Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[markusin]

You hide the Ozles and Witherweavers and never know what you're missing.

You're missing some great god-damned content, let me tell you.

I don't see ignore lists being very useful when looking to read serious discussion.

What if it's some high profile players that you'd normally want to read Dominion advice from like Stef or SCSN who are steering discussion in an unwanted place. A prime example is the running game that MF sucks (for the record, I still want to reserve judgement on whether I feel this is actually the case, but it's getting hard to do so). If big players are making dismissive remarks about MF, then everyone will want to jump in. If you're looking for proper discussion as to the reasons why MF is not doing a good job, you'll eventually want to ignore many posters because they're all being flippant about the topic.

It cuts the other way too. What if Ozle comes along and make insightful posts about Moat? I want to be there for that.  We are all capable of posting serious discussion that is worth considering regardless of apparent player skill.

If a separate board with heavier moderation comes along then dies, well we'd still have this forum. What would be have to lose by trying it out?

[Donald X.]

I don't see ignore lists being very useful when looking to read serious discussion.

What if it's some high profile players that you'd normally want to read Dominion advice from like Stef or SCSN who are steering discussion in an unwanted place. A prime example is the running game that MF sucks (for the record, I still want to reserve judgement on whether I feel this is actually the case, but it's getting hard to do so). If big players are making dismissive remarks about MF, then everyone will want to jump in. If you're looking for proper discussion as to the reasons why MF is not doing a good job, you'll eventually want to ignore many posters because they're all being flippant about the topic.

It cuts the other way too. What if Ozle comes along and make insightful posts about Moat? I want to be there for that.  We are all capable of posting serious discussion that is worth considering regardless of apparent player skill.

Meh. I don't sympathize at all. Stef doesn't owe you his serious posts; Ozle doesn't owe you his lack of serious posts. If there's a thread you aren't enjoying, you can ignore just that thread too. If you're worried about missing insightful Ozle posts, ignore via the scroll wheel rather than an ignore list.

If a separate board with heavier moderation comes along then dies, well we'd still have this forum. What would be have to lose by trying it out?

You're free to try the experiment yourself, right now. I already posted the Zetaboards link.

[werothegreat]

werothedisdainful

*taps monocle on velvet armchair with upraised pinkey*

[markusin]

I don't see ignore lists being very useful when looking to read serious discussion.

What if it's some high profile players that you'd normally want to read Dominion advice from like Stef or SCSN who are steering discussion in an unwanted place. A prime example is the running game that MF sucks (for the record, I still want to reserve judgement on whether I feel this is actually the case, but it's getting hard to do so). If big players are making dismissive remarks about MF, then everyone will want to jump in. If you're looking for proper discussion as to the reasons why MF is not doing a good job, you'll eventually want to ignore many posters because they're all being flippant about the topic.

It cuts the other way too. What if Ozle comes along and make insightful posts about Moat? I want to be there for that.  We are all capable of posting serious discussion that is worth considering regardless of apparent player skill.

Meh. I don't sympathize at all. Stef doesn't owe you his serious posts; Ozle doesn't owe you his lack of serious posts. If there's a thread you aren't enjoying, you can ignore just that thread too. If you're worried about missing insightful Ozle posts, ignore via the scroll wheel rather than an ignore list.

If a separate board with heavier moderation comes along then dies, well we'd still have this forum. What would be have to lose by trying it out?

You're free to try the experiment yourself, right now. I already posted the Zetaboards link.

It's funny, I personally only tend to skip over walls of text with my scroll wheel, only going back to it if it was really important to the discussion. I guess that means I like the less verbose blunt statements and the jokes?

But like I don't agree with ban lists for posters because of what you described. I can just walk out of a thread I do not enjoy or skip posts I do not want to read. I'm bound to find other threads where the posters that were causing trouble in one thread are livening up things.

That doesn't mean I can't understand when someone else gets annoyed that a thread they really liked isn't generating the intended discussion. But then there's no guarantee the thread won't die early without the humour sprinkled in just because the topic ran it's course early.

