Should people who can't even spell be allowed to post in the Intellectual Roundtable?

[Xenon]

I don't know if I like the idea of allowing just anyone to post in the intellectual round table. Shouldn't someone add some rules about a limit to how many spelling errors someone can have in a single post before they are not allowed to post here for a while?

I see threads full of people who can't even spell intellectual trying to argue about all sorts of things. People who don't even know the difference between "to", "too" and "two".

What does everyone else think? I am not mentioning any names either. I don't want to turn this into a flaming war, I just want to know what the other frequenters of this part of the forums think about how poor a speller or how lousy someone's grammar can be before it is called unacceptable and better confined to whatever this forum's equivalent of "Chit Chat" is.

[Whiteknight]

Well, just because someone can't spell doesn't mean they don't have their own valid opinion to voice. It just makes it somewhat harder to read.

I WOULD like to see posts with less errors in this forum, though. If people would at least spell check it, that would be fine.

[Garrec]

The Intellectual Roundtable is supposed to be for serious debates. Personally, I think forums are the kind of place where you should sound intelligible. After all, the reason you registered was because you could take part in the discussion and have your voice heard, right? There's a place for acronyms and shortcuts with typing, and in my opinion, that's acceptable with chatting. Here in a forum, you can type a lengthy message, include all kinds of opinions and such, and if you have the time to write the message, you should have time to actually write out whole words or at least review what you've written. I know that some occasional typos may be unavoidable, but everyone makes mistakes. If you type something like "I have 2 agree wit you on yur opinion", that's not really serious enough to be in the Intellectual Roundtable. The most common "word" throughout the forums is probably "teh".

What really starts to annoy me is when there are typos in the thread names. For something that's just a one line statement or question, there's really no reason why you can't take an extra second to double check your spelling.

I don't mean to offend anybody, but's that's just how I feel.

[Scipio7777777]

i think that typing isn't everything i make all A grades except for my keyboarding class where i got a C+ because i have a handicap wiht typing for some odd reason it does not mean that i am a complete dolt or simpleton it just means i have trouble typing

[BSTRhino]

The whole reason the idea of serious discussion was brought up originally was because we used to have threads where we were having discussions, and people would come in, throwing around joke remarks, not putting effort into putting intelligent thoughts into the discussion. I believe the intellectual roundtable serves the same purpose here, to divide the two different mindsets.

I would definitely agree to the idea of a certain minimum level of coherency, which is necessary to make a believable point. But, such things are outside the main goal of the intellectual roundtable, which is to make sure people stay on topic and hold a certain level of maturity when disagreeing. For example, a lot of people will have opinions on 'Does God exist?' even though they may not be able to express it with correct spelling and grammar. So, even though minimum literacy levels would be nice, whether we should enforce it is discussion in itself.

I think, we should wait for the more experienced Intellectual Roundtable moderators to lay down the rules.

[hammocksleeper]

Spelling is not equal to coherency. And I could kick all your asses at a spelling/grammar competition, so for your own sakes y'all better not make some fancy regulation disallowing people who misspell to post.

[Draix]

Good god i can't believe you actually made a thread about this. I must have pissed you off.

[Xenon]

Spelling is not equal to coherency. And I could kick all your asses at a spelling/grammar competition, so for your own sakes y'all better not make some fancy regulation disallowing people who misspell to post.
Is that a challenge? Oooh! I so love challenges!

Personally, I don't really want to hear anything from anyone who types so poorly they can't be bothered to use proper punctuation. I am not talking about some misplaced commas or run-on sentences, I am talking about people who can't even capitalize correctly or who think periods are just something that girls get every month.

No offence intended Scipio, but people who post in a similar style to you (with regards to sentence structure, punctuation and grammar) sound boorish and mean. You may be one of the smartest people alive, but I'll never know because I won't take any of your posts seriously. So many errors makes me think; "Here's a person who is too lazy to type a decent sentence. If he's that lazy with something so simple, why the hell should I listen to him at all?".

[So_Dam_Insane]

I don't know if I like the idea of allowing just anyone to post in the intellectual round table. Shouldn't someone add some rules about a limit to how many spelling errors someone can have in a single post before they are not allowed to post here for a while?
Xenon, you and all the other people who believe that ones spelling and grammer defines his/her intelligence are nothing but a bunch of petty bigots. People can be extremely intelligent and still make spelling errors. To even think about denying them the right to post a message because of their little or even big spelling/grammer errors is nothing short of predjudice. Not everyone has been raised to think that "the spelling makes the man." Even If someones spelling is unbearably bad, you're not obligated to read what they post. So whats the problem?

You people make me sick.

[Valjean]

I somewhat agree with Xenon.

I don't think mispellings and bad grammar should be outlawed, just fronwed upon.

However, I do feel that chat speak and 1337 speak should be outlawed in the Intellectual Roundtable.

[BSTRhino]

So_Dam_Insane, like I said before, the goal of the Intellectual Roundtable forum is to maximise the satisfaction for a targetted group of people. If behaviour of certain people diminish the satisfaction for this targetted group, then we have good reason to ban such behaviour, as it is in direct contradiction to the goal of the forum.

This leads me on to my next point. So_Dam_Insane, any more posts from you that contain direct personal insults such as 'You people make me sick' and 'dipstick' they will be deleted.

[Xenon]

SO_Dam_Insane, I am not disagreeing with the fact that great minds can be terrible spellers, but I feel that there should be some sort of minimum standards for inclusion in the intellectual roundtable discussions. I really don't want to see uncapitalized sentences, incorrect contractions and poor spelling. Everyone makes typos on occasion, but repeatedly ignoring all the rules of grammar in my opinion shouldn't be allowed.

Also, I think when it comes to subjective things like people's opinions on certain things where no one is trying to prove a fact they shouldn't have to be exposed to personal attacks. Furthermore, I think if they are attacked personally, they should at their own discretion be allowed to respond in kind --to a point.

[Draix]

SO_Dam_Insane, I am not disagreeing with the fact that great minds can be terrible spellers, but I feel that there should be some sort of minimum standards for inclusion in the intellectual roundtable discussions. I really don't want to see uncapitalized sentences, incorrect contractions and poor spelling. Everyone makes typos on occasion, but repeatedly ignoring all the rules of grammar in my opinion shouldn't be allowed.I have to agree with that.

Personally, I don't really want to hear anything from anyone who types so poorly they can't be bothered to use proper punctuation. I am not talking about some misplaced commas or run-on sentences, I am talking about people who can't even capitalize correctly or who think periods are just something that girls get every monthHAHA, indeed good form.

[GiaDragoness]

Are you kidding me? Who are you to take away someone else's right to make a complete ass out of themselves by their inability to at least appear half-way decent on an intellectual feild? But seriously, if we started dicriminating against people who can't type well, we would have to ban people who make stupid points.

In any case, typo ridden posts are very annoying to read, but to error is human after all. It WOULD be a good practice if everyone did a spellcheck on all their posts before posting them, and/or proof reading them if they have a bad habbit of making one too many typos. I for one, would also like to see people stop using the symbols "r, u, 2, and 4" as complete words. As such it would make posts much clearer in definition.

In any case, bad typers cannot be banned ONLY from the intellectual round table. If they are indeed forbidden from posting such, they should be forbidden period, not just here. It would only make sense.

Just remember we are all human and make mistakes, but i think we should all take a little more care and perhaps proof read our posts before sending them. There is a "preview post" button for a reason. Now if only we could get edgewise, AJ, and fenguin to install a "Spell Check" button....

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[So_Dam_Insane]

SO_Dam_Insane, I am not disagreeing with the fact that great minds can be terrible spellers, but I feel that there should be some sort of minimum standards for inclusion in the intellectual roundtable discussions. I really don't want to see uncapitalized sentences, incorrect contractions and poor spelling. Everyone makes typos on occasion, but repeatedly ignoring all the rules of grammar in my opinion shouldn't be allowed.

