"Low content posts"

[Phlakes]

Sounds reasonable to me. Once image/video only posts are allowed, we get one step closer to 4chan, something that should never happen. Ever.

I think website communities need to find the balance between having almost no limits and incubating chaos, and putting up so many arbitrary rules and policies that no one gets to have any creativity or fun. The 'low content post' policy leans a little too much towards the latter, and I think it needs to be fixed a little.

To be blunt, no. Just no.

I've never gotten a low content warning and I've never felt restricted. If the only post you can make in a thread is low content, then just skip the thread. No one but yourself is making you post.

This site tries to keep a bit of formality and order. If you don't agree with it, don't criticize it, find another site if you have to. You play by the rules that are given, and the ones here are faaaaaaaar from arbitrary for the community it wants to build.

 

[Steppin Razor]

I knew this was going to pop up again sooner or later. During the introduction of the Code of Conduct we railed against it because the wording was far too vague in a lot of cases. Fast forward to now and the wording is still too vague and people are still under the impression that low content could be a certain amount of words. To answer your question about just posting videos, they are considered low content because they have no input of your own. Without even putting something like "this picture/video here pretty much sums up my opinion on this matter", it's just a random video with no input from yourself. It smacks of laziness if you can't even be bothered to type up a single sentence to justify your posting of a picture or video.

As for the low content rule itself, it's about promoting discussion. If you agree or disagree with something, they want you to provide a reason why. If you think a game is the best game ever made or is a steaming pile of shit, you should put why. "Agreed" and "this" only give your stance on what someone else has said, not why you agree with them.

It boils everything down to the same offense, so somebody could post the most racist sexist hateful thing in the world and it would have the exact same ramifications as posting "first". It's a pretty bad system.

Completely wrong. If you post the most racist, sexist and hateful thing in the world, you can rest assured that you'll skip over the warnings and go straight for a suspension, if not a perma ban.

 

[Mikeyfell]

It boils everything down to the same offense, so somebody could post the most racist sexist hateful thing in the world and it would have the exact same ramifications as posting "first". It's a pretty bad system.

Completely wrong. If you post the most racist, sexist and hateful thing in the world, you can rest assured that you'll skip over the warnings and go straight for a suspension, if not a perma ban.

Nope, absolutely not. I was told that by a staff member when I tried to dispute one of my suspensions.

I asked that specific question to an Escapist staff member and they said "All infractions on this site are the same kind of rule breaking, so they're all treated the same by the moderation team."

Honestly a staff member told me that.

 

[Steppin Razor]

Nope, absolutely not. I was told that by a staff member when I tried to dispute one of my suspensions.

I asked that specific question to an Escapist staff member and they said "All infractions on this site are the same kind of rule breaking, so they're all treated the same by the moderation team."

Honestly a staff member told me that.

Let me guess, you did something minor, but because of your previous offences, you were given a suspension for it. When you argued against the suspension, which the rules say you will get for repeated misconduct, a member of the staff informed you that the suspension would stick because your past misbehaviour put you in a position to receive one, even if all you did was something relatively minor, such as posting "This". Regardless of the wording the staff used, that is what they were getting at.

And people have been suspended or banned when they have received no warnings in the past. If you post in a thread that you think the mods, users or staff are all a bunch of cunts, you will receive at least a suspension. If you post that you think a certain race or group of people are an abomination and that they should all be wiped from the earth, then you will receive a suspension, if not a perma ban.

 

[Gamblerjoe]

I recently posted in a thread where all I really wanted to do was post a funny picture of George Lucas I took a cap of from the Cracked Website. I knew that by itself it would be a low impact post so I found a work around. I simply replied to 2 different people in my post. The first one was just a couple sentences and allowed me to say something I wanted to say anyway. This opened me up to put as much additional low impact drivel as I wanted as long as I kept it all in one post.

