Poll: Is the Low Content Rule any good?

[tippy2k2]

snip

snip

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

I personally feel that what you did would indeed warrant Mod-wrath but I also think that others doing that (as well as the BS "More words to escape mod-wrath") should have also been hit. It sucks that you got singled out when others were giving such minimal answers too but shit happens.

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).

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.

Personally, I think I hate the rule more than I like it. When the posts are useless +1s or "this" I can read them as I scroll past them. There's been too often where I want to just simply state something, but then I have to make a chore of posting. If some one actually gives a damn about what I think, then they can quote me and ask for more info. I've also had far more intimate conversations on other forums where I am allowed to make short or ironic statements because there is no punishment for doing so. It's always business here and never anyone to make friends with.

We were having a conversation about the rule. I asked for an example (something removed from this quote bubble above), he gave me an example, and I told him what I thought about it. This is part of a discussion and myself expanding my position based on what he said. This is exactly what you want out of a discussion.

You can discuss and talk about whatever you want. You can make short and ironic statements as long as you want as long as it's not a useless "Yes I agree" or "No, I disagree" post. There is no chore to say "I liked X and this is why" or "I think X and this is why"; if you find it a chore, there are plenty of other forums that are OK with people giving one word answers.

Can it be a little harsh at times? Absolutely but I'd much rather have it harsh in favor of stamping out "YES" and "NO" answers then let it have free range.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Yes, to a VERY limited extent.

Obviously just "lol" and "+1" posts are stupid but the mods go too far with the rule. For example let's say I just have a captioned image as my post. Why should that count as a low content post? (And it HAS been counted as such before.)

I also hate restrictions to freedom of speech in any way so in the end, I am against it.

 

[chadachada123]

I think that it's good, but think that there should be some exceptions.

For example, pictures/videos shouldn't require text. Sometimes a poster is required to sacrifice humor by throwing in extra words when the picture/video by itself would suffice. Or, hell, even a single word would be sufficient at times.

 

[darksakul]

Is the Low Content Rule any good?

Sometimes less is more.

 

[JCBFGD]

Not really, no.

 

[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.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

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.

 

[arnoldthebird]

Yes, because low content means it has no discussion value. Something can be summed up in a few words and still have discussion value, but a simple, 'Yes', 'LOL' or 'FIRST!!!' provides absolutely nothing, there is no real discussion value. Normally a poll would provide a Y/N option and if it didn't then the OP should make a poll. The low content rule sets The Escapist above and beyond all other forums.

Rules are set for a reason

 

[Olrod]

*Someone else's post*

This.



See? Wasn't that a meaning contribution to the discussion?

I think the low content rule works just fine.

 

[Ectoplasmicz]

Its a good thing I believe. If you don't have the capacity to write more than a couple of words in a response, then you really don't need to respond at all.

 

[mega48man]

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.

 

[targren]

No, I think it's worse than the issue it purports to fix. It's wielded heavy-handedly and inconsistently (the 5-words guideline has been known to be ignored), and leads to artificially inflating one's posts in hopes of evading whatever whimsical mod is feeling nitpicky.

 

[Risingblade]

I think it's a pretty good rule, it encourages discussion from everyone in way.

 

[Random Fella]

I believe so (Even though it's got me a few warnings and a suspension)
It pretty much means people won't give one word answers, they'll give logical reason for their answers therefor contributing toward the thread.
It may not always be the case, but it's my opinion that it has a beneficial effect toward it.

 

[tippy2k2]

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.

I know a lot of people in here have said "A picture is worth a thousand words" but I find that most of the time, the picture being used is a tired old meme that stopped being funny about five minutes after it was released (yes, Forever Alone Guy included). That is why I think that a picture-only post would be a low-content post.

If you want a picture-only forum, go to a picture-only forum. It's been said repeatedly here but I'll say it again: The Escapist is a forum that tries to not just be a pool of crap. While there are times the Mods can be heavy-handed, I would take that over the Wild West of other forums any day.

 

[DirgeNovak]

Yes, it needs to stay.

If the OP asks us a yes/no question, you have to explain why you answered yes or no.
If the OP asks us to recommend a game/movie/TV show/song/whatever, you have to explain why you recommend this one in particular.

If those things are too hard for you, maybe you should think a bit about why exactly you're frequenting Internet forums.

 

[Drexlor]

I think that in general it is a good rule, but sometimes the context should be taken into account. Although I think about a year ago I was able to get away with a 1 word reply, but that is the only time that I have ever done that.