Also, I think when it comes to subjective things like people's opinions on certain things where no one is trying to prove a fact they shouldn't have to be exposed to personal attacks. Furthermore, I think if they are attacked personally, they should at their own discretion be allowed to respond in kind --to a point.
Forgive me. I misunderstood. As for being personal in my last post, I can sometimes blow things out of proportion and I am sorry. I actually do agree with you to a point about a minimum accepted level of spelling. A thread, discussing serious issues could be ruined by someone useing stupid phrases and shortcuts. I don't want to get to much into this right now. So I'm going to stop wrting, and get ready for work....

[BSTRhino]

That's cool So_Dam_Insane, you do seem like one of the smarter people on WarBoards.org.

[JenJen]

Spelling shouldn't matter. Yes, this forum is for serious debate and people who can handle a controlled environment. If the bad spellers to you guys equals the people who you think present bad points then why don't the moderators go through each forum weeding out those who belong in a chit chat forum and not here? That way if you are right, then those peoples' posts are gone and if you are just being an idiot for suggesting that bad spellers equal dumb people (my personal opinion is that you are) then you'll have clean threads nonetheless.

[Xenon]

What I'm wondering, if bad spelling does not equate bad posts why are none of the bad spellers giving us their take on this? Or are they just not concerned?

[Schwitzer]

And I could kick all your asses at a spelling/grammar competition, so for your own sakes y'all better not make some fancy regulation disallowing people who misspell to post.
You're going to kick our donkeys? Isn't it customary to kick someone's arse instead?

What everyone needs to realise is that the posting standard in the Intellectual Roundtable is held higher than any other forum on WarBoards. It was designed exclusively for intelligent discussion, as opposed to the general sorts of discussion you get in the Members' Lounge (and I'm not having a go at the Members' Lounge regulars, here).

This is a forum, not a chat room. If you want a place where you can make comments consisting entirely of "LOLz" or "i agree" then I suggest you try IRC. More specifically - as I've already mentioned - this is a forum exclusively for intelligent debate.

I hate generalisations and stereotypes, but this one is a universal truth of the internet: in general, the more "1337 sp34k" and abbreviations a post has, the less intelligent its content is. Basic English principals are not hard to learn, so how can you expect us to take you seriously if you cannot demonstrate a basic use of them?

It is often frustrating to have to decipher someone's abbreviations and errors before you can even begin to critique their arguments. I'm often left thinking to myself, "if they didn't take the time to write this properly, why should I take the time to read it?"

Everyone has the right to post in the Intellectual Roundtable, provided they can demonstrate an ability to debate on an intellectual level. If you continually make posts that fail to meet these high standards, you are actually dragging down the standards of this forum, and making it seem acceptable (to others) to make posts here comparable to the Members' Lounge.

So what can we do? I don't like discrimination, and I'm certainly not going on a witch-hunt for people to ban from this forum. However, I also want to see the high standards of this forum maintained.

Two words: report post. If someone makes a personal attack instead of an attack on an argument, of if they make a post that is absurdedly idiotic, report it. They will be warned about their behaviour, and if they persist they will have their right to post here removed.

This doesn't expressly forbid the use of acronymns or bad spelling and grammar, but it does come with the threat that if you're going to indulge in the use of these things, you'd better have some damned good points in your posts.

[LordAhriman]

Well, just because someone can't spell doesn't mean they don't have their own valid opinion to voice. Yes. Spelling does not change the merit of an idea.

This, of course, does not mean that saying "LOL ur so rite zomg" is acceptable. Simply making a bland, useless agreement with what someone has to say is pointless no matter how well it is phrased.

[Xenon]

So let me get this rite lordArryman... az long as wutever i say is intellijunt then it duznt mater how i speel it becuz itz an intelijunt commament and sew skrew speeling and grammer becuz they not important being? wow, okies then maybe we shud all just firget aboud the stuff we was supost to lirn in skewl and just typ how ever we want. wuts the point of lirnning somefing if we dont need to uze it later ne way.

I think you'd agree that the paragraph above was absurdly difficult to read and made reading it a chore. While the actual idealogical content of the paragraph was perfectly fine, if you saw it in a thread here you wouldn't like it. Sure, it's an overly dramatized example, but it cuts to the heart of the matter.

[LordAhriman]

I do agree. I suppose an effort should be made to keep the spelling at least good enough not to distract from the meaning of the message. Simple typos are meaningless.

[So_Dam_Insane]

So let me get this rite lordArryman... az long as wutever i say is intellijunt then it duznt mater how i speel it becuz itz an intelijunt commament and sew skrew speeling and grammer becuz they not important being? wow, okies then maybe we shud all just firget aboud the stuff we was supost to lirn in skewl and just typ how ever we want. wuts the point of lirnning somefing if we dont need to uze it later ne way.

Perhaps that kind of spelling could cause me to question anothers intelligence. The scary thing is. A lot of people actually do write like that.... seriously...

[Xenon]

I know. That's why I brought it up. That's the only kind of thing I don't want to see... I am not concerned with or talking about the occasional typo.

[HackingVictim]

I think that most people have really good idea's, but are usally typing to fast and end up with teh's and waht's. Just because we can't spell as well as you does not mean that we are less intellectual than you. I personaly can not spell that well, but that does not mean I should be kicked out of the Intellectual Roundtable. I have idea's just as you do, but to judge upon a members spelling abillaty is not the best solution. I belive that all should be welcome on the forums, for they will learn many ideas. Not be laughed at for their spelling abillity.

[Spdstr]

Just because someone can't spell doesn't make them "stupid" or anything, it's just some people are in a hurry (like me) and want to post. Other times they could have a slight Dislexia and just not type the words correctly. So I say no, people should be aloud in the "Intellectual Roundtable" even if they can't spell.

Member,
~ Spdstr

[T-Dawg]

Okay, I almost posted in 1337 speak just to be the complete antithesis to what this whole discussion was about, but I did not. I am in absolute concurence that a minimum level of quasi-competency must be desired to further the goals of an "intellectual roundtable." Barring the name, it still beckons the fact that a separate forum was established for a more serious discussion. Serious posters will take the time to make a presentable argument in their behalf about certain issues.

While I am pro-requirement, I am anti-flaming. If this rule is set into motion the only thing I could fear, playing the devil's advocate, is that if a personal attack is begotten on this forum (there is rare circumstance) people might try to get others banned from the forum by invoking the rules of grammar during the heat of debate.

I also know that I have very poor grammar. I have too many fragments, run-on sentences, and comma splices. Do I believe I should be banned from the forum? I should hope not, but that does not mean that someone else might see it differently. So, that's my whole take on everything, but, ultimately, I doubt it will matter.

(Notice that everyone is beginning to try to type/sound their best? Psychological effect of the thread methinks.)

[singo]

typing comments Deliberately misspelled is not really the kind of thing for the roundtable......accidental typos are okay however, everyone makes mistakes

[GiaDragoness]

Case in point, if you can show your post to another human being and they can clearly understand it, it's good. Please use your best grammar and spelling here as you can. It's like, like church, kinda. You put on your best clothes, and you act decent.

Just like here, as long as you spell your best, try to do your best in grammar, proof-read your arguments (Hopefully), there should be no reason to ban or restrict anyone here.

Even If someones spelling is unbearably bad, you're not obligated to read what they post. So whats the problem? If it is a heated intelectual debate, like we often have here at this table, then yes, we are obligated to read it if we have any intention of being fair in the argument, and reading someone's point of veiw.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[Xenon]

I think it's funny that two posts about how people who misspell and use bad grammar should be allowed to post in this part of the forums had a few spelling and grammar mistakes. The fact that they were repeated several times shows they are not isolated typos.

Not mentioning names here, it's "allowed" not "aloud". It's "dyslexia" not "dislexia". It's "ideas" not "idea's" (idea's means "idea is" or "belonging to idea".... It's "personally" not "personaly". It's "ability" not "abillity" or "abillaty". It's "too" not "to".

Personally, I think gross incompetence in regards to spelling should warrant being blocked from this category of forums. If you can't take the time to proof-read your post, why should I read it?

[Sauvastika]

Anyone could make a mistake. Some people have a hard time grasping English grammar, I know I do, even though I'm a native American. There's also the fact that some people browsing here are not native to America, England, or an English-speaking country and have a difficult time typing in English.

