Tell you what, despite this being the pit, lets use some approximate numbers. **Oakminster ** posts roughly 10 times per day. He averages maybe one pit rating per day. Half of them have the rating and content. So 5% of his posts are by your definition without content and 10% are annoying as they include the rating.
He contributes useful posts to GD, Café, MPSIMS, IMHO and probably GQ, but I am not certain. The annoyances are heightened for you are you like reading the Pit and he does post a lot.
BTW: He is a lawyer and often contributes in discussions of legal matters.
Jim {Numbers are all approximates, the percentages are probably lower than I estimated.}
So 10% of his total is annoying , and by “here” I did mean the Pit, yeah. OK, so not as high a proportion as I’d said. You’ve convinced me, I take it back. He’s not doing it to pad a postcount.
That still leaves the main objection, of course. Want to help him out with that, too, since he seems disinclined to further his own case beyond “I does what I likes, fuckwits”?
Now that April Fool’s has passed, I can pretend I’m not joking.
As to what all has been (roughly) brought up here:
[ol]
[li]No matter how much they irritate others, I find Oakminster’s ratings to be giggle-worthy. Whether or not they reek of desperation and of trying to start a board meme (which many hate too, by the way) is irrelevant to making me smile. For some reason, his bullheaded perseverance in light of disdain makes him feel like an underdog to me and therefore I kinda sorta look forward to seeing his ratings. Just 'cause I’m weird, ya know?[/li][li]The only thing I consider as ‘content-free’ posts are those that come in and only complain about how that person is so much more superior to the OP by not feigning outrage over events that in no way effect them. In my humble opinion, you can bitch about the subject matter (Ewww! It’s not like anyone is going to be pro puppy kicking!), the insincerity (Only a link!) or the fact that it’s as morally reprehensible to wallow in the crime (You’d love to eviscerate, emasculate, eavesdrop on the execution and email your legislature? Then quit yapping about it and either do it or stop including us on getting off on your puppy torture porn!), etc…[/li][li]There is constructive criticism to be had out there, with or without further commentary. I think we all assume that it would be nice to add some with whatever you have to say, but dishing out a “Less length!” would stand alone fine. I know. When I first began posting to message boards, someone helpfully (with emphasis) suggested paragraphs. I took to that like a duck on water. Of course, I’m still not so good in the Brief Department, but I do try and if you could only see what these missives would look like otherwise. :eek:[/ol] [/li]So, all in all, despite tradition of ridiculing someone into stopping unwanted behavior, why not attempt to actually change things? Using Oakminster as an example, he bugs the shit out of people and everyone harping on him has only led to a digging in of heels. I almost feel bad for Giraffe’s seemingly off-hand remark about shaming folks into stopping RO threads. Not because he didn’t mean it or that it’s a problem in itself, but because now everyone uses what he ‘suggested’ as a basis for advocating chastising of one member over another. Some seem to even have made it a sport and only show up in those sorts of threads to do so. Maybe he really doesn’t mind, but all of that just doesn’t come across as fair to him or the one leaning back on it. We should all be responsible for what we undertake, no matter where we got the idea from.
I hope you both aren’t drawing your conclusions from the same threads, but since both of you mention Pit threads, you might be.
As for me, I neither think Oakminster walks on water nor is slipping into the slime.
And no, I’m not a “friend” of his ratings. I frankly don’t care one way or the other. But I do think they provide content. But the content is just not all written out. So in regards to the OP, I’m not sure how they apply.
Here you go Roo, 'tis just one of many. That’s no slam on Lissener, just one of those you can seem to count on early and completely. There’s probably plenty to complain about within the OP (like some probably surmise with: not much thought going into it, little more than a link, generic, whatever) and yet, nothing into his follow-up (which you’ve got to admit seems to be awfully quick, like just waiting for an opportunity to trot this out) tells us this. Does that mean that the critique is pretty much like the opening salvo? Or was it there only to express disapproval?
Considering that there’s been another half dozen of those types of threads in the days hence, I doubt seriously if the ‘tar and feather’ approach is preventing much. Except, of course, that it aims for superiority (like I’ve already mentioned) over the ones who list that kind of thing to begin with. Is that enough justification? Especially if it’s under the guise of ‘helping,’ when it may be anything but.
No thank you, I find some funny, but I would not miss them if they were gone. I do not really care one way or the other if he continues to make those posts.
Jeeze, tough crowd. My post was intended to agree with the OP (it seemed to me like there was little agreement that this was a valid complaint), express my opinion of a side-issue that we are discussing (the OP rating and the poster who mostly does it), and give some insight into how I decide to respond to an OP or not, in the hopes of fighting a little ignorance on when to speak up and when to keep your piehole shut. It wasn’t the pithiest post ever, but I don’t think it was completely content-free.
Oakminster’s post was the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and going, “Lalala I can’t hear you” and sticking his tongue out at us. In my opinion, of course. It doesn’t add anything to a discussion except some noise that you have to filter out.
Maybe it’s not fair to call them content-free posts; most posts have some content. Some just contribute much less to the ongoing discussion than others. A rating post contributes virtually nothing except one poster’s opinion of how good the OP was without commenting on the subject of the OP itself.
Agreed. The thing is, he can contribute when he wants to, unlike some others I can think of. That makes this one annoying habit of his an extremely annoying habit.
I interpreted Oakminster’s words in his post to be talking to whoever he quoted. In this case, MrDibble but in other cases, the OP when she was quoted.
Is the “us” all those that don’t like ratings? Or is the “us” more like the royal “we” that speaks for all of us? Or is the assumption that both questions are the same answer?
It’s interesting how I interpreted it one way, but you’re just telling me what it “was” as though my interpretation didn’t have validity.
Your interpretation is as valid as anyone else’s, but no one else has to agree with it. The “us” was intended to be those of us who don’t care for his post-rating - in the smaller case, his post was aimed at the person he was responding to, but it was also aimed at the larger group of people who don’t like his post-rating (extrapolating from his response to one critic that if you thought the same as his critic, you could logically expect the same response from him).
Adios then, dipshit. As Giraffe said, this lame ass Pit rating crap was old to us years ago. Why would you think your bringing it back would somehow make it less lame?
Other than that, I for one like your posts, but if you want to leave like a petulant child, whatever.
Oakminster, if that’s your response to what was basically a glowing commendation post, you really do need to leave or grow a thicker skin. I am sorry if you leave over doing one thing that other posters don’t like, rather than considering not doing that one thing any more, but of course it’s your choice.
sniff I’m gonna miss the little guy - I think I’ll tear up whenever I hear the reedy notes of a hurdy-gurdy. I can still hear his voice in my head…
Irepresent the fuckwit guild, the fuckwit guild…
Not that I actually think he’s going anywhere, you understand. I’ll believe it when I see it.
My post was intended to agree with the OP (it seemed to me like there was little agreement that this was a valid complaint), express my opinion of a side-issue that we are discussing (the OP rating and the poster who mostly does it), and give some insight into how I decide to respond to an OP or not, in the hopes of fighting a little ignorance on when to speak up and when to keep your piehole shut. It wasn’t the pithiest post ever, but I don’t think it was completely content-free.