[babalu1997]

Walddk, on Feb 20 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

I think "wtp" and "LOL" answers are arrogant. If posters ask a question, it's a relevant question for them. In my opinion you should either give them a detailed reply or refrain from answering if you think the question (or point) is stupid.

If you think a question is stupid, and you can't help yourself, then at least tell the poster why he/she is wrong ... in a polite fashion.

Roland

Amen.

[Phil]

Echo what Mike says.

Although I will occasionally answer threads with a simple answer, its only because I want to check in and tell others I support 'x'. No different than answering a poll. However, its usually because I'm in a hurry.

Most of the time, not only do I read every response in a thread, but I also spend a lot of time thinking about and answering problems.

The WTP's that really crack me up are when someone posts a play or defense problem. Especially if a good player posts it, theres probably something to actually think about, so when someone says, "oh I lead a diamond back", it tells me that they actually have given very little thought to it. I hope they don't play bridge that way, because its the sign of a player that is too lazy to think.

When someone answers a bidding problem with a LOL, it usually translates into:

a - (LOL) - youre a moron for posting this problem;
b - (LOL) - this is such a simple problem that it doesn't justify me spelling out my reasons for answering, or
c - (LOL) you are just a moron, period, or something else degrading.
d - A combination of a, b or c.

LOL's have become a symbol of arrogance. Their presence makes BBF a less welcome place.

[Lobowolf]

Phil, on Feb 20 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

When someone answers a bidding problem with a LOL, it usually translates into: 

a - (LOL) - youre a moron for posting this problem;
b - (LOL) - this is such a simple problem that it doesn't justify me spelling out my reasons for answering, or
c - (LOL) you are just a moron, period, or something else degrading.
d - A combination of a, b or c.

LOL's have become a symbol of arrogance. Their presence makes BBF a less welcome place.

Just hard to picture that it's something like Grant (insert your favorite unanimous "Great player and a classy guy" choice here) would be saying, if he were contributing. And we could use more like him.

[sathyab]

Phil, on Feb 20 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

Echo what Mike says.

Although I will occasionally answer threads with a simple answer, its only because I want to check in and tell others I support 'x'. No different than answering a poll. However, its usually because I'm in a hurry.

Most of the time, not only do I read every response in a thread, but I also spend a lot of time thinking about and answering problems.

The WTP's that really crack me up are when someone posts a play or defense problem. Especially if a good player posts it, theres probably something to actually think about, so when someone says, "oh I lead a diamond back", it tells me that they actually have given very little thought to it. I hope they don't play bridge that way, because its the sign of a player that is too lazy to think. 

When someone answers a bidding problem with a LOL, it usually translates into: 

a - (LOL) - youre a moron for posting this problem;
b - (LOL) - this is such a simple problem that it doesn't justify me spelling out my reasons for answering, or
c - (LOL) you are just a moron, period, or something else degrading.
d - A combination of a, b or c.

LOL's have become a symbol of arrogance. Their presence makes BBF a less welcome place.

I'm afraid though that you, Mike and other like-minded folks are in the minority on this issue. Look at the number of votes for option (1) in this poll so far. Most networks would have projected that to be the winner if this were a proposition on a ballot.

May be we should have another poll that asks a slightly different question. "How would you like it when someone replies to a serious post of YOURS with a WTP or LOL?"

[orlam]

If someone thinks a choice is clear-cut, then I think it is relevant for the bridge discussion to express that. What is the preferred way of expressing that? Would "definitely 2S" be ok?

[Lobowolf]

orlam, on Feb 20 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

If someone thinks a choice is clear-cut, then I think it is relevant for the bridge discussion to express that. What is the preferred way of expressing that? Would "definitely 2S" be ok?

I realize there's a lot of personal connotation here, but to me, something like "2S seems clear" or even "2S. No second choice" comes off as a lot less arrogant.

[Walddk]

orlam, on Feb 21 2009, 02:20 AM, said:

If someone thinks a choice is clear-cut, then I think it is relevant for the bridge discussion to express that. What is the preferred way of expressing that? Would "definitely 2S" be ok?

