# Posting habits people can do without



## Afrodyte (Nov 1, 2004)

This is not a thread started in response to a particular person's comments or to things I see exclusively on EN World.  However, of all the RPG forums I go to, EN World seems the most committed to making sure the environment is welcoming to all members and potential members.  So, a lot of this can be taken in the spirit of wanting a good thing to be even better.

After being on several RPG forums for a while, I've noticed some tendencies outside of flaming and trolling that impact how much I am able to enjoy posting on them.  I know that not everybody does these things or that these things are unique to EN World, but they happen enough that I now think it's worth talking about it.  Hopefully, people may read some of what people post here and use it to help curtail certain things, but at the very least, I just hope to feel better.  Granted, some of this is just me venting, but any input you have on how people can better curtail these behaviors, or what people can say or do to counteract these, would be very helpful.  I'm just going to list the traits, but if you need clarification, I'd be glad to elaborate.

1.  Answering a how-to question with a critique or yes-no response.
2.  Not reading posts throughly and responding in a way that reveals such.
3.  Refusing to admit a question or comment is not understood.
4.  To a complex question, giving an answer that is short, simple, and wrong.
5.  Assuming posters who don't flash their credentials are new and/or stupid when they ask a question or raise an issue addressing things beyond the rules.
6.  Turning a casual conversation into a debate not relevant to the original topic.
7.  Replying to a post line by line by line (more or less).
8.  Other things you've noticed.

This pretty much encompasses a lot of the things I've noticed people do frequently enough that I can comment on it.  I'd really appreciate your help with this.  Thanks.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 1, 2004)

Many of those things don't bother me much, but I agree that it'd probably be better if people didn't respond that way.  However, one in particular I disagree with flat out:


			
				Afrodyte said:
			
		

> 7. Replying to a post line by line by line (more or less).



I'm curious what you think a more appropriate response would be?  This is (IMO) the best way to respond to a lengthy post with multiple points, because you can easily match the response to the original point to which it responds.  I do this, and I do it on purpose because it's the easiest way to follow a longer discussion.

Now, granted, I don't always respond to every single line item; if I don't have any comment, I leave it alone.  I'm also concious of the amount of quoted text, and try to minimize it.

But I still don't see why you'd have a problem with this, and I'm curious what alternate solution you'd propose that would putatively work better.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Nov 1, 2004)

Afrodyte said:
			
		

> 2.  Not reading posts throughly and responding in a way that reveals such.




I've done this on occasion, sometimes I just read things too fast and others I jump to an incorrect conclusion, I shall stive to achieve perfection.  Of course sometimes the poster is not clear about what they were saying and only upon clarification you realize what they were really looking for.



> 3.  Refusing to admit a question or comment is not understood.




Well, that may be pride, or it may go back to #2



> 4.  To a complex question, giving an answer that is short, simple, and wrong.




Short and simple can be good - complex questions do not always need complex answers.  Wrong, well perhaps the respondent did not know they were wrong, they will learn when others inevitably point it out to them.  I usually post on breaks from work without access to resources, so mistakes are made.



> 5.  Assuming posters who don't flash their credentials are new and/or stupid when they ask a question or raise an issue addressing things beyond the rules.




I have not noticed this, and I am fairly new and have no credentials whatsoever expect that I play D&D



> 6.  Turning a casual conversation into a debate not relevant to the original topic.



It happens a lot, but I see message boards much like a conversation; many times the topic changes as the conversation continues and evolves.  Usually if the inital question has not been addressed I find that someone tries to get it back on track.



> 7.  Replying to a post line by line by line (more or less).




OK, I did this just to cheese you off, sorry,    but I think this is often a good way to be sure that people understand what parts of a post you are responding to, especially if it ends up on a different page from the post being responded to.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 1, 2004)

I absolutely agree with Afrodyte about point 7, line by line replies. Here's what another message board, The Forge, has to say about them:



			
				The Forge's FAQ said:
			
		

> E. Line-by-line replies
> 
> Line-by-line replies are the online equivalent of interrupting someone after every sentence and arguing that sentence, taking it completely out of context. It is not only highly discouraged, but if used often, will be considered a flame.




