Assumed level of English language proficiency


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I am wondering what level of proficiency the forum community thinks posters should assume about other posters.

In a semi-recent thread in the Rules Questions forum, it became clear that a few posters expected everyone to maintain a level of proficiency in the English language roughly equal to that of a native speaker of about 20ish years (my assumption).

I would like to hear what others think.

Me, I've seen it time and again that anyone asking if a "creative interpretation" of the rules was legal/legit/kosher, ends up admitting down thread that English isn't their first language. And yet, posters answering the question assume that the questioner holds the same mastery over the English language that the answerers do.

Maybe I expect too much of posters trying to answer rules questions... But I hold them up to a level close to that of a Paizo employee. After all, they are an unofficial representative of the company if they are trying to answer questions about company products.

Then again, it is pretty messed up if the third biggest troll on these boards has to fight for compassion and understanding for a subset of forum posters...

EDITed:: to fix typos that weren't pointed out to me.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

...

Oh man, seriously, stop, I'm hurting myself laughing.

You spelled proficiency wrong.

And you have a period after a non-sentence?

Please, tell me that was intentionally ironic so I can laugh with you.


Sebastian wrote:

...

Oh man, seriously, stop, I'm hurting myself laughing.

You spelled proficiency wrong.

And you have a period after a non-sentence?

Please, tell me that was intentionally ironic so I can laugh with you.

Only in the thread title. The OP got it right in the post itself. :)


unless someone who works for paizo posts something all bets are off as far as how accurate it will be, or gramatacally korrecht


Sebastian wrote:
Oh man, seriously, stop, I'm hurting myself laughing.

Fixed, just for my cyber-stalker.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Disenchanter wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Oh man, seriously, stop, I'm hurting myself laughing.
Fixed, just for my cyber-stalker.

But the laughter is forever. You are one of the best channels on Paizo, do you know that? I'm not sure what I'd do without you, probably laugh a lot less.

Want to go steady?


Sebastian wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Oh man, seriously, stop, I'm hurting myself laughing.
Fixed, just for my cyber-stalker.

But the laughter is forever. You are one of the best channels on Paizo, do you know that? I'm not sure what I'd do without you, probably laugh a lot less.

Want to go steady?

I thought I told you already, I don't swing like that. You just aren't my type of binary digit.

RPG Superstar 2012

Ugh. Get a room you two.

BTW, the url still has the original spelling.


taig wrote:
BTW, the url still has the original spelling.

I have no control over that. That is for someone with a better tag than me.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Disenchanter wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Oh man, seriously, stop, I'm hurting myself laughing.
Fixed, just for my cyber-stalker.

But the laughter is forever. You are one of the best channels on Paizo, do you know that? I'm not sure what I'd do without you, probably laugh a lot less.

Want to go steady?

I thought I told you already, I don't swing like that. You just aren't my type of binary digit.

But you keep hitting on me.

Very confusing...


Sebastian wrote:

But you keep hitting on me.

Very confusing...

So... Are you using the "I was asking for it" defense? Really?

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Disenchanter wrote:
Sebastian wrote:

But you keep hitting on me.

Very confusing...

So... Are you using the "I was asking for it" defense? Really?

This conversation bores me. Go back to the righteous indignation over English proficancy (as it were). That's entertaining. Don't let those people on the interet wrong you! How dare they!

RPG Superstar 2012

Sebastian wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:
Sebastian wrote:

But you keep hitting on me.

Very confusing...

So... Are you using the "I was asking for it" defense? Really?
This conversation bores me. Go back to the righteous indignation over English proficancy (as it were). That's entertaining. Don't let those people on the interet wrong you! How dare they!

Wait, this is coming from the pony that used the word "tenticles" on these very boards.

Um, not that I'm taking sides. Sharoth told me to say that.


Sebastian wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:
Sebastian wrote:

But you keep hitting on me.

Very confusing...

So... Are you using the "I was asking for it" defense? Really?
This conversation bores me. Go back to the righteous indignation over English proficancy (as it were). That's entertaining. Don't let those people on the interet wrong you! How dare they!

