suspect someone might be expressing a sentiment which isn't quite properly covered by their chosen emoticon, remind them that there are more purpose-specific emoticons available. People would mostly use the correct one, anyways.

[zeehag]

[Wand]

Originally Posted by zeehag

but is same word twice-- i think he gets one more chance......

You're right zee, i was being way too and should have shown more Although on this issue i know i'll always be

[boatman61]

Buga this... I'm of to dance with a dog......

[senormechanico]

<a href="http://www.free-smiley.info/generator/"><img src="http://www.free-smiley.info/generator/generated-1-what_does_this_have_to_do_with_sailing?.gif" border=0><br><small>Generate Your Own Smiley</small></a>

[gettinthere]

5 pages of this?


:dead horsebeat:




:whist ling:

[Bash]

Originally Posted by hummingway

I'm not sure how you read that into Bash's post. I certainly didn't. His point, as I read it, is that very few misuse the emoticons and that this misuse is inevitable as long as we are required to play nice.

I'm suddenly eager for my students to return from Thanksgiving break; I think I'm going to assign this thread next week. I'm teaching a rhetoric class this quarter, and we've been getting into Reader Response Theory the past two weeks. In essence, and here I over-simplify, RRT posits that a text takes its meaning from the act of being read, not from authorial intent. What I write is insignificant in terms of how you choose to read something I've written. Compare the different readings I've been given by hummingway, boatman61 and, ultimately, IdoraKeeper.

The significance of emoticons is that they signal intent in a medium that often ambiguous in terms of a text's exigence--the question of why the writer picked up the pen. Was I joking when I wrote that first post, or was I serious? We don't really know. All we know for certain is that the lack of emoticons (or other signifyers such as "lol") made the text more difficult to interpret.

I am convinced that it's healthy to chat about how we chat, and even to argue about how we argue. We are not only constrained by the medium in which we conduct our forum, but also by the rules under which we agree to play.

That said, hummingway's interpretation that I'm arguing "that very few abuse the emoticons" is certainly....

[Irie]

Gord, you asked what my emoticom added. That particular one just represents to me that I am just am observer more than a participant (in this instance). That was the very first time I ever used one in a post cause I really didn't know how but this thread made me curious.

[avb3]

Now who'd a thunk it?

First post on this thread went up 5 hours ago, and FIVE pages of responses.

Topic? Sex? Nope.
Well.. Religion? Nope
Must be politics, right? Nope

Well... now what topic would evoke such an outpouring of responses?

I know!

[bstreep]

Maybe this makes more sense:

Just because you use an emoticon rather than words, you are still not permitted to insult someone.

You Change the TOU to include emoticons. And Gord, you are right - they CAN be insulting.

However, the "Beating a dead horse" should ALWAYS be used when debating "Mono vs Multi".

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by avb3

Now who'd a thunk it?

First post on this thread went up 5 hours ago, and FIVE pages of responses.

Topic? Sex? Nope.
Well.. Religion? Nope
Must be politics, right? Nope

Well... now what topic would evoke such an outpouring of responses?

I know!

In thinking back over the recent past, I don't think even the Jessica Watson threads got so many posts in such a short period of time. Amazing!

TaoJones

[muskoka]

Is this thread a wind up?

I wouldn't consider any of those emoticons offensive. Those expressions are used in business and social discourse all the time. I think most can figure out the difference between lively debate and abusive behavior quite easily.

Vote: Keep 'em going