So, the low post content rule...

[Dags90]

I feel this is a reply to my post, even though you didn't quote me. Alright, maybe so, you have a point, smart bullshit is still bullshit, no? But at least by typing with good form and correct spelling you improve your knowledge of your language, so its more positive than by using "txt speech" right? It almost has to be.

I don't believe that typing with good form and correct spelling you improve your knowledge of your language, so it's not more positive than by using "txt speech".

(Or more simply: I disagree)
__________________
(Imo, you improve your knowledge of whatever language by exposure to new words and syntax, not by being fastidious in dotting your "i"'s and crossing your "t"'s) <--actual new content

I dislike the way the rule is applied because I disagree with their definition of "content", which seems to be judged largely on word count.

 

[TheSaw]

People should lengthen out their posts while unnecessary explaining things just so their post is longer, like what I am doing now. I could have ended after "things", but no I'll continue rambling on so my post isn't too short.

 

[Snowalker]

I feel this is a reply to my post, even though you didn't quote me. Alright, maybe so, you have a point, smart bullshit is still bullshit, no? But at least by typing with good form and correct spelling you improve your knowledge of your language, so its more positive than by using "txt speech" right? It almost has to be.

I don't believe that typing with good form and correct spelling you improve your knowledge of your language, so it's not more positive than by using "txt speech".

(Or more simply: I disagree)
(Imo, you improve your knowledge of whatever language by exposure to new words and syntax, not by being fastideous in dotting your "i"'s and crossing your "t"'s) <--actual new content

While I agree with this sentiment, how best to be exposed to new words than be being around pretentious assholes that like to show off their knowledge every-time they turn around? And that the only way to become accepted in this society is to dot your "i"'s and cross your "t" in a fastidious manner.

 

[GeorgW]

Lol <--- It is to eliminate useless posts like that, they add nothing to the forum

This.
I'm so tempted to only post that, but I'd rather not be a hypocrite.

And I'm sooo tempted to give you a warning
What's your policy on mods moderating admins? I knew Spin's, but what's yours?

It's a damn good rule, it keeps the forum civilised. And as for pictures, we realise that your opinion could be expressed with just a picture, and the problem is not about that. It's that we want your personal opinion using your own words, we don't want a standard file used specifically to help people state simple, common opinions as quickly as possible. They're more than welcome to be used to enhance your point, but not to be the entirety of it.

 

[FalloutJack]

It makes sense to me. This is supposedly an upscale forum...

 

[Snowalker]

Lol <--- It is to eliminate useless posts like that, they add nothing to the forum

This.
I'm so tempted to only post that, but I'd rather not be a hypocrite.

And I'm sooo tempted to give you a warning
What's your policy on mods moderating admins? I knew Spin's, but what's yours?

It's a damn good rule, it keeps the forum civilised. And as for pictures, we realise that your opinion could be expressed with just a picture, and the problem is not about that. It's that we want your personal opinion using your own words, we don't want a standard file used specifically to help people state simple, common opinions as quickly as possible. They're more than welcome to be used to enhance your point, but not to be the entirety of it.

While I understand the point on pictures, I think it should reconsidered, or at least be lessened, because I have seen often times where a single picture as a reply is far funnier than a picture and a comment. I mean, sure, it may not add to the discussion value, but if we start sacrificing comedic edge for discussion, well, I might get bored with this place. I do enjoy a good discussion, but what keeps me here is the sense of humor this place has, and if it loses that... well, then the discussion might become too trivial for me to care.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Because it comes across as lazy and contributes practically nothing to a topic if you just post a single word or a picture with no text.

If you want to express your opinion on something, the least you can do is put some effort into it.

 

[Eri]

Oh look. Even in this situation the mods can't take a joke. I should say I'm surprised but I'm not.

 

[Zaik]

It's intended to give grounds to suspend people who just post pictures as responses with no words.

The vague and broad wording in it(and pretty much all the rules) allows you to stretch it to any post that doesn't add content to the thread.

Yeah we're actually not even supposed to post to answer questions, last I read. Supposed to be done through PMs. I dunno what anyone would talk about though. A million one post threads and that's it.

 

[Marik2]

I love that 2 infractions were given out in this thread for the thread subject lol

I think in general its a good policy, but it is over used. Sometimes a couple words ARE the best way to express things and turning it into a sentance to avoid moderation can weaken the point.

I was loling at that as well XD

And yes sometimes all you need is just a couple of words to fully explain something.

 

[Queltherio]

I like how in the first 18 posts two are low content and have received warnings!i

 

[Togs]

It annoys me, Ive seen plenty of people get away with it and Ive been knocked down by it for posting in a thread asking for name ideas with one name- anymore than that would of been padding ffs.

 

[triggrhappy94]

...
^Not a low content post

^My solution

 

[Sassafrass]

To stop people from posting 1-2 word replies and to encourage discussion. Its not really that hard to grasp and its actually really difficult to break the rule.

