| | |
|
|
|
Congrats, John. You managed to be even further off from any manner of logical arguement.
I can forgive a few typos...or even a spelling error or two.
What we're talking about in this thread is "y halo ter! how r u?" type speech.
But please, by all means, continue to impress us with your ability to completely miss the point here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That would be why Tal originally posted the log file, which certain posters complained about and Thal removed at request. We forgive what's perceptable as "best-effort", but constant abuse of the language isn't. It's a matter of degree.
For foreign languages, if posted IC, then that'd be fine. Typically, though, other paricipants will ask you to knock it off for OOC discussion. Once that reaches a level, which again is defined by the present moderator, where it's officially disruptive then Bad Things® happen.
As for why we don't put every contingency into the rules: Our focus was and is on making these documents a solid guideline. If that means that we have to rule spontaneously on a subject as it comes up and work with appropriate mettling out of dicipline on a case-by-case basis, then so be it. It's worked since the start of this forum, and I'll wager that it'll continue to work until the end of it. I'm also sure that, if someone has a problem with how Karol and I are handling things... more myself than Karol these days... that they'll find comfort in knowing that they can close the window of their browser and not have to deal with this forum at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
John, this is not a public forum. It's publically accessible, but I'm hoping you understand that's not the same thing. We can enact any rules or standards we want. We can change rules and standards as needed. No, we don't have every possible problem solved in the rules. Furilius and Karol are not psychic, and could not possibly foresee every possibility. If someone's poor spelling and grammar becomes a problem, then we address it.
If someone has trouble with a spelling, we'll work with them. But if they just don't feel like it, then why should we work with them? Maybe we're lazy too.
This is not a democracy. This is a privately owned forum. Krinele and Karol are empowered by Furilius to take whatever measures they feel are necessary to keep the forum running smoothly. If they feel that something is causing problems for the members of the boards, then it isn't just their right, but their duty to address it.
But it's nice if it never reaches that point. And frankly, sometimes members don't want to wait to ask an admin or mod for help. So we let people know when they're causing problems. If someone is causing me problems, I'm going to try and get them to stop.
I know you're big on those libertarian ideals, but freedom of speech does not apply here. You can express nearly any idea here, but it's not because you have a right to. It's because the admins let you. This is Furilius's board, and his rules go. In his absence, Krinele and Karol are in charge, so what they say goes. In the individual forums, what the mod says goes, unless the admins say differently.
Try and focus on this. This board is essentially private property. Think of it as a restaurant or other place of business. Just about anyone's allowed inside, but there are rules they have to follow once they enter. No shirt, no shoes, no service, for example. Do you object to this? Is the management just whining? If someone talks on a cell phone in a movie theater, are the other patrons just whining when they ask the person to stop it?
And yes, I imagine that if your posting in Spanish got to such a degree that it made it difficult for others in chat, you would be asked to stop it.
|
|
|
Errik
|
|
|
|
Member #4808
|
|
Posts: 1110
|
|
|
John, for what its worth, you cannot simply not look at the posts by the people you aren't talking to in chat, and poorly described, poorly spelled things that may effect your avatar are irritating, (see bottom for examples) especially when the people who make no effort to roleplay well- most people will agree that things simply don't flow well if they're mispelt, poorly descibed, unpunctuated etc- get very upset when no-one wants to play with them.
To concentrate on the irritating mistakes rather than the content is fairly reasonable... and quite often, its easy to tell the poor typists, dyslexics, second language-ers, etc, from the lazy by the quality of the RP. The one who has good descriptions, and is following the rules, and not -deliberately- doing things wrong, but has a load of typos and errors will not be yelled down, just pushed in the direction of a spellchecker. The person who has a load of typos, RPs horribly, can't be bothered following the rules (or reading them) of the chat (or physics, or continuity) will probably be yelled down. and yelled down some more if they don't mke an effort to stop. Concentrating on things like this in chat is not intellectual cowardice... its the chat. We're not debating, we're trying to roleplay
-------------
(the examples: someone going around setting all the chairs in chat on fire. Even if you don't want to play with them, your chair has just been set alight. This is not a real example, but a conglomerate mishmash of the type of things that have happened to me at the hands of the type of people who normally get yelled down)
Errik: *Plays in ongoing plot with other avatars*
teh noob: *sets Erik's chair on flame*
Errik: Errik doesn't notice the flame for a second, then when he does, shrieks girlishly and leaps away from the chair, knocking it over in the process. He scowls at teh Noob. "What in the hells was that for?"
Errik: ((ok, where are you, and how is it you set his chair on fire without his noticing?))
teh Noob; hehehhe *laughs at Errik acting like a little girl*
teh Noob: (he wasn't looknig(
Errik: (( Mmkay. Whatever))
teh Noob: *runs of lauging, and finding more things to put on fire*
Errik: *Starts after the Noob, before notcing that he's logged off his aim account, so is presumably offline now*
Errik: *has had the entire storyline he ruined by some random noob, has to scrape to salvage it, while teh Noob starts randomly inflicting himself on other people*
or another example: their avatar profile says wise and dignified, etc- yet in their RPing they act like a skittish 12 year old and can't speak in complete sentences, and have decided -you- are the one they want to play with. How do you react? your character /should/ react in a certain way to the avatar,(say, with respect and great interest) as described in the profile, but would react in a completely different way to the person acting like a total 'tard. (say, *turns his back and pretends that whasisname doesn't exist*) What do you do ?
The problem is, if you are not going to snub them (whether or not its in character to do so), you need to reply to them seriously... meaning you need to either work double time to try make up for their mistakes, or drop to their level. Either way, it's a pain in the butt. The first way, you're getting next to nothing from them, while putting in a hell of a lot yourself so as not to stuff your avatar's little life up too much, the second, well, anyone looking who doesn't know you could think that 'oh look. they both act like that'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this thread certainly took off beyond what I expected.
As for accusations of harrassment... Hmph.
"Right, I'll buy it for you! Here's your book, here's some change, here's some money for the.."
"Wait!"
"WHATwhatWHATWHATWHAT?!"
"I can't read!"
"You can't read. RIGHT! I'LL READ IT FOR YOU! Come on, sit down, sit, sit, are you sitting comfortably and upright?! Ethel the Aardvark..."
... *cough* Yeah. Okay.
Aside from defending myself against that, which is apparently not allowed...
Quote:
Pentagon John said:
OK, so the technical limitations of the DREAM's chat make it difficult sort through the text. How does that translate into advocacy for whining about typos and creating a social strata based on quantity of typos and grammatical proficiency?
Quote:
Centaur Prime said:
My reason for requesting that members is a somewhat simple one. Assuming you have grown up in a school system where english is the primary language of instruction, you most likely have had lessons on things like spelling, grammar and punctuation since you learned to read. By the time you are in your early teens, you should have a pretty good grasp of these basic elements of grammar and a decent vocabulary.
"Quantity of typos and grammatical proficiency" isn't the point. Doing one's best to write clearly is. If one is posting in a publicly visible forum, be it a chat room or a thread, other people will see your posts. If one isn't willing to try to make them clear - regardless of how well one succeeds at doing so - then why is one posting where other people can read it?
