What does "inane" have to do with "low content?" The former, I would think, speaks to some sort of qualitative characteristic having to do with a lack of intelligence. The latter is, I would think, purely quantitative (i.e., insufficient content). Is it not possible that I post a "high content" wall of text that's as inane as inane can be? And a "low content" post that's pure genius in its substance? If you really are attempting to define "low content" by virtue of "inane," that suggests to me that your regulatory scheme isn't as well-thought out as you claim it is. That definition doesn't at all strike me as a very useful working definition.
For example and not to complain, I posted a photo of some kook wearing a tin foil hat and which contained the words "It's a Conspiracy" and received a "low content" warning for doing so despite the fact that my post was quote at least five times by responses substantive in nature. I can't see how a post quoted five times is failing to add to the discussion. On those facts, I would think it's actually promoting discussion.
But as you've said, it is yours to define (notwithstanding whether it works or not).
To clarify: "Low content" isn't necessarily quantitative. And you're right, you can have an absolutely monstrous post with absolutely nothing of relevance, though rarer. Those will be equally punished if noticed. That said, image macros almost always fall within "low content". If you absolutely must reply with an image, expand on it. Image macros rarely have any kind of discussion value, and number of quotes does not relate to quality of content.
In retrospect, while that image might have been appropriate (or not, I'm not looking at the thread), couldn't you honestly have said anything else about it? Ya know what I mean?
Sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand words. I thought my picture captured the essence of what I wanted to say 100 times better than any of my words could have.
And to change the facts for the benefit of discussion, what if I had done without the picture and instead type the words contained in the picture (i.e., "It's a Conspiracy")? That ain't but 16 characters. Is that a "low content" post? If it's not, than that's a perplexing outcome when the picture plus the words are "low content" but the words minus the picture aren't. The "content" of the latter is even less the "content" of the former. That makes no sense to me. Unless "low content," despite it's name, has absolutely nothing to do with quantity.
Yes, it would be low-content, or at least it would to me. If the person said 'It's a conspiracy because (Insert reason here)' then it wouldn't be low-content.
I don't know who came up with the idea, but no, a picture is not always worth a thousands words. Most of the time they're not even worth one word. Pictures are used as an addition to your post, they are not meant to be the main attribute and when they are, they're basically the equivalent of quoting a person and just saying 'this.'
I disagree. I may be a lot of different things, but being a poor writer isn't something of which I've ever been accused. If I think that a picture better states my position that my words can, then I'd also think there's a fairly good chance that the picture speaks volumes. In my estimation, the picture went well beyond merely saying "this" or "lol" or "derp." I would again raise the point that it garnered multiple responses substantive in nature as evidence of the fact that it wasn't at all itself lacking in substance. There's was apparently enough substance therein to provide other posters a springboard from which to leap. If the fear behind the prohibition of "low content" posts is that they do nothing to further substantive discussion, I again argue that my picture-post with the responses it generated can't be the kind of post that motivated the prohibition. But reasonable minds can differ.
And as one who dabbles in rules and regulations, I'd like to point out that the efficacy of a rule is never found in its terms but, rather, is found in the sound judgment used in its application. Rules are more tools than rules. They're only as effective as the person wielding them.
If 90% of the pictures chosen on this site DID just that, then I would probably be whistling a different tune. Unfortunately they're not. The majority of all picture only posts are memes. I see maybe 1-2 pictures a week that do not derive from some sort of pop culture joke and the majority of the time, its not the posters original work (Therefore, it is like quoting and saying 'this' as you're taking someone else creation and showing your agreement with it.)
That picture doesn't further conversation, if anything, its a conversation-killer. It leaves nothing to be discussed and nothing to be said. This is exactly what the majority of picture only posts do. Do you expect me to believe quite a few posters can't write out their feelings about someone's stupidity and are instead forced to post a face palm picture? That would be pretty sad in my opinion.