That stuff he said.
But yeah, it's there to stop the one word answers that would otherwise fill this forum. It could also have a secondary purpose of stopping people spamming one or two word posts to boost their post counts. And now, I really hope that the Mods notice I've written this in white text as if not, I'm getting a warning. XD

 

[Rottweiler]

Why is it everyone thinks that breaking a rule 'as a joke' somehow equates to 'not breaking the rules'?

Rule: No one or two word posts. Final say is up to the Moderators.

Poster: "Lol"

Mod: "Warning."

Poster: "How could you not see that my previous post was a deeply satirical comment on the focus of the forum, and dare give me a warning!"

Mod: "Does the listed rule say 'except as a joke or satirical comment on society'? No? Then receive the consequences of breaking the rules. Your reasons for doing so aren't important."

I don't get it. Have you tried this theory in other circumstances? "I was driving 90 mph in a 20 mph School Zone as a political statement! How dare the police ticket me for speeding!"

"I bashed in a store window with a cinderblock and stole a TV, but I did it as a satirical comment on the stereotype of minorities stealing entertainment items, and therefore should not be liable to legal prosecution!"

 

[JMeganSnow]

Lol <--- It is to eliminate useless posts like that, they add nothing to the forum

Sometimes they add levity, and I'd like to see the evidence that really short posts somehow take up a noticeable amount of resources to make banning them worth while.

What this ultimately prevents is enormous spam threads made up entirely of one-word posts. But they can't just ban the ABUSE, no, they have to ban the thing which could *theoretically* be abused.

 

[josemlopes]

Couldn't say.

Its so this forum doesn't become 4chan where no real discussion is held and its basically just one big group txt message fiasco.

Its funny because that guy got a warning.

OT: I find it wrong, most of the times it ends up not adding anything to the conversation.

Ex: Original post: "lol"
Redefined post: "lol, I laughed so hard at this, the face is so epic"

Yeah, why is there a need to say more crap that end up being the same, the idea is perfectly transmited with the "lol".

 

[Snowalker]

Why is it everyone thinks that breaking a rule 'as a joke' somehow equates to 'not breaking the rules'?

Rule: No one or two word posts. Final say is up to the Moderators.

Poster: "Lol"

Mod: "Warning."

Poster: "How could you not see that my previous post was a deeply satirical comment on the focus of the forum, and dare give me a warning!"

Mod: "Does the listed rule say 'except as a joke or satirical comment on society'? No? Then receive the consequences of breaking the rules. Your reasons for doing so aren't important."

I don't get it. Have you tried this theory in other circumstances? "I was driving 90 mph in a 20 mph School Zone as a political statement! How dare the police ticket me for speeding!"

"I bashed in a store window with a cinderblock and stole a TV, but I did it as a satirical comment on the stereotype of minorities stealing entertainment items, and therefore should not be liable to legal prosecution!"

But this isn't the same. You logic is sound, but it honestly is different. First, those crimes have victims, or at the very least, have the potential to have victims. These do not have victims in hardly any sense other than just a bad community. Second, those are widely considered bad, this on the other hand has a wide gray area and the rules haven't always been aimed against them. I'll say this, I have no qualms with the rule expect the picture part, but saying its comparable to stealing a TV or putting children in mortal danger is quiet crazy.

 

[josemlopes]

Why is it everyone thinks that breaking a rule 'as a joke' somehow equates to 'not breaking the rules'?

Rule: No one or two word posts. Final say is up to the Moderators.

Poster: "Lol"

Mod: "Warning."

Poster: "How could you not see that my previous post was a deeply satirical comment on the focus of the forum, and dare give me a warning!"

Mod: "Does the listed rule say 'except as a joke or satirical comment on society'? No? Then receive the consequences of breaking the rules. Your reasons for doing so aren't important."

I don't get it. Have you tried this theory in other circumstances? "I was driving 90 mph in a 20 mph School Zone as a political statement! How dare the police ticket me for speeding!"

"I bashed in a store window with a cinderblock and stole a TV, but I did it as a satirical comment on the stereotype of minorities stealing entertainment items, and therefore should not be liable to legal prosecution!"

Saying one word is so dangerous, thank god the moderaters are here to stop us from comiting rampage.

This is a forum to discuss things, that one word is part of the discussion and can be totally valid if appropriate.

 

[JochemDude]

a warning seems a little harsh to me, why not just block the post off. 'this post was blocked because of low content' and adding that to a 'block count' of 5 before a warning seems fair enough. The picture one is a little odd though, I mean a picture can say a thousand words (that is ofcourse only when you have like a picture if that is not a popular meme picture). A description would sometimes be nice though even if only a single sentence related to said picture. Unless that would mean the forum gets flooded with picture only pony posts (wow, say that one as much and fast as possible)