People who arent bound to anything like a paycheck or building some reputation, do dumb stuff from time to time and dont take everthing they encounter or do as serious as e.g. professionals.
News@11
And they do this dumb stuff because they take some things (games) way too seriously. And because they feel like they have to get the last word in, and be right at all costs....human nature.
I thought Jon's article was fine, maybe a lot of it was obvious to people who have spent time on any forums, but not everyone here will have done that. As someone who spent years modding an online discussion group it was all pretty obvious to me, but from complaints about increased moderation that have been popping up recently it looks like there needed to be an article written distinguishing between replies with worth and replies with little to none.
There are posters here whose opinions I value because it's evident they take time to think about what they're posting, and they generally add to any discussion they're in. There are others who seem to have either (a) massive chips on their shoulder about being hard done by by company x or game y or (b) will lambast the living daylights out of anyone who has the temerity to express a dislike for the game they love (without actually discussing the points made, or engaging in any real discussion). These, not so much with the value.
The problem is, not everyone has the same concept of value. To fans of a particular game, the poster I routinely ignore is possibly a noble forum warrior fighting the good fight against all naysayers, they may value his posts because they agree with them. Meh to me, forum gold to them.
Most online discussion groups used to have a form letter that was sent out to all subs when they signed up, I remember helping put ours together. They would contain definitions of trolling, flaming (etc.), point out that none of that would be tolerated, and suggest exactly what Jon did, taking time to calm down before rushing to post in anger/frustration/defensiveness.
Given that Mike B and Stradden have said that there is going to be increased moderation here, it may not hurt for mmorpg.com to come up with a document like that and send it to all members. Might make the job a bit easier.
I've got to wonder if he realizes he also makes wortheless replies on these very forums.
Like the other day where he quoted someone and said something along the lines of "That added a lot to the conversation." in a sarcastic manner, when the irony of the situation was his very reply added even less to the conversation and was indeed..... worthless.
Actually, given the fact that IN the article, the author specifically stated that he was looking to generate conversation, I'd say that post was both relevant and apt. Comprehension is fun.
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood spends some time this week talking about single phrase replies on MMORPG forums, and how while they may feel good to make, they don't do anyone any good.
... it's not that anyone's thoughts, comments or emotions are actually worthless. They are, in fact, completely valid and important to the person expressing them. They are, however, almost completely useless to anyone who would read them, whether it be here at MMORPG.com or elsewhere.
Not quite true. For one to suggest that a brief or prompt reply or expression is useless or meaningless all the time is a pretty myopic or intolerant view. In order of response to the 1, 2, 3.
1. Firstly, I sense that one might assume that the majority of threads began by someone, are started by the initiator to have a converstaion with participants; well, thats pretty false. But aside from that, brevity might actually most often be easily dismissed by someone who doesn't share the same feeling or thought. I dont skip past the "lol" when it's in context to what I find inherently laughable about a topic; the brevity actually adds some humor and connection to my potential laughable impression about said topic.
However, if it's a topic that I support, and express a more verbose position of support on, while someone comes in with a brief 'lol', guess what - I kinda figure that my position isn't supported by that person; it's called a form of communication. While if someone briefly follows my position with a '/signed' or 'agreed', guess what - I kinda figure that my position is suported by that person. I dont need to know the details as to what exactly, and why specifically that poster disagrees. If it's a popular thread with others agreeing and disagreeing, I'll get to the root. I dont need a thesis from every poster, the the combination of the brief '/disagree' or '/agree' does add to the cumulative weight of 'for' or 'against'.
To expect every poster to have to regurgitate my position, in support of it, but differently worded with a litany of sentances, is overly redundant in many cases. So if I dont expect that, why should I have an alternate position for the opposite?
One can't step into a community and throw the word "most" around as though their some savior of righteousness, unless there's some measurable support that thats the case. So most are looking for useful information? No, as I think its a combination of looking to share information and glean information, to agree and to disagree. And when I read threads, and I read quite a few of them for different reasons, I'm as interested in the posts, rather than the lengthy opinionated conversation, which tends to spiral out of control into a redundant yet differently worded stream of sentances either for or against a posters origonal point.
When I come into a thread, I do so casually, more often than not, and try to guage a threads importance to me. I find different threads appealing and conversations appealing, and some I dont. I find long drawn-out arguements for or against a point of view on mostly simple topics and issues to be painful to read and overly verbose. Dare I say that the majority of threads, as opposed to brief responses, to be unnecessary and something to be as questionable, if there's something to be questioned for contributions-sake.
Be careful, as this sounds like another tactic to shut-up opposing views or take a strawman stance to wipe away tears from someone who's feelings are hurt because someone doesn't agree with them, as opposed to a genuine interest in whether one contribution is more noteworthy than another.
So which one of the mmorpg.com writers is going to write a piece on "Brevity is the soul of wit"?
