So, the low post content rule...

[TimeLord]

Lol <--- It is to eliminate useless posts like that, they add nothing to the forum

This.
I'm so tempted to only post that, but I'd rather not be a hypocrite.

And I'm sooo tempted to give you a warning
What's your policy on mods moderating admins? I knew Spin's, but what's yours?

It's a damn good rule, it keeps the forum civilised. And as for pictures, we realise that your opinion could be expressed with just a picture, and the problem is not about that. It's that we want your personal opinion using your own words, we don't want a standard file used specifically to help people state simple, common opinions as quickly as possible. They're more than welcome to be used to enhance your point, but not to be the entirety of it.

Do you have mods to mod the mods. Who then mod the other mods who have all the cake?

The admins mods us. If you have a problem with a specific mod, take it up with Nasrin.

No, no. I have no problems. Just making a joke :/

 

[bobmus]

In my opinion the highest content post in this thread was the first one that earned Mod Wrath, because it made a statement and made me laugh. I call it the 'Quality Over Quantity' rule. However, the Low Content Rule is good in theory, just requires some situational thought by the mods as to where a post of a few words might actually be appropriate (eg. Name Suggestion Threads) or where just a video is needed (eg. Song Suggestion Threads).
But in practice, some mods might well be more zealous or uptight than others, so it could well just be down to luck?

 

[Snowalker]

Marking something as 'low content' is not just to make people tack on nonsense to the end of 'lol' in order to make it appear constructive to the discussion; the theory is that you will actually contribute, not change 'lol' to 'lol I was laughing etc. etc.' or 'I quite enjoyed a hearty chuckle from the hilarity of this situation,' but to change 'lol' to something more meaningful--to something which ACTUALLY adds value to the discussion.

An unfortunate side effect of this low-content-pruning is verbatim reiteration, in many cases; just in reading these first two pages of this thread, you can see that many people wrote a few sentences, all of which state (but do not explicate) 'the low content limit is there so you don't just write one-word responses.' I feel that this can be attributed to the declining attention spans of internet users, as discussed in 'Is Google Making Us Stupid' by Nicholas Carr [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/], wherein the author describes how the Internet has had the unfortunate malediction to weaken attention spans. Judging by the deluge of similar responses to this thread, I would suggest that many of those replying did not read what others had to say, and simply contributed their own thoughts. While I believe everyone has a right to his opinion, a discussion gets nowhere if people constantly retread old ground. In a discussion, everything submitted should be relevant and grow upon what exists.

Further, to discuss the 'A picture is worth a thousand words' argument, I submit to you the above example, albeit using a link in lieu of a picture or video. When implemented properly as part of an argument, a picture, video, article, etc. can bolster the argument. When a meme or otherwise simple picture has nothing constructive to add to the argument, it wastes space, proliferating the waning attention span, because people are drawn to the picture before the text, and if everyone just posts pictures, why bother reading the text at all (especially if it contributes nothing to the argument)?

What world do you live in? No, I'm not trying to be mean, but while you're dead on accurate, you're not thinking realistically. Who has the time to read every single post in a thread before posting? The only reason I've had the time to do that for this thread is because I'm off of work today, and I don't frequent this site nearly as much as I like. And yet, just skimming threads seem to take up far too much of my time. Its much simpler to read the OP then post, and honestly, that what most people expect. Sure, it might make our attention spans smaller, but honestly, its all we have time to do in this day and age.

 

[Eri]

Oh look. Even in this situation the mods can't take a joke. I should say I'm surprised but I'm not.

Unfortunately, running this forum has little to do with one's personal sense of humor. There are rules and we all have to follow them. Moderators are subject to the same rules as users.

Except ever seen a mods status bar in their profile? Nope.

 

[Snowalker]

Oh look. Even in this situation the mods can't take a joke. I should say I'm surprised but I'm not.

Unfortunately, running this forum has little to do with one's personal sense of humor. There are rules and we all have to follow them. Moderators are subject to the same rules as users.

Except ever seen a mods status bar in their profile? Nope.

Ever thought it might be because they're held to a higher standard and get no warnings or second chances?