Especially in the Napping Cat Chat, where other people cannot choose to not display someone's posts.
Quote:
Pentagon John said:
What if this was applied to you? What if someone who makes fewer errors than you were to ignore what you write in deference to harping on your own errors, as few as YOU think they are? Your small paragraph above has a few. Should DREAMERS speak of you as someone who needs to "start making an effort?" ...or should people just read what you write and respond?
It is applied to everyone. You've just failed to understand what it is that's being applied. See above explanation. Most people do make that effort.
|
|
|
Errik
|
|
|
|
Member #4808
|
|
Posts: 1110
|
|
|
for what it's worth, to the people saying 'what if it's not their first language' some of the most well spoken people I know speak English as their second language... can anyone here say that there is some fault with the way, say, Maus and Lunaria speak English? There are plenty of people on these forums that no-one would realise, from their writing, that they didn't speak English as a first language.
As to PJ speaking other languages in chat if he feels like it... if it was in character, it'd be fine, I think. Thats in character as in, descriptions and that in English, and only the dialogue in Spanish...  so other people's avatars would be able to see uhh... two blokes talking about who knows what in what they may or may nor recognise as Spanish, as compared to being vaugely aware of two guys doing who knows what  . I think the whole idea of chat is that its like, a bar, and everyone can interact with everyone else. *shrug* if you were going to say absolutely everything IC and OOC in Spanish, you may as well go to Aim with it because well... if no one else in the chat speaks Spanish other than you and him, they're not going to be able to interact with you IC in any meaningful fashion.
on another matter entirely: how many of you are familiar with the Kingdom of Loathing Noob Literacy Test, which everyone needs to pass before they're allowed to use the KoL chat? perhaps if the dream implemented something similar to that... something that just about everybody can pass, if they do know the basics of English. ( just to be clear, I am not asking that that is done, just wondering about whether it's a good idea )
for those that don't know- new members of KoL need to type something along the lines of 'I have read, and will follow the Rules of the Kingdom of Loathing.', with correct spelling, capitalisation and punctuation, then do some doovie with boxes where they select the right form of words, before they get chat priveleges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Krinele Fullin said:
We forgive what's perceptable as "best-effort", but constant abuse of the language isn't. It's a matter of degree.
Sure, but making that determination is what a moderator is for. It seems as though some hyper-retentive people are trying to use this thread to fulfill their fantasies of role-playing "nazi chat moderator." My position is that they should just chat, and if there is a problem, then they should PM the moderator who should turn around and tell them to not worry about typos. If an individual is abusing system resources such that others cannot participate then yes, the moderator should rectify the situation...BUT just so we don't go revising history, this thread is NOT addressing leet and other code, it is addressing the "double standard" complaint of "You make more typos than I do" and that does NOT qualify as a problem in which moderators should be intervening.
Quote:
Krinele Fullin said:
For foreign languages, if posted IC, then that'd be fine. Typically, though, other paricipants will ask you to knock it off for OOC discussion.
Why? Who says that English is required?
The overarching question is "Beyond my intended audience, who is required to understand what I am writing?"
..and once you answer that question, the followup is "If someone doesn't understand what I write and thus is a "problem," who's fault is it?" I mean, supposing I make a typo and, say, Roland starts whining, is it therefore a problem because he's whining, and automatically my "fault" because I did the writing?
Quote:
Krinele Fullin said:
As for why we don't put every contingency into the rules:
Our focus was and is on making these documents a solid guideline.
Yes, you'll get no argument here. My position has always been that you can NEVER have a complete set of rules. You can generate forests of documents in an attempt to cover all contingencies, and no sooner will you declare the rules "complete" than will arise a situation that just isn't covered and/or requires "interpretation." All sets of rules should be intended as "guidelines" and nothing more. This is why it is good to have moderators that make those decisions. But you would think that having said moderator would eliminate the whining from the bleachers. It would seem to me that the petty quibbling would be the actual detractor from the chat session, not the typos themselves.
Quote:
Krinele Fullin said:
If that means that we have to rule spontaneously on a subject as it comes up and work with appropriate mettling out of dicipline on a case-by-case basis, then so be it.
There you go. A workable solution. Now back to topic at hand. Should this solution be based on a double standard?
No. Double standards are bad. Attempts to justify them, for whatever reason (e.g. "They're newbies and need to learn", "We've been here for a long time so we have 'tenure'", "He's not making enough of an 'effort' in my opinion") have no business in an open forum. If you wish to exclude certain people, state it up front and simply ban them. If you let them in, then they should be treated equally, and moderators should be ensuring that.
Quote:
Krinele Fullin said:
I'm also sure that, if someone has a problem with how Karol and I are handling things... more myself than Karol these days... that they'll find comfort in knowing that they can close the window of their browser and not have to deal with this forum at all.
Could you clarify this statement above for me? Are you defending double standards, quibbling over typos, or having moderators? This statement of yours is clearly one of those "If you don't like it, leave!" statements, so I'm just curious as to what the "if I don't like it" is.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Tallinu said:
"Quantity of typos and grammatical proficiency" isn't the point. Doing one's best to write clearly is.
I claim you are completely incorrect. I claim that "effort" has nothing to do with anything, and that quantity of errors is the only matter.
On the one hand, I happen to make relatively few typos and relatively few grammatical errors, despite the fact that I make very little effort. I never run spell-check, and I don't review what I write. If I happen to catch an error that I have made while I'm typing, I'll fix it, but I'm too lazy to really review my posts prior to posting.
George Larken, on the other hand, makes many errors, and he makes a serious effort. He runs spell-check. Unlike me, he sometimes reviews what he writes.
All the whining I'm hearing (reading) is directed solely at those who make many errors without any knowledge of the effort that was expended prior to posting. The quantity of errors is tabulated and the final result is erroneously determined as the "level of effort". Of course that doesn't prevent people from making the absurd claim you made above.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
If one is posting in a publicly visible forum, be it a chat room or a thread, other people will see your posts. If one isn't willing to try to make them clear - regardless of how well one succeeds at doing so - then why is one posting where other people can read it?
That's for the author to determine. If you cannot understand something, two possible reasons are 1) it is a reflection on your reading comprehension or 2) you aren't included in the intended audience. People are allowed to post in "publicly visible forums" with no obligation to ensure they are understood by everyone. Put another way, if one or more people do not understand something, that is a perfectly acceptable outcome.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
Especially in the Napping Cat Chat, where other people cannot choose to not display someone's posts.
Since when does a system limitation translate into a requirement to write something other than what one wishes to write?
Quote:
Tallinu said:
It is applied to everyone. You've just failed to understand what it is that's being applied. See above explanation. Most people do make that effort.
OK, I have failed to understand what is being "applied" because you have not been clear. This is a publicly visible forum, so "make the effort" and clearly express to what you refer...or don't your own rules apply to you?
