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

Should a poster be expected to read (or skim) all posts before posting in a thread?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 25.9%
  • No

    Votes: 120 74.1%

  • Poll closed .

log in or register to remove this ad




Lakesidefantasy

Adventurer
Ok for any others, here is the link to continue the conversation in a more topical thread:


Understanding how angels work, is surprisingly useful to understanding how the entire D&D multiverse works.
I'm supposed to be working right now! And, by the time I get home that thread will 15 pages long. I don't type very fast. But keep it coming man, that's the kind of naughty word I love about Dungeons and Dragons.
 




One thing that would I would really like is a way to have moderator actions jump out better in long threads. If a mod has said "Let's leave this sub-discussion alone, guys", it's harder to follow if it's buried on page 8 of a 15 page thread. And if someone's been removed from a thread, I want to be sure I note it so I don't respond to an earlier post by that person.

OTOH, I have a feeling that highlighting threads and posts with moderator action would do little to help keep things calm and bring the thread back into control.
 

Bolares

Hero
Ok for any others, here is the link to continue the conversation in a more topical thread:


Understanding how angels work, is surprisingly useful to understanding how the entire D&D multiverse works.
This is a shameless self-promotion! (and I approve of it)
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
Speaking of sugar, I don't know why people are into these artificial sweeteners. I mean sugar is not only natural, it just doesn't have that many calories. At least not when compared to sucrose!
Sucrose is common sugar, I think you are confusing it with high fructose corn syrup which is an oft complained about sweetener in the US, which is used, as I understand it, because in the US there is a lot of it available and it is cheaper than sugar.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Sucrose is common sugar, I think you are confusing it with high fructose corn syrup which is an oft complained about sweetener in the US, which is used, as I understand it, because in the US there is a lot of it available and it is cheaper than sugar.

Dagnab it, Ardoughter. Stop trying to push that New Jersey sodium chloride on me,

I only use salt for my tequila.
 



tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
I read/skimmed all 4 pages that existed in this thread before starting to write this. Personally I voted yes because it's closer to the missing choice I wanted to vote for. When a thread gets to the point of wayy too many pages it's reasonable to skip a lot if coming in late, but while doing that at least reading or skimming the last couple pages to get aware of context before responding to some isolated section of a post on page 23 void of context is reasonable.

there should be an option like "It depends on thread length, but at least the most recent few pages"
 

ART!

Legend
In such situations, I usually read the OP, maybe the first couple of posts after that, and then the last page or two of posts to see what aspect of the topic people are talking about currently. I would only read more than that if the topic was super, super interesting to me - and even then I might not because the discussion gets derailed so often.

So, I voted "no".
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Cite, please.
Listen, I'm leary of pushing past board rules in pursuit of a joke, funny as I may find it. The complete and radical immateriality of Angels is the standard opinion in the Thomistic school of thought, though I tend to disagree and hold more of a Scotist or Bonaventutan opinion on most things, incluing Angels, despite my Thomistic training. But with those caveats here is a citation for the received Scolastic opinion on Angels:

"I answer that, There must be some incorporeal creatures. For what is principally intended by God in creatures is good, and this consists in assimilation to God Himself. And the perfect assimilation of an effect to a cause is accomplished when the effect imitates the cause according to that whereby the cause produces the effect; as heat makes heat. Now, God produces the creature by His intellect and will (I:14:8; I:19:4). Hence the perfection of the universe requires that there should be intellectual creatures. Now intelligence cannot be the action of a body, nor of any corporeal faculty; for every body is limited to "here" and "now." Hence the perfection of the universe requires the existence of an incorporeal creature."

"The ancients, however, not properly realizing the force of intelligence, and failing to make a proper distinction between sense and intellect, thought that nothing existed in the world but what could be apprehended by sense and imagination. And because bodies alone fall under imagination, they supposed that no being existed except bodies, as the Philosopher observes (Phys. iv, text 52,57). Thence came the error of the Sadducees, who said there was no spirit (Acts 23:8)."

"But the very fact that intellect is above sense is a reasonable proof that there are some incorporeal things comprehensible by the intellect alone."


 

Lakesidefantasy

Adventurer
I read/skimmed all 4 pages that existed in this thread before starting to write this. Personally I voted yes because it's closer to the missing choice I wanted to vote for. When a thread gets to the point of wayy too many pages it's reasonable to skip a lot if coming in late, but while doing that at least reading or skimming the last couple pages to get aware of context before responding to some isolated section of a post on page 23 void of context is reasonable.

there should be an option like "It depends on thread length, but at least the most recent few pages"
What are you talking about? This thread is about salt, sugar, and angels at this point. ;)
 



Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top