OT, unless you think frank discussion is on topic: Reply Etiquette

[Josh Tarble]

Good post Jason.  I agree with you completely.

And please correct me if you are wrong, but I don't think you are talking about "trolling" or kicking anyone out or anything like that...god knows you do enough of it yourself    But you are just talking in general readability of the threads.  Its fine and dandy if it's a two-person thread, but in general makes it extremely difficult for group participation.

[Mac Plumart]

Jason...

I think it is that some people want debate versus discussion. Debate entails arguments and a winner. Discussion entails conversation, discovery, and understanding.  

I like discussion, personally.

[Terry Lavin]

We have moderators. Maybe they are too moderate for some, based on the wailing and gnashing of teeth, but they do their job. There are other sites where the moderator simply erases posts that he disagrees with. Maybe the small handful of the disaffected can linger there.

[Josh Tarble]

I have argued lots of times with Sean, Mark Pearce and Jon Wiggett. I consider them all friends. I have met Sean a couple of times, and have Mark Pearce as a facebook friend and want to see Jon's course (it is just a long way up). It is a discussion group and if we all agreed on everything it would be a waste of time. I don't think Jason is talking about arguments

Grasses behave differently in different places it is good to get both sides sometimes, I find this site educational and expect many of the bigger names do too I know I find this site very educational and filled with extremely smart and great-writing people.  

 I know I have learned. It's just that it's much easier to learn when it's a well written and constructed paragraph vs. a choppy and segmented, colored reply.

It is a shame the Pat behaves as he does, maybe he will see this thread and change, lots of people say he is a great bloke 'live'. There was a chap on here that lost his job for his internet comments, some people get weird behind a steering wheel and I guess some with a keyboard.  I don't have a problem with Pat or anyone's opinion on here.  

This site has a huge amount of onlookers as well that use this for resource. How often do we hear "I want to be a golf course architect, what should I do"...well there might be some do's and don'ts but being part of this group is a good DO. But many times I like to read more than post and  I just wish people would consider readers vs. their opponent in an argument.

It is a shame that people leave this site, driven away by what amounts to trolling. Not having a moderator is a weak part about this great forum.

I don't think Jason is talking about arguments.  I know I find this site very educational and filled with extremely smart and great-writing people.  It's just that it's much easier to learn when it's a well written and constructed paragraph vs. a choppy and segmented, colored reply.  I don't have a problem with Pat or anyone's opinion on here.  But many times I like to read more than post and  I just wish people would consider readers vs. their opponent in an argument.

Don't you find my paragraph easier to read than the one I dissected to reply to you?  That's all this thread is about.

[BCowan]

Josh

   You made many good points.  Sometimes i find it easier to break it down and reply to sentences especially long winded paragraphs.  When it gets multi colored it does get a little tougher.  Little easier due to a poor short memory. 

    I think that many people are turned away due to rude and sarcastic people. If one just responds in paragraph form it is likely to go back to paragraph form.  I agree with Ron M., that this would be solved really quickly if someone doesn't like something, just send a nice PM to the person and they would be more inclined to change. 

[Jim Nugent]

I can only speak for myself, but as soon as it gets to a few coloured quotes I don't read the posts.  Its too hard to dicipher who wrote what - I even think the posters get confused at times.  I don't care for the line by line response style either, but I ignore that as well.  I think once it gets a handful of posts into that level its basically a one on one conversation and thats fine.  There isn't much point in asking Mucci to knock off his nonsense because he has been doing it forever and will not stop. The man wants to wind people up more than anything.  So we may as well just carry on. 

Ciao

My wife is a psychiatrist and she often describes scenarios when it is obvious that someone is going off the rails but little can be done about it because they have no insight. Until it all crashes spectacularly. Hitting bottom, as Americans say.

I've never met Pat in person, or talked to him, but my hunch is that you are all way, way off the mark about what he does here and what the DG means to him.  

Whatever you think of his point of view, or way of expressing it, he is one of the smartest people on the forum.  Paul Gray is, too, btw, or so I think.  

[Peter Pallotta]

(Bill, Colin - thanks for the kind words.)

Jason - I can only note what I'd like to see more of, and that's a kind of expansiveness and generosity (of spirit, of ideas). I'd like to see more folks reading the whole of someone else's post, trying a little harder to get the overall substance and underlying meaning/pov of a post instead of focusing on one or two lines in isolation or one poorly phrased clause and making that the poster's main point, only to then tear it down. I'm not thinking of any one poster here, we all do it. And it's not that it's rude or mean, it's just that it leads to mediocre discussion and banal points-counterpoints. In other words, yes, let's disagree (or not), but let's disagree about something substantial instead of insignificant/totally made up. Imagine a superintendent writing a long thoughtful expert post on what he believes needs to happen to ensure sustainable golf courses, but buried half way through is a little aside about width not being as important as some people think -- and then imagine me jumping in and basically ignoring all the insight and ideas and big picture and instead highlighting the one concept I take exception to and making that and the whole rest of the thread about how "width is very important".  It's boring, and annoying, and demonstrates that few of us have the good grace to pay deference to those whom deference is due.

