Why are speedcubers on SpeedSolving.com so mean?

[aceofspades98]

THIS IS SO UNBELIEVABLY FALSE.

That's like saying apples are not green. Plenty of arguments are constructive and plenty of arguments are not. On this forum, they are constructive most of the time. There are few things more valuable to someone trying to learn about a topic than seeing knowledgeable people argue different sides of it.

Well said.

 

[rj]

But a lot of the rest of the internet is quite appalling... well, depending on the topic too. But yes, SS is actually quite nice.

Compared to some I've seen, yes, totally. Definitely the tightest-knit.

 

[Dene]

That's like saying apples are not green.

Red apples aren't green

I honestly didn't get it. Rybaby has nothing to do with crybaby; it's been a nickname all my life. I'm fixing to lose it if Stefan makes another joke like that.

Don't. He won't.

I hope he does; that was hilarious

Interesting. That might be a first, usually people say that I'm very different in real life, and I think so, too. In real life I'm rather soft-spoken (literally, as my voice is low and quiet) and introverted, and I'm thinking too slowly to come up with stuff like I can here. Also, in real life I have access to far fewer conversations than here, drastically reducing the chances to even find a reason to get annoyed. But maybe you caught me on a particularly bad/good day.

I know exactly how you feel. Although I'm not so much soft-spoken (I'm actually generally rather loud), I'm not so much quick-witted like some people are, and I don't get enough exposure to useful types of conversation which would allow me to have a go at someone. It's also much less common at, for example, a competition, for some noob to come up and say "how do I get sub30?" so how am I supposed to say "just practise more nubcake" to their face? And because of all this people get a misperception that I'm actually "nice" in person. I always try to say I'm the same in person as I am here; I'm not mean to most people on the forums, and in person there are few chances to be mean to someone...

Alright, let me apologize for that joke.

Boooo.

 

[Noahaha]

Red apples aren't green

That's my point.

Saying that arguing is not constructive is like saying that apples are not green.

 

[rj]

Red apples aren't green



I hope he does; that was hilarious



I know exactly how you feel. Although I'm not so much soft-spoken (I'm actually generally rather loud), I'm not so much quick-witted like some people are, and I don't get enough exposure to useful types of conversation which would allow me to have a go at someone. It's also much less common at, for example, a competition, for some noob to come up and say "how do I get sub30?" so how am I supposed to say "just practise more nubcake" to their face? And because of all this people get a misperception that I'm actually "nice" in person. I always try to say I'm the same in person as I am here; I'm not mean to most people on the forums, and in person there are few chances to be mean to someone...



Boooo.

Dene, Noah means that some arguments are constructive, whereas some aren't.

 

[AvGalen]

Nah. If the method is reasonable at all, Thom's gonna do it.

Did Stefan ever prove that Old Pochmann or M2/R2 are good? No, just that it has potential
Did I ever prove that AvG edgepairing was good? No, just that it has potential.

What helps is if you make a good tutorial instead of just a list of steps, explain the benefits AND disadvantages, eat your own dog food, and have a fast person prove that it really can be fast.

The (c)rybaby joke was funny, but misplaced and I am thankful that Stefan apologized for it.
In my opinion this forum is pretty great and when people are blunt there is often a reason for it. Bad topics should be stopped quickly and bad posters should learn quickly. There are only a few moderators on this forum and so many members and posts that it is a wonder it all works so well for about 10 years now.

This forum has just a few rules so everyone should know them. One of this rules actually states:
2d. No bumping threads: Please use the search function before making a new thread. If you find an older thread that is similar to the one you wanted to create, please use that thread instead of creating a new topic.

However there is also this one:
2c. Worthless Replying
Don't reply to a post unless you have something of value to add to it. Replying with "+1" or "go search for it" is not allowed, as it does no good for the topic creator or the community.

 

[Petro Leum]

There's a difference between having a harsh tone, being rude and being mean, so I'll go through what all three of those mean in my opinion:

Harsh tone: In my opinion, a harsh/blunt/matter of fact tone is a good thing in discussions. Often people mistake a harsh tone for meanness. Stefan for example makes very blunt and factual posts when he disagrees with people. This is often mistaken for meanness.

Rude: Rudeness is the most common form of "meanness" on the forum, and that's where I would put the examples of posts directed at new people to the forums. I think that pointing people towards the OAQT is good, but often people do it in such a way as to try to make the OP feel stupid. This is rude.

Mean: Actual meanness is not something you see often, and I don't think it's a big problem on the forum. There is occasional bullying, but the mods do a good job of stamping that down.


As to your complaints about the responses to your thread...

The second page has literally nothing mean or negative on it.

The only thing that fits into one of my three categories is this, and that is just harsh, not mean. Stefan was merely pointing out some gaps in your logic.

I wanna highlight this as an excellent post!

Many people get butthurt on the slightest hint of someone being honest with the stuff he writes, and often discussion grow to huge shitstorm where its just unnecessary and started as a good controversial discussion. people should keep Noahs points in mind when they brwose the web.

 

[Stefan]

Boooo.

I wish I could apologize for the apology without that offending the originally offended again, requiring to apologize for the apology for the apology, which in turn would make you unhappy again and so on and so on. There's gotta be a trick... like Schrödinger's apology.

 

[Ninja Storm]

Did Stefan ever prove that Old Pochmann or M2/R2 are good? No, just that it has potential
Did I ever prove that AvG edgepairing was good? No, just that it has potential.

What helps is if you make a good tutorial instead of just a list of steps, explain the benefits AND disadvantages, eat your own dog food, and have a fast person prove that it really can be fast.

The (c)rybaby joke was funny, but misplaced and I am thankful that Stefan apologized for it.
In my opinion this forum is pretty great and when people are blunt there is often a reason for it. Bad topics should be stopped quickly and bad posters should learn quickly. There are only a few moderators on this forum and so many members and posts that it is a wonder it all works so well for about 10 years now.

This forum has just a few rules so everyone should know them. One of this rules actually states:
2d. No bumping threads: Please use the search function before making a new thread. If you find an older thread that is similar to the one you wanted to create, please use that thread instead of creating a new topic.

However there is also this one:
2c. Worthless Replying
Don't reply to a post unless you have something of value to add to it. Replying with "+1" or "go search for it" is not allowed, as it does no good for the topic creator or the community.

In addition to these rules, there is text stating "make sure you have searched the forum to ensure the topic does not already exist! You can search by using the box in the upper right of the screen.

Is this a quick question that could be answered in a few words? Try posting in the One Answer Question Thread."

So, IN ORDER TO MAKE THESE TYPES OF THREADS, people have to click a button stating that they have read the notice. They're blatantly disregarding the rules of the forum.

 

[Schmidt]

About being mean: It is all about how you read the written message. I was notified by a mod for making this comment (which was deleted when the post was being merged into the right thread)

You could checkout the thread called "Pyraminx". You might learn something.

Some would probably call it mean, others would read is as I wrote it.

 

[elrog]

THIS IS SO UNBELIEVABLY FALSE.

That's like saying apples are not green. Plenty of arguments are constructive and plenty of arguments are not. On this forum, they are constructive most of the time. There are few things more valuable to someone trying to learn about a topic than seeing knowledgeable people argue different sides of it.

Out of all of the arguments that go on the forum, by far, most are not constructive. Arguments cause more problems than they fix. If you want to help someone, just help them rather than fighting them about it. Seeing a knowledgeable person arguing with an unknowledgeable person isn't really that constructive, and that's the way it happens most of the time.

Would you like me to change my statement to "most arguments are not constructive?"

 

[Noahaha]

Out of all of the arguments that go on the forum, by far, most are not constructive. Arguments cause more problems than they fix. If you want to help someone, just help them rather than fighting them about it. Seeing a knowledgeable person arguing with an unknowledgeable person isn't really that constructive, and that's the way it happens most of the time.

Would you like me to change my statement to "most arguments are not constructive?"

I think that one big problem (which has already been mentioned in this thread a bunch of times) is that an argument is often perceived as an attack, either by one of the arguers or someone else. You say that most arguments are between people who are knowledgeable and people who are not, but assuming you're right about that (and I don't know if you are), what's wrong with that? Seriously... what's wrong with that? If someone who doesn't know what they're talking about makes a false claim (like your false claim of yours that started this argument (hahaha how meta is this?)), why shouldn't someone tell them that they are wrong and explain exactly why? The argument only starts once the person who was first contradicted decides to continue along their line of thought.

I just don't see a problem.

1. Two people don't agree about something.
2. They argue.
3. Everyone wins (as long as no one takes it as a personal attack, which it almost never is).
4. ????
5. Profit

 

[rybaby]

I bet I should have changed the name of this thread and the poll to "Do you see meanness etc. on the SS forums?" This may have cleared up the topic, as I certainly do not think that everybody is mean here.

BTW Stefan, I love your new avatar pic.

 

[Joey VOV]

hmm.. now that I actually think About it, they are not as "mean" as I thought. I had to redefine a few things. I think blunt is a better word, I saw it a few times on this thread. And I guess I should not complain either because I can be rather blunt myself in the comments on my videos since I am more a vlogger than a youtube cuber. so when someone asks me about cubing, i just inform them because they have never seen it before, but then if someone tries to refute a claim I have made already, I am going to refute it, most likely bluntly, to get my point across best.

 

[shelley]

I understand getting annoyed with beginners and things like that, but you'd think that instead of the being slightly mean or sarcastic, they would actually try to help them..
I don't know, I love helping and teaching, probably why I want to be a teacher...

Because helping people takes time and effort. Imagine if 50 people came here asking "how do I solve a Rubik's cube?" Would you type out your detailed beginner solution every time you saw such a thread? Or do you ignore them because they clearly don't care about the subject enough to put forth the tiniest bit of effort to learn the most basic thing about the community?

Now if a beginner came and said "I found this tutorial on solving the Rubik's cube, but there's this last layer case I don't understand", I'd be much more willing to help. You can see this person has already put in his own effort into trying to learn, and it's very likely he won't be the kind of person who loses interest once he figures out that solving a Rubik's cube isn't a trick you can learn in five minutes, thus rendering all your effort useless.

 

[Noahaha]

BTW Stefan, I love your new avatar pic.

Me too!

 

[rj]

Me too!

isn't that a reference from your worlds vid?
I posted about that earlier is this thread.

 

[Noahaha]

isn't that a reference from your worlds vid?

It is.

 

[rj]

It is.

I agree that he is nice, but I think sneaklyfox is nicer.

 

[elrog]

1. Two people don't agree about something.
2. They argue.
3. Everyone wins (as long as no one takes it as a personal attack, which it almost never is).
4. ????
5. Profit

I don't see any profit in that. Rather than wasting that time arguing, just help them out nicely. It would make everything so much simpler, and make the forum a better place, so why do you refuse? You also are saying that the argument is started by the contradicted person keeps on thinking what they do. It is not thinking, but posting. Also, you have to at least realize that the way you make the message sound does impact and can help avoid or cause them to react badly or well. To say it doesn't would just be a flat out lie.

I also wouldn't say it was my "false" statement that started this "argument". If you really think that this is an argument, and that you debating better than I will change my thoughts, have fun .

@ shelley: Being the person I am, I would type out a complete and descriptive post of the/a beginners method for all 50 people. If you are too lazy to answer each individually to help them understand better, copy and paste? I am not asking that you do as I do, just that you don't start arguments... please. Unless you want to see more threads like this of course..