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

and these annoying gems as well

1. Being misquoted, and slammed for the misquote, especially by a neurotic.

2. PC language.

3. Trolls.

'focusing on typos or misspellings rather than addressing the substance of the post'
'wikipedia is the final word on all'

Technical elitism and condescention. Being a relative luddite, I've learned a lot from SL and the forum in regards to this thing..I forget what it's called. There are sme very knowledgeable and experienced people here, and many do a great job of explaining and illuminating, patiently and in plain English.

However some seem to think that they have to prove they are the smartest in the room when discussing technical matters, and take knowledge less then theirs or preferences such as OS or hardware choice as a sign of inferior intelligence. They assume their level of exprtise is the norm and scoff at anyone who isn't at their level, if not outright insulting them, giving their explanations in a manner similar to a parent telling his child about the birds and the bees.

I don't really invest in it enough, emotionally, to keep track of 'tactics'. I just try to address any misunderstanding when it happens and then I try to forget it. Grudges seem pointless when two people have never even met.

(Reads Ian's post above...Lol.)

Okay I'll add one.

Claiming a "misquote" when it's word for word, not edited, and in a quote tag. Confusing "misquoted" for "misunderstood."

Needless use of insulting terminology. I guess that's two.

This.

Also:

1) "Taking the floor" in a thread one did not initiate and subsequently derailing it by arguing secondary points for pages and pages on end.

2) Posting personal opinion as fact.

Calling anyone who posts anything remotely disagreeable "Troll" coupled with "Welcome to my Ignore List/ You have been muted".

Absolutely!!

There's nothing worse than someone preceding a personal opinion with the words "In fact".

Confusing an observation to give thought to and discuss......with a complaint.



Forgetting to use the appropriate smiley face when shedding some light on someone in a friendly fashion.

(To the point, not singling you out in particular)

Women often qualify a statement with "I think" or "in my opinion" and I have made a conscious effort to try not to do that.

It should be obvious what is opinion and what is fact, without someone always having to add "in my opinion" at the end.

Er, in my opinion.

Reminds me of the brunette, the redhead and the blonde who were told by the devil that they could have one wish come true if they said something true about themselves, but if it wasn't true then they would be whisked away into hellfire.

The brunette said "I think I am cleverer than the redhead" and whoosh, the brunette was whisked away downstairs.

The redhead said "I think I am cleverer than the blonde" and surprisingly enough (for those lovers of cliches) whoosh, the redhead suffered the same fate.

Now it was the blonde's turn. "I think . . " WHOOSH!

Pep (Now hands up all of you who think that is sexist - and failed to notice that I did *not* mention what gender the three were?)

I thought it was funny.

I did picture it as three women. (But male forms of the words would be brunet and blond, no?)

Don't attempt to point out how Poop could ever make a mistake with words. It can never happen. He has said so on numerous occasions!

Yeah, that second one is on my list.

You don't need to tell me you added me to your ignore list. Really. Why? The most important reason is I DON'T EFFIN' CARE. The second most important reason is that it makes you look like you are 5 years old, sticking your fingers in your ears, and saying "I can't hear you, lalalalalalalalala!" or "Neener-neener!!!".

Well, of course it's obvious.

Unless .... someone uses the SOPT of pretending that it's not obvious.


Perhaps it's my experience of working environments in which a glass ceiling definitely exists that makes me studiously concious of not appearing apologetic.

OK! Here's the biggie.

Posting captioned graphics that imply that somebody is a mouth-foaming loonie.
*Particularly* if it captures a classic SOPT of the person in question.

Stuff like this:



Really!!

That is just so baaaad!
It shouldn't be allowed.

Yeah but ya gotta admit it's pretty funny

Or not preceding them with something like "imo" - unless they intend it to be read as fact, that is, in which case it's covered in post #2.

That reminded me of something I really dislike in posts. It's when someone posts a statement or piece of information and follows it with the word "Discuss". My reaction to that is *always* "F off! If you want it discussed, start the discussion yourself."

So many great [in the sense of 'YES, I feel the same way about that but didn't know how to put it in words] explanations of unpleasant tactic have been posted. Eventually I'd like to make a unified list....but NOT as a means for claiming that these are Forbidden or Unacceptable or such. Just as a means for people who routinely resort to them to be reminded that any belief they may be cherishing to the effect that these tactics are effective, is mistaken.

The fact that someone may come in and say 'I see you are using the ol' "You MADE Me Post This Way" again', may spur many individuals to rethink their use of these tactics.

(And personally, the list will help me avoid the temptation to use any of the tactics myself. I am NOT claiming to be a saint, here. I'm not claiming to be above the temptation to indulge in personal conflict.)

My big dream may remain only a hypothetical, but...here it is (using the example of the problem of bots) :


Many of us here are unhappy about the lack of enforcement of the recent Linden policy change on using bots to increase traffic statistics.

We might speculate that the lack of enforcement stems from various causes: a Linden conviction that it would cost too much (in labor costs) to enforce, maybe, or a Linden conviction that having lots of bots inworld is more helpful to the company (due to their effect on concurrency numbers) than harmful.