Pictures are meant to be used in tandem with your posts, they're not meant to be in the spotlight. Look at most user reviews from people like Marter or BlueInkAlchemist, they use the pictures to show off their opinions while also making the text look more visually appealing. They do not dominate the post, they emphasize the points being made and compliment what is written. These are what I mean when I say they should be used together.
If you want the picture only ban to be removed, then I suggest you lead by example. Memes do not further conversation 99.9% of the time, but that is exactly what the majority of these picture only posts use. If anything, they derail more threads then anything else, save for trolls and flame bait (And this would counter-productive to what you claim). Until the community decides to use images that actually further conversations, instead of just small, silly GIFs and memes, I can't agree with you.
Lemme propose a scenario that I'm surmising and, if you care to, correct me if I'm wrong:
The picture-posts, despite what I'm willing to assume is the fact that they are rarely reported to the moderators, more readily fall victim to the low content post rule because, unlike a textual post, they're so much more easier by nature to spot, particularly when not hidden underneath a spoiler tag. No need for the moderators to read a word. Just scroll through a thread, looking out for the pictures. Correct?
What does "inane" have to do with "low content?" The former, I would think, speaks to some sort of qualitative characteristic having to do with a lack of intelligence. The latter is, I would think, purely quantitative (i.e., insufficient content). Is it not possible that I post a "high content" wall of text that's as inane as inane can be? And a "low content" post that's pure genius in its substance? If you really are attempting to define "low content" by virtue of "inane," that suggests to me that your regulatory scheme isn't as well-thought out as you claim it is. That definition doesn't at all strike me as a very useful working definition.
For example and not to complain, I posted a photo of some kook wearing a tin foil hat and which contained the words "It's a Conspiracy" and received a "low content" warning for doing so despite the fact that my post was quote at least five times by responses substantive in nature. I can't see how a post quoted five times is failing to add to the discussion. On those facts, I would think it's actually promoting discussion.
But as you've said, it is yours to define (notwithstanding whether it works or not).
To clarify: "Low content" isn't necessarily quantitative. And you're right, you can have an absolutely monstrous post with absolutely nothing of relevance, though rarer. Those will be equally punished if noticed. That said, image macros almost always fall within "low content". If you absolutely must reply with an image, expand on it. Image macros rarely have any kind of discussion value, and number of quotes does not relate to quality of content.
In retrospect, while that image might have been appropriate (or not, I'm not looking at the thread), couldn't you honestly have said anything else about it? Ya know what I mean?
Sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand words. I thought my picture captured the essence of what I wanted to say 100 times better than any of my words could have.
And to change the facts for the benefit of discussion, what if I had done without the picture and instead type the words contained in the picture (i.e., "It's a Conspiracy")? That ain't but 16 characters. Is that a "low content" post? If it's not, than that's a perplexing outcome when the picture plus the words are "low content" but the words minus the picture aren't. The "content" of the latter is even less the "content" of the former. That makes no sense to me. Unless "low content," despite it's name, has absolutely nothing to do with quantity.
Yes, it would be low-content, or at least it would to me. If the person said 'It's a conspiracy because (Insert reason here)' then it wouldn't be low-content.
I don't know who came up with the idea, but no, a picture is not always worth a thousands words. Most of the time they're not even worth one word. Pictures are used as an addition to your post, they are not meant to be the main attribute and when they are, they're basically the equivalent of quoting a person and just saying 'this.'
I disagree. I may be a lot of different things, but being a poor writer isn't something of which I've ever been accused. If I think that a picture better states my position that my words can, then I'd also think there's a fairly good chance that the picture speaks volumes. In my estimation, the picture went well beyond merely saying "this" or "lol" or "derp." I would again raise the point that it garnered multiple responses substantive in nature as evidence of the fact that it wasn't at all itself lacking in substance. There's was apparently enough substance therein to provide other posters a springboard from which to leap. If the fear behind the prohibition of "low content" posts is that they do nothing to further substantive discussion, I again argue that my picture-post with the responses it generated can't be the kind of post that motivated the prohibition. But reasonable minds can differ.
