Low content rule is basically not a thing anymore and yes, we'd love for the CoC to be changed to address that.truckspond said:Have you ever considered adding exceptions to the "low content" rule for situations where such a short response can be easily justified by the topic at hand?Caliostro said:Right, this seems... civil enough, so let's try something: If you have any questions for me post them as a reply to me (so I get a notification). I'm going to sleep now and I'll reply to what I can tomorrow. If anyone's interested that is.
Think of this as a small AMA I guess.
But on the other end of the scale getting rid of the rule will result in a barrage of "FIRST!!11!" posts which you cannot do anything about. The rule can be weakened to just specifically disallow posts like that while allowing posts where such a short response is justifiable.Marter said:Low content rule is basically not a thing anymore and yes, we'd love for the CoC to be changed to address that.truckspond said:Have you ever considered adding exceptions to the "low content" rule for situations where such a short response can be easily justified by the topic at hand?Caliostro said:Right, this seems... civil enough, so let's try something: If you have any questions for me post them as a reply to me (so I get a notification). I'm going to sleep now and I'll reply to what I can tomorrow. If anyone's interested that is.
Think of this as a small AMA I guess.
So, yeah, there are currently "exceptions" to it -- basically because it's much less a thing than it's been in the past.
Even one-word responses can be okay if the thread is, like, "what's your favorite game" and you respond with "Game X."
I found that post. It was one word: "Cool". Even in a thread dominated by short, feces-related puns, that's low-content.Samael Barghest said:I agree. You do abuse your power. I read an article about a spider and said I thought it was cool. Then I got a warning for it. No one could say why I got a warning, just some ass abusing his/her power.
Yes, you're right. It doesn't need to be removed but it does need to be re-written for the way it currently functions.truckspond said:But on the other end of the scale getting rid of the rule will result in a barrage of "FIRST!!11!" posts which you cannot do anything about. The rule can be weakened to just specifically disallow posts like that while allowing posts where such a short response is justifiable.
I agree with you. But this isn't the world site in which we live anymore.TizzytheTormentor said:Honestly, if someone asks what is your favourite game and you reply with something like "Persona 4" and nothing else, what does that add to the discussion? Why not explain why you like it, give actual insight to your answer, so I never saw a problem with posts like that getting warned.
Not really. It shouldn't be surprising that the people who have been here the longest are the ones who work well with the mods and ruleset.Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:As much as I completely agree that pointless whining about moderators is silly, these times when the biggest users on the site sing their praises aren't really all that helpful.
It feels like a major executive in a company cheering for the board of directors of said company. I'm not saying you or anyone else is bad, just that it's an odd position.
TLDRlacktheknack said:SNIP
10/10Fappy said:Make me a mod and I'll show these users what real abuse looks like >
Is your name 'Daystar Clarion'? Instant ban and a lifetime of fart-torture
We do. Low content is about preventing people from spamming inane crap to up their post count, which in turn would result in topics bloated full of nothing for the sake of inflating a meaningless statistic. "+1!", "I agree", "FIRST!", etc. It was never about character count. If it was the staff probably could have simply installed something like the Steam forums have where it prevents you from posting if your topic has less than a certain number of characters.truckspond said:Have you ever considered adding exceptions to the "low content" rule for situations where such a short response can be easily justified by the topic at hand?
Sassafrass!Sassafrass said:[sup]I had bacon sandwiches.
[sup][sup]They were delicious.[/sup][/sup][/sup]
But how else will I be able to express my extreme displeasure of Bob Chipman's opinion of the week? Or better yet, Critical Miss making another _____ joke? That's easily as valuable as access to bacon, right?Eh, I'm just amused at how some people take being wrathed on an internet forum seriously.
Guys, if you get banned, ya know it's not the end of the world, right?
I still have a plateful of bacon for lunch.Redlin5 said:Sassafrass!Sassafrass said:[sup]I had bacon sandwiches.
[sup][sup]They were delicious.[/sup][/sup][/sup]
I was about to go to sleep.
[sub][sub]BUT NOW I HAVE TO MAKE A BACON SANDWICH YOU CLEVER DEVIL[/sub][/sub]But how else will I be able to express my extreme displeasure of Bob Chipman's opinion of the week? Or better yet, Critical Miss making another _____ joke? That's easily as valuable as access to bacon, right?Eh, I'm just amused at how some people take being wrathed on an internet forum seriously.
Guys, if you get banned, ya know it's not the end of the world, right?
[sub]The priorities of people on the internet have always baffled me.[/sub]
Fappy said:Make me a mod and I'll show these users what real abuse looks like >
Have an opinion I don't agree with? Instant suspension and three spankings for you!
Is your name 'Daystar Clarion'? Instant ban and a lifetime of fart-torture (he may actually enjoy that)!
No, but seriously, most the people who complain about mod abuse just don't have a clue what tact is and don't realize when they are being a pretty obvious jerk.
NAAAAAAOW!Colour Scientist said:10/10Fappy said:Make me a mod and I'll show these users what real abuse looks like >
Is your name 'Daystar Clarion'? Instant ban and a lifetime of fart-torture
I am 100% behind this plan.
Fappy 4 Mod 2014