|
This of course is nothing new, but I am hoping I can get some opinions anyway.
If I was teaching a class, or in a public but not online forum, and I asked for people to raise their hands and tell me who liked peanut butter and jelly sandwiches I and everyone else would think it strange if someone raised their hand to inform me that they did not, in fact, like them. So we really don't see this happening often, or at least I do not. We understand that by not responding they either dislike peanut butter and jelly sandwiches or are indifferent.
The same doesn't hold true for online discussion forums such as Paizo's. If there was a discussion wherein the original poster asked people who loved playing monopoly to chime in, almost invariably, within the first few posts, we would see someone saying how much they disliked monopoly.
This is annoying to be certain, but I have gradually become used to it and it is no longer such a big deal. I am just curious if anyone has an opinion about why this happens.
Tam
|
I've actually mentioned this a few times on these boards; over in the Employer Responsibilities thread, most recently.
From my list of Pet Peeves--
Andrew's InterWebs Pet Peeve #1: People who post to threads with responses that indicate they totally didn't pay attention to the thread title, the first post, or they just don't care about the spirit of the thread. I'm not talking about threadjacking, or throwing out the occasional non sequiturs; no, I'm talking about the person who does the following, for example:
Thread Title: "What's Your Favorite Eggs Dish for a Big Breakfast?"
Careless Poster's Response Post: "I don't like eggs; I like oatmeal. Also, I don't like a breakfast. I eat oatmeal for snack before going to bed. My favorite oatmeal is Irish Stone Meal..."
Come on, man! Why are you wasting bandwidth? If you don't like eggs, don't even bother reading the thread. If you love oatmeal, then start your own thread declaiming the finest glories of oatmeal.
And that's my opinion on the matter.
It gets interesting when you discuss eggs, but in explaining that, it is stated bagels are aweful. Then the bagel defenders come to the rescue. It is the nature of board discussions to deviate. It is something you cannot control. It is how you deal with different opinions or statements to keep discussions civil, that offer the greatest likelyhood things will get back on track.
However, there is always the appropriate time to move on and not state anything (unless you want the last word).
I like bagels.
This of course is nothing new, but I am hoping I can get some opinions anyway.
If I was teaching a class, or in a public but not online forum, and I asked for people to raise their hands and tell me who liked peanut butter and jelly sandwiches I and everyone else would think it strange if someone raised their hand to inform me that they did not, in fact, like them. So we really don't see this happening often, or at least I do not. We understand that by not responding they either dislike peanut butter and jelly sandwiches or are indifferent.
The same doesn't hold true for online discussion forums such as Paizo's. If there was a discussion wherein the original poster asked people who loved playing monopoly to chime in, almost invariably, within the first few posts, we would see someone saying how much they disliked monopoly.
This is annoying to be certain, but I have gradually become used to it and it is no longer such a big deal. I am just curious if anyone has an opinion about why this happens.
Tam
I think that you are overlooking an important differrence in the comparison with a class.
The purpose of a thread is discussion of a topic. If you were to ask that question in class, you would be taking a poll and then continue on with whatever the actual discussion was. But, if you were to ask people to discuss liking peanut butter, it is a discussion and discussion often leads to comparisons and contrasts. Further, if you were to say to people "do not bother responding if you do not have something to say about how you DO like PB&J sandwiches" then you would be forcing people to not participate in a discussion located in a forum (or classroom from the comparison) where they go to interact with people.
Does that make any sense?
|
I've actually mentioned this a few times on these boards; over in the Employer Responsibilities thread, most recently.
From my list of Pet Peeves--
Andrew's InterWebs Pet Peeve #1: People who post to threads with responses that indicate they totally didn't pay attention to the thread title, the first post, or they just don't care about the spirit of the thread. I'm not talking about threadjacking, or throwing out the occasional non sequiturs; no, I'm talking about the person who does the following, for example:
Thread Title: "What's Your Favorite Eggs Dish for a Big Breakfast?"
