What Defines a Forum Poster's Credibility?

Me too.


Anther factor that contibutes to a poster's credability is how well they've read the post they're responding to. Some people skim a post and send a self-rightious "you idiot" response to a position that was never stated in the first place. (hmmm... maybe I beter reread the original post before hitting the reply button).

Frankly, I'm tired of forum posts about forum posts.

For me, it's pretty simple.. a "no BS" individual gains my respect, no matter how long they've played SL, whether they're an alt or not, and no matter how the majority feels about them. I have problems with people who try and tell everyone how to think and act, and I have problems with long drawn out posts from people who have far too much time on their hands.... you know the types. I don't care about a 15 paragraph essay on how land sales are effecting the SL economy or some such. I just skip over those, though.

Does seem to be the forum fashion, lately, doesn't it? Me, I read through a thread, I don't look at the names unless I have a strong reaction, positive or negative. Logos-driven, I suppose. And yes, I often stake out a position either between the two sides or way off to the left or right.

That way, no one usually bothers me, or bothers to read what I write.

This is my sentiments exactly. I would post more often but usually somone has posted the same opinion first. I would guess that would give them credibility in my eyes. I also don't read post that are more than a couple of paragraphs long.

Gains credibilty:

- Those who can say "I was wrong".

- Those who have the abilty to adjust their views, based upon the thoughts of others. I am not talking door mats here, just those who can say "hey, maybe just because I thought a thought, it doesn't make it 100% right."

- Encouragers. Those who are always ready to offer support.

- Good clowns. Those who can make people laugh, but not at the expense of others.

- Diffusers. Those with the knack for entering a thread and diffusing the powderkeg, WITHOUT taking sides or showing bias.

- Helpers. Those who will go to great length to help another player with a problem.

- Fun thread starters. These folks give us all some much needed relief from the threads that are currently driving us crazy. They make up games, and the like.

- Open source suppliers. This goes for many of the contributions of scripters in the script library, clothing artists (like Chip with his awesome free templates), etc. No, I don't think everything should be free, but basic scripts, and the like, are cool.

- Pioneers. Those who come up with great new ideas that help all SLers when instituted (if instituted).

- Empaths. Those who support and encourage someone who is obviously hurting.

- Tutorial writers. Selfless folks who help 100s of people.


Does not gain credibilty:

- Expecting others to behave the same way you behave.

- Admonitions "from on high", especially when they are directed at people defending themselves, and not the instigator.

- Busy bodies. Those who are worried about what someone else builds (if it's within the ToS), other players sexual habits, etc. This type can be quite obsessive.

- Ratings abusers. "You're getting negged in-world, because you disagreed with me on the forums." Bleh.

- Backpeddlers. "Oh, that's not what I meant", when it obviously was.

- Bad Clowns. Those whose humor is at the expense of others.

- Obsessives. Those who simply can't participate in a thread without dragging non-related past or ongoing issues into their posts.

- Professional Victims. Especially those who go about prodding people or groups, then become indignant when the response they get is anything short of "I agree with you 100%".

- Sycophants. Sickening, and usually very resistant to being told that they are one.

- Labelers. Those who feel an overwhelming urge to categorize everyone and everything. Insultive acronyms is a biggie.

- Those who can never say "I was wrong", or "It was my fault". The worst example is when someone spouts off some accusation, based upon technology they don't grasp. To make things worse - when faced with irrefutable evidence to the contrary, they keep fighting, usually tossing out some red herrings to divert attention from the fact they were caught making uninformed accusations.

- Wanna-be moderators. Highly annoying. It blows my mind when someone says, "if you don't like what so and so has to say, ignore them.", all the while not practicing what they preach. What I mean is, if they subscribe to that point of view, then they should be ignoring the person they are criticizing, if they are bothered enough that they feel need to admonish them.

- Underdog cheerleaders. This is that person who will agree with anyone who they view as an underdog, for no other reason than that. This is common amongst those who view themselves as underdogs. Temporary sycophants, and those who are contrary for the sake of being contrary.

- Envy monsters. Just go do it yourself. Nothing is accomplished by bitching that "so and so has a bigger slice of the pie". If one wants a bigger piece, go cut one, but be prepared, there are no free handouts. We all have the same tools at our disposal.

- Volume monsters. Those who feel the need to respond to and usually critique and correct every post in a thread, with WAY too many words. It's irksome to say the least, to view clumps of 4 or 5 long posts in a row by the same poster, on multiple pages of a thread, usually telling others why their view is "right". I suppose they are the type who set out to "win" a thread.

- Answer badgers. "I am still waiting." No one is required to give an answer. Especially if the question doesn't pertain to the person being badgered.

- Those who say "it's a game!" or "it's not a game!", usually quite angrily. This type simply can't grasp the broadness of SL's appeal.

- Single-minded, political battering rams. This type is why I generally steer around political or religious threads.

- Sailor Mouth. Cannot have a disagreement without hurling cuss words. Loses ALL credibilty.

i tabulated everybodies credibility ranking - link

Hmmm...I am not sure how you work this one out Blaze...

