PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics]

[HeartBreakKid]

Through the Ages > any board game

It's on steam and mobile!

[Jaivl]

Honestly during the covid era there was a pretty huge chess boom in terms of a lot of variety streamers taking it up which led to me going into it


The difficulty of chess at a casual level is pretty overstated, a lot of people think it’s like hours and hours of memorization (which if ur playing the Sicilian like jaivl is, it is lol), but outside of openings where you can just go with simpler ones like I do, pattern recognition + being able to be purposeful with each move can bring you up to the top 20% pretty fast (I think that’s like 1500-1700 chess.com?)

A lot of like the nearly impossible chess feats like playing blindfolded or with like a minute in the clock aren’t too hard to learn once you get used to it but I have no idea how someone plays multiple games blindfolded that sounds insane

Here is the depth of my chess strategy:

any piece that crosses midcourt I hound back. But mainly I just relentlessly attack. I know zero formal opens/mid-games. I just play hyper aggressive in trying to pressure the king or barring that I target the rooks. But I'm just trying to force my opponent to have to react to me, rather than working their own attacks.

Works well enough against my kids, my dad, a couple friends who play, but I get absolutely worked by anyone who knows what they are doing. I tried reading some books/playing online after The Queens Gambit made it look cool, but then was like this is way too much work for something I don't care about mastering. Plus in my mid 40's its just way too late to be trying.

Settlers/hearts far more relaxing with enough strategy to suit me. If the US ever formally sanctions online poker and the sites can assure me its fair, I'd play that again too.

There’s a guy called gothamchess on YouTube, he’s pretty entertaining in the sense that he really treats it like a sports commentary so it got me into it in the first place. I was watching coverage of a bunch of gaming streamers have a tournament and it was just pretty funny seeing them rage lol

But yeah I think getting anywhere where u have like a title or something would probably be mastering it and that’s waaaayy too much work lol. Chess books are way to intense for me and the notation is still pretty confusing to me, like I can’t look at a chess notation of a game and clearly see the game or anything I can’t imagine how people do that as fast as they do lol

Ben Finegold's kids lectures are probably *the* best thing on Youtube, period.

Watch on YouTube

[MyUniBroDavis]

Here is the depth of my chess strategy:

any piece that crosses midcourt I hound back. But mainly I just relentlessly attack. I know zero formal opens/mid-games. I just play hyper aggressive in trying to pressure the king or barring that I target the rooks. But I'm just trying to force my opponent to have to react to me, rather than working their own attacks.

Works well enough against my kids, my dad, a couple friends who play, but I get absolutely worked by anyone who knows what they are doing. I tried reading some books/playing online after The Queens Gambit made it look cool, but then was like this is way too much work for something I don't care about mastering. Plus in my mid 40's its just way too late to be trying.

Settlers/hearts far more relaxing with enough strategy to suit me. If the US ever formally sanctions online poker and the sites can assure me its fair, I'd play that again too.

There’s a guy called gothamchess on YouTube, he’s pretty entertaining in the sense that he really treats it like a sports commentary so it got me into it in the first place. I was watching coverage of a bunch of gaming streamers have a tournament and it was just pretty funny seeing them rage lol

But yeah I think getting anywhere where u have like a title or something would probably be mastering it and that’s waaaayy too much work lol. Chess books are way to intense for me and the notation is still pretty confusing to me, like I can’t look at a chess notation of a game and clearly see the game or anything I can’t imagine how people do that as fast as they do lol

Ben Finegold's kids lectures are probably *the* best thing on Youtube, period.

Watch on YouTube

Yeah Gotham is def more for people getting into it, just because it’s his streams casual but it’s good at showing how to think through moves and stuff, but honestly at least chess.com rapid I feel you don’t need to know any complex middlegame stuff till pretty late on

I know finegold does not give a **** lol and it’s mad funny

I got inspired and playing half dead rn on a new acct, it’s funny how I can tell how much I suck now lmao

[Bad Gatorade]

You guys are so smart. I play Settlers of Catan online lol. Chess is hard.

Honestly during the covid era there was a pretty huge chess boom in terms of a lot of variety streamers taking it up which led to me going into it


The difficulty of chess at a casual level is pretty overstated, a lot of people think it’s like hours and hours of memorization (which if ur playing the Sicilian like jaivl is, it is lol), but outside of openings where you can just go with simpler ones like I do, pattern recognition which just improves by playing a lot + trying to have a reason behind moves can bring you up to the top 20% pretty fast (I think that’s like 1500-1700 chess.com?)

A lot of like the nearly impossible chess feats like playing blindfolded or with like a minute in the clock aren’t too hard to learn once you get used to it but I have no idea how someone plays multiple games blindfolded that sounds insane

Once you get into like the high rating range like 1800+ (chess.com at least, idk how the ratings are for lichess) it spiked alot (which is why I’m not there lmao) but for like 800-1500 it’s 90% don’t F up imo

The ratings vary by time controls + what website you choose to play on.

For example, I'm ~1300 in bullet on chess.com right now, which is roughly 90th percentile. The current "equivalent" to 1320 bullet on chess.com is 1400 blitz, 1555 rapid which is equivalent to 1430 USCF.

chess.com 1400 blitz is equivalent to 1715 lichess blitz due to the differences in scaling.

Generally, shorter time controls will result in lower ratings, because the competition pool is going to be harder. You can't be an even remotely good bullet player unless you're a somewhat decent classical/rapid player, since you need some chess background before you're able to move 1 piece per second, lol. As you get higher up, these differences disappear (and IIRC, the top bullet ratings > the top classical/rapid etc ratings).

I think that finding chess easy/difficult at a casual level is also going to depend on the individual - some people are going to naturally pick up on patterns/nuances, and some won't, just like how some people are naturally better at maths, or more athletic etc (even though athleticism is a funny concept to discuss in itself, since there are so many components of athleticism that most people can find some athletic endeavour that they are "good" at, IMO, but that's a different topic). I do agree though, in that simply playing is going to benefit you a lot. That, and doing chess puzzles - I don't really play any games aside from bullet anymore lol, but I still try and do puzzles just for the sake of problem solving and fun

[eminence]

chessmadra is a website I found recently that I like for various practice purposes.

[MyUniBroDavis]

You guys are so smart. I play Settlers of Catan online lol. Chess is hard.

Honestly during the covid era there was a pretty huge chess boom in terms of a lot of variety streamers taking it up which led to me going into it


The difficulty of chess at a casual level is pretty overstated, a lot of people think it’s like hours and hours of memorization (which if ur playing the Sicilian like jaivl is, it is lol), but outside of openings where you can just go with simpler ones like I do, pattern recognition which just improves by playing a lot + trying to have a reason behind moves can bring you up to the top 20% pretty fast (I think that’s like 1500-1700 chess.com?)

A lot of like the nearly impossible chess feats like playing blindfolded or with like a minute in the clock aren’t too hard to learn once you get used to it but I have no idea how someone plays multiple games blindfolded that sounds insane

Once you get into like the high rating range like 1800+ (chess.com at least, idk how the ratings are for lichess) it spiked alot (which is why I’m not there lmao) but for like 800-1500 it’s 90% don’t F up imo

The ratings vary by time controls + what website you choose to play on.

For example, I'm ~1300 in bullet on chess.com right now, which is roughly 90th percentile. The current "equivalent" to 1320 bullet on chess.com is 1400 blitz, 1555 rapid which is equivalent to 1430 USCF.

chess.com 1400 blitz is equivalent to 1715 lichess blitz due to the differences in scaling.

Generally, shorter time controls will result in lower ratings, because the competition pool is going to be harder. You can't be an even remotely good bullet player unless you're a somewhat decent classical/rapid player, since you need some chess background before you're able to move 1 piece per second, lol. As you get higher up, these differences disappear (and IIRC, the top bullet ratings > the top classical/rapid etc ratings).

I think that finding chess easy/difficult at a casual level is also going to depend on the individual - some people are going to naturally pick up on patterns/nuances, and some won't, just like how some people are naturally better at maths, or more athletic etc (even though athleticism is a funny concept to discuss in itself, since there are so many components of athleticism that most people can find some athletic endeavour that they are "good" at, IMO, but that's a different topic). I do agree though, in that simply playing is going to benefit you a lot. That, and doing chess puzzles - I don't really play any games aside from bullet anymore lol, but I still try and do puzzles just for the sake of problem solving and fun

Bullet hippo king go back and forth go brrrr

I might actually try to see what my openings were again, I’ve gotten a bit back into it but my openings and endgames are absolutely dead now, which is kinda funny because endgames usually carried me 90% of the time lol

[Jaivl]

I love drama as much as every stereotypical housewife in an 80s sitcom, but could we please, please, stop? Thank you.