Careless Poster's Response Post: "I don't like eggs; I like oatmeal. Also, I don't like a breakfast. I eat oatmeal for snack before going to bed. My favorite oatmeal is Irish Stone Meal..."
Come on, man! Why are you wasting bandwidth? If you don't like eggs, don't even bother reading the thread. If you love oatmeal, then start your own thread declaiming the finest glories of oatmeal.
And that's my opinion on the matter.
100% agreement here.
I also hate when a thread is asking for assistance and people spend the first 5-10 posts explaining how the poster is an imbecile, either politely or rudely, for asking for help.I think a lot of this is due to the anonymity inherent in all internet activity. If some of the 'discussions' that I've seen, even on the very tame Paizo boards, had happened in a face-to-face manner I would be expecting to see someone losing teeth. The only personal feelings that get placed in this medium are largely dependent upon the individual. If you get somebody who has little social concern and is 'using' the internet strictly as an impersonal tool then you get some really horrible manners and generally a lack of concern from the individual who has no attachment to any of the words posted by the anonymous masses they are using. In real life they would need to police the way they speak to others for fear of reprisal, either being socially rejected, verbally reprimanded for unacceptable behavior, or if they push the wrong person too far- a fat lip. Online they can just not go in that thread or to that site.
My 2cp.
If there was a discussion wherein the original poster asked people who loved playing monopoly to chime in, almost invariably, within the first few posts, we would see someone saying how much they disliked monopoly.
I hate messageboards. :)
|
|
I think that you are overlooking an important differrence in the comparison with a class.The purpose of a thread is discussion of a topic. If you were to ask that question in class, you would be taking a poll and then continue on with whatever the actual discussion was. But, if you were to ask people to discuss liking peanut butter, it is a discussion and discussion often leads to comparisons and contrasts. Further, if you were to say to people "do not bother responding if you do not have something to say about how you DO like PB&J sandwiches" then you would be forcing people to not participate in a discussion located in a forum (or classroom from the comparison) where they go to interact with people.
Does that make any sense?
The distinction certainly does make sense. On the other hand, if my initial post is "I absolutely love the new Dragonball movie. If you liked it let me know what your favorite part is" and someone chimes in with "I would never go watch that movie", they are in no way contributing to the conversation that I obviously had in mind when I started the thread.
I do understand your point and recognize that using a classroom as an example was a bad idea.
For the record, Dragonball was horrid.
Tam
I think that you are overlooking an important differrence in the comparison with a class.The purpose of a thread is discussion of a topic. If you were to ask that question in class, you would be taking a poll and then continue on with whatever the actual discussion was. But, if you were to ask people to discuss liking peanut butter, it is a discussion and discussion often leads to comparisons and contrasts. Further, if you were to say to people "do not bother responding if you do not have something to say about how you DO like PB&J sandwiches" then you would be forcing people to not participate in a discussion located in a forum (or classroom from the comparison) where they go to interact with people.
Does that make any sense?
The distinction certainly does make sense. On the other hand, if my initial post is "I absolutely love the new Dragonball movie. If you liked it let me know what your favorite part is" and someone chimes in with "I would never go watch that movie", they are in no way contributing to the conversation that I obviously had in mind when I started the thread.
I do understand your point and recognize that using a classroom as an example was a bad idea.
For the record, Dragonball was horrid.
Tam
Are you saying you recognize my point that the discussion and the classroom are not the same or are you saying you recognize my point that the two are not the same as well as recognizing my other point?
*just looking for clarification before proceeding*
I recognize that polling a class was wasn't similar enough to a discussion to justify its use as an example.
Tam
You've already conceded the point, but there is another difference. The "audience" of your in person poll are aware that you can count them among those that dislike peanut butter and jelly sandwiches if they don't raise their hands. You see they are there, and can assume the heard and understood the question. Even without responding, they are still participating.
Online has no metric like that. There isn't any real way to "show up" for an online discussion knowing that others who care to look can count you as participating without actually posting something.
If the thread is "Who likes peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?" Either you get only "I do" responses and no indication of who doesn't, or you have to accept the amount of "I don't" posts that let you guage who doesn't.
I recognize that polling a class was wasn't similar enough to a discussion to justify its use as an example.
Tam
Thanks. :)
The other point is that people often come to messageboards with the inention of interacting with people. I think that sometimes it is a matter of "talking" to others. So, if they see a "conversation" going on, they want to enter it. They probably, IMO, see that as preferable to starting their own conversation about something else and not knowing whether or not anyone will respond to their thread.
They are "interacting" with others just by responding to something that someone else says. Further, in casual conversations, I do not think this is really atypical. Example: If you met a dozen friends from work for dinner and asked everyone what their favorite part of the new dragonball movie is, would you be surprised if one of your friends stated something like "I haven't seen it. I prefer mysteries and am not a big fan of scifi"? Would your co-worker feel uncomfortable and out of place if (s)he knew that such a response would be looked upon very unfavorably?
I guess what I am saying is that people just want to be involved and feel like they belong when they "show up" somewhere. I believe this reasoning is related to if not the same as what Disenchanter described above.
Granted, I also cede that there are individuals who just act like an ass with regards to such occasions. I think that may be an individual's method of dealing with the wish t become involved and most definitely has a lot to do with anonymity.
The same doesn't hold true for online discussion forums such as Paizo's. If there was a discussion wherein the original poster asked people who loved playing monopoly to chime in, almost invariably, within the first few posts, we would see someone saying how much they disliked monopoly.
I just had this happen with a thread I started. I asked for some ways to talk to my fellow players about trying 4E and the third comment in the thread was "don't try." It seems like some people just have a love of their own "voice" even if they have nothing to add to the conversation.
|
I just had this happen with a thread I started. I asked for some ways to talk to my fellow players about trying 4E and the third comment in the thread was "don't try." It seems like some people just have a love of their own "voice" even if they have nothing to add to the conversation.
The same doesn't hold true for online discussion forums such as Paizo's. If there was a discussion wherein the original poster asked people who loved playing monopoly to chime in, almost invariably, within the first few posts, we would see someone saying how much they disliked monopoly.
Actually it was the fourth post. :)
If there was a discussion wherein the original poster asked people who loved playing monopoly to chime in, almost invariably, within the first few posts, we would see someone saying how much they disliked monopoly.
One of my co-workers once invited me and another friend out to lunch. When we sat down, the first question she asked us was, "Okay, so I've been waiting all day to ask you, what did you two think of the new Harry Potter book?"
I frowned. "To tell you the truth, I haven't read past Goblet of Fire."
"Why not?" she asked.
"Well, The Goblet of Fire was the only one in the series that I really liked. The rest were pretty formulaic and, quite frankly, a little dull. I heard on NPR that Order of the Phoenix basically reverted back to the same formula that the first three books followed, and I decided then that I really didn't care to read any further." Suffice to say, I was not included in on the rest of the lunch conversation.
In many respects, a messageboard is very much like that lunch. People with similar interests are all invited to participate in a conversation about a particular topic. When the conversation turns about to be about something that one or more people don't like, things get a little awkward.
The difference between a messageboard and real life, is that in real life, if a person doesn't like Harry Potter, they don't get those kinds of lunches anymore. On the internet, they're always invited. The other difference is that, in real life, if a person gets so obstinate that nobody can stand them, they get shunned. On the internet, if a person gets so obstinate that nobody can stand them, it takes multiple appeals to a messageboard administrator to do something about the situation, and even then, it's unlikely that anything substantive will be done to solve the problem.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **...
I really believe that that kind of power to ostracize would only (and does only) serve to keep people quiet who otherwise might have something interesting to say at least 1% of the time. Unfortunately, we need to be willing to wade through the slop to find the pearl.
If YD (yep, I said it) only says one magnificent thing a month, then I don't mind reading all the rest.
But look who's talking; spades and kettles and all that ;-)