Yes, and it won't harm to add "in my view, because ..."

[mikeh]

BTW, my take on it, and the reason I voted 'some other opinion' was that I think there is a clear distinction to be drawn between each of 'I agree with...', wtp? and LOL.

'I agree with x' is something that I often write, altho I will sometimes add an explanatory note or explanation of a wrinkle not in the post to which I was agreeing. I agree with those who suggest that it can, I hope, be useful to the readers to see that a particular line of argument has support from others. I particularly enjoy being able to say 'I agree' in connection with a post from someone who is not, perhaps, recognized as an expert because I think that a lot of people here regard me as one. But most of my 'I agree with' are going to refer to the opinion of an expert, because those opinions will most often accord with mine.

'WTP' is, for me, more of a statement that I didn't think that there was any strong alternative to the choice made... but that is not the same as saying that there was no problem. Sometimes the game is so tough that we are left with nothing but possibly (even probably) losing options... yet one unpleasant option is clearly, imo, best. Other times, the question truly will seem like a very simple, one-answer situation. But they are rare.. and I use wtp rarely, I think. I also think that it is sometimes a way of showing off, and I confess that that has played a role in some of my wtp's.

LOL, otoh, is usually nothing but an arrogant putdown. I have used it myself, and usually at least mildly regretted it on reflection.. even when, on reflection, I tend to think that the poster had it coming, it is still a poor thing to do.

English is a second language to some on this forum. Bridge players come in all ranges of skill, talent, knowledge and experience and apart from the obvious and well-known handful of nutbars, everyone here operates in good faith. We may misunderstand each other. We may miss the point the poster was trying to make. The poster may have missed something basic and discovered it too late, after the post was in (I've done this far more than once, in posting silly answers).

So: I like and will continue to use 'I agree with'. I think there is an occasional need for a 'wtp' and will continue to use it, but on fewer occasions.

I will try to avoid any further LOLs, but probably one or two will leak out when I'm feeling particularly arrogant

[HeavyDluxe]

I picked "Other".

Most of the time, I don't mind these kinds of posts... Often, [talented person] has articulated a reason for why they would do what they do. Repeating all the same things would be a waste, so "I agree with" serves as a vote of affirmation. In threads where there are a number of seemingly viable options available, this helps sort the consensus position. And since there's often more than one way to skin a cat in bridge, such posts are helpful.

However, if "I agree with [talented person]" refers back to a post where [talented person] just said, "4♥, obv" it is decidedly less helpful. A substantial amount of my errors still come from failing to think enough or faulty reasoning. So, the more 'exposition' there is, the better.

The LOL posts raise a di'rent set of issues, methinks. Personally, I have no business LOLing at anyone but myself in this game. I wish I had the talent that some people who post here have (and/or the time to study). I understand the frustration that people who actually understand this game must sometime feel with people whose opinion of their skills far exceeds reality. And I agree that such over-confident folks - maybe I'm one of them - need to be corrected.

Nonetheless, the LOL meme has become overused and almost exclusively 'hostile'.

Bottom line: I wish all posts had something hinged on the word "because"...
"WTP because pard must have at least AKxx Kxx for his bid."
"LOL because you didn't even think about the possibility of a 4-1 break in ♦s."

(One last thing... It took me months to figure out what WTP was when I got on here. My own fault for being to proud to ask. But, another sign that typing more, more often, will help people get more from the discussion.)

[655321]

I like to see "I agree with ..." posts. I hope that nobody is intimidated from posting because of awm's campaign.

My personal opinion about a WTP reply is that there is nothing even mildly pejorative about it - WTP is just a reflection of how clear the answer is to the person posting the response.


Why should people be barred from posting on a thread because someone else has already given an answer? Under the awm regime, many threads could have just 2 posts - a right answer and a wrong answer. No further guidance to a reader who is looking for help, and doesn't know which answer has more support.

Why should people be forced to write an essay when answering a bidding problem? While I love to read a long post by Justin where he explains the bridge logic of an action, there are many other posters whose 1500 word answers explaining why their bid is correct would not be a joy to read.

