D&D General Poll: Should a poster be expected to read (or at least skim) all posts before posting in a thread?

[UngainlyTitan]

There's a Tasha's uncontrollable hideous applicable to this situation should you happen upon an enemy benefiting from one of the aforementioned magics courtesy of Bigby and Leomund.

As long as no one casts Evard's Tentacles

 

[TheSword]

If a friend joins in on aconversation about TV programs I don’t expect them to have studied what everyone has already said up to that point before they can speak.

When they say ‘has anyone seen Serpent?” We say, yes we were just talking about that, what do you think?

We probably get more authentic opinions from people just jumping in anyway.

 

[Eltab]

Just in the name of self-interest, one should at least scan each page to see if any moderation has occurred.* You don’t want to get disciplined for expressing something already deemed verboten, after all.

* which, admittedly, I didn’t do in this case.

If you had read through, you could have given me and somebody else a Thumbs Up as you passed by.

 

[Stalker0]

If a friend joins in on aconversation about TV programs I don’t expect them to have studied what everyone has already said up to that point before they can speak.

Not the most perfect analogy, as in most conversations the only way to catch up would be to consume the time of your associates by them repeating themselves. With a forum, you have the benefit of perfect recall

 

[Stalker0]

With multiple threads to look at and limited time, I just don't have time to read all 15 pages.

In which case, is it better to not post, read what you think is useful, and then post on threads you do have time to read in more depth?

another way to consider the responses so far, replying in a long thread could be considered a heavy waste of time, as by the admission of the poll, a good majority of people are probably skipping the response anyway. So we have a lot of posters and few readers, everyone rushing to give their viewpoint to an audience that is largely ignoring them.

 

[Bardic Dave]

.

 

[Maxperson]

In which case, is it better to not post, read what you think is useful, and then post on threads you do have time to read in more depth?

How about YOU not post if you don't have time and don't tell me what to do? Am I also supposed to log out and read people who have me blocked, or does that not count in your world of having to read an entire thread when posting?

another way to consider the responses so far, replying in a long thread could be considered a heavy waste of time, as by the admission of the poll, a good majority of people are probably skipping the response anyway. So we have a lot of posters and few readers, everyone rushing to give their viewpoint to an audience that is largely ignoring them.

I'm not posting for the benefit of a single person who skips my posts. In fact, a lot of people respond to me and I have engaging discussions with them, despite my skipping the middle waste of time in a thread. My posts are for them.

 

[Parmandur]

In which case, is it better to not post, read what you think is useful, and then post on threads you do have time to read in more depth?

another way to consider the responses so far, replying in a long thread could be considered a heavy waste of time, as by the admission of the poll, a good majority of people are probably skipping the response anyway. So we have a lot of posters and few readers, everyone rushing to give their viewpoint to an audience that is largely ignoring them.

Yeah, thatjuat not how this works.

 

[Umbran]

the middle waste of time in a thread.

So, this is an interesting concept. Because, "middle" is a moving target. That middle was, at one time, the end, and therefore not a waste of time.

Which is not to say the characterization is inaccurate. But it speaks to the nature of conversation - that which is meaningful one day becomes a waste of time the next, even in the same conversation.

Folks should think of that the next time they think they are saying something terribly important. Tomorrow, it almost certainly won't be.

 

[Maxperson]

So, this is an interesting concept. Because, "middle" is a moving target. That middle was, at one time, the end, and therefore not a waste of time.

I know. I was irritated at being told what to do when I said that.

I've noticed quite often the middle or most of the middle of a largish thread has discussions that are different than the OP, but not yet where the last 3 pages end up. Not that it's a waste of time, but it isn't really relevant to either end of the discussion.

Which is not to say the characterization is inaccurate. But it speaks to the nature of conversation - that which is meaningful one day becomes a waste of time the next, even in the same conversation.

Folks should think of that the next time they think they are saying something terribly important. Tomorrow, it almost certainly won't be.

Agreed.