"When a member is given an infraction" - Page 2

VBulletin only has a tab called "infractions" where a member's infractions are listed, which makes perfect sense because the tab contains a listing of violations, and infraction is a synonym for a violation of a rule. Now, the reason why being "given an infraction" makes sense is because when you are "given an infraction" another infraction shows up under this tabbed listing. So you see the word infraction really isn't being abused, the use is only slightly changed, just like many other phrases in the English language.

> "given an infraction." It's a widely used,

If you can find even one dictionary that agrees with this usage, I'd love to see it.

I don't know about dictionaries, but the phrase gets 28,000 hits on google.

http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=%22given+an+infraction%22

So for all of your pedantic criticism, you have yet to offer an alternative suggestion to this gross linguistic infraction.

Do you need one?

I don't.

Do you?

For my use? Nope! :)

This sort of sums it up. Do you care or not? If not, why bring it up. Me, I like a good discussion about grammar, but you should at least offer an alternative. Why the way, where's Walt P? He usually knows this stuff.

while(true)
{
    read post #16;
}

AD, that made me lol. Later--

AD, that made me lol. Later--

Its a very old, but often effective joke.

I always thought language was an evolving and growing thing.

In the 30's, the proper word was clew until the magazine Clue was started and the 'wrong' spelling became accepted.

Until computers became popular, input wasn't a word.

Years ago, gay meant happy.

Only recently, DOH became a word in the dictionary.

IMAO, infraction is used perfectly well for the evolving language we are currently involved with.
(which used to be bad English but is no longer -- prepositionally speaking)

> Only recently, DOH became a word in the dictionary.

> IMAO, infraction is used perfectly well

If you can cite any dictionary supporting that, please do.

Meanwhile, the reason I didn't suggest a better wording for the intended meaning is that I cannot work out the intended meaning. I don't know what it is that the member is actually given. It sounds to me like some sort of endorsement point as per the UK driving licence system... but that's a guess and I'd hope an experienced admin would be able to say for sure.

>I don't know what it is that the member is actually given.
An infraction (as used on Daniweb) is a flag placed on a member's account as notification that the member broke a rule. It's pretty much what one would expect. I'm rather surprised you didn't come up with any alternatives (even ones based on speculation about the meaning) before posting your "suggestion".

Typically suggestions will point out a problem and offer a viable solution. Pointing out a problem without offering a solution implies that you couldn't think of a good solution, which makes the problem seem like far less of a problem.

>I don't know what it is that the member is actually given.
An infraction (as used on Daniweb) is a flag placed on a member's account as notification that the member broke a rule. It's pretty much what one would expect. I'm rather surprised you didn't come up with any alternatives (even ones based on speculation about the meaning) before posting your "suggestion".

Typically suggestions will point out a problem and offer a viable solution. Pointing out a problem without offering a solution implies that you couldn't think of a good solution, which makes the problem seem like far less of a problem.

Can't see why pointing out a mistake or problem should necessitate the OP providing a solution to said problem. The fact that chrisjj pointed out that the term "infraction" was/is used incorrectly in vBulletin is a statement of fact. Down to DW admins if they want to look daft or not. Their site, their responsibility.

The fact that he's been downvoted like billy-o for stating a simple point, makes me think that people are getting a little over-protective. Aw-oooooooo, pack mentality again.

Anyway,
Just because language evolves, it doesn't mean that you can just accept any old rubbish and put it down to evolution. OK, you can argue that all new usages start with a lame-brane taking a missteak with sum more lame-branes perpetuatating this. Latter--

> Pointing out a problem without offering a solution implies
> that you couldn't think of a good solution

I'll take care not to point out the next 404 Not Found I find here! :)

>I'll take care not to point out the next 404 Not Found I find here!
That's completely different, as you're fully aware (unless you're an idiot, and I don't believe you're an idiot). If you don't approve of a word, suggest a better word. Since this is the first complaint I've heard either on Daniweb or other vBulletin forums in about ten years, I'm inclined to believe that nobody else gives a rat's ass and the onus is on you to provide such a vastly superior alternative that we all realize how much of an issue it is.

> Since this is the first complaint I've heard

I wonder why you're misrepresenting this suggestion as a complaint.

