Forum etiquette - double-posting vs separating ideas?

[Iscah]

I use snip quotes if I have to. Since I'm on mobile, I can't edit my posts; snipping ensures I can get my opinion out without having to worry (much) about character limit.

I understand that people might need to delete a lengthy quote to save space (so they don't have to do fiddly mobile editing or whatever) - though as I was saying, in my original post, I would find it much easier to follow if you replaced it with a very short summary of what the person was talking about, rather than the word "snip". Eg. if I replaced your quote with "re. snipping for length".

Umm... No, it does not. It's for reading convenience. When those of us use mobile, snipping posts allows us to avoid hitting the post limit since we can't edit on mobile. Sometimes, don't want to have a huge wall of texts when posting a reply, so it's snipped. It's not rude at all. That's a huge reach you've made there.

I agree that KisaiTenshi may be overstating it by saying that replacing a quote with "snip" is equivalent to "what you said means nothing" - at least I *think* that's the specific quote you're responding to, but I can't actually tell because you didn't leave the quoted text there.

However, I don't consider completely removing the text to give any "reading convenience" - instead it just makes me uncertain exactly what part of the conversation a quoter is responding to, and I may have to stop and read back to work out the context.

Regarding snipping, quotes have a blue arrows button that links directly back to the post in question. If you want to talk "disrespect" then respect the quoted poster enough to click that blue button to go back and read their post in the full context it was originally posted in.

Having to move up and down the discussion to follow the context of quotes doesn't seem like the best solution to me. It's a backup option if the responder has deleted the quote text, or in a long thread where the context may be a long way back - but it makes for a much easier 'flow' of reading down the page if you've got the text (or a summary of it) there to keep track of the conversation, or which of several conversations your post is adding to.

As long as you don't edit posts in order to reply to something later in the thread, you're good in my book.

Oh goodness, I've noticed people do that a few times and I find it so confusing. Post efficiency is one thing, but editing a post to add a quote-and-response to something that is further down the page puts it all out-of-order.

[Reinha]

Yea, except that's a pain because then the full version will get locked in to my mobile Chrome until I log out and log back in. It's a really inconvenient way to quote a post because there's no native way to revert back to the mobile site once you click that option.

True, it's inconvenient if you prefer the mobile version. I always try to stay on the full version and didn't realize other people might not like it.

Well this was a bit off topic so I'll reply to the OP as well. As a reader I prefer when people post separate ideas and replies into their own paragraphs of the same post and underneath the quote(s) they are replying to. It's much easier to scroll past a big post with a good structure than to go a page forward when I want so see other people's posts. Also, I don't see how snipping is for the reader's convenience when I have to open a new tab to see what is being replied to instead of just reading it there. It's purely for the writer's convenience because they don't want to go through the effort to take out the irrelevant parts of a long quote or to edit on mobile.

As long as you don't edit posts in order to reply to something later in the thread, you're good in my book. Nothing disrupts a conversation flow more than someone replying in a previous post that has already been replied to. The person you're talking to will likely have no clue that you responded to them, and people who read it all after the fact have to piece together the conversation order.

This is probably done when people run out of daily posts and don't want to dig up the conversation the next day. Although I dislike the post limit, it's probably working as intended in the cases when people want to get the last word in and end up editing their posts.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

If your ego is so fragile that you felt called out, then all you've done is proven me right.

Says the person who has been on the defensive for several pages now. When an entire forum is poking more holes in your faux attempts at psychology than holes in swiss cheese, perhaps it's you who's the outliner. Far be it the almighty KisaiTenshi be wrong about something. Par for the course given prior experiences.

What boggles the mind is how you can generalize an entire group of people yet fail to comprehend why they might dislike such. Would you fancy I generalizing you. In fact, if I recall, you became quite irate when last we argued—insisting your posting history had no merit to the argument despite it being referential. You really shouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses, sweetheart.

It's still rude to -snip- a quoted post

But you did this very thing but a page ago. So... are you not rude as well. After all, by your own rules, snipping posts is rude.

[HyoMinPark]

Oh goodness, I've noticed people do that a few times and I find it so confusing. Post efficiency is one thing, but editing a post to add a quote-and-response to something that is further down the page puts it all out-of-order.

To offer a perspective, I do this when I run out of posts for the day. Since the forum limits you to 20 posts per day, if you’re having a conversation with someone and suddenly meet that limit, a lot of people will go back and add it into their last post in the thread. Sadly, more have a tendency to appear after that, leading to the conversation being disjointed, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do when the forum limits you in terms of daily post counts.

