Poll: New forum rules - Yay or Nay?

[JoJo]

So...Its going to take me TWO YEARS to get down to "Full health"? Even though at least 2 of my "Warnings" have been for either "Low content posts" or using a picture to post. Both of which were expressing my opinion efficiently, neither of which were offensive or rude, but apparently i'm not allowed to simply agree with another poster I must write a small essay on why REGARDLESS of how repetitive it would be.

One line of text is enough to protect a post from being a "low content", is that really so much effort?

I've always thought the mods here have been overzealous, to be nice, (lest they prove my point) but this is a tad ridiculous.

I somewhat find it ironic that Zero punctuation is what brought me here and is happily hosted here, but under any other name a "Zero punctuation"-esque post would get you banned for not treating others like fwuffy wittle kittens.

The rules only prohibit acting offensive towards others or flaming, you're allowed to disagree with others, just not launch personal attacks on them.

 

[jml spells jumle]

I'm meant to state my opinion on it though, aren't I?

But it's not your opinion. It's someone else's opinion word for word. Besides, you're meant to discuss the topic, which you necessarily need to do with your opinion, but if you're not gonna add anything to the topic, then, as I mentioned before, posting just to say anything is rather pointless no? You're not adding anything.

"Stating your opinion" is a mean, not an end.

If you want to understand why the rule is in place, imagine trying to have a conversation with a friend, each of surrounded by a few hundreds or thousands of people, and everytime one of you says something, people start replying with stuff like "yeah", "I agree", "what he said" at random intervals. You'll soon realize that any conversation like that is impossible. The "noise to signal" ratio becomes absurd.

Hope that cleared it up.

That's an exaggeration of something that plainly isn't happening. It is perfectly acceptable, and routine, in a conversation to simply say "I agree", or chuckle (the web version would be an emote or LOL) or any number of things. Suggesting that every line of every conversation needs meaningful, insightful input is ridiculous. Do you, in the course of your day, have this occur in real life 365 days of the year, with everyone you speak with?

Why then is this surreality extended here and enforced with such punitive rigidity? Giving someone a warning (which could grow to probation and a ban) for doing something similar in a conversation really is over-reaching sensibility.

Your logic is flawed. Its simply an exercise to justify the absurd.

Thi- Oh no, I can't say that! Seriously what more do you want me to say? If someone already clears it up or as said above, you do agree with someone in real life and you would say it. If you have nothing else to ad, you don't add it.

So...Its going to take me TWO YEARS to get down to "Full health"? Even though at least 2 of my "Warnings" have been for either "Low content posts" or using a picture to post. Both of which were expressing my opinion efficiently, neither of which were offensive or rude, but apparently i'm not allowed to simply agree with another poster I must write a small essay on why REGARDLESS of how repetitive it would be.

I've always thought the mods here have been overzealous, to be nice, (lest they prove my point) but this is a tad ridiculous.

I somewhat find it ironic that Zero punctuation is what brought me here and is happily hosted here, but under any other name a "Zero punctuation"-esque post would get you banned for not treating others like fwuffy wittle kittens.

And this. (Seriously, if I think of something else to say I'll post it later, but I can't think of anything to add right now, so I won't.)

 

[jml spells jumle]

So...Its going to take me TWO YEARS to get down to "Full health"? Even though at least 2 of my "Warnings" have been for either "Low content posts" or using a picture to post. Both of which were expressing my opinion efficiently, neither of which were offensive or rude, but apparently i'm not allowed to simply agree with another poster I must write a small essay on why REGARDLESS of how repetitive it would be.

One line of text is enough to protect a post from being a "low content", is that really so much effort?

What about when you're agreeing with someone and have nothing else to add? Read my post above.

 

[JoJo]

So...Its going to take me TWO YEARS to get down to "Full health"? Even though at least 2 of my "Warnings" have been for either "Low content posts" or using a picture to post. Both of which were expressing my opinion efficiently, neither of which were offensive or rude, but apparently i'm not allowed to simply agree with another poster I must write a small essay on why REGARDLESS of how repetitive it would be.

One line of text is enough to protect a post from being a "low content", is that really so much effort?

What about when you're agreeing with someone and have nothing else to add? Read my post above.

It takes no more than a few seconds to type a more few more words than "this", also if you have nothing else to add then why bother posting at-all? This forum's for discussion and that isn't contributing anything.

 

[jml spells jumle]

So...Its going to take me TWO YEARS to get down to "Full health"? Even though at least 2 of my "Warnings" have been for either "Low content posts" or using a picture to post. Both of which were expressing my opinion efficiently, neither of which were offensive or rude, but apparently i'm not allowed to simply agree with another poster I must write a small essay on why REGARDLESS of how repetitive it would be.

One line of text is enough to protect a post from being a "low content", is that really so much effort?

What about when you're agreeing with someone and have nothing else to add? Read my post above.

It takes no more than a few seconds to type a more few more words than "this", also if you have nothing else to add then why bother posting at-all? This forum's for discussion and that isn't contributing anything.

It's the equivalent of posting what they've already posted.

 

[Yokai]

Well, from what I've seen of the new system so far, it allows the mods to slap warnings on pretty much inoffensive posts that would have been passed over before. I'm not so sure this is a good thing.

 

[jml spells jumle]

Cheat codes.

Right...

Were that to come from anyone else would it be considered a low content post? If you don't want to answer my question, don't reply. No need to be rude. Besides, the question was why, not how.

For some reason the escapist moderation team can warn/suspend/ban someone for no reason and they're allowed to be hypocrites. The post Kross made was futile like you said and it wasn't agreeing with anyone and didn't even answer your question.

So...Its going to take me TWO YEARS to get down to "Full health"? Even though at least 2 of my "Warnings" have been for either "Low content posts" or using a picture to post. Both of which were expressing my opinion efficiently, neither of which were offensive or rude, but apparently i'm not allowed to simply agree with another poster I must write a small essay on why REGARDLESS of how repetitive it would be.

One line of text is enough to protect a post from being a "low content", is that really so much effort?

What about when you're agreeing with someone and have nothing else to add? Read my post above.

It takes no more than a few seconds to type a more few more words than "this", also if you have nothing else to add then why bother posting at-all? This forum's for discussion and that isn't contributing anything.

What if you can't think of anything else at that moment? You have nothing else to say, but you agree with what they said. People shouldn't be eventually banned for that.

The mods here just seem to judge people immediately without letting them give a reason, or the moderators themselves don't even have a reason, yet they can do worse stuff like said above.

 

[JoJo]

It's the equivalent of posting what they've already posted.

Then why post it again if you have nothing to add to it, everyone will have already read it and if you don't add any more points or counter-points then there's nothing to debate about.

What if you can't think of anything else at that moment? You have nothing else to say, but you agree with what they said. People shouldn't be eventually banned for that.

The mods here just seem to judge people immediately without letting them give a reason, or the moderators themselves don't even have a reason, yet they can do worse stuff like said above.

If you can't think of anything to add then don't post, there's no rule saying you have to post in every thread you read. If you really HAVE to "this" someone then atleast put a sentence afterwards stating why you agree with them.

As for the mods, with all due respect, you have 19 posts meaning unless you're the ultimate lurker I highly doubt you've had much experience here. As a regular user for a year, I have found that the mods stick to a very particular rule set and any unfair moddings are quickly reversed by the appeal board (there was even a guy a while back who admitted he was a pedophile, but didn't molest or anything, intially he was banned but after a lot of people complained that he hadn't broken any rules the ban was revoked. If that doesn't show that the mods are fair, I don't know what does.)

 

[Caliostro]

And again into circular logic.