2. They're not confusing. If there is enough activity in a thread, and someone comes in with a quoted 'agree' or 'disagree', then that is more than sufficient for me to either notice the trend against the back-drop of the topic, or not. Same goes with the 'lol' or 'awe comon' within the context of either supporting or not supporting an issue or topic. It's not like we're discussing Physics on this forum, which might result in needing knowledge of some quantum anomly that could derail one opinion or another.
Typically there are more than enough people in any one thread that honestly contribute enough information, and about the details of their particular position, for anyone reading through it to be able to formulate their own opinion as to why something is or isn't so. I happen to find the levity or brevity from brief responses to be refreshing in many of the threads; far from a nuisance and bait for trolls.
But there you go again, sounding like wanting to use this as a tactic for having warnings issued and shutting up opposing views because someone doesnt agree by the brevity of their response.
3. Arrogant? Brevity is not arrogant. It's far from arrogant. Arrogant, being the making of claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights aint akin to a disagereable 'lol' or agreeable 'right-on'; arrogant is more akin to a fanbois flamboayant and overly verbose and copywritten review of something that isn't deserving of such pomp and circumstance, heh, that's arrogant. Brevity without substance might not be enough to support an arguement, if it's devoid of anything to back it up, but it isnt arrogant. Further insight into this is found in my #1 above.
And insulting? I think that's way over the top. But hey, perhaps the intelligence of the reader was insulted by a statement they found to be rediculous within the context of the post, which made them laugh out loud. Again, people who don't like to be disagreed with with brevity, will find this demeanor to police every little thing one doesnt agree with, acceptable.
So, in conclusion, I agree that the more concise and clear someones position is, it does help with the formulation of a big-picture of pro's con's and neutrals on a particular topic or issue. However, to expect a constructively criticised dissertation from each and every participant on a thread is farcical and unnecessary, and an affront to the enjoyment of realism, casualness, and human nature that a good'l 'lol' offers some times.
So, Jon, you should be issued a warning for baiting me into responding to this. .lol..hey, just kidding since I dont know your sense of humor.
But really, I’m going to be more interested, Jon, to read the next writer’s piece on “Brevity is the soul of wit”, and its worthwhile contributions to what might be otherwise a stagnant thread.
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood spends some time this week talking about single phrase replies on MMORPG forums, and how while they may feel good to make, they don't do anyone any good.
... it's not that anyone's thoughts, comments or emotions are actually worthless. They are, in fact, completely valid and important to the person expressing them. They are, however, almost completely useless to anyone who would read them, whether it be here at MMORPG.com or elsewhere.
Not quite true. For one to suggest that a brief or prompt reply or expression is useless or meaningless all the time is a pretty myopic or intolerant view. In order of response to the 1, 2, 3.
1. Firstly, I sense that one might assume that the majority of threads began by someone, are started by the initiator to have a converstaion with participants; well, thats pretty false. But aside from that, brevity might actually most often be easily dismissed by someone who doesn't share the same feeling or thought. I dont skip past the "lol" when it's in context to what I find inherently laughable about a topic; the brevity actually adds some humor and connection to my potential laughable impression about said topic.
However, if it's a topic that I support, and express a more verbose position of support on, while someone comes in with a brief 'lol', guess what - I kinda figure that my position isn't supported by that person; it's called a form of communication. While if someone briefly follows my position with a '/signed' or 'agreed', guess what - I kinda figure that my position is suported by that person. I dont need to know the details as to what exactly, and why specifically that poster disagrees. If it's a popular thread with others agreeing and disagreeing, I'll get to the root. I dont need a thesis from every poster, the the combination of the brief '/disagree' or '/agree' does add to the cumulative weight of 'for' or 'against'.
To expect every poster to have to regurgitate my position, in support of it, but differently worded with a litany of sentances, is overly redundant in many cases. So if I dont expect that, why should I have an alternate position for the opposite?
One can't step into a community and throw the word "most" around as though their some savior of righteousness, unless there's some measurable support that thats the case. So most are looking for useful information? No, as I think its a combination of looking to share information and glean information, to agree and to disagree. And when I read threads, and I read quite a few of them for different reasons, I'm as interested in the posts, rather than the lengthy opinionated conversation, which tends to spiral out of control into a redundant yet differently worded stream of sentances either for or against a posters origonal point.
When I come into a thread, I do so casually, more often than not, and try to guage a threads importance to me. I find different threads appealing and conversations appealing, and some I dont. I find long drawn-out arguements for or against a point of view on mostly simple topics and issues to be painful to read and overly verbose. Dare I say that the majority of threads, as opposed to brief responses, to be unnecessary and something to be as questionable, if there's something to be questioned for contributions-sake.
Be careful, as this sounds like another tactic to shut-up opposing views or take a strawman stance to wipe away tears from someone who's feelings are hurt because someone doesn't agree with them, as opposed to a genuine interest in whether one contribution is more noteworthy than another.