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Errik said:
John, for what its worth, you cannot simply not look at the posts by the people you aren't talking to in chat,
OK, this I understand. It is a system limitation. It's the same for newbies and veterans alike. The issue is the double standard reflected in the treatment of the newbies relative to that of the veterans. I've read several "justifications" for the double standard centering on "making an effort" and exaggerations amounting to "I can't read A THING." There's also the underlying theme of "your errors are worse than mine, so mine aren't bothersome but yours are." Although there are clearly moderators who should be the end-all in handling any situation, we nonetheless of a boat-load of people who need a thread in DEBATE to quibble about typos in CHAT. Are the moderators not doing their jobs? If they are, what's the issue (beyond the standard system limitation)? If they aren't, why is the discussion not about moderators, but instead about typos and grammar?
Quote:
Errik said: To concentrate on the irritating mistakes rather than the content is fairly reasonable...
I note most errors as I read over them. I don't feel the need to dwell on them, nor do I feel obligated to even care in the first place. Is it "normal" to let someone else's mistakes render one disabled?
Quote:
Errik said:
Errik: *Plays in ongoing plot with other avatars*
teh noob: *sets Erik's chair on flame*
This is an entirely different topic. This is just a "bad player" and the moderator should be making a decision on the player. Typos and grammar don't come into play here. Nonetheless, I appreciate the example.
Quote:
Errik said:
or another example: their avatar profile says wise and dignified, etc- yet in their RPing they act like a skittish 12 year old and can't speak in complete sentences, and have decided -you- are the one they want to play with.
Aaaah, the standard problem of having a character that is "smarter" than the PG. This dilemma exists in all role-playing venues. If your avatar/character is a polished and charismatic orator, able to sway the masses, how do you role play that if you aren't a polished charismatic orator yourself? If your avatar/character is a Spock-like genius at logic, how do you explain his logical inconsistencies as per the PG's role-play thereof?
Unless the idea is to limit PGs from role-playing any avatars/characters above their ability to express themselves, then typos and gramm-os are irrelevant to this issue also. Nonetheless, another good example worth discussing in the future.
Quote:
Errik said:
The problem is, if you are not going to snub them (whether or not its in character to do so), you need to reply to them seriously... meaning you need to either work double time to try make up for their mistakes, or drop to their level.
I don't believe this. I have never felt obligated to write differently based on the error content of that to which I was responding. I will admit to the "dropping to their level" in DEBATE when certain people insist on dragging discussions down to a rake-through-the-mud-fest (then I'll comply), but that is a content issue and not a typo/grammo issue.
Quote:
Errik said:
Either way, it's a pain in the butt.
Nope. As long as you have the option of saying "No, role-playing with you is too much of a bother" then you have no complaint. We're talking about something that is completely optional. If you have a problem saying "no" then that is a reflection on you.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a writer. You might think I care about details like proper spelling or a modicum of grammar. And I do, when it comes to my own writing. In certain regards, though, I don't care much at all about such trivialities when it comes to the writing of others. The reason is pretty straightforward.
Things I 'read' are divided into two rough categories: The stuff that comes out as mostly words, and the stuff that comes out with too much noise. If something is sufficiently interesting (which usually requires it being mostly words in the first place) and I suspect that a particular piece of noise was an important word, then I can have the computer go back to whatever piece of noise just came out and tell it to spell out the stupid thing. It can take a little time to go over something letter by letter and then figure out what was meant, but sometimes it's worth it.
Heck, the way 'teh' gets spoken by the computer is close enough, if RedWolf is looking up someone's 'noze' it just sounds like a silly accent, and bastardizations like '4eva' often are indistinguishable from real words, aside from a bizarre syllable emphasis. I absolutely HATE, however, hearing 'eh' (i) when I should be hearing 'eye' (I).
On the other hand, when a sufficiently large portion of a chunk of text sounds like a child learning how to make sounds (I'm talking about the pre-lingual phases here), I have a handy feature that just skips to the next identifiable sentence (grammar-checking algorithms do have other applications!) and, should too many sentences be baby-noises, I can also skip to the next identifiable paragraph.
Being able to easily and somewhat automatically hear only the content which resembles the language I know, love, and earn a living from means that I don't particularly care when someone befouls the page. I don't see it, I don't have to hear it, and more than ninety-nine times out of one hundred, I don't suffer in the least from ignoring it (and whoever produced it) entirely.
Yes, running into chairs in my own home when people move them around when I'm away is a pain in the shins, but there are some upsides to being blind.
--------------------
Key:
Thoughts (Easily read by most any telepathy)
/Writing/ on his sketchpad (English), readable by looking over shoulder, ESP, etc. (Usually just underline)
Places (which I often forget to put in)
NOTE: All posts are IC unless EXPLICITLY specified otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still see the biggest problem as example-setting. I'd discussed this with a friend over AIM and the topic became quite detailed, down to the very psychological aspects of each player. The basis question became "Are older avatars, the ones that we tend to look to for advice and example, being poor role models by not posting in the same fashion as a stringent majority?"
We delved into ideas such as a newer player's inherent desire towards laziness, as well as the idea of having the "us" and "them" cliques of posting standards, with the newer avatars leaning one way or the other. The cliques became more visible and defined the more we talked on the subject, though I did see variations within each clique. I still think one of the biggest concerns for a good number of people is the following:
- Players A, B, and C post in the more-or-less standard format, fleshing out details to the best capacity given their efforts, attempting to keep spelling in check, apparently utilizing great creative power, etc. Players A, B, and C are having fun.
- Players D and E post in a method aside from the standard format, using single sentence posts to specify their actions (non-lengthy types), keeping quotes as separate posts, seemingly making little attempt at checking their spelling and grammar, often speaking to one another as if it were nothing more than an instant-message conversation. Players D and E are having fun.
- New player X comes into the chat room, watching the happenings. Their grammar and spelling are of an acceptable level, though perhaps lacking in taste to players A, B, and C. It takes all of this person's effort to provide quality-looking posts that are on par with the supposed standard. Looking at players D and E, they see that there are no problems posting this way and happily wander over in their direction.
The biggest problem is that there is no exact standard. There is a request in the rules to have clean grammar and spelling, but no otherwise defined lines. Also, while I'm not certain of the statistics, I will say that my personal observations have shown a large number of players from the "D and E" group leave soon after or are turned away by the supposed standardized majority, creating a group of outcasts.
I've recently taken a newcomer under my wing, attempting to give him advice that will help increase the quality of his posts. Every single PM I've sent, though, I've stated the following in some form or other: "These are suggestions of mine. You play as you see fit." And that's all I can continue to do... is give suggestions. There is no defined standard. However, there's definitely an unwritten and unspoken one that people tend to watch out for...
|
|
|
|
|
|
To address your last point first: A lot of people have complained, at various times, about this forum being a dictatorship, that rules don't have all contingencies spelled out, and so forth. Thus, my last statement was aimed at those who say we should be a total democracy, etcetera. But don't let that little detail make you think we don't try to get a feeling for what the forumites want... majorities and minorities.
