Roleplay Pet Peeves

[Mx.Trinity]

Actually you perfectly illustrated what I think is the big misconception with the words literacry and illiteracy. For a lot of the people that use the latter ( illiteracy/illiterate ) to belittle others what they're really talking about is GRAMMAR.

Like they basically see people who they feel don't pay the proper amount of attention to proper grammar and they assume this means the people are illiterate. And alternately they pride themselves on proper grammar and they think this makes them more literate than others.

When literacy/illiteracy has nothing to do with grammar. It is really only related to the basic ability to either read or write. You don't have to do either of those things perfectly to be considered literate. You don't have to be able to pass some kind of literacy test that proves you can follow all the rules of grammar or what have you. No if you can read a book or write something in a manner that is understandable to others than your literate.

Further the original point was more an issue of different writing styles entirely. A script based roleplay is going to have different writing rules than a novel length one.That doesn't mean that just because it's different it is automatically less literate. That would be like if I said someone who writes cookbooks is less literate than someone who writes fantasy novels. The two have nothing to do with one another so it's silly to make the comparison in the first place.

Mmm.... I mean... this is from Merriam-Webster:

illiterate

violating approved patterns of speaking and writing - most of the messages left on the Web site's bulletin board are illiterate

• Synonyms ungrammatical
• Related Words unidiomatic; nonstandard, substandard
• Near Antonyms idiomatic
• Antonyms grammatical

I think you were assuming that "the ability to read and write" simply meant the ability to type/write words or letters which isn't the truth either because of the definition "ability" rae2nerdy so people who use the wrong versions of words like your, you're are in fact, illiterate. However this doesn't mean they are always illiterate, just that what they typed was technically illiterate. If someone were to truly be illiterate they would confuse words like this all the time. No one is 100% literate all of the time; that's why we have auto correct and proof readers The problem arises when someone refuses to admit they're wrong and learn from their mistakes.

That's, of course, just my opinion

 

[rae2nerdy]

Mmm.... I mean... this is from Merriam-Webster:

illiterate

violating approved patterns of speaking and writing - most of the messages left on the Web site's bulletin board are illiterate

• Synonyms ungrammatical
• Related Words unidiomatic; nonstandard, substandard
• Near Antonyms idiomatic
• Antonyms grammatical

I think you were assuming that "the ability to read and write" simply meant the ability to type/write words or letters which isn't the truth either because of the definition "ability" rae2nerdy so people who use the wrong versions of words like your, you're are in fact, illiterate. However this doesn't mean they are always illiterate, just that what they typed was technically illiterate. If someone were to truly be illiterate they would confuse words like this all the time. No one is 100% literate all of the time; that's why we have auto correct and proof readers The problem arises when someone refuses to admit they're wrong and learn from their mistakes.

That's, of course, just my opinion

Perhaps that's a definition in an academic setting or a professional setting ( here people do have proofreaders ) but roleplaying is not an academic or professional setting. By your definition not only am I illiterate but anyone with a learning disability or with English as their second language is also illiterate.

And again you see the problem. You can't use the same set of definitions you would use for writing a novel or a term paper to determine literacy or illiteracy in something like roleplay which is a different medium entirely.

People assume - well I'm writing and you're writing so that means that we have to follow all the rules of grammar we learned when we were twelve.

But why? Does it somehow make it unreadable when I misuse a homonym or a comma? Can you really not understand the point I'm trying to make without proper grammar? I mean some people honestly can't and for those people I do try my best to catch my mistakes. But for the most part it's not so much people refusing to admit mistakes it's people nitpicking and belitting people because they want to show off how much more superior they are.

( which you're not doing I understand but what your doing is basically the civilized and polite version of the same tactics the people who like to talk down to others use. And you'll notice that because you're polite I'm being equally civil and explaining myself. And further if you were to tell me that the whole grammar and homonym thing really bothered your reading comprehension I would make an effort to do better. No promises because I couldn't use proper grammar if you paid me but I would at least try. 0

 

[Mx.Trinity]

Perhaps that's a definition in an academic setting or a professional setting ( here people do have proofreaders ) but roleplaying is not an academic or professional setting. By your definition not only am I illiterate but anyone with a learning disability or with English as their second language is also illiterate.

And again you see the problem. You can't use the same set of definitions you would use for writing a novel or a term paper to determine literacy or illiteracy in something like roleplay which is a different medium entirely.

People assume - well I'm writing and you're writing so that means that we have to follow all the rules of grammar we learned when we were twelve.

But why? Does it somehow make it unreadable when I misuse a homonym or a comma? Can you really not understand the point I'm trying to make without proper grammar? I mean some people honestly can't and for those people I do try my best to catch my mistakes. But for the most part it's not so much people refusing to admit mistakes it's people nitpicking and belitting people because they want to show off how much more superior they are.

( which you're not doing I understand but what your doing is basically the civilized and polite version of the same tactics the people who like to talk down to others use. And you'll notice that because you're polite I'm being equally civil and explaining myself. And further if you were to tell me that the whole grammar and homonym thing really bothered your reading comprehension I would make an effort to do better. No promises because I couldn't use proper grammar if you paid me but I would at least try. 0

I understand where you're coming from but it's not correct and is flawed logic. If you're writing it is literacy/grammar. That's it. It's not about a professional setting at all, people who write stories for themselves tend to care about being literate especially if they ever plan on showing their piece to another person. The definition of words don't change to fit what you want them to fit, they're defined clearly so you can educate yourself in the English language.

Yes people who can't read and write due to a learning disability or second language would be considered illiterate. But not every person whose second language is English or who has a learning disability/general disability is illiterate.

Also, again, you're getting the definition of words mixed up. You're confusing illiterate with "unintelligible". You can be illiterate and still be intelligible, but there are times where punctuation, grammar, etc. all come together to make an understandable sentence and as such being illiterate disrupts the flow of reading and understanding. rae2nerdy I originally didn't come here to argue, and I'm not really arguing now but you are assuming words change to fit the definition that you want them too when that's simply not the case. Again as I said before you can write something and have it be illiterate but that doesn't make you illiterate. If you understand the mistake you made and know how to properly correct it that would make you a literate person. What you wrote may be illiterate but as long as you understand your mistake that's all that's important in a casual setting.

However on the other hand if you want to push yourself to be a better writer... listening to people's criticism and feedback on your literacy can help you improve (assuming they are correct). However dismissing the issue all together and saying that what you wrote was literate and that everyone else is wrong because x, y, z. That not only makes you illiterate but ignorant as well. Just using that as an example.

 

[StrixDesmodus]

What monster have I created?

 

[Mx.Trinity]

What monster have I created?

A logical machine, you fool.

 

[rae2nerdy]

What monster have I created?

lol it's a pretty interesting complaint actually. and unlike a lot of the more vicious behavior troll take part in it's something that can actually be somewhat constructive when you remember to be civil. when i first started doing novel style roleplays ( where you are expected to write like a paragraph with complete sentences rather than just a few lines or whatever ) i had another person spend i swear about two years trying to get me to understand homonyms.

i mean not two years straight but we were in the same roleplay for about two years more or less and every time i posted a reply they would be like... rae...rae..rae again it's their not there or they're or whatever.

it became a running joke actually because i honestly could not get it. and like that kind of thing and even what Mx.Silent was doing those aren't bad things. If you want to help people with their grammar or give constructive advice that's awesome. It's how we grow.

But there's a difference between offering advice and treating people like crap because they happen to misuse a comma or they don't write replies that fit your own personal word count quota.

 

[Mx.Trinity]

What monster have I created?

lol it's a pretty interesting complaint actually. and unlike a lot of the more vicious behavior troll take part in it's something that can actually be somewhat constructive when you remember to be civil. when i first started doing novel style roleplays ( where you are expected to write like a paragraph with complete sentences rather than just a few lines or whatever ) i had another person spend i swear about two years trying to get me to understand homonyms.

i mean not two years straight but we were in the same roleplay for about two years more or less and every time i posted a reply they would be like... rae...rae..rae again it's their not there or they're or whatever.

it became a running joke actually because i honestly could not get it. and like that kind of thing and even what Mx.Silent was doing those aren't bad things. If you want to help people with their grammar or give constructive advice that's awesome. It's how we grow.

But there's a difference between offering advice and treating people like crap because they happen to misuse a comma or they don't write replies that fit your own personal word count quota.

Since this topic seems to be nearing a close I will unleash my mechanized beast of literary discussion Elephantom Just read the last page and this page with mine and rae2nerdy 's replies ENTROPY IS SUCH A LOVELY THING

 

[Bone2pick]

Mmm.... I mean... this is from Merriam-Webster:

illiterate

violating approved patterns of speaking and writing - most of the messages left on the Web site's bulletin board are illiterate

• Synonyms ungrammatical
• Related Words unidiomatic; nonstandard, substandard
• Near Antonyms idiomatic
• Antonyms grammatical

lit·er·ate
i(l)ˈlidərət/
adjective
adjective: illiterate

1. 1.
   unable to read or write.
   "his parents were illiterate"
   synonyms: unable to read or write, unlettered
   "an illiterate peasant"

 

[Mx.Trinity]

lit·er·ate
i(l)ˈlidərət/
adjective
adjective: illiterate

1. 1.
   unable to read or write.
   "his parents were illiterate"
   synonyms: unable to read or write, unlettered
   "an illiterate peasant"

Check Merriam Webster.

Also
a·bil·i·ty
əˈbilədē/
noun

1. 1.
   possession of the means or skill to do something.
   "the manager had lost his ability to motivate the players"
   synonyms: capacity, capability, potential, potentiality, power, faculty, aptness, facility; More
   
   
2. 2.
   talent, skill, or proficiency in a particular area.
   "a man of exceptional ability"

Bone2pick

 

[Bone2pick]

Check Merriam Webster.

Why?

 

[Mx.Trinity]

Why?

Because it's not as vague.

 

[Bone2pick]

Because it's not as vague.

Google's definition reads clear enough for me.

 

[Mx.Trinity]

Google's definition reads clear enough for me.

"enough" is not "correct". It's vague and leaves room for your own conclusion to be drawn, instead of a more specific and formal definition that clears up any uncertainty. If you wish to ignore the additional information available, I guess that's on you.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Mx.Trinity To follow up with your quote I think we got sidetracked form the point. I'm not here to argue the definition of literate or illiterate. Perhaps I was wrong and the definition isn't what I thought. But that's not really the point I was trying to make. The original post I made about the definition was meant to be a sarcastic deflection to someone who thinks because they write five paragraphs they are the unspoken keepers of all the words and anyone who doesn't meet a certain word count is unfit to be in their presence.

What I was trying to say it what I posted above. That there is a difference between giving advice, lecturing, and belittling people.

Giving advice is offering helpful criticism with the idea of educating someone and helping them fix their mistakes ( what you did with the definition )

Lecturing them is giving advice when they did not ask for it. So basically if we were having a conversation and out of the blue you decided to start highlighting all my responses with grammatical mistakes. That would be lecturing because I did not ask you to help me catch mistakes.

Belittling is basically lecturing without the civility. It's where you not only highlight people mistakes but go out of your way to make them feel like crap for making them ( what the original post was talking about )

 

[Elephantom]

Mx.Trinity , oui, what should I say here, miss?

 

[Mx.Trinity]

Mx.Trinity To follow up with your quote I think we got sidetracked form the point. I'm not here to argue the definition of literate or illiterate. Perhaps I was wrong and the definition isn't what I thought. But that's not really the point I was trying to make. The original post I made about the definition was meant to be a sarcastic deflection to someone who thinks because they write five paragraphs they are the unspoken keepers of all the words and anyone who doesn't meet a certain word count is unfit to be in their presence.

What I was trying to say it what I posted above. That there is a difference between giving advice, lecturing, and belittling people.

Giving advice is offering helpful criticism with the idea of educating someone and helping them fix their mistakes ( what you did with the definition )

Lecturing them is giving advice when they did not ask for it. So basically if we were having a conversation and out of the blue you decided to start highlighting all my responses with grammatical mistakes. That would be lecturing because I did not ask you to help me catch mistakes.

Belittling is basically lecturing without the civility. It's where you not only highlight people mistakes but go out of your way to make them feel like crap for making them ( what the original post was talking about )

of course but I just ran with your sarcasm and as a result we both have learned something. To me there's nothing wrong with that. However if you're talking about people's attitudes towards a certain topic that's a different discussion entirely. I believe elitism done in a belittling way is really obnoxious.

Elephantom people are debating what literate and illiterate means with me, I know you're a writer so I wanted your opinion on what others said and what I've said. Who is more correct? 0stinato

 

[Bone2pick]

"enough" is not "correct". It's vague and leaves room for your own conclusion to be drawn...

Vague isn't incorrect. The following are words with vague descriptions: big, pretty, messy, fast, ect.

 

[Mx.Trinity]

Vague isn't incorrect. The following are words with vague descriptions: big, pretty, messy, fast, ect.

etc.*

Vague isn't incorrect but the conclusions you come up with can be, therefore by doing further research on a subject you can understand more about the word's meaning. If you read my posts you can see very clearly that I've broken it down so that practically anyone can understand. Bone2pick

 

[Bone2pick]

Vague isn't incorrect but the conclusions you come up with can be, therefore by doing further research on a subject you can understand more about the word's meaning.

I feel pretty good about my conclusions with this one.

adjective: illiterate

1. 1.
   unable to read or write.
   

 

[Mx.Trinity]

I feel pretty good about my conclusions with this one.

adjective: illiterate

1. 1.
   unable to read or write.

would you care to elaborate what your conclusion is?

 

[Mx.Trinity]

I feel pretty good about my conclusions with this one.

adjective: illiterate

1. 1.
   unable to read or write.

also....
il·lit·er·a·cy
i(l)ˈlidərəsē/
noun

1. the inability to read or write.

a·bil·i·ty
əˈbilədē/
noun

2. talent, skill, or proficiency in a particular area.

 

[Bone2pick]

would you care to elaborate what your conclusion is?

To be clear, you're asking me to elaborate on what "unable to read or write" suggests?

 

[Elephantom]

To be clear, you're asking me to elaborate on what "unable to read or write" suggests?

She, sir, meant what you've deduced from this set definition.

 

[Mx.Trinity]

To be clear, you're asking me to elaborate on what "unable to read or write" suggests?

yes.

 

[Bone2pick]

yes.

Sure, in a pm.