 

[GeorgW]

...
^Not a low content post

^My solution

Just so you know, to add "^Not a low content post" to a low content post would still get penalized. However, since you added discussion value by saying (wrongfully) that that could be a solution, giving advice and something to respond to, like I am now, I won't punish you. I'm feeling nice right now.

 

[Lullabye]

Couldn't say.

^lol win.

Um, so we don't become youtube. and prevent FIRST!s.

 

[GeorgW]

I like how in the first 18 posts two are low content and have received warnings!i

And because of them, I'm sinking this thread. It's provoking rule-breaking and unfortunately people can't seem to act mature.

 

[Sassafrass]

Great joke, and I'll keep an eye out on the mod queue and clear you. Keep in mind that there are several mods, so you still might get warned. In that case, just appeal it. But you must know that this is risky, so beware.

Well, if it keeps popping up in the queue and taking your attention away from posts that do need attention, send me a PM and I'll edit it so the whole post shows or you can edit the color out, whichever works for you. But yeah, I knew the small risk that I was taking when I made that post, that's sort of why I did it.

 

[GeorgW]

Oh look. Even in this situation the mods can't take a joke. I should say I'm surprised but I'm not.

Unfortunately, running this forum has little to do with one's personal sense of humor. There are rules and we all have to follow them. Moderators are subject to the same rules as users.

Except ever seen a mods status bar in their profile? Nope.

We have them, they're just hidden. Only other mods and admins can see them. No one is except from the rules.

 

[GeorgW]

Great joke, and I'll keep an eye out on the mod queue and clear you. Keep in mind that there are several mods, so you still might get warned. In that case, just appeal it. But you must know that this is risky, so beware.

Well, if it keeps popping up in the queue and taking your attention away from posts that do need attention, send me a PM and I'll edit it so the whole post shows or you can edit the color out, whichever works for you. But yeah, I knew the small risk that I was taking when I made that post, that's sort of why I did it.

The mod queue is actually almost empty, which is damn rare. It's probably just cuz I work at very different times than the other mods. Which is good, it means I'll always have stuff to do. Today I'm up very late cuz of E3, I woke up at 7PM today.
If it proves a problem, I'll edit it, you don't have to bother unless some other mod misses your joke, which is a serious concern, but you only have yourself to blame in that case.

 

[Snowalker]

sheer awesome sauce.

I can honestly say, because of you, I have a new found respect for mods. You guys struck me as kinda people who used to be like me, but have gone a bit overboard with power, but their saving grace is that their old self shines through now and again. Now I see, truth is, you are just like us, you just have to follow the rules more strictly than we do, and even sometimes that makes you want to cringe to do your job, but you do the right thing.

Thanks, made my day.

 

[MikeTheElf]

Marking something as 'low content' is not just to make people tack on nonsense to the end of 'lol' in order to make it appear constructive to the discussion; the theory is that you will actually contribute, not change 'lol' to 'lol I was laughing etc. etc.' or 'I quite enjoyed a hearty chuckle from the hilarity of this situation,' but to change 'lol' to something more meaningful--to something which ACTUALLY adds value to the discussion.

An unfortunate side effect of this low-content-pruning is verbatim reiteration, in many cases; just in reading these first two pages of this thread, you can see that many people wrote a few sentences, all of which state (but do not explicate) 'the low content limit is there so you don't just write one-word responses.' I feel that this can be attributed to the declining attention spans of internet users, as discussed in 'Is Google Making Us Stupid' by Nicholas Carr [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/], wherein the author describes how the Internet has had the unfortunate malediction to weaken attention spans. Judging by the deluge of similar responses to this thread, I would suggest that many of those replying did not read what others had to say, and simply contributed their own thoughts. While I believe everyone has a right to his opinion, a discussion gets nowhere if people constantly retread old ground. In a discussion, everything submitted should be relevant and grow upon what exists.

Further, to discuss the 'A picture is worth a thousand words' argument, I submit to you the above example, albeit using a link in lieu of a picture or video. When implemented properly as part of an argument, a picture, video, article, etc. can bolster the argument. When a meme or otherwise simple picture has nothing constructive to add to the argument, it wastes space, proliferating the waning attention span, because people are drawn to the picture before the text, and if everyone just posts pictures, why bother reading the text at all (especially if it contributes nothing to the argument)?

