Froggy Slayer said:
I don't get why all low content posts are zapped.
The best short answer I have for this sort of thing is this is a rule better left to the spirit than the letter.
In the earlier forms of the guidelines, before there was a Code of Conduct, it was against the spirit to make list or versus threads. Things like "Name your favorite RPG" or "Who's better, Master Chief or Gordon Freeman?" would make for poor threads, largely because the discussion potential would often be overshadowed by people listing or answering in short form. It made the forums a little too light and airy for most of the discussions the site was trying to bolster. This was back when the forum population was significantly smaller, and with more users comes a higher chance for abuse, especially where list threads and low content material is concerned. To wit, this thread is less than 12 hours old, and it's already two pages long. So, in order to combat that, a low content rule has been put in place. It's to prevent things like people saying "lol" in response to this very thread, a question that you have and hopefully want a genuine answer for.
Granted, not every discussion requires paragraphs of detailing where simple facts or brief replies cover the material perfectly, but having an open outlet for discussion is no worse for wear than somewhere where brief, simple answers are commonplace. And for those seeking deeper discussion, it's easier to find it because it's expected to be the norm. It works better for the most part, for most users.
GameChanger said:
Don't care. Okay, don't ban me. There's a lot of text here, some of it you can't see. That's the magic of it. Mods can't discriminate, that's kinda why. You can't warn one and not the other when it comes to democracy etc.
And this kind of stuff is why we apply the spirit, rather than the letter. In an ideal world, I'd probably single this post out for punishment. However, I'll put some leniency in place to make my point.
Despite not being a short reply, it's still very much low content. The idea is that this post is acceptable because it's longer is a fallacious one. While the text itself might be more dense, the content is still sparse. You could have chosen to use this as a springboard for discussion on how the rule can or should change, you could have created/shown examples on why you think the rule is too often misapplied or undone, but instead you opt to say nothing in a manner that could be read as snide.
It's pointless. Posts exist on a forum to bolster discussion as a primary or socialize as a secondary. You're not only failing to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way, you're actually coming across as abrasive and demeaning, as though your point couldn't be made without using someone as a cultural patsy. It's not a good way to post, but it's the way you've intentionally chosen. Why?
The Crotch said:
To quote Leonard Nimoy quoting Antoine de Saint Exupéry, "Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
Which is why the rule deals with content, rather than length or wording. Brevity is a powerful tool to employ, but discussion cannot be carried without foundation. To reply to one quote with another, Einstein once said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler."
sextus the crazy said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
sextus the crazy said:
aba1 said:
Generally if it is worth saying it can be said in a full sentence.
yeah, if your opinion is so important, you should bother to write more than two words about it. How about explaining your opinion?
And posting "this" doesn't count. Certainly, you can at least come up with a few words on the subject.
This, ditto, QFT, etc. must be backed up with supporting arguments and statements.
I'd have to agree. It's far too easy for a simple statement to become the crux of an argument without providing enough elucidation. Too much of that kind of posting tends to over inflate threads. It's hard to keep up a discussion when so much repeated data is changing hands from post to post, but nothing is given enough time or thought to really provide meaning. Much like the muted roar of a crowd's chatter, I think if too much is said without really providing depth, so much is opportunity to discuss is lost. Often, it can't actually be found at all.
But more importantly, why do you think so?
