Poll: Is the Low Content Rule any good?

[ablac]

I think it varies because some can say much in very concise statements but will steel feel the mod's wrath. At the same time it stops people wasting pages with bad or meaningless posts.

 

[Rabish Bini]

There should be a clear distinction between 'low content' and 'pointless reply'.

A short sentence can still add to the discussion greatly in certain circumstances.

 

[Arakasi]

It should be applied contextually. If it is appropriate it should be allowed.

 

[ThatLankyBastard]

Yes.]

...damn it, I thought I was gonna be original...

Anyways, I completely agree with the low Content Rule. This one is a pretty unique forum (as far as I know anyways) simply because it tries to hold some genuine discussions instead of just being a bunch of trolls.

...although we are all still just a collection of trolls that rule, among others, keeps the equilibrium of internet harmony balanced!

 

[Ryank1908]

I'm just glad that it stops people from saying '/thread.' How unbelievably self-centered do you have to be to simply declare a public forum to be over just because you think your opinion is the correct one? Eurgh. I despise the internet sometimes.

 

[Lukeje]

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

No, you can't necessarily bank on that. I have seen posts that have led to suspensions that have a short one word post or a picture and then a sentence moaning about the low-content rule.

 

[halfeclipse]

It's not exactly hard to pad out a posts word count, thus bypassing the rule, while utterly failing to add anything of worth to their post. The site will have exactly the same amount of posts that add *bleep* all to the discussion, they're just slightly longer. Except now rather then being able to quickly identify and skip the post we need to read through it in order to discover it adds nothing, wasting our time.

 

[targren]

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

Oh, I don't know about that. I think putting "Ad Blockers" and "Sexist/Racist" remarks under "Illegal/Adult" content is a bit more questionable, since neither is illegal nor adult. The latter may be unwelcome (but probably fits better under the "Don't Be a Jerk" umbrella) and the former may be against the Themis' interests, and well within their rights to forbid, but that's just sloppy and overstating things just a teensy bit.

 

[smithy_2045]

I think it's overly strict. People who post "first lol" deserve to be punished. People who quote a good post and state that they agree with the person they quoted do not. People who answer a thread topic with a yes/no answer don't deserve an infraction as long as the thread topic was worded in such a way that a yes/no answer can be used to answer the topic.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

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

Oh, I don't know about that. I think putting "Ad Blockers" and "Sexist/Racist" remarks under "Illegal/Adult" content is a bit more questionable, since neither is illegal nor adult. The latter may be unwelcome (but probably fits better under the "Don't Be a Jerk" umbrella) and the former may be against the Themis' interests, and well within their rights to forbid, but that's just sloppy and overstating things just a teensy bit.

I think the first you mentioned is rather nicely implemented, but I agree wholeheartedly with your second point.

Personally, I don't use an Adblocker. However, I think it is rather silly that the mere act of saying "Adbockers are good" or anything of the sort, can get you a ban.

 

[Karhukonna]

I think post 5 kinda makes the exception that proves the rule. It's certainly a low-content post to the naked eye, but to those that caught on to the joke, it's some mighty fine spot-on humor. It conveys a message beyond it's three letters and a dot combination. Obviously, it's the mods who enforce this rule, and I hope that they don't take it too seriously. You can usually tell when someone's just fishing for post counts.

 

[David Bjur]

'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.

I'm sorry, what is this supposed to mean exactly?
Wrong how and moreover, could you provide examples? I don't think I get what you're saying here.

OT: Anyways, yeah I'm a huge fan of the low content moderation. These forums are meant for discussion, and if somepony posts something that doesn't help or lead to discussion, it's just really out of place.

Additionally, some newer people to these forums carry bad habits from other sites, as I've seen six or seven people who equate their post count as an E-peen as it were. So they would naturally try to post really really short replies just to pad out their count.

Hmmm, I guess this will be abit hard to explain, but let's say a person has posted a long post about, let's say, game mechanics in a game. He/she knows nothing about game mechanics at all but still says that people are stupid, even though he is the person that's wrong.

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.

Well, I never took a stance in this matter, so I don't really understand how and why you guessed that I thought it was a bad rule. I was just trying to start a debate. Oh btw, I asked the "How exactly would removing the low content rule prevent people making smug and erroneous posts?" question way before it was cool.
(wow, I really do sound like a smug *ssh*le)

 

[Radoh]

'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.

I'm sorry, what is this supposed to mean exactly?
Wrong how and moreover, could you provide examples? I don't think I get what you're saying here.

OT: Anyways, yeah I'm a huge fan of the low content moderation. These forums are meant for discussion, and if somepony posts something that doesn't help or lead to discussion, it's just really out of place.