And as one who dabbles in rules and regulations, I'd like to point out that the efficacy of a rule is never found in its terms but, rather, is found in the sound judgment used in its application. Rules are more tools than rules. They're only as effective as the person wielding them.
If 90% of the pictures chosen on this site DID just that, then I would probably be whistling a different tune. Unfortunately they're not. The majority of all picture only posts are memes. I see maybe 1-2 pictures a week that do not derive from some sort of pop culture joke and the majority of the time, its not the posters original work (Therefore, it is like quoting and saying 'this' as you're taking someone else creation and showing your agreement with it.)
That picture doesn't further conversation, if anything, its a conversation-killer. It leaves nothing to be discussed and nothing to be said. This is exactly what the majority of picture only posts do. Do you expect me to believe quite a few posters can't write out their feelings about someone's stupidity and are instead forced to post a face palm picture? That would be pretty sad in my opinion.
Pictures are meant to be used in tandem with your posts, they're not meant to be in the spotlight. Look at most user reviews from people like Marter or BlueInkAlchemist, they use the pictures to show off their opinions while also making the text look more visually appealing. They do not dominate the post, they emphasize the points being made and compliment what is written. These are what I mean when I say they should be used together.
If you want the picture only ban to be removed, then I suggest you lead by example. Memes do not further conversation 99.9% of the time, but that is exactly what the majority of these picture only posts use. If anything, they derail more threads then anything else, save for trolls and flame bait (And this would counter-productive to what you claim). Until the community decides to use images that actually further conversations, instead of just small, silly GIFs and memes, I can't agree with you.
Lemme propose a scenario that I'm surmising and, if you care to, correct me if I'm wrong:
The picture-posts, despite what I'm willing to assume is the fact that they are rarely reported to the moderators, more readily fall victim to the low content post rule because, unlike a textual post, they're so much more easier by nature to spot, particularly when not hidden underneath a spoiler tag. No need for the moderators to read a word. Just scroll through a thread, looking out for the pictures. Correct?
Nope. I've yet to punish a single picture only post that wasn't reported to me by other users. I don't go searching through the forums looking for low-content posts, pictures or not, because nearly all of them are reported to us. Despite what you may think, it appears that most users are actually for the low-content rule. If they weren't they would not report it.
Fair enough. I stand corrected. Perhaps my own upbringing inclined me to the assumption that picture-posts weren't aggressively reported. I grew up in a neighborhood where being the tattle-tale was a sure-fire way to get an ass-kicking without sympathy.
Fair enough. I stand corrected. Perhaps my own upbringing inclined me to the assumption that picture-posts weren't aggressively reported. I grew up in a neighborhood where being the tattle-tale was a sure-fire way to get an ass-kicking without sympathy.
No-one can tell on this site though if a specific user has reported someone (other than maybe the mods, don't know abouth that), so that wouldn't apply here.
Fair enough. I stand corrected. Perhaps my own upbringing inclined me to the assumption that picture-posts weren't aggressively reported. I grew up in a neighborhood where being the tattle-tale was a sure-fire way to get an ass-kicking without sympathy.
No-one can tell on this site though if a specific user has reported someone (other than maybe the mods, don't know abouth that), so that wouldn't apply here.
Of course the mods know who made a report. And, yes, it wouldn't apply here, but once you've been raised to despise the snitch more than the drug dealer or the pimp, that value system tends to stick with you. And while you'll never know for sure, in the case of a reply post, the poster to whom the reply was made would be at the very top of my suspect list.
Fair enough. I stand corrected. Perhaps my own upbringing inclined me to the assumption that picture-posts weren't aggressively reported. I grew up in a neighborhood where being the tattle-tale was a sure-fire way to get an ass-kicking without sympathy.
