# Poll - Please Vote



## JonWhite (Jan 26, 2011)

Hello forum! I'd like to conduct a small experiment here. Please vote in this poll how you would respond to the following scenario:

A new forum member makes a fail-tastic thread in the Off-Topic subforum! How do you react?


1. It's ok, it's just one fail thread. It's best to ignore it.

2. It's ok. Kindly tell the poster why it's a fail.

3. Lolben.

4. Contact a mod – this is unacceptable, and he should be banned!

5. Quick! Add a hate post before the thread gets locked!

6. This thread itself is a fail thread! The OP should suffer the death penalty for being a hypocrite!


----------



## Cool Frog (Jan 26, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> 1. It's ok, it's just *Another* fail thread. It's best to ignore it.


 
Fixed


----------



## Specs112 (Jan 26, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> I make a fail-tastic thread in the Off-Topic subforum! How do you react?


 
Fixed


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 26, 2011)

Casual lurker spotted.


----------



## CubeLTD (Jan 26, 2011)

The poll results are very inaccurate. In this forums most people do Option 5. They'll use unoriginal image macros and internet memes. It just takes one person then the rest of the people will follow, with useless comments such as "1+", "This", "I Lol'd" "Facepalm", "Mod Close Please", "Fail Thread", etc... Then after that they'll switch the target to the OP itself, and will probably use one of the following insults:

"The OP has an IQ of____" 
"The OP is probably ___ old."
"The OP IS ___ old"
"The OP is Fail"

The blanks are usually filled in with very low number such as 1-10. There's a lot more generic insults they use but I can't think of any right now.

You are better off with using this information than for your "small experiment", than using the actual poll.


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 26, 2011)

CubeLTD said:


> The poll results are very inaccurate. In this forums most people do Option 5. They'll use unoriginal image macros and internet memes. It just takes one person then the rest of the people will follow, with useless comments such as "1+", "This", "I Lol'd" "Facepalm", "Mod Close Please", "Fail Thread", etc... Then after that they'll switch the target to the OP itself, and will probably use one of the following insults:
> 
> "The OP has an IQ of____"
> "The OP is probably ___ old."
> ...


 
You are incorrect sir.


----------



## Forte (Jan 26, 2011)

storm of ragnarok previous OCG exclusives lol

wtf hourglass of courage <-- ossim it's an HOURGLASS
wtf needle ball <-- am prefer HOURGLASS


----------



## CubeLTD (Jan 26, 2011)

I think my statements are pretty accurate, Sir.


----------



## Forte (Jan 26, 2011)

<Gaetan> I'm man of slice

<3


----------



## RaresB (Jan 26, 2011)

CubeLTD said:


> The poll results are very inaccurate. In this forums most people do Option 5. They'll use unoriginal image macros and internet memes. It just takes one person then the rest of the people will follow, with useless comments such as "1+", "This", "I Lol'd" "Facepalm", "Mod Close Please", "Fail Thread", etc... Then after that they'll switch the target to the OP itself, and will probably use one of the following insults:
> 
> "The OP has an IQ of____"
> "The OP is probably ___ old."
> ...


I know thats what i would do, and thats what i voted for.


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 26, 2011)

CubeLTD said:


> I think my statements are pretty accurate, Sir.


 
If someone makes an inherently stupid or ill thought out, it is usually* coupled with poor grammar, bad spelling, or incoherent and irrelevant responses. This type of thread wouldn't be made by somebody who's older/ maturer or somebody with a high IQ, although I haven't seen anyone's IQ been questioned. 

*This might not be the case. Some posts are well written and the OP just doesn't understand basic concepts. I don't think you will be able to show me an instance where someone is flamed for a misunderstanding though.


----------



## Nestor (Jan 26, 2011)

You forgot the poll options--> "Second account spotted: a) ignore thread, b) play along c)reveal yourself! "


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jan 26, 2011)

Although I do like the fact that you are curious about how forum members respond to fail threads, asking questions in a poll is not the best way to get accurate information. If you REALLY want to know how some members respond, why don't you just pretend to be a noob and make a total fail thread?


