ONE LINE RESPONSES

OldSeer> are you implying that this rule is stupid or useless? its seems that way.

If you have a group that are regulars they do in fact get to know one another in time. And if a topic pro is stated by Tom and con is started by Bill, and there is nothing else to add but to agree one way or the other yes unless you want us to run a more than 1 liner to agree or disagree with the stated topic sort of streaching it out to adhere to the 1 liner rule it is a little silly to just say the same thing in a different way but meaning the same thing.

Where a "I agree" would say the same thing and take up alot less bandwidth.

The site and forum will become a community not just to the outside world that might veiw it but also sort of intra to the regular posters on it.

A Quote with I agree or I disagree I would not consider 1 liners. Or a I agree Knowing It would be the next post.

Ya, Hoo Ra, Ata boy ect ect I would consider 1 liners.

A 2 minute script run deleting 30 words or less would be faster than U2Us also, just say aliens took the posts

OldSeer, are your eyes closed? Open them elsewise you are a NoSeer!
First off, it is irritating to check up on a thread that has a new post only to find you wasted your breaktime at work waiting for the crummy company computer to open a window to find it is a post that carries the the universal information of "Me, too!! ". If this is common board practice and is acceptable on all other boards, thank God we are different.

The other thing is the board is set up to reward posters for contributing to the board with points. We have had problems with people basically spamming the board with one-line garbage to drive their points up. This adds clutter that is not needed.

Now, if all this is not acceptable to you, I'm sorry. This is not a democracy, however, the board is privately owned and as with all other boards, the owner has a direction he wants and a level of quality he wants.

What is even more annoying then "me too" responses are those completely off topic chit-chat one-line remarks about avatars, hot babes or whatever, in the middle of a serious discussion, followed by an endless line of these ---> , now thats a real discussion killer, because then others will reply in same manner trying to be equaly "witty" and no serious dicussion is possible anymore.
So, I am all for punishing such individuals

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
well when some one writes a 10 page post that is total crapola with more than questionable sources and utterly ridiculous premises that by the time you're done reading it and are just appalled at the amount of logic impairment it would take to actually post it never mind waste other peoples time who read it I don't think it's very much of a offense to simply post "thanks for wasting my time."

I'm curious now, John. This is the second time you have admitted some type of attention deficit disorder or something. What is your problem with posts that have more than 50 words in them? And why do you feel the need to inform some one who has an opinion other than yours that they "have wasted your time". Whether you realize it or not, 10 words into a post you can stop reading. If you devote significant time (and apparently hardship) to reading a lengthy post, YOU wasted your time...not the writer.

Get over it.

I believe that one day there will be many intelligent conversations amongst those who think they already know everything and are too good to teach the others through facts.

Originally posted by OldSeer Oh man I laughed so hard when I got one my false teeth flew out. lol

This makes you special?

I have run and been on forums since the old bbs days and this is a new one.

Then you really haven't been around that long. These have been suggested digital community etiquette rule-of-thumb guidelines since there were digital communities and list serves. By helping to develop threads that are easy to follow, easy to read, and contain a limited amount of me-too-isms, you represent that you respect the reader and the other contributors of the thread.

I think it's a step in the right direction. Especially the quoting entire posts thing. I just dont get why people dont just quote the section they wish to reply to instead of quoting the entire thing. Its irritating and it has to stop. As to the one liners well I have mixed feelings on it since you can sometimes express your opinion on something without bull$hitting and beating around the bush. But hey rules are rules.

Originally posted by drunk OldSeer> are you implying that this rule is stupid or useless? its seems that way.

Above is an example of an acceptable one line post.

Originally posted by drinkie wow cool

Example of an unacceptable one line post. [Edited on 26-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm curious now, John. This is the second time you have admitted some type of attention deficit disorder or something. What is your problem with posts that have more than 50 words in them? And why do you feel the need to inform some one who has an opinion other than yours that they "have wasted your time". Whether you realize it or not, 10 words into a post you can stop reading. If you devote significant time (and apparently hardship) to reading a lengthy post, YOU wasted your time...not the writer.

Get over it.