So which one of the mmorpg.com writers is going to write a piece on "Brevity is the soul of wit"?
2. They're not confusing. If there is enough activity in a thread, and someone comes in with a quoted 'agree' or 'disagree', then that is more than sufficient for me to either notice the trend against the back-drop of the topic, or not. Same goes with the 'lol' or 'awe comon' within the context of either supporting or not supporting an issue or topic. It's not like we're discussing Physics on this forum, which might result in needing knowledge of some quantum anomly that could derail one opinion or another.
Typically there are more than enough people in any one thread that honestly contribute enough information, and about the details of their particular position, for anyone reading through it to be able to formulate their own opinion as to why something is or isn't so. I happen to find the levity or brevity from brief responses to be refreshing in many of the threads; far from a nuisance and bait for trolls.
But there you go again, sounding like wanting to use this as a tactic for having warnings issued and shutting up opposing views because someone doesnt agree by the brevity of their response.
3. Arrogant? Brevity is not arrogant. It's far from arrogant. Arrogant, being the making of claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights aint akin to a disagereable 'lol' or agreeable 'right-on'; arrogant is more akin to a fanbois flamboayant and overly verbose and copywritten review of something that isn't deserving of such pomp and circumstance, heh, that's arrogant. Brevity without substance might not be enough to support an arguement, if it's devoid of anything to back it up, but it isnt arrogant. Further insight into this is found in my #1 above.
And insulting? I think that's way over the top. But hey, perhaps the intelligence of the reader was insulted by a statement they found to be rediculous within the context of the post, which made them laugh out loud. Again, people who don't like to be disagreed with with brevity, will find this demeanor to police every little thing one doesnt agree with, acceptable.
So, in conclusion, I agree that the more concise and clear someones position is, it does help with the formulation of a big-picture of pro's con's and neutrals on a particular topic or issue. However, to expect a constructively criticised dissertation from each and every participant on a thread is farcical and unnecessary, and an affront to the enjoyment of realism, casualness, and human nature that a good'l 'lol' offers some times.
So, Jon, you should be issued a warning for baiting me into responding to this. .lol..hey, just kidding since I dont know your sense of humor.
But really, I’m going to be more interested, Jon, to read the next writer’s piece on “Brevity is the soul of wit”, and its worthwhile contributions to what might be otherwise a stagnant thread.
Wow, I sense a little bit of the good old conspiracy theory here. I wasn't writing this column as a treatise on how our site should be moderated. I was writing it as a piece dedicated to talking about useful replies from which information can be gathered and useless ones from which nothing can.
I thought it was quite obvious, though apparently not, that I wasn't talking about the occasional lol or /agree. I also have no problem with brevity. My issue is with people who expound a specific opinion as though it were the gospel truth, without any supporting dialogue with which to be convinced or argue.
There is an epidemic right now , especially in the MMO world, of people frequently complaining that their thoughts and / or statements aren't taken into account by others, especially developers. This is a contributing factor to that. But yeah, it's more fun to complain bitterly than understand the context of the article.
The context of what is being said is as important as the words being used.
The fact is no matter what message board you are on or what the subject is 99% of the time any of us are just spewing out words that end up meaning nothing. Welcome to life where you are not nearly so important as you think you are no matter who you are.
bah, got rid of part of mine :P
Other than the fun emo woe is everyone life sucks part that is!
I've got to wonder if he realizes he also makes wortheless replies on these very forums.
Like the other day where he quoted someone and said something along the lines of "That added a lot to the conversation." in a sarcastic manner, when the irony of the situation was his very reply added even less to the conversation and was indeed..... worthless.
Actually, given the fact that IN the article, the author specifically stated that he was looking to generate conversation, I'd say that post was both relevant and apt. Comprehension is fun.
Spending some time proving all those above this post, who referred to you as snarky but yet you want other people to post useful replies, to be correct?
I don't think the article was targeted at everybody, or even at everyone who posts two word replies to two page articles. I think it was targeted at people who actually want their viewpoints to be considered. I'm sure he's aware that a lot of the people who post "FAIL!!" are just blowing off steam, but that there are also posters who want to be heard but aren't, simply because they only type what they feel without bothering to tell anyone why they feel it. The "what" has no value if nobody understands the "why," because it's just far too general to mean anything to anybody who can't read minds.
As an example, a previous poster in this thread wrote: "I'm willing to bet this was written because of the SC2 Article that was put up a few days ago and it recieved a lot of negative comments." Okay, great. Why do you think that? If you provide some quotes (or even just some anecdotal support) and your interpretation of that information, suddenly you have an argument that has to be considered. Without that support, though, you're essentially a lawyer who says nothing to the judge except "My client is innocent. The defense rests."
Now, if you really don't care whether people agree with you or not, no worries- that's your right. I don't think Jon was telling you that you had to support your observations if you didn't want to, either. He was just pointing out that, if you don't, you're likely to get skimmed over or blindly attacked. Some people really just don't understand why nobody pays any attention to them, and the article attempted to explain why it happens.
