One-liner posts

[helene_t]

I'm sure Mike also has this set up on his computer, albeit with "I agree with Ken" probably his F4.

Considering the hour tariffs lawyers use to charge me, I am happy to know that you guys program your computers as to enhance your productivity. I am sure your F5 key produces "Let me ***-**** you, it only takes a minute". :P

[Lobowolf]

I think the "agree with" posts (assuming the post being agreed with expounded on the reasoning) are fine, and even useful in that they show that the explanation reflects more than one person's opinion. I usually find "wtp" to be on the obnoxious/arrogant side, and "lol" even moreso.

[sathyab]

it's reassuring to know that a known expert (Such as jdonn or JLOL or Frances etc...) agrees with the point that the other poster is making. Also it's good to know that if a well known poster agrees with my post then I have the idea correct, and don't need to change my line of thought on this particular type of problem.

I think what people find annoying is when the non-experts chime in with their "I agree" posts AFTER the jdonns and JLOLs of the forum have posted. It might be nice to know that you agree with a well known poster, but you don't need to announce it.

If you can on the same wave length at the bridge table, we would be invincible as a pair :P

[awm]

I don't have a problem if some people think they don't get any use out of one liners. Others may. And seriously, what is the alternative? Are we going to have some moderate out all one-liners? It seems like moaning about one-liner responses is like complaining that there is a long line at the department of motor vehicles. Most people will think "Yeah, and....?"

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.

[Echognome]

I understand what you are saying Adam, but a few points:

 

1. If someone posts a clear reasoning that was close to the reasoning that you would think, it doesn't add anything to type the same reasoning. However, it may be helpful to someone that you say that you were thinking along the same lines, so you would like to type "agree with XXX", rather than type the same reasoning over again. Furthermore, say that we have two posts, both with reasoning that come to different conclusions. Along comes Expert Poster who reads the responses and finds one of the posts compelling and along their lines of thinking. Rather than not posting at all, I would rather have Expert Poster say "agree with XXX".

 

2. The WTP depends somewhat on context. I understand the underlying tones of "why are you posting such an obvious problem?" However, it could alternatively be, "this was a very easy decision for me to make," as opposed to "I'm considering 3 or 4 choices and it's close."

 

3. Again, by doing a litmus test of feelings, I don't really think it will lead to anything. Suppose we all come to the conclusion in this thread that one-liners are "bad". So what happens next? People will continue to do one-line responses (if not the current set of now educated posters, then a set of new-to-the-forum posters). Do we flame them? Do we have the moderators delete their posts? Etc.

 

4. I do recognize that the motive may simply be one of education. "I do not like one-line posts, because..." or "One-line posts should be ok, because..." and that may help posters either think before responding or accept one-line posts. I agree with you on that front.

[jdonn]

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.

This I really don't understand. Are you saying that if someone has posted an answer I agree with based on reasoning I agree with that I have no business even responding? I'm egotistical for thinking someone might care about my opinion even if it was already someone else's opinion? Personally when I post a problem I enjoy making a sort of mental note of how many people employed the various lines of reasoning, and also which people. I don't think there is much joy in getting 3 answers and having it stopped because no one can come up with one more point of view.

 

I also use 'agree with' for social reasons. I look out for chances to agree with the reasoning of someone who I may recently have had some disagreements or acrimonious exchanges with. I have always considered that a good way to mend hurt feelings or show that we can be 'over' a prior disagreement.

 

And the "WTP" posts are somewhat insulting to the person who started the thread (who obviously thought it was a problem).

I don't assume anyone's motives. Aren't lots of threads posted to settle an argument between a forum participant and his non-participant partner? Or some problems may be posted because the asker knows what he thinks is right but wants to know if it's a wtp or not! I know I'm repeating things I've said before, but "WTP" is good information as long as someone interprets it constructively. I may use that to realize that a concern I had pointing in the opposite direction is relatively miniscule, for example.

 

You didn't mention it, but I could much more understand your feeling this way about LOL than WTP.

 

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.

That has been tried and it has failed. True lots of times the asker was rude, but I'm one of the most experienced forum participants and I can't remember a single solitary time that anyone took it well when told their problem should be moved to B/I.

[sathyab]

I understand what you are saying Adam, but a few points:

 

1. If someone posts a clear reasoning that was close to the reasoning that you would think, it doesn't add anything to type the same reasoning.  However, it may be helpful to someone that you say that you were thinking along the same lines, so you would like to type "agree with XXX", rather than type the same reasoning over again.  Furthermore, say that we have two posts, both with reasoning that come to different conclusions.  Along comes Expert Poster who reads the responses and finds one of the posts compelling and along their lines of thinking.  Rather than not posting at all, I would rather have Expert Poster say "agree with XXX".

 

2. The WTP depends somewhat on context.  I understand the underlying tones of "why are you posting such an obvious problem?"  However, it could alternatively be, "this was a very easy decision for me to make," as opposed to "I'm considering 3 or 4 choices and it's close." 

 

3. Again, by doing a litmus test of feelings, I don't really think it will lead to anything.  Suppose we all come to the conclusion in this thread that one-liners are "bad".  So what happens next?  People will continue to do one-line responses (if not the current set of now educated posters, then a set of new-to-the-forum posters).  Do we flame them?  Do we have the moderators delete their posts? Etc.

 

4. I do recognize that the motive may simply be one of education.  "I do not like one-line posts, because..." or "One-line posts should be ok, because..." and that may help posters either think before responding or accept one-line posts.  I agree with you on that front.

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.

[sathyab]

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 !

[Echognome]

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.

Given that the winning line involved an endplay, I can't imagine it being a WTP for many posters...

 

But that's just me.

[jdonn]

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.

 

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. ;)

[matmat]

WTF?!

[sathyab]

I think a good way to avoid offensive posts is to have an exclusion-list on a per-user basis. Sort of like an ACL (Access Control List) in some file systems. So if a user "x" wants to exclude posts from say, "jd", "jl", "fl" or "rc" for instance, he builds such a list and it would preclude the listed users from posting messages to a thread started by "x". You can keep the list confidential, so nobody has to know who they're except you. But after a while when you see that the forum is relatively free from posts from the aforementioned users, people might start wondering.

 

The alternative is to use your signature line to accomplish it. Something like "the following people are requested NOT to reply to my threads. While the usefulness of your input may often be questionable, your offensiveness is rarely in question. Fortunately there are enough useful posts from others in the forum, that excluding you from discussion is not a great loss. Thank you"

[jdonn]

This is so unfair. How am I supposed to read a post like the last one and come up with any reply but "LOL sb!"? Too tough. ;)

[mikeh]

I can figure out who jd and jl are.. but who are rc and fl.

 

Anyway, I like the basic idea, so note my signature, please

[jdonn]

I can figure out who jd and jl are.. but who are rc and fl.

 

Anyway, I like the basic idea, so note my signature, please

Should be f and rcl. But they weren't able to correct the error since they are banned from replying! Talk about your catch 22s.

[babalu1997]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

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.

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.