So let me get this rite lordArryman... az long as wutever i say is intellijunt then it duznt mater how i speel it becuz itz an intelijunt commament and sew skrew speeling and grammer becuz they not important being? wow, okies then maybe we shud all just firget aboud the stuff we was supost to lirn in skewl and just typ how ever we want. wuts the point of lirnning somefing if we dont need to uze it later ne way.

I think you'd agree that the paragraph above was absurdly difficult to read and made reading it a chore. While the actual idealogical content of the paragraph was perfectly fine, if you saw it in a thread here you wouldn't like it. Sure, it's an overly dramatized example, but it cuts to the heart of the matter.

I can't say that I enjoy reading a paragraph like that, but I sternly believe that if the idea of the post is fine then there is no problem. Spending an extra five seconds reading a post isn't that big of a problem.

[Kaervek]

I don't know if I like the idea of allowing just anyone to post in the intellectual round table. Shouldn't someone add some rules about a limit to how many spelling errors someone can have in a single post before they are not allowed to post here for a while?

I see threads full of people who can't even spell intellectual trying to argue about all sorts of things. People who don't even know the difference between "to", "too" and "two".

What does everyone else think? I am not mentioning any names either. I don't want to turn this into a flaming war, I just want to know what the other frequenters of this part of the forums think about how poor a speller or how lousy someone's grammar can be before it is called unacceptable and better confined to whatever this forum's equivalent of "Chit Chat" is. What a grand idea! You guys really should implement some sort of Hitler-esque ego which controlls any and all input to the forums. Nothing proves more entertaining, or even enlightening, than censoring the masses!

[AJ]

Why don't we just cut all the sarcasm in here -- Clearly there's enough that we could just use our butterknives.

Anyhow, I personally find improper grammar and spelling a nuisance, but not an insurmountable one. I know I've had to proof enough of T-Dawg's writings that I could sort through just about anything. ;)

I think that the best solution would be a general requisite for people to put forth their best efforts in using proper english, in all of its forms (grammar, spelling, conjugation, punctuation, and so forth). And that when someone isn't necessarily abiding strictly to this, we refer them to the call for better posting, and request they improve.

It's a privilege to post here, not a right.

[Xenon]

Naturally, AJ.

Who said anything about censorship Kaervek? Are the admins here censoring me by not allowing me to post in the Mod/Admin forum? No. So how does not allowing poor spellers to post in the Intellectual Forum censorship? How does demanding a certain level of intelligence equate to censorship?

I know you've always been fond of words like "censorship" and "Hitler-esque" but really Kaervek, I expected a much better reply from you than some trite pablum.

[T-Dawg]

AJ is my lord and savior when it comes to proof reading. Hooray to that.

So, has this thread achieved anything via rule wise yet? Other than the "try your best" attitude?

[Kaervek]

Naturally, AJ.

Who said anything about censorship Kaervek? Are the admins here censoring me by not allowing me to post in the Mod/Admin forum? No. So how does not allowing poor spellers to post in the Intellectual Forum censorship? How does demanding a certain level of intelligence equate to censorship?

I know you've always been fond of words like "censorship" and "Hitler-esque" but really Kaervek, I expected a much better reply from you than some trite pablum. Lord knows the last thing I want to do is disappoint you Xenon.
To remove from, or to suppress, the ability of users to post here simply because they don't meet the standards you set forth is censorship. Nobody said it wasn't allowed to happen, just completely idiotic and outright stupid. Why don't you just password-protect the Intellectual Roundtable, and hand that password out to the select few who don't happen to replace "to" with "too" on occasion.

Good luck filling the position of weeding out the "morons."

[Xenon]

To remove from, or to suppress, the ability of users to post here simply because they don't meet the standards you set forth is censorship.

Yeah, it probably would be. Good thing we're discussing it together (everyone in this thread) and coming to a consensus as a group. Good thing it isn't the "standards I set forth" but rather the "standards we set forth". As T-Dawg noted, so far the general consensus is that everyone should "try their best" when they post in the Intellectual Roundtable.

I'm happy to see you are still the same small bitter boy I always thought you were Kaervek. It makes me happy to have that confirmed in person every once in a while.

[Black.Ice]

I agree that a degree of proper spelling should be adhered to. I mean, reread a post for spelling mistakes before you post. A typo here and there is all right with me, but it irks me seeing people who don't use proper grammar.

I skimmed all the previous posts, and I think no one brought up the fact that the majority of people on these forums are younger - perhaps in their early teens. I think that has a major role in the way people post.

Overall, I believe that people should at least try and capitalize sentences, etcetera when making a post. After all, this forum is a place for logical and serious discussion. In my opinion, improper grammar undermines the entire validity of an intellectual statement.

By the way Schwitz, Asses just beats Arse's ass.

[Kaervek]

Yeah, it probably would be. Good thing we're discussing it together (everyone in this thread) and coming to a consensus as a group. Good thing it isn't the "standards I set forth" but rather the "standards we set forth". As T-Dawg noted, so far the general consensus is that everyone should "try their best" when they post in the Intellectual Roundtable.
Who says we shouldn't "try our best?" Of course it would be ideal for the majority, if not the entirety of the group to possess perfect grammar and spelling, but that's simply unrealistic. Just as noted above, there is likely a healthy amount of younger posters here who may not have the education (or admittedly, the attention span) with which to post as such. Therefore, to completely deny any and all access to these forums by them would not only prove to be completely biased against the uneducated, but would likely remove several interesting topics in the future from being posted here. Like it or not, a person doesn't need to have acute English skills to present a well-thought topic or debate. Keeping these types of people from posting here based solely on that fact isn't just depriving them of a potentially enlightening discussion, but yourselves as well.

I would expect a (presumably) well-educated and down-to-earth person such as yourself, being elder and more mature than most (presumably), to not only be aware of that fact, but willing to deal with it at a more personal level, as opposed to just locking down the forum.

I'm happy to see you are still the same small bitter boy I always thought you were Kaervek. It makes me happy to have that confirmed in person every once in a while. Small and bitter... why? Because I think your idea is asinine, regardless of how many people seem to agree with it? OK, pal.

As long as I make you happy, Xenon, that's all that I strive for. ;)

[Xenon]

I know. Which is why I give you every opportunity to do so.

You seem to think I enjoy some kind of status here. I don't. I don't know how my asking whether or not we should implement some sort of rules to try and maintain a certain level of legibility on this part of the forums constitutes "locking down the forums"... even if it did, that wouldn't have anything to do with me as I neither have the will nor the power to do so.

My questions in the titles are worded such as to --hopefully-- pique people's interest in the topic. They don't even necessarily represent what I myself believe. My sole interest in starting topics is to stimulate conversation. People agreeing with each other does not stimulate in-depth conversation. Controversial topics do.

Also, just so I don't have to explain this to everyone all the time over and over; I never claimed to be more mature than anyone else here, if you presume that I am because I am a bit older than most of the people here you'd probably be mistaken. I am quite immature. It's one of my most endearing qualities. I am just a little kid at heart. :D

[Garrec]

Just as noted above, there is likely a healthy amount of younger posters here who may not have the education (or admittedly, the attention span) with which to post as such.
Younger posters lacking education and attention span? This is the Intellectual Roundtable. Just look at the general topics in this forum, and you can see that this forum is for the educated, the thoughtful. Most of the topics deal with mature themes (politics, for example). Maybe not mature as in content wise, just mature enough that you need to have some knowledge and understanding of the topics at hand. I really can’t picture 14 year olds studying politics and typing thoughtful essays in the forum describing who they think are better politicians. Some things just come with age. Up until the past year or so, I didn't give a damn about politics either way, and I've only just recently opened my mind to all the stuff that's happening in the world. And now that I'm old enough to vote, suddenly politics is having a much bigger influence on my life.

If you post here, then please, just read over what you've written, double check for spelling errors or flaws in logic. If you are in a hurry and don't have the time to write a thoughtful reply, why even post in the Intellectual Roundtable? Even in regular, “casual” forums, I still read over my posts, usually more than twice, fixing spelling errors in my sentences. I don’t think people should have to try to decipher what you’re saying, your point should be clear. And I myself do think highly of people who type better. When you read a bunch of posts filled with grossly misspelled sentences, it’s relieving to come across someone who writes in plain, sensible english.