I tend to agree. In my experience when most people descend to this level (Hi Hong!   ), they've already lost the argument and are just being snarky.


----------



## Michael Morris (Nov 1, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I tend to agree. In my experience when most people descend to this level (Hi Hong!   ), they've already lost the argument and are just being snarky.




ROFL

I need a ROFL smilie.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 1, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I tend to agree. In my experience when most people descend to this level (Hi Hong!  ), they've already lost the argument and are just being snarky.



Yep.  Generally, the best way to respond to a long post, IMO, is to pick out a point or two from it that you think is key and respond to those points.  Things tend to get pretty icky when two people start doing this to one another.

Daniel


----------



## diaglo (Nov 1, 2004)

Afrodyte said:
			
		

> 1.  Answering a how-to question with a critique or yes-no response.




yes.




> 2.  Not reading posts throughly and responding in a way that reveals such.
> 3.  Refusing to admit a question or comment is not understood.
> 4.  To a complex question, giving an answer that is short, simple, and wrong.




what was the question again?




> 5.  Assuming posters who don't flash their credentials are new and/or stupid when they ask a question or raise an issue addressing things beyond the rules.
> 6.  Turning a casual conversation into a debate not relevant to the original topic.




i've been playing this game since i had to call individual computer bulletin board style. you had to post your responses... and then hang up and wait several days later to see if anyone even replied to your posts.




> 7.  Replying to a post line by line by line (more or less).
> 8.  Other things you've noticed.




i hat line by line responses. (hi hong)


----------



## Crothian (Nov 1, 2004)

Afrodyte said:
			
		

> 1.  Answering a how-to question with a critique or yes-no response.
> 2.  Not reading posts throughly and responding in a way that reveals such.
> 3.  Refusing to admit a question or comment is not understood.
> 4.  To a complex question, giving an answer that is short, simple, and wrong.
> ...




1) Ya, it can be a bit of a pain.  But it is not relly that big of deal. hey are easy to skip over.
2) This happens with people who post long winded posts that seem to ramble and with threads that go on for pages and people don't want to read all the responses to.  
3) This I haven't really seen.  I would actually think its the reader just saying this as a way to not give credit to responders answer.  
4) Nothing wrong with short and simple.  And some people do answer questions wrong.  
5) Bias is a part of being alive.  
6) Topics do change with the flow of the thread.  
7) I think it is a good way to respond to the different points of a thread, especially a long winded one.  

I think that if you want these problems to go away we will have to havea heavy handed form of moderation that people will hate.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 1, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Many of those things don't bother me much, but I agree that it'd probably be better if people didn't respond that way.  However, one in particular I disagree with flat out:
> 
> I'm curious what you think a more appropriate response would be?  This is (IMO) the best way to respond to a lengthy post with multiple points, because you can easily match the response to the original point to which it responds.  I do this, and I do it on purpose because it's the easiest way to follow a longer discussion...




Ditto. I'm not even sure how else you _can_ answer a lengthy post with several points...or what is wrong with this manner of posting.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 1, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> ...I tend to agree. In my experience when most people descend to this level (Hi Hong!   ), they've already lost the argument and are just being snarky.




Hey now...it's all how you _use_ the tools. Just becasue a rifle is an excellent weapon of war doesn't mean it can't also put food on the table 

I'll stick with my line-by-lines (in peace and otherwise)


----------



## Afrodyte (Nov 1, 2004)

Looking at my post again, I realize that everything I said boils down to not being mindful of what someone is trying to say and what kinds of things they're really looking for, even when these things are explicitly stated.  Only the poll-type threads seem relatively immune to this, and I suppose it's because no one is usually required to "listen," as it were.  So, what happens a lot is that many threads contain posts that are irrelevant or repetitive which makes for bulky threads.  Now, I _love_ bulky threads when everyone contributes their own experiences and insights relevant to the topic, but I loathe it when a people take up space to say a lot of nothing.


