The Dreaded QFT

[Z]

I know there are multiple people on the forum who feel QFT is nothing but spam and should not be posted unless the poster adds something else to the discussion on top of the QFT.

I also know that there are many others who feel that QFT is significant and should be allowed to be posted as a general expression of one's opinion.

Where do you stand on the matter? How do you feel about QFT?

[SpaceProg]

Let it be, in my opinion. It's just a way of saying "What ___ said" or "____ said it better than I could" or "I couldn't have said it better myself."

It's quite useful when showing agreement and backing other's opinions.

[deathofcheese]

I don't think it's necessary to rely on "QFT" to indicate that you agree with what was said previously, verbatim in context and in writing, but it's like an appropriate internet-ism. If you're going to ban QFT, ban lol, omfg, hax, STFU, lol-speak, etc. If we had an epidemic where there was a lot of QFT posts, then yes, I would say it was spammy and use would need to be curtailed.

Sometimes there is no "why". It just is.

[Gio Takahashi]

QTF isn't the only phrase I don't like.

"I agree"

"lolhax"

"stfu"

"omg"

I wrote this rule for a reason:

9. Do NOT just agree
Don't just agree to the posts, post why do you agree, Also to help, QUOTE the person as well, by using the quote tag.

Only exception to that is the trivial threads.

[Bloodcinder]

Let it be, in my opinion. It's just a way of saying "What ___ said" or "____ said it better than I could" or "I couldn't have said it better myself."

It's quite useful when showing agreement and backing other's opinions.
QFT.

[Z]

lol, 7 votes and only 4 people who have posted.

If the argument against QFT is that QFT doesn't provide discussion, what's the argument for voting but not posting?

Anyway, I completely agree with SP, as BC clearly does. She said it perfectly but to reiterate, I think QFT is just as valid as the textual equivalent (which I think BC actually wrote out recently in regard to one of Ary's posts. I can't find it, though).

I mean, there are certain situations, much like this one, where someone has already said it, said it well, and their opinion really needs no added content. All that's left to say or do is throw my support toward the original poster and the most efficient way of doing it is QFT.

Not only is it a way of stating my opinion but its a way to show my support of someone else's opinion.

[Bloodcinder]

I think QFT is just as valid as the textual equivalent (which I think BC actually wrote out recently in regard to one of Ary's posts. I can't find it, though).
Find'd. (http://www.unitedempire.net/forums/showpost.php?p=24059&postcount=7)

[chefTENGU]

I'm fine with it.

Sometimes, when I'm engaged in a debate, it feels like I'm all alone. Someone quoting me with just "QFT" is a big morale++ for me.

I understand why you don't like people posting merely to say they agree, Gio, but sometimes nothing more needs to be said. "Too many cooks spoil the broth," if you will.

To further what I was saying about debates, sometimes a well-meaning person attempting to be supportive can do more harm than good by trying to add their own twist to something someone else has already said.

[Arainach]

I find it unnecessarily pointless and spam in 99% of cases.If you're going to ban QFT, ban lol, omfg, hax, STFU, lol-speak, etc.I'd support such a ban, personally.

And a ban on using [font ] tags around every post. I mean, seriously people, what the fuck, use the default formatting.

[The Moody Ronin]

I wrote this rule for a reason:

9. Do NOT just agree
Don't just agree to the posts, post why do you agree, Also to help, QUOTE the person as well, by using the quote tag.


That should be the end of it as far as I'm concerned. But since it's an opinion poll...

If you like a post, and would like to reply to it without actually adding anything meaningful to the thread, just give the person some karma. That kinda thing is pretty much the only thing I use the system for. "QFT", "I agree", and/or "Ditto" in and of themselves are not significant. A message board is not a Baptist church. We don't need your Amen corner. Even the addition of a 4 word sentence would give "QFT" a purpose.

Though on the spam scale, I think "QFT" rates about a misdemeanor. It's really not intentional spam, but if you aren't actually contributing to the discussion...

[Z]

I find it unnecessarily pointless and spam in 99% of cases.

Wierd. (http://www.unitedempire.net/forums/showpost.php?p=7051&postcount=17) Clearly, I don't see the difference in effect.

That should be the end of it as far as I'm concerned. But since it's an opinion poll...
Correct, this isn't a "Let's change the rules" thread so much as it is an opinion thread.

Good point about Karma, too.

[Gio Takahashi]

QFT is worlds better than "lol, hax, stfu", etc. Those posts WILL get deleted.

QFT contributes, somewhat, only minimally.

[chefTENGU]

That's actually a good point, using Karma to reward points that someone might agree with but not necessarily want to contribute to.

Unless the person can't contribute any, GIO??
heehee. I wanted to do it at least ONCE

[Gio Takahashi]

Yeah yeah. That's the point of karma. if you agree to the user, USE KARMA. That most definitely shows that the person agreed, hell I've done it several times before.

I, and some of the other staffers, don't like seeing the forums flooded with "QFT", but I know most of you guys wouldn't abuse the crap out of it.

[Z]

Ya, I think TMR kinda pwned the thread there, lol.

[Gio Takahashi]

Wierd. (http://www.unitedempire.net/forums/showpost.php?p=7051&postcount=17) Clearly, I don't see the difference in effect.


Correct, this isn't a "Let's change the rules" thread so much as it is an opinion thread.

Good point about Karma, too.

the way Ary puts it is better than seeing "QFT" even though it has the same meaning as "I agree", and "absolutely, sir!"

And lastly, another forums I've been to, instead of doing QFT (which I thjink is disallowed) people just quote the post without saying anything as their way of agreeing.

[Z]

I understand. I'd further explain what I meant but, like I said, TMR kinda pwned the topic but I'll definitely say that I do not think Ary's post there was bad or anything like that.

[Bloodcinder]

Ya, I think TMR kinda pwned the thread there, lol.
Karma is private whereas QFT is public. Karma does not show to others that you are on a given person's side; QFT allows you to do so. Unpwned.

[Gio Takahashi]

People needs to appear to agree publically?

[Bloodcinder]

No. But TMR's "pwning" was based entirely on karma as a replacement for QFT. Therefore, the "pwning" has been refuted.