The fact that people don’t get the greenappleness of my posts saddens me.

By the way, this post got me thinking, how much of a factor is the obvious increase in international presence on the supposed (read: EXTREMELY DUBIOUS -- IT'S TOTALLY NOT AN EGO THING WHERE PEOPLE MISS THE TIMES THEY WERE LAUDED FOR WRITING BIG WORDS (tm) AT EVERY TURN, SURELY BASKETBALL FANS, UNLIKE MUSIC BLOGGERS, ARE TOO SMART FOR THAT -- I said stop the drama, guys) decreased quality of posting in this forum?

I know for a fact it's extremely hard to write/read long paragraphs of pompous verbiage or be eloquent in your third language. I mean, one can surely do it, but it certainly takes very high effort, while I for example could easily write a 9000-word pro-Ricky post in Galician in no time.

In the words of Sofía Vergara, "you don't know how smart I'm in spanish!".

[HeartBreakKid]

Galician got 9,000 words? I'm learning something new everyday!

[Jaivl]

Galician got 9,000 words? I'm learning something new everyday!

See? This kind of personal attack is everything that's wrong with this board nowadays. A cancerous poison that spreads through message boards where kids blah blah the inmediacy blah blah anti-Galician agenda blah blah political correctness blah blah in the words of John Locke etc

[70sFan]

I know for a fact it's extremely hard to write/read long paragraphs of pompous verbiage or be eloquent in your third language. I mean, one can surely do it, but it certainly takes very high effort, while I for example could easily write a 9000-word pro-Ricky post in Galician in no time.

In the words of Sofía Vergara, "you don't know how smart I'm in spanish!".

Yeah, I agree with that. I learnt how to talk about basketball for all the time spent on this board to the point that it becomes natural for me, but every time I try to share my experience or knowledge on less typical subject, I hit the wall because it requires a lot effort from me.

Another thing is that with age people just have more and more things to do in real life

[OhayoKD]

I love drama as much as every stereotypical housewife in an 80s sitcom, but could we please, please, stop? Thank you.

The fact that people don’t get the greenappleness of my posts saddens me.

By the way, this post got me thinking, how much of a factor is the obvious increase in international presence on the supposed (read: EXTREMELY DUBIOUS -- IT'S TOTALLY NOT AN EGO THING WHERE PEOPLE MISS THE TIMES THEY WERE LAUDED FOR WRITING BIG WORDS (tm) AT EVERY TURN, SURELY BASKETBALL FANS, UNLIKE MUSIC BLOGGERS, ARE TOO SMART FOR THAT -- I said stop the drama, guys) decreased quality of posting in this forum?

I know for a fact it's extremely hard to write/read long paragraphs of pompous verbiage or be eloquent in your third language. I mean, one can surely do it, but it certainly takes very high effort, while I for example could easily write a 9000-word pro-Ricky post in Galician in no time.

In the words of Sofía Vergara, "you don't know how smart I'm in spanish!".

I wonder what criteria people bemoaning the alleged decline of the PC board are utilizing

[Dr Positivity]

Not sure if this makes sense but.... does anyone else feel like this NFL generation is lining up in a more natural way hierarchy/storyline/etc. wise than the NBA? You've got "the guy' in Mahomes and then some other very natural rivals like Burrow, Allen, Herbert (or perhaps he rematches with Hurts next year and that ends up an iconic rival). It just feels like it broke perfectly for the NFL. I feel like every time Mahomes plays Burrow from now on it's going to feel like this must watch event that I'm not sure NBA can match out of two of its stars colliding. Perhaps some of it is luck that the quality of team, conference, etc. lined up. Meanwhile three of the NBA's studs Jokic, Giannis and Doncic are on teams of varying quality and play different positions that makes it harder to directly compare them, and big men are less relateable.

[jalengreen]

Not sure if this makes sense but.... does anyone else feel like this NFL generation is lining up in a more natural way hierarchy/storyline/etc. wise than the NBA? You've got "the guy' in Mahomes and then some other very natural rivals like Burrow, Allen, Herbert (or perhaps he rematches with Hurts next year and that ends up an iconic rival). It just feels like it broke perfectly for the NFL. I feel like every time Mahomes plays Burrow from now on it's going to feel like this must watch event that I'm not sure NBA can match out of two of its stars colliding. Perhaps some of it is luck that the quality of team, conference, etc. lined up. Meanwhile three of the NBA's studs Jokic, Giannis and Doncic are on teams of varying quality and play different positions that makes it harder to directly compare them, and big men are less relateable.

And Chiefs have Bills/Bengals/Eagles on the schedule lined up for next year. No matter what the NFL picks (Bengals I'd assume) it'll be an easy storyline for the season opener.

The future of the league is in an amazing spot.

Bit lame that they're basically all in the AFC though. NFC is so weak at QB in comparison.

In any case, I agree with your point regarding the NBA. Maybe we get Bucks vs Celtics again in a good ECF matchup?

[trex_8063]

Moved this here, so as not to derail that thread any further......

So having a sense of humor means you lack maturity and getting on a soapbox about acronyms proves you're smart?

Saying lol after every sentence isn't showing a sense of humor. It's basically the equivalent of a valley girl saying "like" after every sentence. It looks bad, it's insanely passive-aggressive and it's a pain to read. Nothing to do with acronyms.

No one said anything about being smart (or being humorous either).

This is not a productive tangent to the thread topic, but it occurs often enough that may as well address it.

Disliking a vernacular does not mean the vernacular itself is “bad,” nor does an aesthetic distaste or inflexibility suggest any real advantage in experience or worldliness (although many a would-be pedant has treated it as such, it if anything suggests insularity). The rejection of “atypical” (in this case, supposedly relative to “people older than UnibroDavis”) environmental dialects is nothing new, and the (for lack of a better word) “formal” dialect you seem to prefer is one typically taught as “proper,” but language is by rule dynamic and contextual (despite all the contrary efforts by certain demographics to establish one set and standardised form which those demographics find most acceptable). Your aesthetics are your own (to whatever extent they exist independently of what was instilled into you as “correct” aesthetic sense), but chiding others for differences is a signal of parochialism, not maturity.

And to the bolded: again, understanding of vernacular differences is key. Just because in your experiences something may be used passive-aggressively does not mean that is the intent. This refrain is not unique to “lol.” I have seen it with smiley faces like : can be used passive-aggressively (perhaps you can think of some examples…), but often is meant to be as disarming as “lol.” That ellipsis I just used can be read passive-aggressively, and ellipses have been used that way often (not in this case), but it is also commonly just used to signify a thought trailing off; I am sure you can think of a few users here with that habit.

Whether it “looks bad” to you is your problem. One you should probably work to move past, seeing how it seems to prevent you from engaging with the points being made alongside those homophones.

A pinch salty, but there are some good points here.
I try not to make too many assumptions [about the intelligence of the speaker or whatever] based upon vernacular, though I'll admit I find it difficult sometimes [EDIT: NOT in the case of MyUniBroDavis, who does provide some solid content]: like if vernaculars involve a lot of poor enunciation or semantic misuse [perhaps to the degree that it's like highjacking of the language], for example.

Maybe that's my problem to a degree, though I do think there's a "meet me in the middle" principle to be found somewhere, within general discussions with semi-strangers. I mean, I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but even I don't think you can butcher the language, or speak ONLY in generational colloquialisms and expect everyone to understand you AND take you seriously. That'd be cray-cray, bruh .

I don't know where what we might call slightly excessive use of cutesy expressions falls in relation to this hypothetical middle-ground, particularly when it's in text [no speaking].

Speaking for myself, I do find excessive "lol" or "lmao" in text to be distracting, because I tend to read [and write] acronyms literally (maybe this too is "my problem"). I want to understand and be understood clearly (especially on a forum generally reserved for debate).....so I go for literal in text.

I'm thus not a fan of using "lol" or "lmao" in spots where I really mean "I find this minimally amusing" (and you won't catch me doing so: if I write "lol", it is because I did indeed chuckle out loud). When I read it in that type of usage, it simply throws me off-topic [mentally] for a moment.
It becomes slightly more distracting to me when used in spots where it's not even following a statement or thought that can be seen as even minimally amusing (rather, is used as a sort default ending to a sentence).

But that's me (my problem).

As such, I have taken notice of (and been momentarily distracted by) MyUniBroDavis's "excessive" [to me, and apparently to some others] use of these expressions. But I have never taken offense to them, or viewed them as passive-aggressive (well.....except in maybe a couple of instances).
However, I suppose I can see how others [who tend to read them literally, like me] might do so. If you're reading "laughed/laughing out loud" following an exchange that clearly isn't funny, it's not a huge leap to then wonder if he's laughing at you and your opinions. Bearing in mind tone is difficult to interpret in text.....