I happen to think that brevity is often a good thing. But does that mean I should be launching a campaign to force everyone to post in the style I prefer? Of course not. Anyway, a variety of posting styles is a good thing IMO. There is plenty of room on the forums, both for one line posts as well as for long awm posts, and they should all be welcome.

awm, on Feb 20 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

I'd like to think that most posters care at least a little bit about making these forums a fun and friendly place for everyone. If it turns out that a substantial percentage of people find these types of responses annoying, I'd think that many folks could self-censor a little bit and post fewer of them. On the other hand, if almost everyone finds these types of posts useful then the small minority which is annoyed by them could accept this and stop complaining about it.

Certainly it could be that people don't self-censor at all, don't care about the feelings of others, and that enforced censorship by the moderators is the only way to change people's behavior. But I'm not quite cynical enough to believe that yet, despite some evidence...

In any case, I find these sorts of one-liner responses annoying. It is a mild waste of time when there is a new post on some thread and I go to read it only to discover it's "agree with XXX." I also think the "agree" posts are somewhat egotistical, as if it's essential that everyone hear the poster's opinion even though it's exactly the same as someone else's opinion and there's nothing new backing it up. And the "WTP" posts are somewhat insulting to the person who started the thread (who obviously thought it was a problem). Now it's true that perhaps some threads "deserve" the WTP treatment, but at the same time ignoring these threads will usually cause them to disappear, and a gentle comment that the thread might be in the wrong forum could be a less annoying and more productive way to handle the issue.

Hmm. Isn't there a danger that when you post an opinion (fine), but use a long post to do it, that much of the extra wording is just fluff and rationalisation, instead of a set of reasons that logically justify your position?

Let's see.

Quote

Why long, wordy posts with lots of italics are bad:
I'd like to think that most posters care at least a little bit about making these forums a fun and friendly place for everyone. If it turns out that a substantial percentage of people find these types of responses annoying, I'd think that many folks could self-censor a little bit and post fewer of them. On the other hand, if almost everyone finds these types of posts useful then the small minority which is annoyed by them could accept this and stop complaining about it.

Certainly it could be that people don't self-censor at all, don't care about the feelings of others, and that enforced censorship by the moderators is the only way to change people's behavior. But I'm not quite cynical enough to believe that yet, despite some evidence...

In any case, I find these sorts of War and Peace posts annoying. It is a mild waste of time when there is a new post on some thread and I go to read it only to discover it takes 2 pages to say "X is obvious." I also think the very long posts are somewhat egotistical, as if it's essential that everyone hear not only the poster's opinion, but a whole bunch of rationalising to try and back it up. And telling posters that their posts are in the wrong forum is somewhat insulting to the person who started the thread (who obviously thought it was in the right forum). Now it's true that perhaps some threads "deserve" the wrong forum treatment, but at the same time ignoring these threads will usually cause them to disappear, and a gentle comment that the thread might be a WTP could be a less annoying and more productive way to handle the issue.

[qwery_hi]

jdonn, on Feb 20 2009, 01:14 PM, said:

sathyab, on Feb 20 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 20 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

NP w/ them.

That's shocking. Almost as shocking as Dick Cheney saying "I don't have any problem with water-boarding".

(my first) LOL !

A lot more shocking than you choosing the fifth 4-word or shorter post in the thread to LOL immediately after saying the following.

Quote

The other problem with WTPs and LOLs is when people who frequently use them get selective.

Case in point: your recent post of a 3nt play problem in the Burlingame regional. In my opinion it was as close to a WTP as they get and there may be others who share that opinion. And yet most people didn't post one-liners, including the frequent-WTP-LOL crowd. It's hard for me to believe that they wouldn't have been derisive had someone else posted the problem. So while they're offensive quite often, they're not equal-opportunity-offense-dispensers.

It's hard for me to take offense though. I can't tell if you LOLed at my joke, at my comment because you didn't realize it was a joke, or at your joke. Or maybe some other option that hasn't even occured to me.