Is there anything intereting on the interet that demands profiancy?


taig wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:
Sebastian wrote:

But you keep hitting on me.

Very confusing...

So... Are you using the "I was asking for it" defense? Really?
This conversation bores me. Go back to the righteous indignation over English proficancy (as it were). That's entertaining. Don't let those people on the interet wrong you! How dare they!

Wait, this is coming from the pony that used the word "tenticles" on these very boards.

Um, not that I'm taking sides. Sharoth told me to say that.

It's genticles.

The Exchange

Disenchanter wrote:

I am wondering what level of proficiency the forum community thinks posters should assume about other posters.

In a semi-recent thread in the Rules Questions forum, it became clear that a few posters expected everyone to maintain a level of proficiency in the English language roughly equal to that of a native speaker of about 20ish years (my assumption).

I would like to hear what others think.

Me, I've seen it time and again that anyone asking if a "creative interpretation" of the rules was legal/legit/kosher, ends up admitting down thread that English isn't the first language. And yet, posters answering the question assume that the questioner holds the same mastery over the English language that the answers do.

Maybe I expect too much of posters trying to answer rules questions... But I hold them up to a level close to that of a Paizo employee. After all, they are an unofficial representative of the company if they are trying to answer questions about company products.

Then again, it is pretty messed up if the third biggest troll on these boards has to fight for compassion and understanding for a subset of forum posters...

I feel that we are a multi-national club. Some will have great english skills, others will not, but we are all part of a family of sorts and some tolerance and patience shouldn't be too much to ask for in the realm of english speaking ability. Now being an imbecile is of course totally different and should be used as proper reason to allow flogging.

Liberty's Edge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012

Urizen wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:
Sebastian wrote:

But you keep hitting on me.

Very confusing...

So... Are you using the "I was asking for it" defense? Really?
This conversation bores me. Go back to the righteous indignation over English proficancy (as it were). That's entertaining. Don't let those people on the interet wrong you! How dare they!
Is there anything intereting on the interet that demands profiancy?

I'm outraged that you'd make fun of Sebastian's typos!

I'm done with this thread.


taig wrote:
Urizen wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Disenchanter wrote:
Sebastian wrote:

But you keep hitting on me.

Very confusing...

So... Are you using the "I was asking for it" defense? Really?
This conversation bores me. Go back to the righteous indignation over English proficancy (as it were). That's entertaining. Don't let those people on the interet wrong you! How dare they!
Is there anything intereting on the interet that demands profiancy?

I'm outraged that you'd make fun of Sebastian's typos!

I'm done with this thread.

Don't deny it; you're trying to dethrone Sharoth's spot on the list. I've seen your Hello Kitty diary.

RPG Superstar 2012

The love that dare not neigh its name.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

taig wrote:

Wait, this is coming from the pony that used the word "tenticles" on these very boards.

Um, not that I'm taking sides. Sharoth told me to say that.

Hey, I told you, that was intentional and stuff. Sheesh.

Plus, you forgot to include [sic]. That shows that it's the person you're quoting who's dumb, and not you.

Hmmm...speaking of Sharoth, I'm starting to see a pattern of sexual harassment directed my way on these boards. Is it the tail? The glitter?

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Urizen wrote:
Sebastian wrote:


This conversation bores me. Go back to the righteous indignation over English proficancy (as it were). That's entertaining. Don't let those people on the interet wrong you! How dare they!
Is there anything intereting on the interet that demands profiancy?

Hey! That's not fair. Now you're making fun of me!!!

THIS

WILL

NOT

STAND


Sebastian wrote:
Urizen wrote:
Sebastian wrote:


This conversation bores me. Go back to the righteous indignation over English proficancy (as it were). That's entertaining. Don't let those people on the interet wrong you! How dare they!
Is there anything intereting on the interet that demands profiancy?

Hey! That's not fair. Now you're making fun of me!!!

THIS

WILL

NOT

STAND

Are you saying you lie down for the price of a joke?


No entiendo ni una palabra de lo que Uds. dicen.

Dark Archive

I speak solely for me, not as an ambassador of Paizo (or bodyguard to Queen Elizabeth, or a founding member of the Little River Band, or any other position, real or imagined, with the reader may assign me), when I say;

Lolwut?


