Joined: 6/25/2007
Posts: 732
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Warp wrote:
Please also explain to me why the length of my posts is an issue. This is the umpteenth time that very thing has been brought up (it was mentioned in this thread). I have asked this very thing several times, and I don't remember anybody actually explaining it to me. Apparently people have a strange aversion to long posts, yet seem to be unable to explain why. It would be nice to know.
I explained it in this very thread.
Lex wrote:
You consistently underestimate your audience by explaining simple things with great verbosity, causing your posts to be time-wasting searches for the point. We don't want to read a page of text about the same thing only to find out you weren't really saying anything new or that you were arguing a different point than what was presented.
You are either a master troll or a complete idiot. You seem to choose to ignore things that were said by others, dismissing their validity by acting like you don't understand because only your opinion could possibly matter. If the same issue has been presented to you numerous times by different people, it should be clear that it's something you should work on, not something to dismiss as invalid because everyone must either be wrong or speaking the language they speak on Mars.
Also, is question-talking an obnoxious, patronizing form of communication? Yes, it is. Did you choose to act like you didn't understand what I obviously meant by "question-talking" instead of just accepting it and avoiding that form of communication? Clearly. Am I question-talking right now to show you how annoying it is? Yes.
This is, what, our fifth "Jeeze Warp you really irritate people" thread? I think at this point that there's some fundamental communications barrier going on here. So Warp, my advice to you would be to stop trying to understand, and instead to pay attention to the behaviors that other people don't like, and even though you don't understand why they don't like them, try to behave differently.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
You see, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said "group masturbation" (which means "mutual ego-boosting" in less derogatory terms).
First someone complains about a post I made. Then a few other people jump in the bandwagon and join in. An impromptu gang has been formed. An implicit unwritten agreement is in place that nobody in the "gang" will turn on anybody else in it, even if somebody goes a bit too far. An implicit "I won't criticize anybody else, and nobody else will criticize me" pact, which will make everyone in the "gang" feel good about themselves. Mutual ego-boosting.
Am I overanalyzing this? Maybe. But think about it. You can't deny something like this isn't happening.
Because I know for a fact that Lex's claims are BS, but nobody will admit it if he doesn't. There's nothing "obnoxious" about "question talking" or using the expression "as I explained earlier". Those are completely normal forms of expression, and this is the first time in my life that I have seen anybody making this kind of claims. He's just making this shit up. He could probably come up with any number of things (like "overanalyzing things is obnoxious" or "using words that a 6th grader can't understand is obnoxious" or whatever) and nobody will openly disagree with him. This is just ridiculous.
And this takes the cake:
Lex wrote:
You are either a master troll or a complete idiot.
So now we are down to outright name calling. Great. Just great.
Derakon wrote:
So Warp, my advice to you would be to stop trying to understand, and instead to pay attention to the behaviors that other people don't like, and even though you don't understand why they don't like them, try to behave differently.
Sounds like good advice. The problem is that the appropriate "rules of behavior" seem to be completely arbitrary, made up on the spot, and impossible to predict in advance. You never know when somebody will find something "obnoxious" and complain about it.
The only "rule" which seems to be somewhat consistent is the one about post length. Of course this rule seems to be only imposed on me, nobody else (there are people who have made way, way longer posts than I have ever made, with no complaints whatsoever, so this is demonstrably a strongly biased "rule"). I'm sorry, but I find this one rule completely ridiculous, and I will ignore it.
Sounds like good advice. The problem is that the appropriate "rules of behavior" seem to be completely arbitrary, made up on the spot, and impossible to predict in advance.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Social cues exist, even on message boards. Now, I'm not diagnosing you with autism. However, that quote seems to encompass the numerous debates surrounding you.
Are you seriously saying that I should have known in advance that a forum member would get offended by the use of the expression "as I described earlier" or by what he calls "question talking"? I have never seen anywhere, in any context, those things being considered "obnoxious" or offensive. Have you?
Or are you simply not wanting to concede me that point because of the "impromptu gang mentality" I described?
Communication is a two-way street. Agreement cannot be reached if you expect it to be completely unilateral.
While assuming that it's the other party who is responsible for misunderstanding is a valid defense, it can only go so far. And after it goes as far as it can take you there's a lot more to do, like trying to see if what you've said could look dickish, and reformulating it unless the original form was intended. Stuff like that often tends to be an eye-opening experience, which is surely lost on you if you're simply not sensitive enough to actually perceive the problematic aspects and thus the difference.
As for the post length, talking as somebody who has written many screen-long posts on several forums, there are also nuances to see. For one, if you're making a point and not just fencing with words, verbosity is needed only if it actually produces new information, or the other party has problems understanding it when the message is brief. At the same time keeping it brief and to the point usually makes it easier to comprehend.
Also keep in mind that some aspects of verbal behavior don't suit different people equally, depending on various factors.
tl;dr: It's more complex than it seems, Warp. You'll need to learn to deal with it.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Are you seriously saying that I should have known in advance that a forum member would get offended by the use of the expression "as I described earlier" or by what he calls "question talking"? I have never seen anywhere, in any context, those things being considered "obnoxious" or offensive. Have you?
I think Lex did a pretty decent demonstration of why 'question-talking' can be considered obnoxious. But, I'll agree with you, it requires a general intuition to understand that it is obnoxious, there is no 'example' I can pull out of my ass to give you where it says "Don't talk like this if you want to be liked."
Warp wrote:
Or are you simply not wanting to concede me that point because of the "impromptu gang mentality" I described?