English is not required, I will sometimes post in 日本語 (nihongo), either to forum or chat... more often chat. If things get hard for others to pick through, then people will complain. There's a level where a moderator, either official forum or the de facto mod, will likely step in and say "Look, a lot of people are complaining. As your conversation's probably something that you're looking to have private anyhow, please take it to AIM or PM."
As moderators, aside from the general request that people please use proper punctuation, moderators stand down on proactive grammatical/spelling issues. I can describe what I see happening and my own feelings on what I end up feeling, but those aren't policy.
After all that... we have one big requirement... "How many people are complaining?"
A few people complained about one poster in chat recently. We looked at it, and did the same thing officially as we've done with many other members with horrid spelling and such. Nada. If forty players up and said, "This person's being obnoxious in chat," then we might look a bit more seriously. Perhaps because I don't think we have forty active players around right now. Anyhow, for action in general...
Percieved importance of the problem... is it a serious "this must stop, now" issue like, say, a rape or abduction prior to rape being RP'ed in chat? That'll get you a nice quick boot out of chat, and it'll last a while. More time for a second strike, and I'll just boot you off forum the third time.
The next questin is how big a problem it is. If it's a minor issue, like someone posting in a thread and acting up, we'll ask the GM if they're not the one that contacted us (you have no idea how often we get called on a GM's alts "disturbing the plot"), then contact the PG in question to address the situation in a gentle fashion. If, however, this happens on ten threads at once, like someone posting an inane series of posts, then we'll just call them a spammer, ban, and get on with our lives.
Now, if people would be equally tough on all posters in chat, PJ, that would render the discussion here moot, wouldn't it? Perhaps we can try that, then, as part of a grand experiment. Say have people agree that if they consider a post to have painful typos, no matter who it's from, that they speak up in chat? I think I could work with that, for a week, and see how it goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, having looked over a few of the posts (not actually reading any as that would require effort,) I add this small bit of information to the fray.
I ask that all keep in mind that punctuation is used to clarify your statements, actions, etc. If a person, especially a newcomer, doesn't wish to make the effort to clarify themselves, then they are choosing to be incomprehensible. In that case it is their very newness that is working against them and will of course cause resentment by literate viewers.
A large factor in the reason that older players get the pass is we've put up with thlng enough to understand the implied message even through the garbled delivery. Basically we've listened to the distorted versions enough that they look right to us and would confuse us otherwise. This doesn't mean it's right for them to do so, after all familiarity does breed contempt.
Since many are probably looking at the above and going "huh" or "too long can't read," I'll sum it up with one of the lessons I use in class to get punctuation across. Which would you rather deal with: "A dog eating chicken", or "A dog-eating chicken?" Then think about using the right grammar and spelling.
And if you get too overheated by the whole thing, just sing this little tune to yourself....
In the Napping Cat Fourms,
over in DEBATE-
There was a Dreamer named Tallinu,
Not to different from you or me
They posted something fairly common rate,
just another post in some pursuit.
They mentioned some punctuation out of place,
and Thalmasa must have liked it
or she'd have flung it into space!
We'll send in all the DEBATERS.
The most that we can find! (la-la-la)
They'll make all sorts of posts to read,
and it might drive some out of their mind! (la-la-la)
Now keep in mind Tallinu isn't in control
of who can post and when (la-la-la)
Because Thalamasa's the moderator
and insulting posts she will rend.
(insert your own roll call of posters here in your mind)
If you're fixated on how they punctuate that stuff
and keep the spelling from being lax, (la-la-la)
then repeat to yourself "It's just the internet,
I should really just relax
and learn to use Grammar and Spellcheck 3000!"
|
|
|
Errik
|
|
|
|
Member #4808
|
|
Posts: 1110
|
|
|
Another good grammar warning: capitalisation (sic, Australian spelling) is the only difference between "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" and "I helped my uncle jack off a horse"
>_> I'm not sure how appropriate that is, i'll take it down if its not suitable.
O_O *grins, whacks Tallinu in a skirt* You're a girl, now. See? the song says so :P
Quote:
PJ said:
"You make more typos than I do"
This in not what the thread is about, John. The double standard is, why do noobs get yelled at for poor writing and stupid things and older members doing the same thing dont. Poor writing: bad descriptions, deliberate ignoring of language conventions, site rules ( both implicit and implied: listen to the mods, don't be a jerk for the fun of it, don't twink etc.) Typos are not all that much of an issue. Everyone mistypes things. The only problem is when the person has no clue of how a lot of the words they use are spelled and put together, and has -no desire to learn-. Or you suspect they know, but are being lazy.
FWIW Typos imply that you'd normally write it properly, and just happened to make an error, so I don't see how they apply to this thread >_>
In my opinion, people who /can't/ spell -very- common words and get basic grammar right should probably reconsider joining a text based freeform RP community, but people who can, but are a bit iffy sometimes... well, how they act -other- then their spelling, grammar etc, is what decides whether I want to stab them with my hairpins or not. If they're mature and sensible, and just can't spell beyond a primary school level, I'm going to ignore the errors and be quite happy playing with them. I will assume that they are mature and sensible, and just can't spell. I might suggest they get the google toolbar, if I am really having trouble understanding them, but try to be polite about it. But if they -act- at the level they spell at, my first respons will be along the lines of "get off my internet, n00b" *stab*
The problem isn't 'should we get up them' its, 'why do people get up noobs for acting like n00bs (there is an implied difference there... I don't mean to insinuate that all new members are tortuous to RP with) , and not older members who act like n00bs'
It was much clearer before certain people started whining about the example posted- there weren't that many actual misspellings. It was just -really, really- bad writing, and any errors in the spelling and grammar were just the icing on the cake.
The log looked something like:
1: "4 or five word question???"
1: *notable lack of any sort of description of actions*
2: *reply from Draklar, who normally plays well but presumably didn't want to reply in full sentences and descriptions to sentence fragments*
1: "Another question???"
and there was "my love!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" in there somewhere or other.
You cannot say that ??? at the end of /every/ question was just an accident. Or that !!!!!!!!!!!!!.
I would say thatother common n00b errors, such as lack of continuity, consistency, etc, and RPG dominatrixing/r00ld j00 twinking are included in the list of things we are upping people about.
Many very short lines, rather than typing in proper sentences/paragraphs break up not only that RP, but any others going on too, making it rather frustrating to try sort through to read the plot lines you were following, and very difficult to write a proper reply to.
Quote:
If you have a problem saying "no" then that is a reflection on you.
well, In the OOC discussion, horrible sentences can be ignored, because you're not trying to keep the story making sense, just chat, but IC, some standards need to be met to make things flow, I have no problem saying no, I just don't like to.
You /can't/ just ignore people entirely if you don't feel like playing with them, and they've decided that they want to interact. Your character and their character are both in the chat room, that being a literal room set up rather like a bar. They see you and want to play... well, flatly ignoring them is like being in an adventure thread and only choosing to acknowlege things from certain people if you don't want to play with the rest, pretending you can't see or hear any of the ones who don't interest you. I don't think that ignoring people is very good for the whole community deal. *shrugs*
More examples, because I like them, and want to try demonstrate what I think the problem the thread was about is
In the OOC discussion, horrible sentences can be ignored, because you're not trying to keep the story making sense, just chat, but IC, some standards need to be met to make things flow...