No-one can tell on this site though if a specific user has reported someone (other than maybe the mods, don't know abouth that), so that wouldn't apply here.
Of course the mods know who made a report. And, yes, it wouldn't apply here, but once you've been raised to despise the snitch more than the drug dealer or the pimp, that value system tends to stick with you. And while you'll never know for sure, in the case of a reply post, the poster to whom the reply was made would be at the very top of my suspect list.
The "snitch" thing is just a gang culture value to enforce their illegal activities by making a societal pressure not to report them, it certainly isn't a healthy attitude to have. Effective law enforcement relies on a large percentages of crimes being reported and dealt with in the proper way. I understand in certain areas you might be fearful for reprisals but that doesn't justify being against rule-breaking-reporting in general.
And also... so what? Why would anyone care if they're on some random anon's "suspect list" for reporting them, any revenge would just lead to further mod action and probable banning of the offender.
Fair enough. I stand corrected. Perhaps my own upbringing inclined me to the assumption that picture-posts weren't aggressively reported. I grew up in a neighborhood where being the tattle-tale was a sure-fire way to get an ass-kicking without sympathy.
No-one can tell on this site though if a specific user has reported someone (other than maybe the mods, don't know abouth that), so that wouldn't apply here.
Of course the mods know who made a report. And, yes, it wouldn't apply here, but once you've been raised to despise the snitch more than the drug dealer or the pimp, that value system tends to stick with you. And while you'll never know for sure, in the case of a reply post, the poster to whom the reply was made would be at the very top of my suspect list.
The "snitch" thing is just a gang culture value to enforce their illegal activities by making a societal pressure not to report them, it certainly isn't a healthy attitude to have. Effective law enforcement relies on a large percentages of crimes being reported and dealt with in the proper way. I understand in certain areas you might be fearful for reprisals but that doesn't justify being against rule-breaking-reporting in general.
And also... so what? Why would anyone care if they're on some random anon's "suspect list" for reporting them, any revenge would just lead to further mod action and probable banning of the offender.
Not to go off-topic, but in certain areas reluctance to be an informer to law enforcement has less to do with fear of reprisals and more to do with notions of who's the good guys and who's the bad guys. And notions of being a "stand up guy" and not a rat-fink. You can't ever trust a rat-fink. They'll fink out their own mother, if need be. No morals. No values. No idea of being true to the game.
"A man got to have a code!" -- Omar Little, "The Wire"
I must be a little hazy on the rules or the health meter in the first place. I checked and I had one check against me (not remembering what it was, but hey, not gonna argue with something I probably forgot or buried in my PM box) But when I checked it just a few minutes ago the check was taken off my 'record' so to speak. So you do get marks taken off for good behavior or x amount of time without any other problems?
Well, I'll post here to see what the new forum rules are. BUT I NEED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS THREAD OR IT WILL BE CONSIDERED LOW CONTENT! uhhhh... so anyone excited for Assassin's Creed Revelations? EDIT: Oh, the rules also say something about no walls of caps so I apologize for the bit above me.
Let´s be hypothetical here: Let´s say a poster reaches the last zone before a ban, but decides he/she doesn´t like to be banned and stops acting like a twat. 9 months pass with plenty of posts and not a single infraction, but then, this poster makes one post that could be classified as offensive/jerkish etc. And they´re banned. I dunno. Just doesn´t sound fair to me.
I quote from the forum rules: "After every 6 months without any warnings, you will drop down one level on the Forum Health Meter. After 2 years without any warnings, your meter will be returned to 0, regardless of where it was before." I don't think you need to worry about that sort of thing too much, they just have to be really careful for 6 months =)
The problem here is what exactly the moderators constitute as "being a jerk." I was once put on probation for insulting someone--it was a fictitious character. That's right. I insulted a fictitious character, but the moderator didn't read my post well enough to figure that out, and I got a probation for it.