[AdamH]

To summarize, I'm looking for a place on the forums where discussion about Dominion can take place without the added noise of scout jokes, or other off-topic posts.

If you don't want to see those off-topic posts, that's fine and reasonable. You could scroll on past them. Maybe you could find ignore list software that works with these forums; a browser plug-in. Ignore lists would be great.

If you don't want me to see those off-topic posts, well, I am so strongly against that. Cover your ears for yourself! It's just so... unfriendly... to want something not to exist that other people are enjoying but which you don't.

Are ignore lists even possible? I don't want to ignore people, I would want to ignore posts. Ignoring people seems counterproductive.

I have to read a post before I know whether or not it's off-topic. After reading 10 off-topic posts in a row it gets very tiring. It really doesn't seem like too much for me to ask for there to be one place where these off-topic posts aren't. I'm not preventing anyone else from posting them or reading them, I'd just rather they do it somewhere else. It's like people don't want me to be able to have a serious discussion about Dominion because they post off-topic stuff, so there's this other place for that.

Clearly what I'm asking for is too much, but I genuinely don't understand why. They can have their place where they make their jokes, I have my place where I can have my quiet discussion. Nobody is forcing anybody to post in either, they just exist for different purposes. If nobody likes my place, then fine, nobody likes it and we don't have to have it.

BGG is more heavily moderated than here. You could try posting a thread for Dominion discussion there. See what happens. It's easy; I've posted threads there myself. Despite werothedisdainful's dismissal, there are for sure good players on both reddit and BGG. Including some people you know from here.

Whether or not I do this doesn't have much to do with what I'm suggesting here. Are you suggesting things for me other than F.DS because you just want me to leave and you feel bad? I don't get it. I don't see what my relationship with F.DS has to do with any of this stuff. I stated the reasons why I want to continue posting here, those are the reasons. Am I missing something?

Meh. I don't sympathize at all. Stef doesn't owe you his serious posts; Ozle doesn't owe you his lack of serious posts. If there's a thread you aren't enjoying, you can ignore just that thread too. If you're worried about missing insightful Ozle posts, ignore via the scroll wheel rather than an ignore list.

Umm, so you suggested ignore lists, but now since ignore lists aren't perfect we don't want them anymore. I'm really confused.


So imagine that, I started a thread with a goal of coming up with what a more moderated subboard would look like here and we haven't talked about that in quite some time. I'd really like to pull the discussion back to that so we can have a poll and stop speculating about the results of it before it even exists, but there's been like two pages of other stuff in between. How many people are going to make it this far into the thread to give useful feedback? How many people will read the first page, see that the conversation has gone in a different direction that they aren't interested in, and stop reading? If only there were a way to split this other discussion into a separate thread so everything was more organized.

Like, should I start a new thread here? Posting about what the poll needs to look like seems entirely senseless to me. The kind of people who would actually have helpful feedback have stopped reading by this point. I started this thread so that one day I wouldn't have to deal with exactly what this thread has become.

Anyways, I know this isn't good, but here's what I'm thinking for the poll:

Question: would you participate in a more moderated sub-board on F.DS?

1. Yes, I would probably post in it.
2. I would probably read it, and maybe I would post in it.
3. I would probably read it, but it's unlikely that I would post in it.
4. I probably wouldn't read it, but I think it's a good idea to have one.
5. I don't know whether or not I would read or post in it.
6. I don't want anything to do with it, but it's fine with me if it exists.
7. I think it's a bad idea because nobody will read or post in it and it will just die.
8. I think it's a bad idea for some other reason (explain in comments).

I don't like this for a few reasons. First, options 5 and 6 seem very similar to just not responding, but that's probably OK. Is there a way to require an explanation for option 8? I don't want people to have to jump through hoops just to vote for a thing, but at the same time if there's an actual legitimate reason for 8 then I want to know about it -- it seems to me that the existence of this thing couldn't possibly harm anyone (it should be easy to ignore) but if there's something I'm missing then that seems really important.

