# AAAC Pet Peeves



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

Opening note to the mods. This is honestly meant to be a constructive thread...not an attack on a particular individual or individuals, not a bit of trolling, nor the beginning of some flame war. The functionality of the Forum has been greatly improved; now we might find some ways to enhance the human side of the equation. So here it goes:

Things that frustrate me while participating on a Forum such as this (yes, other fora have exactly the same problems!):

1. Participants who do not use the FAQ or search function before posting a query. This leads to enormous repetition and clutter...and is a rather inefficient way to gain information. I am always surprised by individuals who come to what for them is a new site and assume that no one ever considered the matter at hand prior to their arrival. And I am terribly disappointed in individuals who have been participating on such boards who seem not to be able to recall a similar item just days before....

2. Participants who do not answer the question asked. I'm always amazed by the number of individuals who respond to an inquiry such as "I am trying to decide between these two blue suits -- which of these two should I buy?" with "charcoal gray is nice." 

3. Participants who add absolutely nothing to the thread. "Where can I find a source of magenta socks?" is the enquiry and the response is "Sorry, I don't know."

4. Participants who hijack threads and take them far off topic. Isn't it just as easy to start a new thread on this new topic?

5. Participants who put large graphics in their postings which is then compounded as other participants subsequently recopy the same large image in their later quotes of the initial post.

6. Participants who pose questions on the board when it would be just as easy to email the store in question or pick up the telephone and talk to someone directly. Of course, once such information was obtained, it would be of value to share it.

7. Inside chat! Conversations that seem to exclude other participants are not conducive to community-building. 

8. Violating copyright and other intellectual property protections. I know this is a violation of the Rules...so enough said!

9. Assuming that large post counts equate to knowledge. Certainly those who participate on this Forum for long periods of time become known to the other participants and establish some credibility (or shatter it), but the fact that someone is a newer member should not undermine their opinions. In fact, it is only through bringing in new members that the Forum will continue to grow and remain vital.

10. Participants who don't realize this is an international Forum. It crosses borders, cultures, time zones, hemispheres. One should be mindful of this diversity when posting one's suggestions and opinions.

Oh yes, I'm always frustrated by know-it-alls


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

Mr.C, I`ve got to say I think many of your points have validity and also make perfect sense- however would AAAC forum not lose some of it`s charm eccentricity and in my humble opinion appeal if it was not for the things that peeve us..


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> Oh yes, I'm always frustrated by know-it-alls


Actually some of the know-it-alls actually do know it all. But I get your point. By the way, gray is nice.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Mr. Chatterbox:

Some of your suggestions dealing with the mechanics of webboards I find very valid, i.e. no need to quote an image link so we see the same darn image 20x in a thread. However, the social aspects I have to raise an eye brow at. If there is one thing I would have thought people had figured out by now, is that while you can moderate some things, such as cursing, you can not moderate other things, such as allusions to inside conversations. Yes, we all like to be part of the "cool kids" and no one likes to be on the outside, but we can not expect to be treated as if we are in Grade 3 and forced to invite the kid no one likes to our birthday party. You can not make everyone like each other, or even act like they like each other.

Decorum is one thing, social engineering by the mods is another. And I think gray is nice too.....


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Most of your complaints are very cogent. A certain amount of "hijacking" is, I think, inevitable in these fora, likewise "insider chat," and in some respects they add to the fun of the forum. If this forum strictly limited itself to color matching, trunk shows, shoe lasts, Super counts, blazer buttons and the like, it would get deadly dull fast!


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

Tom Bell-Drier said:


> Mr.C, I`ve got to say I think many of your points have validity and also make perfect sense- however would AAAC forum not lose some of it`s charm eccentricity and in my humble opinion appeal if it was not for the things that peeve us..


There is some charm in the eccentricities. It indeed brings a smile to my face when I see the (imagined) collective wince of this Forum's members as a new posting on black suits goes up or I recall some of the now-banned Forumites most outrageous gestures.