The only qualm I have with a warning I received was when I saw a thread about birthdays. It was my birthday and I happened to be the first to post. I wrote a lot more than just the word "first" but because my post contained that word I got a warning. At least it was just a warning though, and as of yet I have not affected my Neo eligibility. Now that I know the rules, I will never do anything even close to that again.

 

[hexFrank202]

So basically Phlakes, your argument boils down to...

don't criticize it,

*rolls eyes*


Anyway, onto the other new post...

...people are still under the impression that low content could be a certain amount of words.

It isn't? Well, isn't that grand! If that's true, then I guess I can scrap this whole topic!

Except...

...videos are considered low content because they have no input of your own.

Okay, so now we go back to this other side-topic; this sort of red herring that's centered around a totally different conversation philosophy. I refer you to the first three paragraphs of my post; number 25.

It smacks of laziness if you can't even be bothered to type up a single sentence to justify your posting of a picture or video

Well going into that post, I actually sat down for a second and concluded to myself the following: this video expresses, better than words, what I want to say. It is funnier and simpler. Using words would have bogged it down. This 'laziness' thing is obviously more of a side-topic, but I have to say that it's not necessarily true.

Oh and just for a bonus, I'm going to time myself here.

"America doesn't have TV licenses. That makes America awesome! Fuck yeah!"
Time spent writing this text: 21 seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M
Time spent loading Youtube, finding the video, copying the URL, adding the HTML then previewing the post to make sure it works: 50 seconds.

Just sayin'

A clever idea

Hey, that's a clever idea!

 

[Phlakes]

So basically Phlakes, your argument boils down to...

don't criticize it,

*rolls eyes*

I decided this was a good time to know the situation better and saw you were born in '94. I'll leave you it then, you still have some learning to do.

 

[hexFrank202]

Stuff

Okay if you really insist we go through this, fine. *clears throat*

Just saying 'don't criticize something if you don't like it; just ignore it' is not a good argument. If you don't like, say, some aspect of a website, but like the rest of it, why would you not want to express your dissatisfaction, for the chance that they might actually change it?
And on top of everything, it's a self-conflicting argument too. If we're supposed to pass off everything we don't like and not argue about it, why are you arguing to me?

 

[Phlakes]

Just saying 'don't criticize something if you don't like it; just ignore it' is not a good argument. If you don't like, say, some aspect of a website, but like the rest of it, why would you not want to express your dissatisfaction, for the chance that they might actually change it?

The thing is, what you're expressing your dissatisfaction toward is (although small) one of the foundations of the site. What your basically asking is for them to lower their standards, because if one video only post is acceptable, they have to make all of them acceptable. I don't need to explain why that's (relatively) a bad thing.

And on top of everything, it's a self-conflicting argument too. If we're supposed to pass off everything we don't like and not argue about it, why are you arguing to me?

That would be true if our arguments were at all the same. Apples and oranges and all that. They're both fruit, and you know the rest.

 

[hexFrank202]

What your basically asking is for them to lower their standards

Well then that gets back into the issue itself. However, a few posts ago, you said,

"If you [don't] agree with it, don't criticize it, find another site if you have to."

That, to me, sounds like the typical 'don't like, don't look' argument I've gotten so sick of that even the sickness has contracted a disease. BUT if you're just saying 'you're wrong so shut up', then that's fine.

 

[Mikeyfell]

And people have been suspended or banned when they have received no warnings in the past. If you post in a thread that you think the mods, users or staff are all a bunch of cunts, you will receive at least a suspension. If you post that you think a certain race or group of people are an abomination and that they should all be wiped from the earth, then you will receive a suspension, if not a perma ban.

Before I even get in to this did you know that the suspension I was disputing was for calling all the mods cunts? or was that just an eerily lucky guess?

And also no, the rules weren't always the forum health bar so at one point in time the mods actually had to put some effort into their job and use deductive reasoning to determine what punishment was appropriate to the offense. after the rules chanced the only people I've seen who were banned before the arbitrary health bar ran out were either advertizing accounts or they asked for their account to be deleted.

