What pencil? There is no pencil.Why so serious?I will now make this pencil disappear!
Because I made it disappear.
But there really is no spoon.
...
Would it be possible to add a report option for spamming nonsense, whining that a thread exists, and the like? It generally doesn't contribute to a conversation to spam nonsense, announce that you're bored
-2
What pencil? There is no pencil.Because I made it disappear.
But there really is no spoon.
Yes, there is, Neo; you just aren't channeling your inner The Tick.
I'm fairly disappointed by this thread. The OP made a reasonable request for a forum feature that is available on a number of other forums. In response he was ridiculed and mocked by a whole slew of posters. There's a whole bunch of people in this thread who are breaking the "don't be a dick" rule of the Paizo forums and it definitely does not reflect well on any of them or the forum as a whole when viewed by an outsider.
I also understand the OP's frustration with people joining a thread and deliberately attempting to kill or ongoing discussion. On some forums this is considered an anti-social form of behaviour and cause for infractions/thread bans. On Paizo forums it appears to be a valid tactic for killing threads you do not agree with.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion of the events.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fairly disappointed by this thread. The OP made a reasonable request for a forum feature that is available on a number of other forums. In response he was ridiculed and mocked by a whole slew of posters. There's a whole bunch of people in this thread who are breaking the "don't be a dick" rule of the Paizo forums and it definitely does not reflect well on any of them or the forum as a whole when viewed by an outsider.
I also understand the OP's frustration with people joining a thread and deliberately attempting to kill or ongoing discussion. On some forums this is considered an anti-social form of behaviour and cause for infractions/thread bans. On Paizo forums it appears to be a valid tactic for killing threads you do not agree with.
The last time I commented on that sort of behaviour, one of the more well known posters here told me there were lots of other forums on the internet if I didn't like what's customary here on the Paizo forums.
I may still be a poster on these forums, but that pretty much concluded any illusions I had that I particularly wanted to be considered a part of the gaming community here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The last time I commented on that sort of behaviour, one of the more well known posters here told me there were lots of other forums on the internet if I didn't like what's customary here on the Paizo forums.
I may still be a poster on these forums, but that pretty much concluded any illusions I had that I particularly wanted to be considered a part of the gaming community here.
Yeah, the "we were here first" clique is a more than a bit boorish in that respect.
.....
|
I've never been bothered by replies of "+1". Sometimes it helps to gauge whether most posters agree or disagree with one side of an argument (which I'm sometimes interested to know).
As to the Favorites system, I almost always use it to mark posts that I want to be able to find again, and I think that many other users use it that way.
If all you have to say is "I agree with that thing you said," you aren't contributing to a conversation, just making noise in the space where people who are making comments worth agreeing with are talking.
That line comes across as more than a bit condescending. Sounds a lot like, "Quiet, children! The adults at the table are talking".
That line comes across as more than a bit condescending. Sounds a lot like, "Quiet, children! The adults at the table are talking".
Hence the more than predictable reaction.
|
That line comes across as more than a bit condescending. Sounds a lot like, "Quiet, children! The adults at the table are talking".Except that anyone can be an "adult" in this example simply by joining the conversation. I've yet to see someone who's posted more than a dozen times on these forums who didn't make a comment worth marking as insightful/interesting.
I also understand the OP's frustration with people joining a thread and deliberately attempting to kill or ongoing discussion. On some forums this is considered an anti-social form of behaviour and cause for infractions/thread bans. On Paizo forums it appears to be a valid tactic for killing threads you do not agree with.What's especially worrying to me is the implication (or, in one case, the outright statement) that threads are wars that one "side" can win, rather than discussions.
Hence the more than predictable reaction.The predictable reaction to someone posting something you disagree with is to fill the thread with useless spam?
Let'ssss put a sssssssmile on that face!
|
The predictable reaction to someone posting something you disagree with is to fill the thread with useless spam?
No, the predictable reaction was to the interpreted condescending "quiet children" tone of the request, not necessarily to a thread with which one disagrees.
As to the "+1" posts, I do agree with Heymitch that is does give a quick view of which way the readers of a thread are viewing the thread contents. The Favorites functionality does not makes such a quick visual judgment as easy (though it is much better for picking out individual POSTS within a thread that readers are agreeing with IF people are using the Favorites functionality for that purpose and not just marking a post they want to be able to reference later).
Additionally, a "+1" post, especially in a thread such as a product discussion thread, does aid valuable content to the thread in that it shows support for specific content.
|
|
Explicit Slashdot/reddit style tags (without the up/down voting or filter system) would do the former,
Which is functionality not currently present in the forums and is not in line with the original request of this thread. That said, since folks are NOT necessarily using the Favorites functionality for the equivalent of a "+1" post (numerous folks, including the PMG have stating they are using it to tag specific posts they may want to go back to ... which is what a favorite notation should really be after all), this would be additional functionality above and beyond the current set up.
