>>Point out the list's convention, suggest not too subtly that doing so >>will get answers vs being ignored, and most likely, problem solved. >>Get an argument why top-posting should be acceptable, and the person >>then gets ignored.
>Although I think more or less like you, I wouldn't impose such policy on >the list, because it's impossible to enforce unless you ban people, and Doesn't have to be officially "enforced" by any moderator or anything, just by the community-at-large. If they choose to ignore top-posters, the top-posters either adapt or go away with unanswered questions. If some people resign themselves to having top-posters still pollute the list and answer their queries and otherwise engage in conversation with them, I have no problem with that, either, because *I* can still choose which posts to read and optionally answer. If that means that TPers only would get responses from an audience of 10 vs 500, so be it. Hell, if only Chip, Tony, Tim, and a few other prolific "answerers" would adopt that as their own policy, to ignore TPers, that would probably take care of about 80% of possible replies. :D >that's a thing I don't like to do. If you ban a stupid person, he >becomes a martyr, but if you let him stay, sooner or later he is ignored >by everyone on the list. Much better on the long term... Yeah, absolutely. I'm very libertarian, and dislike "moderation" in general unless someone's being actively disruptive to the list (spammers, flamers, etc.), so I wouldn't even consider "banning" anyone just for TPing. But if garish html emails, attachments, etc., were to be banned as part of official list policy (message-size considerations, readability issues[1], etc.), then anyone who would willfully ignore those guidelines might very well warrant banishment from the list. [1] Blind folx who use text-to-speech modules can have garbage coming out of the speaker with html emails, so some lists (not for a *visual* editor, naturally) do in fact ban html emails, "rich-text", and so on. >>Exactly. Usually, though, when I see a reply above quoted text, I >>just skip to the next one. A newbie wouldn't be posting an initial >>query to an existing post, so chances are good the person's just >>willfully ignoring the convention. So I skip/ignore it. >I think the same and I do the same. I still haven't seen a newbie whose >first message is a top-posted reply. There probably be such messages, >but I haven't noticed them. Usually, though, someone else would grex about screwing up threading, etc., so that's usually taken care of on its own. :D >>I just don't have the time/patience/desire to be annoyed. Some people >>sign up to the list to learn things (as I did), to ask questions >>(fine, but follow the conventions of the list), and even to help >>others by answering their questions. The last is an act of >>generosity. >Right. It is giving your free time away to others, and time is very >valuable. Most top-posters I know use that style because it is faster. I do try to return the favor when someone would help me out with one issue or another, so I don't mind. I don't go crazy with scripting, etc., so those questions are out of my league, and I don't use 'netrw', 'cygwin', etc., so those questions I can't answer, either, but if somoene asks how to turn ABC into XYZ and such, other things I've played around with, yeah, I'll jump in and help. Just don't make the query post and replies painful to read, or I'll just skip past them. >OK, they value their time, but since MY time is for me much more >valuable than any other's time, I choose to ignore such messages, thus >saving MY time. Exactly. I know someone in tech-support who had people in the office require computer servicing (drive crash, more memory, etc.), and they make *zero* attempt to clean off the crap from their desks or give him access to the computer (eg, piles of crap blocking the way when the main box is on the floor). He'll take one look, tell them to clean it off so he could get to the machine and call him back when it's done. Should they refuse, he'll just start hauling off all the crap and purposely drop it in one pile: papers from multiple nicely-ordered stacks (oops! they all got mooshed together and all the papers fell out of those folders!), pictures, doo-dads, paperweights, etc., and just dump them in one corner of the office on the floor. He's in tech-support, *not* a redecorator or mover. And he'll leave that pile there, because they usually know enough that should they insist they put it back, things will likely end up even more scrambled and in even worse shape when he puts them back on the desk. And I absolutely agree with him. He's doing them the favor (even if it's "his job"), but shouldn't have to do *additional* work just because they're lazy. Some of them expect him to not only nicely move the crap off their desks, but also, while the stuff is off and the desk is exposed, take a dustrag and spray and *clean* their computer, desk, and the area in general, while he's at it. Big Mistake. It's almost exactly the equivalent situation. People who want/need help make zero attempt to make things easier for the person who's to help them. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