[Xenon]

Hear, Hear!

[Scipio7777777]

I really can’t picture 14 year olds studying politics and typing thoughtful essays in the forum describing who they think are better politicians. Some things just come with age.
I am only 15 and i watch the news about 1.5 hours a day and i read newspapers (CSM and WSJ) everyday and i read newsweeks and times magazines, this is for my Speech and Debate team.


just because i am too lazy to proofread everything i type does not mean i am stupid and illiterate it just means i am bad typer and too lazy to correct myself.

[T-Dawg]

Being lazy and refusing to correct oneself are both the products of a weak mind. I don't care if you are a genius that surpasses Einstein, T. Jefferson, T. Edison, and all the rest of the great geniuses, if you are unwilling to correct obvious mistakes. What sets apart those of 'intellectual" standing is that they make a constant effort to make themselves better.

It is interesting, because colleges agree with me. If one ever applies to a college and has to write a paper for them, they will scrutinize your grammar and punctuation as much as the content. Having an idea is a grand thing, but being able to portray it to others is even more profound.

That is why I am pro-grammar even over supposed intellects. The world gains a lot more from an average Joe that can communicate his ideas over an inarticulated genius.

Those are readily just my views, and I beg you to persuade me otherwise.

[Kaervek]

I know. Which is why I give you every opportunity to do so.
I appreciate your (mis)trust.


You seem to think I enjoy some kind of status here. I don't. I don't know how my asking whether or not we should implement some sort of rules to try and maintain a certain level of legibility on this part of the forums constitutes "locking down the forums"... even if it did, that wouldn't have anything to do with me as I neither have the will nor the power to do so.
Easy there, cowboy. Don't flatter yourself. I'm addressing the ideas which you've brought forth. Exercising those very ideas would be, in essence, "locking down the forums." Hence my statements.


My questions in the titles are worded such as to --hopefully-- pique people's interest in the topic. They don't even necessarily represent what I myself believe. My sole interest in starting topics is to stimulate conversation. People agreeing with each other does not stimulate in-depth conversation. Controversial topics do.
Well, I appologize if I took it as your personal opinion. It would seem to me as though you brought the idea up as some sort of wishful thinking. Of course, I could be wrong, which apparently I am. I still think it's a bad idea.


Also, just so I don't have to explain this to everyone all the time over and over; I never claimed to be more mature than anyone else here, if you presume that I am because I am a bit older than most of the people here you'd probably be mistaken. I am quite immature. It's one of my most endearing qualities. I am just a little kid at heart. :D :donut: :D

Younger posters lacking education and attention span? This is the Intellectual Roundtable. Just look at the general topics in this forum, and you can see that this forum is for the educated, the thoughtful. Most of the topics deal with mature themes (politics, for example). Maybe not mature as in content wise, just mature enough that you need to have some knowledge and understanding of the topics at hand.
And a "younger" poster can't partake in such topics? No matter how (dis)qualified you presume them to be? That's quite condescending, and selling yourself short.

I really can’t picture 14 year olds studying politics and typing thoughtful essays in the forum describing who they think are better politicians. Some things just come with age.
Apprently you think it's impossible for a 14-year old to be capable of such understanding and comprehension. That's quite unfortunate, and I hope you're never in the position to judge another person, seeing as how you look at their age before their ability. Discrimination, and nothing more.

Up until the past year or so, I didn't give a damn about politics either way, and I've only just recently opened my mind to all the stuff that's happening in the world. And now that I'm old enough to vote, suddenly politics is having a much bigger influence on my life.
So, because it was that way with you, it must be that way with everyone else, eh? That's quite hillarious, and ignorant. So I imagine you're 18 now, considering that "now [you're] old enough to vote." Would it be fair to assume that you think anybody 17 and younger is incapable of not only understanding such "intellectual" topics, but also incapable of expressing their ideas and thoughts on those topics? That's what it sounds like.


If you post here, then please, just read over what you've written, double check for spelling errors or flaws in logic. Yes, that would be ideal, but not realistic. Sure, you can give more respect to those who do proof-read their posts, but to say that a person who types a run-on sentence, or forgets to fix a typo is somehow "unquallified" to post here--that's just ridiculous.

If you are in a hurry and don't have the time to write a thoughtful reply, why even post in the Intellectual Roundtable? Possibly because they had a thought on the topic which was at hand, but didn't have an extra 5 minutes to proof-read. It's quite a common occurence, I would think: typing up your thoughts real quick, only to have to leave in a hurry. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand when a post is complete garbage or whether it's actually home to some valid points. A few typos doesn't nullify such validity. They might need to go back to English 101, but that's no reason to discredit their ideas.

Even in regular, “casual” forums, I still read over my posts, usually more than twice, fixing spelling errors in my sentences. :donut:
I don’t think people should have to try to decipher what you’re saying, your point should be clear. And I myself do think highly of people who type better. When you read a bunch of posts filled with grossly misspelled sentences, it’s relieving to come across someone who writes in plain, sensible english. I agree.

But what type of post would you consider to be "undecipherable?" Surely a few typos, and maybe a missed punctuation mark or two don't add up to being completely illegible! If so, perhaps you're the one who needs to take English 101 over again ;)

If it takes you that much effort to understand what a person is trying to say in a post, then by all means, skip it.

Some people learn to speak, write, and read better by interacting in such communities as this. It's not hard to imagine a person going from a 5th grade English education to a High school English education by taking part in discussions on internet forums. If anything, forgive them for their errors, and maybe even go that extra mile to help correct them. Don't just slam the proverbial door in their face, call them an idiot, and lock them out. That's just going too far.

And, you can always ignore the user with the forum's ignore feature.

I am only 15 and i watch the news about 1.5 hours a day and i read newspapers (CSM and WSJ) everyday and i read newsweeks and times magazines, this is for my Speech and Debate team.


just because i am too lazy to proofread everything i type does not mean i am stupid and illiterate it just means i am bad typer and too lazy to correct myself. Hear hear. :p

Being lazy and refusing to correct oneself are both the products of a weak mind. A weak mind? LOL, that's taking it a bit too far, isn't it? So, now you're superior, not only in English, but also as a person? That's hillarious!

I don't care if you are a genius that surpasses Einstein, T. Jefferson, T. Edison, and all the rest of the great geniuses, if you are unwilling to correct obvious mistakes. What sets apart those of 'intellectual" standing is that they make a constant effort to make themselves better.
Who's to say that a person who happens to make mistakes while typing isn't learning to type? Or even learning English as a new language? Sure, it's quite obvious at times when either of those scenarios can be applied to a user, but to say that they somehow aren't striving to better themselves, and that you somehow have the superior knowledge to know this about them, is quite laughable and presumptuous on your part.

But whatever, you can be that way, I just think it's quite stupid to say that they shouldn't be allowed to post here.


It is interesting, because colleges agree with me. If one ever applies to a college and has to write a paper for them, they will scrutinize your grammar and punctuation as much as the content. Having an idea is a grand thing, but being able to portray it to others is even more profound.
Well nobody here is using their posts to apply for college I hope, especially with such horrid use of grammar.


That is why I am pro-grammar even over supposed intellects. The world gains a lot more from an average Joe that can communicate his ideas over an inarticulated genius.
So... ignore him? That seems more plausible than to completey shut them off. No?

Those are readily just my views, and I beg you to persuade me otherwise. To persuade you otherwise? I don't think it will be necessary.

[Scipio7777777]

It is interesting, because colleges agree with me. If one ever applies to a college and has to write a paper for them, they will scrutinize your grammar and punctuation as much as the content.
last time i looked WB IR was not the same as an essay for a college

[Garrec]

just because i am too lazy to proofread everything i type does not mean i am stupid and illiterate it just means i am bad typer and too lazy to correct myself.
I'm not saying people are stupid and illiterate if they are too lazy to review what they've typed. I didn’t mean it that way.