Anyway, these were just some rambling thoughts I had on the topic. Take them for whatever they're worth (maybe nothing).....

[MyUniBroDavis]

Moved this here, so as not to derail that thread any further......

Saying lol after every sentence isn't showing a sense of humor. It's basically the equivalent of a valley girl saying "like" after every sentence. It looks bad, it's insanely passive-aggressive and it's a pain to read. Nothing to do with acronyms.

No one said anything about being smart (or being humorous either).

This is not a productive tangent to the thread topic, but it occurs often enough that may as well address it.

Disliking a vernacular does not mean the vernacular itself is “bad,” nor does an aesthetic distaste or inflexibility suggest any real advantage in experience or worldliness (although many a would-be pedant has treated it as such, it if anything suggests insularity). The rejection of “atypical” (in this case, supposedly relative to “people older than UnibroDavis”) environmental dialects is nothing new, and the (for lack of a better word) “formal” dialect you seem to prefer is one typically taught as “proper,” but language is by rule dynamic and contextual (despite all the contrary efforts by certain demographics to establish one set and standardised form which those demographics find most acceptable). Your aesthetics are your own (to whatever extent they exist independently of what was instilled into you as “correct” aesthetic sense), but chiding others for differences is a signal of parochialism, not maturity.

And to the bolded: again, understanding of vernacular differences is key. Just because in your experiences something may be used passive-aggressively does not mean that is the intent. This refrain is not unique to “lol.” I have seen it with smiley faces like : can be used passive-aggressively (perhaps you can think of some examples…), but often is meant to be as disarming as “lol.” That ellipsis I just used can be read passive-aggressively, and ellipses have been used that way often (not in this case), but it is also commonly just used to signify a thought trailing off; I am sure you can think of a few users here with that habit.

Whether it “looks bad” to you is your problem. One you should probably work to move past, seeing how it seems to prevent you from engaging with the points being made alongside those homophones.

A pinch salty, but there are some good points here.
I try not to make too many assumptions [about the intelligence of the speaker or whatever] based upon vernacular, though I'll admit I find it difficult sometimes [EDIT: NOT in the case of MyUniBroDavis, who does provide some solid content]: like if vernaculars involve a lot of poor enunciation or semantic misuse [perhaps to the degree that it's like highjacking of the language], for example.

Maybe that's my problem to a degree, though I do think there's a "meet me in the middle" principle to be found somewhere, within general discussions with semi-strangers. I mean, I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but even I don't think you can butcher the language, or speak ONLY in generational colloquialisms and expect everyone to understand you AND take you seriously. That'd be cray-cray, bruh .

I don't know where what we might call slightly excessive use of cutesy expressions falls in relation to this hypothetical middle-ground, particularly when it's in text [no speaking].

Speaking for myself, I do find excessive "lol" or "lmao" in text to be distracting, because I tend to read [and write] acronyms literally (maybe this too is "my problem"). I want to understand and be understood clearly (especially on a forum generally reserved for debate).....so I go for literal in text.

I'm thus not a fan of using "lol" or "lmao" in spots where I really mean "I find this minimally amusing" (and you won't catch me doing so: if I write "lol", it is because I did indeed chuckle out loud). When I read it in that type of usage, it simply throws me off-topic [mentally] for a moment.
It becomes slightly more distracting to me when used in spots where it's not even following a statement or thought that can be seen as even minimally amusing (rather, is used as a sort default ending to a sentence).

But that's me (my problem).

As such, I have taken notice of (and been momentarily distracted by) MyUniBroDavis's "excessive" [to me, and apparently to some others] use of these expressions. But I have never taken offense to them, or viewed them as passive-aggressive (well.....except in maybe a couple of instances).
However, I suppose I can see how others [who tend to read them literally, like me] might do so. If you're reading "laughed/laughing out loud" following an exchange that clearly isn't funny, it's not a huge leap to then wonder if he's laughing at you and your opinions. Bearing in mind tone is difficult to interpret in text.....

Anyway, these were just some rambling thoughts I had on the topic. Take them for whatever they're worth (maybe nothing).....

Yeah this is a valid take, Trex best mod, I get that it can be distracting and a bit annoying but it’s how I type and that’s not gonna change nor change if what I say is valid or invalid.

While I 100% am sometimes condescending with how I use it, I didn’t think anyone was sad enough to be take a genuine issue with it. Now I find out that 3-4 posters I almost never interact with apparently have an issue with it, so I’ll make sure to use more of them when responding to those guys lol.

