Poll: Is the Low Content Rule any good?

[David Bjur]

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?

 

[Hazy992]

I think sometimes it's good cause as you say, it just stops people from saying 'LOL' or something. But sometimes there's nothing really more you can say than just two or three words, and cause people can't think of anything else to say they put something completely unrelated to avoid a low content warning. I think that sometimes halts the discussion more than someone putting a couple of words.

 

[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.

 

[Jonluw]

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]

 

[tippy2k2]

Yes there should be the low content rule and this place is better for it.

Seriously, there is no situation where I can say two words and make the post worthwhile.

"Yes I think that". Well why do you think that random internet person? You telling me that you agree has absolutely no weight and is not something that I can have a discussion with.

I think sometimes it's good cause as you say, it just stops people from saying 'LOL' or something. But sometimes there's nothing really more you can say than just two or three words, and cause people can't think of anything else to say they put something completely unrelated to avoid a low content warning. I think that sometimes halts the discussion more than someone putting a couple of words.

Could you give any examples of this? I can't think of any situation where my post of "Yes" is enough that there is no more that needs to be said. The only situation right now I can think of is if a troll is throwing something so blatantly offensive out that you don't need more but then, why are you posting? Report his ass and move on.

 

[ScoopMeister]

Yeah it's good- low content posts are useless and annoying. And you'll still get the smug big-heads posting ridiculously long essays whether the low-content rule exists or not.

Although I must admit, I did briefly consider simply answering 'Yes' in a quasi-sarcistic tone. But then I realised that it would be a bad idea...

 

[Dectomax]

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]

I see what you did there.

I agree, it stops meaningless posts from being submitted and also, to an extent, makes you put some thought into your post.

At any rate, if you can't put more than one or two words down about a topic, should you really be responding to that topic?


Though it's a double edged sword, some threads don't have much discussion value - threads like post your favourite song. You can post the song and then one word and still receive a warning.

So, my votes on yes - it's a good thing!

 

[Jonluw]

Though it's a double edged sword, some threads don't have much discussion value - threads like post your favourite song. You can post the song and then one word and still receive a warning.

Mods are pretty lenient with the low content in threads where people are asking for songs and stuff though. Like "help me get into jazz"-threads.
And there's always the forum games section. Low content rules are completely abolished there.

But really, according to the rules, threads with no discussion value are supposed to be closed anyways.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Yes as it only gets enforced if you post a lot of low content posts in a row and you usually get an automated warning before moderation.

 

[mrdude2010]

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.

 

[Skin]

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.

 

[tippy2k2]

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.

 

[Hazy992]

I think sometimes it's good cause as you say, it just stops people from saying 'LOL' or something. But sometimes there's nothing really more you can say than just two or three words, and cause people can't think of anything else to say they put something completely unrelated to avoid a low content warning. I think that sometimes halts the discussion more than someone putting a couple of words.

Could you give any examples of this? I can't think of any situation where my post of "Yes" is enough that there is no more that needs to be said. The only situation right now I can think of is if a troll is throwing something so blatantly offensive out that you don't need more but then, why are you posting? Report his ass and move on.

Well I don't remember the exact thread but I posted something and a user responded with 'Yeah I agree'. He/she probably felt that there was nothing more to add and just wanted to share my sentiment. But because of low content warnings they started talking about cake or something, which was nothing to do with the thread. This doesn't happen often but it does happen.

 

[tippy2k2]

I think sometimes it's good cause as you say, it just stops people from saying 'LOL' or something. But sometimes there's nothing really more you can say than just two or three words, and cause people can't think of anything else to say they put something completely unrelated to avoid a low content warning. I think that sometimes halts the discussion more than someone putting a couple of words.

Could you give any examples of this? I can't think of any situation where my post of "Yes" is enough that there is no more that needs to be said. The only situation right now I can think of is if a troll is throwing something so blatantly offensive out that you don't need more but then, why are you posting? Report his ass and move on.

Well I don't remember the exact thread but I posted something and a user responded with 'Yeah I agree'. He/she probably felt that there was nothing more to add and just wanted to share my sentiment. But because of low content warnings they started talking about cake or something, which was nothing to do with the thread. This doesn't happen often but it does happen.

If they had absolutely nothing else to add, then there's no point for them to add anything else; they didn't need to post. You could argue that it shouldn't be the case but the Escapist has made how it feels about it pretty clear.

Slightly off-topic but I'm surprised that people think that adding "Yes, also here is some extra text because I don't want to get Mod wrath" does anything. It won't be auto-flagged but if someone reports it, you still get a warning (as you should based on the rules here).

 

[Soxafloppin]

Had to resist simply posting "yes" or "no", though someone beat me to it.

yes it is good, and your example of people thinking thinking there superior because they post long winded posts is pretty bad, no offense.

 

[requisitename]

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.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

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]