Good rule of thumb

[twilsemail]

Can we edit the post count to mine +1? I'm pretty sure I'm never right. If I was right at some point, it was probably in a tactless kind of way.

 

[jonesy]

Can we edit the post count to mine +1? I'm pretty sure I'm never right. If I was right at some point, it was probably in a tactless kind of way.

But, but, if we do that then you'd be right.

 

[DracoSuave]

But, but, if we do that then you'd be right.

Thusly proving him wrong.

 

[twilsemail]

Nah, it'd make me always wrong. 1120 is higher than my (current) post count by one, neh?

 

[DEFCON 1]

My tentative intuition--arrived at by the same observation that led to the above rule of thumb--is that any post count above about 100 is useless as a marker for anything. (Below that is only useful in a, "Hey, you haven't been here long, have you?" way, in that long-time lurking before posting seems to be gradually going out of style.)

I suppose had I set the post count difference at like 2500 or 5000... thereby really differentiating the probable long-time ENWorld participant (and thus probable long-time D&D player) versus the probably newer ENWorld participant (and thus quite possibly newer D&D player)... there wouldn't be as much consternation over Rule #1. However, the basic likelihood of the Rule is still in play:

Those who have been on ENWorld longer and have seen "rules discussion" threads pop up... usually have a good idea whether they feel they can participate with something correct or meaningful to add. Those that don't feel they know the rules enough but have seen other posters who do... usually choose not to post. Thus, the higher post-count participants in a "rules discussion" have been self-selected to be posters who feel comfortable with their rules knowledge. And when arguments crop up... they tend to be the ones that have worked out the answer previously.

So if you argue a point and either a long-time poster has taken the opposite side, or 5 or more posters have taken the opposite side... there's a possibility you might be wrong. So really take a look at what the other side's arguments are and see if you can understand their point of view. You might be surprised at how well they've worked the answer out.

 

[jbear]

Argh, who brought this deplorable rule of thumb back to life?

 

[DracoSuave]

Nah, it'd make me always wrong. 1120 is higher than my (current) post count by one, neh?

Then if you're always wrong, then this statement would be wrong, thusly meaning you're sometimes correct.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Argh, who brought this deplorable rule of thumb back to life?

Well... I mentioned the thread as a response to Ninja-To doing a wonderful job in illustrating both Rules of Thumb in his Player 1 'grabs and pulls' player 2, then claims it's 'Forced movement, no AtOp' thread... but it was Saracenus who actually necro'd this thread back to Page 1.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well... I mentioned the thread as a response to Ninja-To doing a wonderful job in illustrating both Rules of Thumb in his Player 1 'grabs and pulls' player 2, then claims it's 'Forced movement, no AtOp' thread... but it was Saracenus who actually necro'd this thread back to Page 1.

Bad DEFCON is Bad.

 

[Saracenus]

I have no idea why people have such a hard time understanding the term 'probably'.

Because I am soooooooooooooooo perfect, even my mistakes are correct

And even though I would likely be wrong if this were an actual 4e rules discussion, I will concur with DracoSuave that yes indeed, DEFCON is a bad man. He had to know the lure of such a deplorable thread being linked in yet another deplorable thread would corrupt my low post count soul and force me to necro this thread...