Terms of service

@NaturalBornTraveller said in #15:

> Regarding the error in the ToS, I did report it 6 months ago in the feedback section :-)
>
> ToS, under §Community Guideline Violations:
> "Impersonation - This is when a user pretends to be someone who they are not,"
>
> Whom is the object of the impersonation, and who is the subject that impersonates.
> So the correct word in this context should be "whom".

I’m sorry, @NaturalBornTraveller -- in the sentence you quoted above from the TOS, “who” is actually the right word, not “whom”. “Who they are not” is an adjective clause modifying the word “someone”. In that clause, “they” is the subject and “are” is the simple predicate, and it is also a linking verb. Therefore this situation calls for a pronoun in the nominative case, that is, “who”. Even native English speakers sometimes get confused with the grammar of pronouns, which is why people tend to overlook small errors. The TOS, however, as a legal document, should use standard English.

In that same clause, I would personally use the word “he” instead of “they”, since “user” is singular. But you should be aware that this isn't the current popular mode of handling this situation. The difficulty is that confusion can potentially occur when “they” is used to refer to a singular person, though in this sentence people understand the meaning so no harm is done (except to language fans like me – alas, a little part of my heart weeps when I see this in formal writing).

> An example for who/whom:
> Whom did I impersonate?
> Who impersonated me?

Here you gave good examples and used the right words. The first sentence calls for the objective case, “whom”, because it’s the direct object of the verb “impersonate”. The second sentence calls for the nominative case, “who”, because it’s the subject of the sentence.

English isn't an easy language to master as a second language yet many people here on Lichess, including you, communicate quite well, even managing to convey humor from time to time!

@rachel8
Thank you Rachel. I am not gonna argue with a teacher, although I heard you had retired?

You are like a mixture of Al Pacino in Godfather 3, and Keanu Reeves in John Wick.
You see someone butchering grammar, and you be like:
"They killed my language. Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!"
I guess grammar is a dish best served correctly.

I hate making mistakes, but that between my ego and myself.
I am however grateful to be corrected, when I am in the wrong.
I appreciate you answer, as well as the effort, you put into your reply.

I have one question though. Can my posts be described as ironic? (perhaps through situational irony?) Or does all types of irony, requires a deliberate intention?
In other words, can irony ever be unintentional?
And/or can it perhaps be both, depending on point of view?

For example, if I understand the term irony correctly, then my post in this thread, and your correction of my error, could this be considered ironic to the readers, while simultaneously not being ironic for the writer?

Thank you Rachel, I guess I owe you an apple for your educational reply.
I am not gonna buy you a smartphone, but you earned yourself an apple.

Funnily enough, my suggestion was to just change the phrase "who they are not" to the word "else", which would make the above a moot point by deleting the pronoun entirely. I suspect I was inspired by the issue raised by rachel8, which is notoriously something I find bothersome (see #18, where it makes an appearance). It would also reduce verbosity.

As to the who/whom debate, I make diction choices with no conscious regard to grammar rules-- I just use whatever I think sounds right when I speak. I'm not sure if it's because I'm well read, lucky, or a mutant, but it works out more often than not.

When I say either the "who" or the "whom" version of the sentence out loud, they sound right to me. I'd understand either version of the sentence, and I don't think anyone would become unable to understand the sentence with either pronoun. That really goes back to my earlier point about the distinction between "who" and "whom" having blurred.

@NaturalBornTraveller 's test does help reveal the correct one to use, though. Switching from first- to singular third-person pronouns makes it clearer:

> This is when he pretends to be someone (who)
vs.
> This is when him pretends to be someone (whom)

As the primary author of the TOS, it genuinely uplifts me to see this discussion. I'm glad multiple people are actually reading the TOS in full, and so thoroughly proofreading it. I welcome everyone to continue proofreading it for errors/mistakes, and all other legal texts on Lichess!