Peter

[Adam Warren]

I haven't been here very long, but I have to agree on the multicolored, picking at certain sentences points of this topic.  When I start seeing the colors and other tactics mentioned here, I generally just scroll on past and see if anything else is of interest.  It is not easy to read, nor are they generally easy to follow.  It is much easier to follow by a well constructed paragraph, with perhaps the quote of the post for the intended reply.  I feel like there are a lot of people who may have great responses that are being missed because people feel the need to reply in this manner.

As far as Mucci goes, I honestly have ready very few of his posts beyond the start of the thread.  A great deal of that is generally because of his long, other-colored replies.  Therefore, I don't really have an opinion on him becasue I refuse to read the tiny colored print.  I understand he has been doing it for some time, but this is another instance where whatever his goal may be, he is not getting the replies he might be searching for because people are just skipping over the responses because of how they are visually constructed.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Once you remove Pat who will be next? 

You or me.


Each time you've been kicked out you've come back better behaved.  So I conclude it works.

[Garland Bayley]

... I'd like to see more folks reading the whole of someone else's post, trying a little harder to get the overall substance and underlying meaning/pov of a post instead of focusing on one or two lines in isolation or one poorly phrased clause and making that the poster's main point, only to then tear it down. ...

Peter,

I'm a mathematician. A mathematical proof is made of valid assertion, after valid assertion to the end. If any one of them is invalid, it needs to be singled out as it invalidates the argument. If each and every one of them is invalid, the whole thing is rubbish.

[Sean_A]

I'm a mathematician. A mathematical proof is made of valid assertion, after valid assertion to the end. If any one of them is invalid, it needs to be singled out as it invalidates the argument. If each and every one of them is invalid, the whole thing is rubbish.

Mathematical proof?  Is that what we do?  If so, we haven't proved very much  .

Ciao

[Jud_T]

The real problem is that we are often communicating by the equivalent of impulse text.  We don't see the whole context, the body language and facial expressions which are a big part of human communication, at least they were before the internet and smart phones.  We really should all get in the habit of using the little preview button at the bottom of the reply box and reviewing our first draft before we fire it off.  I know that I have certainly stated things in a fashion that didn't get my REAL point across in succinct fashion and posters have glommed onto a specific word or phrase and missed my larger point entirely (and I was an English Major!); but the point is WHAT ELSE DO THEY HAVE TO GO BY?.  It's also much easier once you've met a guy face to face, so that you know whether to take what he says with a grain of salt or not (hello Jason!).  There's very few people I've met at GCA events that I wouldn't be happy to tee it up or have a cold one with, but you'd never know it simply from reading some of the missives fired here.  Perhaps it's best to use the Golden Rule when it comes to posting.  It's possible to strongly disagree and have a civil argument without pouring grain alcohol on your keyboard and lighting it on fire.  I'm only learning this late in life myself.  The trick is to maintain the humor and integrity of the debate on the site without calling out the censors and political correctness hawks.

[Ryan Coles]

I think a lot of it comes down to whether you use the site to read or whether you come here to write.

I visit to predominantly read. I've found lots of threads very educational, for example I've changed our summer green fee rates as a result of what I've read here. I've also encouraged our head green keeper and greens committee members to read certain threads.

How many times do we read posts where someone's intelligence or comprehension is questioned? It's just plain rude and as stated earlier, lacks generosity.

[Jason Thurman]

As was pointed out to me yesterday in a funny private message, it is a little bit silly for someone with a South Park-inspired avatar to feign offense at anything. I definitely don’t want anyone disciplined for the way they format their replies. That’s not the point at all. And as I mentioned in the original post, this isn’t about Pat. His posts are like the 17th at Sawgrass – maybe you love them and maybe you hate them, but the style is original to him and it’s unfair to hold him accountable for all the tiresome copycats who came along later. If you're looking for the quarterly Mucci-Bash thread, you should start your own.

My only real goal with this thread is to call attention to the fact that it really sucks to try to read through multicolored, broken apart replies. Josh Tarble gave a great example in his post. We’re not writing comments in the margins while grading term papers here, we’re having discussions. And Josh’s post still stops one step short, because the first reply isn’t impossible to read. It’s when the second reply happens in a third color of font that the whole thing turns into a giant blob of unreadable nonsense.

Consider this an illegibility awareness campaign. Awareness is the only goal. I’m not looking for personality transplants, forum suspensions, or tighter moderation. I just would love it if we all challenged ourselves to form more coherent thoughts instead of disparate snipes.

[Jason Thurman]

It's also much easier once you've met a guy face to face, so that you know whether to take what he says with a grain of salt or not (hello Jason!)

I worked with a girl for six months who couldn't ever tell when I was being serious or kidding. One day she came into my office and asked me how she could tell, and if there was some sort of trick.