The Scenario:
*Errik walks up and says something to John because he feels like playing with John*
*John PG doesn't feel like playing because Errik just said was really stupid so doesn't have John avatar respond*
The person John was playing with responds, this meaning John now has to ignore them interacting with Errik and try to pretend they're uhh... not. Or he needs to say something to Errik, to make him Go Away.
Errik has just bothered John for no particular reason.
Say, eRrik is speaking lik this!!!! he wants 2 B part of teh convo ^_^. (just to give a good reason why you would not want to respond to him)
It could really blow whatever meaningful RP you had going on to be trying to get rid of him, if hedidn't take a hint. In this case, grammar, good writing and spelling makes all the difference. *shrugs* lots of things affect the way people see you, I guess
Like, doing the same thing differently could have a big effect on how it comes across. More made up examples! Boo ya!
Say this first one is the 'ideal' way I could have Errik act. Pretend this is a shining example of correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation
----------------
Errik walks up to the bar, and sits down on a stool near to John and his friend. He had been listening to their conversation for a while, and felt he had to comment. He coughs quietly to get their attention "hey guys? Sorry to intrude, but (something relevant goes here)"
----------------
Vs.
Ok, Say I'm trying, I really am, I just can't spell or type... I don't think anyone would have a screaming STFU n00b session on me if this was my best, and I had been taking the suggestions people offered. >_> chances are, I would just get told to get a spell checker
----------------
Errik walks up too the bar, and sits down on a stol near John and johns frend. Hed been lissining to there convorsation for a bit, and wanted to say something about what John saidt. He coufs quitely to get there attenshen "hey, sorry to butt in, but (something relevant but more than slightly mispelled goes here)"
----------------
Vs.
Everything on new lines, breaking up the flow, with lazy contrations used ... I would say something about it to me. So would others, I think. But maybe there'd be a hope of saving me, so commenting would have a purpose. I would only get annoyed if I didn't take a polite suggestion to please use full words.
----------------
Errik walks up 2 the bar, and sits down on a stool next 2 John and his friend.
He had been listening 2 their convo for a while, and felt he had 2 comment.
He coughs 2 get their attention
"hey, sorry 2 intrude, but (something relevant but filled with AOL speak contractions goes here)"
----------------
Vs.
Gahhhh! Kill the n00b!!
----------------
(nothing is mentioned, so it is assumed Errik appears out of nowhere)
"hey john and Johns frend whats up? can i sit with you ??"
(doesn't wait for an answer)
*sits down*
(maybe on a chair, or the floor, or the bar, or Johns lap, for all Errik PG bothered to write)
----------------
You can see why the last of those is a problem ? In my mind, its the effort that counts, and if they're going to -try- to RP properly, the occasional (or quite frequent...) problem can be overlooked., but if the effort simply isn't there in the first place, starngling them with a sock seems like a good idea.
I feel this should apply to older members just as much as new ones. >_>
Yeah... I do realise that, by my standards, there are days where I should be gagging /myself/ with a sock. ^_^; I don't want to do that though
|
|
|
Arrow
|
|
|
|
Member #1927
|
|
Posts: 433
|
|
|
Quote:
and there was "my love!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" in there somewhere or other.
You cannot say that ??? at the end of /every/ question was just an accident. Or that !!!!!!!!!!!!!.
I am sorry if I wanted to make if show that i was very excited. I did that on purpose...okay I admit I a messy with my grammer and i am proud of it. That shows that i know i make mistakes but i try to fix them. ^_^x
--------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ban me from DEBATE if you wish; I do not care. Edit my post if you wish; I do not care. However, there are a few things that, I feel, need be said.
One: Cave and Arrow, please do the forum a favor and proceed to grow up. "Mommy, he's talking about me! Mommy! He's badmouthing my friend!" It has been stated, numerous times by now, that the posting of the log was not a direct attack, even by the poster of said log himself. Please cease in trying to "attention whore" as it were and make it all out to be a personal attack, which it never was in the first place no matter how much that you may try to say that it was.
Two: PJ. Wow, you really do not know everything. What a discovery. Please desist in trying to make the thread about what you want it to be about and go elsewhere unless you are able to stay on the actual topic.
Three: Bad spelling and grammar are bad spelling and grammar. They make those around you look bad by association. What is someone going to think if they see such bad examples of bad spelling and grammar whilst on a visit to the website and/or chat to see if they might enjoy it?
Four: Dyslexia is not an excuse for being a "lazy bastard" about spelling and/or grammar, nor is immaturity. For clarity, I am not targeting anyone who may or may not give it as a reason for their lack of proper spelling and/or grammar. It is an example of a reason that may possibly be given. If English is not your native language, some leniency may be granted. However, if it is your native language, then you should be able to use it properly, should you not? Dyslexia is not the inability to spell. It is metaphorical wires crossed in the brain that causes input to be jumbled to an extent. As a milder example, "dog" for "god" or the other way around; sometimes, perhaps, even the actual word being initially confused on first examination for something completely different. I once knew someone with a very severe case of dyslexia and she had very good spelling and grammar.
Five: If a moderator or administrator tells you that you should, or asks you to, make a more significant effort on your spelling and/or grammar, then it would be wise to do as they ask. It is part of the guidelines, after all. Also, the titles of "moderator" and "administrator" give them authority here, and that authority should be recognized. It is because of our moderators and our administrators that we have this place to socialize and have our recreational role-playing. We owe it to them to give them the respect that they deserve by acknowledging and following the rulings and suggestions they hand out.
I believe that is all that I desired to say. Feel free to respond as you wish; I shall say not another word in this thread as of the end of this post.
|
|
|
Errik
|
|
|
|
Member #4808
|
|
Posts: 1110
|
|
|
I don't mean to be mean, Arrow. You were just the person first shown as an example. Trust me, I made some pretty bad errors when I started out, too
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Pentagon John said:
The issue is the double standard reflected in the treatment of the newbies relative to that of the veterans. I've read several "justifications" for the double standard centering on "making an effort" and exaggerations amounting to "I can't read A THING." There's also the underlying theme of "your errors are worse than mine, so mine aren't bothersome but yours are."
The "double standard" I was referring to in my initial post was regarding the response to people whose posts look like utter crap. The reason for those responses (the lack of response to older members versus the loud and frequent responses to newer members) has been made clear. However, it has been suggested that new members who see older members being lazy and not getting corrected for it may think it's okay to be lazy.
We're talking about "Is it okay to not make an effort, whether you're new or old" now.
(Bold used to catch your attention since you seem to have missed that change.)
It did not seem necessary to make a new thread, because the current topic follows directly from the previous one.
If it actually is necessary, then I will do so and link to this one from it, but I really don't see the point.
Errik seems to have hit the nail squarely on the head with that last series of examples.