[Z]

Granted, but my argument no longer had the same steam it did before, lol. True, a private agreement does not inform others of your position (only a public agreement contributes your own opinion in a public matter, which is a valid point) but usually a QFT, in the cases where I have used it, is just a matter of letting the poster know he/she is not alone in their opinion in which case Karma would solve my issues with the matter. Usually I'm "loud" enough that I will voice a long opinion if I feel my opinion needs to be noted by others.

[Gio Takahashi]

Correct, Z. And BC, that is why I'd like to have the pro/diss system like Gamingforce Forums does. It's based on rating the posts, and can see how many people agreed/disagreed with the said post.

Take this post (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/political-palace/34000-lincoln-great-man.html#post638792) for example, you can see how many people agreed with the said post, it works the same as disagree.

[deathofcheese]

I don't use [font] tags. I just set the font in the post editor. Besides, it's something I've always done, since I first joined NHF. Asking me to stop it would be like asking you to never use Spock again or to stop being so liberal. Not gonna happen.

Although I could just QFT something that's been said that is my views exactly, I'm going to go ahead, waste all this time and effort typing and all the time and effort of readers to read it.

To me, the Karma system is a private QFT. No one can see it but you, the be-Karma'd, and admins that get curious. But it leaves a lasting mark as it builds up someone's e-peen and general reputation as evidenced by the karma points and reputation level in the postbit (that ghastly mess under everyone's avatar). QFT, though, not only allows you to briefly announce your views to everyone and the person you're quoting for truth, but it eliminates any bad effects of too much Karma at the price of potentially causing someone to read one additional post and giving someone a somewhat-swelled post count.

Also like has been said before, even when we're at our most spammy, spam isn't a problem at all here. Even on big forums, QFT-'spam' isn't unsightly, although on really big forums, it might tend to bury any subsequent conversation. While we may be pretty chatty ourselves for the size of our community, there is no spam to worry about. There might be spam topics, but it's some discussion that someone felt might be interesting enough to bring up and someone felt was interesting enough to contribute (or offensive enough to slam as spam).

It doesn't hurt anything. Stop threatening bad things about QFT punishment. We've already layed off from KRD and GIO TAKAHASHI-ing.

[Seegtease]

There are some QFTs I'd like to make in this thread.

Honestly, when I'm reading a thread, I'd rather read a QFT than read the same post twice with slightly different words (or exact same words, even).

Why do I like QFT? Because this is a forum - a community of people who may want to know more about each other. I want to read other people's posts. I want to know what people think about a topic. If somebody makes a post, and somebody Karma's them instead of QFTing them, I will not know the opinion of that second person because they did not say it publicly. How can I get to know that person if they agree silently? Sorry, that is not good for community growth and learning about our fellow members. I enjoy reading the words QFT because I now know something more about that person, and they didn't have to say the same thing I just read in order for me to get that point.

Karma is in no way a solution to the QFT problem, especially when half the time I cannot karma the person I'd like to QFT. But even if I could karma as often as I liked, I still want my opinions made public, not private. If I wanted to share opinions privately, I'd leave the forums and just use messengers.

And for those of you who think QFT should not be allowed, I challenge you, why? What damage is caused to you by a QFT post? What was ruined in your life? Was the post too long and wasted your time? Wouldn't a repeat of a previous post waste your time even more? So considering QFT saves you time, obviously time can't be a complaint, so what is it? Do you just like to complain or is it the stick up your butt?

[Gio Takahashi]

And for those of you who think QFT should not be allowed, I challenge you, why? What damage is caused to you by a QFT post? What was ruined in your life? Was the post too long and wasted your time? Wouldn't a repeat of a previous post waste your time even more? So considering QFT saves you time, obviously time can't be a complaint, so what is it? Do you just like to complain or is it the stick up your butt?Yeah Zeit, I've been traumatized by a crowd of QFTs that hurt me when I was 5 :roll:

As far as I see, All QFT says is "I agree with him!", and it can become a problem when each post become trailed by a train of QFTs. I'm glad I don't see that happening on UEF.

It's also potential for post farming as well.

[deathofcheese]

I just thought of something that Zeit's post made me realize. I like seeing things like QFT. It's like the absurdness of imagining someone pointing to a dialog box in the sky and yelling "QUEUE EFF TEE!" Makes me giggle. As well as good usage of lolspeak.

Yes, there can be a such thing as good usage of lolspeak. Bad usage is when someone is trying to "shortcut" typing and their posts make your head ache and make you want to strangle someone. Good usage is when it makes you facepalm and/or laugh aloud. Whenever I use it, it's for comedic effect. That's what I see usage of QFT as. Even in serious conversation, someone can swoop in with a QFT and make a lighthearted joke without taking away from the conversation (provided that they're not trolling but actually were involved with the conversation at some point) yet still add to the discussion (maybe not add to the discussion but at least voice their support of the quotee).

[Gio Takahashi]

QFT doesn't really add to discussion, if any, it's just saying 'I agree', secondly you and zeit are explain precisely why I let "QFT"s slide compared to other stuff, but too much of it gets old really fast, and all it does is to annoy you. At least it annoys me, and some other people. Ultimately, it's all up to how it is used.

[Seegtease]

Yeah Zeit, I've been traumatized by a crowd of QFTs that hurt me when I was 5 :roll:

I knew it. Well get over it, sissy!

As far as I see, All QFT says is "I agree with him!", and it can become a problem when each post become trailed by a train of QFTs. I'm glad I don't see that happening on UEF.

So would you rather have them say "I agree with him"? Most of the time, I have more to add. Sometimes, I don't. And why are you glad that's not happening? If it were happening, all it would mean is a lot of people agree and are posting it publicly. You say it like agreeing and telling people your stance is a bad thing.

It's also potential for post farming as well.

You can use your discretion to see when this is done, and honestly I can't imagine it could be abused. Even so, I don't think giving your opinion, even if it's exactly the same as somebody else's, is post farming. It's simply saving me reading time and still learning more about a person.

And I know it doesn't add to discussion, but it still tells you more about the said person - and I can't emphasize the importance of that enough. Also, it tells the person who was quotes what allies they have if they need support in the debate. It also tells the people on the opposing side who they may be disagreeing with if the debate continues.

All in all, I like seeing those 3 letters that with so little reading, can tell me so much about an individual.

[SpaceProg]

I can understand post farming if something could be gained from it, but there's no perks given for post count as far as I know. So there's no point in "QFT-ing" only to increase your post count.

[Seegtease]

Even if it was just for the sake of more posts, I can't see why somebody would QFT and lie, so it can be assumed that they are telling the truth, and thus stating their opinion which happens to match somebody elses (using only 3 letters to convey that very message), and is thus a productive post. So even if it's spam, it's useful!

[Arainach]

Even if it was just for the sake of more posts, I can't see why somebody would QFT and lie, so it can be assumed that they are telling the truth, and thus stating their opinion which happens to match somebody elses (using only 3 letters to convey that very message), and is thus a productive post. So even if it's spam, it's useful!If all it does is agree, how is that a productive post? No new information is being added; think about information density. There's more characters, more vertical space, and absolutely no additional information to be gained. It's the exact opposite of being productive.

[Bloodcinder]

Zeit already dressed that. The new information being gained is the succinct knowledge of who thinks what about the existing discussion.

[Arainach]

So basically we're taking the opinion that every thread is a poll instead of a discussion?

[Bloodcinder]

No need to include me in a we to which I don't belong.

But since polls invariably suck, why not?

[DarkStar]

*incoming noob*

... What does QFT mean even? It is not in my vocabulary.

[Z]

Quoted For Truth

[DoomKitty]

*incoming noob*

... What does QFT mean even? It is not in my vocabulary.

Hah. That's exactly what I thought when I first saw all you guys doing the "QTF". No one ever did it until you guys came. So I was like "why are people posting 3 random pointless letters."

[DarkStar]

Thank God that mystery is solved I was worried the world of forums had left me behind!

[Z]

Hah. That's exactly what I thought when I first saw all you guys doing the "QTF". No one ever did it until you guys came. So I was like "why are people posting 3 random pointless letters."

*shrugs* Like I said, it's just about expressing opinion. We don't really have a QFT problem on these forums. Just doing a search, all the way until July 11th, the only QFT posters (who didn't add anything to their QFT) are you, Rondo, Me, and BC.

http://www.unitedempire.net/forums/showpost.php?p=23397&postcount=2561
RonDo (7/18)

http://www.unitedempire.net/forums/showpost.php?p=14866&postcount=27
Z (7/17)

http://www.unitedempire.net/forums/showpost.php?p=14227&postcount=40
Bloodcinder (7/14)

http://www.unitedempire.net/forums/showpost.php?p=13463&postcount=22
DoomKitty (7/11)

Before that, there were quite a few QFT's springing from Bill's UnBan me thread, lol.

[DoomKitty]

Never said I was disagreeing. *shrug*

[Z]

No worries, I understand. I'm kinda taking a step back from this discussion as it is because my QFT issues have been solved by TMR's karma suggestion. I was just pointing out that we're lucky in that we don't seem to have people who are looking to abuse the QFT. I mean, we're going into September and I could only pick up around 4 lone QFTs in going back to July. It's good stuff, hehe.

[Bloodcinder]

Oh, you forgot to cite my QFT in this very thread. Although I guess that was ironic/sarcastic enough to count as a real post.

[The Moody Ronin]

The karma suggestion was just thrown out there so there'd be a little something constructive in the post. Truth be told, I wouldn't shed a tear if "QFT" went the way of the dinosaur and nothing replaced it. Bottom line is, it's spam. It contributes absolutely nothing to the thread at hand.

Karma is private whereas QFT is public. Karma does not show to others that you are on a given person's side...

If you aren't contributing to the thread, why does it matter what you think? Do we wait for everybody in the forum to post in any given thread before letting it move on or die?

I want to read other people's posts. I want to know what people think about a topic. If somebody makes a post, and somebody Karma's them instead of QFTing them, I will not know the opinion of that second person because they did not say it publicly. How can I get to know that person if they agree silently?

First, not contributing to a thread can say just as much as contributing to it. Second, does it really hurt to expound upon your thoughts? You aren't a clone. You may enjoy each and every word of a post (even the "the"s), but I highly doubt that that one post sums up the entirety of your feelings on the matter at hand. Yeah, sure you might learn something from seeing a "QFT", but wouldn't you learn more from seeing, I dunno..., more?

It doesn't hurt anything. Stop threatening bad things about QFT punishment. We've already layed off from KRD and GIO TAKAHASHI-ing.

...you should be allowed to "break the rules" (note the absolute lack of punishment for any so-called offender..., nvm, different topic...), because you didn't break any other rules? Or maybe "be annoying" would be more appropriate. Either way...>.>

[Bloodcinder]

People keep coming up with little itty bitty reasons to believe their side is better. It's actually kind of trite. I like QFT. You don't. It's kind of that simple.

[Gio Takahashi]

QFT
Gotcha! Made you look!

I don't think TMR could not be anymore clear in his points. Sure, you can learn from people saying QFT, but I'm pretty sure you could learn more of the said person tries to put more input than 'QFT'.

I really don't care much about whether people use QFT or not, you'll notice I've not deleted one thread, but it's a problem of multiple people does it to one post. that's when it gets silly:

Arainach: "Owns the thread with one awesome post."
Zeitgeist: "QFT"
Killer_man_: "whatever, I withdraw"
Bloodcinder" QFT"
Deathofcheese: "OMGQFT"
Z: "WOW QFT!"

you see the silliness of that? although I'm pretty sure I covered on that earlier.

This thread is getting to the point where it's just getting silly because people are taking the subject just so seriously.

Bottomline is: In the long run it's fine, but I still discourage it, and would much rather see people make full out posts than a post that contains only three letters: "QFT". Which its true that it contributes nothing to the thread. I dare anyone to try to prove so other wise.

[Bloodcinder]

I see the silliness of that example.

[Z]

This thread is getting to the point where it's just getting silly because people are taking the subject just so seriously.

I think people keep assuming this is a change the rule thread despite me clearly stating it wasn't. Your forum, your rules.

This thread was just to explore reasons and it, so far, has been one of the more active debates in the Hut in a while which is absolutely the purpose. There have been too many times where the QFT debate has spilled out into other threads (The Smoking in a Van thread, a staff thread, and others still) so, if nothing else, this topics acts as a containment for the debate.

[Z]

I will however cite the Unban Request thread as an example of constructive use of QFT.

You, Gio had asked us all how we feel about unbanning Bill. A lot of us put in our 2 cents and then chef, on Page 2, came up with the most sensible, reasonable response that I don't think anyone could top and all we could do was QFT chef's post becuase he laid it out there and we publicly backed him and agreed with his conclusion and considering you were asking our opinions as well, our QFT's were truthful and productive in the thread.

It gave you a sense of how many people felt that way and, through that efficient thought sharing, you eventually came to your conclusion to keep Bill banned.

[Gio Takahashi]

I've yet seen a QFT gone bad in this forums, ever.

[The Moody Ronin]

I will however cite the Unban Request thread as an example of constructive use of QFT.

You, Gio had asked us all how we feel about unbanning Bill. A lot of us put in our 2 cents and then chef, on Page 2, came up with the most sensible, reasonable response that I don't think anyone could top and all we could do was QFT chef's post becuase he laid it out there and we publicly backed him and agreed with his conclusion and considering you were asking our opinions as well, our QFT's were truthful and productive in the thread.

It gave you a sense of how many people felt that way and, through that efficient thought sharing, you eventually came to your conclusion to keep Bill banned.

'Course that thread was an opinion poll...

...and went on for 4 more pages...>.>

[Z]

One could argue that every thread is an opinion poll. But that entire angle is moot. The thread only continued going because Gio hadn't made a decision.

[Gio Takahashi]

I think I've pretty much said it:

I really don't care much about whether people use QFT or not, you'll notice I've not deleted one thread, but it's a problem of multiple people does it to one post. that's when it gets silly:

Unless you really want a satisfaction of me saying "Yes" which in that case, {That's too bad.}

[Z]

I think you misunderstand. I meant you hadn't made a decision by Page 2 of the Unban thread. (I was responding to TMR's post)

[The Moody Ronin]

But... it did continue... Even chef had more to say about the matter...

[Z]

His opinion on the matter never changed. It was simply restated.

One way or another, you have to concede that opinions were expressed via QFT and those opinions were constructive. The fact that Gio asked for more opinions on top of the ones he had is irrelevant.

With the end result being Gio making a decision based on his own merits as well as taking into consideration everyone else's position (including those opinions that were aligned with chef's) then you have to concede that QFT was constructive in that regard.

[deathofcheese]

I'm pretty sure there are tons more things that are less constructive and relevant to the topics that they're posted in than QFT. At least QFT is conveying some sort of information, instead of just a bland reply that doesn't really say anything at all.

I'm really not meaning to step on toes, but quite a bit of what Gio says outside of the Random thread and Dev threads I find a lot less meaningful than a well-place QFT. Obviously the Random thread is a special case.

...you should be allowed to "break the rules" ... because you didn't break any other rules? Or maybe "be annoying" would be more appropriate. Either way...>.>I'm pretty sure that the only thing that's in the rules is something about QFT. KRD and GIO TAKAHASHI are not in the rules (last time I checked) and Gio's only said something about it after specific cases. No, I'm not espousing allowing people to break the rules simply because they follow other ones particularly well, I'm saying that it's dumb that QFT is in the rules for us to not say and it's shouldn't be and we should have the option of saying QFT when a simple QFT will do.

First, not contributing to a thread can say just as much as contributing to it.So....how does not voicing that you approve of an opinion or wholeheartedly agree with someone's point achieve the same thing as voicing that you approve or wholeheartedly agree?

I really don't care much about whether people use QFT or not, you'll notice I've not deleted one thread, but it's a problem of multiple people does it to one post. that's when it gets silly:

Arainach: "Owns the thread with one awesome post."
Zeitgeist: "QFT"
Killer_man_: "whatever, I withdraw"
Bloodcinder" QFT"
Deathofcheese: "OMGQFT"
Z: "WOW QFT!"That was absurd and a poor example. Even considering that it was hyperbole, NOTHING has been like that. We may have had a cascade of agreement, but when something inspires people to 'join in' like that, they're always eager to expand.

Which its true that it contributes nothing to the thread. I dare anyone to try to prove so other wise.I know that at least I have already conceded that it doesn't do anything to further discussion or expand content of a thread, but "QFT"-ing does contribute in that you're expressing support or approval in a public method.

Why is it so hard to see that sometimes someone might not have any other thoughts about something other than exactly what someone else has stated? It doesn't kill discussion and might lead to bringing the QFTer further into the discussion. Sometimes a QFT is all that's needed. Like when someone quotes and then just says, "WIN". Or laughs.

[The Moody Ronin]

His opinion on the matter never changed. It was simply restated.

One way or another, you have to concede that opinions were expressed via QFT and those opinions were constructive. The fact that Gio asked for more opinions on top of the ones he had is irrelevant.

With the end result being Gio making a decision based on his own merits as well as taking into consideration everyone else's position (including those opinions that were aligned with chef's) then you have to concede that QFT was constructive in that regard.

Good thing I tend to refresh after taking a bit to post. That edit would have made 1/2 of my post meaningless...>.>

I concede no such thing.

Ultimately, it's your call, Gio. I know I say this all the time, but he's your friend and you know him best. Let him back in and give him another chance if you think he's sincere, keep him out if you don't.

You mean to tell me that that was an opinion worth taking into consideration when Gio was making his decision? The fact that it was his decision to make, repeated again and again, was constructive? Of course he knew it was his decision!

I'm pretty sure there are tons more things that are less constructive and relevant to the topics that they're posted in than QFT. At least QFT is conveying some sort of information, instead of just a bland reply that doesn't really say anything at all.

But it is just a bland reply that doesn't really say anything. A tape recorder can repeat words that were just said. It doesn't mean anything profound.

So....how does not voicing that you approve of an opinion or wholeheartedly agree with someone's point achieve the same thing as voicing that you approve or wholeheartedly agree?

I was misreading the purpose of what Zeit was saying. But it occurs to me that saying "that's the truth and nothing else needs to be said!" and actually saying nothing aren't that far apart...

That was absurd and a poor example. Even considering that it was hyperbole, NOTHING has been like that. We may have had a cascade of agreement, but when something inspires people to 'join in' like that, they're always eager to expand.

...

...but when something inspires people to 'join in' like that, they're always eager to expand.

So... you want to be able to just QFT, but contend that you never will because you never want to just QFT?

Why is it so hard to see that sometimes someone might not have any other thoughts about something other than exactly what someone else has stated?

Becuase that's ridiculous. You're your own person. You have your own ideas and experiences to bring to the table. I refuse to believe that, in expressing their own opinion, one person could state the entirety of your thoughts and feelings on a matter. To use the example that Z's so eager to use, my post didn't say much, if anything, more than chef's did. If I had posted after chef, rather than vice versa, I still would have made the exact same post that I did, rather than just QFT and sitting down. Why? Because I wanted to express my opinion and thoughts, rather than just an opinion.

[Seegtease]

So basically we're taking the opinion that every thread is a poll instead of a discussion?

No. Discussion should be in discussion threads, but that doesn't mean I have no interest in at least hearing the opinions of my friends.

Bottom line is, it's spam. It contributes absolutely nothing to the thread at hand.

Says you. Who gives a damn if it contributes to the specific thread? I enjoy knowing people's opinions, and I know other people do as well. Because 3 letters seem to irritate you, why should the rest of us be denied the right to express our opinions in that manner? And what right do you have to say that people are not expressing their opinions adequately? That's for them to decide.

First, not contributing to a thread can say just as much as contributing to it....what? No. It doesn't. I will get a lot more information about an individual from QFT than I will from no post at all, and you know it.

Second, does it really hurt to expound upon your thoughts? You aren't a clone. You may enjoy each and every word of a post (even the "the"s), but I highly doubt that that one post sums up the entirety of your feelings on the matter at hand. Yeah, sure you might learn something from seeing a "QFT", but wouldn't you learn more from seeing, I dunno..., more?

I can learn more if they post more, and people can post more if they want to. If they don't want to, what right do you or I have to tell them they must expound further on their opinion or not leave an opinion at all (via QFT)? If that's all they want to leave as a comment, then let them and don't complain. They said what they said because it's what they wanted to say.

What kind of shitty forum would this be if we told people HOW to post? We want people to be individual, we don't want people to be clones, like you said, and yet you're telling them how they can and cannot post? The people of this community should have the right (unless Gio were to become a dick and not allow them) to post the way they want that best reflects who they are. If that involves saying QFT, so be it.

...you should be allowed to "break the rules" (note the absolute lack of punishment for any so-called offender..., nvm, different topic...), because you didn't break any other rules? Or maybe "be annoying" would be more appropriate. Either way...>.>

I don't understand your obsession with "rules and regulations", TMR. This is a forum. I've said it before. It's a community of people. We should be enjoying ourselves. Having to constantly worry about breaking rules and obeying laws that are upheld with an iron fist is not fun, and if this forum were run that way, you can damn well believe I'd not be a part of it. You (and Ary) are so worried about what each post adds to a specific thread rather than what it adds to the community as a whole. You need to consider what really matters here, and that's having discussion, getting to know other people, and having fun. And if Gio wants to boot me for breaking rules (he wouldn't), he can be my guest.

The purpose of rules is to ensure everybody is able to enjoy themselves in the way they want to. The purpose isn't to tell us what to do. It's not to tell us what format we must follow when making a post. It's also not to tell us what the content of our posts must be. The rules are to prevent real problems that are disruptive to the community. Some of them are just suggestions, and it's fine to suggest not saying QFT and to elaborate. But to say that it should not be allowed and is spammy is a very unreasonable thing to say, because at least one person here can attest that they enjoy reading QFT more than no post at all.

In other words, quit trying to turn the rules into a cage to hold us all in our places and quit acting like some grave injustice to the world is occuring when somebody "violates" those rules.

[Z]

I concede no such thing.
Then I begin to wonder if anything I say will change your mind.
You mean to tell me that that was an opinion worth taking into consideration when Gio was making his decision? The fact that it was his decision to make, repeated again and again, was constructive? Of course he knew it was his decision! Granted, I took the conclusion but and put it in the box but I agreed fully with chef's entire sentiment (It seems repetitive to repeat it in full right after he originally posted it and even you seem to agree that repetition is unsightly)

As I said, the angle you're going for is moot, the focus you're going for is irrelevant. But if need be, I'll point out what the QFT represents in that regard since it's not registering but honestly, the focus on that topic is a waste of time so hopefully it will end with this. It's just the concept I was bringing to light, not the thread but here you go...


Here's my two cents:

I've never had any personal problem with bill. I don't think he's a bad person. But bill has made himself a problem for UEF. I agree 100%. I never knew bill but I know he has been a trouble maker. -Z

The first indication was when I started hearing from some of our female members about problems they've had with talking to bill on IM (it began shortly after he first registered). I won't go into details here. It was a nuisance for them, but they didn't flame him for it on UEF, and bill didn't make an issue out of it, either. We all got along. I take chef's word on this. -Z

At one point, Bill must have had a disagreement with Gio. I don't know anything about this, but SOMETHING must have happened because he left in the way I've seen a lot of people do when they're trying to curry an apology and/or pity. After a while, he got over it, and came back. We still all got along. Same as above. -Z

Even if several members of the forum were less than pleased with Bill's behavior, no one was making an issue out of it.

Then started some things I'm fuzzy on. Something about one of Bill's "friends" who, from what I gather, never existed in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong (since I've never asked anyone to go into detail about it), but it seems like Bill would masquerade on IM as this persona and pulled the wool over a few people's eyes. For whatever reason, this is the event that culminated in the "hacking" and the destruction of old UEF. I heard about this in detail and can agree with chef's assessment of the situation. -Z

Gio started the place up again, and before long everyone knew the truth about what happened. Bill's friend never existed and Bill himself was the one that ended up prompting the "update." Even here, we were still getting along. For a couple days, anyway.

Bill tried to post a welcome thread, as all the rest of the members did. His tone, to be frank, seemed to be bordering on pride for what he did. This, I feel, was the last straw. The rest of the members took this thread as an opportunity to express to Bill their displeasure with his "joke" and basically told him just where he could stick it.

Bill then countered and began to bait a few members that he felt had wronged him the most over the years. Just seeing some of Charlies responses, I have to agree. -Z Eventually, Charlie banned Bill in a rage. I heard about this, too, so I have to agree. -Z

I was not comfortable with the circumstances of Bill's ban, but I feel it was necessary. As do I. -Z I did not understand how Gio would allow someone who single-handedly broke UEF as a joke back in, but since he is the owner, and Bill is his friend, if Gio is fine with it, then there's no reason to keep him out. I couldn't have said it better. -Z

For now, I am abstaining from voting. We've debated this back and forth. Do I think that Bill could come back as an upstanding member of UEF? Absolutely. I abosultely beleive it is possible. -Z In the long run, however, I feel it would be a mistake. Exactly. -Z I don't think things would stay civil for very long, and we would have a repeat of the same mess. No doubt. -Z

KM, I understand where you're coming from, but the bullying you've experienced is not the same as what has been happening to Bill. Agreed. -Z He's not being singled out for any reason having to do with his personality, beliefs, tastes, or posting habits. Bill told plenty of people about his more colorful aspects, and everyone was pretty much fine with it (as a whole, anyway) until he decided to go on the offensive. True. -Z This really isn't the case where "well, everyone is like that" applies, because everyone doesn't do the things that Bill does that have earned him the ire of the community of UEF veterans. Neither is bill acting "in self defense"; rather, the hacking incident is indicative of a turning point where bill began to actively antagonize the entire UEF community in general, followed by attacks on a few members in particular. Agreed. -Z

Also, I find the lack of trust he places in others a bit scary. As do I. -Z I can understand why he might be reluctant to trust other people, but I don't understand why he feels the need to lie to others or fabricate people. Same here. -Z It seems to me like he does it for his own amusement, and if that is the case, I feel truly sorry for him. That was my analysis, as well. -Z But that is not a quality that is conducive to open communication between members and harmonious forum relations. Perfectly stated. -Z In my experience, those who place little trust in others also tend to be untrustworthy themselves, and that sort of thing is a hindrance to forming friendships. Agreed. -Z

Ultimately, it's your call, Gio. Even you agree with this, TMR -Z I know I say this all the time, but he's your friend and you know him best. Let him back in and give him another chance if you think he's sincere, keep him out if you don't. Agreed. Gio knows him in real life. We only know his "persona" so clearly Gio should be the judge in this matter, not the public.. -Z Like I said, I personally have nothing against him, although the stunt that ended the last forum certainly didn't earn him any points in my book.Of course, all I said was QFT because I felt all that needed to be said was said.

And really, the only defense that could counter this post would be "Well you should have added more of chef's quote in your quote box if you wanted to QFT the entire thing" but if that's the reply I get then, whether you like it or not, you will have been inadvertently conceding that QFT can be constructive. In which case, you would be correct.

OR you might say I should have presented my opinion in a unique fashion which would personally take me a little while and the end product might not be nearly as well structured or worded as chef had already said. My message regarding my opinion might even have been misrepresented by my own grammatical fumblings but chef said it, he said it best in my opinion, and what he said accurately represented how I felt (clearly). Therefore I cited it. And it was taken into account by not just chef and myself but even Bloodcinder who saw chef and I share an opinion and found himself in agreement with that opinion as well. Then even Gio himself had to address the issue directly becuase clearly it was having an influence

And if it was having an influence, it was significant. That's really all their is to it.

And the last possible thing you could possibly suggest that I had done different is not post at all which would thereby not contribute my opinion, not lend merit to chef's opinion, and not bring chef's opinion (which is an opinion I shared) into such a focus. In other words, it would have made no difference in the thread whereas the QFT did make a difference.

CONCEDE, darn you! ;) Concede that the possibility of a constructive QFT post exists! lol. Whether or not QFT posts in general are constructive is a matter I will let you and DC/Zeit argue about but even you, a wise and reasonable person, has to acknowledge that QFT's can be significant.

[deathofcheese]

But it is just a bland reply that doesn't really say anything.I like seeing things like QFT. It's like the absurdness of imagining someone pointing to a dialog box in the sky and yelling "QUEUE EFF TEE!" Makes me giggle.(Quote-fest because it suggests one way in which QFT is not merely a bland re-post.)

So... you want to be able to just QFT, but contend that you never will because you never want to just QFT?I'm not saying that I will only QFT or only expand. When taken in the context of the example that Gio was trying to make, which was that of a fairly large and involved conversation where someone said something really poignant and a lot of people felt that what was said was said better than they could've ever said it but still wanted to say something because they want to express their opinion or agreement so they choose to QFT and maybe expand (which happens here frequently, although not always or never) so that they could still make a quality post (rather than force everyone to read the same thing over and over again, although slightly duller with each iteration) and say what they wanted to say.

(Whew, that was a mouthful.)

Besides, we haven't had any situation where suddenly a bunch of people resorted to saying QFT. Even when a bunch of people started to QFT in succession, a significant amount of people felt like they should expand on their QFT. Particularly in the unBan Bill thread, if someone said something that was QFT-worthy, everyone else largely had something to add.

But it occurs to me that saying "that's the truth and nothing else needs to be said!" and actually saying nothing aren't that far apart...Maybe QFT doesn't necessarily mean "that's the truth and nothing else needs to be said". Maybe QFT is just used to put an emphasis on something that was particularly true or extremely well-said.

Becuase that's ridiculous. You're your own person. You have your own ideas and experiences to bring to the table. I refuse to believe that, in expressing their own opinion, one person could state the entirety of your thoughts and feelings on a matter.I think it's entirely possible that someone might be nowhere near as knowledgeable about a topic than someone else, but knows just enough about the topic, or about debate or discussion of the topic, to know when something amazing has been said. Or, if someone comes along and voices a point so succinctly or so perfectly that that person wants to make but has already been upstaged by something that was said better.

To use the example that Z's so eager to use, my post didn't say much, if anything, more than chef's did. If I had posted after chef, rather than vice versa, I still would have made the exact same post that I did, rather than just QFT and sitting down. Why? Because I wanted to express my opinion and thoughts, rather than just an opinion.It's always the person's prerogative whether to QFT, restate what they agree with or support, or just not say anything at all. Where you wanted to spell out your view for yourself, person 1 may have felt justified in doing a simple QFT because person 2 voiced their views in more-or-less the same way that person 1 would've.

Just because someone "lazily" QFTs doesn't mean that they're a clone. They just felt that they couldn't have said it any better themselves. So what if they didn't want to write out a speech that encapsulated their thoughts? "Ditto" might not work in formal situations, but this is hardly a formal situation.

[Bloodcinder]

:bravo:
QFT.

[SpaceProg]

You really like that lil' banjo guy, don't you?

[Gio Takahashi]

that's a banjo guy?

[SpaceProg]

Yeah, see? He's playing a little banjo. There's another version without a banjo.

[Gio Takahashi]

I don't think that's a banjo.

[Killer_Man_]

What is he playing a lute?

[Gio Takahashi]

I think that's an animated cell phone.

[SpaceProg]

I dunno... what's the little round thing at the bottom? Wow did this topic derail. Thanks to me.. ^_^

[deathofcheese]

I think that regardless of how you feel about QFT, I think that distraction-trolling (blah blah blah bla-- oh look! shiney!) is a much bigger threat to forum decorum than a few QFTs.

[Bloodcinder]

It's a banjo.

And my last post was to attempt to show some people that they were getting way too serious and needed to stop, in accordance with what Z said.

[Gio Takahashi]

It's so damn hard to tell because it's tiny. I had to look at it on another software anyway. So you're right it is.

Anyway, this thread has gotten to the point where it's just too serious. I pretty much said I don't mind, but I don't like it, and I pretty much said it's fine.

and lol at people taking my "poor example" seriously. ?.?

And you guys are acting like as if QFT is being outlawed. I said I'd discouraged it rather than not allow it completely. It has never gotten to the point where QFT gets abused constantly, if it ever gets to that point, I will delete them, but that hasn't happened yet.

Even if you guys like reading QFT, you cannot deny the fact that you will definitely learn more from a post more than just a single 'QFT', and I feel that people can contribute more than just QFT.

Bottomline is: You guys are doing fine with "QFTs", but if you CAN contribute more than just 'QFT' to a thread, then please, do it.

[Bloodcinder]

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/7914/youwinaninternetrw7.jpg

[Seegtease]

You guys are doing fine with "QFTs", but if you CAN contribute more than just 'QFT' to a thread, then please, do it.
I can accept this guideline just fine.

Also, I thought it was a cell phone at first too. It seemed to make sense in the words words words context.

[Z]

Anyway, this thread has gotten to the point where it's just too serious. I pretty much said I don't mind, but I don't like it, and I pretty much said it's fine.
I think that's why you think this thread is too serious; you're still looking at it as a petition rather than a general debate thread. We understand your position on the matter. No one is asking that you change the rules and for that matter, no one here has been a true victim of anti-QFT enforcement. It's just a debate.

Right now, as far as my own personal motives, I'm trying to understand TMR's position on the matter.

[The Moody Ronin]

Where's Arainach...? >.> This is turning into another one of those "everyone jumps down TMR's throat" threads...

Says you. Who gives a damn if it contributes to the specific thread? I enjoy knowing people's opinions, and I know other people do as well.

So if I were to post into one random thread a week, regardless of topic, to post my opinion of some random thing, it'd be a.o.k. with you, because you'd get to find out something about me? No? Really? Guess there's more to a post then glimpses into psyches...

Finding out about each other is what the journals and Community Center threads are for.

Because 3 letters seem to irritate you, why should the rest of us be denied the right to express our opinions in that manner?

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that outside of this thread I haven't said a thing about QFT. Hadn't really thought about it before to tell the truth. Like a lot of things that fall on the negative side of my regard, I just glossed over them. I'm not trying to tell you or anyone how to post. Just expressing an opinion. My opinion. Otherwise, I'd just QFT one of Arainach's posts (though not that one about the fonts...>.>) and be done with it. There's too much precedence for me to think that anything I say is actually going to change anything...

Then again...

...why should the rest of us be denied the right to express our opinions in that manner?

9. Do NOT just agree
Don't just agree to the posts, post why do you agree, Also to help, QUOTE the person as well, by using the quote tag.

Maybe if the rules were actually enforced, there'd be a little less confusion on such matters...

What kind of shitty forum would this be if we told people HOW to post?
...
The people of this community should have the right (unless Gio were to become a dick and not allow them) to post the way they want that best reflects who they are.

One name for you: Frozen. We already do tell people how to post. I'd like to be able to say that you already tell people how to post, but I don't feel like digging through the forums for a post that may or may not be there.

I don't understand your obsession with "rules and regulations", TMR. This is a forum. I've said it before. It's a community of people. We should be enjoying ourselves. Having to constantly worry about breaking rules and obeying laws that are upheld with an iron fist is not fun, and if this forum were run that way, you can damn well believe I'd not be a part of it. You (and Ary) are so worried about what each post adds to a specific thread rather than what it adds to the community as a whole. You need to consider what really matters here, and that's having discussion, getting to know other people, and having fun. And if Gio wants to boot me for breaking rules (he wouldn't), he can be my guest.

Spam, troll, and flame to your heart's content, it's freedom time boys and girls! It'd be nigh impossible to have discussions, get to know people, and have fun without rules, due to the fact that some people don't have any common sense. I get hung up on the rules, 'cause I don't like hypocrisy. If we have rules in place to stop the "bad kids" then they should also apply to the "good kids" no matter how long it's been since you've excersised your right to be annoying.

But to say that it should not be allowed and is spammy is a very unreasonable thing to say, because at least one person here can attest that they enjoy reading QFT more than no post at all.

I could attest to enjoying having to decipher a Frozen-style post. In fact, I do attest to enjoying a Frozen-style post more than a solitary "QFT". Even a Frozen-style post says more than "QFT"...

In other words, quit trying to turn the rules into a cage to hold us all in our places and quit acting like some grave injustice to the world is occuring when somebody "violates" those rules.

...uhm...yeah... refer to my second point. And the fact that I've yet to actually suggest a punishment (if any is needed) for this sort of thing. And reality in general while you're at it...

...*sigh* On to post #2...

Then I begin to wonder if anything I say will change your mind.

If at first you don't succed, try "try again" young grasshopper. Though, truth be told, I wonder why you need the need to change my mind at all...>.>

Granted, I took the conclusion but and put it in the box but I agreed fully with chef's entire sentiment (It seems repetitive to repeat it in full right after he originally posted it and even you seem to agree that repetition is unsightly)

I know that. Well, I figured that. You see another problem with "QFT" is that in a case like this it's vague to the point of being completely meaningless. If there were more to the post, a statement reiterating just what you find so profound in the post perhaps, then maybe...

Of course, all I said was QFT because I felt all that needed to be said was said.

Again...

But... it [continued]... Even chef had more to say about the matter...

Even you ended up posting again on the subject (link (http://www.unitedempire.net/forums/showpost.php?p=12526&postcount=95)) If chef's post and "QFT" was really all you could think to say, then where'd that come from?

Then even Gio himself had to address the issue directly becuase clearly it was having an influence

And if it was having an influence, it was significant. That's really all their is to it.

First, prove that Gio's post was addressing the QFTs at all. Second, prove that they were being "addressed directly" due to their "influence". Then we can talk about whether or not that makes them significant. For all I know "I hate you guys" could be talking about me, KM, and deathofcheese. Or, you know, to the point that you and I made about the thread only being there because I thought Gio wanted him back.

And the last possible thing you could possibly suggest that I had done different is not post at all which would thereby not contribute my opinion, not lend merit to chef's opinion, and not bring chef's opinion (which is an opinion I shared) into such a focus. In other words, it would have made no difference in the thread whereas the QFT did make a difference.

You'd already expressed your opinion, chef's post didn't need your merit, and it was up to chef to bring his post focus (which he did already). A good post is a good post. It doesn't need to be restated 20 minutes after the fact to remain a good post.

For the record, I enjoy having specific instances to work with, if available, than just dealing in abstracts. It helps cut down on the number of "absurd and poor examples"...

CONCEDE, darn you! Concede that the possibility of a constructive QFT post exists! lol. Whether or not QFT posts in general are constructive is a matter I will let you and DC/Zeit argue about but even you, a wise and reasonable person, has to acknowledge that QFT's can be significant.

All by it's lonesome? Not a chance. "lol", "stfu", even "gg" say more than "Yeah, uh huh, uh huh, yeah, QFT!"

(Quote-fest because it suggests one way in which QFT is not merely a bland re-post.)

More emphasis on "repost that doesn't say anything" than "bland", my friend...

I'm not saying that I will only QFT or only expand. When taken in the context of the example that Gio was trying to make, which was that of a fairly large and involved conversation where someone said something really poignant and a lot of people felt that what was said was said better than they could've ever said it but still wanted to say something because they want to express their opinion or agreement so they choose to QFT and maybe expand (which happens here frequently, although not always or never) so that they could still make a quality post (rather than force everyone to read the same thing over and over again, although slightly duller with each iteration) and say what they wanted to say.

(Whew, that was a mouthful.)

QFT doesn't express your opinion (in part, certainly, but not all of it), and your agreement isn't needed.

Maybe QFT doesn't necessarily mean "that's the truth and nothing else needs to be said". Maybe QFT is just used to put an emphasis on something that was particularly true or extremely well-said.

If I was to just quote this and say "Bull", would you accept my emphasis on something that wasn't particularly true or horribly said and move on? Not that I'm saying that what you're saying here is bull, just that if I did, you wouldn't let me get away with just saying that. You'd make me say just what of that was bull and then go on to defend your post. Is it too much to ask for the same response to "QFT"?

I think it's entirely possible that someone might be nowhere near as knowledgeable about a topic than someone else, but knows just enough about the topic, or about debate or discussion of the topic, to know when something amazing has been said. Or, if someone comes along and voices a point so succinctly or so perfectly that that person wants to make but has already been upstaged by something that was said better.

That's true... inside of a discussion thread. But "QFT" and only "QFT" has no place in a discussion thread. And I, again, contend that your opinion is something that no one else could post without purposely trying to do so.

Right now, as far as my own personal motives, I'm trying to understand TMR's position on the matter.

You wanna know my position on the matter...?

"QFT", "I agree", and/or "Ditto" in and of themselves are not significant. A message board is not a Baptist church. We don't need your Amen corner. Even the addition of a 4 word sentence would give "QFT" a purpose.

Though on the spam scale, I think "QFT" rates about a misdemeanor. It's really not intentional spam, but if you aren't actually contributing to the discussion...

QFT






















Now if I'd just let it go at that, then it'd probably be ignored like it was the first time I posted it. But now that I'm adding to it, beating the point into the ground like a dead horse, it's more likely to be noticed. See how "QFT"+something, anything else is helpful?

Anyway, this thread has gotten to the point where it's just too serious. I pretty much said I don't mind, but I don't like it, and I pretty much said it's fine.

I'm quite surprised that you didn't just close the thread. Not that I think it should be closed, but that's usually what happens when someone starts cursing in every other sentence...

[SpaceProg]

What say we drop this subject and have a beer?

[Z]

Before I go into this I just want to clarify, as before, that in a general sense you, TMR, have already given me a great suggestion with the Karma and because of your suggestion, I am withdrawing from the general debate and letting Zeit and DC do their own thing in that regard. Your karma suggestion was something I conceded to as generally being a better alternative (in that it will please the most amount of people) to general QFTs.

My only point that I am trying to make is that there is such a thing as a constructive/significant QFT post.

With the concession of that, I'm pretty much done with this thread but the refusal to acknowledge even the possibility is troubling and while I know what your stance is on the matter, I'm just trying to understand it because refusing the possibility that a QFT can be significant doesn't make sense to me.

You see another problem with "QFT" is that in a case like this it's vague to the point of being completely meaningless.
The QFT wasn't vague. The QFT was very specific. It just means "I agree with this" and what I quoted is something I agree with. The fact that I agree with the entire post isn't a mater of vagueness and it's certainly not a matter of meaninglessness.

Even you ended up posting again on the subject
I think you've begun to assume construction is synonymous with conclusion. Just becuase a constructive post is made does not automatically mean the issue is resolved. A QFT can be constructive and significant without being a topic closer. For that matter, an elaborate post such as the ones we have been posting here clearly aren't topic closers.

But, after this post, I will remove myself from this thread. I asked if there was anything I could say to change your mind, you basically said keep trying, and yet your reply to a request of concession is...

Not a chance. "lol", "stfu", even "gg" say more than "Yeah, uh huh, uh huh, yeah, QFT!"And then to say that lol, stfu, and gg say more than a QFT (when a QFT can encompass any set of emotion or statement or anything that you want to highlight your agreement to) tells me that Reason has left this debate.

[Bloodcinder]

This is turning into another one of those "everyone jumps down TMR's throat" threads...
OMFG LMAO.

...Reason has left this debate.
QFT?

I'm quite surprised that you didn't just close the thread. Not that I think it should be closed, but that's usually what happens when someone starts cursing in every other sentence...
Where is this cursing that is pervading every other sentence? Please spend another three hours quoting everybody, but this time highlight all of the words in bold.

[Gio Takahashi]

I'd post a facepalm picture to every post that made me facepalmed, but I'll just do one instead, due to a lack of mouse.

http://www.halolz.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/facepalm.gif

Seriously. I think this thread has gone overboard, that said:

Closed