Nah, LOL is Lots Of Love. What he giving you is lots of love for such a wonderful post. Waiting for them LOL y'all.

[TimG]

655321, on Feb 21 2009, 12:27 AM, said:

snipped

Way too long; didn't read past the 2nd sentence.

[kenberg]

As noted by others, a reasonable translation of "wtp' is "I don't consider other options reasonable". I don't take it as a putdown. Lol might be a putdown, depending on context, I don't fret about it. "Agree with so-and-so" can be useful. Someone says "Of course you should lead a spade". Perhaps I should have. If several other people chime in with the same advice, I guess I really should have led a spade.

Often I like to hear reasons as well, but not always. And a poll doesn't always accomplish the same thing. Recently I asked about 1H-2D-2S-3C, the question was how seriously I should take the club bid. Justin said he played it as natural. It's not a "one man-one vote" situation. I was happy to have his briefly stated, and signed, view. And other views as well.

[awm]

Notice that it is possible to start polls in the forums.

If you want a vote on how many people would do one thing versus another, you start a poll. This is much easier and more concise than counting the "XXX WTP" and "Agree with YYY" replies.

If you want a discussion, it is annoying when instead of discussing the topic at hand, people use the space to tell you that your problem is not a problem, to LOL at you, and to kiss up to their favorite expert poster by agreeing with them, sometimes before they even posted a reply. Of course, it is also annoying when people change the subject and make long posts about something else in your thread.

And after people complained about the amount of italics and bold face in my posts, I have cut down on those (admittedly not to zero, but cut down).

[jdonn]

awm, on Feb 21 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

And after people complained about the amount of italics and bold face in my posts, I have cut down on those (admittedly not to zero, but cut down).

So since, by the current poll results, 26 people like such answers outright, 8 people sometimes do, and 10 people don't, is it fair to say it's reasonable for people to keep doing it?

[hanp]

It is very valuable to me if bidding questions receive several answers from world class players that say things like "clear pass for me", "obvious 4S", "double wtp", "agree with orlam" and so on. I often skip long answers.

In the B/I forum such comments are typically not useful.

Lately we have seen a fair number of short answers that were meant as insults. They tend to come across as such and don't make the forum a nicer place. On the other hand, if these insults were more articulate I doubt it would be any better.

[hanp]

Oh and polls are absolutely useless.

[JoAnneM]

I don't post bridge hands here because I am not an expert, and I think it is required. But I do post director and administrative type stuff, and on those posts it is always nice to have an explanation whether agreeing or disagreeing.

[TimG]

awm, on Feb 21 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

If you want a vote on how many people would do one thing versus another, you start a poll. This is much easier and more concise than counting the "XXX WTP" and "Agree with YYY" replies.

It's very important to know who is voting for which option. Counting "agree with" replies from respected posters is much more useful than looking at poll results.

[sathyab]

jdonn, on Feb 21 2009, 01:01 PM, said:

awm, on Feb 21 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

And after people complained about the amount of italics and bold face in my posts, I have cut down on those (admittedly not to zero, but cut down).

So since, by the current poll results, 26 people like such answers outright, 8 people sometimes do, and 10 people don't, is it fair to say it's reasonable for people to keep doing it?

Yes, people have spoken in this regard, although as I noted earlier, I am not sure you would get as many votes in favor of one-liners had the question been posed as "How would you like a dismissive reply to a serious post of yours ?".

Had there been only one or two votes against one-liners the only practical solution would have been to advise them to grow a thicker skin and endure it. But that number is a sizeable minority, so we might want to look for a solution that accommodates both positions.

In an unmoderated group such as this, the rights of those who post something that might be objectionable is protected, whereas the rights of those who don't want to see such objectionable material is not protected at all. You have to allow individuals to exercise control over replies to their posts. Making this a moderated group will solve some problems, but create quite a few of its own. I believe there is a better solution, below.

Examples of this kind of control already exist. On both BBO and OKBridge, a host that serves a table can be selective about who gets to play or kibitz at his table. Chat from kibitzers can be filtered on a per-player basis. It shouldn't be too hard to extend this model to this forum.