Why are speedcubers on SpeedSolving.com so mean?

[rybaby]

I'm not trying to attack anybody here or make accusations. I have noticed, nonetheless, that many cubists here on the forums are just plain mean.

Example: I cannot even count how many times I have seen "use the search function" on threads. For one, if you care to post on a repeated thread, why don't you at least explain a brief answer? Or at least post a link to a thread that might answer one's question?

Example: From my own experience -- I post a thread about the Waterman method. I get some nice responses with constructive criticism as well as tips. However, half of the responses were negative and didn't help. Such as saying: Waterman averaged 18 seconds, not 16. Or CFOP is faster. Or that's a bad link. You can read it all here: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?42485-The-Waterman-Method/page2

I also notice a disturbing amount of sarcasm....

This has been bugging me a lot recently, so any insight would be helpful.

Thanks!

 

[Owen]

Elitism, many users have low tolerance for inexperienced cubers. See my signature.

 

[aceofspades98]

When someone says to use the search function, they are right most of the time. I have seen some decent methods proposed and to many people say "or you could just use ____". New users see older ones say something like that and use it too, but out of context.

 

[rybaby]

I like your signature. I just wish others would remember that they started somewhere, too.

 

[sneaklyfox]

Actually, I don't really see meanness in the examples you mention. It really depends on tone I suppose, but inherently the comments you mentioned are not mean. (I didn't read the original posts.) "Use the search function" is just a helpful piece of advice that should make everyone's lives easier. A lot of things are already posted somewhere on the forums so it's better for people to at least attempt to search first before posting questions that have already been answered many times. And some are just factual corrections. CFOP is proven over the Waterman method. And a bad link is a bad link.

Btw, most people use the term "cuber" rather than "cubist". (No meanness intended.)

Edit: Oh yeah, and I don't know how to answer the poll because some people are mean but many are not.

 

[rybaby]

Actually, I don't really see meanness in the examples you mention. It really depends on tone I suppose, but inherently the comments you mentioned are not mean. (I didn't read the original posts.) "Use the search function" is just a helpful piece of advice that should make everyone's lives easier. A lot of things are already posted somewhere on the forums so it's better for people to at least attempt to search first before posting questions that have already been answered many times. And some are just factual corrections. CFOP is proven over the Waterman method. And a bad link is a bad link.

Btw, most people use the term "cuber" rather than "cubist". (No meanness intended.)

Edit: Oh yeah, and I don't know how to answer the poll because some people are mean but many are not.

I just get frustrated when people recommend the search function in a critical, exasperated way.

Also, CFOP may be proven over Waterman, but methods aren't fast; people are fast. I did pretty much lose it when Stefan kept posting irrelevant stuff just to shoot me down.

Maybe it's because I'm not very fast (relative) and other cubists just don't like helping a slow guy out :-(

 

[Joey VOV]

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...

 

[Noahaha]

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.

 

[uniacto]

heyo

so do you know how many times people have asked what's the best lube or the best 4x4 to get or the best big cubes to buy? Just check out the "which puzzle should I buy" thread or whatever it's called and you'll know why people tell newbies to use the search function.

 

[aceofspades98]

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...

Its not that we don't like to help, it is just that there post belongs somewhere else or has been answered before.

 

[rybaby]

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.

Eh, I guess you're right. I have never been one to appreciate a harsh tone in any matter--I am naturally patient and helpful and don't see the need for harshness when friendliness will do.

 

[JasonK]

Eh, I guess you're right. I have never been one to appreciate a harsh tone in any matter--I am naturally patient and helpful and don't see the need for harshness when friendliness will do.

I wouldn't even call it harsh to be honest. It's just getting your point across concisely, which is a good thing in a discussion.

 

[rj]

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.

Noah, you were a bit harsh when I proposed that edges-first method, a long time ago.
I am sometimes slightly harsh myself, if harsh means blunt, but I try to be nice about it.
I had to get used to bluntness, and so do you. Set a good example and be cheerful about being blunt, because we need more of that.

Cheers!

rj

 

[rybaby]

I wouldn't even call it harsh to be honest. It's just getting your point across concisely, which is a good thing in a discussion.

I just don't see the need to be harsh when you can give constructive criticism in a friendly manner. Perhaps I am "too friendly" for the forums...

 

[rj]

Just be blunt, in a nice, helpful, friendly way.

 

[Noahaha]

Noah, you were a bit harsh when I proposed that edges-first method, a long time ago.
I am sometimes slightly harsh myself, if harsh means blunt, but I try to be nice about it.
I had to get used to bluntness, and so do you. Set a good example and be cheerful about being blunt, because we need more of that.

Cheers!

rj

I did say that being blunt was a good thing. Maybe I'm missing your point.

I just don't see the need to be harsh when you can give constructive criticism in a friendly manner. Perhaps I am "too friendly" for the forums...

It's not a matter of constructive criticism though... it's a matter of discussion/argument. An argument is easiest to comprehend when it's not weighted down by extra statements. Contradiction is in no way equal to meanness.

 

[Edward]

This forum is so cushy and nice nowadways. Almost soccer-mom-friendly-nice it feels (;-; RIP my posts).

I haven't even been her that long (late '08 on my first account I believe), but I can definitely see that it's not nearly as "mean" as it used to be.

 

[rj]

I did say that being blunt was a good thing. Maybe I'm missing your point.



It's not a matter of constructive criticism though... it's a matter of discussion/argument. An argument is easiest to comprehend when it's not weighted down by extra statements. Contradiction is in no way equal to meanness.

Being blunt is good, but should not be taken too far.

 

[Rnewms]

I just don't see the need to be harsh when you can give constructive criticism in a friendly manner.

Why take offense to something when you can take the constructive criticism that is offered to you? Understand that some people may be frustrated with wrong/misguided/lack of information and express it in their posts. Take in the REAL information that they offer and reply with something like, "I will make sure to do that next time. Thank you!"

Perhaps I am "too friendly" for the forums...

More likely too sensitive.

 

[rybaby]

It's not a matter of constructive criticism though... it's a matter of discussion/argument. An argument is easiest to comprehend when it's not weighted down by extra statements. Contradiction is in no way equal to meanness.

I disagree. In the post I referenced, in no way did I intend for my question to turn into an argument. I was mainly asking if/why many people use the algorithm, as well as tips and tricks for it. I did not intend for Stefan to point out small, irrelevant bits of information and blow them up into a big deal. I was helped by somerandomkidmike, who actually gave me advice and help!!

More likely too sensitive.

Case and point: that just sounds negative and mean, and not said in a way that really helps one improve.