What world do you live in? No, I'm not trying to be mean, but while you're dead on accurate, you're not thinking realistically. Who has the time to read every single post in a thread before posting? The only reason I've had the time to do that for this thread is because I'm off of work today, and I don't frequent this site nearly as much as I like. And yet, just skimming threads seem to take up far too much of time. Its much simpler to read the OP then post, and honestly, that what most people expect. Sure, it might make our attention spans smaller, but honestly, its all we have time to do in this day and age.

I generally tend to avoid excessively long threads, due to their nature of not containing anything worth discussing (if you notice, many threads that have hundreds or thousands of replies tend to be of the 'Why did you choose your avatar?' or 'Pick 4 people to survive a zombie apocalypse with' variety, which themselves tend not to require you to read the other replies, as all of the replies answer a single simple question and don't exactly equate to a discussion). A few pages of comments doesn't take all too long to read (given you have the time, of course), and, in a thread that actually contains discussion and argument, I find it rather important to determine what has been discussed and what is yet to be assessed before attempting to contribute--Imagine you're walking down the street and overhear a video gaming discussion in progress; they're discussing their opinions regarding some E3 news, to which you would like to respond; sure you can join in and start discussing--let's say the Skyrim demo--, but they've already shared their opinions and want to get on with the rest of the E3 news before lunch is over and they must return to work; they shut you down and continue discussing the future of the Halo series. Your options, in this scenario, are to discuss Halo and contribute to the discussion, or walk away--sure you could prattle on about your Skyrim opinion, but that would be rather rude, as you're derailing a discussion in progress.

While certain sorts of threads don't proliferate actual discussion and merit short responses, a discussion, by definition, is a conversation in which ideas and opinions are exchanged and argued for (or against). Being that forums are public places (I dare say even more public due to the expansive nature of the Internet), you should never assume your ideas and opinions are entirely unique, and (as stated in the forum rules 'These forums are used for discussion and low content posts halts[sic] discussion.'), low content posts (including the unnecessary reiteration of old ideas already discussed and dealt with in a discussion thread) halt and derail discussion.

 

[Snowalker]

Holy cow snip

Yeah, you're right, and I agree entirely. Problem is as I stated, finding the time is the hard part. I mean, lets be honest. You have two hours, would you read every single post in this thread before posting or would you read the last page and go from that?

 

[Yoh3333]

As said a billion times allready: It's to prevent people from writeing responses that doesn't contribut in any way.
What i don't like is how they discribe the rule. When i write a reply i don't know if a response of about this length could be considered a low content posts when you compare them to what is otherwise being posted.

 

[MikeTheElf]

Holy cow snip

Yeah, you're right, and I agree entirely. Problem is as I stated, finding the time is the hard part. I mean, lets be honest. You have two hours, would you read every single post in this thread before posting or would you read the last page and go from that?

Well, as you can probably tell from my post count and date of joining the Escapist, I post quite rarely--in fact, this being my third post in one day may very well be a personal record. As I stated earlier: I generally avoid massive threads, because I don't have the time to sift through all of the posts; I usually refrain from commenting at all--reading only the first few pages if a long discussion interests me. Funnily enough, that's all that ends up mattering, because most of the opinions eventually discussed in the thread are within the first few pages and the later pages contain reiterations of the same opinions.

Assuming I felt the need to contribute my opinion on a topic and had a limited amount of time to do so, I don't know if I'd even get around to doing so; I tend to spend much more time writing my response than reading the thread (hell, this response has apparently taken me over 10 minutes to craft), so I would likely end up allotting myself too little time to explicate my thoughts in an attempt to make sure I'm contributing significantly. Thus, assuming I had pressing business to attend to which curtailed my time reading a thread, I would likely end up leaving before I finished writing my argument.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Because saying things like "This" and "I agree" adds nothing at all to what is being talked about

If you like what someone has said, you can PM them about it. But it adds nothing to the forum, and they ask you kindly not to write things like that.

 

[Rottweiler]

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.

 

[Rottweiler]

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.