Why are speedcubers on SpeedSolving.com so mean?

[sneaklyfox]

Cubism being...cubes? Sorry I'm young but old school (Corners-first and I still say cubist).

use the search function

Seriously, cubism has to do with art like Picasso-style. If you type "cubist" in wikipedia it redirects to the page on cubism.

 

[rj]

use the search function

Seriously, cubism has to do with art like Picasso-style. If you type "cubist" in wikipedia it redirects to the page on cubism.

"Nude descending stairs" is a portrait of Faz.

Just kidding.

 

[rybaby]

"Nude descending stairs" is a portrait of Faz.

Just kidding.

haha here are some picasso enthusiasts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaDbC3Ts_UI

 

[YddEd]

Pretty much or always?

Always.

Sarcasm is one of the things that make life worth living....

And makes life fun?

 

[immortalchaos29]

I did not intend for Stefan to point out small, irrelevant bits of information and blow them up into a big deal.

This is just what he does. You'll get used to it though. When I am about to publish a reply, I often think to myself, "Self, how could Stefan take this and make me look dumb," then I may edit some things. True story. I don't pretend to understand his intentions but this could be partly why he does it.

As for sarcasm, it can be used for humor, or to belittle someone. I think the difference is usually clear even on an online forum.

Also sometimes there may be a long standing joke on the forums that a newcomer might not understand, and therefore misinterpret. For example, "Or you could just use Petrus."

 

[Renslay]

Also sometimes there may be a long standing joke on the forums that a newcomer might not understand, and therefore misinterpret. For example, "Or you could just use Petrus."

Just for the record: http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_cubing_memes

 

[Stefan]

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

Give out misinformation, unfairly disrespect Minh Thai, use bad arguments, expect noone to rebuff. Wat.

Might be "irrelevant" to *you*, but if you're misinforming others, I have a problem with that.

And the link was annoying because I had already provided it on the exact same page (except I hadn't misspelled it, of course).

You misspelled your username as well, btw, there's a "c" missing at the start.

 

[aceofspades98]

Always.

Nah.........

 

[YddEd]

Nah.........

90% of the time?

 

[Stefan]

Yes, 90% of the time it never is.

 

[TMOY]

CFOP is proven over the Waterman method..

Since when ? Please provide a valid proof.

And I mean *valid*. The fact that faster times have been achieved with CFOP proves absolutely nothing when one method is used and optimized by thousand of people and the other one by only a handful of cubers. Most people said the same about Roux a couple of years ago, look at what Roux users can do now.

It's always the same circular logic. One method is considered better because people go faster with it, people go faster with it because the best speedcubers choose it, and they choose it because the method is considered better. And the goal of people trying to push up alternative methods is precisely to break that kind of circular logic, which unfortunately is really hard because most people just don't see the flaw in it.

 

[aceofspades98]

Since when ? Please provide a valid proof.

And I mean *valid*. The fact that faster times have been achieved with CFOP proves absolutely nothing when one method is used and optimized by thousand of people and the other one by only a handful of cubers. Most people said the same about Roux a couple of years ago, look at what Roux users can do now.

It's always the same circular logic. One method is considered better because people go faster with it, people go faster with it because the best speedcubers choose it, and they choose it because the method is considered better. And the goal of people trying to push alternative methods is precisely to break that kind of circular logic, which unfortunately is really hard because most people just don't see the flaw in it.

Method use is already becoming more and more diverse. That circle is coming close to non existent. That is all.

 

[TMOY]

So what ? Is it supposed to prove sneaklyfox' claim ?

 

[Dene]

Welcome to the internet. These forums are nothing in comparison to some places; the mods make sure of that. I used to try to be mean, but nowadays there's no point.

Mr. Pochmann wins this thread anyway.

 

[Ton]

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

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

Thanks!

It is not the cubers, to me it is a pattern I see on all social media, people are on social media individuals instead of a member of a group sharing a common goal.
Meeting the same cubers in person with "nasty" posts, would show you that they are helpful and understanding.

In my opinion a forum does not work well if it has chatting kind of threads, informative contributions seems to work very well

btw The Waterman method is a corners first as with many corners first, you need to be very fast in the execution on slice moves (M,S, E) . in general R U L moves are much faster to execute.
But than again studying Waterman or any other method will improve your skills so just stick to your own plan and keep posting

 

[TMOY]

btw The Waterman method is a corners first as with many corners first, you need to be very fast in the execution on slice moves (M,S, E) . in general R U L moves are much faster to execute.

Just one word: practice. Once again, look at the fast Roux users and tell me if their M slices are slow.

But than again studying Waterman or any other method will improve your skills so just stick to your own plan and keep posting

I 100% agree with that.

 

[StachuK1992]

My guess;

It's mean because conversation used to be more constructive.
The average age and IQ have certainly dropped around here, and older members recent newer members for it.

Seeing all of the stupid spam is very very frustrating.

 

[aceofspades98]

My guess;

It's mean because conversation used to be more constructive.
The average age and IQ have certainly dropped around here, and older members recent newer members for it.

Seeing all of the stupid spam is very very frustrating.

What do you say the average age nowadays is?

 

[GaDiBo]

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!

Yes I agree with you in some point, my ECDU method is exactly same as your Waterman method, most people are very nice and friendly but some people does not. You can read all here: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...y-new-speedmethod-Tiến-s-method-(ECDU-method)

1. Your method is very different.
2. It's not his method. It's Waterman's method.

I'm sorry, my English not good, "my ECDU method is exactly same as your Waterman method" mean that my thread have a bit same status of his thread. So my method is not same as Waterman method.

 

[Stefan]

my ECDU method is exactly same as your Waterman method

1. Your method is very different.
2. It's not his method. It's Waterman's method.