EDIT: the neither/nor issue and inaccurate phrasing of what is against the law has been edited. Whom/who remains. @clousems is correct that the intention of the TOS was to try and create something legally solid and valid, clear to users (including those without legal backgrounds), and generally accessible to anyone with enough patience to read it through. Not all of it meets those criteria, out of necessity, but I'm optimistic of the overall balance. Although I'm not convinced who/whom is a mistake here :)

I have been persuaded by "else" though :)

@NaturalBornTraveller, you accepted correction with gracious humility, a sign of someone with high emotional intelligence and an interest to learn. I’ll bet you’re a good team-player where you work.

About your question on irony- yes, irony can be unintentional. I guess this situation could’ve been considered ironic if I had made a grammar error in writing my correction of your grammar error. Or if you had made a grammar error in writing your correction of the grammar error in the TOS. However, since your correction wasn’t valid from the beginning, this situation didn’t strike me as ironic. I hope that helps. The Wikipedia article on irony has several examples of different types of irony.

(I don’t currently teach in a school setting, but I still get to work with students here in my community. I’m not at retirement age yet! Actually I was a math teacher but I also am a word nerd.)

@rachel8 said in #25:
> @NaturalBornTraveller, you accepted correction with gracious humility, a sign of someone with high emotional intelligence and an interest to learn. I’ll bet you’re a good team-player where you work.
>
> About your question on irony- yes, irony can be unintentional. I guess this situation could’ve been considered ironic if I had made a grammar error in writing my correction of your grammar error. Or if you had made a grammar error in writing your correction of the grammar error in the TOS. However, since your correction wasn’t valid from the beginning, this situation didn’t strike me as ironic. I hope that helps. The Wikipedia article on irony has several examples of different types of irony.
>
> (I don’t currently teach in a school setting, but I still get to work with students here in my community. I’m not at retirement age yet! Actually I was a math teacher but I also am a word nerd.)
So am I :)

@clousems, I loved your suggestion to change “who they are not” to “else” and am glad @Cynosure decided to use it!

@clousems said in #23:
> As to the who/whom debate, I make diction choices with no conscious regard to grammar rules-- I just use whatever I think sounds right when I speak.

Yep, this naturally happens for people speaking or writing in their native language. People who read a lot as children have an easier time using standard language when it’s needed. Many of us may have been exposed to nonstandard language as children, though, whether in specific wordings or in our whole general language environment. Sometimes we may wish to communicate especially clearly or write in more formal contexts. At these times it helps to think through or refer to grammar guidelines. Of course, grammar patterns also makes it easier for those learning a non-native language.

To answer the OP’s original question, I actually do at least skim the TOS for services I join or purchase. Yes, it can be a pain since most are long and poorly written for the general public. It’s good to know, however, what you’re signing up for and what you’re agreeing to do, from my perspective.

Cynosure, thank you for writing a TOS which is clear and easy to understand!

@rachel8 said in #27:
> @clousems, I loved your suggestion to change “who they are not” to “else” and am glad @Cynosure decided to use it!
>
>
>
> Yep, this naturally happens for people speaking or writing in their native language. People who read a lot as children have an easier time using standard language when it’s needed. Many of us may have been exposed to nonstandard language as children, though, whether in specific wordings or in our whole general language environment. Sometimes we may wish to communicate especially clearly or write in more formal contexts. At these times it helps to think through or refer to grammar guidelines. Of course, grammar patterns also makes it easier for those learning a non-native language.
>
> To answer the OP’s original question, I actually do at least skim the TOS for services I join or purchase. Yes, it can be a pain since most are long and poorly written for the general public. It’s good to know, however, what you’re signing up for and what you’re agreeing to do, from my perspective.
>
> Cynosure, thank you for writing a TOS which is clear and easy to understand!
Thanks to you as well!

The true OGs read it all the time and still forget what they are about, then put their questions into the forum to get the answer from somebody else that has understood them, posting the link to the exact same FAQ-site.

@heckerboy
Well, if you join some company you ought to read their Terms of Service else some problem may happen later.
And if you are so lazy, why are you even here? Just sleep all day!