I believe that the accepted etiquette in a forum such is this that the new person has made some effort to attempt to search out the answers to the questions they may have.
To preface the post with I did look but cannot find (or make heads nor tails out of )threads about X, indicates the newcomers willingness to discuss things in a manner consistent with current etiquette/culture extant on the forums. Thus this street is two-way and as such the FNG needs to do some of the work there. Heck I have been posting for a year+ here and still start rules questions with the above phrase or some variation because I know my search-fu isn't always strong.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a new poster is experiencing sarcasm and condescention, that is a bad reflection on us all.
If the answer is oooohhh sooooo easy to find, then it shouldn't be any trouble to post a link, should it?
If you see this kind of elitism*, flag it, and wait for someone more mature to come along.
*I hesitated to call it 'elitism', since at its core, there's nothing wrong with true elitism, ie picking people based on talent. In the normal usage of the word, though, the perpetrators aren't 'elite', they're just insufferable tools.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a relative newcomer this is a bit of a problem. Several active members of the community give one-line contributions to a thread and little else. Posts of "Oh no, not another X" are quite common, and they usually don't elaborate. And I don't really care for the unsupported link posts either. "This was discussed <here>" isn't nearly as helpful as "This was discussed <here> and the consensus was..."
I've said my piece about civility, elitism, and system hate here as well, but those bear mentioning as often as possible. Something that might make you feel cool among a familiar circle of the like-minded could be enough to drive a new voice away. Trust me, I've considered it.
This community is a hard nut to crack. But, fortunately, worth it. And with the (hopefully) large inrush of new gamers from the Beginner Box, we could work on sprucing things up a bit.
Finally, if any of you catch my comments as coming off in the negative ways described, PLEASE CALL ME ON IT. Chances are I'll happily rephrase.
You are absolutely correct.
However, I reserve the right to groan sarcastically if the OP is obviously baiting an argument rather than requesting advice.
Keeping this place friendly and helpful is the goal, either way.
Senior Software Developer
|
No, it's more that we don't want discussion about things that aren't, say, advice for playing Pathfinder in the advice forum. Website feedback is more appropriate if you squint a bit and think of it as more of a "meta" discussion forum. We often move threads about website etiquette here. (And then move them to off-topic once they go off into the weeds as they tend to sooner or later.)
There are many questions that don't apply to an easy search term. I, for instance, have been looking for a "Pathfinder/Dreamscarred Press psionic support/suggestion group" for lack of a better term. Psionics being in the minority here, and evoking some rather stringent reactions from some players/posters. The Dreamscarred Press messageboard here is also not very responsive to some questions such as "How do I defeat xyz?", "How do I play this AP as a psionic?" or "What is a good build/power plan for a specific character?" I've asked these questions, and it's taken a while to answer them. Both Jeremy Smith and James Jacobs have been great, but this is still a hard topic to discuss on both boards.
So I don't mind at all seeing the same questions posted again and again. The proper etiquette would be for someone to post a semi-permanent "guide" or "howto" for these questions, as well as a good, varied response, and point newbies there, much like the WoTC boards did for 3.0 and 3.5. If we're seeing the same questions over and over again, even if they are poorly worded, then that means the questions have meaning.
and those guides would require regular updates. i don't think Treantmonk should be left alone to perform the task.
we need a handbook subforum.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the answer is oooohhh sooooo easy to find, then it shouldn't be any trouble to post a link, should it?
+1.
It's one thing to be a wanker on the internet, but there's no excuse to be a lazy unhelpful wanker.
(And anyone who has ever used the Search function knows that it's terrible at finding things, when it's in a mood. I sometimes can't find posts I posted *yesterday* without clicking on my own name and going through 'Recent Posts by Set.')
|
B"This was discussed <here> and the consensus was..."
The problem is that more often than not there isn't a consensus.
I can think that my position has been proved beyond any doubt and that those that disagree with me have been proved wrong, but the opposite side can feel the same.So unless we are citing a FAQ or a rule change, saying "the general consensus is ..." is giving our opinion, not a rule.
Then sometime why an opinion has been formed is as much important at what is the opinion.
So giving a TL,DR version of the discussion isn't always a easy option while directing the person to the discussion can be very helpful.
Hell to the yes. It breaks my heart when I see someone innocently asking a question and they get spammed by "veterans" with stuff that's to the effect of "that's a stupid question."
It's possible to provide a link to previous discussions without acting like your brain is trapped in your posterior. And if you really think someone is trolling, then have the maturity to ignore it and move on (flagging it if it's truly inappropriate of course).
|
Director of Game Development
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I came here back in early 2006 to ask a question after getting verbally pooped on by folks on another forum way back then.