Additionally, taking the stance that a +1 post does not add to the conversation, I do have to disagree. Do you feel the same way as someone putting up a post that quotes a posts and they add "Good point", "I agree with you completely" or "Well said" and leave it at that? All of these do add to the content by indicating the strength of a posted stance or statement. Granted they do not expound upon the original post, but they are still a contribution whether you appreciate it or not.
and wishlists do the latter.
Can one view a cumulative wishlist for all users of the site? If so this is something of which I was unaware. If not, then it is functionality not currently present.
Additionally, while a wishlist may give you the number of folks who like a product (as they added it to their wishhlist) it does not indicate specifically what folks are liking about the product, where a "+1" post to t a specific comment would give such an indication.
EDIT: Sorry MiB, I edited my original post to clarify and expand the first point a little and then saw you had responded to the original version. You're too dang quick man.
I've never been bothered by replies of "+1". Sometimes it helps to gauge whether most posters agree or disagree with one side of an argument (which I'm sometimes interested to know).
As to the Favorites system, I almost always use it to mark posts that I want to be able to find again, and I think that many other users use it that way.
Personally, I find that the 'List' function is far more useful for this purpose. You can add a note to remind yourself why something was important to you, make the list hidden/public as desired, and see if there have been 'x new' posts.
I use the favorite function solely to denote support regardless of whether I may opt to reply or not. IMO, using it as a bookmarking function (the way the PMG suggests) only muddies the message that is being sent to the poster and other readers. To me, that does more harm than good.
Gauging the community's sentiment from +1's is something I find useful and interesting too. I just find it much more concise to see a post with 11 favorites than to see a slew of ever-growing nested quotes followed by a +1. ;)
...a "+1" post to t a specific comment would give such an indication.
Except for all the folks who click 'Reply' and don't trim their quotes like you and I do. :)
|
|
Presumably, Paizo can see how many people have marked Ultimate Cobbling (with the new Shoemaker class!) to their wishlist when it's announced. If they can't, they really should be able to.
Paizo may be able to, but what about 3PP? As the owners of the database within which the info is stored, I'm sure Paizo has this info readily available for themselves (data is no good if you don't use it after all). The 3PP would be the ones who would get more out of the comments section from the product discussion (and the show of +1 support).
As for what people specifically like about the product, a post that offered more than +1 would be more informative.
Agreed, but some information is better than no information.
Also, MiB, I did edit my previous post while you were responding to expand on the first point.
|
|
What does me-tooing with no additional comments add that like flags would not?
I agree it does not add as much to a conversation as a full blown post would, but if someone puts up a post that says what you would other wise post, would you rather see a +1 or a repost of the same point in different words?
Do 3PPs not get this info? Again, they probably should.
Agreed. Or should I say +1? ;)
I'd also argue that they'd be better served by a discussion that offers some sort of insight on why people are interested in the product or what they're hoping for or whatnot, rather than a bunch of empty "Woo, I'm looking forward to this!" times 100.
Well, for a +1 comment associated with a post that says what they like about a product is not the same as 100 "Woo, I'm looking forward to this" posts. Even so, those 100 "Woo" posts do give an indication as to how well received a product is or potentially will be moreso than no posts at all.
That line comes across as more than a bit condescending. Sounds a lot like, "Quiet, children! The adults at the table are talking".Except that anyone can be an "adult" in this example simply by joining the conversation. I've yet to see someone who's posted more than a dozen times on these forums who didn't make a comment worth marking as insightful/interesting.
Nah. Still elitist and condescending.
I'm not saying that the "Don't be a jerk" rule should be abolished, but there are plenty of instances where people aren't being jerks even when they post something that is not 100% serious and on topic.
And some threads exist because people are being jerks and try to actively ridicule and flame-bait others.
So your demand that all this has to stop even if people aren't being jerks, just because you don't like it, comes across as a bit condescending. Add words like nonsense and whining (usually viewed as insulting), this turns from "a bit" to "a lot".
Hence the more than predictable reaction.The predictable reaction to someone posting something you disagree with is to fill the thread with useless spam?
See, this is what I mean: I'm sure you understood what I meant but you're trying to twist my words.
Intentional thread derailment SHOULD be considered unacceptable.
If someone has a problem with a thread, they should flag it and let moderation handle it, rather than trying to be cutesy about it.
Intentional thread derailment SHOULD be considered unacceptable.
If someone has a problem with a thread, they should flag it and let moderation handle it, rather than trying to be cutesy about it.
