What's with all the new folks?

[smootrk]

Yeah, I think that's due to a misunderstanding, though.

That happens sometimes, due to the nature of an all-text form of communication.

I only added it because right after my last post in this thread, I happened upon that thread. I also see that the individual was trying to ask a question and at the same time be a little funny. Apparently did not work.

It was posts later in that thread that I took notice of.

 

[wingsandsword]

I'm someone who makes use of post count statistics in that I am much more likely to respond to people with high post counts. And it's for a pretty simple reason; I want to know that what I am writing will (a) be read and (b) get a response. The lower someone's post count, the less likely they are to read what I have bothered to write or respond to it.

Compared to many people here, I have a piddly low post count. By the standards of most boards I visit, I would be the top poster there. However, I make a point of keeping up with every thread I post to. If I post something, I'm most likely looking for a response and I want to see if anybody has anything to say.

I, like many others lurked for years before even registering, and even then didn't start posting regularly for months. I think part of the whole point of this thread is that post count and join date may be spiffy little stats, they are very imprecise measures of whether someone is likely to be knowledgeable, credible, or a good debater.

 

[fusangite]

Brent_Nall,

You misunderstand. If you re-read my post, you'll see that I was talking about who I am most likely to reply to not who I am most likely to read.

I read every post in any thread I choose to read. But I tend to be presisposed to replying to (a) people who have written something interesting and/or (b) people who have high post counts. I don't skim threads. I read every word of them -- unless I join at page 8 or something based on an interesting and sudden turn it has taken.

If you think it's elitist to be reluctant to reply to uninteresting posts by people who may or may not ever turn up to engage in dialogue then I guess I'm an elitist. And, just to anticipate your next move (based on your above post), I'm not saying that low post count varies directly with boringness; I'm simply saying that it doesn't matter to me what a poster's count is if they have written something genuinely interesting.

 

[fusangite]

Compared to many people here, I have a piddly low post count. By the standards of most boards I visit, I would be the top poster there. However, I make a point of keeping up with every thread I post to. If I post something, I'm most likely looking for a response and I want to see if anybody has anything to say.

That's good to know. But I'm sure you'll agree that while there's no 1:1 correlation between this laudable behaviour and a high post count, there isn't zero correlation either. ANyway, glad to know this about you. I'll certainly factor that in when next I encounter you on a thread.

I, like many others lurked for years before even registering, and even then didn't start posting regularly for months. I think part of the whole point of this thread is that post count and join date may be spiffy little stats, they are very imprecise measures of whether someone is likely to be knowledgeable, credible, or a good debater.

I agree. Even a word count would give a different picture. But I'm not going to decide to ignore post count as one of the things I know about a poster, in the absence of other statistics.

It seems like people are trying to polarize this debate into one side saying "post count means nothing" and the other saying "post count means everything." I'm not on either side if that's how you want to cut it. Statistics are useful in life; they don't tell the whole story or even most of it, but to suggest that post count stats convey no information whatsoever about a poster is just dead wrong. I'm simply honestly expressing how I factor someone's post count into my behaviour.

 

[The_Gunslinger658]

Hi-

I'm not a rabbid poster, but I do enjoy talking about RPGs. I'm also no stranger to board forums so I personally know better on what subjects to post or not to post. IE if I posted what are peoples thoughts on 1E vs 3.5 D&D then I would be trolling. Anyway, EN World is very freindly and I always enjoy hanging about and posting on things that interest me.
On the other hand, wargaming forums are the worst to post at, you support so and so's wargame company? your banned! Yup, it has happened, cross an old grognard and you will more then likely find yourself banned from said forum.
Kinda sad in a way, Wargames need new blood, yet, the online wargaming comminity is always at each others throats, heck, it drove me back into D&D just because I got so fed up with dealing with primma-donnas 24/7.
So RPG's friendly, Wargames not freindly


Scott

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

First, an apology: this is long and not necessarily interesting, but I started typing and just wouldn't stop. So, stop reading now unless you want to hear me babble about elitism/group acceptance.

You misunderstand. If you re-read my post, you'll see that I was talking about who I am most likely to reply to not who I am most likely to read.

Ah, I did misread . . . somewhat. You only indicated you are less likely to reply to someone that has a low post count, not that you don't read what they say. Cool.

If you think it's elitist to be reluctant to reply to uninteresting posts by people who may or may not ever turn up to engage in dialogue then I guess I'm an elitist.

That's not exactly what I said . . . but it is close. Basically, anytime someone posts to a message board they are attempting to evoke some response. That's the beauty of message boards: we all get to have our say . . . and we prefer it if our say evokes a response because that's the only way we know anyone read what we had to say.

If a person with a low post count evokes few or no responses then that person is likely to feel that s/he is being ignored by the community that s/he is trying to join. S/he may believe that s/he is ignored because the people on that board are elitists who do not pay attention to new members or people with low post counts. This is especially so when the n00b sees that people reply a great deal to the members with high post counts.

Of course, long-term members with high post counts are likely to know other long-term members with high posts counts. So, you respond to your friends/acquaintances more often. It's only natural.