And the big problem for me is the actual question: to someone who doesn't read this thread, what does that question even mean? I could give a short description of that in the OP but I don't know what that short description would look like. Without an adequate description, I feel like most people would just pick answer 5, which is not a terribly useful answer; it just means the poll wasn't good enough.

If this was the poll, I'd look for a decent number of responses between answers 1-4.

There have been a few ideas presented but instead of talking about the merits of each one we've gone on this tangent. I guess I can try and summarize the ideas that seem like they have the most traction?

1. Separate subforum with moderators (who are not Adam, I am no longer willing to do this) who move or delete posts that don't belong.

2. Adding moderators to an existing board (Articles? This wasn't really made clear) who move or delete posts that don't belong.

3. Somehow improve the use of the [serious] tag. This one doesn't seem fleshed out to me, I don't quite understand how this would work.

[theright555J]

Adam, I'm one of your biggest fans.  I've gotten my wife and kids saying things like "for funsies".  I subscribe to you on Twitch and YouTube.

Nonetheless, you can't legislate attitude! I can't say I love it either when I see a response like Is it Moat? and it gets a bunch of upvotes, but hey, it's what people want! And if they don't want it, well the conversation will just die, change topic and stop getting upvotes, and then the behavior will change too.

There is definitely good Dominion content even in the short "snarky" comments.  I'm coming to grips with the fact that a lot people on here have writing and speaking styles which I may find offensive at first blush, but seeing enough of it, I'm convinced it's just their style.  No degree of moderation of a post is going to change the style of the posts.

I actually really like the idea of a "collapse post" button or a "hide post" button (I'm pretty sure BGG has something like this) so that you don't have to read any post you don't like.  This can even flag to mods so that if enough people hide a post it can be investigated as flaming/trolling.

[yuma]

I'd vote for number one as long as people couldn't create moderated threads whenever they felt like it, but instead had to state a clear and meaningful purpose for why it needed to be moderated (probably to theory or someone else with fully vested moderating powers)

[AdamH]

Nonetheless, you can't legislate attitude! I can't say I love it either when I see a response like Is it Moat? and it gets a bunch of upvotes, but hey, it's what people want! And if they don't want it, well the conversation will just die, change topic and stop getting upvotes, and then the behavior will change too.

There are threads that stay on topic. None of those are threads that I start. Maybe it's because I ask for them to stay on topic and then people feel the need to troll me. If this is to be glorified as "what people want" well I'm not one of those people and you can't make me become one of those people. It's absolutely beyond me how anyone could possibly think that is a good thing, but I guess people do.

This is not who I am, I am the type of person who will actually respect the wishes of other people even if I don't understand or agree with them, at least as long as it's not hurting me. All of the arguments you all have presented about free speech and less moderation, I mean none of those are as compelling to me as wanting to just do what people ask for. I don't expect anybody who actually posts in this thread to understand my perspective, this isn't for those people. You can all vote no on this poll and that's fine.

I'd vote for number one as long as people couldn't create moderated threads whenever they felt like it, but instead had to state a clear and meaningful purpose for why it needed to be moderated (probably to theory or someone else with fully vested moderating powers)

I have no problems with this. Is this something that would make people feel better?

[yuma]

For example:

Here is something that a person could suggest doing. A dominion debate, in which, two people ( lets call them Fets and Cim) meet together in a thread to debate, let's say "which card is better." Both forum members are assigned a side and then need to follow the rules of debate to try and demonstrate their side. It would be good for the forum to have such a conversation I think. And to have it a setting where 1. It is easily readable 2. Isn't interrupted and 3. One side doesn't have an unfair advantage by having others posts applicable points for them. So this would need a setting that is moderated. There can be another thread where people could talk while the debate is taking place (scouts honor that the participants don't cheat and look) and could be opened up post debate for further discussion.

It could be possible to do this in a non-moderated setting, but that would rely on all forum members following the rules and hoping that they know them.

This is just an example. I am sure there are others and so I ask is the above scenario off-putting or disturbing in any way? Is freedom of speech ( whatever that term even means in a forum setting, I don't know) restricted? Does it help or hurt the community?

