I hate multi-quoting. You know the posts I mean: in some Debate or pseudo-Debate thread, where posters break each other down
Quote from this post »
line by line, responding to each other on
what seems to be a sub-clause level,
Quote from this post »
nitpicking every single thing the other person says
and inevitably missing the point of the larger debate,
Quote from this post »
making things impossible to read
because they are no longer written in sentence => paragraph => essay form,
Quote from this post »
but rather some unholy piecemeal concoction
that makes absolutely no sense to anyone other than those who've been posting at each other for dozens of pages already.
I'm not asking for a rule against this, exactly, I just want people to stop. I hate reading it. Write as if you have core ideas rather than three hundred unrelated reasons the other person is an idiot, or when you want a citation. The few times I've tried to post in Debate or pseudo-Debate threads, I've responded with what I considered Actual Writing if I wrote more than 100 words: I had core ideas, paragraphs, and internal responses to my debate partners' ideas and strengthened my own. I feel this is what should happen more often.
The multi-quoting style is difficult to read because it breaks the conversational reading path. When two people discuss, one person speaks, then the other, etc. etc. Multi-quoting, instead, makes your posts read like Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, with your pithy comments interrupting every three seconds, except you're not making jokes about Canadians, you're saying women have lower IQs than men or whatever (I don't know, I don't actually read the posts).
Similarly, I don't understand the ban on double-posting in the Serious Forums. It's been very difficult to stop myself from doing this, since it's so accepted on other forums: you have a good response to someone's post, so you quote their post, write your response, reply. You have a good response to someone else, so you quote their post, write your response, reply. Two different conversations, two different posts. Why does it matter, for the sake of the thread, whether someone else posted "i agree lol" in between? Why does the exact same content get worse when it's cleanly separated rather than all in one post?
It's unclear to me whether you're objecting to actual multiquoting or to people breaking up individual posts into multiple quotes. Regardless, as you noted I don't think it's something that site policy could solve.
As to the ban on double-posting, most subforums don't have this rule. It was certainly abolished on the site-wide level months ago, and off the top of my head I can't think of a subforum that retains it.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
It's unclear to me whether you're objecting to actual multiquoting or to people breaking up individual posts into multiple posts. Regardless, as you noted I don't think it's something that site policy could solve.
As to the ban on double-posting, most subforums don't have this rule. It was certainly abolished on the site-wide level months ago, and off the top of my head I can't think of a subforum that retains it.
EDIT: Nathed by Gals
Yes, I am referring to breaking up individual posts into multiple. I'm not looking for a policy change, but I think it's a Community Issue that The Community can solve on its own without staff making rules changes!
And I didn't know the rules had changed on double-posting recently. I could have sworn I had seen some double-posts infracted and merged into one post recently, but I can't remember where. My mistake, ignore that portion then!
If it's obnoxious spam then we infract the double posts, but generally it's up to the mod to determine if it's worth warning for. Also, I know that I will merge posts sometimes if someone goes nuts with a string of posts. If they keep going they can get a ticket, but it's really if someone doesn't seem to get that their quadruple posts are disruptive.
As far as the broken up stuff goes...When someone responds to a post that way it makes sense to do it that way. Otherwise it requires you to write more - segue is not a universal skill and referencing individual points in a post means you have to reference each point and gets long winded. Short and to the point - even if a bit clunky - works for me.
Yes, I am referring to breaking up individual posts into multiple. I'm not looking for a policy change, but I think it's a Community Issue that The Community can solve on its own without staff making rules changes!
Yeah, by all means.
To comment on the subject further, I think it makes sense at times (for example: this post). I've used it both in the manner you're describing (attack or comment on each segment of a position in piecemeal), and as a way to break up distinct thoughts. I can see where you're coming from on the piecemeal approach, but I'm not certain that it's something that is never appropriate so long as the segments are broken up according to complete thoughts.
Where I think it almost always makes sense is when replying to posts like yours where there are actually two very distinct issues that have little interaction with eachother. (hence my breaking up my response in this post)
And I didn't know the rules had changed on double-posting recently. I could have sworn I had seen some double-posts infracted and merged into one post recently, but I can't remember where. My mistake, ignore that portion then!
