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

[EzekielRaiden]

Am I an enemy of god, or is god an enemy of my digestive tract?

I suppose that depends on whether you tested that vodka yourself before you had anyone else try it....

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I suppose that depends on whether you tested that vodka yourself before you had anyone else try it....

Of course I'm drinking it!

I've spent most of my money on booze, gambling, and the pursuit of wild sex. The rest of it I've wasted.

 

[Stalker0]

You might question this logic. Many people I know, myself included, might read the OP, post an answer, then go back and read the comments. Just because someone is posting prior to reading the comments (which is what you asked), doesn't mean they don't read the responses afterward.

Quite true, but this also means two things:

• You may be repeated arguments that have already been made.
• Your argument is uninformed by the various information that has been added to the thread through other posters.

The rationale for my OP was the notion of post quality, aka that the quality of posts is likely to increase if a person is fully informed to what has been said previously. This is countered by the time spent becoming familiar with those posts, and so whether the tradeoff is worth it goes to the heart of the discussion.

I could argue that your notion is actually the worst of both worlds, people are not gaining the benefits of the previous posts when they are making their own post, but are still consuming their time through the reading of those posts.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

However, if you operate under the notion that people are "reading all posts before responding" then the target is no longer moving, the post is added to the collective wisdom of both seasoned posters of that thread, as well as new ones.

It is only in the scenario where people are skipping those posts that the target truly moves.


So you could argue that while developing a culture where people read all posts before responding would increase the amount of time people spent reading....it would also mean that the posts they do generate have a greater and longer value to the discussion as a whole.

 

[Scott Christian]

Quite true, but this also means two things:

• You may be repeated arguments that have already been made.
• Your argument is uninformed by the various information that has been added to the thread through other posters.

The rationale for my OP was the notion of post quality, aka that the quality of posts is likely to increase if a person is fully informed to what has been said previously. This is countered by the time spent becoming familiar with those posts, and so whether the tradeoff is worth it goes to the heart of the discussion.

I could argue that your notion is actually the worst of both worlds, people are not gaining the benefits of the previous posts when they are making their own post, but are still consuming their time through the reading of those posts.

Your two points may be true - and they may not.

Repeating an argument often means repeating it from a different vantage point. Sometimes that allows others to something they had not seen before. And in truth, one person can state something to an OP, and a different person can come along and say the same exact thing to said OP, and the OP will suddenly believe it. I mean, have you ever been in a long term relationship where that has happened?
Hubby: The dining room table would look best here.
Wife: No, I don't think so.
Hubby: But it gives us space and doesn't crowd the room.
Wife: I don't think so.
Wife's BFF: It looks best right here. (Exactly where hubby wanted it.)
Wife: Oh yeah, you're right.

And if the argument is uninformed, so what? Who does it hurt? Someone will generally pop in with one sentence and say, "Oh yeah, that was covered. We found evidence contrary." This will either: A. force the poster to go read the pages or B. ignore the conversation altogether.

Lastly, I think it would be really hard to argue that answering a question an OP placed out there (to be answered by random people on a forum!) is hardly the worst of both worlds. If you create a thread, expect it to meander like a river. Expect some insight. And expect some information to be repeated. But most of all, be open to other people's opinion. If you're not, why post other than for validation.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Logical Fallacies aren't tools to win arguments, they're tools for identifying what an argument is doing wrong-- they're never not fair game, because the rules for validity and soundness aren't constrained to certain special bounded circumstances. We're always employing them as we are best able to figure out what we should believe for ourselves, and to recognize when the speaker is performing a sleight of hand that obfuscates the truth.

Honestly the idea that fallacies are 'too serious' for this space of discourse itself seems like an example of tone policing-- 'this conversation ought not be that serious!' when faced with an argument one can't overcome in order to police their use of that argument.

It could also be interpreted as a thought terminating cliche:

"Stop thinking so much." – Redirects attention from the topic, idea, or argument at hand to the alleged overuse of thought itself. - One General Example

 

[Eltab]

There is a real-time example of the "Should I read the thread?" phenomenon happening in the "D&D Beyond cancels art contest" thread. Read that OP and take your guess at what the problem is. Then get into the body of the thread and see if you were right. (I was not.)

 

[Maxperson]

Here's the thing. Yes, a message board is a public forum. And ....? So what?

Try this thought experiment. Imagine that every single one of your posts here disappeared, tomorrow. You with me? Now, what would happen? How would your life change? How would this forum change? How would "the public" change?

This isn't specific to you. I've been around for a while. I've been involved in flame wars on usenet. On listservs. On websites that still used the blink tag. And the vast majority of my writings, my arguments ... they've all disappeared. They are gone. All that stuff that mattered so very deeply at that very moment, all those trolls to be vanquished, all of those posters to be put into their place, all of those wicker men to be burned down with or without Nic Cage in them?

Didn't matter.

I close my eyes
Only for a moment, and the moment's gone
All my words
Pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind
All my posts are is dust in the wind
Same old arguments
Just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we write
Crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see
Dust in the wind
All our posts are dust in the wind
Oh
Now, don't hang on
Nothin' lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away
And all your wins and arguments won't another minute buy
Dust in the wind
All our posts are dust in the wind

There's a reason that everyone (EVERYONE) knows the xkcd comic ... THERE'S SOMEONE WRONG ON THE INTERNET. We've all been there. That rush of putting someone in their place. Of knowing you totally pwned him. Of feeling the exhilaration of making sure that "the public" wouldn't misunderstand the argument.

...and? Eh. The sad fact is (and this is why we all know that comic so well) no ... one ... cares. The public doesn't care. There is no cheering section following the blow-by-blow. It's the saying that I use- you don't wrestle with pigs, because if you do, the pig likes it, and you both get dirty. In a short period of time, the conversation will have moved on, the threads will have moved on, and whatever thing was so super important ... won't be.

The thing is, this argument you're making also applies to you personally, me, the guy next door to me, etc. We will all eventually be gone. People won't remember us. We still matter now, though, even though we will eventually be gone and forgotten.

It's the same with these arguments. If it's important or semi-important to those in the discussion, then it's important right now and it doesn't matter that in 5, 10 or 20 years this site might be dust in the wind. Cool song, though.

PS- You should branch out from the Roman material; ethos, pathos, and logos are straight-up Aristotle regardless of any later appropriation by Cicero. However, if you truly care about argument and winning, you should note that people are not logic machines. If you want to appeal to people and convince them of the rightness of you cause/argument, you don't do so by logos alone.

Right. You also need legos. Cover the floor of a room with legos and threaten to make the other guy run across barefoot and he will very quickly be convinced of the rightness of your argument.