Those are the questions that the person deciding would have to answer.

[Deadlock39]

This is baseless speculation, but I think the people you may need to poll are the (potential) moderators. I believe, if this more moderated place existed, people would absolutely read it, there would most likely be enough people inclined to post there for there to be content. (At least to start with. Its life span will depend on many things.) However, if there aren't moderators available who want to dedicate time to police things there, it won't actually be more moderated. There may be others willing to put time into this effort, but from the general response in this thread, it appears you (Adam) are the most strongly interested party, but don't feel like you can do the moderating.

For this reason, I would recommend the #3 option. I involves updating and explaining the definition of the tag. You might need to work with theory or some of the moderators to refine that definition to something they agree upon for moderation purposes. Then you (and anyone else using the tag) will need to loosen their "Report to moderator" clicking finger because that is probably the best way to bring something you believe is off topic to their attention.

[LastFootnote]

Question: would you participate in a more moderated sub-board on F.DS?

1. Yes, I would probably post in it.
2. I would probably read it, and maybe I would post in it.
3. I would probably read it, but it's unlikely that I would post in it.
4. I probably wouldn't read it, but I think it's a good idea to have one.
5. I don't know whether or not I would read or post in it.
6. I don't want anything to do with it, but it's fine with me if it exists.
7. I think it's a bad idea because nobody will read or post in it and it will just die.
8. I think it's a bad idea for some other reason (explain in comments).

It's a bad idea because it splits discussion about the same topic into two separate areas, and potentially splits the community, all so that you don't have to see posts that inexplicably enrage you.

EDIT: Also, I think it's clear that such a thing wouldn't actually solve your problem, since any reasonable moderator will have a much looser definition of "on-topic" than you do. Case in point: this thread. Almost every post has been on-topic, yet you claim it should be subdivided.

[funkdoc]

I totally agree with you, funkdoc. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I don't want to hear people who disagree with me.

i think where some of us got that impression was the fact that in one of those threads, you straight-up said something like "why can't people who disagree with me just keep quiet and not keep posting publicly?" (paraphrasing, gotta leave for work soon).  i understand what you're getting at, but some of your choice in words hasn't been a good look for what you're trying to communicate.  i'm sure they didn't come from the best place emotionally, so clarifying now is a good thing =)

only other thing i'll say is that i actually wanted to make a thread suggesting someone do a dominion podcast, so good shit to you for already getting there.  i think blogs and forums are gradually becoming a thing of the past and podcasts are the future (really, the present as well) since we can enjoy those while working out or cleaning the house or what have you.  i'm even lucky enough to have a job where i can listen to anything from the internet all day, and i'm far from the only one in these kinds of communities.

[Accatitippi]

Tangentially, I've been reading some of the Neat and Potentially Useful Thread and reading what you (Adam) state as desirable in your replies, it sounds like you might want to consider creating wiki pages for that kind of things, with related (free) discussion threads. (I guess few people would actually use the Talk page, would they?). Or you could have [serious] discussion in the Talk page, or whatevs.
Anyway, it looks like you wanted a neat list of interesting card interactions made from community effort, and also to have it kept tidy and readable, and that's hard in a Forum environment, regardless of moderation. Wikis just hit the spot, and we could use some more general contribution to DSwiki in my opinion.

Edit: wording.

[AdamH]

Tangentially, I've been reading some of the Neat and Potentially Useful Thread and reading what you (Adam) state as desirable in your replies, it sounds like you might consider to create wiki pages for that kind of things, with related (free) discussion threads. (I guess few people would actually use the Talk page, would they?). Or you could have [serious] discussion in the Talk page, or whatevs.
Anyway, it looks like you wanted a neat list of interesting card interactions made from community effort, and also to have it kept tidy and readable, and that's hard in a Forum environment, regardless of moderation. Wikis just hit the spot, and we could use some more general contribution to DSwiki in my opinion.

Why didn't you suggest this several months ago? Where have you been all my life?

I demand you go back in time and rectify this.

you straight-up said something like "why can't people who disagree with me just keep quiet and not keep posting publicly?" (paraphrasing, gotta leave for work soon).