There were definitely a couple sections that held onto the rule in their subforum rules (Clans for example), but most have been phasing it out and just leaving the mods to judge whether the double post was spam. If it has content, it's typically just left alone in most subs.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
Yeah, by all means.
To comment on the subject further, I think it makes sense at times (for example: this post). I've used it both in the manner you're describing (attack or comment on each segment of a position in piecemeal), and as a way to break up distinct thoughts. I can see where you're coming from on the piecemeal approach, but I'm not certain that it's something that is never appropriate so long as the segments are broken up according to complete thoughts.
Where I think it almost always makes sense is when replying to posts like yours where there are actually two very distinct issues that have little interaction with eachother. (hence my breaking up my response in this post)
The way that you responded to mine is an outrageous slander totally fine, and not what I mean. I'm referring to posts that look like this (not an attack on that poster, because I certainly didn't read that post): incredibly long, broken into a million pieces, and on twenty different debate paths with the same person. It's a nightmare just from an aesthetic perspective in addition to a writing/clarity/debate one.
Yeah, that linked post is ugly but I just see that as the most efficient way of playing that out. It's particularly bad when a mega-poster collides with a mega-poster, but with that post it would be a nightmare with if cleaned up without the quoted parts.
While I respect your opinion, I am afraid I must disagree. Multiquoting is important because on some really big threads like in the Rumor Mill, you might see stuff you want to respond to as you read. Multiquoting is really helpful for keeping up with that. It is also good to help avoid double posting which is much more annoying. And for people who break up one post into many when responding, sometimes you just can't adress a whole big argument in one paragraph and it helps to break it up. I see no problem with the forum as it is now, but that is just my opinion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Nicol Bolas is so awesome! And so is Kokusho! Bolas x Kokusho 4eva!!! <3
Read their story here!
I think the big thing is just not to be overly annoying with any of it.
Sextuple post?
Make a multi-quote post that's unreadable?
Make 3000 word posts full of amazing content but post as 1 paragraph?
Really though, most stuff never gets that out of hand. So, yes KCW, I hate reading that crap as much as the next guy (Reading CI is painful enough but when Slopoke shows up with Multiquotes I want to stab my temple). But, regulating that doesn't really seem to cause more problems that it will solve.
Write as if you have core ideas rather than three hundred unrelated reasons the other person is an idiot, or when you want a citation.
Yes, but sometimes you only disagree with PART of your opponents argument, or disagree with different parts for different reasons.
It gets tedious to write "this is what he said and this is why I disagree with that part." It's easier to just quote the part and say why you disagree. Also, it prevents strawmen since people can click the "" and see what was said in context. I don't trust most Salvation posters to accurately represent someone else's argument.
However, you are certainly not the first to complain about that manner of posting, and not the first to complain about the prerequisite reading needed to understand some of those posts. But, if you can't be bothered to read the whole argument why should someone be bothered to type it out time and time again? (Unless they want to, in order to get the penut gallery on their side; something--again--I've done when a new page starts and I know schlubs are just going to read the newest page.)
I think for a formal-forum debate(which other boards have) where you have a finite number of posts allowed typing completely out what he said and why you disagree in every post is a good idea, but for less formal debates it's easier to use the "double post" method, as you've defined it.
tl;dr
But--really--if you don't want to read the whole argument why should we have to retype it in every post for you?
I sometimes use what could be described as an annoying posting/quoting style but I think I'm being thorough. Of course, other ways can be used to, you know, consolidate my reply and drive home a point without breaking up a quoted post.
I just don't read posts that are broken up in the described fashion. Chances are the poster is taking something too seriously as it is. Still, it is an eyesore.
Much like Madding, I generally skip posts like the ones in question. Not only is it an eyesore, but if you choose to reply, then you get caught up in their incoherent mess trying to reply to all their quotes, yourself. There's no clean way to go about it for someone that wants to write a cohesive reply because in choosing to multiquote for the sake of debating, those people leave no other way for their post to be contended with other than replying to all those individual thoughts. You can't just take the quotes away and merge all their sentences together because then it just looks like a lot of babble (although, in doing so, you actually see why it makes so little sense to post in this fashion to begin with - in the end it's just a lot of babbling).
I also view it a bit differently than the other people posting, in that I feel massive multi-quoting shows an inability to think in regards to the bigger picture of a subject, ultimately tearing away any guise of being able to condense thoughts into a singular, coherent argument without diluting the purpose of the debate entirely. Most people know my posting style (as is reflected in this post) and unlike KCW, I'm not even a writer. I would like to think I reflect that I at least had a primary school education and learned how to write without falling victim to internet culture. This post really won't take that long to write, as opposed to dividing up every other line of KCW's post and then wrapping quote tags around them, losing the context of the quoted post in the clutter of quotes, etc.
The only time I actually multiquote is when I'm responding to different people in the same quote, or responding to different ideas. I can't remember except for maybe once or twice I've ever quoted the same person multiple times in a post other than when I wanted to -as KCW said- break something down to nitpick and attack an argument as I didn't have the intention of arguing other than for the sake of arguing and being spiteful. Thankfully, I've matured beyond that.
From being able to confess that I've done that before, though, I can say I feel the need to do it excessively is borne from merely wanting to argue without exactly standing for anything. It dilutes the actual debate and the real issue or argument is often lost as people desperately look for points to cling to. If you have to break down a post like that in hopes of finding a fallacy or arguing point, then perhaps you shouldn't be debating with that person's argument.
Yes, but sometimes you only disagree with PART of your opponents argument, or disagree with different parts for different reasons.
It gets tedious to write "this is what he said and this is why I disagree with that part." It's easier to just quote the part and say why you disagree. Also, it prevents strawmen since people can click the "" and see what was said in context. I don't trust most Salvation posters to accurately represent someone else's argument.
However, you are certainly not the first to complain about that manner of posting, and not the first to complain about the prerequisite reading needed to understand some of those posts. But, if you can't be bothered to read the whole argument why should someone be bothered to type it out time and time again? (Unless they want to, in order to get the penut gallery on their side; something--again--I've done when a new page starts and I know schlubs are just going to read the newest page.)
I think for a formal-forum debate(which other boards have) where you have a finite number of posts allowed typing completely out what he said and why you disagree in every post is a good idea, but for less formal debates it's easier to use the "double post" method, as you've defined it.
tl;dr
But--really--if you don't want to read the whole argument why should we have to retype it in every post for you?
What do you mean by retyping? When you quote a post, it copies the text of the post you're quoting. I don't think people are complaining that they have to read lengthy posts, they're complaining that the post is being broken up into small quotes. Why would someone who hates reading go on an internet forum? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Anyway, I don't mind when people break posts into multiple quotes, but what I do dislike is when people post several times in a row, when they could have just kept all of their responses in one post. There's a square button on each post with a + symbol, clicking each one will add the posts to your reply, so please use it.
I hate multi-quoting. You know the posts I mean: in some Debate or pseudo-Debate thread, where posters break each other down line by line, responding to each other on what seems to be a sub-clause level, nitpicking every single thing the other person says and inevitably missing the point of the larger debate, making things impossible to read because they are no longer written in sentence => paragraph => essay form, but rather some unholy piecemeal concoction that makes absolutely no sense to anyone other than those who've been posting at each other for dozens of pages already.
If I understand the issue correctly, the complaint is that the "multi-quote" style is hard to understand unless the audience has read the other "dozens of pages" the debate took place over. In other words, if the post instead "had core ideas, paragraphs, and internal responses" (as was also started in the OP) then the post in question would be more self-contained and not require prerequisite reading.
Hence my response about retyping the argument you took objection to, Dio.
Here, I will quote the part that the part you are referring to is referring to:
If I understand the issue correctly, the complaint is that the "multi-quote" style is hard to understand unless the audience has read the other "dozens of pages" the debate took place over. In other words, if the post instead "had core ideas, paragraphs, and internal responses" (as was also started in the OP) then the post in question would be more self-contained and not require prerequisite reading.
Hence my response about retyping the argument you took objection to, Dio.
Okay, thanks for explaining that. And I wasn't objecting, I was just asking a question.
I'm referring to posts that look like this (not an attack on that poster, because I certainly didn't read that post): incredibly long, broken into a million pieces, and on twenty different debate paths with the same person. It's a nightmare just from an aesthetic perspective in addition to a writing/clarity/debate one.
I was wondering how kingcobweb knows all that stuff about a post he did not deign to read.
(But, I'm not defending my writing skillz--they're atrocious--it just seems like a self-inconstancy, and inconstancies chafe me.)
I just don't read posts that are broken up in the described fashion. Chances are the poster is taking something too seriously as it is. Still, it is an eyesore.
This - I don't read them either. Usually when it becomes point-to-point, it has very much become a person vs person argument anyhow. And since its almost impossible to follow without knowing where the bits came from, its more effort than entertainment.
But--really--if you don't want to read the whole argument why should we have to retype it in every post for you?
Have you never came back from a weekend, and saw a new post that spiraled into 20 pages before you got there? Its unreasonable to expect everyone to go back and read that many pages of posts. Especially because the bulk of them are just opinions, uneducated commentary or two people warring it out.
Have you never came back from a weekend, and saw a new post that spiraled into 20 pages before you got there? Its unreasonable to expect everyone to go back and read that many pages of posts. Especially because the bulk of them are just opinions, uneducated commentary or two people warring it out.
Right, which is why you just click the 's to follow the chain of the conversation you do care about.
It's not the obligation of the poster to make sure someone coming in at some random time can quickly understand the entirety of an ongoing discussion by reading one post. Unless the poster wants to.
Speaking only for myself, when I am in a heated debate with one person, normally I just want to hear from that one person anyway. The whole discussion can become pretty silly if you start getting 2-3 other people that haven't read the thread jumping in at an odd time. I will admit I am sometimes purposefully convoluted if I don't want other random people weighing in.
Also, personally I TRY to make sure(as much as I can) that each sentence is self-contained enough that if someone decides cut my post into little pieces it will not be misconstrued by someone who just reads one quote. I've been burned by that before when someone quoted a single sentence from a long paragraph, the quote ended up on a fresh page, and I had 3-4 other people calling me nasty things by the time I logged back on because they'd just read the out-of-context quote.
I think what kingcobweb suggests is good for someone's "opening post," and a closing one. However, it's unreasonable to expect it from every post in between.
While I respect your opinion, I am afraid I must disagree. Multiquoting is important because on some really big threads like in the Rumor Mill, you might see stuff you want to respond to as you read. Multiquoting is really helpful for keeping up with that. It is also good to help avoid double posting which is much more annoying. And for people who break up one post into many when responding, sometimes you just can't adress a whole big argument in one paragraph and it helps to break it up. I see no problem with the forum as it is now, but that is just my opinion.
I'd rater read a double-post than a multi-quote any day of the week
You see this in Mafia a lot, actually. I feel like arguments would be a lot more concise and productive there if everyone formatted their posts better instead of engaging in quote wall wars - I've recently refused to do such, except when there are about 10 or fewer quotes to respond to because even with nested quotes, it's a hassle, and I have to go back and look at posts in context. It's not conducive at all and I find myself agreeing with you here, kcw.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
what seems to be a sub-clause level,
and inevitably missing the point of the larger debate,
because they are no longer written in sentence => paragraph => essay form,
that makes absolutely no sense to anyone other than those who've been posting at each other for dozens of pages already.
I'm not asking for a rule against this, exactly, I just want people to stop. I hate reading it. Write as if you have core ideas rather than three hundred unrelated reasons the other person is an idiot, or when you want a citation. The few times I've tried to post in Debate or pseudo-Debate threads, I've responded with what I considered Actual Writing if I wrote more than 100 words: I had core ideas, paragraphs, and internal responses to my debate partners' ideas and strengthened my own. I feel this is what should happen more often.