And also, I said it myself: "Maybe not mature as in content wise, just mature enough that you need to have some knowledge and understanding of the topics at hand." If you follow the topics so closely, and you have a good grasp of the topic, then yes, you can have a valuable contribution to a discussion. It doesn’t matter on your age, it matters on how much you know. I’m just saying that I know very few people that follow politics that are your age. If I read a conversation in the forums that is beyond the scope of my understanding or ability to respond, I just avoid it all together. But I still recommend you make it a practice to proofread your work and make sure you are a good typist. I took a typing class in my freshman year, and I can type significantly faster and better than I could before. Proofreading helped me a lot in high school. I took an Advanced Composition writing class in my junior year, and proofreading is one of the major fundamentals of producing a good paper. No proofreading equals bad grades, at least in my experience.

I also like to proofread my comments, because I usually find that I myself make lots of typos and confusing sentences. Sometimes I will have typed something just to find that my arguments for it are weak and almost nonexistent. Sometimes I contradict myself. Rather than have people post comments asking me to clarify or point out my illogical arguments, I can find some of them myself, and probably make it easier for others to understand and agree (or disagree) with me.

Even when I'm talking to friends via instant messaging, I still use complete words. I make significantly more mistakes, since it is largely casual and I'm talking to a friend who's typing no better than I am, and we know each other on a personal basis. I rarely use phrases like LOL, WTF, and BTW, especially in forums. And I never use "u", "4", "2", or "r" to shorten words. I can type fairly quickly, so it doesn't bother me the slightest to spell out my words.

[T-Dawg]

I understand they are not the same, but it still stands to reason that colleges are supposedly intellectual places and this is the "intellectual roundtable." So I drew a comparison. That if colleges disregard those entrance papers that are poor in grammar and spelling and are too lazy, then perhaps this forum should as well. As in, not accept them into the community.

I challenge you Scipio, please make a debate on your behalf, not some "because I am lazy and don't wanna" argument.

[Kaervek]

I challenge you Scipio, please make a debate on your behalf, not some "because I am lazy and don't wanna" argument.
So, now he has to defend the reason he types the way he does? Seriously now, get off the high horse! He already explained to you why he doesn't. Perhaps if he wanted to put forth the effort into ...I don't know... appeasing you, he would. So long as you get the gist of his statement, as you clearly did above, then what does it matter if he capitalizes the first word in every sentence?

Just because this is the "Intellectual Roundtable" doesn't mean you need to meet some sort of (non-existent!) standard prior to posting. If there were some standard, I'm sure it would have been implemented by now. Did you have to write a 1,000-word essay before posting in this forum?

You don't find it rather ridiculous that now you're asking him to prove why he doesn't proof-read his internet posts? How about you first "prove" that he has to proof read? How about making your argument the norm, before you make his inadequate?

[Garrec]

I see you've edited your post
And a "younger" poster can't partake in such topics? No matter how (dis)qualified you presume them to be? That's quite condescending, and selling yourself short.
Apprently you think it's impossible for a 14-year old to be capable of such understanding and comprehension. That's quite unfortunate, and I hope you're never in the position to judge another person, seeing as how you look at their age before their ability. Discrimination, and nothing more.
So, because it was that way with you, it must be that way with everyone else, eh? That's quite hillarious, and ignorant. So I imagine you're 18 now, considering that "now [you're] old enough to vote." Would it be fair to assume that you think anybody 17 and younger is incapable of not only understanding such "intellectual" topics, but also incapable of expressing their ideas and thoughts on those topics? That's what it sounds like.

A quote from myself:
Most of the topics deal with mature themes (politics, for example). Maybe not mature as in content wise, just mature enough that you need to have some knowledge and understanding of the topics at hand.

I am making no age discrimination here. I did not say it's impossible for 14 year olds to understand the topic. If you are mature enough to understand and be interested in the topics, then by all means, jump into the conversation. That is what I was trying to say.
or forgets to fix a typo is somehow "unquallified" to post here--that's just ridiculous.
I'm not talking about a few typos here and there. I know everybody makes them. I do. Nobody's perfect. But some people make a LOT of typos, sometimes in every other word. Is it really unrealistic for people to just spend an extra few seconds skimming over the stuff they've written?

I don't mean to bash people who are learning English as a second language. I've tried learning a foreign language myself. For your information, I gave up on it. Mainly because my parents kept forcing me to take the classes, even though I hated it, and my teacher also didn't make things very clear. I was actually doing very well the first couple years, one of the top students in the class, but after the second year, I didn't want any more, but I was forced to go another year, and I just slacked off and failed out. Yes, I'm 18, and I make some typos. There, I said it. If I've spent my entire life native to the English language and I still make mistakes, it's only natural for people who are learning the language to make mistakes, even frequently. I sometimes didn't get very good grades in English class, but that doesn't stop me from trying to improve myself.

Oh, I almost forgot. I don't think people should be banned from forums based on typing "bad" posts, but I think that people should really judge themselves and decide based on that. I know it's a lot to ask, but I can only hope.

[T-Dawg]

Well I be damned, I am asking someone to defend their point. If I go around spouting "god is dead" I better have some type of reason to back it up. He is stating that intelligence and grammar are completely separate of each other and should be viewed as such. I am asking him to make a legitimate arguement for it.

So Kaervek you walk in and are all like "yo, if you have an opinion than you shouldn't have to defend it. It takes enough thought just to come up with an opinion why waste any more thinking on grammar" I have made a decent debate on why grammar and punctuation are essential parts of being "intellectual" so why doesn't someone show me that it doesn't matter?

[Scipio7777777]

I challenge you Scipio, please make a debate on your behalf, not some "because I am lazy and don't wanna" argument.
Why do i (and othere)have to bow down to your (and others) demand that i proofread my posts everytime i make one? Why can't you learn to read a sentence even if, may my heart be still, someone leaves off a period?

why do i (and others)have to bow down to you (and others) demand that i proofread my posts everytime i make one why cant you learn to read a sentence even if, may my heart be still, someone leaves off a period

Is the second one really that much more difficult to read than the first?

[T-Dawg]

Actually, I did stumble over reading the second one without the punctuation whether you believe me or not. It is because it is a run-on, and I wasn't quite sure where I needed to stop to make the two separate sentences make sense. Just because you know what you want to say doesn't mean that I do.

[Scipio7777777]

just because you can't read without capitals and periods does not mean that i should be forced to type wiht capitals and periods

[T-Dawg]

I didn't say that I couldn't read it. I said it was very difficult. You say that I am forcing others to bow to me, quite contrary, you perceive youself so great, that you would make so many others take extra time to read your post, instead of spending an extra keystroke to add a period.

It is a period here and there to take things intelligible, this is a forum of intellects, please, be considerate.

[Carnage]

just because you can't read without capitals and periods does not mean that i should be forced to type wiht capitals and periods

LOL. Good argument. :)

[Scipio7777777]

you perceive youself so great, that you would make so many others take extra time to read your post no it is you that persieve yourself so great trying to force everyone else to type like you

[Kaervek]

I think the problem here is that some people are trying to adopt characteristics for themselves, based upon the title of a forum that they post in. Just a thought.

[T-Dawg]

My argument is that if people spent the extra second or two to add punctuation it would make the forum run a lot smoother. Ideas would be easier to understand, less to misconstrude, etc. It is a formality, a sort of politeness or respect, in essence, these forum-goers would have for each other.

I am not bending anyone to my will. Have I laid a hard decree? No. I was just presenting my side of the debate why it would be better for everyone if proper punctuation and grammar were used. This is no pseudo-nazism or anything, just a mere debate. Yet, you persist in slandering me by saying I am trying to enact my will upon everyone, by saying that I am so arrogant to make everyone be just like me. I am not, so stop using that as an argument. It is slander, nothing more, nothing less.

[Kaervek]

My argument is that if people spent the extra second or two to add punctuation it would make the forum run a lot smoother. Ideas would be easier to understand, less to misconstrude, etc. It is a formality, a sort of politeness or respect, in essence, these forum-goers would have for each other.
Agreed. But let's be realistic, eh?