I disagree with the way you feel the need to institute control. I was going to say "rules", but the real point of making rules is to control something. My point remains that I feel you've gone the extra mile to exert your will on your community, treating them like bad little children and sending them to the corner for each and every perceived transgression. Not only that, but you insist that because "its the rules" that its ok. Sorry, its not ok. Any person with a shred of self respect and common sense can see that this is not a place that fosters a mature community; its a place where behavior is micro-managed using negative reinforcement and fear tactics.

So, although I was a member of this community for quite some time with over a thousand posts, I really cannot in good conscience abide by these changes; not only that they were made, but that you felt they had to be made. I think its important that you know why I won't be posting here anymore, or endorsing The Escapist to my online friends.

Quick question: Last forum you've seen that has no rules and fosters regular intelligent and educated debate?

It's ok, I'll wait.

Can't think of one can you? Me neither.

On paper anarchy is the perfect regime. People are mature and intelligent enough to govern themselves therefore there's no need for legal institutions or "law enforcement" of any kind. The obvious flaw there is that this only works with people that ARE mature and intelligent enough... So rules are created so the people who can't regulate themselves don't muck it up for everyone else.

The rules currently instated are not an exercise in our creativity, nor were they made out of boredom. Every rule set was created and/or changed based on the empirical experience and knowledge of every person involved in it's creation, and was set in place in order to foster the kind of environment The Escapist wants around here. We continously change and adapt the rules based on the feedback we gather. That said, the particular rule you're referring to, "low content posting", was set in place because without it there was a significant and troublesome amount of people filling up threads with inane posts, that added nothing to the topic, and instead just diluted the intellectual and relevant content of a thread. It has proven effective so far, and until we have evidence that it's more negative than positive, it shall stay as is.

You don't like it? You don't agree with it? That's fine. It still applies to you as long as you post here.

You want to leave? That's also fine. No one's stopping you. We're not holding you hostage. And, honestly, if you oppose our rules, and consequently our guiding philosophy, so vehemently, maybe that's your best option. Why would you want to stay if you dislike us so much anyways? Be an example of the maturity you advocate.

The bottom line, I explained why that rule exists. If you have any constructive, educated, and respectful criticism, positive or negative, we'll appreciate it. It doesn't mean we'll change anything, but we'll register the feedback. Meanwhile, that's what the rule is. If you wanna use the forums, you need to follow it. If you don't want to use the forums, that's your choice to make, and we wish you the best of luck in future endeavors.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

 

[Pinguin]

I posted this just to see these new rules...

EDIT: And they seem pretty reasonable to me.

 

[JDKJ]

And again into circular logic.

I disagree with the way you feel the need to institute control. I was going to say "rules", but the real point of making rules is to control something. My point remains that I feel you've gone the extra mile to exert your will on your community, treating them like bad little children and sending them to the corner for each and every perceived transgression. Not only that, but you insist that because "its the rules" that its ok. Sorry, its not ok. Any person with a shred of self respect and common sense can see that this is not a place that fosters a mature community; its a place where behavior is micro-managed using negative reinforcement and fear tactics.

So, although I was a member of this community for quite some time with over a thousand posts, I really cannot in good conscience abide by these changes; not only that they were made, but that you felt they had to be made. I think its important that you know why I won't be posting here anymore, or endorsing The Escapist to my online friends.

Quick question: Last forum you've seen that has no rules and fosters regular intelligent and educated debate?

It's ok, I'll wait.

Can't think of one can you? Me neither.

On paper anarchy is the perfect regime. People are mature and intelligent enough to govern themselves therefore there's no need for legal institutions or "law enforcement" of any kind. The obvious flaw there is that this only works with people that ARE mature and intelligent enough... So rules are created so the people who can't regulate themselves don't muck it up for everyone else.

The rules currently instated are not an exercise in our creativity, nor were they made out of boredom. Every rule set was created and/or changed based on the empirical experience and knowledge of every person involved in it's creation, and was set in place in order to foster the kind of environment The Escapist wants around here. We continously change and adapt the rules based on the feedback we gather. That said, the particular rule you're referring to, "low content posting", was set in place because without it there was a significant and troublesome amount of people filling up threads with inane posts, that added nothing to the topic, and instead just diluted the intellectual and relevant content of a thread. It has proven effective so far, and until we have evidence that it's more negative than positive, it shall stay as is.

