i used it to start my topic cos i was excited how is this a bad thing and dont talk to me like thatSwollen Goat said:
Official Discussion about the new Forum Rules
- Thread starter Kuliani
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Because you don't need to use full caps to convey your point?Agent Poole said:
Because you wouldn't write all caps in an email in a conversation unless it held some value to your what you are saying?
Because it isn't grammatically correct? (Believe it or not, we do have some standards on spelling and grammar. By the way, you fly a plane, you don't use it as an adverb.)
Just don't use caps unless it actually adds to what you're saying. DOING THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE REALLY EXCITED SEEMS A LITTLE OVER THE TOP DON'T YA THINK!?
No one is offended by all caps, its just really annoying to read...and sarcasm doesn't exactly transfer into text well >_>Swollen Goat said:
Swollen Goat said:
Well different reasons for different people. My main gripe with it is that it just doesn't add anything to the post. Unless used for emphasis or to give the mental image of yelling, caps don't do anything.
Other people would highlight how it isn't grammatically correct. Others can't read something without mentally yelling the words in their heads. Others believe it is lazy.
Its not difficult to write like this and the only difference is one tap of the shift bar for every sentence. It takes a fraction of a second to type that one capitalized letter and it does go a long way in everyone's perspective.
Trust me, I know a few people who complain about all caps for that very reason at my school. They say it gives them a headache.Swollen Goat said:
How are 'low content posts' judgeded exactly?
Why 's "true" a low content post if it imparts precisely the same meaning as "Yes, that is also a possibility and one I agree with and believe you made a cogent point"?
Clearly just saying "true" is a lot simpler.
One other member posted about how he got a 'low content post' warning for posting an image, and yet the image contained a full sentence, a joke actually that wouldn't have worked had it been accompanied by any sort of additive from the poster himself.
The rules really ought to be applied more on to breaches of behaviour, not to things like a very base and simplistic count of the number of words in a post, without consideration to what those words imply or mean.
Why 's "true" a low content post if it imparts precisely the same meaning as "Yes, that is also a possibility and one I agree with and believe you made a cogent point"?
Clearly just saying "true" is a lot simpler.
One other member posted about how he got a 'low content post' warning for posting an image, and yet the image contained a full sentence, a joke actually that wouldn't have worked had it been accompanied by any sort of additive from the poster himself.
The rules really ought to be applied more on to breaches of behaviour, not to things like a very base and simplistic count of the number of words in a post, without consideration to what those words imply or mean.
Its judged based on how much effort you put in your posts. A user who posts only a picture could use it as a visual aid, but one who posts it as an entirety of his post is just copying another person's work. If the person is unwilling to put original content down (I.E: His own formed opinions in a written format) then he shows he does not wish to put effort forth. The same could be said about a user who simply says 'true.'Trolldor said:
If your opinion as already been stated and you honestly believe that you can not add anything more to the thread, then don't post. Its a waste of bandwidth if you don't add anything anyways.
I was under the impression that they were forums for conversation, not academic stricture. Secondly, why is an image which conveys a user's idea any less substantial than words?
If the exact same meaning is imparted, why is it then unacceptable?
And, by the by, nothing you've put down in your post is original.
If the exact same meaning is imparted, why is it then unacceptable?
And, by the by, nothing you've put down in your post is original.
You're right, they are for conversation, but just saying "This" or "True," adds nothing to a conversation. Its a waste of space.Trolldor said:
Because we don't want to see people having to rely on pictures to express their opinions. You have a grasp of the English language, so use it and tell me your opinions instead of just copying and pasting something from another site. Its lazy.
Lastly, no, the whole phrase "Nothing is original anymore" is a load of horse crap. Yes, a lot of things have already been done but you cannot possibly link one of those past events to my post. If you're gonna claim its not original, then please, tell me where I could have possibly copied it.
You know, I could just cite the fact I'm a published author, but that doesn't matter.
I could refer to the fact that I've been taking a University Course that would qualify me as a High School English teacher, and am now doing a Journalism course. But I won't.
Instead, I'll simply refer to this video from Stephen Fry:
The English language is more than a string words, it is the sum of its ideas.
You are not some single, omnipotent arbiter of the language.
Nor are the mods, either individually or collectively.
As a former forum moderator I know well how it operates.
You should not be making decisions on what qualifies as a worth while post. The decisions not only become inconsistent, they become arbitrary.
A simple 'spam' rule, removing any bot plugs or posts irrelevant to the conversation (also called Off-topic) is enough, but if they are still in line with the forum topic then that post qualifies as 'worth while'.
If they agree with another poster, why can't they let them know they agree? What if they have nothing to add but want to make their support known publically? It can mean a lot to that original poster that someone else shares his point of view, such posts would be worth while to him.
Or does his opinion on posts made to him not count? Is it, of course, someone else uninvolved in the exchange who should be placing value on what passes the accept-o-meter?
I could refer to the fact that I've been taking a University Course that would qualify me as a High School English teacher, and am now doing a Journalism course. But I won't.
Instead, I'll simply refer to this video from Stephen Fry:
The English language is more than a string words, it is the sum of its ideas.
You are not some single, omnipotent arbiter of the language.
Nor are the mods, either individually or collectively.
As a former forum moderator I know well how it operates.
You should not be making decisions on what qualifies as a worth while post. The decisions not only become inconsistent, they become arbitrary.
A simple 'spam' rule, removing any bot plugs or posts irrelevant to the conversation (also called Off-topic) is enough, but if they are still in line with the forum topic then that post qualifies as 'worth while'.