Any girls in here?


Sebastian wrote:


But you keep hitting on me.

Very confusing...

ASL?


"I have succubi, stolen rum and celestial pigs, but who has the grill?"


English proficiency is Irrelevant

Liberty's Edge Contributor

Profiteroles!


From now on, all rules questions should be rendered in binary:

01001001000010111010101000100110100100101

Please, don't start a flame war over the above, but if you have a problem with it, you can go:

Spoiler:
010010011101010100101010101101011

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Benicio Del Espada wrote:
No entiendo ni una palabra de lo que Uds. dicen.

No hay bastante ... hilos? tredes? discusciones? ... en español. ¿Dónde esta el foro multilingüe?


Sebastian wrote:
taig wrote:

Wait, this is coming from the pony that used the word "tenticles" on these very boards.

Um, not that I'm taking sides. Sharoth told me to say that.

Hey, I told you, that was intentional and stuff. Sheesh.

Plus, you forgot to include [sic]. That shows that it's the person you're quoting who's dumb, and not you.

Hmmm...speaking of Sharoth, I'm starting to see a pattern of sexual harassment directed my way on these boards. Is it the tail? The glitter?

Hey there sparky! Come on and give it up, Pony boi!

Dark Archive

KnightErrantJR wrote:

Please, don't start a flame war over the above, but if you have a problem with it, you can go:

** spoiler omitted **

Such language!

011100100110010101110000011011110111001001110100011001010110010000100001


Set wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:

Please, don't start a flame war over the above, but if you have a problem with it, you can go:

** spoiler omitted **

Such language!

011100100110010101110000011011110111001001110100011001010110010000100001

Well, 011101000100111111100100111100000001111010110011100011100100101010100101111 11001010101111000000010001000111000101111000100 to you!!!


Sharoth wrote:

Well, 011101000100111111100100111100000001111010110011100011100100101010100101111 11001010101111000000010001000111000101111000100 to you!!!

You misspelled "0110101"

Also . . . your 01001101010110101010101


KnightErrantJR wrote:
Sharoth wrote:

Well, 011101000100111111100100111100000001111010110011100011100100101010100101111 11001010101111000000010001000111000101111000100 to you!!!

You misspelled "0110101"

Also . . . your 01001101010110101010101

~sputters~ 01100010100010010001111111100000000011110101000101010100100101

Silver Crusade

Their doesnt seem to be that many ppl uptight about grammer, if thats what your worried about.


Speaking of binary Funny Stuff


I don't have a problem with people for whom English is not their first language.
They often write better English than people for whom it is.

I've seen some near incomprehensible spelling and grammar from people who really ought to know better. Then they get upset when I point out that I can't decipher what they've written. These people are almost always native speakers of English. Fortunately, I've not seen the problem on -these- boards, but it's all over the Internet (minor pick - it's a capital "I", because it's a proper noun). (No, I'm not a grammar Nazi - minor points are forgivable, I only get frustrated when it's so bad I can't figure out what is meant without effort.)


Abysmal, I say. Abysmal.


Fake Healer wrote:

I feel that we are a multi-national club. Some will have great english skills, others will not, but we are all part of a family of sorts and some tolerance and patience shouldn't be too much to ask for in the realm of english speaking ability. Now being an imbecile is of course totally different and should be used as proper reason to allow flogging.

Don't worry Fake Healer, I'll acknowledge your serious post. ;-)

And I agree with you, for what that is worth.

Mikaze wrote:
Their doesnt seem to be that many ppl uptight about grammer, if thats what your worried about.

No, that wasn't it.

The questioner asked to be pointed out to the rule that made it clear how to interpret something. The problem was, that rule wasn't automatically clear to an experienced English speaker. It could take an experienced speaker four or more reads just to notice the key phrase that explains how it should be read and it isn't guaranteed they would automatically apply it the correct way. And yet responders were quoting the passage, and just leaving it at that as if even an infant should be able to see it. (Again, my assumption). When it was pointed out that the language wasn't that clear (by me, I admit it) the thread turned into a big argument about how wrong I was.