I am not bending anyone to my will. Have I laid a hard decree? No. I was just presenting my side of the debate why it would be better for everyone if proper punctuation and grammar were used. This is no pseudo-nazism or anything, just a mere debate. Yet, you persist in slandering me by saying I am trying to enact my will upon everyone, by saying that I am so arrogant to make everyone be just like me. I am not, so stop using that as an argument. It is slander, nothing more, nothing less. Who is this directed towards? Who is "you?"

If directed at me, then I will address it as such:
You appear to be in agreement with Xenon's idea that the forum would be better were some people not allowed to post here unless they meet some sort of grammatical standard.

Is this a true statement? Am I correct in how I understand your views? If so, then yes, I might go so far as to say that you would prefer everyone to post similarly to yourself. Hey, that in itself should be some sort of compliment. At least I'm not saying you're far from some sort of grammatical role-model :p

[spastic-ninJa]

Now, I agree with many of the points raised in this discussion. Based on these ideas, and, also, the argument that has arisen, I will attempt to analyse what the requirements should be for posting in this particular sub-forum:

You must realise that each post sets the standard for how the thread will develop. If, after a page of intelligent, grammatical posts, someone enters with '1337 sp34k' or long-winded, run-on sentences, with little grammar, immediately the quality of the thread is downgraded. Basically, said posts inspire people to post with less grammatical vigilance, and the thread heads downhill. (Trust me -- a look at some of the other threads significantly shows a rapid decline of the thread after a few unintelligent posts.) So, people whose posts are aggravating and difficult to read should not really be able to post on this forum. (They are able to, yet their unintelligent posts are deleted.) This leads on to my next point.

However, if someone has a physical or mental disorder, making it very difficult for them to type correctly, yet attempts to post intelligently and raise respectable points, then other forum-ers should not scorn them for such a problem. In example, I realise that scipio usually posts rather intelligently, yet with long-winded run-on sentences, but has a typing problem, correct? (Else I misread your statement beforehand.) Now, if grammatically-correct forum-ers cannot bother to help them out by reading their posts, then both parties are in a lose-lose situation. The grammatical posters don't gain the benefit of the other person's knowledge, thus the disadvantaged person is excluded from the conversation. So, if you have knowledge that the person has such a disorder, then please read their posts and reply intelligently, else you can ask them whether they would care to post in a more accurate manner or not.

I believe, however, that people should take an extra minute to proof-read posts. Mistakes should be allowed, so long as it does not detract from the thread's worth. If you keep the thread's worthiness at a high level, then intelligent conversations will become more commonplace, which is the raw idea that Xenon wanted in the first place. Less unintelligble posts with more intelligent conversations.

I have but one request that has not yet been mentioned in this thread. I would like to see what other people's opinions are on quoting. I really find it hard to read through or take seriously a post which consists of a line (sometimes not even a full sentence) -- which was previously posted -- to be found quoted and with a one-liner response. This leads to about 30 quotes with 30 one-liner responses. Does anyone else find this to be unneccesary and aggravating?

Please let me know if I have left out anything that you think should be included. (NB: I am just trying to take a positive step in the right direction, excusing the argument that is currently in place ;) .)

------------

PS: About 14-year olds and the fact that the majority won't bother to take serious discussions seriously, thus not post. I couldn't agree more! I'm 14, yet I would be the only person that I know in life off the internet who would bother to post intelligently. (Off-topic -- in a way -- but couldn't resist myself :) )

[Scipio7777777]

scipio usually posts rather intelligently, yet with long-winded run-on sentences, but has a typing problem, correct? (Else I misread your statement beforehand.)

i am just really slow and crappy at typing for some reason. when i go fast i make a lot of mistakes

[Xenon]

So if you're already going slow, how much harder can it be to Capitalize and add some punctuation? It's like t-Dawg said, you guys (the poor spellers) are the ones demanding that everyone who ever went to school bow down to your poor grammar. Forcing us to adapt to your laziness and bad habits. Why should we? We are the ones following the rules.

Also, like it or not, not everyone is equal. The difference between average and genius lies often in the effort. If you can't put effort into everything you do in life, then I'm sorry but those who can and do are your superiors in that aspect. That's just a fact of life.

[Schwitzer]

Every member who registers at WarBoards is granted access to all public forums, including the Intellectual Roundtable. The ability to post on these forums is a privledge, not a right, and whether they like it or not they have to abide by the standards set by the site owners. Members who cannot manage this have their posting privledges removed.

Why do I mention this? To point out that for someone to continue posting in the Intellectual Roundtable, they must demonstrate an ability to post intelligently. Some of you seem spellbound that we might actually expect some thoughtful posting in a forum that has "intellectual" in its title.

We're not discriminating against 14-year-olds, or those whose native language is not English. We don't have a "you must be this tall to post here" sign up or anything of the sort. If an eight-year-old can debate some decent points, they're welcome here. Conversely, a forty-year-old who is only capable of producing poorly-written one-line replies is not.

The regulars of this forum put a lot of time and effort into their debates, carefully reading arguments for and against and then constructing replies that are - on average - much longer than the normal post. It's degrading to see someone dispute you with a pathetic, poorly-written, one-line reply that fails to address the majority of your points.

So what do we do? We're not going on a witch-hunt for those who can't use spelling and grammar. Although - in my experience - intelligent posts generally demonstrate good literacy skills, we're not using that as the basis. Instead we need to consider each poster's contribution to this forum. If a poster continually makes posts that are below the standard of this forum, they should not be able to post here.

It's always annoyed me when random idiots jump into a raging debate, fail to read barely any of the current posts and then make a short (and often off-track) comment. You can argue their right to post as much as you want, but in here that just doesn't cut it.

"That's not fair!" cried the masses. Places have standards, and if you don't meet them you can't stay. A friend of mine couldn't get into a nightclub the other day because he wasn't wearing the right shoes. You know what? Tough luck.

[Kaervek]

I think it's a given that, if a user were to continuously post in this forum essentially spamming with one-liners, disregarding any posts prior to his or her own that have already made their points known, and this user flagrantly decides to go off-topic, then of course, there's the option to ban them from this particular forum on the site. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. But what seems to be argued here by the "down-with-the-illiterate" side of this argument is that basically each post should meet a standard which, in all fairness, isn't set by the founders of the site.

The only "standard" that's been set, and is readily available for the users to make note of, is the description of this forum which reads: "For all topics of serious debate, heavily moderated." Great! So serious topics should be debated here, seriously. There's no mention of proper grammar, literacy, and debating skills. Of course it would be ideal and would be a perfect world were each and every user able to meet such (at this point, non-existant) standards, but again - it's not realistic.

For such an absurd and ill-conceived notion to see fruition, either posters would have to have their posts proof-read by an un-biased individual residing behind the scenes who makes the decision as to whether or not a post is worthy to be viewed by the masses. Somebody who does nothing but intercepts posts and deems them worthy or not. That's going a bit far, don't you think? Another option might be for a similar system to be implemented, and then after a certain number of posts by that user have been "approved by the wb.org PQA board (post-quality assurance ;) ), then that user would be allowed to post freely without further intercepted posts.

Now, both of these options seem to be very appropriate, though I think it's asking a bit too much from the administration. It wouldn't just be a simple moderating job, where a person responds to a reported post, or weeds out the occasional spam/flame/etc. It would become a full-time job, thankless at best, in which a person commits several hours of their day observing every single post that makes it's way through WB.org's ports. A bit... over-the-top, don't you think?

Otherwise, you can just live with the fact that there's the occasional jack-ass out there who incessantly posts random bullshit, and trust the staff to deal with such individuals appropriately. That's what moderators, senior-moderators and administrators are for! If a particular individual posts in such a manner, they can either be banned from this particular forum, or from WB.org entirely!

Basically, enforcing these "standards" that alot of you seem to have for posts here would be far too resource-consuming, and quite frankly, I don't think there's a.) not enough staff to accomodate such time-consuming tasks, and b.) not enough traffic in this forum to warrant such drastic operations.

Has the Intellectual Roundtable really been so burdened by these "renegade posters" that a proverbial lock-down needs to take place? Have you really been so burdened by unintelligible posts that you've somehow lost the ability to continue a discussion after the fact?