You don't like it? You don't agree with it? That's fine. It still applies to you as long as you post here.

You want to leave? That's also fine. No one's stopping you. We're not holding you hostage. And, honestly, if you oppose our rules, and consequently our guiding philosophy, so vehemently, maybe that's your best option. Why would you want to stay if you dislike us so much anyways? Be an example of the maturity you advocate.

The bottom line, I explained why that rule exists. If you have any constructive, educated, and respectful criticism, positive or negative, we'll appreciate it. It doesn't mean we'll change anything, but we'll register the feedback. Meanwhile, that's what the rule is. If you wanna use the forums, you need to follow it. If you don't want to use the forums, that's your choice to make, and we wish you the best of luck in future endeavors.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

What does "inane" have to do with "low content?" The former, I would think, speaks to some sort of qualitative characteristic having to do with a lack of intelligence. The latter is, I would think, purely quantitative (i.e., insufficient content). Is it not possible that I post a "high content" wall of text that's as inane as inane can be? And a "low content" post that's pure genius in its substance? If you really are attempting to define "low content" by virtue of "inane," that suggests to me that your regulatory scheme isn't as well-thought out as you claim it is. That definition doesn't at all strike me as a very useful working definition.

For example and not to complain, I posted a photo of some kook wearing a tin foil hat and which contained the words "It's a Conspiracy" and received a "low content" warning for doing so despite the fact that my post was quoted at least five times by responses substantive in nature. I can't see how a post quoted five times is failing to add to the discussion. On those facts, I would think it's actually promoting discussion.

But as you've said, it is yours to define (notwithstanding whether it works or not).

 

[Caliostro]

What does "inane" have to do with "low content?" The former, I would think, speaks to some sort of qualitative characteristic having to do with a lack of intelligence. The latter is, I would think, purely quantitative (i.e., insufficient content). Is it not possible that I post a "high content" wall of text that's as inane as inane can be? And a "low content" post that's pure genius in its substance? If you really are attempting to define "low content" by virtue of "inane," that suggests to me that your regulatory scheme isn't as well-thought out as you claim it is. That definition doesn't at all strike me as a very useful working definition.

For example and not to complain, I posted a photo of some kook wearing a tin foil hat and which contained the words "It's a Conspiracy" and received a "low content" warning for doing so despite the fact that my post was quote at least five times by responses substantive in nature. I can't see how a post quoted five times is failing to add to the discussion. On those facts, I would think it's actually promoting discussion.

But as you've said, it is yours to define (notwithstanding whether it works or not).

To clarify: "Low content" isn't necessarily quantitative. And you're right, you can have an absolutely monstrous post with absolutely nothing of relevance, though rarer. Those will be equally punished if noticed. That said, image macros almost always fall within "low content". If you absolutely must reply with an image, expand on it. Image macros rarely have any kind of discussion value, and number of quotes does not relate to quality of content.

In retrospect, while that image might have been appropriate (or not, I'm not looking at the thread), couldn't you honestly have said anything else about it? Ya know what I mean?

Cheers.

 

[JDKJ]

I posted this just to see these new rules...

EDIT: And they seem pretty reasonable to me.

Given that you've only posted 118 times in close to two years, you stand much better odds of not falling victim to an unreasonable regulatory scheme than the guy who has posted 1900 times in 6 months. As matter of simple probabilities, the other guy's much more likely to get caught in the speed trap.

