Jump to content

What are some of your pet peeves?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 170 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

People who judge photos (or photographers) based on whether they edit/don't edit/use PS/GIMP/a golf pencil/a piece of poo/etc. instead of just enjoying a photo or scrolling past it and/or unfollowing the person. 

Exactly. Honestly, I don't give two flying farts if people don't like my photos or judge them (lol) because I edit them. Oh the horror of using GIMP on a screenshot taken of a video game (LOL)!  I'm feeling salty tonight.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oh I just have one pet peeve. I really can't stand people who are annoyed by either of the following: empty profiles, 'unreadable' fonts, unmatching body parts, flexi prims, AO-less avis, jazz hands,

DJs/hosts teleport inviting their "friends"

I'm not apportioning blame for what's been going on in this forum recently, because that's one thing that appears to start a thread on its downward spiral. Like many of us here - I am absolutely

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Sometimes I accidentally tap on someone's icon and get taken to their profile by mistake. It's not usually an issue but occasionally it happens with someone on whose "recent visitors" list I really do not wish to appear.

I also wish the "now viewing" function didn't exist.

And even better, there's no way to disable or hide it.  >_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cinos Field said:

A major one:

Groups that don't allow you to post links.

Especially so if it's a creator group, someone asks where to get a product by that creator, I link it and some helpful moderator chimes in like "please don't post links in chat". Okay, I'm sorry for daring to help someone send you money.

SL in general desperately needs fewer cargo cult rules that serve absolutely no purpose. I assume the idea is to avoid phishing links, but then you could just forbid those. Because if a moderator is actively watching the chat, they can be selective. If not, those phishing links will still get posted.


And they have arbitrary rules on which stores or sims are forbidden to uttered like Voldemort.  "This store is not allowed in chat! That store is not allowed in chat!" Not allowed, not allowed, not allowed ad nauseam.  How anyone could keep up with their laundry list of the prohibited is a mystery. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

People who judge photos (or photographers) based on whether they edit/don't edit/use PS/GIMP/a golf pencil/a piece of poo/etc. instead of just enjoying a photo or scrolling past it and/or unfollowing the person. 

Or better, yet: people who judge artwork/image/creation based on their attitude toward the creator, rather than the merits of the creation.

12 hours ago, Eva Knoller said:

Exactly. Honestly, I don't give two flying farts if people don't like my photos or judge them (lol) because I edit them. Oh the horror of using GIMP on a screenshot taken of a video game (LOL)!  I'm feeling salty tonight.

Precisely, do it for the art in you, not you in the art.

Edited by Alyona Su
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cinos Field said:

A major one:

Groups that don't allow you to post links.

Especially so if it's a creator group, someone asks where to get a product by that creator, I link it and some helpful moderator chimes in like "please don't post links in chat". Okay, I'm sorry for daring to help someone send you money.

SL in general desperately needs fewer cargo cult rules that serve absolutely no purpose. I assume the idea is to avoid phishing links, but then you could just forbid those. Because if a moderator is actively watching the chat, they can be selective. If not, those phishing links will still get posted.

The best part of all this is that it's almost always the drained victims of said phishing link that go on to spam said link. All these armchair paper pushers are doing is making life uncomfortable for the majority to give themselves an excuse to punish the victims of fraud. It's kinda sick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2020 at 7:27 AM, Alyona Su said:

Or better, yet: people who judge artwork/image/creation based on their attitude toward the creator, rather than the merits of the creation.

Precisely, do it for the art in you, not you in the art.

People will avoid certain people who post actually good pictures because they want to be petty and then like pictures that are clearly crappy but to spite the user they don't like. I see it all the time on the avatar forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ashlyn Voir said:

will avoid certain people who post actually good pictures because they want to be petty and then like pictures that are clearly crappy

Whether a picture is actually good or clearly crappy is still subjective, and whether a particular picture strikes a chord with whomever is viewing it may not depend at all on the technical quality of the picture, but on what the picture conveys to the viewer in spite of the technical aspect.

If you have read some of the threads about 'likes' in the forum, there are different reasons why someone might choose to like a picture in the avatar forum threads.  Additionally, sometimes people are away from the forums for a few days and do no go back and 'like' pictures that were posted during their absence - sometimes I fall into that group. In a few very rare situations, the topic of a picture has left me feeling very disturbed for some reason, and I have not been able to like it.

I think in general though, with any type of art, the more of an outlier in topic or style, the more risk that there will be those who will not like it.  Of course the opposite could also be true.  The most important thing I think, for anyone, is to just keep working on what their artistic vision is, for themselves, and keep putting their work out there - over time people may come to appreciate them. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

odd unrealistic user names.  like hey i met a cool guy today his name is spirit afterthought. lol smh

ridiculously large body parts..beach ball breasts, arms bigger than your head. etc

oh and people who never change clothes like ever. if you been wearing same outfit for 3-6 months its time for a change

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, latinatransgirl said:

odd unrealistic user names.  like hey i met a cool guy today his name is spirit afterthought. lol smh

... says the person who named themself "latinatransgirl". That is not even a name, thats a describtion. There is a good german proverb for that: "Don't throw rocks, when you sit in a house made of glas."

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Syo Emerald said:

"Don't throw rocks, when you sit in a house made of glas."

   I reckon most languages have something similar, as the expression is from the Bible (Pericope Adulterae), when Jesus tells a crowd who wants to stone (i.e. execution through throwing stones, not feed cannabis) an adulteress: "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her".

   In Sweden we say 'Kasta inte sten i glashus' (don't throw stones in houses of glass). Alternatively 'Kasta inte bäver i timmerstugor' (don't throw beavers in log cabins). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Orwar said:

In Sweden we say 'Kasta inte sten i glashus' (don't throw stones in houses of glass). Alternatively 'Kasta inte bäver i timmerstugor' (don't throw beavers in log cabins). 

I like the second one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Orwar said:

   I reckon most languages have something similar, as the expression is from the Bible (Pericope Adulterae), when Jesus tells a crowd who wants to stone (i.e. execution through throwing stones, not feed cannabis) an adulteress: "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her".

   In Sweden we say 'Kasta inte sten i glashus' (don't throw stones in houses of glass). Alternatively 'Kasta inte bäver i timmerstugor' (don't throw beavers in log cabins). 

Yes, I know that part from the bible. Would be interesting to know at which point people in several countries added a glas house to the whole stone throwing.

Link to post
Share on other sites


 

2 hours ago, Orwar said:

   I reckon most languages have something similar, as the expression is from the Bible (Pericope Adulterae), when Jesus tells a crowd who wants to stone (i.e. execution through throwing stones, not feed cannabis) an adulteress: "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her".

   In Sweden we say 'Kasta inte sten i glashus' (don't throw stones in houses of glass). Alternatively 'Kasta inte bäver i timmerstugor' (don't throw beavers in log cabins). 

We use the glass houses bit in the US, but I am going to start using the beaver one to see if I can get it to take off here. “Those who live in log cabins should not throw beavers.”  😂 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Eva Knoller said:

 “Those who live in log cabins should not throw beavers.”  😂 

But those in Victorian terraces, knock yourselves out. With flying beavers.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ads or signage where you need a microscope to see what they’re actually selling.

Good picture, but it has more than one item in it

Nice fonts

product info text is tiny/at the bottom where you can’t see it.

not buying it

Link to post
Share on other sites

It infuriates me when someone responds to a thread started weeks ago with the same answer fifty three other people have already given. It reeks of self-importance and obliviousness.

The thread is below 20 other ones, has two pages of responses, and you are too entitled to read any responses and you assume that no one else has given the bloody obvious answer of 4 when someone asks what 2 + 2 equals? GFY.

giphy-2-2.gif.85d2dc9b7113fe26586e9877a1522b36.gif

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Beth Macbain said:

It infuriates me when someone responds to a thread started weeks ago with the same answer fifty three other people have already given. It reeks of self-importance and obliviousness.

The thread is below 20 other ones, has two pages of responses, and you are too entitled to read any responses and you assume that no one else has given the bloody obvious answer of 4 when someone asks what 2 + 2 equals? GFY.

giphy-2-2.gif.85d2dc9b7113fe26586e9877a1522b36.gif

Omg!!! Thank you for saying this!!! I thought I was the only one that noticed!!!

And the Oblivious response is loooooong af!!!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprisingly there isn't too many for me, I tend to be a laidback "It's whateves" sorta guy, but I guess the lack of putting effort into an av might be one thing (I love my attention to detail is one thing I will admit on), otherwise? It's coo, I've been studying the art of 'Stoicism' as of late and it's helped immensely with these sorta things. When you manage to get into that mindset it's like nothing bothers ya from people.

The ancient Greeks and all of those other sorts of philosophers had so many great points.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

It infuriates me when someone responds to a thread started weeks ago with the same answer fifty three other people have already given.

I can almost forgive someone who comes into a thread that already has 53 posts and then gives the obvious answer that someone else posted three pages back.  Some of our threads get awfully rambly, and some posters are incredibly wordy.  I can understand why a newcomer to the thread might want to skip all of that. The ones that bother me are the ones who come into a thread that only has THREE posts, one of which not only has the right answer but has been "liked" or voted up by other people, and still decides to post the same obvious answer again.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beth Macbain said:

It infuriates me when someone responds to a thread started weeks ago with the same answer fifty three other people have already given. It reeks of self-importance and obliviousness.

The thread is below 20 other ones, has two pages of responses, and you are too entitled to read any responses and you assume that no one else has given the bloody obvious answer of 4 when someone asks what 2 + 2 equals? GFY.

giphy-2-2.gif.85d2dc9b7113fe26586e9877a1522b36.gif

giphy.gif

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

I can almost forgive someone who comes into a thread that already has 53 posts and then gives the obvious answer that someone else posted three pages back.  Some of our threads get awfully rambly, and some posters are incredibly wordy.  I can understand why a newcomer to the thread might want to skip all of that. The ones that bother me are the ones who come into a thread that only has THREE posts, one of which not only has the right answer but has been "liked" or voted up by other people, and still decides to post the same obvious answer again.

I don't expect people to read all 53 posts, but at least read the first couple.

5 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

 

 I love me some Steve Urkel! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 170 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...