So, the low post content rule...

[OptimisticPessimist]

But this isn't the same. You logic is sound, but it honestly is different. First, those crimes have victims, or at the very least, have the potential to have victims. These do not have victims in hardly any sense other than just a bad community. Second, those are widely considered bad, this on the other hand has a wide gray area and the rules haven't always been aimed against them. I'll say this, I have no qualms with the rule expect the picture part, but saying its comparable to stealing a TV or putting children in mortal danger is quiet crazy.

The problem here is it's not a 'gray area'. They made a rule, they're enforcing it.

And while I agree my examples were greater in comparison, the core is the same: the person broke the Law/Rules. There are clear delineations and consequences.

See, the problem is one where it's not 'gray'. People would like to make it so, and argue against the ruling. The blunt truth, though, is that's what it is- people trying to argue or get away with breaking a rule they don't agree with. Getting warned, when other people have already been Banned, is pretty understanding. The Mods *do not* have to issue warnings. They *do not* have to let people break the rules, ever.

So I can write this completely useless post and not get a warning, unlike people who can type a useful reply in one or two words.

No, personally I think you should have gotten a warning too. You do not own this Forum. Neither do I. Because someone else owns it they get to make the rules, and to be blunt- if you don't want to follow the rules, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

If I disagree with a rule here (and there are some I don't agree with) I might politely argue my case. What I wouldn't do is fling arguments into the Mod's teeth and dare them to do something about it, because you know what? They can.

P.S.- the irony though is that your post had meaning and intent, it wasn't at all useless.

If you had typed a random string of letters and numbers, it would indeed have been useless and I have no doubt they would have at least warned you.

Yeah... I'm just gonna go ahead and say that I love you. It's like the Code of Conduct came to life and explained itself to everyone.

 

[Ghengis John]

To stop people from posting 1-2 word replies and to encourage discussion. Its not really that hard to grasp and its actually really difficult to break the rule.

I found I've broken it three times without meaning to. It's simply a matter of a moderator's caprices. I even had one post quoted by a moderator who agreed with me only to have another one give me a low content warning. Seriously, is there any way to appeal a ruling of one? Or are we stuck with fickle tyranny?

Particularly I'd like to appeal the low content warning I got for this:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.283531-Your-opinion-on-Fallout-New-Vegas-VS-Fallout-3?page=3#11145788

As you can see it did contribute to the conversation and it was pretty well received too. If you read the posts below it one user even said:

ok that made me lol just a little bit, just because it was such a powerful response in the form of pictures

Which is what it was supposed to be. Is it possible at all to submit some sort of appeal somewhere? Because I gladly would. I even resumed normal (and verbose) conversation afterwords, if moderators can see the dates of warnings you'll see it actually wasn't until three days later I received a warning for that post. My supposition is it had more to do with subject matter offending somebody's sensibilities than anything else, but if the intent is to encourage discussion, it clearly as you can tell looking at the thread, wasn't needed. It did nothing to stifle or break up discussion, nor was it the full extent of my involvement.

The person I responded to even replied with:

you are amazing

.
So clearly, the post as it was, was effective communication.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

To stop people from posting 1-2 word replies and to encourage discussion. Its not really that hard to grasp and its actually really difficult to break the rule.

I found I've broken it three times without meaning to. It's simply a matter of a moderator's caprices. I even had one post quoted by a moderator who agreed with me only to have another one give me a low content warning. Seriously, is there any way to appeal a ruling of one? Or are we stuck with fickle tyranny?

Particularly I'd like to appeal the low content warning I got for this:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.283531-Your-opinion-on-Fallout-New-Vegas-VS-Fallout-3?page=3#11145788

As you can see it did contribute to the conversation and it was pretty well received too. If you read the posts below it one user even said:

ok that made me lol just a little bit, just because it was such a powerful response in the form of pictures

Which is what it was supposed to be. Is it possible at all to submit some sort of appeal somewhere? Because I gladly would. I even resumed normal (and verbose) conversation afterwords, if moderators can see the dates of warnings you'll see it actually wasn't until three days later I received a warning for that post. My supposition is it had more to do with subject matter offending somebody's sensibilities than anything else, but if the intent is to encourage discussion, it clearly as you can tell looking at the thread, wasn't needed. It did nothing to stifle or break up discussion, nor was it the full extent of my involvement.

The person I responded to even replied with:

you are amazing

.
So clearly, the post as it was, was effective communication.

All punishments should have a link to the appeal form. You fill out why you don't think you should have been warned or punished. If its a weekday, you should get a response the next day.

That all said, your post was low-content. Images should compliment your post, not dominate it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the slogan "A picture is worth a thousand words" is nothing more then an advertisement whose slogan became popular. It holds no weight with me or with any of the other moderators.

 

[Ghengis John]

That all said, your post was low-content. Images should compliment your post, not dominate it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the slogan "A picture is worth a thousand words" is nothing more then an advertisement whose slogan became popular. It holds no weight with me or with any of the other moderators.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here because I need your help. Is there any approach or procedure that would revoke the warning? Is there any point at which the forum health meter is amended such as annually or do strikes accrue ad infinitum? Are publisher's club members still susceptible to the same warning limit? Not asking to be subversive, just happens that I like it here. I don't enjoy sliding ever closer to my exile.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

That all said, your post was low-content. Images should compliment your post, not dominate it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the slogan "A picture is worth a thousand words" is nothing more then an advertisement whose slogan became popular. It holds no weight with me or with any of the other moderators.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here because I need your help. Is there any approach or procedure that would revoke the warning? Is there any point at which the forum health meter is amended such as annually or do strikes accrue ad infinitum? Are publisher's club members still susceptible to the same warning limit? Not asking to be subversive, just happens that I like it here. I don't enjoy sliding ever closer to my exile.

To answer your questions in order.

Is there any approach or procedure that would revoke the warning?

Like I said, you may get an appeal which you can write out to the staff. If they side with you, they'll remove the warning, if not, its removed after 6 months as part of the Amnesty clause. Although, this relies on whether or not I'm right about warnings getting appeal papers. That may be a process reserved for the Probation and Suspended.

Is there any point at which the forum health meter is amended such as annually or do strikes accrue ad infinitum?

The forum health bar only goes up to seven offenses before your banned. It goes down one offense ever 6 months and after 2 years, you're automatically cleared of all offenses. That's only however if you don't get into trouble in that time period. (Its not as hard as it sounds. Before I became a red guard, I had a spotless record and I've been here for almost 2 and a half year).

Are publisher's club members still susceptible to the same warning limit?

Yes they are, they don't get any special treatment in regards to forum behavior.

I hope these answered your questions.