Poll: New forum rules - Yay or Nay?

[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.

 

[GamingAwesome1]

New rules seem fine to me, honestly. Amnesty system could probably do with a shorter timeframe to remove warnings however. 2 years to remove all of your infractions seems a bit much.

Still, I agree that eight infractions is more than enough for a user to figure out what is and isn't tolerated.

Seems very simple, don't be a dick. This is how it's always been. I particularly like this here crackdown on low content posts. Should prevent those random threads were something posts something incoherent and everyone just responds with image macros.

Not particularly fond of warnings counting against you for that long to go away however, aren't warnings more of a "You did something bad but we can see you clearly didn't really intend to do that, just letting you know." sort of thing?

Overall I really don't have a problem with the new system, seems perfectly fine to me.

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

I've never had a problem with the rules. Yes, I've been actioned once, and frankly, I can see what was offensive about what I posted.

What I don't agree with is the fact that I'm on perma-probation forever for literally one post I made ... what like half a year at least ago? I think closer to 8 months?

That seems pretty undue to me.

[edit]: Okay, just read the Amnesty bit. Still ... probation for 2 years for one post? Honestly?

[edit2]: Hey, I went down to just warnings. Well, I guess I can deal with that. Thanks? Im not sure if that was an automatic thing, or a mod that did that.

 

[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.

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.

If 90% of the pictures chosen on this site DID just that, then I would probably be whistling a different tune. Unfortunately they're not. The majority of all picture only posts are memes. I see maybe 1-2 pictures a week that do not derive from some sort of pop culture joke and the majority of the time, its not the posters original work (Therefore, it is like quoting and saying 'this' as you're taking someone else creation and showing your agreement with it.)

Spoiler: For example, and this is one I've been seeing quite often as of late,

That picture doesn't further conversation, if anything, its a conversation-killer. It leaves nothing to be discussed and nothing to be said. This is exactly what the majority of picture only posts do. Do you expect me to believe quite a few posters can't write out their feelings about someone's stupidity and are instead forced to post a face palm picture? That would be pretty sad in my opinion.

Pictures are meant to be used in tandem with your posts, they're not meant to be in the spotlight. Look at most user reviews from people like Marter or BlueInkAlchemist, they use the pictures to show off their opinions while also making the text look more visually appealing. They do not dominate the post, they emphasize the points being made and compliment what is written. These are what I mean when I say they should be used together.

If you want the picture only ban to be removed, then I suggest you lead by example. Memes do not further conversation 99.9% of the time, but that is exactly what the majority of these picture only posts use. If anything, they derail more threads then anything else, save for trolls and flame bait (And this would counter-productive to what you claim). Until the community decides to use images that actually further conversations, instead of just small, silly GIFs and memes, I can't agree with you.

 

[gbemery]

-snip-

Yeah human factor has always been there. When I posted my LCP there were like ten other LCPs that never got probation but I did. So maybe the mod that day was pissed :/

Or, more likely, the mods didn't see the other threads, or found those less offensive of the forum rules at the time. I'm not sure what could have happened there, but I'm pretty sure the mods don't see every single thread. Did you report the other LCP's?

no it was in the same thread and the posts were just equally before and after mine. all the same length one word. It was before i knew about LCPs. And I just answered what the OP wanted "you go home find everything has been stolen and only a note is left what is on that note." yeah i was kind of angry so I reported other one word posts, and checked back for awhile and nothing not probations etc so I gave up on the report process and repeals etc. Oh well

 

[Agent Larkin]

Nay on the basis that according to the rules a warning I got well over six months that should have been exsponged hasn't.

 

[SilverUchiha]

I'm a bit unfamiliar with the new rules. I just assume that I don't act stupid enough to warrant the mod's attention and that usually works.

 

[Jerre138]

I hardly ever post anything, aywhere on the internet.

This is because I assume random strangers on the internet have as much interest in my opinonated ramblings as I do in theirs.

So I don't care.