Poll: Is the Low Content Rule any good?

[manic_depressive13]

There is a rule on the Escapist that prevents people from posting low content posts too prevent bad debates and 'LOL' posts from happening, but isn't that kind of a double edged sword? 'Cause you'll then have smug people feeling more smug and superiour of themselves when they post ridiculous long posts, even though they are completely wrong. Is the rule good, or bad? And if it is bad, what should we do to prevent low content posts?

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

How exactly would removing the low content rule prevent people making smug and erroneous posts? People don't need to post ten paragraphs to come across as smug and arrogant. You managed it in just five sentences. If people writing out opinions that you disagree with bothers you, perhaps the internet isn't the place to be.

The low content rule is a good rule.

 

[Right Hook]

It's a good rule, it forces people to explain why they feel a certain way, if you only wanted to say "LOL" than don't even bother posting. How to prevent smug idiots? Ideally we would go to their houses and bash their heads into their keyboards...if only...

 

[somonels]

There are actual mods? I thought there are just bots, but this does not really matter as the amount of content the two can comprehend is about the same.

if there's a poll involved, it's an excellent rule. Occasionally, one link or one word can adequately sum up the extent of your thoughts on the subject, but usually, if you want to promote discussion, you need more than 1 or 2 words.

What discussion, how many people actively follow threads they have posted in unless they have been quoted? The name forum is very misleading as for the majority of internet users these are places to speak one's mind and move on.

 

[Bat Vader]

i once got put on probation for posting a single "forever alone guy" picture on a thread. it was how i found out there was a rule against that. after being so used to "we can only talk with pictures" boards, i didn't think a site as cool and awesome as the escapist would have a problem with a kind non-abusive poster like me. since this, all my posts have been either this long or longer, going 2 weeks on the escapist without being able to type in the forums traumatized me.

I thought my post was utterly hilarious; it made perfect sense, it was good humor, it was relevant, it had all the qualities of a proper and decent joke.

i felt like i was paying too high of a price for a small crime, like the ridiculous war on drugs here in america where someone who has a zip lock snack bag of weed on their persons get's their life ruined with years on end of jail time sharing a cell with a big mean homicidal man named Tina.

actually, no, better example; getting 5 years in prison for downloading a movie. that's what it felt like. i know being mean and abusive towards other escapists is also not allowed here, but I've been a victim to that kind of abuse and i didn't see them get a fuckin probation. so why the hell do i get punished for an innocent post while assholes post freely?

if the sites policies are up for a revision, then let me pitch my idea; low content posts must be proofread by a moderator and that moderator must use their good judgement to determine if the low content post is appropriate based on the nature of the discussion, nature and intent of the posts' content, and possibly the forum health meter of the poster.

i understand that eliminating low content posts is a way to forcibly create forums for the purpose of intelligent discussions, but what about forums that AREN'T about that? like a "pictures only" forum? i find pictures only forums a lot of fun, but they'd be considered low content posts and wouldn't be allowed to happen.

so if you disagree with me, i wouldn't mind if you told me why with an intelligent argument. but if you attack me and call me an idiot for 'not reading the rules' or some other shit, i'll go as far as reporting you.

god, i feel pretty uptight and tense right now.

Most likely the reason they didn't get punished is because less than two separate users reported them. I believe it takes two or more separate users to report a post for it to end up in the moderation queue.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

The rule doesn't go far enough. I wish it applied to avatar, favorite, and any other thread where a single sentence is pretty much the maximum anyone says in the entire thread.

If that is too steep, I wish those threads would not show up on the popular forum posts module on the front page.

 

[Smooth Operator]

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

This. It really isn't difficult to conjure a minimum of 5 words, even if that is to just churn out a laconic, sarcastic quip.

Actually if those posts get reported they will still get sanctioned, mods read the reported posts so if you have no worthwhile content it will get moderated.

 

[Death Carr]

its probably already been said, but I think that the low content rule is a brilliant way of ensuring people put alot of thoughgt into their posts and it helps encourage discussion further than just 'yes' or 'I agree with Person X'

 

[Snotnarok]

It's a decent rule...the point of a forum is to discuss things. So how do single word things contribute to a conversation? THey really don't. I mean I guess it's a silly thing to get in trouble for but, seriously it's not hard to post some stuff.

 

[marurder]

I've been bitten by this, I said a response that was serious but to the point. I was reported because many users obviously disagreed. However later in that same thread, there were many MANY responses that were just the same as mine... but only I was reported... It's a stupid rule.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

It's a fucking awful rule and needs to be removed.

 

[Bat Vader]

I like the Low Content Rule. It makes people explain why they agree with someone instead of just saying this or yes.

 

[joshuaayt]

Sure. If nothing else, it exercises the brain- while thinking of a sentence or two to write, you might actually consider what it is you're trying to say.

 

[Racecarlock]

You hit the nail on the head with the double edged sword thing. On one hand, it stops people from constantly posting internet acronyms and nothing else. On the other hand, if there's a post that only requires a one word answer, than you have to pad it out just to avoid getting a warning from the rule. However, padding isn't hard, so while I would say the rule is a double edged sword, one of the edges is a toothpick, so I think it's alright.

 

[TimeLord]

A couple of people seem to be confused about the Low Content rule. It's not physical word count, it's whether you contribute to the discussion of the thread. This thread is a good example. You could simply post "Yes" or "No" but that would be low content, so you post your opinion and stimulate discussion.
One word answers are just there to bump post counts. If you have nothing to say, don't post.

The low content rule is something very few other sites lack. We are not 4chan where you can post meme pictures and one word answers all day long. We want healthy discussion not a bunch of smart ass meme posts that don't contribute to anything at all.

I think the issue is more about moderators having proper judgement to decide what is ok and what isn't. 15 years of posting experience has brought me to the conclusion that most people who become moderators tend to be tools, but that can hardly be helped.

Thanks for that generalisation.

It's a nice rule, but I don't really see it as something worth suspending people over for a day or two, sure, probation maybe, but it's just bloody stupid otherwise.

Unless, you know, it's just something like "First!" or some bollocks like that.

We don't determine how the user is punished. It's just their next level up on the Forum Health Bar.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

I think it is a great rule, but it can sometimes be enforced a little over-zealously.

 

[thom_cat_]

I don't think posting an image should count as a low content post. Images can speak a thousand words. Really, if they're not posting some variant of a trollface or a meme pic I feel that it's fine.

 

[JLML]

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]

+1After all, without it I wouldn't be able to waste hours just reading random threads here, nor would it be possible to have long, civilised and interesting discussions. Or, well, it would, but the times it would happen compared to the times you'd get low content spam would make it unworth trying.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Of all the rules, I think it is the most questionable.

Sure, I'm glad we don't have massive amounts of "Yes", "No" and other single word posts, however, if I had MY way, it would be changed to include ONLY length of post. The "Content" aspect seems much too open to interpretation to me.

In addition, I think posts with just a picture should be exempt in some cases. It's often true that a picture can be worth a thousand words.