 

[DEATHROAD]

Writing this comment just to see new rules

After seeing them:

Can't really notice anything that affects me, so Yay i guess

 

[JDKJ]

What does "inane" have to do with "low content?" The former, I would think, speaks to some sort of qualitative characteristic having to do with a lack of intelligence. The latter is, I would think, purely quantitative (i.e., insufficient content). Is it not possible that I post a "high content" wall of text that's as inane as inane can be? And a "low content" post that's pure genius in its substance? If you really are attempting to define "low content" by virtue of "inane," that suggests to me that your regulatory scheme isn't as well-thought out as you claim it is. That definition doesn't at all strike me as a very useful working definition.

For example and not to complain, I posted a photo of some kook wearing a tin foil hat and which contained the words "It's a Conspiracy" and received a "low content" warning for doing so despite the fact that my post was quote at least five times by responses substantive in nature. I can't see how a post quoted five times is failing to add to the discussion. On those facts, I would think it's actually promoting discussion.

But as you've said, it is yours to define (notwithstanding whether it works or not).

To clarify: "Low content" isn't necessarily quantitative. And you're right, you can have an absolutely monstrous post with absolutely nothing of relevance, though rarer. Those will be equally punished if noticed. That said, image macros almost always fall within "low content". If you absolutely must reply with an image, expand on it. Image macros rarely have any kind of discussion value, and number of quotes does not relate to quality of content.

In retrospect, while that image might have been appropriate (or not, I'm not looking at the thread), couldn't you honestly have said anything else about it? Ya know what I mean?

Cheers.

Sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand words. I thought my picture captured the essence of what I wanted to say 100 times better than any of my words could have.

And to change the facts for the benefit of discussion, what if I had done without the picture and instead typed the words contained in the picture (i.e., "It's a Conspiracy")? That ain't but 16 characters. Is that a "low content" post? If it's not, than that's a perplexing outcome when the picture plus the words are "low content" but the words minus the picture aren't. The "content" of the latter is even less the "content" of the former. That makes no sense to me. Unless "low content," despite its name, has absolutely nothing to do with quantity.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

What does "inane" have to do with "low content?" The former, I would think, speaks to some sort of qualitative characteristic having to do with a lack of intelligence. The latter is, I would think, purely quantitative (i.e., insufficient content). Is it not possible that I post a "high content" wall of text that's as inane as inane can be? And a "low content" post that's pure genius in its substance? If you really are attempting to define "low content" by virtue of "inane," that suggests to me that your regulatory scheme isn't as well-thought out as you claim it is. That definition doesn't at all strike me as a very useful working definition.

For example and not to complain, I posted a photo of some kook wearing a tin foil hat and which contained the words "It's a Conspiracy" and received a "low content" warning for doing so despite the fact that my post was quote at least five times by responses substantive in nature. I can't see how a post quoted five times is failing to add to the discussion. On those facts, I would think it's actually promoting discussion.

But as you've said, it is yours to define (notwithstanding whether it works or not).

To clarify: "Low content" isn't necessarily quantitative. And you're right, you can have an absolutely monstrous post with absolutely nothing of relevance, though rarer. Those will be equally punished if noticed. That said, image macros almost always fall within "low content". If you absolutely must reply with an image, expand on it. Image macros rarely have any kind of discussion value, and number of quotes does not relate to quality of content.

In retrospect, while that image might have been appropriate (or not, I'm not looking at the thread), couldn't you honestly have said anything else about it? Ya know what I mean?

Cheers.

Sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand words. I thought my picture captured the essence of what I wanted to say 100 times better than any of my words could have.

And to change the facts for the benefit of discussion, what if I had done without the picture and instead type the words contained in the picture (i.e., "It's a Conspiracy")? That ain't but 16 characters. Is that a "low content" post? If it's not, than that's a perplexing outcome when the picture plus the words are "low content" but the words minus the picture aren't. The "content" of the latter is even less the "content" of the former. That makes no sense to me. Unless "low content," despite it's name, has absolutely nothing to do with quantity.

Yes, it would be low-content, or at least it would to me. If the person said 'It's a conspiracy because (Insert reason here)' then it wouldn't be low-content.

