Poll: Is the Low Content Rule any good?

[Antitonic]

I think what annoys me most about the rule is the fact they don't seem to punish you for:

"Yes.

No I'll type another line so the forum mods don't get mad at low content".

To me that deserves warning more than just a "Yes" because its still low content while adding drivel.

It does get punished, from what I've seen. It's just not as obvious as the posts that are just one word.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yes. [sub]Sure, it's slightly annoying in discussions where you could give a sufficient (and funnier) answer with just a single picture or video, but I believe that's a price we'll have to pay to keep discussion quality aloft.
One word replies are really useless. If we just wanted to know how many people held a certain opinion, we'd use a poll. The forum is intended for discussing the reasons behind your reply, not so much your reply itself.[/sub]

Just to let you know, I did the same thing once.

I have one warning on my bar.

These two things are not unrelated.

But, no, I don't think it's that useful. Sometimes psots are just concise...I could certainly blather on about nothing and aoid a low content warning without actually having any content to speak of.

 

[Fishyash]

How would removing the low content rule stop the "smug idiots who think it's clever to make long posts to feel even more smug"?

I don't think it does, all it does is let people make pointless one word responses.

 

[ElPatron]

No.

First, they could just apply a limit of characters. That way you are warned before you fall into the mistake of posting a low content reply. So it doesn't prevent low content. Only regulates it.

Second, sometimes people drift away trying to fill their post. I have. I read my own post and thought it was even worse than not contributing to the thread.

Third, a lot of people get away with it, anyway.

 

[Vault101]

nope................

anyway I think its annoying to have to struggle to lengthen your post out of fear of the ban-hammer, I once got a ruse shock over a low content post and now I take no chances

in some ways I can see why but really, I dont think its needed here and a litttle harsh

 

[BENZOOKA]

I'm one of those idiots who posts ridiculously long posts, and trusting the OP: feel ever so smug about each of them. I had no idea about that before, but now I know. NOW WE KNOW! Mitchell & Webb FTW.

EDIT: re-examining the original post, I found out to be not only smug, but also completely wrong all the time.

The rule tends to take away the couple-words comments which are completely useless. And honestly, I wouldn't be here at all if well-thought posts would instantly be covered between "LOL", "(quote) this" and "i agreeee".

I think there's still a lot of posts that we'd do better without, that don't give anything to the conversation, like just throwing the first snappy sentence that comes to mind, in hunt for the first post or whatever.

So, all it does is good. And in my opinion, there could just as well be stricter rules about the quality of post content, but I see the implementation and carrying out of such rules to be impossible in practice.

 

[Estoki]

Considering you can avoid the low content rule by writing about the low content rule, no.

 

[MisterM2402]

Perhaps. But to avoid a low content post, I'll discuss the fact that this is indeed a low content post, thus making it longer but still just as useless.

OT: People can get around it quite easily. Over on the Steam Forums, if they want to write a low content post, they just add "10char" or similar to the end, to make it up to the required minimum.

 

[Dethenger]

Yes.

(I'm hoping the mods will appreciate the irony)

 

[JoJo]

Yes, I think it's worth while. Frankly if you can't think of more than two or three words to post then you shouldn't post at-all on that thread. It is practically impossible to add the discussion of a thread in less than a sentence, with perhaps the exception of a list thread.

A fictional example:

Thread title: Do you support gay marriage?

Post #5: Yes.

Was that worth posting? No, there's nothing interesting there for others to read and the only thing it does is help increase the poster's post count. The rule actually pretty lenient, just one sentence is enough to avoid being modded.

Death hunter said it best. I mean if you really want to post for the thrill of posting, check out the forum games section. In Off Topic and the other forums we want to hear your thoughts on the matter in more depth than "Yeah, I thought it was neat." or "lol, it rocks/sucks/______".

[sub][sub][sub]Low content happens to be the only thing I've been punished with to date <.<[/sub][/sub][/sub]

[HEADING=2]My name... is JoJo[/HEADING]

[small]Disclaimer: the above image is an artist's impression and may or may not depict the likeness of this Escapist user. JoJo does not take responsibility for any robots, super-powered agents or disappointing sequels that are produced as a consequence of this picture.[/small]

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

The way I see it is that if your post only requires a 'yes' or 'no' then its a thread that probably has a poll... If it has a poll then your answer is allready in the poll count so there is no point of the post!

I prefer to be able to read justification and arguements, than pointless posts, especially as that is what generates conversation and debate!

Another annoying one is when people post threads where the first post is just the title repeated! Again, that is pointless... I like to know why someone is asking, or what caused them to want to know! Its even worse when someone asks for suggestions on a topic, but doesn't say what they are into, or what they have already played/read/seen/heard/tasted/smelled...

 

[Erana]

The Escapist just has a different purpose than most forums; here, the point is to contribute to genuine discussions, rather than to just be a collection of shouting people. I love the Escapist for its low content post rule because it tangibly illustrates its ideals for the community. I wouldn't have it any other way.

And not to say, "GTFO," but the Escapist is moderated in a way to maintain a specific kind of environment here. While the culture has evolved, this still stands in contrast to other online communities which generally are a beautiful and terrible, writhing social mass.
If its not your thing, go to somewhere that is more along your lines of interest, or only come here when you're looking for this particular type of user generated ramblings. That's a big part of what the mods try to uphold here, after all- a place where you can come and discuss regardless of social politics or post count.