[KaivaC]

I agree that KisaiTenshi may be overstating it by saying that replacing a quote with "snip" is equivalent to "what you said means nothing" - at least I *think* that's the specific quote you're responding to, but I can't actually tell because you didn't leave the quoted text there.

However, I don't consider completely removing the text to give any "reading convenience" - instead it just makes me uncertain exactly what part of the conversation a quoter is responding to, and I may have to stop and read back to work out the context.

Oh no, you are good. I often snip posts, depending on what exactly I'm responding to, how long it is, and how long my response is. The reading convenience response was more for my sake as a responder than anything else. And I can certainly understand from your stance what you mean. Generally, it just depends on whether I want to keep the quoted text or not. I understand what you're saying.

True, it's inconvenient if you prefer the mobile version. I always try to stay on the full version and didn't realize other people might not like it.

Eh, I flip between using a computer and my phone a lot - you'll generally know which one I'm using based on if my signature is showing in my post or not. I do wish that the devs would update the website. I frequent the Overwatch forums and I like the feel of the forums over there. Dunno anything about being able to go to the full site and back on mobile devices, but the general feel is pleasing.

[KisaiTenshi]

But, you're not looking to debate or discuss ideas rationally, you're just looking for being told that you're right.

Nope. Take a closer look at what I actually said.

Most "western" forums don't have these limits, because western people have an inflated ego, and see "dem's fightin' words" everywhere if everyone isn't praising them.

And if you start moderating them, they cry censorship! Free Speech! Blah blah blah.

But that wasn't enough, because YOU took it as a personal insult first.

.....I think that's a bit rude to make a generalized assumption that everyone who lives on the western side of the hemisphere have inflated egos, especially after you just talked about flamewars and trolls. I mean, it doesn't matter what side of the world you live on, everyone has an ego, just some people make their own more apparent than others.

To which I responded to why that is the case:

I manage/manged 4 or so "big" boards, and there are entire forums dedicated to "forum games" that do nothing but inflate the post count. Trust me, people post, just to be seen.

At least two of these boards date back to 1999. I've seen things. I've also seen how Reddit and 4chan have turned "forums" participants into rage warriors. Twitter and Tumblr have done nothing but drive a wedge between people who would get along if it wasn't for this incessant need for people to "call out" people they disagree with. A not-recent thing is "receipting" which is when people take screenshots of other peoples social media posts, often without their knowledge in a vendetta to try and shut the person up. This is all old drama that I've had front row seats to before.

The fact is, in point form:

1. The people who participate on large forums, feel the need to be seen.

Larger post counts in the case of is seen as a competitive ego challenge. There are entire forums, where there's sub-forums set aside for people to do nothing but ****-post in to keep it out of the General discussion where moderators don't want to keep removing their posts. This 100% true, and I have not seen any exception to this except when a forum is either very small, or has aggressive moderation. The SE forum for all that matters is unmoderated, and only limited by the post count.

If you read something else from that point that isn't "the post count limit is designed to prevent people from ****-posting endlessly" you're reading the wrong thing from it. If the post count didn't exist, the tech forum would be more useful, because as it stands right now, the tech forum allows you to post without the limit, but counts against the global limit, so if you respond 25 times on the tech forum, you will be unable to post anywhere else for two days.

2. When you try to moderate an English Language forum, you will get accused of censorship, hence many forums try to have a light touch as possible to avoid notorious trolls from crying censorship and dividing the community as to if their ban was worth the forum cleanup. In Customer Service situations, everyone can see what you're saying, and some people are intentionally "receipting" behaviors to show they were being mistreated, when in context, they were the instigators.

3. If you really care about what you have to say, start a blog. Nothing says forum participation is more worthless more than carefully researching a post that takes an hour, only to have the usual band of ****-posters latch onto the most generalized part of the post and go "Not everyone..."

Which is what happened here. You've found insult, where none was implied. You took a deliberate gross exaggeration and made it personal. Then others decided to dogpile on that without the context. If only there was a standard for sarcasm on the internet s/ .

So you're expecting a few more folks? Oh, do tell. *grabs notebook* I'm verrrry curious.

*kitten smile*

My Self-fullfilling Prophecy bingo card is almost filled out. What about yours? :P

But you did this very thing but a page ago. So... are you not rude as well. After all, by your own rules, snipping posts is rude.

Deleting everything but what you respond to is not "snipping". Deleting everything from the quoted post and replacing it with "snip" or something like "blahblahblah" is rude. If I remove a part of quoted post, it's because I'm not responding to the rest of it for reasons of either "context" or "focus". As the forum actively prevents double-quoting, the only way to get the complete context for a post is to quote the pieces necessary, and forum software often has a limit to this as well.