I told her, "Gina, it's simple. I don't think stupid things. So if I say something that sounds stupid, I'm kidding. If I say something that sounds intelligent, I'm serious."

My language is basically 30% English and 70% irony and pop culture quotes.

[George Pazin]

I just would love it if we all challenged ourselves to form more coherent thoughts instead of disparate snipes.

Might as well throw in a hope for world peace and no hungry children...

 

[Garland Bayley]

I'm a mathematician. A mathematical proof is made of valid assertion, after valid assertion to the end. If any one of them is invalid, it needs to be singled out as it invalidates the argument. If each and every one of them is invalid, the whole thing is rubbish.

Mathematical proof?  Is that what we do?  If so, we haven't proved very much  .

Ciao

We present logical arguments. A mathematical proof is a valid logical argument for the truth of something.
When Pat Mucci supports the premise that Jack Nicklaus was a good wedge player with the assertion that his only short comings over the current crop of players is that he didn't have a gap wedge, then his argument is invalid, because Jack always carried a gap wedge with the letter P stamped on the bottom.

[John Kavanaugh]

Every good story needs a villain.  As evidenced by this thread most of the "contributors" on this site have little to say unless the tea cart of their little world is tousled.  

[Jon Wiggett]

I have to say I agree with Adrian's post #24. We have had disagreements about quite a few things but my respect for Adrian is very high and I hope he makes it up this way for a game on my place. I also agree that the best course of action with the Troll is not to engage with him. I did stop for a while last year but maybe it is time to stop again. Life is too short.

Jon

[George Pazin]

Every good story needs a villain.  As evidenced by this thread most of the "contributors" on this site have little to say unless the tea cart of their little world is tousled.  

Hence your role as self-appointed Cart Tousler.

You're a giver, John.

God, I admire you...

-----

Jon W, perhaps another option would be to respond as though the person wasn't a troll, and simply answer the questions/challenges/whatever. You and Adrian are certainly two of the better posters on the site, it's a shame to have you adopt a tactic that may not be necessary.

[John Kavanaugh]

Every good story needs a villain.  As evidenced by this thread most of the "contributors" on this site have little to say unless the tea cart of their little world is tousled.  

Hence your role as self-appointed Cart Tousler.

You're a giver, John.

God, I admire you...

-----

Jon W, perhaps another option would be to respond as though the person wasn't a troll, and simply answer the questions/challenges/whatever. You and Adrian are certainly two of the better posters on the site, it's a shame to have you adopt a tactic that may not be necessary.

But George, I do not recall a post from you in years that wasn't on one of these threads wanting someone removed.  I don't understand your anger.

[George Pazin]

But George, I do not recall a post from you in years that wasn't on one of these threads wanting someone removed.  I don't understand your anger.

 

John, this is either the most dishonest post I've ever seen on here, or you have a serious problem with reading comprehension and/or your memory. I'm quite certain none of my posts have ever called for anyone being removed, nor have any even supported the notion. And I've defended Pat many many many times on here, both publicly and privately (not that he needs my support).

You're correct in one sense: I haven't contributed many original architectural thoughts in quite awhile, mostly just because I don't believe I've had any that met my standards. I do occasionally post on other threads, but you are correct in noting my participation in threads like these; where you're wrong is inferring any anger. I've always tried to be a calming voice, and I'm guessing most (besides you, that is) can see this. That was the entire impetus behind the Get To Know series, even though it admittedly failed spectacularly in that regard. At least a few (besides you, again) seemed to enjoy it.

Have a good one, John, if that's possible.

[John Kavanaugh]

But George, I do not recall a post from you in years that wasn't on one of these threads wanting someone removed.  I don't understand your anger.

 

John, this is either the most dishonest post I've ever seen on here, or you have a serious problem with reading comprehension and/or your memory. I'm quite certain none of my posts have ever called for anyone being removed, nor have any even supported the notion. And I've defended Pat many many many times on here, both publicly and privately (not that he needs my support).

You're correct in one sense: I haven't contributed many original architectural thoughts in quite awhile, mostly just because I don't believe I've had any that met my standards. I do occasionally post on other threads, but you are correct in noting my participation in threads like these; where you're wrong is inferring any anger. I've always tried to be a calming voice, and I'm guessing most (besides you, that is) can see this. That was the entire impetus behind the Get To Know series, even though it admittedly failed spectacularly in that regard. At least a few (besides you, again) seemed to enjoy it.

Have a good one, John, if that's possible.

The Get to Know You Series.  I apologize, I forgot about that boondoggle. 

[George Pazin]

The Get to Know You Series.  I apologize, I forgot about that boondoggle. 

boon·dog·gle
noun
1.
work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.
"writing off the cold fusion phenomenon as a boondoggle best buried in literature"
verb
1.
waste money or time on unnecessary or questionable projects.

-----

When you're right, you're right.

[Rich Goodale]

I personally do not look seriously at any post which involves interjecting comments between copied cut and pastes, particularly when colors are involved.  Anybody who wants to say something should say so in their own words, with as little reference to anolther's post as possible.