Here I got nice answers, stayed, made friends, and the rest is history. I hate seeing the same behavior that drove me away from that other site happen here.
Be helpful, be nice, or ignore it and move on.
|
|
I came here back in early 2006 to ask a question after getting verbally pooped on by folks on another forum way back then.
Here I got nice answers, stayed, made friends, and the rest is history. I hate seeing the same behavior that drove me away from that other site happen here.
Be helpful, be nice, or ignore it and move on.
Well said, sir!
|
I came here back in early 2006 to ask a question after getting verbally pooped on by folks on another forum way back then.
Here I got nice answers, stayed, made friends, and the rest is history. I hate seeing the same behavior that drove me away from that other site happen here.
Be helpful, be nice, or ignore it and move on.
Big +1 to you sir.
I do agree with many of the points raised so far in the thread so far. The one thing I would like to point out though, as it has not been done so clearly, posting snarky comments in an thread with an honest inquiry is not limited to "board veterans".
I have seen folks who have very limited post counts making similar remarks in some threads. Granted, they make be long time lurkers with no significant posting, but I don't believe for a second the issue is limited to "old timers". <curmudgeon><waves cane> That's right you "board whippersnappers", I'm looking at you.</waves cane></curmudgeon>
That said, personally I think the posting of links to previous incarnations of a thread is a totally legitimate response. It allows the OP to actually see what had already been discussed without having to wait for the plethora of answers they will most likely get (especially for things that that have no FAQ or errata).
That said, personally I think the posting of links to previous incarnations of a thread is a totally legitimate response. It allows the OP to actually see what had already been discussed without having to wait for the plethora of answers they will most likely get (especially for things that that have no FAQ or errata).
+1. They are likely to learn more, with less snark, by reading the first iteration of an argument than by asking everyone to argue it over again when they're already sick of the question and sides are entrenched.
Well said, sir!I came here back in early 2006 to ask a question after getting verbally pooped on by folks on another forum way back then.
Here I got nice answers, stayed, made friends, and the rest is history. I hate seeing the same behavior that drove me away from that other site happen here.
Be helpful, be nice, or ignore it and move on.
This.
There's no reason to be Walter Sobchak here.
|
|
I do agree with many of the points raised so far in the thread so far. The one thing I would like to point out though, as it has not been done so clearly, posting snarky comments in an thread with an honest inquiry is not limited to "board veterans".
Indeed, the people who stand out for this sort of dismissive and off-putting behavior, are, by my standards, johnny-come-latelies who haven't been around for more than a year or two.
I haven't made a habit of flagging dickish behavior to new posters, but it seems like one of the better reasons to flag a post.
|
Director of Game Development
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree with many of the points raised so far in the thread so far. The one thing I would like to point out though, as it has not been done so clearly, posting snarky comments in an thread with an honest inquiry is not limited to "board veterans".Indeed, the people who stand out for this sort of dismissive and off-putting behavior, are, by my standards, johnny-come-latelies who haven't been around for more than a year or two.
I haven't made a habit of flagging dickish behavior to new posters, but it seems like one of the better reasons to flag a post.
So true. However, there's a good number of folks who are regulars now that weren't around in the magazine days, and they kick much ass helping new folks out on certain topics. Some of them even hate some of the fast-and-loose methods some of the old pre-Pathfinder crew use to do things here. The [use of a certain word that changes your avatar], for example, worked for us for a long time and kept a neat and tidy community that was more focused on fun than the F-U. (Times when it was more a setting war than an edition war.) I understand how some of our tactics for community control just don't work with a bigger audience and can easily be seen as dismissive and disruptive. While a number of the vets either self-regulated their behavior, silently slipped away, or sequestered themselves to a more accepting section of the forums, some of us still kick around all of the boards, and for the most part, those old-schoolers rock the help-a-new-guy-or-girl method.
I just don't want the increased popularity of Pathfinder to create some exaggerated clique-mentality or a game with boards full of know-it-all jerks. We all swim in a bigger pond these days, so we need to help the school along...as a whole. It's a big game with a lot of rules set in a big world with a lot of nuance.
The best way to fight jackasses and jerks is to be better.
Be helpful.
Be nice.
Be helpful, be nice, or ignore it and move on.
Well put.
+1. They are likely to learn more, with less snark, by reading the first iteration of an argument than by asking everyone to argue it over again when they're already sick of the question and sides are entrenched.
That said, personally I think the posting of links to previous incarnations of a thread is a totally legitimate response. It allows the OP to actually see what had already been discussed without having to wait for the plethora of answers they will most likely get (especially for things that that have no FAQ or errata).
This is true, but I think the reason someone cited link posts as problematic not because of sending links, but because of the negative tone of the message accompanying the link.
Sometimes I've seen messages with links in them, with an attached comment like, "The search function has a purpose, idiot," or some such. Rather than, say, "Welcome. This was discussed recently ((here)). If you use the board's search function, you'll probably find similar discussions."
As for "vets" versus "newbs" most of the snarkery I've seen in the kinds of threads the OP is talking about, in my personal experience, has not come from new people, consistently so. It may depend on the kind of thread you click on (we all read different parts of the boards more frequently).
But, I think it can suffice to say that everyone should be expected to show a modicum of respect toward others, regardless of how long they've been here.
I have not noticed any of that, I am relatively new here and was/am surprised by the level of civility and community here. It made me want to stay.
try visiting a car forum and ask a simple question you will get 100 "you don't want to do that do this instead" or " why would your spend your money on that you obviously need to learn how to drive"
the list goes on and on
here it has been different people are sometimes grumpy or snarky (sean k renyolds I am looking at you) but mostly even the huge trolls or jerk wads get treated better than most of the first time newbies you find on NASIOC.
basically it is like the rest of the internet is the delta quadrant and this forum here is Voyager with its federation ideals and tolerance. life is pretty good here *puts his feet up on james jacobs desk and leans back in his chair* pretty good! indeed
I will say this, if you visit the non pathfinder off topic posts be prepared for what ever happens I stay away from those, like a klingon to tribbles
"...and the consensus was..."
Consensus?
On these boards?;P
|
|
life is pretty good here *puts his feet up on james jacobs desk and leans back in his chair* pretty good! indeed
Psst.
I hope you're not frightened of the prehistoric aboleth larvae...While you're there, you may as well chug Buhlmann's whiskey. I hear he keeps the good stuff in the bottom drawer.
+1. They are likely to learn more, with less snark, by reading the first iteration of an argument than by asking everyone to argue it over again when they're already sick of the question and sides are entrenched.
That said, personally I think the posting of links to previous incarnations of a thread is a totally legitimate response. It allows the OP to actually see what had already been discussed without having to wait for the plethora of answers they will most likely get (especially for things that that have no FAQ or errata).This is true, but I think the reason someone cited link posts as problematic not because of sending links, but because of the negative tone of the message accompanying the link.
Sometimes I've seen messages with links in them, with an attached comment like, "The search function has a purpose, idiot," or some such. Rather than, say, "Welcome. This was discussed recently ((here)). If you use the board's search function, you'll probably find similar discussions."
As for "vets" versus "newbs" most of the snarkery I've seen in the kinds of threads the OP is talking about, in my personal experience, has not come from new people, consistently so. It may depend on the kind of thread you click on (we all read different parts of the boards more frequently).
But, I think it can suffice to say that everyone should be expected to show a modicum of respect toward others, regardless of how long they've been here.
When I link to another thread like a discussion I tried not say use the search function. Also sometimes I get frustrated with a thread and stop reading it and won't go back if I recognize it as that thread if the thread is off the rails. Then I will read the new thread and hopefully get something productive in before someone turns it into a flamewar.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While we're on the subject of providing links;
To all you gaming geniuses, getting yourselves irate at the fact that people aren't using the search function to applaud your pearls of wisdom: you might get more traffic, if your magnum opus of mathematical marvels wasn't hidden behind thread titles such as "More broken crud from [book X]", "MAD Tank suxxors at AGGRO vs kiting switch-hitter", and other information-free invitations to TrollTown.
While we're on the subject of providing links;
To all you gaming geniuses, getting yourselves irate at the fact that people aren't using the search function to applaud your pearls of wisdom: you might get more traffic, if your magnum opus of mathematical marvels wasn't hidden behind thread titles such as "More broken crud from [book X]", "MAD Tank suxxors at AGGRO vs kiting switch-hitter", and other information-free invitations to TrollTown.
Perhaps we need a new thread, titled "Please stop singling out a specific class/group of board members for behavior exhibited by members of ALL classes/groups of board members."
STUFF
+1
I'd like to add I don't even care if its a newbie or long-time veteran. They deserve respect. If people can't say something helpful about the topic, no matter how much they think it may have been covered, then don't be a troll and move along. Posting a link is OK, as long as it's not accompanied by ridicule.
For the uninitiated:
Troll: someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.