Concede what point? Do you want debate points? Here, you go, you win this debate, I lose. Now will you listen to me, please?
Warp wrote:
Communication is a two-way street. Agreement cannot be reached if you expect it to be completely unilateral.
Agreement to what? We aren't signing a peace accord, this isn't a debate club. You wanted to know (or at least you said you wanted to know) why there seems to constantly be a gang mentality against you. This isn't the first time you've expressed the thought of gang mentality.
There are 2 possibilities here:
1. We have secret meetings, where we nominated, and voted for you to be the forum whipping boy.
2. You don't understand the nuances of communication that others take for granted, and thus, everyone independently comes to the same conclusion, and tries to explain to you what they see wrong.
Which do you honestly believe?
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
While assuming that it's the other party who is responsible for misunderstanding is a valid defense, it can only go so far. And after it goes as far as it can take you there's a lot more to do, like trying to see if what you've said could look dickish, and reformulating it unless the original form was intended. Stuff like that often tends to be an eye-opening experience, which is surely lost on you if you're simply not sensitive enough to actually perceive the problematic aspects and thus the difference.
I understand how my first couple of posts to this thread can be seen as aggressive and denigrating of the MenuetOS project. However, I honestly did not mean it to be like that, and I think I expressed that later very clearly. While it doesn't really surprise me anymore that explaining one's true intentions afterwards is seldom taken seriously, I still have to wonder why it's not enough. Instead, people go on and on about my style of writing and whatnot, descending to outright name calling, which is completely uncalled for.
I do have to disagree with Lex's claims, though. Either he is just yanking my chain for the fun of it, making stuff up on the spot, or he is being overly sensitive (or maybe both). Things like writing questions and answering them is a style of writing, and I have never seen anybody considering it offensive and insulting anywhere. Such a claim is just incomprehensible and ridiculous.
As for the post length, talking as somebody who has written many screen-long posts on several forums, there are also nuances to see. For one, if you're making a point and not just fencing with words, verbosity is needed only if it actually produces new information, or the other party has problems understanding it when the message is brief. At the same time keeping it brief and to the point usually makes it easier to comprehend.
In this particular case I don't think the length of the post was unwarranted considering all the stuff I wanted to say. It was an info-dump, but I don't think it contained much redundant information. Some people don't like reading info-dumps, but in that case they can just skip it. It won't bother me.
What is happening with this is that since some people have complained about it in the past, they and others will then complain about it again and again alongside other complaints whenever my post exceeds some arbitrary length, even in situations where the length of the post is completely irrelevant to the issue. In other words, it's just a pet peeve. Yanking my chain just for the sake of it. (I'm sure these people would find even this post "overly long".)
Also keep in mind that some aspects of verbal behavior don't suit different people equally, depending on various factors.
People should also understand that not everybody can know what they personally find "obnoxious" that usually aren't, and put unfair expectations on people.
Well, I can't say it's unfair to expect the change to come from where it reasonably should come from, but the worst part of it is, even if misunderstanding is not your problem per se (I don't subscribe to that school of thought myself, either), it still ends up as your problem too because you're a part of the same social group.
So yes, you still have to deal with it somehow.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Or are you simply not wanting to concede me that point because of the "impromptu gang mentality" I described?
Concede what point? Do you want debate points? Here, you go, you win this debate, I lose. Now will you listen to me, please?
If you want me to listen, sarcasm is not the best tool for that.
The only thing I wanted was for someone to agree that the whole "question talking" or whatever claims are ridiculous, and expecting me to know that he doesn't like that kind of writing is quite unfair. For someone to demonstrate that I'm wrong and there's no gang mentality going on here.
DarkKobold wrote:
Warp wrote:
Communication is a two-way street. Agreement cannot be reached if you expect it to be completely unilateral.
Agreement to what? We aren't signing a peace accord, this isn't a debate club. You wanted to know (or at least you said you wanted to know) why there seems to constantly be a gang mentality against you. This isn't the first time you've expressed the thought of gang mentality.
There are 2 possibilities here:
1. We have secret meetings, where we nominated, and voted for you to be the forum whipping boy.
2. You don't understand the nuances of communication that others take for granted, and thus, everyone independently comes to the same conclusion, and tries to explain to you what they see wrong.
Which do you honestly believe?
You are just pulling out a straw man. There's no need for "secret meetings" for people to gang up impromptu against someone. It happens on the spot. One person makes an accusation, others join up when they see it. Especially if this has happened several times before. it's enough for people to remember past events. No concrete organization is needed.
What I do not like about this situation is that, for whatever reason, there seem to be some unwritten rules of communication that are imposed only on me, nobody else. You can call me paranoid, but that's just a fact. The post length issue is the prime example. Granted, I have not read every single post at the tasvideos forum, but from the thousands and thousands I have, I don't remember a single one where someone objected to the length of someone's post, other than mine. Why is this so? What's different?
What it looks to me like is that the post length is irrelevant. It's just some odd pet peeve of yours and a few others who have jumped on the bandwagon, which is nice to always throw alongside other accusations. A bit like shotgun argumentation: The more objections, the better.
How about I object to your (plural) behavior for a change? More precisely, about this thing called common courtesy. You see, when someone seemingly acts like a jerkass but then explains that he didn't mean it like that, it's common courtesy to assume that he is being honest. Not believing him is the same as accusing him of being a liar. (Maybe he is indeed lying to try to get himself out of the pinch. However, the polite thing to do is to assume honesty by default. If he happens to be honest, but you keep implicitly assuming he is a liar, you are more of a jerkass than he.)