Every single one of my probations and warnings happened before the rule change and mostly all of them were for not liking Modern Warfare as much as some mod that happened to be in the same thread I was in. (both of my suspensions happened afterwards) My Email exchange with that staff member was very enlightening. According to them being dissatisfied with the performance of the moderators is apparently grounds for a punishment all on it's own.
So a mod can punish you at his discretion and if you disagree they have their justification after the fact(That wasn't explicitly stated but it was the subtext of the whole exchange.)

But the part about the racist hateful comment carrying exactly the same weight as a "First" or a "This" was explicitly stated.

 

[Phlakes]

What your basically asking is for them to lower their standards

Well then that gets back into the issue itself. However, a few posts ago, you said,

"If you [don't] agree with it, don't criticize it, find another site if you have to."

That, to me, sounds like the typical 'don't like, don't look' argument I've gotten so sick of that even the sickness has contracted a disease. BUT if you're just saying 'you're wrong so shut up', then that's fine.

I'll skip the points I've already gone over and make this as simple and clear as I can.

Rules are rules. The low content rule is reasonable and effective. The site is not enforcing "so many arbitrary rules and policies that no one gets to have any creativity or fun".

Do you criticize someone who makes you take your shoes off in their house? No. At least you shouldn't.

If the problem is that you don't recognize that the low content rule is effective, we have a whole different issue on our hands.

Now, I really have better things to do. After three posts in a row that completely missed the point, it's obvious I'm wasting my time.

 

[Mikeyfell]

I got a warning for posting 'BACON'. I was annoyed to say the least.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.316884-Whats-RIGHT-with-the-world#12889947

You got a warning for
"Bacon"

but the post

Bacon?

Yep, just bacon!

Didn't get anything. Perplexing.

This just gets under my skin, and now I'm struggling to think of something to say that will add content to my post

so here's a picture of a cat

 

[hexFrank202]

Blurghh

Dude YOU'RE the one escaping the point.

Here is the point:
Are you trying to play the 'don't like, don't look' argument on me, yes or no? If no, then we can--hypothetically--get back to the actual discussion.


I was planning on not going for cheap insults, but by now you deserve one. *clears throat again*

Hmmm... it appears that despite being born in the far-off year of 88' and having an expressed interest in grammar, you have yet to learn the difference between 'your' and 'you're'.
Durrrr hur hur.

 

[Phlakes]

I was planning on not going for cheap insults, but by now you deserve one. *clears throat again*

Hmmm... it appears that despite being born in the far-off year of 88' and having an expressed interest in grammar, you have yet to learn the difference between 'your' and 'you're'.
Durrrr hur hur.

Thank you for proving my point. That makes my job a lot easier. Christ, alright, now I'm done.

EDIT: Except for this-

You got a warning for
"Bacon"

but the post

Bacon?

Yep, just bacon!

Didn't get anything. Perplexing.

The mods usually only mod what's in the queue from reports, chances are the other post didn't get reported and the mods never looked through the thread.

 

[Steppin Razor]

-snip-

So this thread really isn't anything more than a thinly-veiled ***** and moan about your warning, then? Good to know. I'd address your argument, but the fact that you resorted to timing yourself quite clearly tells me you created this thread with an opinion already firmly held and nothing I or anyone else can say will have any chance of changing it because you flat out refuse to accept that other people's views might be valid.

Before I even get in to this did you know that the suspension I was disputing was for calling all the mods cunts? or was that just an eerily lucky guess?

A guess based off the fact that quite a few people have gotten into trouble for insulting the mods in the past.

And also no, the rules weren't always the forum health bar so at one point in time the mods actually had to put some effort into their job and use deductive reasoning to determine what punishment was appropriate to the offense. after the rules chanced the only people I've seen who were banned before the arbitrary health bar ran out were either advertizing accounts or they asked for their account to be deleted.

