arguably, this post is useless though, because you've already stated your point and now I had to read it again to maintain the flow of the conversation.tippy2k2 said: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.Hazy992 said: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 said: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.Hazy992 said: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.
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).
I just pasted your post into the Youtube comment box. It's 190 characters long.Gennadios said:An upper max wouldn't hurt either honestly. The longer a post gets the less likely it is to be read.
I'd love to see a day of twitter rules Escapist, every post has to be 150 chars or less.
You see this is the thing, the mods should ave enough sense to distinguish between what is a legitimate post and what is an offensive/troll post that needs moderating against.thaluikhain said:Just to let you know, I did the same thing once.Jonluw said: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 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.
I want to hug your answer, it was just what I wanted to say, just with a better vocabulary!Erana said: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.
If rephrasing an answer without adding any content is acceptable, the original answer should be acceptable. It is a better answer, saying the same with fewer words.TopazFusion said:Well, in this example, you could answer "Niko Bellic was in GTA IV.", and that would be acceptable.TestECull said: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".
As a general rule, phrasing a reply into a sentence will usually get around the low content post rule.
Oh, I see what you didn't do there.Jonluw said: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]
This, basically. I agree that people should be punished for just posting something like "lol", but the rule seems a bit strict at times.Shock and Awe said:Well most of the time its a good thing, but sometimes a response does not require many words and that sometimes wrongly gets hit with a low content. But thats pretty rare.
Meta response is meta.Jonluw said: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]
Well, except for something I saw earlier:Estoki said:Considering you can avoid the low content rule by writing about the low content rule, no.
[sup]NOTE: the guy was banned because he was on his last strike when he made the post[/sup]Some dude in response to some thread said:Yes. Extra words to avoid mod wrath.
Mod Edit: Saying "extra words to avoid mod wrath" does not help avoid mod wrath.
[small]Some Dude was banned for posting in Some Thread[/small]
You are correct, but if there's one thing worse than "this" it's "I'll just leave this here". Also, why the wanton profanity?SmashLovesTitanQuest said:Yes, because it stops those fuckwads from quoting someone and just typing "this". ************, what the hell. Why the fuck did you even post. You obviously have nothing to say, just shut the fuck up and come back when you have something proper to contribute. That shit is irritating as fuck.