 

[loc978]

Yes, in my opinion the rule is basically necessary. A bit harsh in some cases, but all blanket rules have issues.

EDIT: And if it is good, what should we do to prevent smug idiots?

Ignore or ridicule them.
Sure, the wall'o'text may look like a particularly self-indulgent LiveJournal entry... but if it's on-topic and that long, it took enough effort to stand without official reprimand. That's when it becomes the community's job to cherry-pick and refute... or just flat-out ignore, in some cases.

 

[Yopaz]

Yes, I think it's worth while. Frankly if you can't think of more than two or three words to post then you shouldn't post at-all on that thread. It is practically impossible to add the discussion of a thread in less than a sentence, with perhaps the exception of a list thread.

A fictional example:

Thread title: Do you support gay marriage?

Post #5: Yes.

Was that worth posting? No, there's nothing interesting there for others to read and the only thing it does is help increase the poster's post count. The rule actually pretty lenient, just one sentence is enough to avoid being modded.

Pretty much what this guy said. Sure you might not have anything useful to say on the matter so why should you add something meaningless filler to avoid a low content post? The better question is should you post at all if you got nothing to say? Also it does a lot of good for the comment section on videos and other features. If I watched a Zero Punctuation or Unskippable and posted "Great stuff" then that doesn't really add anything. I honestly like the rule about low content posting.

If people think they are being superior just because they write long posts then they're usually proven wrong. A long post of meaningless dribble gets ignored, a shorter better post spikes discussion more often.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I think it's helpful because, to be completely honest, when I see "First!!!!" or "+1" or "lawl" and nothing else, it makes me want to reach through and wring the poster's neck. I enjoy going places online where I can discuss things. Posts that don't add to the discussion are a waste of everyone's time.

You saved me from having to type that, so ditto, and this is so damn true.

Also, it's a little annoying to sift through comments and posts to get to the good ones where they actually discuss something. It's probably the main reason I like it here, actual discussion and not "LOL" or .

 

[Bad Jim]

The rule is not a problem. The moderators who can't take anything into context are the problem. Sometimes a thread or response elicits only a very short reply and adding more unto the post is actually the low content part.

Could you give any examples of these threads that only require a one word response? If you can answer the thread in one answer, either you are not putting enough thought into your answer or the thread itself doesn't have enough of a discussion value to warrant existence.

Even the example given earlier (post your favorite song), you can state WHY it's your favorite song, what does it mean to you, etc.

I have received one warning so far, for this post:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.291469-The-most-underrated-video-game-ever#11579733

Now I did just name one game, so maybe it does deserve a warning, but:

1) Other posters name multiple games, say nothing else and escape mod wrath. Mine and post #10 receive warnings for naming just one game. Post #21 just names two games, adding exactly what we did, and receives no warning. Really the mods should have decided whether just naming games was acceptable or not and warned us all if they weren't.

2) A lot of people are just adding extra words to evade mod wrath that don't add to the discussion. And they get away with it. eg post #27

Jade Empire. It was a fantastic game, but it seemed almost like no one at all noticed it. :S

That he thought Jade Empire was fantastic and unnoticed ought to be obvious by the fact that he named it at all in a thread about underrated games. So really there isn't any meaningful content beyond "Jade Empire".

Overall I think the rule is a good one, but care must be taken with its' enforcement. Good writing involves condensing what you have written. Punishing posters for low word count posts will discourage condensing and encourage the opposite, artificial lengthening. Mods should try to be word count neutral, and neither punish for short but interesting, nor let people get away with meaningless padding.

One thing I find particularly annoying about other forums is the huge number of "this" and "+1" quote replies.

Perhaps these people could be put to use. Give us a "this +1" button and allow posts to be viewed in order of +1s received. That should reward good writing. It doesn't work terribly well on Youtube comments, but I think that's because you can only post about a paragraph, so quality debate would never happen.

 

[Monkeyman O'Brien]

It has potential but unfortunately there are a few idiot mods (Not a specific insult, there are idiots everywhere so of course a few of them would end up as mods.) who don't take into account context and whats being said so just decide to punish them because they did not go over some arbitrary character count. Meanwhile others contribute less but use more words and that is considered okay.
I have seen quite a few people make their ideas or opinions perfectly well known and get punished just because they did not flesh it out like a fucking high school essay.

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

I think it's absolute bullshit. Sometimes a short reply is all that is required. For example, if someone asks, say, "What game was Niko Bellic in?", you need not say more than simply "GTA IV". But, because of the no low content rule, you have to fill the post out with addtional bullshit, lest answering the OP's question get you a strike.


It needs to go. replace it with a "Don't spam" rule, which AFAIK we already have. Let low-content but helpful posts slide, smack around those who do dumb "FIRST" shit, we all win.

Lets be fair, if anyone posted that topic/question, every response would be this [http://bit.ly/yAGgsi].


OT: It serves it's purpose to an extent, however I do occasionally see short posts that add something to the discussion get warnings.

Unfortunately no examples spring to mind, but if I think of any I'll let you know. Generally it's when someone says a few words and posts a picture/video.