So I think if they're going to be so unforgiving toward us, they had better be damned sure that they are completely in the right before they dish out their punishments.
What does "inane" have to do with "low content?" The former, I would think, speaks to some sort of qualitative characteristic having to do with a lack of intelligence. The latter is, I would think, purely quantitative (i.e., insufficient content). Is it not possible that I post a "high content" wall of text that's as inane as inane can be? And a "low content" post that's pure genius in its substance? If you really are attempting to define "low content" by virtue of "inane," that suggests to me that your regulatory scheme isn't as well-thought out as you claim it is. That definition doesn't at all strike me as a very useful working definition.
For example and not to complain, I posted a photo of some kook wearing a tin foil hat and which contained the words "It's a Conspiracy" and received a "low content" warning for doing so despite the fact that my post was quote at least five times by responses substantive in nature. I can't see how a post quoted five times is failing to add to the discussion. On those facts, I would think it's actually promoting discussion.
But as you've said, it is yours to define (notwithstanding whether it works or not).
To clarify: "Low content" isn't necessarily quantitative. And you're right, you can have an absolutely monstrous post with absolutely nothing of relevance, though rarer. Those will be equally punished if noticed. That said, image macros almost always fall within "low content". If you absolutely must reply with an image, expand on it. Image macros rarely have any kind of discussion value, and number of quotes does not relate to quality of content.
In retrospect, while that image might have been appropriate (or not, I'm not looking at the thread), couldn't you honestly have said anything else about it? Ya know what I mean?
What you actually mean to say is that you couldn't have said anything else about it. The poster may very well have sene a lot more to that image, so might have other posters. What you personally see is irrelevant.
I'll make a post to see it and let you know what I think
*edit: Looks pretty much the same. No real objections, though I've always disliked the "low content post" thing, or rather, I've both witnessed and experienced first hand situations wherein a thread is so direct that it only takes a few words to answer, and legitimate responses have gotten users penalized for being "low content posts."
Also, OP after 6 months your bar does restore. Though I doubt nobody in 30 someodd pages has pointed that out.
I'll make a post to see it and let you know what I think
*edit: Looks pretty much the same. No real objections, though I've always disliked the "low content post" thing, or rather, I've both witnessed and experienced first hand situations wherein a thread is so direct that it only takes a few words to answer, and legitimate responses have gotten users penalized for being "low content posts."
Also, OP after 6 months your bar does restore. Though I doubt nobody in 30 someodd pages has pointed that out.
If moderators had been a little nicer introducing the service or discussing how adblock hurts them, rather than behaving like car salesmen ("I'm not going to get a sale out of you, so I could give a rat's butt what you think, loser" being the attitude of several moderators, and yes, I can provide proof), the reaction to Pub Club might have been better.
Also, any time somebody is selling something intangible with little concrete value, there's the issue of value for money. It's a hard sell, and a mature individual realizes this and doesn't push it. Check out how Baldurk runs the LP Archive, and works to both make money and not annoy visitors.
We ALL work hard to eat. The Escapist shouldn't treat a small minority like scum just because they choose to block all ads by default, to better protect their computers and privacy. When I go to this website, sometimes all the ads slow down my computer. If I didn't have college work that required adblock off, I would probably run it just to keep everything secure and running fast.
I just really really wished they would label the exact criteria for what constitutes a "low content post". I've replied to threads with a simple "lol"-type post without action, but a post of this length has gotten me three warnings already.
Fair enough. I stand corrected. Perhaps my own upbringing inclined me to the assumption that picture-posts weren't aggressively reported. I grew up in a neighborhood where being the tattle-tale was a sure-fire way to get an ass-kicking without sympathy.
No-one can tell on this site though if a specific user has reported someone (other than maybe the mods, don't know abouth that), so that wouldn't apply here.