Exactly! Especially when it consists of an army of little blue men (and a woman) - btw, is their imagery even free to use? Don't want Paizo to get into any legal trouble by using those avatars.
Or a string of sock puppet postings with inane comments. Sad to say, but Aberzombie has a particular bad habit of doing this.It's, IMO, childish and extremely passive aggressive.
Don't like a thread? Like Brian said, flag it and move on. It's even one of the frickin' rules on the messageboard!
Intentional thread derailment SHOULD be considered unacceptable.
If someone has a problem with a thread, they should flag it and let moderation handle it, rather than trying to be cutesy about it.
Exactly! Especially when it consists of an army of little blue men (and a woman) - btw, is their imagery even free to use? Don't want Paizo to get into any legal trouble by using those avatars.
Or a string of sock puppet postings with inane comments. Sad to say, but Aberzombie has a particular bad habit of doing this.
It's, IMO, childish and extremely passive aggressive.
Don't like a thread? Like Brian said, flag it and move on. It's even one of the frickin' rules on the messageboard!
Whatchoo talkin' about, Great Dane? I'm a blue guy.
I'm a sock puppet.
I post insane comments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a sock puppet.
ROFLMAO!!! Damn that's funny!
I'm a sock puppet.ROFLMAO!!! Damn that's funny!
+1
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intentional thread derailment SHOULD be considered unacceptable......It's, IMO, childish and extremely passive aggressive...
It's always been my observation that the little blue guys don't show up until after the thread has already been derailed by the "serious" commenters. If the thread has stopped being about discussion and has turned into yet-another-head on the GRAR-hydra, then the thread has already been derailed. Maybe I'm just missing it, but the little blue guys don't show up in threads where the topic or opinions are merely disagreeable; they are attracted to GRAR. Maybe it's better to think of them as a "check engine" or "out of gas" light on your car.
Also, smurf.
Another interesting observation is that since commenting in this thread, a couple of these "serious" posters have turned right around and derailed other threads by making typical strawman/ad homs/ evidence of absence and other (deliberately or not) fallacious tactics. How is that more on-topic than a smurf sighting?
Another interesting observation is that since commenting in this thread, a couple of these "serious" posters have turned right around and derailed other threads by making typical strawman/ad homs/ evidence of absence and other (deliberately or not) fallacious tactics.Merely bad arguments aren't (or at least, shouldn't) be against any rules, or else you end up with the moderators being forced to arbitrate every discussion that's at all contentious...
Ad homs against other posters shouldn't be against the rules?! Also:
Another interesting observation is that since commenting in this thread, a couple of these "serious" posters have turned right around and derailed other threads by making typical strawman/ad homs/ evidence of absence and other (deliberately or not) fallacious tactics.
Ahem. Is this subtle enough or should I just call you Pot from now on? Hint hint.
|
|
Another interesting observation is that since commenting in this thread, a couple of these "serious" posters have turned right around and derailed other threads by making typical strawman/ad homs/ evidence of absence and other (deliberately or not) fallacious tactics.Merely bad arguments aren't (or at least, shouldn't) be against any rules, or else you end up with the moderators being forced to arbitrate every discussion that's at all contentious.
That said, if you think a post was made in bad faith to disrupt a discussion, report it. Passive-aggressive "Well, they did X, so I'm justified in doing Y!" just makes the entire forum a worse place for discussion.
I think argument that have nothing to do with the original poster, or jump around and make the discussion more inflamatory are a lot worse then someone flipping you the smurf.
Here is a great example. A thread about how someone thinks that spellcasters should be able to cast more than one spell a round. A discussion happens where people state thier opinion, and then someone jump in saying how archer are too powerful and are nerfed in his game. That, in my opinon, contributes to the original thread a heck of a lot less than a +1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, this is what I mean: I'm sure you understood what I meant but you're trying to twist my words.Could you clarify, then?
It goes like this:
You get on a high horse and demand that whining people aren't allowed to post with what you deem inappropriate.
At that point, people doing exactly what you act all indignant about to show you what they think of you is all but inevitable.
I assumed that was considered unacceptable, and the only reason that it didn't get dealt with is because the mods can't watch every thread.
So you saw this unacceptable behaviour and didn't flag it because you thought "breaks other guidelines" isn't worded strongly enough?
Or did you use that, and when they didn't issue three-year-bans, you assumed that their hands were tied because the flag didn't read "Post makes no sense?"
Did I misunderstand when I took your comments as defense of this practice, when you think someone posting in the thread deserves it?
I'm against jerkery in all forms. Singling out one form as worse than the others isn't the answer, though. And being a jerk and then complaining when others throw it right back into your face is simply hypocrisy.
+/- ∞~0+1This.-0
#Ω
