The low content rules...

[Something Amyss]

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.

Best way to say yes EVER.

But more importantly, why do you think so?

Even still, people are too quick to ditto someone else's explanation as to why. I understand the idea behind it, but I have trouble believing that a dozen people have the exact same thought process on why X is good or bad.

...I also think part of why I like the rule is it actually challenges e to put some thought into my answers where I might otherwise put small replies.

Or, on the other hand, get me to rethink whether it's worth posting. Of course, my thoughts are usually too important to simply let them fall by the wayside....

 

[Patrick Buck]

Don't care.

ok ok ok, 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.

Hero.
But what I figure it forces you to think about what you're going to say, and say it in a more interesting way. It also gives people more to reply to, so an actual disscusion can be created.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

I support the rule, though I would be more ambivalent about it if we had a surplus of true discussion forums centered around video games. Many of us know about the potential discussion value in gaming sites out there, so I understand and respect the Escapist's desire to ensure that this remain a place of legitimate discussion. Besides, the mods really are fair. In very few cases have I scratched my head about a warned/suspended post, and you even get the chance to state your case if such a warning occurs.

There's many, many places you can go and post one word or simply a picture. I can't fault these guys for wanting something different (for people like us?)

 

[BrotherRool]

Sometimes it feels a little harsh, but trying to promote discussion is a worthy ideal and it's a battle worth fighting. Saying that I fairly regularly just talk about something in an over wordy way to stay on the safe side (and it's worked so far). Which is a shame because my points would be a lot more clearer if I focused on a more concise writing style than my usual blocks of text.

Once a forum gets a certain size it can only go far as to promoting discussion, there are 6 list threads on the main page right now and for most of the posts in them, interacting will be the exception. I guess when it gets to a certain size it becomes impossible to take in and respond to all the information

 

[Subscriptism]

I hate these rules being so strictly enforced. I'll give my example which was someone was looking for a certain word. This word was "Solipsism" I gave that very answer to them and got a warning. The mods need to loosen up a bit.

 

[Signa]

I've offered this challenge before and not one person has responded. If you can prove differently, I will disregard my old view and join yours:

Give me one example where a low-content warning was unjust. A situation where there was literally NOTHING else you could have said about the situation. Go on...I'll wait here. I've never seen a low-content post that wasn't either:

A. FIRST!
B. I agree
C. A recommendation for something with absolutely no reasoning
D. A picture that anyone that has been on the internet for more than a day has seen already (Captain Kirk doing a facepalm! That's comedic gold there!)
EDIT:
E. "oh look, this thread again" (thanks TopazFusion!)
/EDIT

So go on, give me just one example where a few words is all that was needed and I will do a complete 180 on my opinion.

I made a thread once asking what God's last name was. Someone merely posted "zilla." They got a warning. Yes, they "literally could have" added something beyond that, but there was no need. None at all. Any more would have ruined the snappiness of the post.

 

[josemlopes]

The worst is when someone post an image and then just writes "Writting something to avoid the low content rule" and that apparently makes it an approved post like the mods are some kind of robots that just count the amount of words in the sentence instead of looking for actual content or lack of it.

CAPTCHA: no regrets (kind of makes sense since I am complaining about the all mighty mods of The Escapist)

 

[tippy2k2]

I made a thread once asking what God's last name was. Someone merely posted "zilla." They got a warning. Yes, they "literally could have" added something beyond that, but there was no need. None at all. Any more would have ruined the snappiness of the post.

So I have one of two responses pending that thread's use:

A. Serious Thread
That is not in any way, shape, or form a useful answer. He could have made the terrible pun and then given an actual answer instead of wasting everyone's time. Along with that, users have been hit for just making shitty puns because it's a quick way to kill a thread (everyone just keeps doing puns, drowning out people who are here to actually discuss something).

B. Fun Thread
People complain about this but I'll go ahead and just say it: This is not 4Chan; these "post something silly!" threads don't go here. Your thread needs to have SOMETHING to discuss...anything really. The thread was a waste and the post was a waste. Those types of posts are the reasons why these stupid "EVERYONE IS DROWNING" threads thrive when they should have crashed immediately.

 

[TimeLord]

The worst is when someone post an image and then just writes "Writting something to avoid the low content rule" and that apparently makes it an approved post like the mods are some kind of robots that just count the amount of words in the sentence instead of looking for actual content or lack of it.

CAPTCHA: no regrets (kind of makes sense since I am complaining about the all mighty mods of The Escapist)

Well if we ever see stuff like that then we moderate it for low content. But at the end of the day it comes down to what posts are and aren't reported. We can't police every thread so that's why we get the community to help us out by reporting posts that need attention.

But for the record, adding a line literally saying "Extra sentance to avoid low content" (or equivilant) is against the low content rule and thus will earn a user mod wrath.

Seeing how you made it on a Saturday, a mod won't be able to comment on here until Monday.

Mods are active on the weekends. Quite a few are in fact.

Anyway, the low content rule exists because and I quote;

"These forums are used for discussion and low content posts halt discussion. In order to participate in conversation one should present an explanation of the reasoning that informs your opinion. "I like pie" isn't an argument. The fact that you like pie is well and good, but why do you like that pie? This explanation offers others an opportunity to respond to your opinion and avoids forum spam.

Pictures, Links and Videos will all be considered low content posts if not accompanied by a well thought out opinion, debate or reasoning. Pics, links and videos should help to strengthen your stance or opinion, not the other way around."

In theory, that makes sense.

In practicality, it essentially gives the moderating staff a fallback that allows them to ban/warn for virtually every single post.

This is not to say that you guys do that, but the fact that you have the ability to do so is worrisome.

Ummmm... No.
If we make a moderation that the user who was on the receiving end thought questionable, they can then appeal the moderation to the Escapist staff (not the mods, we don't take any part in the appeal process) and then we are told what mistake we made so we can avoid it in the future.

Apart from anything else, why would we vindictively ban/warn "virtually every single post"? We'd push people away from the site and lose traffic because no one would want to come here just to get banned.

 

[Signa]

I made a thread once asking what God's last name was. Someone merely posted "zilla." They got a warning. Yes, they "literally could have" added something beyond that, but there was no need. None at all. Any more would have ruined the snappiness of the post.

So I have one of two responses pending that thread's use:

A. Serious Thread
That is not in any way, shape, or form a useful answer. He could have made the terrible pun and then given an actual answer instead of wasting everyone's time. Along with that, users have been hit for just making shitty puns because it's a quick way to kill a thread (everyone just keeps doing puns, drowning out people who are here to actually discuss something).

B. Fun Thread
People complain about this but I'll go ahead and just say it: This is not 4Chan; these "post something silly!" threads don't go here. Your thread needs to have SOMETHING to discuss...anything really. The thread was a waste and the post was a waste. Those types of posts are the reasons why these stupid "EVERYONE IS DROWNING" threads thrive when they should have crashed immediately.

I think you are completely missing the point here. It was a fun thread, and posting something silly was the point. Rigid following of the rules isn't going to make anyone's lives better or improve the overall quality of this forum in a case like this. No one's.

The guy did exactly as he was asked for the conversation, and was punished for it. I petitioned a mod to revoke the warning, but they told me that it was up to him to petition the mod, and there was nothing I could do on his behalf. That's fucking stupid. There is no difference between that, and you getting a warning in this thread for being unfriendly to other forum members for stating your position on the topic at hand. No one should have to get "permission" for a simple response to a conversation.