@wirestyle22 said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?: @kelly said in What is your perspective on the overall tone of interactions here on ML?: First off, I do not want to have some kind of discussion about civility or point fingers. However, I have noticed from a number of threads that there is a general tendency in the community to find something about a post/topic/thread that is wrong/inaccurate/incomplete and focus on that item to the (to me) detriment of the overall thread. Am I being too sensitive, or can this be a somewhat hostile place at times? (Telling me that I'm wrong here is not being hostile, btw.) When I first came here I thought the need for absolute perfection (semantics as an example) was a negative, but I can honestly say that isn't the case. I have been much more accurate with what I am discussing on interviews and it's directly related to this community. At the same time a thread becomes naturally hostile when someone attacks the person instead of the concept being discussed, regardless of how wrong they are. I've been incorrect a lot of the time and when civil discourse occurs it's extremely beneficial for everyone. It's a good point... Learning to be more specific in the questions you are asking, and expecting results and answers based on your question.

ownedCloud.

@dustinb3403 said in Copying Content from other sources: Here is a wonderful deployment! I want some of that vine-themed network cable.

@Dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette: @scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette: @dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette: @dave247 said in Forum Posting Etiquette: @scottalanmiller said in Forum Posting Etiquette: @dashrender said in Forum Posting Etiquette: I do like the idea of many smaller posts - but it also runs into the problem of many thing to respond to at once. While I'm no where near as fast as Scott, I can typically type two to three small posts before the OP (or anyone other than Scott) replies to my first reply. So unlike your I like red. So do I, but have you considered orange, no but, ... you aren't having a real back and forth because you run into the same problem as the wall of text issue. I real time conversation where all involved parties get the information simultaneously, in a forum you have people jumping in in the middle and fleeing, or someone who just throws out 5 ideas, each in their own post before any responses are made, and eventually many people just stop reading anything but the last few posts. I'm not sure you can solve this problem, but it's just good to know it's there. But smaller posts make it easier to respond. No matter how much time you have, making it faster and easier helps you. Wall of text in the same situation would mean no ability to respond at all. I noticed this with how you post back in Spiceworks and I was like, what the hell is this guy doing. But having broken up posts to respond to is kind of nice. It becomes not nice when there are many of them peppered throughout the whole forum page. Then you have to scroll around like crazy to find what it is you need to respond to. This was my point - in other words both situations lead to the same end, people not reading/responding to posts. Keep in mind what you are implying here... that there is a post that is so long, that if responded to, people won't respond. So the answer is to... not respond? Doesn't that suggest two things... Not responding would make it worse, not better - because it would just make the thing that you don't want to have happen, happen earlier? That the source of the issue is the original post(s) that created a situation where you already don't like the length that it would take to respond to them? Well frankly, due to the organic nature of so many of our and other threads, anything more than about 30 posts deep become near pointless as almost no new comer will read the entire thread before responding. If you're lucky, they'll read the OP and the last 4-5 posts very likely repeating something someone already said. The difference being that with a wall of text you can cause people to leave the conversation in a single go, rather than after a long thread has happened, because you have to read so much to even figure out the context. That's part of the point - people use it when they want to stop people from bothering to respond. It's all about upping the "minimum point of response" to make it too much effort or too time consuming for people to bother responding. So it only makes sense to use when you know you are wrong already and want to silence opposition. If you truly want to find answers, or don't believe what you are saying is false, then it has no benefits.