Additionally, some newer people to these forums carry bad habits from other sites, as I've seen six or seven people who equate their post count as an E-peen as it were. So they would naturally try to post really really short replies just to pad out their count.

Hmmm, I guess this will be abit hard to explain, but let's say a person has posted a long post about, let's say, game mechanics in a game. He/she knows nothing about game mechanics at all but still says that people are stupid, even though he is the person that's wrong.

If they don't know anything about what they are saying but are still saying it, it wouldn't matter how long a post it is.
That's going to happen regardless of the length of the post. As a wise man once said, "You can't fix stupid".

 

[David Bjur]

'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.

I'm sorry, what is this supposed to mean exactly?
Wrong how and moreover, could you provide examples? I don't think I get what you're saying here.

OT: Anyways, yeah I'm a huge fan of the low content moderation. These forums are meant for discussion, and if somepony posts something that doesn't help or lead to discussion, it's just really out of place.

Additionally, some newer people to these forums carry bad habits from other sites, as I've seen six or seven people who equate their post count as an E-peen as it were. So they would naturally try to post really really short replies just to pad out their count.

Hmmm, I guess this will be abit hard to explain, but let's say a person has posted a long post about, let's say, game mechanics in a game. He/she knows nothing about game mechanics at all but still says that people are stupid, even though he is the person that's wrong.

If they don't know anything about what they are saying but are still saying it, it wouldn't matter how long a post it is.
That's going to happen regardless of the length of the post. As a wise man once said, "You can't fix stupid".

Yes, but having smug people feeling more smug about themselves encourages them to post more posts of smugness and keep spreading their smug.
Conclusion: Don't feed the smug.

 

[Radoh]

'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.

I'm sorry, what is this supposed to mean exactly?
Wrong how and moreover, could you provide examples? I don't think I get what you're saying here.

OT: Anyways, yeah I'm a huge fan of the low content moderation. These forums are meant for discussion, and if somepony posts something that doesn't help or lead to discussion, it's just really out of place.

Additionally, some newer people to these forums carry bad habits from other sites, as I've seen six or seven people who equate their post count as an E-peen as it were. So they would naturally try to post really really short replies just to pad out their count.

Hmmm, I guess this will be abit hard to explain, but let's say a person has posted a long post about, let's say, game mechanics in a game. He/she knows nothing about game mechanics at all but still says that people are stupid, even though he is the person that's wrong.

If they don't know anything about what they are saying but are still saying it, it wouldn't matter how long a post it is.
That's going to happen regardless of the length of the post. As a wise man once said, "You can't fix stupid".

Yes, but having smug people feeling more smug about themselves encourages them to post more posts of smugness and keep spreading their smug.
Conclusion: Don't feed the smug.

That has no bearing on what we do.
If they post to feel smug, responses wouldn't do anything.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Imagine the escapist forums. Now imagine it with 60,000 extra posts consisting of "lol" and "omg".

Is the escapist forum significantly improved by this addition?

 

[Cazza]

Yes...

See if that was all I said there would be no discussion. The forums are for discussion not a bunch of people giving an opinion and everyone either agreeing or disagreeing.

 

[FamoFunk]

I do like the low content rule, as it stops people just spamming pictures or saying, "LOLOLOL"

But, sometimes, a few words can be a lot more powerful than a whole paragraph, especially when quoting people and such. But I hope the Mods would realise those posts are actually good and not worthy of action, that I would find ridiculous.

 

[Caliostro]

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?

No. The "low content" rule is in place to prevent people spamming the forums with pointless or inane posts made to either attention whore or inflate their own post count (which ultimately serves the same purpose: to attention whore).

If you have anything worth saying, say it. If you don't, don't post. You don't HAVE to post. Shit like "Lol!", "I don't care", "I agree", "+1"... Not worth posting. If all you have to say is that you "don't care" (why are you even posting then?) or to simply parrot what someone else already said, then they've already said it.

'Cause you'll then have smug people feeling more smug and superiour of themselves when they post ridiculous long posts,

And? Someone feeling smug only affects you if you're feeling insecure about your own value. That's your problem.

Otherwise, they're feeling smug... And? They're either right or wrong regardless. If they're right, then they should feel smug. They're right. If they're wrong, who cares that they're feeling smug? They're wrong, and "feeling smug" won't change that.

Feeling good or bad about how people you don't care about feel is extremely petty at best, not to mention depressingly sad.

And if it is bad, what should we do to prevent low content posts?

...Wait, what?

You're saying, if the rule is wrong, and low content should be allowed, what should we do to prevent it? Why would we want to prevent it if we were going to allow it? Did you really think this one through here?