On the converse side, another poster wrote: " I've got to wonder if he realizes he also makes wortheless replies on these very forums. Like the other day where he quoted someone and said something along the lines of "That added a lot to the conversation." in a sarcastic manner, when the irony of the situation was his very reply added even less to the conversation and was indeed..... worthless."
That post was critical of Jon, but it supplied support for that criticism. It wasn't a wall of text, or even a moderately long post, but it still managed to convey both the "what" and the "why" behind the poster's opinion. Before reading that post, I was initially very supportive of Jon, but the poster made a very pointed observation that caused me to alter my opinion a little. He did that with no more than two sentences, illustrating it doesn't take a novel to make a point.
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood spends some time this week talking about single phrase replies on MMORPG forums, and how while they may feel good to make, they don't do anyone any good.
Oftentimes, if we disagree with something or there's something that we don't like, our gut reaction is to lash out against it, and tell the world how we feel. The internet in general is a great example of this, and our forums here at MMORPG.com are an excellent example of it.
Because of the ease and the anonymity of posting online, reactions to thoughts and ideas are often met with a chorus of replies like: Fail, this sucks, EPIC, awesome, WRONG, this is stupid, Best.Game. Ever., I won't ever touch this, you're stupid, and other equally guttural but ultimately completely worthless replies.
Now don't get me wrong, it's not that anyone's thoughts, comments or emotions are actually worthless. They are, in fact, completely valid and important to the person expressing them. They are, however, almost completely useless to anyone who would read them, whether it be here at MMORPG.com or elsewhere. For the moment, we'll focus on MMORPG.com and other MMO-related activities.
Originally posted by Darth_Osor This is a forum dedicated to discussing MMOs. By definition, every thread, every post, and every reply here are worthless. We're not discussing world peace here...
Make mmorpgs not war?
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
I'm willing to bet this was written because of the SC2 Article that was put up a few days ago and it recieved a lot of negative comments.
Actually, I think it is in responce to the Champions Online C-Store sale article that recieved a series of "LOL" replies and sparked a debate of sorts on worthless replies.
This article is almost as pointless as every article in Richard Aihoshi's "F2P Corner." Trying to control people's responses, unless you're prepared to kick people for responding that way, is futile. And if you do kick people for those responses then be prepared to lose half your daily visitors.
The problem is deeper than worthless replies, the problem is the widespread "posting without knowing." Way too much BS and hearsay, too few MMO experts, even in the site's official articles. The reason why is obvious, the subject of "MMOs" is so massive, maybe no one is really an expert on the entire subject yet, since there is no profession for that anyway.
While worthless replies are, indeed, worthless, you can probably avoid them better if you don't post unrelated articles(SC2) or opinion pieces that demonstrate that the author doesn't deserve to get paid.(Oh, that atrocious roleplaying article that just went off spewing whatever the guy wanted to get a reaction, some of the F2P articles, etc...)
Then again, you guys would probably listen more if forum comments weren't filled with dumb crap in the first place. Dialogue is worth much more than monologue.
Originally posted by championsFan
The problem is deeper than worthless replies, the problem is the widespread "posting without knowing." Way too much BS and hearsay, too few MMO experts, even in the site's official articles. The reason why is obvious, the subject of "MMOs" is so massive, maybe no one is really an expert on the entire subject yet, since there is no profession for that anyway.
This is the root of the problem.
Also, it's funny to see people equating people talking about post quality to censorship. Morons abound. God forbid that someone wishes that posts literally worthless to intellectual thought and discussion were not taking up space.
There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to include some substance in their posts when they engage in a discussion. A forum, after all, is only as good as the contributions the members make to it.
But the tone of this article, beginning with referring to "worthless replies," doesn't strike me as enormously constructive.
Worse, it contains follow up posts mocking replies with comments like "comprehension is fun" and "But yeah, it's more fun to complain bitterly than understand the context of the article.." Those remarks are directed to the posters rather than to their positions, which for an ordinary poster could easily draw moderation.
I think this article could have been better if it had done more (which is not to say it was not done at all) to emphasize the value of adding more to a discussion, with examples, rather than being so critical of others. And it would have been more credible if its author did not show how posting ought not be done by flaming those who disagree.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
As an example, a previous poster in this thread wrote: "I'm willing to bet this was written because of the SC2 Article that was put up a few days ago and it recieved a lot of negative comments." Okay, great. Why do you think that? If you provide some quotes (or even just some anecdotal support) and your interpretation of that information, suddenly you have an argument that has to be considered. Without that support, though, you're essentially a lawyer who says nothing to the judge except "My client is innocent. The defense rests."
