What are your top 3 most-despised SOPT (Same Old Putrid Tactics)?

Are you stating that as fact, or is it simply your opinion?
Particularly in the context of the post, this should be clarified.

It takes a little time to get through . . .

Pep ( . . . but it's so rewarding when it happens )

Answer the qvestion!
You vill answer the qvestion.

Oh, I think I see your point when I go back and rethink. If the conversation has already degenerated into name calling we have reached that endpoint by some other tactic? So the name calling itself cannot be a tactic that causes this? Is that what you meant to bring to my attention?

It was more that since the point of the thread was to call attention to the repeated use of a particular set of tactics, those who felt themselves called out would resort to the usual name-calling along with the other elements of the tactic-set (the sock puppetry and 'everyone disagrees' and perverted transitive and all the rest).

So therefore, the fact that there's negativity (in the form of name-calling and other unfriendliness) within this thread is somewhat to be expected.

Your remark about reaching the name-calling stage by some other tactic is interesting, though. That bears consideration.

*shakes my head* Well obviously I do not play the forum game to win. That is my problem. I haven't had an arsenal of tactics. I have always been one of those people that is just happy to play the game. Winning isn't high on my list.

That sounds like much the healthiest approach. (But of course that's just my opinion.)

To be honest, this is the most civilized forum I have seen and SL the best mannered o/l environment. But I don't have a lot to compare it too.

my most despised is people getting personal and attacking others. too bad that we cant all act more like we would if our rl names were attached to our posts. it would be great if this were a place were we would seek first to understand the other person's point of view whether we agree with it or not and respect that they may have a differing opinion. too bad that we cant all be adults and do this on our own without the need for moderation, for name calling, for mud slinging, etc. and it would be great if we could all have tolerance for mispellings, typos, foreign languages, misunderstandings etc.

Considering that LL hasn't really invested in moderation services much in recent months, this forum is amazingly civilized. And that's a tribute to the majority of people who post here.




Maybe not everyone gets tired of the same ol' same ol' 'why don't you learn to read?' and 'no one here agrees with you' and 'I'm posting this way [insults] because it's the only thing you understand' and all the rest of the cliches.

And...that's good. If a particular person doesn't mind seeing the hackneyed, canned responses time after time, then, good for that particular person.

But it's not reasonable to expect everyone to see the same old tactics trotted out time after time and rejoice in their newest appearance.

(None of which stops those who habitually use these tactics from going on using them. If they can get away with it without having someone point out the repetition....)

I think that half of us own land, can only have 5 avs and have business keeps this place a lot more on the level than places where you just have no responsibility at all.

Though I agreed with your post in general I wanted to pick out this part.

Imagine if people could post on the Internet ONLY by using some bio-identifier (thumbprint or whatnot) and, as you say, had their real name attached to their posts....


....For one thing, it would bring a welcome end to sock puppetry!

But even beyond that, yes, I think you're correct that people's behavior would change. (Or some people's, anyway. There are many who, even now, post exactly as they would if their identities were known.)

Meh...
Don't like a post, comment, or 'same old putrid tactic'?
Don't reply, and move on to the next post. Easy Peasy.
How difficult is is to scroll down 5 cm?

Arguing is almost done at an accelerated rate online, it also seems prone to running around and around in circles about the point being made.

It's odd. I figure text is pretty hard to convey much feeling through unless you write really well.

1) Personal attacks, whether on top or off topic.

2) Debating simply for the sake of debating.....no longer on topic...no longer effective.

3) Hypocrites. Posting that you despise something or disapprove of something. Then exhibit very clearly the exact same behavior several hours later.

4) The Buddy System. Having a buddy on hand to come in and save your ass. Handle it yourself, and be a man about it. You too, ladies.

5) 3 and 4 combined. A buddy comes in to save your ass by spewing hype in a fashion that is totally contradictory to the demeanor and persona of the buddy you are saving. If you're going to run with a dog....be a dog....by running with one, you already are.....no amount of hype or spin will change that.

I don't think having RL name attached to posts would make much difference in posting, nor in people responding. It is especially true in other forums which use RL name. A name doesn't mean much online; you still don't know jack about that person in RL.

Anonymity of the Internet is a two-edged sword. Just like Publius, there are times when anonymity is a good thing. It is also used as a launchpad for a lot of bad against others.

I maintain a lot of it is that forums are impersonal forms of communication (which kinda obviates a lot of the "taking personal" issues). If people REALLY want to try and understand where the other person is coming from and are REALLY interested in having a decent conversation, they can spend time getting to know others in an interactive setting. That people don't bother leaves us where we are now. The people that I know personally and that know me don't have any problems communicating with me. The same is likely true with everyone else here, too.

Ultimately, that's why I don't take anything personally said to me in the forums; because it is simply said and held, by belief, in ignorance.

I really don't think that calling people out on these things is going to help at all. All I can see is someone fighting even harder to maintain their stance after being called out. Back a wild cat into a corner and see what happens.

If any of that made sense, then Yay! If not ... whatever.

Ugh, I have a bunch of these but I'm not sure I can come up with witty or humorous examples. Guess I'll just slog ahead anyway to get a couple off my chest:

- condescending explanations of the blindingly obvious in an attempt to cast one's opponent in a light of ignorance or stupidity, while at the same time skirting the real issue

- arguing semantics, or a tiny subset of the issue that is so narrowly defined as to be virtually meaningless in the context of the discussion

- pretending to not understand something simple in order to create frustration and possibly draw out an expanded restatement of the same thing, which will often provide an opportunity to argue semantics or otherwise veer sharply away from the real issue again

"OMFG Not THIS crap again! Get a fucking life!"

That's my pet peeve.

haha

Or what about those incessant link providers, hmm...

Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

This is a good list of bad tactics used. Oh Damn! I'm a pesky link provider too!

^^ THIS ^^

6) Arguing instead of debating, especially beyond the point of anything meaningful being gained from it.

7) First strike hostility. Misreading something and then posting retorts without first asking for a clarification of what that something meant, or waiting until others have asked and there's no doubt.

Baiting. Intentional cheapshots or snide comments used to draw others into an arguement or drama fest.

9) Misery loves company. Having a bad day and intentionally posting in an obtuse manner so as to upset others and bring them down to your level.

10) Lack of respect, civility, tolerance, common courtesy, benefit of the doubt, agreeing to disagree, how much is this going to matter next week... PERIOD.

That's a good one. (Though I will say: if one's partner states 'I believe that trust is more important than monogamy', then one is well-advised to use protection every single time. Because almost certainly one's partner WILL be bringing an STD to the party, sooner or later.)

Anyways. Yeah. I definitely, definitely, definitely believe in Karma.