Oh please. Insult me because I didn't like your post? That's almost mature. Yes I gave you a 1 liner because you did waste my time and I wanted to express that without wasting more of my time pointing out all the incredible leaps of logic it would of taken to swallow your point. There's no need to get nasty about it.

Well, in the past I got either a warning or 50 points off for the excessive quote thing. At the time, I wondered why I had been singled out. But, I now try to follow the rule, and it makes snese to do partial quotes, IMO. When you quote the whole reply, how will folks know what you are replying to?
IMHO, the IS too much mass quoting. How much time does it take to remove the unnecessary sentences??

As far as one-liners, it should be a no-brainer.
All we need to do is use our common sense, guys.

Originally posted by J0HNSmithYes I gave you a 1 liner because you did waste my time

So... let me get this straight... you continued to read a long post you didn't like... then complained it wasted your time? I'm confused.

You're sure showing a level of incomprehension that's hard to swallow. There is no "point" to the 911 article. It is a review of historical documents. Maybe dealing with real documents is what is throwing you for a loop. There is no "premise" and I have no "point".

Maybe SO will show pity on you and create an Onomatopoeic forum so that you can pick your favorite cartoon character and reduce the load on your wee li'l brain to picking from ZAP, BUZZ, BANG, AND BOINK buttons to fill your li'l bubbles. Monosyllabic communications may be all you can handle.


[Edited on 4-26-2004 by Valhall]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
So... let me get this straight... you continued to read a long post you didn't like... then complained it wasted your time?

I'm confused.

That about sums it up. It's not like I read the first paragraph and decided I didn't like it but kept reading. Although people who don't like howard stern listen to his show, it's not like this is some amazing new concept.

Originally posted by J0HNSmith That about sums it up. It's not like I read the first paragraph and decided I didn't like it but kept reading.

Amazing. The it wasn't a waste of time, despite what you say. Because it seems there was nothing else for you to do. If you're reading material you dislike in the first place... that sounds like you have time to wate anyway... so reading is hardly a waste of time. Now, if you were watching some mindless "Joe Millionaire 7" reality TV show... yes, that might be a waste of time.

Originally posted by Valhall
You're sure showing a level of incomprehension that's hard to swallow. There is no "point" to the 911 article. It is a review of historical documents. Maybe dealing with real documents is what is throwing you for a loop. There is no "premise" and I have no "point".

Maybe SO will show pity on you and create an Onomatopoeic forum so that you can pick your favorite cartoon character and reduce the load on your wee li'l brain to picking from ZAP, BUZZ, BANG, AND BOINK buttons to fill your li'l bubbles. Monosyllabic communications may be all you can handle.


[Edited on 4-26-2004 by Valhall]

Does insulting people make you feel better about yourself because you are sure doing it a lot here. You're also distorting what I said. With the type of reasoning and animosity I see you displaying here I think you need to get a shrink or maybe reconcile with that bully who stole your money in 5th grade. I didn't do anything to you, there's no need to be hostile. This is the type of reasoning that started this whole thing.

Originally posted by J0HNSmith I didn't do anything to you, there's no need to be hostile. This is the type of reasoning that started this whole thing.

I might disagree. Check your U2U, and keep this out of a thread announcing policy to members. no more

Sometimes one-liners are necessary. It's not the length of the post, but what message or comment it portrays. Spare me the minimum word length speech, please. Sometimes, it's also nice to add a comment about someone's post, without necessarily typing out a full thesis on it. I think ATS is a bit anal about a few things. I can see if certain individuals make a habit of it, but if it's an occasional thing, just let it go. Everyone is guilty of a one-liner every so often.

[Edited on 4-26-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Satyr I think ATS is a bit anal about a few things.

See above: ^ jump up link ^ We're not saying everyone one-liner would get a warning. I hope most members can tell the difference. [Edited on 26-4-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

I see what you're saying.

(See, this is what I mean. Is this an "acceptable" one line post...if I hadn't added this, I mean? And if not, how are we to know which ones are acceptable? I've been warned for one liners that I thought should've been acceptable.)

[Edited on 4-26-2004 by Satyr]