----------



## CubeLTD (Jan 26, 2011)

MichaelP. said:


> If someone makes an inherently stupid or ill thought out, it is usually* coupled with poor grammar, bad spelling, or incoherent and irrelevant responses. This type of thread wouldn't be made by somebody who's older/ maturer or somebody with a high IQ, although I haven't seen anyone's IQ been questioned.
> 
> *This might not be the case. Some posts are well written and the OP just doesn't understand basic concepts. I don't think you will be able to show me an instance where someone is flamed for a misunderstanding though.



Good grammar=\= Oldness and maturity

Are you trying to say that people with bad grammar deserve to get flame in your first sentence?

And, I would show you a specific case but I can't find it because I think its deleted. There are probably more of those instances you are talking about.


----------



## JonWhite (Jan 26, 2011)

MichaelP. said:


> I don't think you will be able to show me an instance where someone is flamed for a misunderstanding though.


 
here you go, from the 2009 forum awards for the worst arguing. His grammar is perfect (or at least very close).


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 26, 2011)

CubeLTD said:


> Good grammar=\= Oldness and maturity
> 
> Are you trying to say that people with bad grammar deserve to get flame in your first sentence?
> 
> And, I would show you a specific case but I can't find it because I think its deleted. There are probably more of those instances you are talking about.


 
Well, if you have the grammar of a six year old, be prepared for people to think you're a six year old. Also, yes, bad grammar should be pointed out and fixed because it keeps the forum clean. Also, not many of these threads get deleted, like the one you e-mailed me.


EDIT: JonWhite, in that instance the thread alone was stupid enough to be flamed, but nobody said he had a low IQ or was young because his grammar was alright.


----------



## TiLiMayor (Jan 26, 2011)

Yuu even put lolben as an option?


----------



## CubeLTD (Jan 26, 2011)

MichaelP. said:


> Well, if you have the grammar of a six year old, be prepared for people to think you're a six year old. Also, yes, bad grammar should be pointed out and fixed because it keeps the forum clean. Also, not many of these threads get deleted, like the one you e-mailed me.
> 
> 
> EDIT: JonWhite, in that instance the thread alone was stupid enough to be flamed, but nobody said he had a low IQ because his grammar was alright.




Sure grammar should be point out, but insults aren't needed?

That was a fail thread? Was it flame? Yes. My argument that most people do Option 5 when given a fail thread still stands.


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 26, 2011)

CubeLTD said:


> Sure grammar should be point out, but insults aren't needed?
> 
> That was a fail thread? Was it flame? Yes. My argument that most people do Option 5 still stands.


 
If someone's stupid enough, they get flamed. It's the judicial system of the forum. Deal with it. Hopefully they won't do it again.


----------



## CubeLTD (Jan 26, 2011)

MichaelP. said:


> If someone's stupid enough, they get flamed. It's the judicial system of the forum. Deal with it. Hopefully they won't do it again.


 
Judicial system? According to the rules, flaming isn't allow. You just compromise your argument, which I really had no idea what it was in the first place. My point was that poll results didn't reflect what actually happen. You telling me that if someone is stupid enough and make a fail thread they will get flame, just strengthen my stand.

And I'll just end it here.


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 26, 2011)

CubeLTD said:


> Judicial system? According to the rules, flaming isn't allow. You just compromise your argument, which I really had no idea what it was in the first place. My point was that poll results didn't reflect what actually happen. You telling me that if someone is stupid enough and make a fail thread they will get flame, just strengthen my stand.
> 
> And I'll just end it here. I was just stating that my observations didn't reflect the results of the idea.


 
Flaming isn't allowed, but neither is poor grammar or stupid posting. My argument was that your idea that people on the forum respond to bad threads by calling people immature or stupid is incorrect. People on the forum respond with that when someone is acting stupid or immature, thus it's justified.


----------



## JonWhite (Jan 26, 2011)

since when does wrong + wrong = right?


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 26, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> since when does wrong*(A)* + wrong*(B)* = right?


 
When wrongB is correcting wrongA so it doesn't happen again.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Jan 26, 2011)

MichaelP. said:


> When wrongB is correcting wrongA so it doesn't happen again.


 
Ends justify the means? Hah. This makes me chuckle.


----------



## CubeLTD (Jan 26, 2011)

MichaelP. said:


> Flaming isn't allowed, but neither is poor grammar or stupid posting. My argument was that your idea that people on the forum respond to bad threads by calling people immature or stupid is incorrect. People on the forum respond with that when someone is acting stupid or immature, thus it's justified.






MichaelP. said:


> When wrongB is correcting wrongA so it doesn't happen again.



I couldn't resist replying >.<.. I was hoping you'll drop it, because I'm too mentally weak for that but if you insist..

By agreeing with me that flaming isn't allowed makes your statement that its the judicial system of this forum invalid. By saying that people only respond like that when someone is acting stupid also doesn't make my argument incorrect because I said most people would do option 5 instead of ignoring the thread, thus making the poll results not accurate. Replying with image macros, internet memes, useless posts such as +1, and insults (wrongB's) are not justified, because they do not correct wrongA. Saying someone is stupid does not make him smarter. Posting sarcastic comments doesn't help the OP or educate him. TELLING the OP what he did wrong corrects wrongA. So wrongB isn't justified


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Jan 26, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> since when does wrong*(A)* + wrong*(B)* = right?





MichaelP. said:


> When wrongB is correcting wrongA so it doesn't happen again.


 
... Do you actually believe that?


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 26, 2011)

CubeLTD said:


> I couldn't resist replying >.<.. I was hoping you'll drop it, because I'm too mentally weak for that but if you insist..
> 
> By agreeing with me that flaming isn't allowed makes your statement that its the judicial system of this forum invalid. By saying that people only respond like that when someone is acting stupid also doesn't make my argument incorrect because I said most people would do option 5 instead of ignoring the thread, thus making the poll results not accurate. Replying with image macros, internet memes, useless posts such as +1, and insults (wrongB's) are not justified, because they do not correct wrongA. Saying someone is stupid does not make him smarter. Posting sarcastic comments doesn't help the OP or educate him. TELLING the OP what he did wrong corrects wrongA. So wrongB isn't justified


 
I'm saying that a bad thread doesn't mean that people will respond with "You're stupid"'s or "OP is 6"'s, which is what you said in your original post. Ignoring the thread isn't the correct solution, because the OP needs to be corrected so he doesn't do it again. While I don't like the +1's or meme either, posts that are harsh but tell the OP what he did wrong are justified in my opinion, because all these useless threads are what make me think this forum is going down the drain and eventually you get fed up with replying to them.



ElectricDoodie said:


> ... Do you actually believe that?



Sure, if you're stupid, people tell you you're stupid and why you're stupid, you can stop being stupid.


----------



## EricReese (Jan 26, 2011)

Why are you guys arguing with Michael? Clearly hes the correct person here.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 26, 2011)

EricReese said:


> Why are you guys arguing with Michael? Clearly hes the correct person here.


 
I don't know what it's worth, but I agree.


----------



## Dene (Jan 26, 2011)

Obviously the best option is to get in a random hate post before the thread gets locked. This is the fun way. Either that or ragnarok as forte points out.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 26, 2011)

for situations like this, the (evil) decision tree is like this:
If you have a firstborn: mine, you are off the hook
If you have a puppy: mine for breakfast, you are off the hook
If you are a woman: mine (sooner or later)
If you are a boy: sorry, nothing I can do except banhammer you silly


----------



## JonWhite (Jan 27, 2011)

EricReese said:


> Why are you guys arguing with Michael? Clearly hes the correct person here.


 
Person A tells B to shut up. Person B gets a gun and shoots A's head off. Clearly, since A was wrong to tell B to shut up, B has the right to prevent future offenses by shooting A.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jan 27, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> Person A tells B to shut up. Person B gets a gun and shoots A's head off. Clearly, since A was wrong to tell B to shut up, B has the right to prevent future offenses by shooting A.


 
Similar, except the gun is a non-violent phrase that helps Person A become a better forum member. It really only helps Person A in the long run.

(If I understand what you are trying to say)


----------



## JonWhite (Jan 27, 2011)

CubeLTD said:


> "The OP has an IQ of____"
> "The OP is probably ___ old."
> "The OP IS ___ old"
> "The OP is Fail"


 
Please tell me which is non-violent, and please tell me how any of these tell anyone what's wrong with their post.

By definition, a hate post is a VIOLENT post that does nothing to help the target, meaning no explanation or anything.

please remember the original context of Micheal's statement. He was talking about a FLAME post being justified. We can all agree that a flame post is a violent hate post, and it was posted with no intention of helping anyone. If the intent was to help, it's by definition not a flame post.


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 27, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> Please tell me which is non-violent, and please tell me how any of these tell anyone what's wrong with their post.
> 
> By definition, a hate post is a VIOLENT post that does nothing to help the target, meaning no explanation or anything.
> 
> please remember the original context of Micheal's statement. He was talking about a FLAME post being justified. We can all agree that a flame post is a violent hate post, and it was posted with no intention of helping anyone. If the intent was to help, it's by definition not a flame post.


 
You are incorrect sir.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 27, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> Please tell me which is non-violent, and please tell me how any of these tell anyone what's wrong with their post.
> 
> By definition, a hate post is a VIOLENT post that does nothing to help the target, meaning no explanation or anything.
> 
> please remember the original context of Micheal's statement. He was talking about a FLAME post being justified. *We can all agree that a flame post is a violent hate post*, and it was posted with no intention of helping anyone. If the intent was to help, it's by definition not a flame post.


Can we really?
"To light a flame" means "to get things started" (mostly related to the way people think)


----------



## JonWhite (Jan 27, 2011)

webster's dictionary
entry #6: an angry, hostile, or abusive electronic message.

Now that we've got our definitions straight, let's continue. Micheal, instead of just stating that I'm incorrect, how about explaining why?


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 27, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> webster's dictionary
> entry #6: an angry, hostile, or abusive electronic message.
> 
> Now that we've got our definitions straight, let's continue. Micheal, instead of just stating that I'm incorrect, how about explaining why?


 I was referencing you back to my first post, in which I disagree that forum members say the things which you consider hateful in response to a poor forum thread. It also shows that your statement above is incorrect, in which you say 


JonWhite said:


> please remember the original context of Micheal's statement. He was talking about a FLAME post being justified. We can all agree that a flame post is a violent hate post, and it was posted with no intention of helping anyone. If the intent was to help, it's by definition not a flame post.


----------



## JonWhite (Jan 27, 2011)

MichaelP. said:


> If someone's stupid enough, they get flamed. It's the judicial system of the forum. Deal with it. Hopefully they won't do it again.


 
And this is what *I'm* referring.


----------



## cincyaviation (Jan 27, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> And this is what *I'm* referring.


 
I don't see what's wrong with it.


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 27, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> And this is what *I'm* referring to.



Yes, but a flame post is not one of the posts aforementioned.

Also, on a side note, I just want you to know that this argument isn't a reflection of what I think of you as a forum member. I see what your logic is for thinking flame posts are wrong, but they are effective and I don't want them to be discontinued.


----------



## JonWhite (Jan 27, 2011)

cincyaviation said:


> I don't see what's wrong with it.


 
what's the point of flaming? Flaming doesn't help the failposter improve.



Site Rules said:


> No Flaming or Trolling:
> Respect other users and try to contribute to a nice ambiance on the forum. No personal attacks, or provocation of other forum members. If you are being attacked or provoked, do not feel compelled to defend your honor here; report the offender to a moderator.
> 
> Regarding Backseat Moderation
> ...


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jan 27, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> what's the point of flaming? Flaming doesn't help the failposter improve.


 
Um, yes it does.


----------



## JonWhite (Jan 27, 2011)

Well, I guess you could say that, because the entire site flaming one person makes people quit. This site really has no "nice ambiance".


----------



## cincyaviation (Jan 27, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> Well, I guess you could say that, because the entire site flaming one person makes people quit. This site really has no "nice ambiance".


 
So?


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jan 27, 2011)

I think it's quite obvious that the correct answer is "It's ok, it's just one fail thread. It's best to ignore it". If people ignore it, it gets pushed to the bottom fairly quickly. Unfortunately even in obvious spambot-esque threads people still feel the need to respond. This is an infractionable offence at the moment and should not be done.

Whether or not you should report it should be based on the stupidity level. The reason most 'stupid' threads get closed is because of the flame war that is sure to come, not directly for the content of the OP. In a perfect world these threads would merely be ignored. Most of the time I get to flame threads when they are developed quite a bit, so infractioning each person would be an insane endeavor and therefore the threads just get closed/deleted.

Just ignore stupid threads. If they are REALLY bad, report them. If there are people flaming, report them.


----------



## JonWhite (Jan 27, 2011)

ok. I've come to the conclusion that people on this forum like to create hell for new and immature members. Instead of helping them, people here flame them, even they know it's not going to help them. People here don't mind when these new and immature members quit out of desperation because of the horrible atmosphere. People here don't care if the site lacks a "nice ambiance" called for in the site rules. People here don't mind the fact that they're creating a horrid place to socialize in. Even when the site rules, clearly denouncing flaming new and immature members, are explicitly posted, people here either don't care or don't notice. Even moderators don't mind the fact that people here are breaking the rules knowingly and happily, and certain moderators even blatantly advise people to knowingly break site rules.

Please tell me if any part of my conclusion is incorrect (and state why).

edit: dang, i got ninja'd. Ignore the part about moderators not caring. At least one of them cares, that's good. But I'm sure certain others don't care and even actively participate in flaming new and immature members.



PatrickJameson said:


> Most of the time I get to flame threads when they are developed quite a bit, so infractioning each person would be an insane endeavor and therefore the threads just get closed/deleted.


 
I'd like to add that it's insane the first time, and then people actually notice and stop.


----------



## ruff48 (Jan 27, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> ok. I've come to the conclusion that people on this forum like to create hell for new and immature members. Instead of helping them, people here flame them, even they know it's not going to help them. People here don't mind when these new and immature members quit out of desperation because of the horrible atmosphere. People here don't care if the site lacks a "nice ambiance" called for in the site rules. People here don't mind the fact that they're creating a horrid place to socialize in. Even when the site rules, clearly denouncing flaming new and immature members, are explicitly posted, people here either don't care or don't notice. Even moderators don't mind the fact that people here are breaking the rules knowingly and happily, and certain moderators even blatantly advise people to knowingly break site rules.
> 
> Please tell me if any part of my conclusion is incorrect (and state why).


 
It's a little something called initiation. For those who want to jump into the community headfirst (without lurking and getting to know the nuances) there are plenty who are happy to harshly berate them for "cutting in front of" the other new guests who still haven't become accustomed to the people.


----------



## JonWhite (Jan 27, 2011)

ruff48 said:


> there are plenty who are happy to harshly berate them


 
This is my point exactly. How can one become accustomed to such a harsh and unhelpful environment? Who would want to participate in such an evil community? Do we realize the insanity of these actions?


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 27, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> This is my point exactly. How can one become accustomed to such a harsh and unhelpful environment? Who would want to participate in such an evil community? Do we realize the insanity of these actions?


 
Many many cultures participate in acts of hazing as an initiation. The difference between those cultures and ours is that we only haze* in order to keep the environment catered to the experienced members who can help.

*Hazing in our situation just means criticizing posts and posters that don't fit the basic acceptable criteria, such as good grammar and searching before posting. It's not that we enjoy creating hell for new members, we just don't tollerate stupid members.


----------



## JonWhite (Jan 27, 2011)

Do you realize that an immature member might one day become one of the brightest speedcubers in the world? Why ruin their chance? Is it so hard to be nice and politely point out the fault, rather than pure flaming without offering any advice or help?


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 27, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> Do you realize that an immature member might one day become one of the brightest speedcubers in the world? Why ruin their chance? Is it so hard to be nice and politely point out the fault, rather than pure flaming without offering any advice or help?


 
you keep referring to flaming as such a terrible, traumatic experience. Many members today have been flamed on this forum and I bet they would tell you that it made them better members of the forum.

EDIT: I was slightly hesitant to post this because I can't speak for other forum members, but I know this is my experience and if you agree, it'd be nice if you said so.


----------



## JonWhite (Jan 27, 2011)

I admire the fact that you can take harsh flaming posts without getting too upset. However, I believe that the vast majority of people aren't able to do this. If people get flamed, they get angry. Flaming does no good. It doesn't offer ways to solve problems. It doesn't help new members improve. It doesn't do anything but make people mad (and sometimes more immature). Flaming is thus counter-productive, and this is exactly the reason why flaming is frowned upon in the rules.


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 27, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> I admire the fact that you can take harsh flaming posts without getting too upset. However, I believe that the vast majority of people aren't able to do this. If people get flamed, they get angry. Flaming does no good. It doesn't offer ways to solve problems. It doesn't help new members improve. It doesn't do anything but make people mad (and sometimes more immature). Flaming is thus counter-productive, and this is exactly the reason why flaming is frowned upon in the rules.


 
I don't really have a response other then "I think they can take it," but this just caught my eye. In the thread, a relatively new member (25 posts) asks a question that he could easily answer just by looking and that doesn't warrant it's own thread. The responder tells him what he did wrong politely and the member asks another stupid question* that can be answered on the stores website. I bet the user will continue not thinking for himself and I believe his future on the forum could be significantly altered if someone said "How about you just click the little button that says "'shipping'."

*It's stupid because he hasn't given a location to ship too and the kind of shipping is listed on the website.


----------



## tertius (Jan 27, 2011)

MichaelP. said:


> It's not that we enjoy creating hell for new members...


 I seem to believe the contrary. 



MichaelP. said:


> ...we just don't tollerate stupid members.


 But ignorance is abound.


----------



## goatseforever (Jan 27, 2011)

Rofl, there has never been any _real_ flaming on SpeedSolving.com. This site is too family friendly for that.


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 27, 2011)

tertius said:


> I seem to believe the contrary.


That's cool.


tertius said:


> But ignorance is abound.


 You are incorrect sir.

EDIT: Unless you are referring to the people creating stupid threads, in which case, you are correct sir.


----------



## tertius (Jan 27, 2011)

MichaelP. said:


> You are correct sir.


 
Corrected that for you.


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 27, 2011)

tertius said:


> Corrected that for you.


 
The majority of people on this forum are intelligent and looking for a way to have intellectual discussions in an environment not plagued by "How do I get faster????????" and "i ordr cam mess up!" threads.


----------



## tertius (Jan 27, 2011)

MichaelP. said:


> The majority of people on this forum are intelligent and looking for a way to have intellectual discussions...


 
I would agree for the most part. 



MichaelP. said:


> ...in an environment not plagued by "How do I get faster????????" and "i ordr cam mess up!" threads.



This is where I believe that you are a little misguided. 

This is a public forum. A forum where beginners and pros can come together and discuss a hobby/sport. I would like to believe that I can come to family friendly *speed*solving forum to find out "How do I get faster????????" tips. Along the way, the answer could be given of how to get faster *and* correct the extensive question marks issue. 

The "i ordr cam mess up!" is inexcusable. This person should be corrected first before information is given. How can you understand what they are even asking, much less give an informed answer?

What people need to do is rein in their arrogance and 'intelligence'. *If* that was done this would be an idealistic forum, but that is too much to ask for. No matter how many new members get this rule breaking response, it will not stop new members from doing the same thing. This type of thread will always exist as long as this is a public forum.


----------



## CubeLTD (Jan 27, 2011)

MichaelP. said:


> I don't really have a response other then "I think they can take it," but this just caught my eye. In the thread, a relatively new member (25 posts) asks a question that he could easily answer just by looking and that doesn't warrant it's own thread. The responder tells him what he did wrong politely and the member asks another stupid question* that can be answered on the stores website. I bet the user will continue not thinking for himself and I believe his future on the forum could be significantly altered if someone said "How about you just click the little button that says "'shipping'."
> 
> *It's stupid because he hasn't given a location to ship too and the kind of shipping is listed on the website.



And you are absolutely correct when you say that he can learn a lot if someone say "How about you just click the little button that says "'shipping'.", because he'll learn where to find the information. But weren't we arguing how countereffective *flame/hurtful* posts are, which those were not. I'm talking about posts like these 

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?26395-Just-got-an-f2.

You notice not even one person even mention what was wrong with the thread. Not one person said "Hello ____, these type of threads aren't allow on this forums. Type FII are already generally accepted as one of the best cubes on the market. I think you should lurk more, and get a feel of what kind of threads are allow" 

Instead, you have pages of hurtful/spammy posts with sarcastic answers, image macros, and other stuff like "cool story bro" and "ikr". And according to you, posts like those are helpful and are "judicial system of the forum". 

