Why do we do this?
 

I mostly lurk around here, but lately I've notice something that absolutely puzzles me.

When a certain, nameless, person posts an answer, he is immediately lambasted for his lack of knowledge. While many of the responses are accurate, many more just seem to be to flame the poster. Does it improve anything?

On the flip side, why does this person continue to participate in this community? It is obvious that he is not respected, and equally obvious that he is unwanted. Is it just the principle of hanging around? Personally, if people don't want me around, and don't respect me, AND blast me everytime I say something, I can find somewhere else to spend my time.

Anyway, just thought I'd ask why we insist on the flame wars, and why someone would stay around for them? Neither seems to serve any purpose. Wouldn't it be simpler to say "according to rule x.xx, the previous post is incorrect," and leave it at that.

Grail, that's a legit question. And since I'm guilty of a flame just this morning, here's my only answer. He pisses me off. The thing that makes me mad is not that he's wrong, or even that he posts incorrect answers as if they're gospel.

The thing that makes me mad is the answer to your second question. Why is he here? For fun. He enjoys causing trouble and he enjoys confusing the newer people who come here for help. That's what pisses me off. He gets enjoyment out of hurting the newer refs who come here.

He needs to be called out for this. I usually ignore him and let Jurassic handle it. But occasionally, it just needs to be pointed out to the community at large that he is an ignorant and troublesome idiot.

Mr. Scrapper, I totally agree with you with your perspective. However, I do not respond to any of his post right, wrong or indifferent. I must admit it's entertaining to see how he gets under people skin. JMO.

As one who's probably as guilty as almost anyone in this, I have to say he's not really under my skin. Although, apparently, his belief that he is under my skin (mine and others') might be what eggs him on.

Mostly, it's just a simple error correction that ends up going juvenile before it's all done; and I'll admit to indulging here. Frankly, I've made a couple of concerted decisions to limit my responses to simple factual corrections. They've obviously been unsuccessful. :(

As Scrapper said, it's not just the errors that draw the flames. It's the pattern:
1. Factual error or incredibly stupid officiating philosophy offered.
2. Correction offered.
3. Heels dug in.
4. Evidence presented for earlier correction.

This pattern is inevitably followed by one of two responses:
a) That's what I said, you misinterpreted because you hate me and want to discredit me.
b) That rule is stupid.

Often times, it's both A and B.

Honestly, it would be comical if it was an isolated occurance; but it's a very predictable SOP.

It's often his grammar...
 

I understand that I'm not perfect, but I do take pride in knowing the difference between affect and effect, than and then, etc.... :eek:

This thread should probably be deleted, but I'm going to comment, and then close it. I'll let Brad and / or Mick decide what to do.

Once, recently, OS asked for a copy of the forum rules. I couldn't find one, but I think the primary one is "Don't act like a troll." All too often, he does. and, we react to trolls (otherwise, they wouldn't be trolls).

Maybe (giving him the benefit of the doubt) he's not doing it on purpose. Maybe (ditto) he's just incapable of seeing what he's doing and / or modifying his behavior.

And, it would probably help if we (some more than others) would ignore him and rely on the smarts of the posters to tell the difference between good advice, OS advice and opinion. But, that doesn't seem likely to happen.

So, given the choice between constant moderating (of OS and other posters), and removing the problem, the choice, for me, is clear. But, I don't get a vote.