Of course the mods know who made a report. And, yes, it wouldn't apply here, but once you've been raised to despise the snitch more than the drug dealer or the pimp, that value system tends to stick with you. And while you'll never know for sure, in the case of a reply post, the poster to whom the reply was made would be at the very top of my suspect list.
The "snitch" thing is just a gang culture value to enforce their illegal activities by making a societal pressure not to report them, it certainly isn't a healthy attitude to have. Effective law enforcement relies on a large percentages of crimes being reported and dealt with in the proper way. I understand in certain areas you might be fearful for reprisals but that doesn't justify being against rule-breaking-reporting in general.
And also... so what? Why would anyone care if they're on some random anon's "suspect list" for reporting them, any revenge would just lead to further mod action and probable banning of the offender.
Not to go off-topic, but in certain areas reluctance to be an informer to law enforcement has less to do with fear of reprisals and more to do with notions of who's the good guys and who's the bad guys. And notions of being a "stand up guy" and not a rat-fink. You can't ever trust a rat-fink. They'll fink out their own mother, if need be. No morals. No values. No idea of being true to the game.
"A man got to have a code!" -- Omar Little, "The Wire"
Also trying to avoid going off-topic, I find it hard to believe that the criminals are the "good guys", unless you happen to be one yourself. No offense but all you've said is just bull, there's no such thing as the game and if anything reporting violations means that you are the moral one since you are enforcing justice. Applying that to the Escapist, I have no qualms about reporting those who I think are lowering the standards of our community.
"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst" - Aristotle
What you actually mean to say is that you couldn't have said anything else about it. The poster may very well have sene a lot more to that image, so might have other posters. What you personally see is irrelevant.
Then why post it again if you have nothing to add to it, everyone will have already read it and if you don't add any more points or counter-points then there's nothing to debate about.
What if they've already explained that in their post? What could the other person who agrees add to it?
JoJoDeathunter said:
jml spells jumle said:
What if you can't think of anything else at that moment? You have nothing else to say, but you agree with what they said. People shouldn't be eventually banned for that.
The mods here just seem to judge people immediately without letting them give a reason, or the moderators themselves don't even have a reason, yet they can do worse stuff like said above.
If you can't think of anything to add then don't post, there's no rule saying you have to post in every thread you read. If you really HAVE to "this" someone then atleast put a sentence afterwards stating why you agree with them.
Actually, I have got experience here. I've lurked here for a few months and I've read things where people have complained about this website on other sites. There was one thread on if you're a furry or not and if you think it's OK to be a furry, aylaine (I think that's her name) locked it because the people "weren't being nice" (not exactly on those lines). Then I saw a thread where the escapist said they wanted to be improved and she said that she wanted people to talk about sex maturely. And she's done that. I find that extremely ironic. The thread didn't have any flame wars or anything, just people arguing and debating over furries and their views on them.
JoJoDeathunter said:
As a regular user for a year, I have found that the mods stick to a very particular rule set and any unfair moddings are quickly reversed by the appeal board (there was even a guy a while back who admitted he was a pedophile, but didn't molest or anything, intially he was banned but after a lot of people complained that he hadn't broken any rules the ban was revoked. If that doesn't show that the mods are fair, I don't know what does.)
Nothing does show the mods are fair because they aren't. That ban was unfair and there probably wasn't much thought about it, I bet they didn't ask the person why they made that post or anything. The mods just decide to ban people straight away, not letting the person even give a reason. It just shows that the moderation team don't put much thought into their actions.
I'm posting this for the escapist to try and improve, it obviously won't work, because I've seen endless people do similar to this before and it hasn't worked. It'll just end up with you still convinced that it's a good idea, despite the fact that a lot of people have a problem with it, so really you should change it. Then you'll threaten to warn/suspend me if I make another post on this thread about it, when all I'm trying to do is help you out and give you advice to improve.
As for the rules, it always should have been like this, showing how many warnings/bans you've had.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
