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

[jgsugden]

Each thread requires different consideration. If it is an evolving situation of importance, they might all be worthwhile reading. If it is an amusing subject, but of no real impact, I am happy to skip to the end and offer my thoughts if someone wants to read them.

I also tend to spin right past certain repetitive cycles of arguing between a few people that have a tendency to repeat themselves at each other for several pages, often all within an hour or so. If you take some of our 29 page threads and weed them down to only the posts that offered something new, as opposed to defending a stance through repetition or non-substantive insults, you can often find that there are a lot fewer posts to read.

I also have blocked several people that are voluminous posters. So I often 'miss' their contributions, which are occasionally something I wish I could have seen (but are not worth wading through the rest of what they post - and I know some people blocked me as well).

 

[Parmandur]

Poll pretty clearly shows the overwhelming majority of people disagree with you, so there's that, but more to the point, very often the discussion is based on the OP asking a question, and wanting various responses to it, not necessarily wanting some kind of 15-page debate.

In fact, with an awful lot of 15+ page threads, only a small minority (10-30%) of the posts in the thread will actually really be truly relevant to what the thread starter actually asked or said. So what you're actually reading through is often off-topic or essentially petty or largely-irrelevant discussions/disagreements between posters, often about very specific points of order (I've absolutely been part of this - most regular posters here have been!), which aren't particularly important or useful to know (as vital/amusing as they may be to the people involved).

There are cases where an important discussion is had, but frankly, far fewer of those go on for that long, and you see a lot less of "skipped the middle" answers, because when you come into the thread you can immediately see relevant arguments are still happening, not the "NO U!!!" that you often see after 15 pages.

Case in point, this thread.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not that people aren't worth my time. It's that I don't have the time to give them. With multiple threads to look at and limited time, I just don't have time to read all 15 pages. When entering a new thread I will read the first 2-3 pages to see the initial argument and discussion, responding to posts I see there. Then I will skip to the last 3 pages to see where the discussion is at, which is often radically different, and then respond to posts I see there.

There is only so much toilet time in the day.

 

[AmerginLiath]

Now that we're seven pages deep, perhaps this is the appropriate time to acknowledge that most of the important points (and funny jokes) have been addressed or commented on. Is there common agreement or social compact that we might pursue in the interest of building a better community?

This commentary on the yes/no binary is useful only so far. What practices do people find most helpful when trying to orient latecomers to the discussion who haven't done their homework?

I try and link back to posts they may have missed. You can do this by referencing the post number or copying the post number link. It takes effort on my part, but if I was here for the 15+ pages, it's far easier for me to be inclusive this way than it is burdensome for those entering the discussion to read mountains of text and quoted responses to catch up.

I prefer to be inviting and know that I appreciate when others extend the same courtesy.

Per what I was saying in #117 last page, I think a lot of the problems stem from posting as if conservations are threaded (coming from a Twitter or Reddit-style zeitgeist back to a bulletin board), when posts are shown linerally. That’s an issue that we can’t really change — and it would be really confusing to read were it to somehow change — so I think that’s something that needs to be kept in mind.

Linking back to previous comments (or even just noting which post number something was) is a good reference point to return back from a digression. I do think we need to be better at splitting threads or starting up new threads (with links to the new conversation and quotes from the old thread as necessary) if the new topic needs a full debate.

Part of me wonders if, when folks are involved in long debates or discussions over myriad pages, if they should remember to “recap” every so often — someone (whether the OP or another poster) making an aside on page ten of where the debate’s been going and what the main arguments are, for those joining already in progress.

I’ll admit that I post a lot less often than I used to (never being remotely a heavy poster here, despite being here since close to the beginning) because every thread is so long and involved for me to catch up to when I poke my head in every few days, but I imagine part of that is how I still think in terms of early-2000s BB etiquette here in the 2020s.

 

[AmerginLiath]

There is only so much toilet time in the day.

“Casts Leomund’s Tiny Outhouse”

 

[Maxperson]

“Casts Leomund’s Tiny Outhouse”

Clearly you don't Leomund very well. "Casts Leomund's Lavish Lavatory."

 

[J.Quondam]

So... which of the Bigby's Hand spells is most appropriate for this application?

 

[Maxperson]

So... which of the Bigby's Hand spells is most appropriate for this application?

Bigby's Wiping Hand of course. Tenser's Terrific Toiletries is a good one to cast just prior, though.

 

[mrpopstar]

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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I say no. Most threads are quite rather long and it isn't a good use of time to read every single post in one