Obvs I can't actually address this without knowing what you're talking about. I will wait patiently for clarification if you choose to provide it.

OTOH, if I said those exact words, I can guarantee you I was being sarcastic. This may be possible.

[LastFootnote]

I honestly didn't (and still don't) understand why people can't just say nothing when they disagree with me

Not that it matters to me (see above and below) but if you don't like what I'm saying or that I'm saying anything, the most appropriate way to deal with that is just to keep quiet

[Watno]

I think it would be a good a solution to have the possibility to mark a post you're writing as non-serious, and  everyone can select in his profile wether he wants to see these no-serious posts. Most likely this isn't easy to do with forum software though.

[LastFootnote]

I think it would be a good a solution to have the possibility to mark a post you're writing as non-serious, and  everyone can select in his profile wether he wants to see these no-serious posts. Most likely this isn't easy to do with forum software though.

I think it would be better to err on the other side, with "non-serious" as the default, and posts need to be flagged as "serious". Otherwise folks will forget to (or choose not to) mark them as "non-serious" and a nuclear meltdown will ensue.

[SCSN]

I don't think serious and non-serious can be separated, even in principle. A total dedication to utmost ernst quickly develops, of its own accord, a humorous undertone, whereas a cunning joke can contain more novel truth than a few hundred scriptures.

Of course one can identify with ease the extremes at both ends, but in practice almost everything will lie somewhere in between. And where any line to be drawn would be arbitrary, I prefer to draw no line at all.

[Donald X.]

Are ignore lists even possible? I don't want to ignore people, I would want to ignore posts. Ignoring people seems counterproductive.

I don't know what software currently exists for ignore lists for the style of forum f.ds uses. They are for sure possible on forums elsewhere.

People tend to lean towards being people who post jokes often or rarely, who analyze cards or just don't, and so on. Other people have had great success with ignore lists.

Clearly what I'm asking for is too much, but I genuinely don't understand why. They can have their place where they make their jokes, I have my place where I can have my quiet discussion. Nobody is forcing anybody to post in either, they just exist for different purposes. If nobody likes my place, then fine, nobody likes it and we don't have to have it.

So make it already.

Whether or not I do this doesn't have much to do with what I'm suggesting here. Are you suggesting things for me other than F.DS because you just want me to leave and you feel bad? I don't get it. I don't see what my relationship with F.DS has to do with any of this stuff. I stated the reasons why I want to continue posting here, those are the reasons. Am I missing something?

I don't need you to go anywhere; in fact I think it's great that you get to post these posts that I disagree with. I don't feel bad, except about how often this one kitten is scratching me. But I am going to continue to push for f.ds to not be the place you want it to be.

Umm, so you suggested ignore lists, but now since ignore lists aren't perfect we don't want them anymore. I'm really confused.

Dude, markusin said, what if I miss a serious Ozle post? It's the price one pays for being so upset at joke Ozle posts. It's not much of a complaint about ignore lists.

So imagine that, I started a thread with a goal of coming up with what a more moderated subboard would look like here and we haven't talked about that in quite some time.

Well you could have made your serious forum first, then started the thread there!

Like, should I start a new thread here?

Given what appear to be your goals: no. That thread will not stick to your personal concept of the topic any better than this one did. If you just like starting threads though, go for it, you're not hurting anybody.

8. I think it's a bad idea for some other reason (explain in comments).

It either fails or splits the community. It's bad for me but that doesn't mean it's bad for you. People get to start forums to try to split communities, just like people get to post in threads on f.ds without being approved by a judge of on-topicness.

1. Separate subforum with moderators (who are not Adam, I am no longer willing to do this) who move or delete posts that don't belong.

Again you can make the forums any time you feel the urge, although I don't know who you will get to moderate.

2. Adding moderators to an existing board (Articles? This wasn't really made clear) who move or delete posts that don't belong.

