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

[Eltab]

I'm posting this from the bottom of Page One.

I've discovered the hard way that if a moderator says in red ink "We've talked this particular point to death; drop it and move on", they don't care if you just read the argument-starting post 20 pages back but have read no further, and they don't have a way to redirect new contributors to the 'to whom it may concern' instructions when you hit 'Reply'.

edit: And sure enough, somebody else has seen this point too !

P.S. The 'D&D and the Pandemic' thread is 15 months long. Go read all of that before replying, and your first post will land sometime next week.

 

[Stalker0]

So my vote of Yes on this topic stems from an old adage: "We have two ears and one mouth, so we should listen twice as much as we speak".

Ultimately forums are about discourse, and I would argue that in most cases quality beats quantity. I think the quality of posts improves when a person has taken the time to read what other people have written, which means that since they have paid such a price...they are likely to post more meaty and meaningful postings that reflect (either in support or opposition) positions that they have read within that thread.

Posting is cheap and trivial, but engaging in true discourse takes work... and a forum culture that focuses on quality discourse expects people to post less, and listen to their fellows more.

 

[Gnarlo]

The biggest problem with reading through the really active ones is that by the time you get caught up on all the arguments, the thread has been locked and then I don’t get a chance to shoot my mouth off

 

[Shiroiken]

So, I haven't read the first 6 pages of this thread...

In general I only read the first page, unless the comments are particularly compelling. Usually my first comment is nothing but a response to the OP, regardless of any comments given so far. A lot of time these threads get sidetracked, and I don't want to waste the time sorting through it all. Although once a thread gets to a certain point, even if I'm invested in it, I'll usually give up trying to follow it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I didn't read the thread, but my vote is no. After the first 3 pages most threads on this forum devolve into 2-4 posters just restating their positions. In fact I suspect the enworld forums would be more readable if posting 10 times or more in a thread would automatically make your posts hidden.

 

[foolcat]

So I skipped the first six pages, but I think in order to express ones thoughts on the original question, one can safely ignore anything that had been said up to that point. Nothing to do with arrogance, it’s efficient and saves time.

 

[AmerginLiath]

I’m curious when the switch from more shorter threads to fewer longer threads fuller realized itself. Was it when the forum view defaulted into “everything on one page,” or was it a matter of new folks coming in (either from other forums/commenting sources or just as new 5e fans) and posting differently? I’m not saying one is necessarily right or wrong, but I think it’s been clearly a change in style. Maybe social media — Twitter and Facebook conversations, or very likely Reddit threading — post stylings versus the format bulletin board oldheads are used to? Which of course then is thrown off in this static style.

Personally, I feel that we need to be more deliberate about breaking debates into separate (linked) threads where they can develop on their own (and where points from other posts can be quoted and linked as needed), such that a 26-page thread arguing focus back and forth as it develops becomes instead six manageable four-page focused conversations. That’s a bit more to manage, and theres a responsibility for users to participate in the actual work of it such that it’s not all just moderators cleaning up after us, but that’s how this format is usually built for -- it’s a bulletin board inasmuch as things can be moved around it and strings attached between them. A Twitter or Reddit thread are read differently because they constructed differently in both code and visual interface.

[/takes 1d6 damage falling off soapbox]

 

[Thomas Shey]

I feel it is often more important to review the first few pages as they are the ones that are more likely to be on topic

My rule of thumb with very long threads is to read the first two and the last two. The first two tell you what the thread started out about, and the last two where its gotten (though you have to watch for the last two pages just being an exchange between two people).

 

[J.Quondam]

Personally, I feel that we need to be more deliberate about breaking debates into separate (linked) threads where they can develop on their own (and where points from other posts can be quoted and linked as needed), such that a 26-page thread arguing focus back and forth as it develops becomes instead six manageable four-page focused conversations. That’s a bit more to manage, and theres a responsibility for users to participate in the actual work of it such that it’s not all just moderators cleaning up after us, but that’s how this format is usually built for -- it’s a bulletin board inasmuch as things can be moved around it and strings attached between them.

Totally agree on this. Ultimately, it's up to posters to manage themselves to stay on topic with respect to the OP. It would be nice if posters remained cognizant enough of topical drift to fork off a new thread for their own new topics.
It's a cultural thing here, I suppose. But imo, taking new topics to new threads is just being respectful, both of the poster of the OP, and of readers actually interested in the topic indicated by the thread title.

 

[was]

No..I agree with those stating many threads quickly get off topic