I am aware that we didn't always have the forum health bar. As for having not seen it, have you seen every single user that has been given a suspension or banning? There are thousands of users, just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

And taken right from the Code of Conduct itself:

We also reserve the right to increase the punishment as we see fit, and any punishment above a warning will put the user at a minimum of the probation level.

Every single one of my probations and warnings happened before the rule change and mostly all of them were for not liking Modern Warfare as much as some mod that happened to be in the same thread I was in. (both of my suspensions happened afterwards) My Email exchange with that staff member was very enlightening. According to them being dissatisfied with the performance of the moderators is apparently grounds for a punishment all on it's own.

Considering that you've admitted to calling the mods a bunch of cunts, it isn't much of a stretch to imagine that your disliking of Modern Warfare consisted of comments where you insulted the fans of the game. Not knowing the exact circumstances though, I can't comment on that too much other than that if you were punished wrongly, it wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last. The mods are people too. They bring their own biases and opinions to the table when they hand out punishments, so railing against them won't do any good. Best to raise it up the ladder for the community manager to make a decision on if you feel you have been wronged. The important thing is to keep it civil. Contacting Nasrin with "this mod is a fucking dumb **** etc" will just result in more punishment since even if you're justified in what you're saying, you're still breaking the basic rules.

So a mod can punish you at his discretion and if you disagree they have their justification after the fact(That wasn't explicitly stated but it was the subtext of the whole exchange.)

It's part of the problem with the rules in that they are still a bit vague, especially the "don't be a jerk" one. But so far, there haven't actually been all that many problems with it, so I don't see it changing any time soon.

 

[hexFrank202]

So this thread really isn't anything more than a thinly-veiled ***** and moan about your warning, then?

Well no, honestly, I totally understand following the rules as they are currently written, and the low-content policy is far from the worst idea ever, but I was really JUST SAYING, that, within this sub-sub-sub-topic regarding 'laziness', that sometimes it actually takes more work to embed a video than it does to conceive and type a message. That's seriously all I'm saying and it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic. (In fact it has nothing to do with 'wah I wanna be unwarned wahh!' I don't know how you even made the connection there... but whatever.)

 

[Caliostro]

Now I'm sure as HELL not here to complain, or demand that this action be undone. I posted it fully aware that it might be bad, but took the risk because I thought it was a joke that just had to be made.

You recognize it yourself that it may have been against the rules, and you did it accepting the possibly punishment as a worthy "payment" for making the joke. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Just to clarify, there are two possibilities here:

a) The moderator considered your post was low content, i.e.: didn't add anything to the thread, at which point you can either appeal it or accept it. Seeing as you openly admit knowing and accepting you'd possibly get punished for that very reason, I dare say you don't honestly consider the punishment unjust. Either ways, those are your options.

b) The moderator didn't see that there was a video there. See, you broke the tags, so when you look at the post all we see is a blank post quoting someone else (which is possible), and which would also fall under the same "rule". If you think this was it and it was a mistake you may, as I previously mentioned, appeal the decision.

Given that you've mentioned several times through the thread that you accept your punishment as just, I don't think it really matters.

Cheers.

 

[Mikeyfell]

-snip-

So this thread really isn't anything more than a thinly-veiled ***** and moan about your warning, then? Good to know. I'd address your argument, but the fact that you resorted to timing yourself quite clearly tells me you created this thread with an opinion already firmly held and nothing I or anyone else can say will have any chance of changing it because you flat out refuse to accept that other people's views might be valid.

I really that stuff like what you said was against the rules, You're being a massive jerk right now but since you didn't use the word "****" you're probably not going to get banned or any punishment really. People like you who seek out and belittle people's arguments just to say "I don't agree so you're wrong" are the worst kind of posts.

That should be against the rules because really, what did you add to the conversation?
You called him a ***** and said you weren't going to respond. You should be banned for that.

In fact, here's a game. Pretend I'm a mod and I just banned you for that. What do you say to the staff to get un-banned?
How do you justify posting that comment?