And in the middle of that argument, the questioner pointed out that English was not their first language, and that the quoted passage was still easy for them to read "the wrong way."

And still anyone (me, again) who said the rule was anything but crystal clear was wrong, throwing out a house rule, etc., etc..


Wow, the fantasy world you live in must have some really nice drugs, Disenchanter. Well, either that or you're deliberately mis-characterizing other posters on the board to make yourself and your argument seem more sympathetic, but you'd never do that, right?

Every single two-year-old I've ever met understands exactly what it means when they're told to do something. Sure, they don't always do it right away or at all, but they know they're supposed to. So no, I don't have much sympathy for someone who claims not to understand what "Do this" means.

I also think, given that this is the forum for an American company, distributing a product that was invented in America, which is printed originally and primarily in English, that people who are not native English speakers should expect that their grasp of the language might not be completely up to the rules and should therefore occasionally expect to be told that the language is, indeed, clear to those who are native/proficient speakers. (whew, I think that's the longest sentence I've ever written)

It is entirely unreasonable to expect and, in fact impossible to write, anything as complex as a 500 page rule book that people with an imperfect grasp of the language don't find at least partially unclear.

I have nothing against people who don't have English as their first language. It's not an easy language to learn. When I know someone doesn't speak English as their native language and it's clear they aren't fully proficient with the language, I cut them a lot of slack. It's usually pretty obvious who these people are. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with people who say they aren't fully proficient with English then refuse to accept that a sentence or passage says what it says it does, especially when it is explained to them (as it was in the thread you're referring to, despite your protestations of innocence). That's not really the case in the thread you're referring to, as the original poster accepted the explanation; it was you that people were arguing with, not him.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have to say I tend to agree with Zurai on this (well everything after the first paragraph at least) and meaning no disrespect but doing this

paizo.com/people/Disenchanter.

Is not exactly the best way of convincing people of your point of view


Kevin Mack wrote:
paizo.com/people/Disenchanter

Man, and I thought I was passive-aggressive.


Zurai wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
paizo.com/people/Disenchanter
Man, and I thought I was passive-aggressive.

*gulp*

I guess I never expected to garner so much hate on these boards simply by responding honestly if occasionally not politely, since I can't conceive of myself responding in kind.


Kevin Mack wrote:
Is not exactly the best way of convincing people of your point of view

You are assuming, of course, that I am trying to convince anyone of anything.

My profile is simply collecting the "titles" I have been bestowed. Plus my opinion of others. If I "wear my heart on my sleeve" in the real world, I gotta do it somehow online, yes?

As far as agreeing with Zurai, have at it. But I would caution you against trusting his opinion of me distorting things since I think that stems from the fact he knows he does it.

Zurai wrote:
It is entirely unreasonable to expect and, in fact impossible to write, anything as complex as a 500 page rule book that people with an imperfect grasp of the language don't find at least partially unclear.

All fine and dandy. But if you are going to answer a question about that rulebook, at least take the time to explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

If you noticed, I didn't comment (or "attack" if you prefer) on any one who did that.


Disenchanter wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
Is not exactly the best way of convincing people of your point of view

You are assuming, of course, that I am trying to convince anyone of anything.

My profile is simply collecting the "titles" I have been bestowed. Plus my opinion of others. If I "wear my heart on my sleeve" in the real world, I gotta do it somehow online, yes?

As far as agreeing with Zurai, have at it. But I would caution you against trusting his opinion of me distorting things since I think that stems from the fact he knows he does it.

Zurai may not be the most diplomatic person on the boards, but I've never known him to distort anything. I don't always agree with his interpretations, but that generally only occurs when the rules are really unclear and can be taken either way (not the case here). He knows his stuff, and I can't think of a single example of him intentionally distorting anything, which is pretty much what you're accusing him of here.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Hmmm...looks like this thread isn't achieving the desired result...maybe another appeal to the public's sense of justice is in order...


Disenchanter wrote:
All fine and dandy. But if you are going to answer a question about that rulebook, at least take the time to explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

I did.

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Assumed level of English language proficiency All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.