I felt that the statement was clear enough. Even if you didn't read the Starcraft 2 article he says how it recieved a lot of negative comments and this article was stating how those comments are worthless. Having read the SC2 article I agree with the statement considering the amount of MMORPG.com staff were trying to defend themselves.
As for the worthless replies themselves I don't really care. Like stated in the article I will ignore them most of the time and I like that ability to post my own worthless replies if I feel like it. Sad to say the majority of topics on this site are the same old. "F2P vs P2P" "why wow sucks" yada yada. Probably a dozen topics about "STO sucking" started in the last two days; doesn't bother me at all.
And when there is new info it either points to the source where you get it first hand (and don't really need to read any more of it here) or it is very opinionated and one-sided (which leads to arguements and more "worthless replies") Almost everything discussable has been discussed before and for the record, I enjoy humor on my serious MMORPG.com forums.
MMORPG.COM should rename itself FREETOPLAYADVERTISING.COM
People rarely go to forums for anything but to pick a fight, rant or defend a position no matter what topic or genre. One of the last places I would ever go for actual information on anything is a forum, or read a "review" where what is being reviewed has paid advertising on said site for example and take it at all seriously :P
Hmm....maybe I should re-read the article again...
As an example, a previous poster in this thread wrote: "I'm willing to bet this was written because of the SC2 Article that was put up a few days ago and it recieved a lot of negative comments." Okay, great. Why do you think that? If you provide some quotes (or even just some anecdotal support) and your interpretation of that information, suddenly you have an argument that has to be considered. Without that support, though, you're essentially a lawyer who says nothing to the judge except "My client is innocent. The defense rests."
I felt that the statement was clear enough. Even if you didn't read the Starcraft 2 article he says how it recieved a lot of negative comments and this article was stating how those comments are worthless. Having read the SC2 article I agree with the statement considering the amount of MMORPG.com staff were trying to defend themselves.
As for the worthless replies themselves I don't really care. Like stated in the article I will ignore them most of the time and I like that ability to post my own worthless replies if I feel like it. Sad to say the majority of topics on this site are the same old. "F2P vs P2P" "why wow sucks" yada yada. Probably a dozen topics about "STO sucking" started in the last two days; doesn't bother me at all.
And when there is new info it either points to the source where you get it first hand (and don't really need to read any more of it here) or it is very opinionated and one-sided (which leads to arguements and more "worthless replies") Almost everything discussable has been discussed before and for the record, I enjoy humor on my serious MMORPG.com forums.
It wasn't really my point to single you out, which is why I didn't specifically name you and instead stuck to general statements when referring to your unnamed quote. When I said "If you provide some quotes..." I was referring to readers in general, not you specifically (though, in re-reading it, it does read more like a personal criticism than the broader tone I wanted to convey). That said, the only explanation you gave for why you thought Jon's article was a defensive piece didn't include any real examples. You did, however, mention that the earlier article received negative comments, so in the briefest sense your post did have a "why," which I glossed over a bit. Apologies for that.
As for the rest, I had a whole follow-up paragraph stating that, if you really weren't too concerned about what readers thought about your position, then it absolutely didn't matter how you framed your opinion, and that you had every right to do whatever you wanted with your own words. I really wasn't trying to inflame anyone, just trying to communicate how I interpreted Jon's article. By using your quote (which could've just as easily been anyone else's), I was trying to do what my whole post was about: provide a what and a why for my point-of-view. In your response to my post, you did exactly that as well. While we don't really seem to agree on much in either Jon's article or my post, at least now I have a clearer idea of where you're coming from because you told me. Cheers for that.
Again, though, I really wasn't trying to kick you in the shins or tear you down, I just saw your particular post (not your posting history as a whole) as an example to support my thesis in the most general sense.
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood spends some time this week talking about single phrase replies on MMORPG forums, and how while they may feel good to make, they don't do anyone any good.
Oftentimes, if we disagree with something or there's something that we don't like, our gut reaction is to lash out against it, and tell the world how we feel. The internet in general is a great example of this, and our forums here at MMORPG.com are an excellent example of it.
Because of the ease and the anonymity of posting online, reactions to thoughts and ideas are often met with a chorus of replies like: Fail, this sucks, EPIC, awesome, WRONG, this is stupid, Best.Game. Ever., I won't ever touch this, you're stupid, and other equally guttural but ultimately completely worthless replies.
Now don't get me wrong, it's not that anyone's thoughts, comments or emotions are actually worthless. They are, in fact, completely valid and important to the person expressing them. They are, however, almost completely useless to anyone who would read them, whether it be here at MMORPG.com or elsewhere. For the moment, we'll focus on MMORPG.com and other MMO-related activities.
"....Or postin 'Me Too' like some braindead AOLer..."
Sorry Jon. You might have a valid point, but I saw the large wall of text your article contained and decided to pass on reading all but the first few sentences and instead set right to work on thinking of a reply.
Toodles.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Comments
And they do this dumb stuff because they take some things (games) way too seriously. And because they feel like they have to get the last word in, and be right at all costs....human nature.