And also no, the rules weren't always the forum health bar so at one point in time the mods actually had to put some effort into their job and use deductive reasoning to determine what punishment was appropriate to the offense. after the rules chanced the only people I've seen who were banned before the arbitrary health bar ran out were either advertizing accounts or they asked for their account to be deleted.

I am aware that we didn't always have the forum health bar. As for having not seen it, have you seen every single user that has been given a suspension or banning? There are thousands of users, just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

And taken right from the Code of Conduct itself:

We also reserve the right to increase the punishment as we see fit, and any punishment above a warning will put the user at a minimum of the probation level.

True, true, I haven't seen every suspended or banned user on the site. But every time I see a punishment I always click on it, because for what ever reason this site feels the need to advertize every punishment on every post a user ever posted. (Which I can't think of a good reason for)
I've seen bans for pictures and warnings for "you're a fag" In fact I've seen worst stuff go unpunished in the same thread as someone who got banned for an LCP
Not to change the subject or anything but this might be a result of "report abuse." Maybe limiting the number of reports any user gets to (I dunno...) once a week would help balance the system.

Every single one of my probations and warnings happened before the rule change and mostly all of them were for not liking Modern Warfare as much as some mod that happened to be in the same thread I was in. (both of my suspensions happened afterwards) My Email exchange with that staff member was very enlightening. According to them being dissatisfied with the performance of the moderators is apparently grounds for a punishment all on it's own.

Considering that you've admitted to calling the mods a bunch of cunts, it isn't much of a stretch to imagine that your disliking of Modern Warfare consisted of comments where you insulted the fans of the game. Not knowing the exact circumstances though, I can't comment on that too much other than that if you were punished wrongly, it wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last. The mods are people too. They bring their own biases and opinions to the table when they hand out punishments, so railing against them won't do any good. Best to raise it up the ladder for the community manager to make a decision on if you feel you have been wronged. The important thing is to keep it civil. Contacting Nasrin with "this mod is a fucking dumb **** etc" will just result in more punishment since even if you're justified in what you're saying, you're still breaking the basic rules.

There's a reasonable explanation for that. Before the advent of the Forum Health Bar I bared no ill will towards the mods, they could put me on probation as many times as they liked. I just assumed having the link to my "taboo" opinion at the bottom of every one of my posts was the price I had to pay for having a divergent opinion on a popular game.

[sub]FYI calling the mods Cunts was a play on words from a Jimquisition episode[/sub]

As for the second part I don't directly insult people. I have no problem with calling out someone for arguing like an idiot or a child. Saying things like "Let me get this strait. It's popular so it sucks. Right?" or saying "Your opinion isn't a fact." or "Your biased"
Is stupid childish behavior to take to an argument especially if they don't have anything else to say. And when I call them out for being stupid and childish I'm the bad guy.

So a mod can punish you at his discretion and if you disagree they have their justification after the fact(That wasn't explicitly stated but it was the subtext of the whole exchange.)

It's part of the problem with the rules in that they are still a bit vague, especially the "don't be a jerk" one. But so far, there haven't actually been all that many problems with it, so I don't see it changing any time soon.

Of course the rules aren't going to change. If someone complains about the rules they get banned. suddenly nobody is left to complain about the rules and the staff thinks they're working.

 

[hexFrank202]

Stuff

Goddamnit man, how much more clear can I possibly make it? I am not. Trying. To undo. The warning.

I know I already said this, but I TOTALLY accept it! THE RULES ARE THE RULES! I GET THAT!! I JUST thought that the rules could use a little revision; as this warning had further brought that to my attention. Even if, hypothetically, the rule became completely abolished tomorrow, I wouldn't appeal the warning, because it's what the rules were at the time of posting.

I know calling 'logical fallacies' on people is douchey, but you're committing a major straw man. You assume that if someone is talking about something about moderation and some bad mark they got, they MUST be wanting the mark revoked. You just automatically jump to that conclusion. Really pisses me off.