Pentagon John, I have never seen you in Chat... So perhaps you aren't aware of the difficulties people face there. I will assume that is the case, because that's more pleasant than assuming you're deliberately missing the point or trying to sidetrack the discussion.
Quote:
Pentagon John said:
What if this was applied to you? What if someone who makes fewer errors than you were to ignore what you write in deference to harping on your own errors, as few as YOU think they are? Your small paragraph above has a few. Should DREAMERS speak of you as someone who needs to "start making an effort?" ...or should people just read what you write and respond?
Quote:
Tallinu said:
It IS applied to everyone. You've just failed to understand what it is that's being applied. See above explanation. Most people do make that effort.
Quote:
Pentagon John said:
OK, I have failed to understand what is being "applied" because you have not been clear. This is a publicly visible forum, so "make the effort" and clearly express to what you refer...or don't your own rules apply to you?
It seems to me that you are choosing to not understand because you disagree with me:
Quote:
Pentagon John said:
I claim you are completely incorrect. I claim that "effort" has nothing to do with anything, and that quantity of errors is the only matter.
You can claim whatever you want. That doesn't mean people will agree with you.
Maybe number of errors is all that matters for government work. But we're here to have fun. We're not here to be perfect, or even to strive for perfection. Many of us may be hoping to improve their writing skills, or RPing skills, or that may just be a side effect of wanting the experience in the NCD to be more fun... Whatever.
But just in case you truly did fail to comprehend what I meant when I said "It IS applied to everyone", let me spell out in detail just what it is that's being applied:
"It is generally desired that posters will put at least some effort into making their posts clearly readable, clearly understandable, and will not leave out important/significant details."
This seems to me to be considered the 'acceptable standard' by the majority of the people who frequent Chat, and I might go so far as to say this entire set of forums. Although going beyond "not leaving out details" to "adding in other interesting or useful details" is strongly encouraged as well.
Quote:
Errik said:
John, for what its worth, you cannot simply not look at the posts by the people you aren't talking to in chat,
Quote:
Pentagon John said:
OK, this I understand. It is a system limitation. It's the same for newbies and veterans alike.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
Especially in the Napping Cat Chat, where other people cannot choose to not display someone's posts.
Quote:
Pentagon John said:
Since when does a system limitation translate into a requirement to write something other than what one wishes to write?
You're trying to make it sound like I'm saying "You can't write about your character jumping up on a table and dancing" when what I'm actually saying is "It's irritating to see frequent lazy posts such as, 'Someone: *dance on table*' and 'SomeoneElse: haha you r funy' and people should put some effort into what they write".
Telling me "You don't have to read it" or "It's not your problem" doesn't cut it. You aren't in my place, and you don't have my brain. When I look at something on my screen, I read it. I can't "not read" what I'm looking at. And when I'm in Chat, I'm looking at... you guessed it, the Chat. Having it full of posts that make me wince when I see them is extremely irritating. And due to the aforementioned system limitation, I get to see each and every one of those irritating posts. That's why it's my problem. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
When there are a lot of people chatting, many posts can appear with each refresh of the screen. And sometimes a post does manage to slip by without getting seen. This is why it's possible for people to "miss posts". However, short posts stick out like a sore thumb among larger, more detailed posts, and attract the eye like a magnet. This is why frequent short posts with little content and lots of errors are irritating. They distract from what's interesting. This is also why lots of OOC chatter or an argument going on while people are trying to RP is distracting.
(This is also why I always tell people, "If you think I'm ignoring you in chat, just try to get my attention like this: (( Tallinu? ))" - because that's instantly seen, noticed, and recognized to be a reference to me, which alerts me to look for whatever I missed.)
As has been stated, the complaints aren't about how many typos someone makes or how good someone's spelling is. Those are understandable and perfectly forgivable. Hell, I rarely even notice that a typo or misspelling exists, when I'm reading something that's otherwise fairly well-written and interesting, unless it's a key word which is so badly mangled as to be completely unfathomable and without which the sentence makes no sense. And the people who are putting effort into their posts will generally notice that they made such an error and provide a correction without you even having to ask for one.
But when someone's posts contain large numbers of typos, misspellings, grammatical errors, miscapitalizations, and/or mispunctuations, and/or they show little sign of having made any attempt to avoid such things, and/or they put little to no effort into describing what they're doing clearly... And they post to chat frequently, with consistently short lines... Constantly having to read through that kind of thing in order to find posts I am interested in, or being forced to acknowledge such a player's IC presence due to someone my avatar was interacting with choosing to acknowledge their presence, can really give me a headache.
So, we're talking about people who are just being lazy, not people who have disabilities or are simply poor at spelling or grammar.
It's not hard to tell when someone IS making an effort. It's clearly reflected in the contents of their IC narration and speech, regardless of misspellings, typos, and other such matters. Frequency of typos, misspellings, and so on is only one symptom of lazy posting, but lazy posting isn't the only cause of typos, misspellings, etc.
Quote:
Pentagon John said:
On the one hand, I happen to make relatively few typos and relatively few grammatical errors, despite the fact that I make very little effort. I never run spell-check, and I don't review what I write. If I happen to catch an error that I have made while I'm typing, I'll fix it, but I'm too lazy to really review my posts prior to posting.
I tend to work in a similar fashion. I'm glad that I'm able to do so. But I don't believe that my level of ability makes it okay for me to be lazy about how I write my posts by not bothering to put sufficient thought into them. In fact, I would suggest that my current level of ability comes from habitually making that effort at least as much as it comes from any innate predisposition to be good at writing.
Quote:
Pentagon John said:
George Larken, on the other hand, makes many errors, and he makes a serious effort. He runs spell-check. Unlike me, he sometimes reviews what he writes.
(Bold added for emphasis.)
And do you see anyone complaining about George Larken, or his posts, or the amount of typos, or about him being lazy?
Well? Do you?
No.
What does that tell you?
He makes an effort, therefore people acknowledge that effort and are happy (or at least willing) to read his posts, and willing to ignore (or forgive) any errors that may creep in.
Larketh Oldsfire's PG has a disability that makes it hard for him to spell correctly, much less read easily. Do people complain about his writing? Maybe some do. Do they complain after finding out about the disability? Not unless they're deliberately trying to be rude. Frankly, I'm impressed that his writing doesn't have more errors.
Quote:
Almerane (PG) said:
Four: Dyslexia is not an excuse for being a "lazy bastard" about spelling and/or grammar, nor is immaturity.
I don't remember if that's what Lark has or not. Regardless, spelling can't be easier for him than it is for me, of that I'm certain. So you won't catch me complaining. After all, what if I had the same trouble?
(Edit: This is not to disagree with you, Almerane. The opposite, in fact. I'm saying that I believe Lark's PG does make a good effort. That's just my personal opinion, of course.)
Errors are forgivable. Lack of effort is irritating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to add something, well, add a tiny something.