Wayfarer said:


> Mr. Chatterbox:
> 
> Some of your suggestions dealing with the mechanics of webboards I find very valid, i.e. no need to quote an image link so we see the same darn image 20x in a thread. However, the social aspects I have to raise an eye brow at. If there is one thing I would have thought people had figured out by now, is that while you can moderate some things, such as cursing, you can not moderate other things, such as allusions to inside conversations. Yes, we all like to be part of the "cool kids" and no one likes to be on the outside, but we can not expect to be treated as if we are in Grade 3 and forced to invite the kid no one likes to our birthday party. You can not make everyone like each other, or even act like they like each other. Decorum is one thing, social engineering by the mods is another. And I think gray is nice too.....


I do not disagree. I am not suggesting that the moderators intervene on this point...only that participants be mindful of their own behaviour and consider how others might react to a particular message. One role the moderators might play (or other Forum members) is to provide some annotation on some of the more arcane, historical, or inside points if appropriate.

Of yes, I too like gray. I was trying to decide between slate gray and charcoal gray...but opted for navy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> Of yes, I too like gray. I was trying to decide between slate gray and charcoal gray...but opted for navy.


Well played!

I see what you're saying as to the social aspects. While I like people to at least play by the rules, I will forever be wary of anything that smacks of PC or "cultural sensitivity", and that is what I was getting.

Pet Peeves of mine for the Interchange:

_Ad Hoc_ Rescues -- wastes time and bandwidth as one must deal with the fallacy vs. the original thesis

Straw Man -- ditto above


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I agree on all points and probably have transgressed all points. Mea Culpa, this is still a relatively new medium of communication and social phenomenon. I remember writing letters home from overseas and the prodigous midden of crumpled drafts in the wastebin.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Mr. Chatterbox, 

You make some very good points. Some I make conscious efforts not to violate myself, but some I am guilty of. For most people the interaction amongst members is a good thing and sometimes, like in conversations, the topic can change directions. Many times, the new topic does take on a life of it's own and could be moved to it's own post, but other times there is no problem leaving it and letting it continue. I generally avoid posting the "I don't know" answer to questions, because I agree it is pointless. That said, I don't know where to get magenta socks.

Overall....you made some very well stated observations!


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I don't much care for gray.
Gurdon


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

How about this response - 

"If you like it, get it."

Obviously the person asking the question likes it but as we all know sometimes you take a liking to something impractical or unusual and some practical, experienced advice from others may help you to make your decision and keep you from buying something only to realize that it was a mistake for some reason.

I do appreciate the sentiment (don't worry too much about what others think, don't be afraid to be an individual,etc.) but I think that it is often phrased in an unhelpful or even dismissive manner.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

patbrady2005 said:


> How about this response -
> 
> *"If you like it, get it."*
> 
> ...


Pat,

For whatever it's worth, sometimes people come looking for validation for an item they've selected. When that validation doesn't happen, they start throwing out, "Well what if..." (or similar). So the, "If you like it, buy it" fits.


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

patbrady2005 said:


> How about this response -
> 
> "If you like it, get it."
> 
> ...


Sometimes "if you like it - get it", means "I see nothing wrong with this, it's personal preference".


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

I got no complaints. I did at first, but after being here a few months I think I like everything the way it is.

M8


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I like the forum the way it is, too.

No one forces anyone to read anything.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

[quote-forsbergacct2000] No one forces anyone to read anything.[/quote] Oh yeah? Tell that to the Administrator-in-Chief!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

My sympathies to those of us who have been drafted into service!!!

I did not think of the admins when doing my post.

I'll confess I don't have time to read all the threads.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> forsbergacct2000 said:
> 
> 
> > No one forces anyone to read anything.
> ...


I just delete threads at random to make it look like I'm doing something....


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

*Pet Peeves ?*

Dags gettin' amorous with me shin.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jamgood said:


> Dags gettin' amorous with me shin.


Ya new, ya git a dag with a caravan?


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

I would say the individuals who post 20 pictures as a response (often off topic) are what annoy me most. 20 pictures in a thread dedicated to pictures is okay, though. However, replying with those same 20 in the reply is not, unless you have a genuinely useful comment for each. Just an opinion.

As one who has used the "if you like it, get it" before in the trad forum, I'll give my reason for doing it

Many who make appearances on the trad forum seem to be unaware of what is "trad" or not, so they ask if it is trad on that forum. Often, if people tell them it isn't trad, they seem discouraged and decide not to buy it, as if it not being trad invalidated it generally. (Either that or they get defensive and insist that it IS). I like to avoid such frankly pointless feelings of "not belonging" or judging whether a classic but not trad piece of clothing is still worth wearing.


So, if someone says "is this 2 button darted seersucker suit with pleated pants trad", I'd say "no, but if you like it, get it" As in, it's still a nice article of clothing, just beacuse it's not per se "trad" doesn't ruin it's aesthetic appeal, the fact that you'd look great wearing it, or it's potential value to your wardrobe.

When talking trad, it's true that "if you like it get it" might mean in this case that I would not wear it. I am what Horace over on FNB half-jokingly refers to as "the orthodoxy"--90% of the time, if it has darts or pleats, I wouldn't consider wearing it, with a few very English exceptions. But that doesn't invalidate it as an article of clothing.


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

My one very minor peeve is the format of the "last post" display, which is in date-time format. This is a little difficult for those of us in different time zones, especialy with daylight saving adjustments. I think that the StyleForum format "last posted 45 minutes ago" might be more generally useful.

Aus


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

Trenditional said:


> Pat,
> 
> For whatever it's worth, sometimes people come looking for validation for an item they've selected. When that validation doesn't happen, they start throwing out, "Well what if..." (or similar). So the, "If you like it, buy it" fits.


Point well taken, I've seen it happen often.Don't get me wrong everyone, I don't think that it's always a bad answer - it depends on the context. I just think that sometimes it's thrown out there a little too quickly and without any additional commentary may not be very helpful.

How about this one (replace car brand names with clothing makers) -

Question - "I can only afford one of these two cars - Nissan or Toyota. Which is better?"

Answer - "Porsche is better."


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Or....

What brand of shirt fits best?

No other info...

Answer: Are you built like me or my 10 year old daughter... makes a difference in the answer.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Ya new, ya git a dag with a caravan?


Remember: she's powerful partial to periwinkle blue.


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

Here's one: People who gratuitously quote previous posts before posting their responses. In case anyone misunderstands, the vast majority of quoted posts that I see here don't fall into that category; I'm referring to posts where it's obvious what the person is responding to, even without the quote, but they add the quote anyway.

The worst is when someone writes a really, really long post, and for some reason the FIRST PERSON TO RESPOND feels the need to copy the whole damn thing at the top of their response, so the other members are forced to scroll through the whole thing they just read to get to the new content. Thanks, first person to respond: I wouldn't have known what post you were referring to if you hadn't quoted the one above, even though there's only one post on the thread besides yours. 

Before quoting a previous post, you should ask yourself whether you would reasonably expect anyone to be confused about which post (or part of a post) you're referring to without the quote. If the answer is yes, then by all means, add the quote. But don't quote posts just for the sake of it.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Harry96 said:


> Here's one: People who gratuitously quote previous posts before posting their responses. In case anyone misunderstands, the vast majority of quoted posts that I see here don't fall into that category; I'm referring to posts where it's obvious what the person is responding to, even without the quote, but they add the quote anyway.
> 
> The worst is when someone writes a really, really long post, and for some reason the FIRST PERSON TO RESPOND feels the need to copy the whole damn thing at the top of their response, so the other members are forced to scroll through the whole thing they just read to get to the new content. Thanks, first person to respond: I wouldn't have known what post you were referring to if you hadn't quoted the one above, even though there's only one post on the thread besides yours.
> 
> Before quoting a previous post, you should ask yourself whether you would reasonably expect anyone to be confused about which post (or part of a post) you're referring to without the quote. If the answer is yes, then by all means, add the quote. But don't quote posts just for the sake of it.


Yeah, drives me nuts, too.


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

Touche.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

AlanC said:


> Yeah, drives me nuts, too.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

Big animated smilies, cuz I want some too. Not just those rinky-dink ones on the side here  .


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

Or worse, posters who quote someone else's big animated smileys because they can't get their own!


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

AlanC said:


> Yeah, drives me nuts, too.





EL72 said:


> Or worse, posters who quote someone else's big animated smileys because they can't get their own!


One for every occasion:


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Harry96 said:


> Here's one: People who gratuitously quote previous posts before posting their responses. In case anyone misunderstands, the vast majority of quoted posts that I see here don't fall into that category; I'm referring to posts where it's obvious what the person is responding to, even without the quote, but they add the quote anyway.
> 
> The worst is when someone writes a really, really long post, and for some reason the FIRST PERSON TO RESPOND feels the need to copy the whole damn thing at the top of their response, so the other members are forced to scroll through the whole thing they just read to get to the new content. Thanks, first person to respond: I wouldn't have known what post you were referring to if you hadn't quoted the one above, even though there's only one post on the thread besides yours.
> 
> Before quoting a previous post, you should ask yourself whether you would reasonably expect anyone to be confused about which post (or part of a post) you're referring to without the quote. If the answer is yes, then by all means, add the quote. But don't quote posts just for the sake of it.


Gotta agree with AlanC


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

Harry96 said:


> Here's one: People who gratuitously quote previous posts before posting their responses. In case anyone misunderstands, the vast majority of quoted posts that I see here don't fall into that category; I'm referring to posts where it's obvious what the person is responding to, even without the quote, but they add the quote anyway.
> 
> The worst is when someone writes a really, really long post, and for some reason the FIRST PERSON TO RESPOND feels the need to copy the whole damn thing at the top of their response, so the other members are forced to scroll through the whole thing they just read to get to the new content. Thanks, first person to respond: I wouldn't have known what post you were referring to if you hadn't quoted the one above, even though there's only one post on the thread besides yours.
> 
> Before quoting a previous post, you should ask yourself whether you would reasonably expect anyone to be confused about which post (or part of a post) you're referring to without the quote. If the answer is yes, then by all means, add the quote. But don't quote posts just for the sake of it.


the answer of course would be nineteen


----------



## Mr. Checks (Dec 21, 2005)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> Opening note to the mods. This is honestly meant to be a constructive thread...not an attack on a particular individual or individuals, not a bit of trolling, nor the beginning of some flame war. The functionality of the Forum has been greatly improved; now we might find some ways to enhance the human side of the equation. So here it goes:
> 
> Things that frustrate me while participating on a Forum such as this (yes, other fora have exactly the same problems!):
> 
> ...


I disagree with everything you wrote, except the second clause of #5.

How's that for direct and to-the-point?


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

Mr. Checks said:


> I disagree with everything you wrote, except the second clause of #5.
> 
> How's that for direct and to-the-point?


yes but what about the 3rd point, second paragraph,sub paragraph ii,where it begins before the third noun , but after the second adjective refering to the matter in hand.


----------



## Mr. Checks (Dec 21, 2005)

Tom Bell-Drier said:


> yes but what about the 3rd point, second paragraph,sub paragraph ii,where it begins before the third noun , but after the second adjective refering to the matter in hand.


This is addressed in the first clause of my first sentence.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

patbrady2005 said:


> Point well taken, I've seen it happen often.Don't get me wrong everyone, I don't think that it's always a bad answer - it depends on the context. I just think that sometimes it's thrown out there a little too quickly and without any additional commentary may not be very helpful.
> 
> How about this one (replace car brand names with clothing makers) -
> 
> ...


This is mere frivolity I'm about to embark on, because I'm bored 

Apples and oranges...not all clothes that fit a certain mold or style are going to be more expensive just because they do. I think J. Press suits are better than Brioni

*waits for laughter to subside*

Perhaps if Brioni made a 3 button sack suit with no shoulder padding I would change my tune.

But if you said, "I want a good sack suit, but I can only afford Filene's" I would say not "J. Press or Chipp is better" instead I would say "thrift shop is better"

or, in the car example "used Porsche is better"


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

Mr. Checks said:


> This is addressed in the first clause of my first sentence.


Ah, now I see it,I mistakingly thought your point pertained, to the 3rd sentence,of the 4th paragraph, right after your refrence to the first sentence.

my appologies for this assumption.


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

I think there are too few threads about whether Tyrwhitt or Pink shirts are better.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

I miss Schu's photo's of NY'rs wearing scarfs.


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

Most of these I don't see so much here, but they're rampant on the net:

Not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're" (In fact, based on what I've seen, 99% of the people on the Internet don't even know there is such a thing as "you're.")

Not knowing the difference between "then" and "than." 

Using the expression "I could care less." The correct expression is "I couldn't care less." If you could care less, then that means you care. 

Using the word "thin" for "narrow," as in, "I like my ties thin, no more than three inches." (although it would probably be "then three inches.") Hey, if you like three inches of material sticking out from your torso horizontally, and you consider that thickness of material to be "thin," then more power to you.


----------