----------



## Afrodyte (Nov 1, 2004)

Crothian,

It's easy to ignore a few posts that are irrelevant, but I don't like wasting my time skipping through a whole thread, especially when it involves an off-topic discussion.

If you want to debate with someone (and usually it's only 2 people, 3 at most, who engage in this sort of behavior within a single thread), hijacking the thread isn't necessary.  For community supporters, using private messages works just as well.  For those who are not community supporters, starting a new thread is definitely feasible.  That way, people who are interested in the argument can watch it and particpate to their hearts' content.

For long posts, I tend to be of the persuasion that if you can't be bothered to read it and understand it within the proper context, it's best not to respond at all.  That way, nobody wastes their time.

None of these requires "heavy-handed" moderation at all.  It only requires people to think about something besides what they want to say.  You have to ([jk]*gasp!* horror of horrors![/jk]) consider that there are other people involved.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 1, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> In my experience when most people descend to this level (Hi Hong!   ), they've already lost the argument and are just being snarky.



There's a _big_ difference between simply nit-picking every little point of someone's thread, and clearly marking what you're responding to.  Who even said line by line responses are arguments, anyway?

Furthermore, the Forge's implication that line by line's are the equivalent of interrupting after every sentence is presposterous; that's rude because you're literally interupting someone you're speaking to; in this case, the person you're speaking to has said their entire piece before you make any response.  I don't see how there's any comparison between the two.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 1, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> ...Furthermore, the Forge's implication that line by line's are the equivalent of interrupting after every sentence is presposterous; that's rude because you're literally interupting someone you're speaking to; in this case, the person you're speaking to has said their entire piece before you make any response.  I don't see how there's any comparison between the two.




Agreed.

However The Forge lost me when I was watching Fusangite trying to get them to explain GNS theory so it made sense. It didn't (at one point they tried to both deny that the "Gamist" part of GNS had anything to do with Gamist eleemtns, but couldn't come up with what they actually _did_ think it meant...sad)


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 1, 2004)

I am so guilty of some many of those I have to wonder why I am not banned or ignored more!  Except for 7, that is just too much work to answer a post line-by-line.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 1, 2004)

...and that right there is a hijack

Oops!


----------



## JimAde (Nov 1, 2004)

I think the "line by line" disagreement is, as Teflon Billy said, a matter of how it's used.  Here I am making a single point.  If somebody broke it up into individual sentences and interspersed comments, then yes it's rude an unhelpful.  But if I ask:

1) A Question

2) A Related question

3) unrelated but kind of similar question

4) something else.

Then I would hope the replies would be broken out in the same way.

Basically, I think 99% of all rules can be reduced to those immortal words of wisdom from Bill and Ted:

Be excellent to each other, and party on dudes. 

(If you don't get that reference you are too young and should not be using a computer unsupervised  )


----------



## DaveMage (Nov 1, 2004)

I'd like message boards better if everyone was limited to one sentence per post, and couldn't post back-to-back and no run on sentences.


----------



## Ferret (Nov 1, 2004)

What I find slightly tedious when people use forums like chat rooms, making short sentence that doesn't add much. I don't mind what they say, and if they occured in chat rooms or IRL I wouldn't mind. But when you have someone post, not spam, but unwitty quips, it can irk me. I don't mind it with some seriousness  as well.

Also when people try to eliminate all traces of vowels, and when people don't use the edit button to it's fullest potential, it can make me Irrate.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Nov 1, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I absolutely agree with Afrodyte about point 7, line by line replies. Here's what another message board, The Forge, has to say about them.




Wow...  I guess that's one message board I should never visit…  I would be banned within a few hours.  



			
				Afrodyte said:
			
		

> Looking at my post again, I realize that everything I said boils down to not being mindful of what someone is trying to say.




I think that's a better solution, and the true thing to strive for...  Much like having a conversation with someone theirs no hard and fast rules on what to do.  

I do “line by line” replies, though a better description might be a point by point, as it’s the easiest way to assure that others have the best chance of getting my point without unneeded confusion.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 2, 2004)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Wow...  I guess that's one message board I should never visit…  I would be banned within a few hours.




The first thing I posted got me censured by the moderator.  

Clearly, we don't use the Forge's rules, and I'm not a big fan of using any ironclad and unflexible rules as a straitjacket for posting. I much prefer to be guided by common sense and courtesy. It's only when people use line-by-line posting to abuse the latter that the style truly annoys me.


----------



## Deset Gled (Nov 2, 2004)

Here's a few more.  They might just be my personal pet peeves, but I think that they have merit.

8.  Not using any capital letters (alternatively, only capital letters) or punctuation, and people who use "l334" speak.  If what you have to say is worth reading, it's worth spending an extra 5 seconds to type it correctly.

9.  Colors.  Changing color is useful if you want to black something out to avoid spoilers or info about a duel.  It's not aesthetically pleasing, it's not cool looking, and it's not going to make you stand out (at least, not in the way you want it too).

10.  Needless text formatting.  Making something bold and/or italic is useful when you need to make something visually stand out from the rest of the text.  It doesn't make your point any stronger.  Same goes for using huge letters.

Do these get on anyone else's nerves at all?  The color one in particular really gets to me.  I hate the way some people deal with color on the internet.  Enworld is the only site I know that managed to get light text on a dark background and have it be readable enough for me to frequent it.  Then again, I tend to dislike colors in general (I'm partially colorblind).


----------



## Afrodyte (Nov 2, 2004)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Do these get on anyone else's nerves at all?  The color one in particular really gets to me.  I hate the way some people deal with color on the internet.  Enworld is the only site I know that managed to get light text on a dark background and have it be readable enough for me to frequent it.  Then again, I tend to dislike colors in general (I'm partially colorblind).




I can see where you're coming from.  A lot of times people change the color and/or font size when they're doing something like campaign design or tweaking a lot of rules in one go, and it actually hurts my eyes to see it.  I don't mind changing the font size slightly to show headers, but making the head text twice as big as the normal text and then applying a lot of colors is painful for me to read.  I don't mean this figuratively either.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 2, 2004)

Yes, those actually bother me more then the orginal posters


----------



## stevelabny (Nov 2, 2004)

there is no way a line-by-line response is the same as interrupting someone when talking.
when most of us have conversations with other people face to face, we would never ask numerous questions or make numerous ridiculous statements without pausing or the other person to get a word in.
it takes TWO to have a conversation.
otherwise you're giving a speech.


----------



## Berandor (Nov 2, 2004)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Yep.  Generally, the best way to respond to a long post, IMO, is to pick out a point or two from it that you think is key and respond to those points.  Things tend to get pretty icky when two people start doing this to one another.
> 
> Daniel



 Which then leads to the original poster coming in and semi-disregarding the post or accusing you of not reading thoroughly ("Did you not read what I wrote above? How about you address my real points?")


----------



## Umbran (Nov 2, 2004)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Which then leads to the original poster coming in and semi-disregarding the post or accusing you of not reading thoroughly




Human communication has never been an exact science, so that a single perfect approach that has no drawbacks at all simply does not exist.  On top of that, message boards have never been a perfect venue for clear and polite discourse.  Life's a pain, in that occasionally you'll have to clarify yourself.


----------



## hong (Nov 2, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I tend to agree. In my experience when most people descend to this level (Hi Hong!   ), they've already lost the argument and are just being snarky.



 Hey, it's all good, as long as people keep talking about me.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 2, 2004)

What I don't like is people who say "Waste my time" as if reading the boards takes so much of their precious time.  Threads are easily scaned and skimmed.


----------



## Afrodyte (Nov 2, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> What I don't like is people who say "Waste my time" as if reading the boards takes so much of their precious time.  Threads are easily scaned and skimmed.




For you, maybe, but not everyone, and not all the time.  Is there something wrong with the idea that not everyone shares the same interests, schedule, and techniques?


----------



## diaglo (Nov 2, 2004)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> 8.  Not using any capital letters (alternatively, only capital letters) or punctuation, and people who use "l334" speak.  If what you have to say is worth reading, it's worth spending an extra 5 seconds to type it correctly.




yeah, b/c using capital letters just changes the whole meaning of what is typed.



> 9.  Colors.  Changing color is useful if you want to black something out to avoid spoilers or info about a duel.  It's not aesthetically pleasing, it's not cool looking, and it's not going to make you stand out (at least, not in the way you want it too).




and many message boards give you the option to control this too. same with script.



> 10.  Needless text formatting.  Making something bold and/or italic is useful when you need to make something visually stand out from the rest of the text.  It doesn't make your point any stronger.  Same goes for using huge letters.





which is a part of the bulletin board or whatever program is used to write the code for the boards.


----------



## alsih2o (Nov 2, 2004)

Afrodyte said:
			
		

> Is there something wrong with the idea that not everyone shares the same interests, schedule, and techniques?




 No, nothing wrong there. What is wrong is people saying there right to read only what they want is more important than someone elses right to post what they want.

 Big difference. I think what Crothian is referring to is people who have an attitude that everyone should only post what THEY find relevant or interesting, and that all else is a waste. The implication is that one persons interest or angle is useless because one reader finds it useless.


----------



## Henry (Nov 2, 2004)

Regarding Line by Line responses:

The biggest problem is that line-by-lines get quickly out-of-hand, expecially when two people use it on one another. It's like a branching-chain combustion; person A uses it, writes lengthy multiline responses to each point. Then Person B uses it, breaking down each point in person A's response, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Before you know it, it takes 15 minutes to read ONE person's post. Most people skip over such lengthy diatribes, not bothering to read them, post their own answers, and then get yelled at for "not reading the whole thread" when a point they made came up in one of the pointless multi-point posts. I see it occasionally over in the Rules Forum, which is why I don't bother mostly to post there, except for site duties. When two multi-line posters get started on one another, it's like trying to untwine spaghetti before eating it.


----------



## alsih2o (Nov 2, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> it's like trying to untwine spaghetti before eating it.




 Great, now the mods are mocking how I eat!


----------



## Afrodyte (Nov 2, 2004)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> No, nothing wrong there. What is wrong is people saying there right to read only what they want is more important than someone elses right to post what they want.
> 
> Big difference. I think what Crothian is referring to is people who have an attitude that everyone should only post what THEY find relevant or interesting, and that all else is a waste. The implication is that one persons interest or angle is useless because one reader finds it useless.




I don't recall anybody actually saying that.  Since it seems that I was unclear about my point, I'll clarify.

Your right to say what you want is not really the issue.  On most fora, only the mods and admins have any real power to censure anyone.  Censorship, though, is not the issue.  Nor is ethics.  It's purely an etiquette thing.  If you don't care about that sort of thing, that's fine.  Yet, don't be surprised if people tell you that you're being obnoxious.  A very extreme example:

Poster A starts a thread that asks, "I want to run a mystery game.  Can you give me some hints about how to run this scenario?"
Posters B thru F respond constructively.
Poster G then replies: "All that is in the DMG.  Besides, mysteries suck."
Poster H: How can you say mysteries suck?! I've been running mysteries since 1st edition, and my players have been having a blast!  If mysteries suck, it's because the GM sucks.
Posters J thru M debate about whether mysteries make for good campaigns.
Poster A wonders where the thread went.

Basically, I'm going by the principle that "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" but applying it to a broader context.  That's all.  What I raised are not divine commandments.  They are not a challenge for you to defend yourself.  I'm not saying that people who do these things are bad, evil, nasty people and should be punished.  I approach a lot of the things I listed in my first post with the same amount of irritation as I do someone cutting me off in traffic or tailgating me.  It doesn't make me go ballistic, but it does color how I view that person and respond to them.


----------



## Afrodyte (Nov 2, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Regarding Line by Line responses:
> 
> The biggest problem is that line-by-lines get quickly out-of-hand, expecially when two people use it on one another. It's like a branching-chain combustion; person A uses it, writes lengthy multiline responses to each point. Then Person B uses it, breaking down each point in person A's response, etc. etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Before you know it, it takes 15 minutes to read ONE person's post. Most people skip over such lengthy diatribes, not bothering to read them, post their own answers, and then get yelled at for "not reading the whole thread" when a point they made came up in one of the pointless multi-point posts. I see it occasionally over in the Rules Forum, which is why I don't bother mostly to post there, except for site duties. When two multi-line posters get started on one another, it's like trying to untwine spaghetti before eating it.




Exactly, and to be honest, EN World is not as bad about this as some other boards (*cough*RPGnet*cough*).  But then again, I don't go to every area in EN World, so I can't say for sure.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 2, 2004)

Afrodyte said:
			
		

> For you, maybe, but not everyone, and not all the time.  Is there something wrong with the idea that not everyone shares the same interests, schedule, and techniques?




Of course not, but these boards are by no means forcing people to read them.  THe idea that my post is wasting someone's time is absurd.  No one is making anyone read them or participate here.  Also, most posts take how many seconds to read..like ten or maybe even a minute for a long one.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 3, 2004)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> I am so guilty of some many of those I have to wonder why I am not banned or ignored more!  Except for 7, that is just too much work to answer a post line-by-line.



That's the beautiful thing; you never actually know how much you're ignored.  I'm betting I've got a good 20% of active users ignoring me.

EDIT:  Oh, also about colors.  Given that we now have skins, with vastly different colors, you pretty much can't count on any color changes for the majority of your text being good.  My sig has two unique colors in it, and I tested it on all sigs, but I certainly wouldn't use it for, say, all the text of my posts.  And it's really annoying when someone changes the color only a little bit, but that means that the text is almost exactly the same color as the background in the PHB skin, for instance, making it impossible to read without highlighting.  Guess what?  Most of the time, that means me no readie.


----------



## Berandor (Nov 3, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's the beautiful thing; you never actually know how much you're ignored.  I'm betting I've got a good 20% of active users ignoring me.



Yeah, me for example.

What?


----------



## diaglo (Nov 3, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's the beautiful thing; you never actually know how much you're ignored.  I'm betting I've got a good 20% of active users ignoring me.




believe it or not i read all your posts.   

my ignore list is longer than.... well i can't count that high.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 3, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> believe it or not i read all your posts.
> 
> my ignore list is longer than.... well i can't count that high.



Was someone saying something in here?


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 3, 2004)

diaglo said:
			
		

> yeah, b/c using capital letters just changes the whole meaning of what is typed.



Meh. It bugs me, too. It's a question of ease of reading. We use capital letters (when we use them) because they assist in comprehension. The meaning may be the same (though I bet if pressed I could come up with examples where meaning changes due to capitalization) (but don't press me), but the effort to read increases -- and if the effort required exceeds the value of the post (and there's an exact calculation for you), then I don't read it.

And if people aren't reading your posts, your posts are making the boards less useful for everyone.

So dadgumit, CAPITALIZE, people!

Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood grammar/punctuation/usage nazi.


I'm probably as guilty of line-by-line dissections as anyone. More, even. I like 'em. I like 'em because it's so much fun skewering people over and over again ("and another thing...SMACK!"). I'm not going to apologize for that, and I trust the moderators to step in when the bloodlust has got me going a little crazy (say, does anyone want to argue about whether or not _Conan_ is a low-magic world?). But skewering people is a big part of my enjoyment of ENWorld. I try to be friendly and polite, because another big part of my enjoyment of this place is its friendly and polite atmosphere.

But it's sure fun smacking people around from time to time.  

I'm a bad person. I admit it.


Oh, and if anyone sees Joshua Dyal, tell him to read this thread. Berandor, too. But don't tell diaglo.


----------



## Xath (Nov 5, 2004)

I don't mind line by line posts, as long as they're in one post.  You can split your responses to seperate posters into seperate posts, but please don't respond to one post with 5 more.


----------