Quite frankly, I find it rather pathetic that a group of such intellectual individuals could somehow let a few bastardized posts take a well-established thread "down-hill." It doesn't take much to either ignore a user's ignorance, or even just to report the post and have the user dealt with the way they've been dealt with in the past: by the moderators and senior staff.

I think some of you are making an ocean out of a mud-puddle.

[Scipio7777777]

We are the ones following the rules.
There are rules?

[hammocksleeper]

Kaervek you never even post in IR or at WB in general. You just like to argue. :D

[T-Dawg]

Yes Scipio, there are rules. The rules might be vague and subject to change, but there are rules.

Kaervek, while I understand where you are coming from, but your argument is inherently flawed. Look towards the United States government for example: just because democrats will never, ever, acheive pure democracy, doesn't stop them from trying.

As such, what I have been proposing is that everyone should use the best grammar that they can on these forums. If certain individuals choose to ignore that, and their posts are hard to read, they should be removed from posting in this forum.

All I am saying: Please try to use grammar/punctuation.

edit: typos. (see I am adhering to my own policy of correcting mistakes!)

[Kaervek]

Yes Scipio, there are rules. The rules might be vague and subject to change, but there are rules.

Kaervek, while I understand where you are coming from, but your argument is inherently flawed. Look towards the United States government for example: just because democrats will never, ever, acheive pure democracy, doesn't stop them from trying.

As such, what I have been proposing is that everyone should you the best grammar that they can on these forums. If certain individuals choose to ignore that, and their posts are hard to read, they should be removed from posting in this forum.

All I am saying: Please try to use grammar/punctuation.
I completely agree! By the way, you had a few errors of your own :P Off with his head!

Kidding! Kidding!


Kaervek you never even post in IR or at WB in general. You just like to argue. :D Debating is fun at times, sure. But I fail to realize how my lack of activity makes my thoughts less applicable. Does WB.org really have some sort of scourge running rampant in it's more serious of forums? Am I blind to the overwhelming idiocy consuming it at it's core?

[Xenon]

I think at the very least the people with good spelling and/or grammar should be allowed to roast alive with the most vituperativa and vitriolic flames anyone who has more than 5 errors in their entire post.

I hate reading Scipio. He sometimes makes sense and there's nothing inherrently wrong with any of his opinions as such, but he constantly ignores the rules of grammar and good english and has horrible spelling... I don't really want to ban him from IR, but I would like free license to deride and belittle his errors until such time as he decides to conform since according to him he's very intelligent and knows all the rules but is just too lazy to apply them.

I don't want to flame anyone who is in actual ignorance of the rules of grammar. I just want to flame those who flout the standards of good english on purpose.

Kids Who Don't Know Any Better = Free Pass.
Morons Who Know Better and Ignore Rules Anyway = Flamed to Hell and Back.

[spastic-ninJa]

I think the question is where do we draw the line. As Kaervek said, there isn't a moderator who could effectively filter through every single post getting rid of grammatical mistakes. However, something has to happen about threads which turn into crappy flame-wars or outright spam.

Take the Bush vs Kerry thread. A few unintelligent posts led to a complete screw over of the whole thread. Another thread desrcibes the pay-to-play method of online games, which was a fine topic, yet turned into an all-out flame war. (Not Roundtable discussion, but it is relevant, nevertheless, and could (and has) occur(red) in this sub-forum.)

Also, you're saying that I'm making a big deal of not letting threads go out the window, are you, Kaervek? What about those threads which take a long time to discuss, and after a few pages of an intelligent discussion, people enter and spam nonsense. Excuse me if I want to preserve the quality of discussions, if you will.

I'm not saying that poor typers or people with disorders should be "banned" solely because they can't type. I'm saying that if someone constantly wreaks discussions, or could post more maturely and grammatically yet doesn't, then action should be taken.

One of the causes of this is the fact that this intellectual forum lacks 2 or 3 active moderators who would get rid of the crappy posts, etc.

[Kaervek]

Also, you're saying that I'm making a big deal of not letting threads go out the window, are you, Kaervek? What about those threads which take a long time to discuss, and after a few pages of an intelligent discussion, people enter and spam nonsense.

So, the mods aren't doing their jobs?

Spammy posts should be deleted. Users who spam should be at least temp-banned for refusing to correct mistakes when they're told they need to.

Sounds to me like the moderators of ID are allowing these threads to go to shit. Doesn't seem like the entire posting community should be held accountable for that.

[GiaDragoness]

So, the mods aren't doing their jobs? You try filtering out spam posts 24/7. It;s a full-time job, and those moderators have better things to do than baby-sit teenagers who should by all rights know better.


Spammy posts should be deleted. Users who spam should be at least temp-banned for refusing to correct mistakes when they're told they need to.

Sounds to me like the moderators of ID are allowing these threads to go to shit. Doesn't seem like the entire posting community should be held accountable for that. We are a forum, and a community. A community sticks up and helps out, that's what a group does. True, we should not go browsing through looking for typos in people's posts, but when a post is unacceptible, there is a little buttion you can clikc to notify a mod. We do ask though that everyone please exercise reasoniblity.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[Kaervek]

You try filtering out spam posts 24/7. It;s a full-time job, and those moderators have better things to do than baby-sit teenagers who should by all rights know better.
:rolleyes:
I'm a bit more familiar with the concept than you might suspect.

We are a forum, and a community. A community sticks up and helps out, that's what a group does. True, we should not go browsing through looking for typos in people's posts, but when a post is unacceptible, there is a little buttion you can clikc to notify a mod. We do ask though that everyone please exercise reasoniblity.
Have you not been reading this thread? I've thoroughly argued my side as far as how the staff should be implemented into this whole... "ordeal." Refer to Post #65 (http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=120575&postcount=65) for the whole shebang. Otherwise, the following exerpt should suffice:


Basically, enforcing these "standards" that alot of you seem to have for posts here would be far too resource-consuming, and quite frankly, I don't think there's a.) enough staff to accomodate such time-consuming tasks, and b.) not enough traffic in this forum to warrant such drastic operations.

Has the Intellectual Roundtable really been so burdened by these "renegade posters" that a proverbial lock-down needs to take place? Have you really been so burdened by unintelligible posts that you've somehow lost the ability to continue a discussion after the fact?

Quite frankly, I find it rather pathetic that a group of such intellectual individuals could somehow let a few bastardized posts take a well-established thread "down-hill." It doesn't take much to either ignore a user's ignorance, or even just to report the post and have the user dealt with the way they've been dealt with in the past: by the moderators and senior staff.

[Xenon]

I'm a bit more familiar with the concept than you might suspect.

Oh trust me, we know. You fucking Nazi.

[Kaervek]

Oh trust me, we know. You fucking Nazi. :devil:

Intellectual enough?

[HackingVictim]

Oh trust me, we know. You fucking Nazi.:devil:

Intellectual enough?
And I thought we were trying NOT to be 14 year olds... Flaming is the first step ^^

[Xenon]

Kaervek is a moderator at Blizzforums. He's the one who deleted the thread letting people know I was over here. I am the reason that Kaervek is over here active in these discussions again. Kaervek loves to moderate posts. It's the only area of his life he has any control over. However, Kaervek is a forum nazi. He likes to present a reasonable facade, but really he's just a power-tripping little kid who censors, deletes and bans arbitrarily.

And yes, a simple and to-the-point factual statement is intellectual enough.

Furthermore, that wasn't anywhere near a flame HackingVictim.

[hammocksleeper]

Dude I don't think this is the appropriate place to discuss this kind of thing...granted, neither of you guys (Kaervek and Xenon) are regular WBers so it's not as big a deal...but seriously.

[Garrec]

According to their member profiles, Xenon seems to be a regular member here. He has more posts than Kaervek, and hasn't been a member as long. Just because someone doesn't have a lot of posts doesn't mean they aren't regular members. What if you've only joined recently?

Also, just because someone doesn't post very frequently doesn't mean their opinions are less valid. Maybe they have less time available, or maybe they only find a select group of topics interesting.

[hammocksleeper]

According to their member profiles, Xenon seems to be a regular member here. He has more posts than Kaervek, and hasn't been a member as long. Just because someone doesn't have a lot of posts doesn't mean they aren't regular members. What if you've only joined recently?