I thought Jon's article was fine, maybe a lot of it was obvious to people who have spent time on any forums, but not everyone here will have done that. As someone who spent years modding an online discussion group it was all pretty obvious to me, but from complaints about increased moderation that have been popping up recently it looks like there needed to be an article written distinguishing between replies with worth and replies with little to none.
There are posters here whose opinions I value because it's evident they take time to think about what they're posting, and they generally add to any discussion they're in. There are others who seem to have either (a) massive chips on their shoulder about being hard done by by company x or game y or (b) will lambast the living daylights out of anyone who has the temerity to express a dislike for the game they love (without actually discussing the points made, or engaging in any real discussion). These, not so much with the value.
The problem is, not everyone has the same concept of value. To fans of a particular game, the poster I routinely ignore is possibly a noble forum warrior fighting the good fight against all naysayers, they may value his posts because they agree with them. Meh to me, forum gold to them.
Most online discussion groups used to have a form letter that was sent out to all subs when they signed up, I remember helping put ours together. They would contain definitions of trolling, flaming (etc.), point out that none of that would be tolerated, and suggest exactly what Jon did, taking time to calm down before rushing to post in anger/frustration/defensiveness.
Given that Mike B and Stradden have said that there is going to be increased moderation here, it may not hurt for mmorpg.com to come up with a document like that and send it to all members. Might make the job a bit easier.
Actually, given the fact that IN the article, the author specifically stated that he was looking to generate conversation, I'd say that post was both relevant and apt. Comprehension is fun.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Not quite true. For one to suggest that a brief or prompt reply or expression is useless or meaningless all the time is a pretty myopic or intolerant view. In order of response to the 1, 2, 3.
1. Firstly, I sense that one might assume that the majority of threads began by someone, are started by the initiator to have a converstaion with participants; well, thats pretty false. But aside from that, brevity might actually most often be easily dismissed by someone who doesn't share the same feeling or thought. I dont skip past the "lol" when it's in context to what I find inherently laughable about a topic; the brevity actually adds some humor and connection to my potential laughable impression about said topic.
However, if it's a topic that I support, and express a more verbose position of support on, while someone comes in with a brief 'lol', guess what - I kinda figure that my position isn't supported by that person; it's called a form of communication. While if someone briefly follows my position with a '/signed' or 'agreed', guess what - I kinda figure that my position is suported by that person. I dont need to know the details as to what exactly, and why specifically that poster disagrees. If it's a popular thread with others agreeing and disagreeing, I'll get to the root. I dont need a thesis from every poster, the the combination of the brief '/disagree' or '/agree' does add to the cumulative weight of 'for' or 'against'.
To expect every poster to have to regurgitate my position, in support of it, but differently worded with a litany of sentances, is overly redundant in many cases. So if I dont expect that, why should I have an alternate position for the opposite?
One can't step into a community and throw the word "most" around as though their some savior of righteousness, unless there's some measurable support that thats the case. So most are looking for useful information? No, as I think its a combination of looking to share information and glean information, to agree and to disagree. And when I read threads, and I read quite a few of them for different reasons, I'm as interested in the posts, rather than the lengthy opinionated conversation, which tends to spiral out of control into a redundant yet differently worded stream of sentances either for or against a posters origonal point.
When I come into a thread, I do so casually, more often than not, and try to guage a threads importance to me. I find different threads appealing and conversations appealing, and some I dont. I find long drawn-out arguements for or against a point of view on mostly simple topics and issues to be painful to read and overly verbose. Dare I say that the majority of threads, as opposed to brief responses, to be unnecessary and something to be as questionable, if there's something to be questioned for contributions-sake.
Be careful, as this sounds like another tactic to shut-up opposing views or take a strawman stance to wipe away tears from someone who's feelings are hurt because someone doesn't agree with them, as opposed to a genuine interest in whether one contribution is more noteworthy than another.
So which one of the mmorpg.com writers is going to write a piece on "Brevity is the soul of wit"?
2. They're not confusing. If there is enough activity in a thread, and someone comes in with a quoted 'agree' or 'disagree', then that is more than sufficient for me to either notice the trend against the back-drop of the topic, or not. Same goes with the 'lol' or 'awe comon' within the context of either supporting or not supporting an issue or topic. It's not like we're discussing Physics on this forum, which might result in needing knowledge of some quantum anomly that could derail one opinion or another.
Typically there are more than enough people in any one thread that honestly contribute enough information, and about the details of their particular position, for anyone reading through it to be able to formulate their own opinion as to why something is or isn't so. I happen to find the levity or brevity from brief responses to be refreshing in many of the threads; far from a nuisance and bait for trolls.
But there you go again, sounding like wanting to use this as a tactic for having warnings issued and shutting up opposing views because someone doesnt agree by the brevity of their response.
