We talk often here about the way people interact on the board. I’m wondering if any of the old timers here have seen a change within Thread Games in particular.
Someone has hijacked Leo Bloom’s account.
That was a completely coherent post.
Tell me which sentences you don’t understand. Start with the subject line, which, yes, misses the word “of” before “questions.” Yes, the word “about”–doesn’t match “regarding”–but it was a lapse because “asked” and “answered” really should be handled differently, but the whole “asked-and-answered” is considered (roughly here) as one set, and I would not let that slide in formal composition.
The first poster asked this, which allowed the usual slow readers to pile on and have fun:
“Are you asking if questions and answers in thread games are revealing more personal information than they used to?..”
Asked: See the large type sentence with the question mark. It announce the query, and the rest of the OP. Even if there is not a single query mark in the rest of the post. I’m sorry if the missing “of” tripped you up.
“Are you concerned, intrigued, or delighted by this change?”
Answered: Did you read or understand the last sentence of OP?
How would you describe how Thread games were?
How would you describe how Thread games are now?
Are you asking “Thread games were less personal before and do they now seem more about individual poster’s personal opinions?”
Less personal. As to game proposals within OPs, and in entire OPs newly posted, as it seems to me, where the thread has sub-topics only about answering something with a personal response, ordinarily not related to topics where the temperature of the interplay (ie, “fighty” topics). Even though to some people preferring ale over stout, eg, can be as fighty as topics of the 2017 election.
See above and reverse. Also see OP subject header, for starts.
Asked and answered.
Leo, what you call a “pile-on” some might call a “consensus” - that your writing is hard to understand. This is an issue you are certainly familiar with. Rather than an extended explanation of why everyone should be able to discern your meaning, perhaps you should consider why, in fact, they cannot?
In a spirit of constructive (albeit blunt) criticism, take your first paragraph as an example:
What is the point of the bolded text? Why modify the simple concept of a “topic” when you want to includes both intermittent sections and entire threads? I’ve noticed that you often add pointless comprehensive modifiers like this - why say “tiny, small, medium, large and enormous dogs” rather than just “dogs”?
Then:
Again, everything in bold is verbose and superfluous. What does it add to your intended meaning? It serves only to make the sentence confusing.
If I understand your intended meaning, the entire first paragraph could have been written thus:
I get the impression that you think writing these long convoluted sentences with endless modifiers and clauses-within-clauses has some aesthetic merit. It does not.
Sorry-I know you’re sensitive to this, but I don’t get it. The “temperature of the interplay”?, “As to game proposals within OPs, and lacking in entire OPs” completely lost me.
I’ll step away now. I just wish you’d write without without so many dependent clauses and metaphorical phrases, since not everyone shares the meaning of the metaphors you’re using, and the dependent clauses make it very hard to keep track of the point.
OK. Most other forums in SD, like IMHO, Elections, and BBQ forums–obviously-- and occasionally GQ, will have threads or sections within threads where a mod will say “let’s cool it down here,” and we also understand, I think, in English, “don’t get so het up about that” “heated conversations” “hot around the collar.” No one in the Thread Games and threads within it I mentioned .posts content like that.
The reading of “lacking” was–interestingly–an autocorrect error that appeared in the now vanquished (be me) text which I thought was the one everyone read.
But if that threw you, and “everybody” doesn’t get the meaning of it, I’m sorry.
I do not.
I do not. It is clarifying for any people who might not know that when I write the word “topics” I distinguish between
-
the OPs where individual games within the thread, such as each part with Bakers Dozen where we are submitting 13 personal replies, are interspersed with other individual topics/games within the thread are not of a personal nature
-
New, I believe, OPs where every “game/topic” is by definition of OP one in which the posts is personal.
I did this so some caviller/asshole might say I wasn’t clear on what I meant.
Would have preferred I write all that out?
I do not. Eg, in the question put to me at the top of this post, it is clarifying for any people who might not know that when I write the word “topics” I distinguish between
-
the OPs where individual games within the thread, such as each part with Bakers Dozen where we are submitting 13 personal replies, are interspersed with other individual topics/games within the thread are not of a personal nature
-
New, I believe, OPs where every “game/topic” is by definition of OP one in which the posts is personal.
I did this so some caviller/asshole might say I wasn’t clear on what I meant.
Would have preferred I write all that out?
[eta cx: sorry about the triple post, as I got lost in formatting. Last one’s a keeper. :)]
I swear to you, I was not being snarky; I genuinely wanted to understand what you were asking.
I think people don’t [generally] get as heated about things in the game threads because there are seldom discussions about people’s answers unless the game explicitly calls for it.
The consensus is among the pilers-on, mostly the same people, people just like others who read do not pile on and get what I write without much complaint (allowing for typos in my posts above)in the very same thread. Those who enjoy posting comments such as, in other contexts,“what do expect from a radical leftist” and then leaves very satisfied with his wise contribution.
So, not everyone, and I am not paranoid. Some readers are in no mood to spend the time, or believe everyone in SD should write the way they prefer (or what they think everyone agrees is the right way, which is idiotic) or simply unused to or incapable of following dependent clauses [:eek: the horror!] Those are the posters in pilers-on. They are thread shitters, basically, so the hell with them.
No need to “swear.” It is relatively easy to recognize the foul odor of “a piler-on” as I describe above.
I’m not a pile-on person, I spend my days reading complex research, I do not believe there is one way to write, and my only motivation is to understand what you say to engage with you- because I am genuinely interested.
I found even your rephrasing (especially point 2) difficult to understand. Try reading it out loud and see if it’s as clear as you think (I tell my students that their ear is the best editor). It’s not a lack of effort or to be snarky. If you prefer, in the future I will just move on if I have trouble with your posts rather than ask for clarification.
FWIW, Leo, I understood the OP at first pass.
Admittedly it is weirdly worded and constructed, but it’s not exactly a Thomas Pynchon novel.
mmm
The habit of omitting subjects and/or verbs doesn’t contributed to clarity. Each sentence (or fragment) in the above quote is missing an explicit subject or verb. The second “sentence” seems to be long prepositional phrase (containing sub-phrases and a clause?) modifying or augmenting the previous “less personal”, but I’m not sure.
Phrasing like that can create an interesting style, but it’s helpful to sprinkle complete sentences with a subject and verb here and there to keep the reader from guessing.
Why is it when you’re being defensive you can write something as coherent, (incorrect but still coherent), as this, yet at all other times you somehow can’t?
Please don’t. Asking for clarification is fine. In the above snark fest, I responded to your discrete and non-offensive post with “snark+:)” The was for you; the snark was to those who thought your post was part of their pile on.