Remathilis
Legend
Tl;dr.
No.
No.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D General Poll: Should a poster be expected to read (or at least skim) all posts before posting in a thread?
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
I mean ... you can't have a sidecar without a sucralose rim.
Ah, sidecars. You know what they say after two sidecars? "Screw it, Ima just drink the cognac straight from the bottle now!"
Stephen Shomo
Explorer
The option I identify with is not represented on the poll.
Parmandur
Book-Friend, he/him
Oh, I did, but I found providing the full context a good way to keep the joke going.Next time, maybe consider if someone was continuing a joke off of your own joke....
Sword of Spirit
Legend
No.
Normally I will read the first 5 pages or so, and skim 2 - 4. By that point, if I haven't seen someone bring up the point I was going to I consider it a safe bet that it likely hasn't come up yet and I can just jump in without spending another hour or three wading through tangents that, while they may or may not interest me, have little to do with the idea I intended to contribute.
Sometimes I'll read more, and occasionally I'll read less. Usually I read less if the fact that the obscure reference I was going to make hasn't come up in the first page or two contextually suggests to me that it might not have come up at all but people are still posting. Better to get it in now so people only have to read 7 pages rather than 70 to get to it.
Basically the principle I follow is a contextually reasonable attempt to avoid retreading ground.
Normally I will read the first 5 pages or so, and skim 2 - 4. By that point, if I haven't seen someone bring up the point I was going to I consider it a safe bet that it likely hasn't come up yet and I can just jump in without spending another hour or three wading through tangents that, while they may or may not interest me, have little to do with the idea I intended to contribute.
Sometimes I'll read more, and occasionally I'll read less. Usually I read less if the fact that the obscure reference I was going to make hasn't come up in the first page or two contextually suggests to me that it might not have come up at all but people are still posting. Better to get it in now so people only have to read 7 pages rather than 70 to get to it.
Basically the principle I follow is a contextually reasonable attempt to avoid retreading ground.
LordEntrails
Hero
I don't know, sidecars never made sense to me. It's not like you buy a motorcycle because you actually want passengers. Ok, maybe if your dog rides with you a sidecar is acceptable, but otherwise... not for me.
DemoMonkey
Hero
No excuse for not reading the whole thread.
If you skip all the parts where two people start doing a line by line "refutation" of each others posts ...
and the parts where the arguments revolve around "Why did you say that?/I didn't say that./So you admit you said that!" ...
and the parts where people snipe at each other over assumed views on things that have nothing to do with the topic ...
and the parts where a mod warns people for doing all of the above ...
you can usually whip through the two or three posts left pretty fast!
If you skip all the parts where two people start doing a line by line "refutation" of each others posts ...
and the parts where the arguments revolve around "Why did you say that?/I didn't say that./So you admit you said that!" ...
and the parts where people snipe at each other over assumed views on things that have nothing to do with the topic ...
and the parts where a mod warns people for doing all of the above ...
you can usually whip through the two or three posts left pretty fast!
Similar Threads