3. Arrogant? Brevity is not arrogant. It's far from arrogant. Arrogant, being the making of claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights aint akin to a disagereable 'lol' or agreeable 'right-on'; arrogant is more akin to a fanbois flamboayant and overly verbose and copywritten review of something that isn't deserving of such pomp and circumstance, heh, that's arrogant. Brevity without substance might not be enough to support an arguement, if it's devoid of anything to back it up, but it isnt arrogant. Further insight into this is found in my #1 above.
And insulting? I think that's way over the top. But hey, perhaps the intelligence of the reader was insulted by a statement they found to be rediculous within the context of the post, which made them laugh out loud. Again, people who don't like to be disagreed with with brevity, will find this demeanor to police every little thing one doesnt agree with, acceptable.
So, in conclusion, I agree that the more concise and clear someones position is, it does help with the formulation of a big-picture of pro's con's and neutrals on a particular topic or issue. However, to expect a constructively criticised dissertation from each and every participant on a thread is farcical and unnecessary, and an affront to the enjoyment of realism, casualness, and human nature that a good'l 'lol' offers some times.
So, Jon, you should be issued a warning for baiting me into responding to this. .lol..hey, just kidding since I dont know your sense of humor.
But really, I’m going to be more interested, Jon, to read the next writer’s piece on “Brevity is the soul of wit”, and its worthwhile contributions to what might be otherwise a stagnant thread.
to the last poster!i agree this isnt tweeter!
Wow, I sense a little bit of the good old conspiracy theory here. I wasn't writing this column as a treatise on how our site should be moderated. I was writing it as a piece dedicated to talking about useful replies from which information can be gathered and useless ones from which nothing can.
I thought it was quite obvious, though apparently not, that I wasn't talking about the occasional lol or /agree. I also have no problem with brevity. My issue is with people who expound a specific opinion as though it were the gospel truth, without any supporting dialogue with which to be convinced or argue.
There is an epidemic right now , especially in the MMO world, of people frequently complaining that their thoughts and / or statements aren't taken into account by others, especially developers. This is a contributing factor to that. But yeah, it's more fun to complain bitterly than understand the context of the article.
The context of what is being said is as important as the words being used.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
The fact is no matter what message board you are on or what the subject is 99% of the time any of us are just spewing out words that end up meaning nothing. Welcome to life where you are not nearly so important as you think you are no matter who you are.
bah, got rid of part of mine :P
Other than the fun emo woe is everyone life sucks part that is!
mm!op!
a orpg is a orpg
an morpg is an morpg!
a mmorpg is a mmorpg!
what is there to discuss?
lets blurr the line and name all game mmorpg!its often this single subject that gets ton of whatchemacallit!
Best. Article. Evah!
--------
"Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"
The most awesomest after school special T-shirt:
Front: UNO Chemistry Club
Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions
Spending some time proving all those above this post, who referred to you as snarky but yet you want other people to post useful replies, to be correct?
I don't think the article was targeted at everybody, or even at everyone who posts two word replies to two page articles. I think it was targeted at people who actually want their viewpoints to be considered. I'm sure he's aware that a lot of the people who post "FAIL!!" are just blowing off steam, but that there are also posters who want to be heard but aren't, simply because they only type what they feel without bothering to tell anyone why they feel it. The "what" has no value if nobody understands the "why," because it's just far too general to mean anything to anybody who can't read minds.
As an example, a previous poster in this thread wrote: "I'm willing to bet this was written because of the SC2 Article that was put up a few days ago and it recieved a lot of negative comments." Okay, great. Why do you think that? If you provide some quotes (or even just some anecdotal support) and your interpretation of that information, suddenly you have an argument that has to be considered. Without that support, though, you're essentially a lawyer who says nothing to the judge except "My client is innocent. The defense rests."
Now, if you really don't care whether people agree with you or not, no worries- that's your right. I don't think Jon was telling you that you had to support your observations if you didn't want to, either. He was just pointing out that, if you don't, you're likely to get skimmed over or blindly attacked. Some people really just don't understand why nobody pays any attention to them, and the article attempted to explain why it happens.
On the converse side, another poster wrote: " I've got to wonder if he realizes he also makes wortheless replies on these very forums. Like the other day where he quoted someone and said something along the lines of "That added a lot to the conversation." in a sarcastic manner, when the irony of the situation was his very reply added even less to the conversation and was indeed..... worthless."
That post was critical of Jon, but it supplied support for that criticism. It wasn't a wall of text, or even a moderately long post, but it still managed to convey both the "what" and the "why" behind the poster's opinion. Before reading that post, I was initially very supportive of Jon, but the poster made a very pointed observation that caused me to alter my opinion a little. He did that with no more than two sentences, illustrating it doesn't take a novel to make a point.
Cool story bro...
:-D
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
Actually, I think it is in responce to the Champions Online C-Store sale article that recieved a series of "LOL" replies and sparked a debate of sorts on worthless replies.