I don't know who came up with the idea, but no, a picture is not always worth a thousands words. Most of the time they're not even worth one word. Pictures are used as an addition to your post, they are not meant to be the main attribute and when they are, they're basically the equivalent of quoting a person and just saying 'this.'

There is no effort put into it.

 

[Pinguin]

As matter of simple probabilities, the other guy's much more likely to get caught in the speed trap.

Only if he's speeding.

 

[Digikid]

LOL!!! I love this. It says that I am on Probation....when clearly I am not.

Besides I care not. Most of the probations I got were from Mods that had no idea what they were talking about IMHO.

 

[Ponce Master-General]

I think the Forum Health Bar is fine and all, but 6 months for 1 penalty to clear up is a step too far, don't you think?

 

[JDKJ]

What does "inane" have to do with "low content?" The former, I would think, speaks to some sort of qualitative characteristic having to do with a lack of intelligence. The latter is, I would think, purely quantitative (i.e., insufficient content). Is it not possible that I post a "high content" wall of text that's as inane as inane can be? And a "low content" post that's pure genius in its substance? If you really are attempting to define "low content" by virtue of "inane," that suggests to me that your regulatory scheme isn't as well-thought out as you claim it is. That definition doesn't at all strike me as a very useful working definition.

For example and not to complain, I posted a photo of some kook wearing a tin foil hat and which contained the words "It's a Conspiracy" and received a "low content" warning for doing so despite the fact that my post was quote at least five times by responses substantive in nature. I can't see how a post quoted five times is failing to add to the discussion. On those facts, I would think it's actually promoting discussion.

But as you've said, it is yours to define (notwithstanding whether it works or not).

To clarify: "Low content" isn't necessarily quantitative. And you're right, you can have an absolutely monstrous post with absolutely nothing of relevance, though rarer. Those will be equally punished if noticed. That said, image macros almost always fall within "low content". If you absolutely must reply with an image, expand on it. Image macros rarely have any kind of discussion value, and number of quotes does not relate to quality of content.

In retrospect, while that image might have been appropriate (or not, I'm not looking at the thread), couldn't you honestly have said anything else about it? Ya know what I mean?

Cheers.

Sometimes a picture is indeed worth a thousand words. I thought my picture captured the essence of what I wanted to say 100 times better than any of my words could have.

And to change the facts for the benefit of discussion, what if I had done without the picture and instead type the words contained in the picture (i.e., "It's a Conspiracy")? That ain't but 16 characters. Is that a "low content" post? If it's not, than that's a perplexing outcome when the picture plus the words are "low content" but the words minus the picture aren't. The "content" of the latter is even less the "content" of the former. That makes no sense to me. Unless "low content," despite it's name, has absolutely nothing to do with quantity.

Yes, it would be low-content, or at least it would to me. If the person said 'It's a conspiracy because (Insert reason here)' then it wouldn't be low-content.

I don't know who came up with the idea, but no, a picture is not always worth a thousands words. Most of the time they're not even worth one word. Pictures are used as an addition to your post, they are not meant to be the main attribute and when they are, they're basically the equivalent of quoting a person and just saying 'this.'

There is no effort put into it.

I disagree. I may be a lot of different things, but being a poor writer isn't something of which I've ever been accused. If I think that a picture better states my position that my words can, then I'd also think there's a fairly good chance that the picture speaks volumes. In my estimation, the picture went well beyond merely saying "this" or "lol" or "derp." I would again raise the point that it garnered multiple responses substantive in nature as evidence of the fact that it wasn't at all itself lacking in substance. There's was apparently enough substance therein to provide other posters a springboard from which to leap. If the fear behind the prohibition of "low content" posts is that they do nothing to further substantive discussion, I again argue that my picture-post with the responses it generated can't be the kind of post that motivated the prohibition. But reasonable minds can differ.

And as one who dabbles in rules and regulations, I'd like to point out that the efficacy of a rule is never found in its terms but, rather, is found in the sound judgment used in its application. Rules are more tools than rules. They're only as effective as the person wielding them.