People who have difficulties (rather than using "disabilities" which I know some of them do not appreciate, and also difficulties covers second language, poor education quality, and so forth) who are genuinely trying to improve usually do improve. I'm friends with two such people on these boards, and I have seen a significant improvement since the time I first met them. There are still errors, but they're less and less the "common errors" and more errors that are tricky (Homonyms and such).
Someone who's not trying, whether lazy or possessing difficulty, isn't going to show improvement at all. At that point, my badgering and harping about spelling and such begins anew.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Tallinu said:
We're talking about "Is it okay to not make an effort, whether you're new or old" now.
Yes, you have stated that already. Stating it again does not equate to addressing my point which you avoid. You are seemingly impervious to logic. I have spelled out my point very clearly a number of different ways and you still don't get it. Maybe it's good I don't go to chat because I'd have to deal with hordes of illogical people like yourself who quibble over spelling errors.
I will try again, one last time. Let's see if you can absorb the point and address it:
YOU insist on some subjective "making of an effort" which you cannot judge, as the basis for whether or not someone should be chastized/rebuked/punished/whatever.
To support this position, many are willing to whine in a completely exaggerated and childish manner to the extent of using phrases like "I cannot read a thing" and "completely incomprehensible." If you seem miffed, thinking that I can't be correct, feel free to go back and reread every preceeding post in this thread, since you seem to have missed virtually all of them. You and Roland exhibit the extreme irony of missing easy points, as clearly spelled out numerous times as they are, and claim that someone ELSE has "missed the point" to cover for your inability to grasp the obvious.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
Pentagon John, I have never seen you in Chat... So perhaps you aren't aware of the difficulties people face there.
I'm aware. Several people have pointed out these difficulties and I have addressed them in the points I have made. You seem to have a bug up your pass about my points. What is your issue?
Quote:
Tallinu said:
I will assume that is the case, because that's more pleasant than assuming you're deliberately missing the point or trying to sidetrack the discussion.
Why don't you just read my posts to find out what I'm saying? What is it you're missing? I haven't missed any points, I have made them, and those you seem to have either missed or don't like. Which is it?
Quote:
Tallinu said:
It seems to me that you are choosing to not understand because you disagree with me:
No, this is what you are doing.
On the one hand you harp about people not expressing themselves clearly, but then you claim I am missing your point. Are you not expressing yourself as clearly as you should? Perhaps if you were actually paying attention in this thread you might have picked up on what I was saying, just like if you make an effort to pay attention in chat you might not have to feel the need to blame others for typos.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
You can claim whatever you want. That doesn't mean people will agree with you.
Did you just realize this? We are in DEBATE. I'm glad this little light bulb came on for you.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
Maybe number of errors is all that matters for government work. But we're here to have fun. We're not here to be perfect, or even to strive for perfection.
You are completely dishonest. Either that or you haven't read a single post of mine, yet you are commenting nonetheless. I am the one that is claiming typos and grammos shouldn't even be an issue. You couldn't possibly have missed that if you looked at even one of my posts. Why, then, are attributing the opposite position to me and not one of the MANY whiners in this thread who ARE concerned about the number of errors?
I haven't seen you in DEBATE so I'll assume it's because you don't really know how it all works. To to bring you up to speed, in DEBATE you should read the posts before you comment. You should also go back and read previous posts to get some background. Also, it is usually considered good form to get people's positions correct. For example, if you were to lambast Reteo Varala for his "socialist viewpoint" you would be doing more to get your posts ignored than pondered. Similarly, claiming that I am worried about the number of typos in a post simply tells everyone else that you're hanging out in the peanut gallery, too far away to see the DEBATE posts clearly.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
Many of us may be hoping to improve their writing skills, or RPing skills, or that may just be a side effect of wanting the experience in the NCD to be more fun... Whatever.
An admirable goal. Rock on.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
But just in case you truly did fail to comprehend what I meant when I said "It IS applied to everyone", let me spell out in detail just what it is that's being applied:
"It is generally desired that posters will put at least some effort into making their posts clearly readable, clearly understandable, and will not leave out important/significant details."
So answer me this, since you INSIST on returning to your "level of effort" hypocrisy: Who gets to be the judge as to whether or not someone is "making an effort?"
If it's the moderator, then everyone should just shut up, let the moderator do the "judging," and everyone should just go on "having fun" as you put it. If it's not the moderator, then who? You? Can I be the official judge?
That is the real issue. You can claim the issue is something else, but this is what THIS THREAD is about. If you have any doubts, again, you can go back and read the posts. The amount of whining and exaggeration over typos/grammos in the name of "should be making an effort" makes this point pretty clear. Or are you going to naively claim that I am "missing the point." Roland?
Quote:
Tallinu said:
This seems to me to be considered the 'acceptable standard' by the majority of the people who frequent Chat, and I might go so far as to say this entire set of forums.
Oh, that's a great way to earn instant respect in DEBATE...pretend to speak for untold "others". How many of these other people are CHAT moderators? Need I say more?
Quote:
Tallinu said:
You're trying to make it sound like I'm saying "You can't write about your character jumping up on a table and dancing" when what I'm actually saying is "It's irritating to see frequent lazy posts such as, 'Someone: *dance on table*' and 'SomeoneElse: haha you r funy' and people should put some effort into what they write".
No, I have been quite clear numerous times on this very point. You, and others, feel the need to worry about what others write. You want to exert some form of control over what others write, and you do so under the auspices of "THEY need to make and effort." You, and others, claim that if they don't "make an effort" (i.e. write the way YOU want them to write), then they are "completely incomprehensible" and "unintelligible" and lots of other silly exaggerations designed to hide the fact that you just can't let someone type what s/he wants to type.
I will state my position again: YOU should worry about what YOU write and NOT what others write. You should JUDGE others based on what/how they write, but you should NOT be trying to control what others write.
And a quick recap so you don't wander off confused: Yes, this is my position, yes others may disagree (and do, since there are several of your mindset), and it does not mean that I have missed any points.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
Telling me "You don't have to read it" or "It's not your problem" doesn't cut it. You aren't in my place, and you don't have my brain.
What I'm telling you is that it is a reflection on your own limitations, yet you express it as someone else's fault. That's how I see it. I am very familiar with how chat works, and I have read the specific examples cited here and while I recognize how something could be considerred minorly bothersome, I also recognize exaggerations when I hear/read them.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
When I look at something on my screen, I read it. I can't "not read" what I'm looking at. And when I'm in Chat, I'm looking at... you guessed it, the Chat. Having it full of posts that make me wince when I see them is extremely irritating. And due to the aforementioned system limitation, I get to see each and every one of those irritating posts. That's why it's my problem. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
I understand completely. You have a problem. If a post makes you "wince" you need to see a therapist. I don't know what else to tell you. Perhaps people with your problem can never have fun in CHAT, I don't know. There will always be typos and grammatical errors. The first step to a cure, however, is admitting the problem.
Quote:
Tallinu said: This is also why lots of OOC chatter or an argument going on while people are trying to RP is distracting.