If we (the community of Forum posters) could talk this out, we might be able to come up with, say, a list of five ways the Lindens could cut the costs of enforcement and a list of three facts that prove that any belief that bots help Linden Lab's profits, is a mistaken belief. We could present these lists at an Office Hour and get it heard (even though this wouldn't guarantee that LL would accept our ideas).

But as things stand, we can't really talk this out.

When a thread aimed at solving the problem (Linden reluctance to enforce the bot policy) is started, all too often it becomes filled with arguments about what Person X really feels about the issue and whether Person Y demonstrated enough caring about the issue to post in a blog about it and how Person Z lied about Person X and so on and so on.

I am NOT saying that these are illegitimate topics.

They ARE legitimate topics to those involved. (And many people just plain enjoy reading such exchanges.)

What I AM saying is that their presence in a thread intended to be focused on solving a problem, hinders attempts to come up with possible solutions to the problem.

Many who would be interested in discussing solutions to the problem get tired of the interpersonal stuff and the Putrid Tactic employed in the course of the persons involved trying to Teach Him a Lesson and Show Her Who's Boss and all that.

Many people who would be interested in discussing solutions NEVER EVEN POST in this forum because they don't care for the personal conflicts. These might be people with technical and/or business expertise that could be very useful in solving the problem at hand.

If only we could have a general forum culture in which those who want to discuss what's up with Persons X, Y, and Z, and who's better at one-upping the others with various tactics, could be gently invited to...move along to a new thread, and let the problem-solving-oriented thread stay focused on....solving the problem...

I know it probably won't happen.

But imagine what we could accomplish if it did.

Yes.
I have to 'fess up and admit to using the SOPT of blatantly / obviously / wilfully ignoring the SOPTs of someone else, refusing to jump through the SOPT hoops, and thus knowingly causing page after page of SOPT reinforcement.

I'm bad!
It's one of my vices.

I could do without it too. It's just that I have a severe aversion to muppetry.


I rationalise it in that readers can just filter out the nonsense and ignore the 'same old' stuff.

Even at their (relatively) most toxic, the Forums are mild in comparison with what lies out in the wider Net.
This is probably due to some better sense of community engendered by a self-contained 3D world. - A sense of place.


As I posted up near the top, the problem with a SOPT list is that it will always be *the other person* that is doing the SOPT. Really!
However, the existence of a KB that can be referred to might be helpful to readers looking at a discussion.


"Come along! That's SOPT #5 you're using there"
"No it,s not. LIAR!!"
"Yes it is"
"No it's not - and anyway, calling SOPT is SOPT #10".





Add:
Apart from the 'sense of place' that I mention.....
I think that the Never Ending Thread does a great job of keeping other threads free of OT. Long may it thrive!

Brunet? I have never seen the word used - until the post above.

Pep (English doesn't modify adjectives to suit the gender of nouns. )

From www.dictionary.com and a few other places I didn't bother to copy (cause I don't believe in Wikipedia......)

bru⋅net  /bruˈnɛt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [broo-net] Show IPA
–adjective 1. (esp. of a male) brunette.

–noun 2. a person, usually a male, with dark hair and, often, dark eyes and darkish or olive skin.


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

Origin:
1885–90; < F, equiv. to brun brown + -et -et

The problem is that no one is posting such threads. The threads are often started just as inflammatory as the posts that come after. The other problem is that this kind of thread is based on a hypothetical, not a real conclusion. We don't know that the lack of enforcement is in any way related to monetary/staffing/PR issues. In fact, evidence suggests that it is happening according to the normal playbook for which Jack has become well known. However, pointing this out inevitably brings out the SOPT tactics, because it totally debases the whole point of the thread, even though it has no less a probability of being the issue than what the thread is about. In short, people's beliefs about something die hard.



It won't, unless and until it is done in a well-moderated forum, because there will ALWAYS be people who, for whatever reason, offer offense or take offense, and the thread will go to hell from that point. It's like (just for Elanthius' sake ) lighting matches in a powder magazine. It might not go up with the first one, or the second one, or even the hundredth one; however, there will be one where that spark hits something sensitive, and the whole thing blows. In many cases, the person striking the matches intends to set it off. In some cases, it may NEED to be set off. A bunch of people nicely proclaiming their otherwise intractable stances isn't furthering the argument towards a resolution. "That's nice; we all agree to disagree; next topic!". "Nice" discussions about charged topics tend to end up in empty stalemates, with little to nothing accomplished except wasting time.

Sometimes, people need to be booted out of their complacency and have their beliefs challenged. I mean, if it is all comfy and cozy, why bother to consider any other point of view?

RL debates are hardly as you are trying to describe here; they are full of all kinds of emotionally-charged language, fallacies (yes, even some used intentionally; read that debate link given previously in the thread), etc. Attempts to "sterilize" the venue are likely going to fail, not only to prevent such "tactics", but also to actually get anywhere with the effort, if the "sterilization" process succeeds.