Use Google Scholar and look up "Social desirability, anonymity, and internet-based questionnaires", or "Can You See the Real Me? Activation and Expression of the True Self on the Internet"

People, simply put, are uninhibited on the internet when they are anonymous. People who post a lot, want to be seen, or want to be popular. People who are raging trolls on the interent, are bullies, and likely to ignore rules as long as they get what they want.

[HyoMinPark]

But that wasn't enough, because YOU took it as a personal insult first.

.....I think that's a bit rude to make a generalized assumption that everyone who lives on the western side of the hemisphere have inflated egos, especially after you just talked about flamewars and trolls. I mean, it doesn't matter what side of the world you live on, everyone has an ego, just some people make their own more apparent than others.

Where in this post does Sigma give any indication that they took it as a personal insult?

They’re pointing out that it’s rude to make sweeping generalizations against people that you don’t know, and that you have still not provided any evidence on to actually back up as fact. The two studies you posted earlier had zero to do “westerners have inflated egos”; they didn’t prove that in the least. All they said were people were less inhibited on online communities, which, again, nobody was even talking about. Nobody even said otherwise. They said that it is wrong for you to be making blanket assumptions.

Everyone in every corner of the world has ego; it’s not just limited to one half of it.

There is no taking personal insult to your post; you’re just assuming things to try and further your own argument. Assumptions don’t make for good evidence for arguments.

The fact is, in point form:

1. The people who participate on large forums, feel the need to be seen.

Larger post counts in the case of is seen as a competitive ego challenge. There are entire forums, where there's sub-forums set aside for people to do nothing but ****-post in to keep it out of the General discussion where moderators don't want to keep removing their posts. This 100% true, and I have not seen any exception to this except when a forum is either very small, or has aggressive moderation. The SE forum for all that matters is unmoderated, and only limited by the post count.

Do you have any factual evidence of this? Sorry, I cannot take your word for fact. Please post something that is actually relevant to the conversation and not a tangent.

Which is what happened here. You've found insult, where none was implied. You took a deliberate gross exaggeration and made it personal.

So was this deliberate, gross exaggeration supposed to be nice and friendly?

[Sigma-Astra]

But that wasn't enough, because YOU took it as a personal insult first.

How would you know if I took it as a personal insult? Do you have any significant proof that I live on the western side of the hemisphere? Do you have any proof at all besides your own assumptions what kind of nationality that I might be? Do you live next door to me?

I manage/manged 4 or so "big" boards, and there are entire forums dedicated to "forum games" that do nothing but inflate the post count. Trust me, people post, just to be seen.

Your self-proclaimed responsibilities of managing several online messaging communities does not mean you're some world-traveled philosopher with a P.h.D in human behavioral studies. I don't see why that's even relevant towards the conversation when making blanket statements generalizing and condemning a large group of people in a negative viewpoint is justifiable on any sort of level. That's called discrimination, which is basically what you're advocating here.

Most "western" forums don't have these limits, because western people have an inflated ego, and see "dem's fightin' words" everywhere if everyone isn't praising them.

Which is what happened here. You've found insult, where none was implied. You took a deliberate gross exaggeration and made it personal. Then others decided to dogpile on that without the context. If only there was a standard for sarcasm on the internet s/ .

If you weren't implying on insulting the entire western half of the world, then why did you say something so ignorant and arrogant only to flop after several people catch you in the act? That's not even a gross exaggeration, that's a deliberate flame against a laaaarge chunk of people. I don't want to start throwing the "r" word around, but...

I've never met a person who tries to justify being so rude and hateful with non-relevant examples as if managing a forum somehow gives you a degree in human psychology or a right to just bash a variety of people from different cultures and backgrounds freely. This is just...mind boggling on all levels.

[Mhaeric]

This is probably done when people run out of daily posts and don't want to dig up the conversation the next day. Although I dislike the post limit, it's probably working as intended in the cases when people want to get the last word in and end up editing their posts.

Proud next-day digger upper, here!

Also, the side argument going on... /smdh. Don't you people have anything better to do? It's RuPaul night for hunty's sake. Go watch that for your bitter bickering fix. The Vixen was dialed up to high tonight.

[HyoMinPark]

It's RuPaul night for hunty's sake. Go watch that for your bitter bickering fix. The Vixen was dialed up to high tonight.

Can’t say I even know what that is.

As for “nothing better to do”, well, I’m just waiting for answers to my questions. I’ll never get them, but it would be nice to get them nonetheless.