Poll: Is the Low Content Rule any good?

[joshuaayt]

Sure. If nothing else, it exercises the brain- while thinking of a sentence or two to write, you might actually consider what it is you're trying to say.

 

[Racecarlock]

You hit the nail on the head with the double edged sword thing. On one hand, it stops people from constantly posting internet acronyms and nothing else. On the other hand, if there's a post that only requires a one word answer, than you have to pad it out just to avoid getting a warning from the rule. However, padding isn't hard, so while I would say the rule is a double edged sword, one of the edges is a toothpick, so I think it's alright.

 

[TimeLord]

A couple of people seem to be confused about the Low Content rule. It's not physical word count, it's whether you contribute to the discussion of the thread. This thread is a good example. You could simply post "Yes" or "No" but that would be low content, so you post your opinion and stimulate discussion.
One word answers are just there to bump post counts. If you have nothing to say, don't post.

The low content rule is something very few other sites lack. We are not 4chan where you can post meme pictures and one word answers all day long. We want healthy discussion not a bunch of smart ass meme posts that don't contribute to anything at all.

I think the issue is more about moderators having proper judgement to decide what is ok and what isn't. 15 years of posting experience has brought me to the conclusion that most people who become moderators tend to be tools, but that can hardly be helped.

Thanks for that generalisation.

It's a nice rule, but I don't really see it as something worth suspending people over for a day or two, sure, probation maybe, but it's just bloody stupid otherwise.

Unless, you know, it's just something like "First!" or some bollocks like that.

We don't determine how the user is punished. It's just their next level up on the Forum Health Bar.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

I think it is a great rule, but it can sometimes be enforced a little over-zealously.

 

[thom_cat_]

I don't think posting an image should count as a low content post. Images can speak a thousand words. Really, if they're not posting some variant of a trollface or a meme pic I feel that it's fine.

 

[JLML]

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]

+1After all, without it I wouldn't be able to waste hours just reading random threads here, nor would it be possible to have long, civilised and interesting discussions. Or, well, it would, but the times it would happen compared to the times you'd get low content spam would make it unworth trying.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Of all the rules, I think it is the most questionable.

Sure, I'm glad we don't have massive amounts of "Yes", "No" and other single word posts, however, if I had MY way, it would be changed to include ONLY length of post. The "Content" aspect seems much too open to interpretation to me.

In addition, I think posts with just a picture should be exempt in some cases. It's often true that a picture can be worth a thousand words.

 

[ablac]

I think it varies because some can say much in very concise statements but will steel feel the mod's wrath. At the same time it stops people wasting pages with bad or meaningless posts.

 

[Rabish Bini]

There should be a clear distinction between 'low content' and 'pointless reply'.

A short sentence can still add to the discussion greatly in certain circumstances.

 

[Arakasi]

It should be applied contextually. If it is appropriate it should be allowed.

 

[ThatLankyBastard]

Yes.]

...damn it, I thought I was gonna be original...

Anyways, I completely agree with the low Content Rule. This one is a pretty unique forum (as far as I know anyways) simply because it tries to hold some genuine discussions instead of just being a bunch of trolls.

...although we are all still just a collection of trolls that rule, among others, keeps the equilibrium of internet harmony balanced!

 

[Ryank1908]

I'm just glad that it stops people from saying '/thread.' How unbelievably self-centered do you have to be to simply declare a public forum to be over just because you think your opinion is the correct one? Eurgh. I despise the internet sometimes.

 

[Lukeje]

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

No, you can't necessarily bank on that. I have seen posts that have led to suspensions that have a short one word post or a picture and then a sentence moaning about the low-content rule.

 

[halfeclipse]

It's not exactly hard to pad out a posts word count, thus bypassing the rule, while utterly failing to add anything of worth to their post. The site will have exactly the same amount of posts that add *bleep* all to the discussion, they're just slightly longer. Except now rather then being able to quickly identify and skip the post we need to read through it in order to discover it adds nothing, wasting our time.

 

[targren]

Of all the rules, I think it is the most questionable.

Oh, I don't know about that. I think putting "Ad Blockers" and "Sexist/Racist" remarks under "Illegal/Adult" content is a bit more questionable, since neither is illegal nor adult. The latter may be unwelcome (but probably fits better under the "Don't Be a Jerk" umbrella) and the former may be against the Themis' interests, and well within their rights to forbid, but that's just sloppy and overstating things just a teensy bit.

 

[smithy_2045]

I think it's overly strict. People who post "first lol" deserve to be punished. People who quote a good post and state that they agree with the person they quoted do not. People who answer a thread topic with a yes/no answer don't deserve an infraction as long as the thread topic was worded in such a way that a yes/no answer can be used to answer the topic.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Of all the rules, I think it is the most questionable.

Oh, I don't know about that. I think putting "Ad Blockers" and "Sexist/Racist" remarks under "Illegal/Adult" content is a bit more questionable, since neither is illegal nor adult. The latter may be unwelcome (but probably fits better under the "Don't Be a Jerk" umbrella) and the former may be against the Themis' interests, and well within their rights to forbid, but that's just sloppy and overstating things just a teensy bit.

I think the first you mentioned is rather nicely implemented, but I agree wholeheartedly with your second point.

Personally, I don't use an Adblocker. However, I think it is rather silly that the mere act of saying "Adbockers are good" or anything of the sort, can get you a ban.

 

[Karhukonna]

I think post 5 kinda makes the exception that proves the rule. It's certainly a low-content post to the naked eye, but to those that caught on to the joke, it's some mighty fine spot-on humor. It conveys a message beyond it's three letters and a dot combination. Obviously, it's the mods who enforce this rule, and I hope that they don't take it too seriously. You can usually tell when someone's just fishing for post counts.

 

[David Bjur]

'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.

Hmmm, I guess this will be abit hard to explain, but let's say a person has posted a long post about, let's say, game mechanics in a game. He/she knows nothing about game mechanics at all but still says that people are stupid, even though he is the person that's wrong.

There is a rule on the Escapist that prevents people from posting low content posts too prevent bad debates and 'LOL' posts from happening, but isn't that kind of a double edged sword? '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. Is the rule good, or bad? And if it is bad, what should we do to prevent low content posts?

EDIT: And if it is good, what should we do to prevent smug idiots?

How exactly would removing the low content rule prevent people making smug and erroneous posts? People don't need to post ten paragraphs to come across as smug and arrogant. You managed it in just five sentences. If people writing out opinions that you disagree with bothers you, perhaps the internet isn't the place to be.

The low content rule is a good rule.

Well, I never took a stance in this matter, so I don't really understand how and why you guessed that I thought it was a bad rule. I was just trying to start a debate. Oh btw, I asked the "How exactly would removing the low content rule prevent people making smug and erroneous posts?" question way before it was cool.
(wow, I really do sound like a smug *ssh*le)

 

[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.

Hmmm, I guess this will be abit hard to explain, but let's say a person has posted a long post about, let's say, game mechanics in a game. He/she knows nothing about game mechanics at all but still says that people are stupid, even though he is the person that's wrong.

If they don't know anything about what they are saying but are still saying it, it wouldn't matter how long a post it is.
That's going to happen regardless of the length of the post. As a wise man once said, "You can't fix stupid".