Poll: Is the Low Content Rule any good?

[Bad Jim]

An upper max wouldn't hurt either honestly. The longer a post gets the less likely it is to be read.

I'd love to see a day of twitter rules Escapist, every post has to be 150 chars or less.

I just pasted your post into the Youtube comment box. It's 190 characters long.

I don't think an upper max would help, and that's not because I just posted a big one. Sometimes you need a lot of words to say something. And while I admit I don't always read them, I try to skim them for the general gist of what they're saying.

 

[El Dwarfio]

Yes. [sub]Sure, it's slightly annoying in discussions where you could give a sufficient (and funnier) answer with just a single picture or video, but I believe that's a price we'll have to pay to keep discussion quality aloft.
One word replies are really useless. If we just wanted to know how many people held a certain opinion, we'd use a poll. The forum is intended for discussing the reasons behind your reply, not so much your reply itself.[/sub]

Just to let you know, I did the same thing once.

I have one warning on my bar.

These two things are not unrelated.

But, no, I don't think it's that useful. Sometimes psots are just concise...I could certainly blather on about nothing and aoid a low content warning without actually having any content to speak of.

You see this is the thing, the mods should ave enough sense to distinguish between what is a legitimate post and what is an offensive/troll post that needs moderating against.

Evidently the owners of the forums don't trust them with this level of intelligence and whack in some arbitrary rules that they're forced to follow. - but then so are all of you seeing as you signed the terms of user agreement. So meh.

 

[Signa]

You know, I was just thinking it might be nice to have a +1 or "this" button that just marks under a post who agreed with the poster. It doesn't have to change anything other than just seeing how many other posters agree with a post. There's been plenty of times I've reached for the "report" button not because a post was offensive, but I just wanted something to click to show my approval of the post. Good thing for those posters that I didn't actually click anything. All I'd like to see is all our posts look kinda like how I'm ending this one.


+1s[Bad Jim],[El Dwarfio],[TestECull]

 

[putowtin]

The Escapist just has a different purpose than most forums; here, the point is to contribute to genuine discussions, rather than to just be a collection of shouting people. I love the Escapist for its low content post rule because it tangibly illustrates its ideals for the community. I wouldn't have it any other way.

And not to say, "GTFO," but the Escapist is moderated in a way to maintain a specific kind of environment here. While the culture has evolved, this still stands in contrast to other online communities which generally are a beautiful and terrible, writhing social mass.
If its not your thing, go to somewhere that is more along your lines of interest, or only come here when you're looking for this particular type of user generated ramblings. That's a big part of what the mods try to uphold here, after all- a place where you can come and discuss regardless of social politics or post count.

I want to hug your answer, it was just what I wanted to say, just with a better vocabulary!

 

[Bad Jim]

I think it's absolute bullshit. Sometimes a short reply is all that is required. For example, if someone asks, say, "What game was Niko Bellic in?", you need not say more than simply "GTA IV".

Well, in this example, you could answer "Niko Bellic was in GTA IV.", and that would be acceptable.
As a general rule, phrasing a reply into a sentence will usually get around the low content post rule.

If rephrasing an answer without adding any content is acceptable, the original answer should be acceptable. It is a better answer, saying the same with fewer words.

 

[ResonanceSD]

I'm glad the Low content rule is there, but I'm pretty sure it's effectiveness depends on mods actually seeing the low content posts and taking action.

 

[LooK iTz Jinjo]

Low word count does NOT equal low content. People seem to be mistaking that here. There is no rule saying that every post has to be at least 200 words, it just says make your post relevant and contribute to discussion. Posting LOL or quoting someone and saying ^This^ does not contribute to discussion.

 

[superbatranger]

Yes. [sub]Sure, it's slightly annoying in discussions where you could give a sufficient (and funnier) answer with just a single picture or video, but I believe that's a price we'll have to pay to keep discussion quality aloft.
One word replies are really useless. If we just wanted to know how many people held a certain opinion, we'd use a poll. The forum is intended for discussing the reasons behind your reply, not so much your reply itself.[/sub]

Oh, I see what you didn't do there.

 

[FateOrFatality]

Well most of the time its a good thing, but sometimes a response does not require many words and that sometimes wrongly gets hit with a low content. But thats pretty rare.

This, basically. I agree that people should be punished for just posting something like "lol", but the rule seems a bit strict at times.

Fortunately I'm not one for low content posts, but I have to admit I do have some small fear that I'll forget about the low content rule (I frequent a lot of different forums, and it's a pretty unique role).

 

[Zen Toombs]

Yes. [sub]Sure, it's slightly annoying in discussions where you could give a sufficient (and funnier) answer with just a single picture or video, but I believe that's a price we'll have to pay to keep discussion quality aloft.
One word replies are really useless. If we just wanted to know how many people held a certain opinion, we'd use a poll. The forum is intended for discussing the reasons behind your reply, not so much your reply itself.[/sub]

Meta response is meta.
Toombs approves +4

Considering you can avoid the low content rule by writing about the low content rule, no.

Well, except for something I saw earlier:

Yes. Extra words to avoid mod wrath.

Mod Edit: Saying "extra words to avoid mod wrath" does not help avoid mod wrath.
[small]Some Dude was banned for posting in Some Thread[/small]

[sup]NOTE: the guy was banned because he was on his last strike when he made the post[/sup]

My opinion: the Low Content Rule is a good one, but I wish that Moderators were a bit more consistent about when they will or will not rain their wrath upon forum goers. But that's just my view.

 

[ThePS1Fan]

I'd say it's pretty good, keeps stupid one word comments from being posted and if you can't elaborate on your topic enough to get past the LCR then it probably doesn't matter much. As for encouraging huge posts I don't really see how it does that. It doesn't take much to get past the LCR and some people just think everyone should read their 500 word essay on whatever.

