Grammar (Full Version)

All Forums >> [AE Forum Resources] >> Forum Support and Suggestions



Message

Grixus Faldor -> Grammar (10/31/2011 3:11:11)

I believe that this forum should have a standard for grammar, whilst I accept there are those of among us for which English is not their first or native language, of which I am one (although I was born and raised in Australia), but there should be a standard for coherence and readability. Roaming throughout the forums there are those who use "txtspeak" and "1337speak" rather than Common English, there has been, what I have observed as, an attitudinal shift. 13 being the age for registration to the forums, is an age where people should move beyond phrasing such as, "um i tink u shuld do dat cuz it good" and use phrasing such as, "In my opinion, that's probably the best thing to do considering/because..." it's not a ridiculous expectation. I know this suggestion might attract ridicule, but I'm certain that I'm not the only one that shares this sentiment for deliberately atrocious spelling, grammar and punctuation. Age is not an excuse, there are a lot of younger forumites who have an exemplary vocabulary and knowledge of words.



Stray Cat -> RE: Grammar (10/31/2011 5:38:07)

First off, when you give "um i tink u shuld do dat cuz it good" as an example, you make poor grammar and spelling out to be synonymous with valuelessness, which isn't the case. Discussion as a must is a different matter which is already enforced, and a person who expresses himself poorly isn't necessarily lacking in constructive ideas.

If someone's posts are indecipherable, they'll probably either be asked to improve their clarity or have their posts deleted since unreadable equals pointless and pointless equals spam. But aside from really atrocious examples, it's kind of difficult to draw the line. Attention to grammar and spelling is of course desirable (" Proper Forum Ettiquette", for example, explicitly encourages it) but iron-fistedness to this extent isn't the best way to maintain the userbase and attract new members. There's a limit to how much we want to be restricting users.

It's also pretty hard to discern between people who use obnoxious grammar as a deliberate stylistic quirk and people who truly lack the capacity to type better, whether that be because they speak ESL or due to any other reason. This is all especially relevant considering that our userbase does extend to fairly young ages, and while it's all well and good to apply the same standard to everyone, circumstances do vary and some people are always going to be less capable of meeting that standard.



Z -> RE: Grammar (10/31/2011 6:17:51)

In addition to what Stray Cat has pointed out, in the past there have been cases of forum users under the age of 13 registering for a forum account with parental permission. While the forum staff do expect posts to be reasonably understandable, enforcing a "grammar rule" which could potentially discourage expression and exchange of ideas is, in my opinion, not desirable.

I don't see text-speak that often in the forums I frequent, and "1337-speak" is hardly seen nowadays. If you come across a post that contains "deliberately atrocious spelling, grammar and punctuation", you can always ask the poster to clarify or send a PM to an AK if the post seems spammy.



Grixus Faldor -> RE: Grammar (10/31/2011 6:26:40)

I'm not suggesting that we crack-down on atrocious, obnoxious grammar. I understand that not all grammar is intentionally poor, however, I failed to state that it is indeed hard to discern between intentional and unintentional. I also concede that the example I supplied illustrated valuelessness rather than poor grammar, though, so I apologise forthwith. What I'm suggesting is that we employ something like the English Wikipedia's words to watch guideline, which would be supplementary to the Proper Forum Ettiquette guideline, this guideline would point out the ubiquities of poor grammar and words/phrases to avoid/watch.

The guideline would contain tips like, avoiding unnecessary abbreviation, avoiding the supplanting of words with numbers and other suchlike things. However, I'm not suggesting that we promote frippery and frivolity in place of actually thoroughly thought-through posts, nor that we promote the use of brobdingnagian words of which no one, poster included, would have a clue as to what it means, that would be absurd. Were this guideline created, perhaps the forum coders could add a text note to the posting dialogues, eg. "Please read the "Proper Forum Ettiquette" and "Words/phrases to watch/avoid" guidelines before posting".

I realise my statement on the matter of text and leetspeak were not ideal, also, but what I mean is that forumites commonly abbreviate words uneccessarily, see AQ Q&A, it's one of the prime examples where people use "u" instead of "you" and so on and so forth.

Thoughts?



Stray Cat -> RE: Grammar (10/31/2011 7:33:15)

I don't see that much fault in, to use your example, substituting "u" with "you". Abbreviations are omnipresent on the internet and their meanings are easily identified. If someone wants to save five seconds of his life at the cost of cutting five minutes off someone else's life when he has to read the former's less-than-perfect diction, I honestly don't feel qualified to play the part of judge. It's when clarity is lost that I see this kind of flippancy as a problem, but before that it's problematic solely by merit of grammar dictating what is correct and what isn't. If we're taking how much effort someone puts into his grammar as a measure of how much he cares, there are better measures of how acceptable a post is, like content itself. I reiterate what I said earlier: There's a limit to how much we want to be restricting users. I can get behind the idea of an (optionally conformed to) advisory guide but I'd feel uncomfortable seeing policy directly debasing, however mildly, valuable and valued posters for (to reference the example again) using "u" in place of you.



Grixus Faldor -> RE: Grammar (11/1/2011 0:33:51)

I'm suggesting we implement a policy, as I said, more a guideline that would be supplementary to Proper Forum Ettiquette. A guideline would be the sort of policing and unnecessary use of powers that the staff of the BOF have for so long been the subject of ridicule for, when in fact they do their jobs to the best of their ability, but I digress. I mean there will be those who read it. The 1 line text notice in the posting dialogues would be a friendly reminder, not warning 1 of 3. Easily identified, though they may be, who wants to read "i dno abt dat, bt i think u cn fnd dem at the inn", I don't think anyone would want to read that, even if it's not a valueless reply, the over-abbreviation almost invalidates its value.



Wilderock -> RE: Grammar (11/1/2011 12:26:24)

While I agree with you in theory that better grammar across the entire forum is ideal, from a practicality standpoint, I can't see anything being implemented. Historically, small changes have been too inconsequential to waste time on, and large changes have seemed too radical and unnecessary. How could you punish someone for using improper grammar? Good grammar should absolutely be encouraged, but what sort of "policy" could possibly be enforced?

Am I misunderstanding the use of "policy" and "guideline" in this context?

In my 6 1/2 years on this forum, I've never really seen grammar as an urgent problem. Although I admittedly do not frequent the forums anymore, the time I spent was never negatively impacted by anyone else's misuse of grammar, to say the least; I've seen very few posts as wacky as you describe, and the rare ones which surely did occur eventually, I'd imagine, were handled easily and accordingly. As long as the post contributes to the discussion in at least some regard and doesn't break any rules otherwise, I don't see how poor English would independently render it worthless, much less a violation.

It's a forum and it is built for discussion; grammar, while indeed important in regard to clarity and such, has to be extremely poor in order to ruin the clarity, validity and value of an entire post on a consistent basis (consistent enough to warrant any rule which takes time to enforce).

As an aside, I'd just like to point out how ironic it is that on the AQF, we've traditionally used many abbreviations...for in-game and forum references, lol (not that it's chiefly relevant to your suggestion ha).

What, more specifically, might you be suggesting?



Grixus Faldor -> RE: Grammar (11/1/2011 18:20:25)

I'm suggesting a guideline (a guideline being something that isn't enforced, but recommended), not a policy (such as the Universal Forum Rules which ARE enforced). I thought I made it clear in my first post that I was merely suggesting a new guideline or section in the "Proper Forum Ettiquette" guideline about correct grammar, policing grammar is NEVER going to happen, but informing users about proper grammar and the usage of homophones etc. is not impracticable.



ArchMagus Orodalf -> RE: Grammar (11/1/2011 18:23:33)

^That's already there.

quote:

Use abbreviations and acronyms only in moderation.
Although they are a great way to speed up typing and shorten posts, too many can lead to an undecipherable post. Be easy on your fellow forum-goers. Also, abbreviations and acronyms can lead to misinterpretations. Not everyone is proficient at acronyms. It is okay to use them, but, as I said earlier, do so in moderation.

Use correct spelling.
I know that the forums consist of many different people from all over the world, many of whom do not have English as a first language. Typos happen and are an acceptable fact of life but if you can just read over what you wrote before you post it you can save everyone a lot of time and yourself a lot of trouble. If your post is filled with spelling errors chances are multiple people will say something about it, usually requesting you to change it. Make your life easier!

Use good grammar.
As said above I understand that not everyone is going to be the best at English, nor do I expect them too. But, please do try your best. Bad grammar can, once again, lead to misinterpretations of your post as well as bad feedback. Try your best and nobody can say a bad word against you.



Grixus Faldor -> RE: Grammar (11/1/2011 22:45:34)

What of homophones and so forth? People still misuse and confuse there, their and they're; to, two and too etc. the misconceptions and ubiquities prevalent in the English language should probably be explained, while these 3 sections contain information on the fundamentals, perhaps examples should be added for laymen?



Everest -> RE: Grammar (11/1/2011 23:05:49)

They won't be added to that thread. I appreciate the suggestion, but this is not a learning environment; it is a forum community. Members should be learning from teachers, not from the forum staff. Not to mention there's a strict balance to be kept in threads like the one linked above. If threads like that one are too long they'll never be read in the first place, and that specific thread already suffers from what I'd say is borderline too much text. These threads need to quickly and efficiently raise major points without getting bogged down into so much detail they'd take half an hour to read. Members come here to talk, not to learn how to write (at least in most cases, L&L the most obvious exception). :P

We do enforce certain sets of acceptable posting behavior, but they're based around comprehension, not perfection. If the post can be understood at all it will be left alone, and members should be free to use whatever language they like. We enforce rules aimed at safety of interaction. Anything beyond that is not something I personally favor.

Of course, if you feel as though a post is truly incomprehensible I'd like you to contact a member of the forum staff. But if it's something like a member using 'u' rather than 'you' I'd ask you overlook it and remember that these forums exist to serve many different types of people.

quote:

Historically, small changes have been too inconsequential to waste time on, and large changes have seemed too radical and unnecessary.


I don't want to get into this too deeply since it's not really the topic of the thread, but I did want to say that I believe you don't give us enough credit. I'm sure it will sound like a tired line to you, but when ideas are good ones they'll be considered. And I can name several projects that are being worked on in at least part due to threads made in this forum. Not to mention I keep a list of small possible coding improvements that could be made at an opportune moment. The point being that I don't think you should write us off like you seem to have done above. Changes may not be immediate. But that doesn't mean they don't happen at all as a result of discussion like this.



Grixus Faldor -> RE: Grammar (11/1/2011 23:21:02)

I know, that was a poor example, I understand using "2" in place of to/two/too and "u" in place of you is something that could be overlooked, but when an abundance of abbreviations are used, and this is common in AQ H&S and the AQW forums, it really becomes annoying. I know this forum is not here to teach but using the correct word and context goes a long way to improving the readability of messages.



Stray Cat -> RE: Grammar (11/2/2011 0:02:00)

Ev has already pointed out disqualifying problems with your suggestion but, even if we went through with it despite that, why stop at "there vs their vs they're" or "two vs too"? Why not go on to the misuse of apostrophes in possessive pronouns like "its", "yours" or "his" or the misuse of "which" as a restrictive pronoun? I don't mean to use slippery slope (although I do it anyway :P) but the concept of ubiquity only carries so far over into practice. Overly enthusiastic advocacy of grammar outside of a proper learning environment has this inexplicable tendency to become elitist pedantry.

To illustrate, and I'm going to sound like a bit of a jerk but you've incorrectly spliced several sentences with only commas in your posts. The bold comma in
quote:

I know, that was a poor example, I understand...
should be full stop, or at least a semi-colon or conjunction. I'm not saying that, in this post or elsewhere, I apply grammar perfectly, but inaccuracies as a whole are ubiquitous. Your "obvious" is someone else's "equivocal" and your "equivocal" is someone else's "obvious".

We already deal with unreadable posts; at any level of readability above that, this comes down to your personal tolerance.



Wilderock -> RE: Grammar (11/2/2011 0:19:41)

Oh, I absolutely believe it, Ev. I was mostly speaking in general and from my own personal experience...certainly not to discourage anyone from suggesting any ideas, or to imply that ideas do not receive consideration. What I meant was more along the lines of how from a practical standpoint, it's hard to expect or support a change in this instance, especially when additionally considering the history of most suggestions: many, I've noticed, are small and not exactly urgent (such as coders adding a text note were this guide created), or too radical (like actually enforcing correct grammar). Good suggestions definitely take place, and some are successful...won't deny that!

And James, I apologize, I think I slightly misunderstood what you were saying...incidentally due to awkward grammar (I think you left out a "not" or two but not to worry, it's all good lol). I believe you are suggesting they add more grammar-guidelines to the Proper Forum Etiquette, under the presumption it will promote clarity and coherency and such, is this correct? I don't think it's a bad idea, I just don't know if it will actually produce its desired effect, or if it is urgent. What specific additions should be added, anyway?



Grixus Faldor -> RE: Grammar (11/2/2011 1:19:01)

I am what my teacher calls "comma-happy" (trigger-happiness but with commas). Stray Cat, I understand that such is subjective, however, I wasn't suggesting it go that far in-depth rather that it should cover the generalities, if you will. As far as I can tell, you are all correct, while this would work in theory, in practice this won't achieve much for good grammar. Covering the finer, more trivial points of correct grammar would give the impression of grammar policing and carry a negative vibe throughout the forum. It seemed to me a good idea at the time, but now I think it otherwise.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.109375