I may have said this before but this is by far the stupidest thing I’ve been a part of since I’ve joined this site.

[HeartBreakKid]

My one sentence caused a lot of discussion.

[MyUniBroDavis]

My one sentence caused a lot of discussion.

Damnit Chris

[OhayoKD]

Moved this here, so as not to derail that thread any further......

This is not a productive tangent to the thread topic, but it occurs often enough that may as well address it.

Disliking a vernacular does not mean the vernacular itself is “bad,” nor does an aesthetic distaste or inflexibility suggest any real advantage in experience or worldliness (although many a would-be pedant has treated it as such, it if anything suggests insularity). The rejection of “atypical” (in this case, supposedly relative to “people older than UnibroDavis”) environmental dialects is nothing new, and the (for lack of a better word) “formal” dialect you seem to prefer is one typically taught as “proper,” but language is by rule dynamic and contextual (despite all the contrary efforts by certain demographics to establish one set and standardised form which those demographics find most acceptable). Your aesthetics are your own (to whatever extent they exist independently of what was instilled into you as “correct” aesthetic sense), but chiding others for differences is a signal of parochialism, not maturity.

And to the bolded: again, understanding of vernacular differences is key. Just because in your experiences something may be used passive-aggressively does not mean that is the intent. This refrain is not unique to “lol.” I have seen it with smiley faces like : can be used passive-aggressively (perhaps you can think of some examples…), but often is meant to be as disarming as “lol.” That ellipsis I just used can be read passive-aggressively, and ellipses have been used that way often (not in this case), but it is also commonly just used to signify a thought trailing off; I am sure you can think of a few users here with that habit.

Whether it “looks bad” to you is your problem. One you should probably work to move past, seeing how it seems to prevent you from engaging with the points being made alongside those homophones.

A pinch salty, but there are some good points here.
I try not to make too many assumptions [about the intelligence of the speaker or whatever] based upon vernacular, though I'll admit I find it difficult sometimes [EDIT: NOT in the case of MyUniBroDavis, who does provide some solid content]: like if vernaculars involve a lot of poor enunciation or semantic misuse [perhaps to the degree that it's like highjacking of the language], for example.

Maybe that's my problem to a degree, though I do think there's a "meet me in the middle" principle to be found somewhere, within general discussions with semi-strangers. I mean, I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but even I don't think you can butcher the language, or speak ONLY in generational colloquialisms and expect everyone to understand you AND take you seriously. That'd be cray-cray, bruh .

I don't know where what we might call slightly excessive use of cutesy expressions falls in relation to this hypothetical middle-ground, particularly when it's in text [no speaking].

Speaking for myself, I do find excessive "lol" or "lmao" in text to be distracting, because I tend to read [and write] acronyms literally (maybe this too is "my problem"). I want to understand and be understood clearly (especially on a forum generally reserved for debate).....so I go for literal in text.

I'm thus not a fan of using "lol" or "lmao" in spots where I really mean "I find this minimally amusing" (and you won't catch me doing so: if I write "lol", it is because I did indeed chuckle out loud). When I read it in that type of usage, it simply throws me off-topic [mentally] for a moment.
It becomes slightly more distracting to me when used in spots where it's not even following a statement or thought that can be seen as even minimally amusing (rather, is used as a sort default ending to a sentence).

But that's me (my problem).

As such, I have taken notice of (and been momentarily distracted by) MyUniBroDavis's "excessive" [to me, and apparently to some others] use of these expressions. But I have never taken offense to them, or viewed them as passive-aggressive (well.....except in maybe a couple of instances).
However, I suppose I can see how others [who tend to read them literally, like me] might do so. If you're reading "laughed/laughing out loud" following an exchange that clearly isn't funny, it's not a huge leap to then wonder if he's laughing at you and your opinions. Bearing in mind tone is difficult to interpret in text.....

Anyway, these were just some rambling thoughts I had on the topic. Take them for whatever they're worth (maybe nothing).....

Yeah this is a valid take, Trex best mod, I get that it can be distracting and a bit annoying but it’s how I type and that’s not gonna change nor change if what I say is valid or invalid.

While I 100% am sometimes condescending with how I use it, I didn’t think anyone was sad enough to be take a genuine issue with it. Now I find out that 3-4 posters I almost never interact with apparently have an issue with it, so I’ll make sure to use more of them when responding to those guys lol.