EDIT: I just noticed that both time my post says "To get past the LCR" they line up perfectly. Weird.

 

[Varitel]

It's a very important rule that keeps conversation going in these forums. I don't think that we all just go to the forums to see a long list of yes/no answers.

Yes, because it stops those fuckwads from quoting someone and just typing "this". ************, what the hell. Why the fuck did you even post. You obviously have nothing to say, just shut the fuck up and come back when you have something proper to contribute. That shit is irritating as fuck.

You are correct, but if there's one thing worse than "this" it's "I'll just leave this here". Also, why the wanton profanity?

 

[tippy2k2]

snip

snip

I have received one warning so far, for this post:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.291469-The-most-underrated-video-game-ever#11579733

Now I did just name one game, so maybe it does deserve a warning, but:

1) Other posters name multiple games, say nothing else and escape mod wrath. Mine and post #10 receive warnings for naming just one game. Post #21 just names two games, adding exactly what we did, and receives no warning. Really the mods should have decided whether just naming games was acceptable or not and warned us all if they weren't.

2) A lot of people are just adding extra words to evade mod wrath that don't add to the discussion. And they get away with it. eg post #27

I personally feel that what you did would indeed warrant Mod-wrath but I also think that others doing that (as well as the BS "More words to escape mod-wrath") should have also been hit. It sucks that you got singled out when others were giving such minimal answers too but shit happens.

I think sometimes it's good cause as you say, it just stops people from saying 'LOL' or something. But sometimes there's nothing really more you can say than just two or three words, and cause people can't think of anything else to say they put something completely unrelated to avoid a low content warning. I think that sometimes halts the discussion more than someone putting a couple of words.

Could you give any examples of this? I can't think of any situation where my post of "Yes" is enough that there is no more that needs to be said. The only situation right now I can think of is if a troll is throwing something so blatantly offensive out that you don't need more but then, why are you posting? Report his ass and move on.

Well I don't remember the exact thread but I posted something and a user responded with 'Yeah I agree'. He/she probably felt that there was nothing more to add and just wanted to share my sentiment. But because of low content warnings they started talking about cake or something, which was nothing to do with the thread. This doesn't happen often but it does happen.

If they had absolutely nothing else to add, then there's no point for them to add anything else; they didn't need to post. You could argue that it shouldn't be the case but the Escapist has made how it feels about it pretty clear.

Slightly off-topic but I'm surprised that people think that adding "Yes, also here is some extra text because I don't want to get Mod wrath" does anything. It won't be auto-flagged but if someone reports it, you still get a warning (as you should based on the rules here).

arguably, this post is useless though, because you've already stated your point and now I had to read it again to maintain the flow of the conversation.

Personally, I think I hate the rule more than I like it. When the posts are useless +1s or "this" I can read them as I scroll past them. There's been too often where I want to just simply state something, but then I have to make a chore of posting. If some one actually gives a damn about what I think, then they can quote me and ask for more info. I've also had far more intimate conversations on other forums where I am allowed to make short or ironic statements because there is no punishment for doing so. It's always business here and never anyone to make friends with.

We were having a conversation about the rule. I asked for an example (something removed from this quote bubble above), he gave me an example, and I told him what I thought about it. This is part of a discussion and myself expanding my position based on what he said. This is exactly what you want out of a discussion.

You can discuss and talk about whatever you want. You can make short and ironic statements as long as you want as long as it's not a useless "Yes I agree" or "No, I disagree" post. There is no chore to say "I liked X and this is why" or "I think X and this is why"; if you find it a chore, there are plenty of other forums that are OK with people giving one word answers.

Can it be a little harsh at times? Absolutely but I'd much rather have it harsh in favor of stamping out "YES" and "NO" answers then let it have free range.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Yes, to a VERY limited extent.

Obviously just "lol" and "+1" posts are stupid but the mods go too far with the rule. For example let's say I just have a captioned image as my post. Why should that count as a low content post? (And it HAS been counted as such before.)

I also hate restrictions to freedom of speech in any way so in the end, I am against it.

 

[chadachada123]

I think that it's good, but think that there should be some exceptions.

For example, pictures/videos shouldn't require text. Sometimes a poster is required to sacrifice humor by throwing in extra words when the picture/video by itself would suffice. Or, hell, even a single word would be sufficient at times.

 

[darksakul]

Is the Low Content Rule any good?

Sometimes less is more.

 

[JCBFGD]

Not really, no.

 

[Radoh]

'Cause you'll then have smug people feeling more smug and superiour of themselves when they post ridiculous long posts, even though they are completely wrong.

I'm sorry, what is this supposed to mean exactly?
Wrong how and moreover, could you provide examples? I don't think I get what you're saying here.

OT: Anyways, yeah I'm a huge fan of the low content moderation. These forums are meant for discussion, and if somepony posts something that doesn't help or lead to discussion, it's just really out of place.

Additionally, some newer people to these forums carry bad habits from other sites, as I've seen six or seven people who equate their post count as an E-peen as it were. So they would naturally try to post really really short replies just to pad out their count.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Considering you can avoid the low content rule by writing about the low content rule, no.

This. It really isn't difficult to conjure a minimum of 5 words, even if that is to just churn out a laconic, sarcastic quip.

 

[arnoldthebird]

Yes, because low content means it has no discussion value. Something can be summed up in a few words and still have discussion value, but a simple, 'Yes', 'LOL' or 'FIRST!!!' provides absolutely nothing, there is no real discussion value. Normally a poll would provide a Y/N option and if it didn't then the OP should make a poll. The low content rule sets The Escapist above and beyond all other forums.

Rules are set for a reason