Wolfire Games Forums

tokage wrote:Why? Because it shows that you didn't care enough about your own thread to look at it after you posted nor notice that the subject is wrong when returning to the forum.

One thing I note about this forum, is it doesn't immediately send you to your thread or post when you create it so you can see the actual results of your post. One could very well easily press the submit button and then close their browser without so much as seeing their submitted post. Therefore I don't think you can discount such an excuse for not reviewing your post. How can we take away such an excuse? either a mandatory preview before submit, or automatic view after submission can help prevent posting mistakes and at the same time discredit such excuses, but it is not done here.

I also find it strange that, when some one posts something that is similar to spam, people feel that it is necessary to reply to it and also provide no positive or constructive feedback to it. In fact, any reply to spam is very much just as useless as the spam itself. This may occur because the forums are mostly self moderated, and therefore people feel that they need respond negatively to any spam or frivolous postings. The issue about such confrontational moderation, is that it doesn't really help moderate the forums as it simply causes a derailment from the topic to an argument on forum etiquette and post acceptability. As well, it just leads to more bickering and even more useless posts, especially if a majority of threads devolve into the discussion of "I think you are just spamming"

Now maybe I'll actually try to post something that is remotely on topic.
I thought I read the blogs before, but I guess I have memory worse than a gold fish, because when I first read the question, the fact that "Fire Pong" was a game mentioned in the Blogs that I had read went completely over my head.

For me, I can only claim to have programmed one game before. It was a class project and I programmed a clone of centipede on a simple computer (CUSP, a virtual processor in a virtual environment) using assembly. I'm just glad I made the spiders dumb so they didn't pwn me in my own game.

Well, there still is no explanation why the subject was a 'why' instead of a 'what'.
Anyways, as you obviously don't know how to post on a forum here is a little instructions:
Suppose you have the urge to share your thoughts on a forum.

1. Think about, if this thought is worth sharing. If not, don't post.
2. Type your thought out for a new post or new thread.
3. Think again, if what you typed is worth reading by others. If you get the feeling it doesn't, either try again from 2. or don't post.
4. If you are satisfied with what you typed, make a quick check for obvious spelling mistakes.
5. Think again, if what you just spell checked is worth posting. If not, don't post.
6. Hit 'Submit'.
7. Check, if your post looks like you think it should. If not, correct it.

If your post involves any fancy formatting or is a bit longer, use of the preview button is encouraged.

Now, I can understand, that the procedure can be shortened a bit, if you just want to do a quick funny reply to an already pretty useless topic (At least one of the thinking steps needs to be directly before the 'submit'-step, tough). But if you open up a whole new thread, you really should take the time to do this step-by-step. There really is no hurry, the thread will get the same attention, if it will be opened a few minutes later. Furthermore, if the topic doesn't deserve the time put into this, the whole thing would be over at the first step already anyway.

You wanted a definition for spam. Anything that would fail one of the thinking-steps, but gets posted anyway, can be considered spam.

tokage wrote:Well, there still is no explanation why the subject was a 'why' instead of a 'what'.
Anyways, as you obviously don't know how to post on a forum here is a little instructions:
Suppose you have the urge to share your thoughts on a forum.

1. Think about, if this thought is worth sharing. If not, don't post.
2. Type your thought out for a new post or new thread.
3. Think again, if what you typed is worth reading by others. If you get the feeling it doesn't, either try again from 2. or don't post.
4. If you are satisfied with what you typed, make a quick check for obvious spelling mistakes.
5. Think again, if what you just spell checked is worth posting. If not, don't post.
6. Hit 'Submit'.
7. Check, if your post looks like you think it should. If not, correct it.

If your post involves any fancy formatting or is a bit longer, use of the preview button is encouraged.