And do you honestly disagree with what I'm saying? In This thread that you made http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?19678-The-quot-Has-This-Thread-Been-Made-Before-quot-Thread You stated yourself that you were hesitant because to post the thread because of the responses you might receive. Obviously you weren't afraid of response disagreeing with you, but instead of sarcastic responses calling your thread stupid and such. If you thought those type of posts are helpful and beneficial to the OP(You) then why so hesitant?


----------



## MichaelP. (Jan 27, 2011)

tertius said:


> This is where I believe that you are a little misguided.
> 
> This is a public forum. A forum where beginners and pros can come together and discuss a hobby/sport. I would like to believe that I can come to family friendly *speed*solving forum to find out "How do I get faster????????" tips. Along the way, the answer could be given of how to get faster *and* correct the extensive question marks issue.


Right, but the unwavering answer to that question is practice.
There is also a multitude of threads with specific details, such as this one http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?3688-Edit-How-to-get-faster-test .
Threads shouldn't be made just to receive links to other threads.




CubeLTD said:


> And you are absolutely correct when you say that he can learn a lot if someone say "How about you just click the little button that says "'shipping'.", because he'll learn where to find the information. But weren't we arguing how countereffective *flame/hurtful* posts are, which those were not. I'm talking about posts like these
> 
> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?26395-Just-got-an-f2.
> 
> ...


 
Ok, the first thread you posted was in response to a troll (I think). Everyone feeds the troll because it's funny and he doesn't care. Nobody needs to tell him he's wrong, because the thread is so fundamentally stupid that if you don't instantly how wrong it is you shouldn't be posting on the forum. You don't gain forum experience through trial and error, but rather through lurking. 

Also, with regard to the thread I made, I love that I have to harshly scrutinize the posts I make. It forces me to be more intelligent and it makes my posts more meaningful. I crave thread ideas that will stimulate the minds of the members of the forum and I do it because I know that if everyone did, it would be mutually beneficial. I wouldn't have this forum any other way.


----------



## ruff48 (Jan 27, 2011)

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?27056-how-2-get-faster

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?27057-wich-cube-should-i-get

Seems like a mighty strange coincidence that these two threads showed up in the fashion that they did.


----------



## tertius (Jan 27, 2011)

Yes, it does.

Even though, a correct and dignified response should be given. It is not my job to be a moderator. 

Now, I immediately thought troll when I saw the post. But, I replied like any member should've and gave helpful advice. Click the report post link if you feel it is a troll/double account.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jan 27, 2011)

ruff48 said:


> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?27056-how-2-get-faster
> 
> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?27057-wich-cube-should-i-get
> 
> Seems like a mighty strange coincidence that these two threads showed up in the fashion that they did.


 
Taken care of.


----------



## EricReese (Jan 27, 2011)

JonWhite said:


> Even moderators don't mind the fact that people here are breaking the rules knowingly and happily, and certain moderators even blatantly advise people to knowingly break site rules.


 
When the bloody hell did you see a post like this?

edit: @Michael


> EDIT: I was slightly hesitant to post this because I can't speak for other forum members, but I know this is my experience and if you agree, it'd be nice if you said so.


I got flamed at when I was knew, I'm glad they did it. I agree with you

edit: to clarify, I got flamed for posting a vid of 45 second avg and asking how to get better. I'm so glad they flamed me. Now I know not to ask questions that are utterly retarded.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jan 27, 2011)

MichaelP. said:


> you keep referring to flaming as such a terrible, traumatic experience. Many members today have been flamed on this forum and I bet they would tell you that it made them better members of the forum.
> 
> EDIT: I was slightly hesitant to post this because I can't speak for other forum members, but I know this is my experience and if you agree, it'd be nice if you said so.


 
I agree with you. I was "flamed" (although it really wasn't that bad) when I was a new member and something of that nature hasn't happened recently at all. Getting flamed for ignorance is just part of learning to become a better member.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Jan 27, 2011)

I once was called a "Poopoo Head."

I cried for months.
MONTHS!


----------