I may have said this before but this is by far the stupidest thing I’ve been a part of since I’ve joined this site.

Honestly, I think having posters with more "of the people" vernacular makes the board more interesting.

And sometimes I do wonder what motivates these aesthetic critiques. I find it interesting how some people who keep lamenting the decline of the forum also seem to be the most willing to attack people

[70sFan]

Moved this here, so as not to derail that thread any further......



A pinch salty, but there are some good points here.
I try not to make too many assumptions [about the intelligence of the speaker or whatever] based upon vernacular, though I'll admit I find it difficult sometimes [EDIT: NOT in the case of MyUniBroDavis, who does provide some solid content]: like if vernaculars involve a lot of poor enunciation or semantic misuse [perhaps to the degree that it's like highjacking of the language], for example.

Maybe that's my problem to a degree, though I do think there's a "meet me in the middle" principle to be found somewhere, within general discussions with semi-strangers. I mean, I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but even I don't think you can butcher the language, or speak ONLY in generational colloquialisms and expect everyone to understand you AND take you seriously. That'd be cray-cray, bruh .

I don't know where what we might call slightly excessive use of cutesy expressions falls in relation to this hypothetical middle-ground, particularly when it's in text [no speaking].

Speaking for myself, I do find excessive "lol" or "lmao" in text to be distracting, because I tend to read [and write] acronyms literally (maybe this too is "my problem"). I want to understand and be understood clearly (especially on a forum generally reserved for debate).....so I go for literal in text.

I'm thus not a fan of using "lol" or "lmao" in spots where I really mean "I find this minimally amusing" (and you won't catch me doing so: if I write "lol", it is because I did indeed chuckle out loud). When I read it in that type of usage, it simply throws me off-topic [mentally] for a moment.
It becomes slightly more distracting to me when used in spots where it's not even following a statement or thought that can be seen as even minimally amusing (rather, is used as a sort default ending to a sentence).

But that's me (my problem).

As such, I have taken notice of (and been momentarily distracted by) MyUniBroDavis's "excessive" [to me, and apparently to some others] use of these expressions. But I have never taken offense to them, or viewed them as passive-aggressive (well.....except in maybe a couple of instances).
However, I suppose I can see how others [who tend to read them literally, like me] might do so. If you're reading "laughed/laughing out loud" following an exchange that clearly isn't funny, it's not a huge leap to then wonder if he's laughing at you and your opinions. Bearing in mind tone is difficult to interpret in text.....

Anyway, these were just some rambling thoughts I had on the topic. Take them for whatever they're worth (maybe nothing).....

Yeah this is a valid take, Trex best mod, I get that it can be distracting and a bit annoying but it’s how I type and that’s not gonna change nor change if what I say is valid or invalid.

While I 100% am sometimes condescending with how I use it, I didn’t think anyone was sad enough to be take a genuine issue with it. Now I find out that 3-4 posters I almost never interact with apparently have an issue with it, so I’ll make sure to use more of them when responding to those guys lol.

I may have said this before but this is by far the stupidest thing I’ve been a part of since I’ve joined this site.

Honestly, I think having posters with more "of the people" vernacular makes the board more interesting.

And sometimes I do wonder what motivates these aesthetic critiques. I find it interesting how some people who keep lamenting the decline of the forum also seem to be the most willing to attack people

I hope the last paragraph isn't about me...

Anyway, I guess I don't care about the language used on this forum, but only because it's not my first language.

[OhayoKD]

Yeah this is a valid take, Trex best mod, I get that it can be distracting and a bit annoying but it’s how I type and that’s not gonna change nor change if what I say is valid or invalid.

While I 100% am sometimes condescending with how I use it, I didn’t think anyone was sad enough to be take a genuine issue with it. Now I find out that 3-4 posters I almost never interact with apparently have an issue with it, so I’ll make sure to use more of them when responding to those guys lol.

I may have said this before but this is by far the stupidest thing I’ve been a part of since I’ve joined this site.

Honestly, I think having posters with more "of the people" vernacular makes the board more interesting.

And sometimes I do wonder what motivates these aesthetic critiques. I find it interesting how some people who keep lamenting the decline of the forum also seem to be the most willing to attack people

I hope the last paragraph isn't about me...

Anyway, I guess I don't care about the language used on this forum, but only because it's not my first language.

Ur good, though i'm sometimes unsure if the feeling is mutual