This article is almost as pointless as every article in Richard Aihoshi's "F2P Corner." Trying to control people's responses, unless you're prepared to kick people for responding that way, is futile. And if you do kick people for those responses then be prepared to lose half your daily visitors.
The problem is deeper than worthless replies, the problem is the widespread "posting without knowing." Way too much BS and hearsay, too few MMO experts, even in the site's official articles. The reason why is obvious, the subject of "MMOs" is so massive, maybe no one is really an expert on the entire subject yet, since there is no profession for that anyway.
Cryptic is trying a Customer Development approach to MMO creation.
While worthless replies are, indeed, worthless, you can probably avoid them better if you don't post unrelated articles(SC2) or opinion pieces that demonstrate that the author doesn't deserve to get paid.(Oh, that atrocious roleplaying article that just went off spewing whatever the guy wanted to get a reaction, some of the F2P articles, etc...)
Then again, you guys would probably listen more if forum comments weren't filled with dumb crap in the first place. Dialogue is worth much more than monologue.
This is the root of the problem.
Also, it's funny to see people equating people talking about post quality to censorship. Morons abound. God forbid that someone wishes that posts literally worthless to intellectual thought and discussion were not taking up space.
Succinct is good.
There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to include some substance in their posts when they engage in a discussion. A forum, after all, is only as good as the contributions the members make to it.
But the tone of this article, beginning with referring to "worthless replies," doesn't strike me as enormously constructive.
Worse, it contains follow up posts mocking replies with comments like "comprehension is fun" and "But yeah, it's more fun to complain bitterly than understand the context of the article.." Those remarks are directed to the posters rather than to their positions, which for an ordinary poster could easily draw moderation.
I think this article could have been better if it had done more (which is not to say it was not done at all) to emphasize the value of adding more to a discussion, with examples, rather than being so critical of others. And it would have been more credible if its author did not show how posting ought not be done by flaming those who disagree.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I felt that the statement was clear enough. Even if you didn't read the Starcraft 2 article he says how it recieved a lot of negative comments and this article was stating how those comments are worthless. Having read the SC2 article I agree with the statement considering the amount of MMORPG.com staff were trying to defend themselves.
As for the worthless replies themselves I don't really care. Like stated in the article I will ignore them most of the time and I like that ability to post my own worthless replies if I feel like it. Sad to say the majority of topics on this site are the same old. "F2P vs P2P" "why wow sucks" yada yada. Probably a dozen topics about "STO sucking" started in the last two days; doesn't bother me at all.
And when there is new info it either points to the source where you get it first hand (and don't really need to read any more of it here) or it is very opinionated and one-sided (which leads to arguements and more "worthless replies") Almost everything discussable has been discussed before and for the record, I enjoy humor on my serious MMORPG.com forums.
Make games you want to play.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RavikAztar
<Insert generic worthless reply to see name pop up in the main page for a few seconds>
Epic Article, it was awesome!
This.
(I leave that up to everyone to decide if that was a worthless reply or not
)
Here you go!
MMORPG.COM should rename itself FREETOPLAYADVERTISING.COM
People rarely go to forums for anything but to pick a fight, rant or defend a position no matter what topic or genre. One of the last places I would ever go for actual information on anything is a forum, or read a "review" where what is being reviewed has paid advertising on said site for example and take it at all seriously :P
Hmm....maybe I should re-read the article again...
It wasn't really my point to single you out, which is why I didn't specifically name you and instead stuck to general statements when referring to your unnamed quote. When I said "If you provide some quotes..." I was referring to readers in general, not you specifically (though, in re-reading it, it does read more like a personal criticism than the broader tone I wanted to convey). That said, the only explanation you gave for why you thought Jon's article was a defensive piece didn't include any real examples. You did, however, mention that the earlier article received negative comments, so in the briefest sense your post did have a "why," which I glossed over a bit. Apologies for that.
As for the rest, I had a whole follow-up paragraph stating that, if you really weren't too concerned about what readers thought about your position, then it absolutely didn't matter how you framed your opinion, and that you had every right to do whatever you wanted with your own words. I really wasn't trying to inflame anyone, just trying to communicate how I interpreted Jon's article. By using your quote (which could've just as easily been anyone else's), I was trying to do what my whole post was about: provide a what and a why for my point-of-view. In your response to my post, you did exactly that as well. While we don't really seem to agree on much in either Jon's article or my post, at least now I have a clearer idea of where you're coming from because you told me. Cheers for that.
Again, though, I really wasn't trying to kick you in the shins or tear you down, I just saw your particular post (not your posting history as a whole) as an example to support my thesis in the most general sense.
"....Or postin 'Me Too' like some braindead AOLer..."
Sorry Jon. You might have a valid point, but I saw the large wall of text your article contained and decided to pass on reading all but the first few sentences and instead set right to work on thinking of a reply.
Toodles.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "