Do people dismiss new/low post members?

[This is re-great-table]

Hmm, this topic has an air of elitism.
But who cares what I say, I'm just a low post peasant.

Welp, back to plowing the fields, can't eat without crops you know?

 

[Evil Raccoon]

I do not always post, hell. I'm not even logged in most of the time. I mostly just look at the forum topics and think 'Eh, not really worth the time and effort to log in and write up a post' A cardinal sin, I know.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

Hmm, this topic has an air of elitism.
But who cares what I say, I'm just a low post peasant.

Welp, back to plowing the fields, can't eat without crops you know?

This was a good post. I like this post.

Though really it does have an air of elitism about it, but also a larger one of how we should curb it. For the most part I've not seen anyone say that being an elitist is a good thing.

 

[CaitSeith]

I haven't been in the Escapist long enough to discern old members from new members like that (although I arrived before the Zoe Quinn thing exploded).

 

[Xisin]

I don't have this problem at all. I don't read the names attached to the comments. I can't remember names in everyday life, so I don't bother to try online. A number to the left doesn't change the substance of a post anyways.

 

[FliedLiverAttack]

Of course all people below 1000 post just aren't worth listening too. You shouldn't listen to a word they say.

Spoiler: Click to view Spoilerz

Hmm, at what point would post count overflow and give the most postiest poster a post count of 0?

 

[FlatCat]

I'm sure everyone's noticed the sudden influx in new members recently with the whole Zoe Quinn/gamergate debacle going on, and it's gotten me thinking about a bias I've always had, but never really discussed.

And that is that I don't trust/often dismiss new members/members with under about 200 posts outright. I know I shouldn't, and I at least try not to, but quite often I see an account with no avatar and only about 28 posts telling me how the entire industry is corrupt, or straw-man situations (don't try to say I'm straw-manning an argument here, my point is about those who do make the silly arguments. I know the gamergate movement has some valid points behind it, even if I disagree with it in general), and it just makes me turn off to far more intelligent points made by newer members.

At the same time I seem to have far more time for points made by some of the much older guard of the escapist (Fappy and Zachary Amaranth come to mind, though there are others).

I know we're all different people, with different opinions, and someone's length of time/frequency to post should not affect what I think about what they say. I just find it hard to actually follow through with this.

So I just want to know, do other people share this problem with me? Am I alone in this? And if I am, any recommendations as to how to try and put my bias's to one side?

I also know, in case anyone wants to point it out, yes I've been around for a silly length of time as well, and yet I post far less than my time spent here would suggest, which makes my view a little hypocritical to the long time lurkers on the site. Still can't help it.

If you dismiss me... you miss out on the wisdom that is Flat Cat.

 

[This is re-great-table]

This was a good post. I like this post.

Though really it does have an air of elitism about it, but also a larger one of how we should curb it. For the most part I've not seen anyone say that being an elitist is a good thing.

Ok then, might I add it reeks of it?

Although yes, as I read more of the posts, that seems to be the superior theme of the thread.
I do have to admit, snide or sarcastic posts are my favorite kind of posts.

And of course not, admitting to being part of the elitist club is politically incorrect! This is why it's a secret club!
A lowly peasants such as I shouldn't know such joy exists; cause eventually we shall envy and overthrow them!