I have made very small amounts of money in SL, having donated my time in many projects and on many builds. My current project, the Pot Healers in Numbakulla, was built entirely with donated time. A whole sim, which includes a free game, free clothes, free prize objects, and, by common assent, a beautiful environment. I would like to know how that is less of a contribution than a sim which is mainly a shop or mainly a mall or mainly a club and mainly about making money?

It is true that the commercial model is the one which predominates in SL, but there are a lot of people who are working towards a different model, who are trying to provide a better experience for fellow players, and I cannot see why you devalue that as worth any less than someone who is motivated by money.

But then I would say that wouldn't I?
Cali

WoW I'm in the top 10.

Damn, use to be in top 5 before the Purge...

I have trouble with this post.

Not becuase of of whether the information is factual or not.

But becuase it is implying - specifically at the begining - creating a Persona of sorts, a "Brand Avatar"

I have have a bit of information that may come as a COMPLETE surprise to some people -

Some of the posters here are just being themselves.

While I am supportive of people who role play in Second life - even the majority of the time - I really dont see a reason to carry that role play to the forums.

But even if people do do that - please dont presume that the rest of us are.

I speak my mind on the issues, I dont worry about myself in any sort of marketable sense - Im not a product. My credibilty and reputaion are whatever the sum total of how people feel about the things I say. I have no plan or specific agenda on that.

I dont have any alts - the whole concept of having an Alt so you can manipulate their "brand" or reputation seems unsettling to me.

That's a shame. You're probably writing off a lot of intelligent people and their opinions for no other reason than your own bias.

LOL! Its uncanny that several of the people in those pics you posted actually came to mind as I was writing!

Are you sure you are not a Betazoid Hiro?

<3 Collette!

Travis listed "-Prolific posters less than 30 days old are commonly assumed to be alts of older AV's." -- he could just as well have been talking about me. I'm not an alt, but I have had years of online experience and discussion groups. It's very familiar territory to me. I'm a type-o-holic. I'm also opinionated. All of that combined means that I waltzed in here in my first week and started posting -- I hope intelligently.

(Caveat: I also tried to ease in gently and ask questions. Brand new folks have no business jumping all over issues they don't understand. )

So the lesson to be drawn from this? That Generalizations are generally untrue.

I'd like to add my own pet peeve to the list. If you want your post to be read, make it readable. Spelling errors happen to the best of us, but far more important is white space and punctuation. Breaking up your post with empty lines helps the readers' eyes along and means they're more likely to finish reading and actually understand. Run-on sentences are a plot by the acetaminophen industry to promote sales of aspirins. And massive abuse of exclamation points means you need to lay off the drama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That said, I didn't even know what the FIC was until a few days ago. Now I just have to figure out who they are so I know whether I want to join them or toilet paper their avies.

Every person that I have met thus far in the game who were among those accused as "FIC" have been rational, cheerful, helpful people.

I cant help it if some people form opinions about others before actually talking to them.

So Blaze, you are in favor of killing anyone above the age of 50? The majority says this is wrong. Either you support killing people over 50 years old or you lose credibility in our eyes.

Seriously Blaze, that is one of the most silly statements ever. You cant have a generalized blanket statement for EVERY opinion.

Same with me, Cindy.

I have been in other online forums for quite a bit. Even though I have been here 6 months, I just lurked around here watching things and getting a feel for the atmosphere before I decided to do some head on posting.

IMO, I think what loses credibility with me is the sympathy sisters. The ones that have nothing useful to post but will back up their friend, just because they are "their friend." This is usually the whole clique that will come and defend their friend giving no credence to the topic at hand. It also happens when the friend posts a new idea or new product, there is a rush to give the pats on the back regardless of the quality.

That's a leap from contrarian to cynic.

In investing, doing the opposite of what everybody else is doing is usually a good idea in the long run. That isn't about credibility, that's just a simple way to capitalize on the tendency of free markets to overreact.

When it comes to ideas, I suggest you think for yourself.

Myself, I tend to have a low opinion of people who constantly say provocative things for the sake of being provocative.

Buster

Consistency.

Jesus I'm not credible, I think i'm the least consistent poster in the world.

First I troll!, then I joke!, then I become serious!

Maybe I have split personalities!

Here Cindy is suggested reading for possible "FIC" sightings.

Beta Members - Oldest of the Old

Naw..with my...and my bad spelling, and my trolling, and my only-funny-to-me humor, I think I have you beat on the sub-credible list.

You have that whole lovable, squeezable thing going for you!

And you have the whole OMG I must get him into bed thing going for you

What a great thread Travis! I thought I was scoring all aces until I saw Ulrika's input (I KNOW it's "a lot" and not "alot" but sometimes my fingers rebel against me!!! )

Someone should combine all this input and create a Cosmopolitan-style Forum Cred test. Something like this:

1. How do you describe people who disagree with you?
a. Intellecual equals with different world views and perspectives (+10)
b. Uneducated drones in dire need of your education (-5)
c. Members of an acronym-rich conspiracy (-10)
d. Hitler (-50)

Ha! Classic