The boards do provide a way to ignore subforums (so I could do that to avoid having my posts deleted and then quitting the forums, yes we can all trot out these visions of enraged posters finding other stuff to do on their computers), but since we get value from Articles, I am against messing it up.

3. Somehow improve the use of the [serious] tag. This one doesn't seem fleshed out to me, I don't quite understand how this would work.

This one seems hopeless.

[Donald X.]

There are threads that stay on topic. None of those are threads that I start. Maybe it's because I ask for them to stay on topic and then people feel the need to troll me.

When you complain about what to you seems to be an off-topic post, that off-topic post of yours makes complaining about the thread the topic of the thread. So, when you do that, yes, you are sabotaging your threads. Threads aren't automatically less on-topic just because of the name on the OP though.

This is not who I am, I am the type of person who will actually respect the wishes of other people even if I don't understand or agree with them, at least as long as it's not hurting me. All of the arguments you all have presented about free speech and less moderation, I mean none of those are as compelling to me as wanting to just do what people ask for.

The wishes of other people are to post what they want, exactly what they want, exactly to the degree that they want to. That seems so amazingly clear. You want people to respect your wish of your wishes being more important than theirs?

[Donald X.]

And where any line to be drawn would be arbitrary, I prefer to draw no line at all.

I am with you as this applies to posts, but not in general. It is frequently useful to draw a line even though you know it will be arbitrary.

[SCSN]

And where any line to be drawn would be arbitrary, I prefer to draw no line at all.

I am with you as this applies to posts, but not in general. It is frequently useful to draw a line even though you know it will be arbitrary.

Can't disagree with you there... I frequently doodle.

[AdamH]

PPE: seven replies were posted while I was sitting here trying to decide whether or not I even wanted to post this. It's a new record!

I honestly didn't (and still don't) understand why people can't just say nothing when they disagree with me

So just like I say, I don't understand something. Let me try and explain what I don't understand (because I still don't understand it)

The disagreement in question (I think? It's a little difficult to get the context from this) was about this disconnect between two viewpoints:

I believe that if a thread doesn't generate on-topic discussion, it's OK if the thread just goes silent. I would prefer this to having only off-topic discussion present in the thread.

Many other people seem to believe that filling the thread with off-topic discussion is preferable to this.

The particular thread in question is the one where I was trying to collect data about ratings and stuff for MF. SCSN's posts did not contribute to finding data, they only whined about how hard it would be to do so. All of this other issues were addressed in the OP.

I realize that some people think there was a relevant part to his post. I disagree, but luckily this doesn't actually matter in terms of clarifying what I'm trying to say. It is my viewpoint (and I still believe this) that literally the only thing his post accomplishes is it deters people from collecting and posting data. It would have been better for him to not say anything.

It's like if Qvist was posting about his cards lists for the first time and asked people to go to his website and do the ordering, and then Will Smith comes in and says "that's a lot of work, I don't think you should ask anyone to do that kind of work, it's destroying the community and it's counterproductive." Nobody is making anybody do anything, but at the same time Mr. Smith had actually deterred people from ready any further into the thread and Qvist will get less results because of it. What Will Smith did is rude, counterproductive, and things would have been better if Will Smith didn't make his post.

Look, you don't have to agree with what I just said, I'm just clarifying what I meant. I think I'm right, and I genuinely don't understand any of the arguments that have been presented to me for why I'm not right here. I don't know if I really want to argue that right now, but luckily it's not up to me. People will argue with me and tell me how wrong I am regardless, it's the internet! Isn't that great? (spoiler alert, I don't think it is, it makes me not want to make this post but I feel like I have to)

Could I have worded this better? Sure, it's tough for me to figure out exactly what I'm saying and I'm me. I suppose it's not reasonable for me to expect other people to figure it out.

Not that it matters to me (see above and below) but if you don't like what I'm saying or that I'm saying anything, the most appropriate way to deal with that is just to keep quiet

This is a reference to the fact that I'm not going to read that thread for replies, so if you want me to actually read something you type, posting it in that thread is not an appropriate way to do it, since I won't read the things in there.