The multi-quoting style is difficult to read because it breaks the conversational reading path. When two people discuss, one person speaks, then the other, etc. etc. Multi-quoting, instead, makes your posts read like Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, with your pithy comments interrupting every three seconds, except you're not making jokes about Canadians, you're saying women have lower IQs than men or whatever (I don't know, I don't actually read the posts).
Similarly, I don't understand the ban on double-posting in the Serious Forums. It's been very difficult to stop myself from doing this, since it's so accepted on other forums: you have a good response to someone's post, so you quote their post, write your response, reply. You have a good response to someone else, so you quote their post, write your response, reply. Two different conversations, two different posts. Why does it matter, for the sake of the thread, whether someone else posted "i agree lol" in between? Why does the exact same content get worse when it's cleanly separated rather than all in one post?
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
As to the ban on double-posting, most subforums don't have this rule. It was certainly abolished on the site-wide level months ago, and off the top of my head I can't think of a subforum that retains it.
EDIT: Nathed by Gals
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
Yes, I am referring to breaking up individual posts into multiple. I'm not looking for a policy change, but I think it's a Community Issue that The Community can solve on its own without staff making rules changes!
And I didn't know the rules had changed on double-posting recently. I could have sworn I had seen some double-posts infracted and merged into one post recently, but I can't remember where. My mistake, ignore that portion then!
As far as the broken up stuff goes...When someone responds to a post that way it makes sense to do it that way. Otherwise it requires you to write more - segue is not a universal skill and referencing individual points in a post means you have to reference each point and gets long winded. Short and to the point - even if a bit clunky - works for me.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Yeah, by all means.
To comment on the subject further, I think it makes sense at times (for example: this post). I've used it both in the manner you're describing (attack or comment on each segment of a position in piecemeal), and as a way to break up distinct thoughts. I can see where you're coming from on the piecemeal approach, but I'm not certain that it's something that is never appropriate so long as the segments are broken up according to complete thoughts.
Where I think it almost always makes sense is when replying to posts like yours where there are actually two very distinct issues that have little interaction with eachother. (hence my breaking up my response in this post)
There were definitely a couple sections that held onto the rule in their subforum rules (Clans for example), but most have been phasing it out and just leaving the mods to judge whether the double post was spam. If it has content, it's typically just left alone in most subs.
EDIT: Nathed by gals again!
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
The way that you responded to mine is
an outrageous slandertotally fine, and not what I mean. I'm referring to posts that look like this (not an attack on that poster, because I certainly didn't read that post): incredibly long, broken into a million pieces, and on twenty different debate paths with the same person. It's a nightmare just from an aesthetic perspective in addition to a writing/clarity/debate one.The internet is a ****ty medium for debate.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Editing on an iPhone is just a pain.
Nicol Bolas is so awesome! And so is Kokusho!
Bolas x Kokusho 4eva!!! <3
Read their story here!
BMy Little KokushoB
RBRakdos UNLEASHED!!!RB
My Standard Decks:
UGRakdos, Bolas, and Ludevic Go To A PartyUG
Sextuple post?
Make a multi-quote post that's unreadable?
Make 3000 word posts full of amazing content but post as 1 paragraph?
Really though, most stuff never gets that out of hand. So, yes KCW, I hate reading that crap as much as the next guy (Reading CI is painful enough but when Slopoke shows up with Multiquotes I want to stab my temple). But, regulating that doesn't really seem to cause more problems that it will solve.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Yes, but sometimes you only disagree with PART of your opponents argument, or disagree with different parts for different reasons.
It gets tedious to write "this is what he said and this is why I disagree with that part." It's easier to just quote the part and say why you disagree. Also, it prevents strawmen since people can click the "" and see what was said in context. I don't trust most Salvation posters to accurately represent someone else's argument.
However, you are certainly not the first to complain about that manner of posting, and not the first to complain about the prerequisite reading needed to understand some of those posts. But, if you can't be bothered to read the whole argument why should someone be bothered to type it out time and time again? (Unless they want to, in order to get the penut gallery on their side; something--again--I've done when a new page starts and I know schlubs are just going to read the newest page.)
I think for a formal-forum debate(which other boards have) where you have a finite number of posts allowed typing completely out what he said and why you disagree in every post is a good idea, but for less formal debates it's easier to use the "double post" method, as you've defined it.
tl;dr
But--really--if you don't want to read the whole argument why should we have to retype it in every post for you?
My bad.
I also view it a bit differently than the other people posting, in that I feel massive multi-quoting shows an inability to think in regards to the bigger picture of a subject, ultimately tearing away any guise of being able to condense thoughts into a singular, coherent argument without diluting the purpose of the debate entirely. Most people know my posting style (as is reflected in this post) and unlike KCW, I'm not even a writer. I would like to think I reflect that I at least had a primary school education and learned how to write without falling victim to internet culture. This post really won't take that long to write, as opposed to dividing up every other line of KCW's post and then wrapping quote tags around them, losing the context of the quoted post in the clutter of quotes, etc.
The only time I actually multiquote is when I'm responding to different people in the same quote, or responding to different ideas. I can't remember except for maybe once or twice I've ever quoted the same person multiple times in a post other than when I wanted to -as KCW said- break something down to nitpick and attack an argument as I didn't have the intention of arguing other than for the sake of arguing and being spiteful. Thankfully, I've matured beyond that.
From being able to confess that I've done that before, though, I can say I feel the need to do it excessively is borne from merely wanting to argue without exactly standing for anything. It dilutes the actual debate and the real issue or argument is often lost as people desperately look for points to cling to. If you have to break down a post like that in hopes of finding a fallacy or arguing point, then perhaps you shouldn't be debating with that person's argument.
Or, in short:
(Also known as Xenphire)
Anyway, I don't mind when people break posts into multiple quotes, but what I do dislike is when people post several times in a row, when they could have just kept all of their responses in one post. There's a square button on each post with a + symbol, clicking each one will add the posts to your reply, so please use it.
Here, I will quote the part that the part you are referring to is referring to:
If I understand the issue correctly, the complaint is that the "multi-quote" style is hard to understand unless the audience has read the other "dozens of pages" the debate took place over. In other words, if the post instead "had core ideas, paragraphs, and internal responses" (as was also started in the OP) then the post in question would be more self-contained and not require prerequisite reading.
Hence my response about retyping the argument you took objection to, Dio.
Okay, thanks for explaining that. And I wasn't objecting, I was just asking a question.
I was wondering how kingcobweb knows all that stuff about a post he did not deign to read.
(But, I'm not defending my writing skillz--they're atrocious--it just seems like a self-inconstancy, and inconstancies chafe me.)
This - I don't read them either. Usually when it becomes point-to-point, it has very much become a person vs person argument anyhow. And since its almost impossible to follow without knowing where the bits came from, its more effort than entertainment.
Have you never came back from a weekend, and saw a new post that spiraled into 20 pages before you got there? Its unreasonable to expect everyone to go back and read that many pages of posts. Especially because the bulk of them are just opinions, uneducated commentary or two people warring it out.
My Buying Thread
Right, which is why you just click the 's to follow the chain of the conversation you do care about.
It's not the obligation of the poster to make sure someone coming in at some random time can quickly understand the entirety of an ongoing discussion by reading one post. Unless the poster wants to.
Speaking only for myself, when I am in a heated debate with one person, normally I just want to hear from that one person anyway. The whole discussion can become pretty silly if you start getting 2-3 other people that haven't read the thread jumping in at an odd time. I will admit I am sometimes purposefully convoluted if I don't want other random people weighing in.
Also, personally I TRY to make sure(as much as I can) that each sentence is self-contained enough that if someone decides cut my post into little pieces it will not be misconstrued by someone who just reads one quote. I've been burned by that before when someone quoted a single sentence from a long paragraph, the quote ended up on a fresh page, and I had 3-4 other people calling me nasty things by the time I logged back on because they'd just read the out-of-context quote.
I think what kingcobweb suggests is good for someone's "opening post," and a closing one. However, it's unreasonable to expect it from every post in between.
Wow. I've never noticed that button, nor understood that it actually did something. That's pretty amazing, lol.
My Buying Thread
I'd rater read a double-post than a multi-quote any day of the week
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player