> either on Daniweb or other vBulletin forums in about ten years, I'm
> inclined to believe that nobody else gives a rat's ass

Perhaps it is just they've seen the reception you give to those making suggestions like me.

While not wanting to put words in cj's mouth/post, I don't believe that he was complaining, just pointing out a grammatical error.

//EDIT - sorry simultaneous post - didn't see your reply CJ

Seems he was then given the carpet treatment by DW bigwigs.

Because nobody mentions a mistake, it doesn't mean that there isn't a mistake. Also, if nobody give's a rat's ass, it still doesn't make it right.

When IT people make such a song and dance about technical jargon, programming semantics and syntax, it baffles me why they don't apply the same rigour to their spoken medium.

edit: nevermind

!!!!

> Only recently, DOH became a word in the dictionary.
If you can cite any dictionary supporting that, please do.

http://www.oed.com/newsletters/2001-06/doh.html
Definitive, I think.

Soon, 4chan will give out "infractions"
Later--

I have a feeling this guy would have a field day if he ever stumbled upon the 4chan 'community' :D

When IT people make such a song and dance about technical jargon, programming semantics and syntax, it baffles me why they don't apply the same rigour to their spoken medium.

Written, there should be some standards followed and whatnot, but you will never get people speaking the same :P

/pointless post

Originally Posted by Chrisjj View Post

> Only recently, DOH became a word in the dictionary.
If you can cite any dictionary supporting that, please do.

That's a misquote that misreps the original.

Written, there should be some standards followed and whatnot, but you will never get people speaking the same :P

/pointless post

I was using 'spoken' to describe the general language of communication - spoken/written regardless. You won't get people speaking in the same way, spelling in the same fashion or even constructing sentences in the same way - which is fine, if it makes sense. E.g. I mentioned 'rigour' in a previous post - if I were from the US, I'd have 'said' 'rigor' (which means 'stiffness' [rigor mortis] to me). This is all well documented stuff and not worth pursuing. However, being the pedant that I am, I just can't accept "given an infraction" - it's just wrong. You can be "found guilty of an infraction", but you can't be handed out an infraction. I can't see that being adopted by the general public - well I hope not.

I just can't see why people feel that they have to defend something like this erroneous statement. Seems to me it's easier to legitimize something rather than do something about it. Now that's lazy.

Anyway - my last post, this is getting rather tedious. Latté--

> I just can't see why people feel that they have to defend something like this erroneous statement.

I too find this very odd. It leads this newbie to wonder what here has generated such a culture of defensiveness.

Are six pages really necessary for a minor grammatical nit? You've made your "suggestion". There's no point in repeating the same arguments, then going off onto a tangent about how you feel confused and offended by the response.

It seems Dani has wisely ignored this thread, probably because she has vastly better things to work on than revamping the grammar of the infraction system. :icon_rolleyes:

> a minor grammatical nit

Not grammatical. Semantic.

> you feel confused and offended by the response

Again you misrepresent me.

Are six pages really necessary for a minor grammatical nit?

Of course it is. It's the way of the forum-poster!

When IT people make such a song and dance about technical jargon, programming semantics and syntax, it baffles me why they don't apply the same rigour to their spoken medium.

Simply because every 'song and dance' is associated with an ROI (return of investment). When programmers nitpick on some beginners code, it is with the intent of making him/her a better programmer. When languages features are battled to death, it is with the intent of working towards the goal of a better language. In this case, I really can't see any convincing ROI here if infraction is renamed to something which is more "semantically" correct, do you?

@OP
Subtle trolling FTW. :)

>Not grammatical. Semantic.
Whatever. Exchange one triviality for another and the result is still trivial.

>Again you misrepresent me.
I call it like I see it. If you don't want to be misrepresented, take more care in presenting yourself. Someone so focused on semantics should have no trouble with that.

Simply because every 'song and dance' is associated with an ROI (return of investment). When programmers nitpick on some beginners code, it is with the intent of making him/her a better programmer. When languages features are battled to death, it is with the intent of working towards the goal of a better language. In this case, I really can't see any convincing ROI here if infraction is renamed to something which is more "semantically" correct, do you?