Also, just because someone doesn't post very frequently doesn't mean their opinions are less valid. Maybe they have less time available, or maybe they only find a select group of topics interesting.I wasn't trying to discredit them by saying they weren't regular members. I was actually defending them in a way, because if they were in fact regular members, I would get very pissed because I don't tolerate the flaming of Warboards members. If these two are just sort of "visiting" here, then I still would like to see them bicker in another venue.

[Xenon]

because if they were in fact regular members, I would get very pissed because I don't tolerate the flaming of Warboards members.
Ha! That really made me laugh out loud! You don't tolerate flaming? Well what are you gonna do about it? Throw a hissy fit? Ban them (us)? Warboards members are not allowed to disagree? You all get along all the time? Give me a break.

The only reason I joined such a short time ago is because I have been away from the community since October of 2003. When I came back to the community a few months ago, no one bothered to tell me over at Blizzforums that WB even existed. Then someone let slip that AJ, Nuts, Schwitzer, DarkMagneto and some of my other friends were over here. The funny thing is, DarkMagneto comes to my site on a pretty regular basis and I guess he thought I knew about WB and chose not to come here or something. In any event, I'll be a regular member here as long as the topics stay interesting and we can have some fun debates like this one...

I personally don't care if someone flames me. I can take all kinds of language and it really doesn't phaze me one way or the other.

Getting back to the topic, are we ever going to resolve this with some sort of action? Are we going to put it to the moderators who from what I can see are somewhat in agreement that some sort of standards are necessary?

[Whiteknight]

Getting back to the topic, are we ever going to resolve this with some sort of action? Are we going to put it to the moderators who from what I can see are somewhat in agreement that some sort of standards are necessary?

I agree with that. It has been long enough and most of the points for either side have been made. An administrator should lay down the new rules, or tell people they will stay the same, sometime soon.

[Moser]

I don't really think spelling matters. Most people don't care about spelling when they are online, your not getting a grade for it, are you? No. Everybody has their own opinion about things and should be able TOO post what they want and spell how they want. Is it really that hard TWO figure out what they mean?

But personally I feel that people who call other people names in the intellectual forum shouldn't be able to post. Does anybody feel this way TO?

[Eros]

I don't know if I like the idea of allowing just anyone to post in the intellectual round table. Shouldn't someone add some rules about a limit to how many spelling errors someone can have in a single post before they are not allowed to post here for a while?

I see threads full of people who can't even spell intellectual trying to argue about all sorts of things. People who don't even know the difference between "to", "too" and "two".

What does everyone else think? I am not mentioning any names either. I don't want to turn this into a flaming war, I just want to know what the other frequenters of this part of the forums think about how poor a speller or how lousy someone's grammar can be before it is called unacceptable and better confined to whatever this forum's equivalent of "Chit Chat" is.
Thinking thoughts and typing words are two completely seperate things.

[Xenon]

Thinking thoughts and typing words are two completely seperate things.
Really? You don't say. I'm glad to see you put on your thinking cap this morning Eros.

Moser: ST*U and sit down you f%c**$g fa%^*t. Don't talk to me about how to %&#@ing spell 2, 2, or 2. You're just a p*^%&$#y faced dou%#e bag full of ^%ckSu&k*ng mo&h%$f*ck^ng sh^t. goddamned ass*^%$n. Eat sh%# and die unc$&ef*&ker.

:devil:

[Kaervek]

I change my mind on the entire issue. (http://www.warboards.org/showpost.php?p=122225&postcount=34) Ban them all.

[Xenon]

Holy Gadzooks Batman! I couldn't read it all! I was getting a headache trying to understand the disjointed style of this writer who can't be bothered to spell or consult a grammatical guide. For the love of all that is holy and sacred! Please stop GiaDragoness; or at least read THIS (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/index.html) before you attempt to convey another idea to someone via these forums.

[LordAhriman]

Here's my suggestion. We should have two seperate types of thread: first, a 'discussion-type' thread, where people are allowed to make short, sweet, conversational posts. Spelling would not be important past the successful conveying of ideas. The ultimate goal of this thread type would be to discuss casual opinions and reach a general conclusion.

The other type of thread would be a more debate-centered thread; to post in it would require that the poster has reached definate conclusions on the subject, with supporting evidence. The subject matter would have to be something upon which a real conclusion can be reached, nothing circular, religious, or political. There would be no name-calling or personal attacks whatsoever here. The ultimate goal of this thread type would be to see whose points hold the most weight. Optionally, there could be a limited number of posters in each thread allowed to participate who would 'register' at the start (a la Diplomacy) to prevent endless threads where new people come in and force arguments to be repeated.

Just my suggestion.

[Xenon]

Shouldn't your last option just be extended to include the IR and everyone who wants to participate must abide by the rules?

No bad spelling.
No improper grammar.
Limited namecalling. (Hey, even the presidential candidates participate in namecalling.)

I wouldn't want to see all these boring dry debates if there wasn't a small chance of someone getting into a heated argument and calling the opposing side "morons" or "lackwits"...

[LordAhriman]

I wouldn't want to see all these boring dry debates if there wasn't a small chance of someone getting into a heated argument and calling the opposing side "morons" or "lackwits"...
Problem is, it's often taken to the opposite extreme. Ahem. :)

[Kaervek]

Problem is, it's often taken to the opposite extreme. Ahem. :)
So is the incessant use ...er, abuse of the English language. Seriously, take back anything I've said in opposition to this idea.

[Xenon]

I shudder to think how some of you are going to survive in the real world. You do realize of course that in the real world people get upset and "flame" eachother don't you? If you can't learn how to ignore verbal abuse online where the person abusing you has no chance of ever seeing you or doing you actual physical harm, how are you going to deal with it in real life?

[Scauthra]

Meh... I will just say.

Yes, because no matter how smart or dim-witted you are, your opinion can add to the discussion. As much as I loathe netspeak or jsut the brutallity of some easier words, (not sayin my spelling is the best, but it's by far not as bad as some) it still is nice to read others opinions.

Though it's bothersome to read posts by those who have english as a secend language. Sometimes the placement of words or lack there of also get's a bit irritating.

And you Xenon, make a good point. If someone get's so heated up over someone on line makeing fun of thier 'mama' then there is little possibility they will be able to deal with it in conversation with another breathing, well spoken human being. Sadly, my speach tends to be fast paced or slurs at the end. It's a habit I try to break but never seem to conquer. <<

[Basan]

Sorry just posting my 2 cents now but it was when I had the chance 2 follow the whole thread's magnitude... :)
My opinion is just 2 stick with the T-Dawg's 1 (if I remind correctly) of self-restraining urself and checkin' upon ur statements be4 submitting it.

A question 4 starters....
So by common standards of writting/posting that are being debated here, I should be IR banned / suffer a temp IR ban / or some others? :confused:
I usually post in mild '1337 net languague' just 'cause I mostly do it at work or places related 2 it. Therefore I must be as short in time as I can 2 prevent getting caught.
Some of u already 'crossed swords' with me (metaphorically speakin'), and in other times shared the same ideals (points of view if u will), in some debates over here and all 'round the forums that WB's presents 2 us. What's ur opinion? Did my 1337 typing made it 2 encoded and hard 2 read? Methinks it wasn't that unreadble. Please let me know. :)

All the points I've seen here are interesting but 4 me, I'd stick with the current policy.
Most of those proposed options are 2 much time consuming or are 2 damn near of some freedom restrictions that I don't like 2 see anywhere (4 instance, the minimum post level just 2 post in here). :concern:

Incoherent and constant posters at it in these parts (read Intellectual Roundtable) that don't follow common or at least slightly elaborated posting 'rules' should be in the 1st time warned, then as a 2ndary warning temp-banned from IR. Harsh measures should be taken upon repeating such attempts (as I think it already is).
Afterall the report button is just a few clicks away... as some1 conveniently reminded. ;)

[Markpyro]

There should be some degree of editing, but when I'm typing, I usually don't like to add the apostrophe on words like "can't, don't, and I'm". This doesnt mean I still can't make an intelligble post.