Now, I can understand, that the procedure can be shortened a bit, if you just want to do a quick funny reply to an already pretty useless topic (At least one of the thinking steps needs to be directly before the 'submit'-step, tough). But if you open up a whole new thread, you really should take the time to do this step-by-step. There really is no hurry, the thread will get the same attention, if it will be opened a few minutes later. Furthermore, if the topic doesn't deserve the time put into this, the whole thing would be over at the first step already anyway.

You wanted a definition for spam. Anything that would fail one of the thinking-steps, but gets posted anyway, can be considered spam.

Hell, if you're so bent on thinking I was trying to spam then I won't argue with you.

Armored Wolf wrote:

tokage wrote:Well, there still is no explanation why the subject was a 'why' instead of a 'what'.
Anyways, as you obviously don't know how to post on a forum here is a little instructions:
Suppose you have the urge to share your thoughts on a forum.

1. Think about, if this thought is worth sharing. If not, don't post.
2. Type your thought out for a new post or new thread.
3. Think again, if what you typed is worth reading by others. If you get the feeling it doesn't, either try again from 2. or don't post.
4. If you are satisfied with what you typed, make a quick check for obvious spelling mistakes.
5. Think again, if what you just spell checked is worth posting. If not, don't post.
6. Hit 'Submit'.
7. Check, if your post looks like you think it should. If not, correct it.

If your post involves any fancy formatting or is a bit longer, use of the preview button is encouraged.

Now, I can understand, that the procedure can be shortened a bit, if you just want to do a quick funny reply to an already pretty useless topic (At least one of the thinking steps needs to be directly before the 'submit'-step, tough). But if you open up a whole new thread, you really should take the time to do this step-by-step. There really is no hurry, the thread will get the same attention, if it will be opened a few minutes later. Furthermore, if the topic doesn't deserve the time put into this, the whole thing would be over at the first step already anyway.

You wanted a definition for spam. Anything that would fail one of the thinking-steps, but gets posted anyway, can be considered spam.

Hell, if you're so bent on thinking I was trying to spam then I won't argue with you.

He missed the part where you should ask yourself if anyone actually cares, regardless of how informative it is.

Blorx wrote:He missed the part where you should ask yourself if anyone actually cares, regardless of how informative it is.

Oh, sorry Blorx, I try to be less subtle so you understand it as well.
"Armored Wolf, think before you post. Otherwise half of what you post will be spam, regardless of your intentions."

He's been told that before, though, and it didn't work.
I don't think we can do much more about it. He'll have to learn by himself.
Something tells me he's reasonably close to achieving that, though.

Closer than before, anyway.

tokage wrote:

Blorx wrote:He missed the part where you should ask yourself if anyone actually cares, regardless of how informative it is.

Oh, sorry Blorx, I try to be less subtle so you understand it as well.
"Armored Wolf, think before you post. Otherwise half of what you post will be spam, regardless of your intentions."

I wasn't referring to this. I understood just fine. Just trying to joke around.

@Tokage: The original post was actually going to be "Why?" with the actual subject "Why does the average user not have access to Overt Ops until requested?" Unfortunately I forgot what it was when I came back to fix it, but I had another question to ask, so I just recycled the topic (causing conufsion.) I didn't remember my original topic until now. If you do not find this solution acceptable, well, go soak your head.

Glabbit wrote:He's been told that before, though, and it didn't work.
I don't think we can do much more about it. He'll have to learn by himself.
Something tells me he's reasonably close to achieving that, though.

Closer than before, anyway.

Before what?

Armored Wolf wrote:Why does the average user not have access to Overt Ops until requested?

I would enjoy saying "duh", but I'm just going to throw a link at ya.
http://www.wolfire.com/overt-ops

Armored Wolf wrote:[...] I forgot what it was when I came back to fix it [...]

tokage wrote: [...] you didn't care enough about your own thread [...]

tokage wrote:

Armored Wolf wrote:[...] I forgot what it was when I came back to fix it [...]

tokage wrote: [...] you didn't care enough about your own thread [...]

Yes. I do not attach personal, loving care to words on an Internet forum.