@OP
Subtle trolling FTW. :)

Doh! Said I wouldn't post to this thread again.

Having translated my fair share of 'mature' open source programs like Coppermine, I had to read the instructions with regard to the specific language requirements for contributions. In general, they stipulated no colloquialisms, semantically and grammatically correct statements, clear and readable text, etc etc. I wouldn't argue the toss about coding practices and ROIs as I don't know enough about it, but surely, it is in a site's interest, whether the language pack is native to the app or a custom translation, to ensure that it is 'correct' or at least conforms to common usage. Not noticing a mistake and then saying, 'Well it's in common usage now', is just rubbish.

BTW: CJ thanks for the 'semantic' vs. 'grammatical' - quite right.

I think the attitude exhibited by a number of DW heavyweights here is a little over the top. The OP is accused of:

complaining
being a nit-picker
paraphrase: "wasting people's time with trivialities"
being deliberately obtuse so that he could be misrepresented
etc etc.

Personally, I don't think that he's guilty of any of those. It seems to me that some feel that they need to defend DW's honour against this young whipper-snapper. How dare he! With only a few posts under his belt - how dare he! Lately--

Not noticing a mistake and then saying, 'Well it's in common usage now', is just rubbish

It is, but is kind of irrelevant to the discussion, given that neither the site owner nor the creators of the vbulletin have made a comment on this thread stating the same. :-)

Personally, I don't think that he's guilty of any of those

He isn't, seriously. I think he/she's pretty good given that his/her very first thread has resulted in a pretty lively/amusing discussion. I mean, come on, if someone is capable of making all the Daniweb old timers say "how dare he" without resorting to obscenities, that person must surely be... ;-)

>complaining
There's nothing wrong with a legitimate complaint. But denying that it's a complaint is silly, and refusing to offer a better alternative in favor of inciting flames is rude. I don't care if you have 1 post or tens of thousands, I'd still ask you to suggest an alternative rather than simply say "it's wrong".

being a nit-picker
I'll have to read the thread again when I get bored, but I don't believe anyone implied that being a nit-picker was bad.

paraphrase: "wasting people's time with trivialities"
Absolutely. Make a bug report and be done with it. How many times does one need to reiterate the same argument? At this point it's just one guy's (or two, if we count you) ego against the opinions of people that don't matter. Yes, it's a huge waste of time.

being deliberately obtuse so that he could be misrepresented
Nobody accused the OP of being deliberately obtuse. Do you think it's impossible to unintentionally give people the wrong impression?

>etc etc.
This is a totally inappropriate place for etc. Using "etc etc" strongly suggests that you thought the list would be longer, it turned out not to be, so you extended it by implying there are too many to list (ie. a lie).

>It seems to me that some feel that they need to defend
>DW's honour against this young whipper-snapper.
How can you defend against a factual claim? The error is legitimate, rational people have acknowledged it, claims that "it's common practice" are stupid, and beyond that the thread has been about how the OP is being attacked and misrepresented by the evil community.

So what's your intention? There are six pages that seem to you to be about defending Daniweb's honor, so are you trying to turn it around into six more pages of defending the OP's honor? I fail to see how becoming a champion of the OP accomplishes anything productive.

Not grammatical. Semantic.

I think the attitude exhibited by a number of DW heavyweights here is a little over the top. The OP is accused of:

complaining
being a nit-picker
paraphrase: "wasting people's time with trivialities"
being deliberately obtuse so that he could be misrepresented
etc etc.

Personally, I don't think that he's guilty of any of those.

I think it's his tone and the fact that his posts are one-liners mostly. I'm sure there is a difference between "grammar" and "semantics", but if you don't point out what the difference is and why it's relevant here, the post just looks like a "look how smart I am" post, which is a turn-off. He's definitely guilty of "being deliberately obtuse so that he could be misrepresented
etc etc. ". He could put a few more sentences in to explain himself, but chooses not to.

He isn't, seriously. I think he/she's pretty good given that his/her very first thread has resulted in a pretty lively/amusing discussion. I mean, come on, if someone is capable of making all the Daniweb old timers say "how dare he" without resorting to obscenities, that person must surely be... ;-)

Yep. Definitely not bad for a first thread.