Is it reasonable for the n00b to feel that people ignoring him/her are elitists? Generally, probably yes. You said yourself that low post count is a factor (not the only factor) in deciding if you will respond to someone. I'm sure others do and feel the same. Does that generalization apply to all people that choose not to reply to a n00b? Not at all. Does that actually make you (or anyone) an elitist? Not really, but it's the n00b's perception that matters in this case. If the n00b believes that s/he is being ignored because s/he is a n00b then the n00b may feel like the long-term members are elitists . . . and they are somewhat.

Elitism is not necessarily a bad thing . . . it just has a screwy connotation in English (especially among Americans). An elitist is one who believes s/he belongs to an elite group . . . that is, a superior part of society. Even defined that way it sounds bad to most Americans. Our egalitarian roots tell us that everyone is equal. It's a simple fact that we are not all equal, and that some members of society (any society) are superior to others.

Now, members of the EN World society who feel that they are part of the "in crowd" or "long-timers/veterans" or "high post count crowd" are, by definition, elitists. They believe they are part of a select (superior/elite) group within the larger EN World society. If they choose to respond more often to other members of the elite group and often ignore the n00bs then they are acting on their elitism in such a way that n00bs will notice.

And, just to anticipate your next move (based on your above post), I'm not saying that low post count varies directly with boringness;

Nicely said. I think it's interesting that you are anticipating my "next move" as if we are involved in some sort of game/challenge/competition. Isn't it cool how a simple exchange of words (you post, I reply, you reply) can so easily deteriorate into verbal combat? I will admit that I purposely tried to provoke you previously. Why? Because I'm a n00b, and I want someone to listen to me! But also I found what you were saying confirmed exactly what I already suspected . . . many EN World members don't respond to n00bs often because they are n00bs. That's cool. It seems natural, and your explanation of why you do so is reasonable

I'm really not trying to debate or provoke now. I just felt like this thread specifically referred to me and that I should reply. Your previous post (not the one I'm replying to now) also hit home with me as you said yourself that you use post count as a measure (not the only measure) to determine if you should reply to someone. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I am saying that it has the potential to be a bad thing from a n00b's point of view.

So, the post/reply/re-reply exchange is what makes messages boards so fun, and that's why everyone, especially a n00b, wants to get a response to their posts. They want to know that their voices are heard, and the only way you know your voice is heard is if someone responds to you. For a n00b a response indicates that someone is listening, and hopefully, that the n00b is being accepted into the community.

I'm simply saying that it doesn't matter to me what a poster's count is if they have written something genuinely interesting.

I'm glad to hear that . . . I think. Hopefully I've been interesting.

In closing, if you elitists don't respond to this post then I will know that none of you likes me and you don't want me to be a member of the EN World community.

 

[Tolen Mar]

You know all of this is an interesting debate, but you are all forgetting a very large group of posters.

People like me, who hardly ever looks at the post counts. I read the threads, I respond to the ones that were interesting, I add my opinions. Heck I even quote the more interesting posts, and you'll see I talk to noob and veteran alike.

Its about what they say, not how often they've said it.

The only time I look at post count is when I want to know how many I have. One day Ill break 300, I know I will. Until then, Ill lurk around here more than I post.

 

[fusangite]

Brent,

I think you are universalizing the idea of elitism to the point where it becomes meaningless. You are in danger of arguing that any system that distinguishes amongst people on any basis is essentially elitist. Now, I will agree that all systems are, by their nature, hierarchical. As Kenneth Burke opined, "if order, then hierarchy." All communities are ordered. All communities are hierarchical. But I wouldn't characterize all communities as elitist.

My idea of how ENWorld should work is merit-based. If you show yourself to be a reliable or interesting poster, you will get responses. The fact that it takes time and effort to demonstrate those things about oneself is characteristic of all merit-based systems. And I really object to the idea that all merit-based systems are elitist in character.

If one wants a message board of quality, where most of the posts are worth reading and people are around to answer questions about things they post, the culture of the board should be meritocratic. And that's what we have, to a greater or lesser extent, here on ENWorld.

In my view, it's not necessarily a good idea for new people to the board to feel that merely by showing up they will be treated the same as established posters. But it is a good idea for them to have the sense that if they contribute reliably and constructively, they will be. I think you're right that there is a problem if they feel that such treatment is beyond their reach; so perhaps we need to find ways to let people know that there is, if not equality, equality of opportunity.

Nicely said. I think it's interesting that you are anticipating my "next move" as if we are involved in some sort of game/challenge/competition. Isn't it cool how a simple exchange of words (you post, I reply, you reply) can so easily deteriorate into verbal combat?

That's not always deterioration. Often people do their best and most creative thinking when forced to defend their ideas in an adversarial context. That's actually one of the things I like about ENWorld; people like Umbran and shilsen often force me to think things through very carefully that I would never reason-out were it not for the adversarial nature of clip and quote conversations.

I will admit that I purposely tried to provoke you previously. Why? Because I'm a n00b, and I want someone to listen to me!

You see, I see this as evidence the system/culture of ENWorld works.

 

[Nifft]

Gentlemen,

I'd suggest that such serious discussion has little or no place in Off-Topic, and I'd suggest that Meta might be a better place for it. The response you evoke has as much to do with your environment as it does with your content.

-- N

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Gentlemen,

I'd suggest that such serious discussion has little or no place in Off-Topic, and I'd suggest that Meta might be a better place for it. The response you evoke has as much to do with your environment as it does with your content.

-- N

Agreed: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=2289202