This has nothing to do with a double standard. This is a behavior issue, and if the moderator isn't quashing this, then the moderator isn't doing his/her job. If the moderator is doing this only SOME of the time (i.e. double standard) then we go back to my point that DOUBLE STANDARDS ARE BAD.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
As has been stated, the complaints aren't about how many typos someone makes or how good someone's spelling is.
Yes, in this thread this is EXACTLY the ENTIRE basis for the whining, under the wording of "need to make an effort". Go back and read the accompanying exaggerations. They're all still there.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
Those are understandable and perfectly forgivable. Hell, I rarely even notice that a typo or misspelling exists, when I'm reading something that's otherwise fairly well-written and interesting, unless it's a key word which is so badly mangled as to be completely unfathomable and without which the sentence makes no sense.
...except that you feel the need to revert back to the "as long as they are making an effort" crap which is pure bunk, like this next line:
Quote:
Tallinu said:
And the people who are putting effort into their posts will generally notice that they made such an error and provide a correction without you even having to ask for one.
You're trying so hard to create imagery of these nice clean-cut groups of people who are "putting in the effort" which has nothing to do with who makes the most typos, which is really your main issue, pure quantity of errors, as you clearly reveal in the NEXT line:
Quote:
Tallinu said:
But when someone's posts contain large numbers of typos, misspellings, grammatical errors, miscapitalizations, and/or mispunctuations, and/or they show little sign of having made any attempt to avoid such things, and/or they put little to no effort into describing what they're doing clearly...
Here you go again, you are whining about the quantity of errors, the real bug up your grass, while trying to promote the idea that it is simply a not "having made any attempt," as if you are in their minds and somehow know.
In any event, I addressed this position of yours for the bunk that it is. I showed that those who make relatively few errors might very well be making no effort whatsoever (because it comes easy to them), yet you aren't complaining about them, BECAUSE YOU ONLY CARE ABOUT THE RAW NUMBER OF ERRORS. Similarly, those who make lots of errors might very well be making a valiant effort, but since you have no way of knowing, you nonetheless whine about them not having "made any effort" BECAUSE YOU ONLY CARE ABOUT THE RAW NUMBER OF ERRORS.
This whole "making an effort" line is a LIE.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
And they post to chat frequently, with consistently short lines... Constantly having to read through that kind of thing in order to find posts I am interested in, or being forced to acknowledge such a player's IC presence due to someone my avatar was interacting with choosing to acknowledge their presence, can really give me a headache.
Then reduce the number in the session. Make it "by invitation only." There are ways to address the problem if your intent is to fix the problem. If your REAL point is simply to quibble about how someone makes more typos than you, and how you want OTHERS to write the way you want them to write, then I suggest you just make a thread in DEBATE and invite all the grammo-whiners to join in.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
So, we're talking about people who are just being lazy, not people who have disabilities or are simply poor at spelling or grammar.
We're talking about everyone, including people who are poor at spelling and grammar. You just need to admit it.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
I tend to work in a similar fashion. I'm glad that I'm able to do so. But I don't believe that my level of ability makes it okay for me to be lazy about how I write my posts by not bothering to put sufficient thought into them.
...but now you're talking content. You seem to not be able to make up your mind. Earlier, you wrote that "numerous" errors make you wince. You made it clear that the errors themselves demonstrate the laziness. Now you're claiming that it's a "content" issue...so why would you need to wince to the extent that it's a problem?
Naturally one should put thought into one's posts, but then again, one should only be worrying about one's own posts.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
And do you see anyone complaining about George Larken, or his posts, or the amount of typos, or about him being lazy?
You failed to grasp the point, but that's OK since I have spelled it out for you yet again above. I used George Larken as an example of someone who makes an effort yet makes mistakes, not as an example of someone who gets complaints. My example clearly showed that "level of effort" cannot be ascertained by "the number of errors" which was the closing lemma to my previous statements. If there's anything you don't understand about this point, please let me know and I'll go over it for you.
Quote:
Tallinu said:
Well? Do you?
No.
What does that tell you?
...that you need points spelled out for you very, very clearly, perhaps several times.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm. Very good job of strawmaning, PJ. Very good indead. Sadly strawmaning is not exactly acceptable in logic, but this isn't logic, it's debate. And In debate strawmaning is concidered and aceptable stratigy. So one again. Very good strawmaning. I applaud you.
No I am not being sarcastic. People always think I'm sarcastic when I'm not.
--------------------
When the sun vanishes from the sky
When the archangles cry
When the moon plumets to earth
When the sky shows dirth
Stardust...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Jack Manycoats said:
Think of it as a restaurant
So we should be using those little "Rate the Service" cards for complaints like this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
George Larken said:
Hmmm. Very good job of strawmaning, PJ. Very good indead.
No, no straw man here. Would you recognize one if you saw it?
You are asserting that I am misrepresenting Tallinu's position. I am not. I claim Tallinu is misprepresenting his position, and I AMPLY explain why, despite the fact that it is pretty obvious.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
George Larken said:
Hmmm. Very good job of strawmaning, PJ. Very good indead. Sadly strawmaning is not exactly acceptable in logic, but this isn't logic, it's debate. And In debate strawmaning is concidered and aceptable stratigy. So one again. Very good strawmaning. I applaud you.
No I am not being sarcastic. People always think I'm sarcastic when I'm not.
Were your parents related?
I mean, before they got married.
|
|
|
|
|
|
First time poster in Debate, and I suppose this is as good a time as any to see what good or damage I may do.
I have seen many issues coming up in this particular thread that are side issues, but I will make an effort to keep on topic. What have I interpreted to be the main topic? The treatment of new people in the dream, particularly focusing on chat, versus the treatment of those who have been here quite a bit longer.
Do I see differances? Yes. Plain and simple. Are these as widespread or invasive as many seem to think? Not in my opinion. People will treat each other differantly regardless of what we would like. Their own experiances, morals, and opinions will always influence that.
As has been pointed out before, some people treat new people with a larger degree of harshness hoping that they would improve, and others do so with those who have been here longer seeing them as those who need to be held to higher standards.
If there are individuals who, after a polite PM or two, honestly offered help, and some encouragement, are not even slightly improving nor attempting to take such honestly offered help to heart, then it becomes a problem. Why does it signify a problem? I believe that had been stated in both chat and regular forums posts. Primarily from those who do interact with you, and those you are attempting to avoid, making the text of those you wished to avoid suddenly rather relevant.
That particular statement is intended to apply to both those who are new or those who are old.
I can see both sides of the issue here, and really am attempting to find a unbiased and logical middle ground. Personal prejudice and personal preferance aside, both sides have made logical arguments and I believe if they spent time trying to meld them we may actually have a decent resolution worth thinking about. One that could contain decent points for everyone, but not the entirety of what any one person desires.
In closing, I would like to state that while I agree with Tall there is a problem with the differant treatment of those who are new and those who are old, I think the over-arcing answer is to honestly offer the same help to both and hope they take it.
--------------------
"The only thing reliable about the future is uncertainty." - Amarant Coral.
|
|
|
| | |
|
Reply Main
New Thread
Flat
Threaded
Edit
Quote