I can see how someone who automatically thinks the worst of me and looks for reasons to hate me in every single word that I type could take this quote with no context whatsoever and assume that I don't want people to disagree with me on anything in life.

Could I have worded that more carefully? Uhh, yes, I certainly could have done that for those people I was just talking about. I mean, me reading it again after a couple of days thinks it's perfectly clear, TBH. Right now it feels like most people on the forum would rather assume the worst of me than ask for clarification (I really don't feel like I should have had to word this more carefully, and even if I had, it's really frustrating that it took all of this to get to where we are now). Does it have to do with the fact that my opinions aren't popular? That's like the dumbest reason ever. Just because I like my steaks cooked well done doesn't mean I can't drive myself safely to work.

[XerxesPraelor]

I can see how someone who automatically thinks the worst of me and looks for reasons to hate me in every single word that I type could take this quote with no context whatsoever and assume that I don't want people to disagree with me on anything in life.

Could I have worded that more carefully? Uhh, yes, I certainly could have done that for those people I was just talking about. I mean, me reading it again after a couple of days thinks it's perfectly clear, TBH. Right now it feels like most people on the forum would rather assume the worst of me than ask for clarification (I really don't feel like I should have had to word this more carefully, and even if I had, it's really frustrating that it took all of this to get to where we are now). Does it have to do with the fact that my opinions aren't popular? That's like the dumbest reason ever. Just because I like my steaks cooked well done doesn't mean I can't drive myself safely to work.

It's a well-accepted fact in psychology that what you say is much more clear to yourself than it is to others, and even that sentence makes perfect sense to you, it's extremely unclear to me and evidently to other people in this thread. People aren't understanding what you said because they aren't you, not because they hate you. That quote is extremely unclear (considering what it actually was supposed to mean).

http://everydayutilitarian.com/essays/why-its-hard-to-explain-things-inferential-distance/

--------------------------------

I think what AdamH is trying to say is this (please correct me if I'm off-base):

A thread is started by a person who has some purpose in mind for what posts should be in it: for example "discussion of scout", "discussion of this article", "jokes about otters", "memes", etc, and that posters in that thread should respect the wishes of the OP or not post.

This does not preclude disagreement with the OP in some respects: for example "discussion of scout" could include people arguing against the OP that Scout is worse than secret chamber, or "discussion of this article" could include the author of the article defending his article against criticism, and then critics could critique the defense.

It does preclude posting disagreement on whether the thread should exist or other posts not fitting the intent of the thread - it is in this context that "people should say nothing" when they disagree with the OP.

I don't speak for AdamH, but if this is what he means to say, then having a rewording may be useful to help the discussion be clearer.

[AdamH]

I can see how someone who automatically thinks the worst of me and looks for reasons to hate me in every single word that I type could take this quote with no context whatsoever and assume that I don't want people to disagree with me on anything in life.

Could I have worded that more carefully? Uhh, yes, I certainly could have done that for those people I was just talking about. I mean, me reading it again after a couple of days thinks it's perfectly clear, TBH. Right now it feels like most people on the forum would rather assume the worst of me than ask for clarification (I really don't feel like I should have had to word this more carefully, and even if I had, it's really frustrating that it took all of this to get to where we are now). Does it have to do with the fact that my opinions aren't popular? That's like the dumbest reason ever. Just because I like my steaks cooked well done doesn't mean I can't drive myself safely to work.

It's a well-accepted fact in psychology that what you say is much more clear to yourself than it is to others, and even that sentence makes perfect sense to you, it's extremely unclear to me and evidently to other people in this thread. People aren't understanding what you said because they aren't you, not because they hate you. That quote is extremely unclear (considering what it actually was supposed to mean).

http://everydayutilitarian.com/essays/why-its-hard-to-explain-things-inferential-distance/

Every day I get more and more reminders as to why I could have never been in a field like this and chose to work with computers for a living. The computer always does exactly what you tell it to do, and there is a discrete way to tell it exactly what you want.

I think what AdamH is trying to say is this (please correct me if I'm off-base):

Yeah this is really close. I can't think of any issues I have with this.