Guide for Socks and Trolls

+++++++++++Go Away!!!

here's the real guide... Flame Warriors:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

That article calls Marty a "Weenie".

We're all trolls to some extent.

Which sets up the entirely predictable;

Hey that’s an insult to us real Weenies everywhere.

guapo, i believe that's you calling marty a weenie based on the flame warrior definitions. does that make you an evil clown?

There's some truth to that, especially if you see things the same way as that website. Anyone can exhibit characteristics of several of thos categories in different posts or even in the same post. In fact, it's probably a good idea to diversify.

Even with all the stereotypes offered, there's a lot missing. First and foremost is the cloud dweller (the site author) who feels his elevated distance gives him the perspective to pigeon-hole everyone else while remaining personally immune to it all.

For this particular forum you also need a complete sub-set of hunter-gatherers who scour the pages looking for prey: the retailer opportunists, the segue specialists, the sentries, the savants, the beatified bu not yet canonized, the voice of the industry/consultant extraordinaireire (Hi Steve ), the territorial enforcer, etc.....

Mercy!

In real life, I manage to get by with a simple two-way assessment: those who can laugh at themselves and those who take themselves so seriously that they can't.

As far as socks and trolls are concerned, telling them to stay away will likely have the opposite affect. Tell someone not to do something and subconsciously it makes them want to do it that much more… the best medicine for socks and trolls is suspension or expulsion from the forum.

I honestly don’t think the problem with socks and trolls here is all that bad, but maybe that is just my opinion. As far as all of us being trolls to an extent, well… yea, I guess we do get on each other’s nerves on occasion. Such is life…

It is amazing to me how this forum can bring out the best in some and the worst in some… however, we all have good and bad in us to an extent, I suppose.

The bottom line is that we learn from each other here… not just about pianos but about life in general. Do some members take the forum too seriously? I know I do. Yet, there is consolation in knowing that I can take it or leave it… yet most here keep coming back for more of the same.

Despite the faults and failures of this place, it’s still a great place to hang out!

Rick

on that site, at the top -- message board -- is a thread for suggestions. but as far as the primary archetypes go, i'd say mike reed has done a pretty thorough job. i've referenced this site over the years because it's the myers-briggs of anonymous posters on the interweb.

Well yeah, if you're looking for stock stereotypes, sure. But do stereotypes really speak to the complexities of human nature and behavioral response? In my experience, no. If you (or I or anyone) looks at your own posts, will you find that they most often fall into one of those listed archetypes? I doubt it. As humans, we hopscotch here and there according to perception and mood. Even the hunter-gatherers exhibit a lot of diversity.

The illustrations are funny though.



I think the facts support your opinion. Accusations are rarer now than back in the day, and the few that are made come from predictable quarters.

There's certainly no specific accusation from the OP here, just a general frustration with what a forum is as opposed to what he'd like it to be.

Interesting statement; yesterday after I read this thread I went back to page 1123 and found a thread with some interesting comments from F. Baxter musing about having moderators.

old thread


It is interesting to study the growth from reading older threads. Maybe Frank might consider a “best of” collection of threads. Not sure how that would be quantified…..

Of course any collection would have to include postings from member number 8.

Actually, the OP didn't post the thread out of frustration with the forum and the OP made no pretense about it at all. Mostly, it may have been intended as a humorous editorial in reference to other threads in this, and other forums. The OP expected no response whatsoever, and might be very interested in the way this thread has progressed.

In the third person,
I am,

This part would set a grammarian to chasing his tail!

Even better if it is a 9' concert Grammarian & Söhne!

Image compliments of Best Online Psychology Schools

but what are described on the flame warrior site are archetypes, not stereotypes... descriptions of temperaments - tendencies & predilections - that aggregate into an archetype, vs. ascribing that archetype to a group. for example, individual online personas may (and i would argue do) self-classify along the lines of the descriptions at the before mentioned site. someone may repeatedly exhibit the tendencies described as the 'evil clown' archetype, but to ascribe those tendencies to everyone from texas would be a stereotype.

and archetypes serve a very useful purpose. the myers-briggs kersey-bates temperament work is very useful in understand how someone might behave in school, at work, under certain conditions. useful to know thyself as well. so is the work done in conjunction with the enneagram. pretty sure this subject has been discussed here before as well, but perhaps not in the piano forum.

Really, Entheo it comes down to this. Do individuals self-classify into one predictable archetype or do they hopscotch across the full spectrum exhibiting different behavioral responses depending on mood and perception?

You see it as somewhat predictable and say that is useful. I see it another way, but I did enjoy the obvious humor.

Let's agree to disagree. After all, the OP has now posted that he's a happy camper .