If they agree with another poster, why can't they let them know they agree? What if they have nothing to add but want to make their support known publically? It can mean a lot to that original poster that someone else shares his point of view, such posts would be worth while to him.
Or does his opinion on posts made to him not count? Is it, of course, someone else uninvolved in the exchange who should be placing value on what passes the accept-o-meter?
1) You're claim of a degree doesn't help you much anywhere on the internet. Why, I have 2 Bachelors, one in Physics and the other in Chemistry, 1 Associates degree in Civil Engineering and a Masters in History.Trolldor said:
See what I did there? Your claims don't go far on the internet. Especially if you don't back them up. Even then, so? Does your master degree automatically makes you the winner of the argument? Does it automatically mean I lose any right to hold my opinion? No, it doesn't. Your degree is nothing more then proof that you spent 5 years at a post-secondary school.
2) You're right, and simply saying "True" or "This" expresses that your opinion is EXACTLY the same as the one above you. And if it is the exact same, why did you bother posting to begin with? Your opinion has been stated. You add nothing to the argument for either side and all your post will do is take up server space (This itself is a key reason as to why we don't allow them. If you're not gonna add anything, why should the Escapist have to pay the bills to keep your post up there?), posting space and time. The post expresses no opinion from a person who had just come into the conversation, it just gives the opinion of someone else and passing it off as your own. And since you happen to have spent 5 years at a school learning English, what do you call someone who takes the writing of another person and passes them off as their own? That's right, Plagiarists. All low-content posts do is say "Stop reading stuff from me and start reading start from him." Your opinion becomes worthless becomes worthless because you refuse to express it yourself.
And also, the quotes do not. Trust me, I experienced my handfull of "This" quotes over the years here and they're nothing more then a nuisance. My self-esteem doesn't jump fifty feet in the air just because someone on the internet agrees with me. If anything, I hold the quotes I get from people who disagree with me far higher then the ones who agree with me. Mainly because the ones who disagree with me offer me a chance to defend my opinion. It gives me the chance to experience the argument from different view points and lets me look at where I stand and contemplate. It makes me think! Your low-content posts certainly don't do that.
It's not so much no value, but if you're in a conversation with just half a dozen people, and four of them were sitting there just saying "yep" "ahuh" "true" "this" then not only does it interrupt and dilute any conversation actually happening but those people may as well not be there since they're not actually saying anything at all.Trolldor said:
Change that to a couple of thousand and you have an average forum thread view count.
If you're going to say something, then say something proper. Pay the other users the same respect they're paying you by actually typing out a proper response.
There have been threads about "post your *** youtube video" ranging from different music genres, funny videos and others that I can't really remember right now. I think there's been a scary/creepy picture thread, a post a picture of you thread, a demotivational thread (which always ends up getting bad) and others.Swollen Goat said:
In these instances it's always nice to say why you chose that one to post or just something about it but the context of the thread generally lets them simply post a relevant picture or something. I personally think it's a bit of a copout to not say anything in the same post but it's not something I consider needing attention.
The more complicated situation of someone posting a picture in a more standard thread is sometimes a matter of presentation.
This post:http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.259934.9811525
It has a picture and barely any text, but it responds to the opening post well, it elaborates at least a little on why they are answering like this, it even gives something of interest to the thread. I think this is a fine post, others may not.
If they just posted the picture without the sixteen words, then would it have any of those properties? I don't think so, but again, others may.
This post: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.259904.9809889
The image isn't relevant to what the poster is saying, but it's spoilered and even if it's not the greatest statement it is out of the way and not entirely irrelevant.
This last one:
The image is simply the unintelligent repetition of a meme which reduces it's worth in any discussion, the post's text is however good for the topic.
on a serious note, shit must have taken forever.... man I wish I had that muchfree timededication
edit: btw, that Blastoise chick looks like a Gundam
If they were asked in a warning to please avoid posting images of this manner as they don't contribute anything other than crude distraction than I may not see it as unreasonable. It's not a punishment of any sort, it's just a private word which even if he posts the same thing again isn't likely to really raise an issue unless he spams it half a dozen times, which they have in other forms such as this
Yes, that's the entire content of his post without the quotation of someone else.
But because of the warning it's been recorded that he's done it before.
So in my eye there are certain criteria which don't really fit on a kind of written list because there is a lot of context which needs to be interpreted as well as the intention of the poster and different ways which other users will read into the post.
)
Whats up with some threads [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.263225-Escapists-Without-An-Avatar] being locked [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.263233-V] for no apparent reason? I saw they were locked and figured there must be massive trolling and flaming, but it was just overall mundane conversation.
In the case of the former, its just basic discrimination against users without avatars. The OP immediately believes that all users without an avatar cannot have valid points and even believes that they intend to troll every thread they take place in. It doesn't take a genius to point out the flaws in discriminating a person based on one minor detail.DustyDrB said:
The Latter is just asking for people to spam words they know. Its like a bad picture thread.
Allow me to direct you to a place where the Moderators will most likely see your post,Swollen Goat said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Moderation-Team
Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to be mean or anything, I'm just trying to show you to the proper place to complain about forum moderation. You're more likely to get an answer here (Considering every moderator is a member of the group) then from a random post on this thread.
Well when did you get your warning, given how the majority of moderators are either asleep or at work at the moment, maybe they're not on quite just yet. And this is just tempting them to punish you. Flame baiting is a tad jerkish.Swollen Goat said: