Yes |
 |
59.4% (230) |
No |
|
40.1% (155) |
Poll: Is the Low Content Rule any good? Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |
I think sometimes it's good cause as you say, it just stops people from saying 'LOL' or something. But sometimes there's nothing really more you can say than just two or three words, and cause people can't think of anything else to say they put something completely unrelated to avoid a low content warning. I think that sometimes halts the discussion more than someone putting a couple of words. | |
Yes, I think it's worth while. Frankly if you can't think of more than two or three words to post then you shouldn't post at-all on that thread. It is practically impossible to add the discussion of a thread in less than a sentence, with perhaps the exception of a list thread. A fictional example:
Was that worth posting? No, there's nothing interesting there for others to read and the only thing it does is help increase the poster's post count. The rule actually pretty lenient, just one sentence is enough to avoid being modded. | |
It's good as it prevents threads from being filled up with tons of "lols" and "+1"s. I think at times it can be a bit harsh but if you spend more than 30m here you learn not to make those kinds of mistakes. | |
Yes. Sure, it's slightly annoying in discussions where you could give a sufficient (and funnier) answer with just a single picture or video, but I believe that's a price we'll have to pay to keep discussion quality aloft. | |
Yes there should be the low content rule and this place is better for it. Seriously, there is no situation where I can say two words and make the post worthwhile. "Yes I think that". Well why do you think that random internet person? You telling me that you agree has absolutely no weight and is not something that I can have a discussion with.
Could you give any examples of this? I can't think of any situation where my post of "Yes" is enough that there is no more that needs to be said. The only situation right now I can think of is if a troll is throwing something so blatantly offensive out that you don't need more but then, why are you posting? Report his ass and move on. | |
Yeah it's good- low content posts are useless and annoying. And you'll still get the smug big-heads posting ridiculously long essays whether the low-content rule exists or not. Although I must admit, I did briefly consider simply answering 'Yes' in a quasi-sarcistic tone. But then I realised that it would be a bad idea... | |
Yes, because it stops those fuckwads from quoting someone and just typing "this". Motherfucker, what the hell. Why the fuck did you even post. You obviously have nothing to say, just shut the fuck up and come back when you have something proper to contribute. That shit is irritating as fuck.
"Do you support gay marriage? Y/N" But I guess thats what polls are for. Plus, it doesnt really matter, since I usually reply with a "I support search bar usage" and nothing else. | |
The rule is good, yes. One thing I find particularly annoying about other forums is the huge number of "this" and "+1" quote replies. I've already read the post, you don't need to waste your time quoting it with a one or two word agreement post. If you want to agree with someone, say why you agree with them. It goes without saying; if you can't post a decent reply to a thread topic, don't post in it at all. | |
I see what you did there. I agree, it stops meaningless posts from being submitted and also, to an extent, makes you put some thought into your post. At any rate, if you can't put more than one or two words down about a topic, should you really be responding to that topic? Though it's a double edged sword, some threads don't have much discussion value - threads like post your favourite song. You can post the song and then one word and still receive a warning. So, my votes on yes - it's a good thing! | |
Mods are pretty lenient with the low content in threads where people are asking for songs and stuff though. Like "help me get into jazz"-threads. But really, according to the rules, threads with no discussion value are supposed to be closed anyways. | |
Yes as it only gets enforced if you post a lot of low content posts in a row and you usually get an automated warning before moderation. | |
if there's a poll involved, it's an excellent rule. Occasionally, one link or one word can adequately sum up the extent of your thoughts on the subject, but usually, if you want to promote discussion, you need more than 1 or 2 words. | |
The rule is not a problem. The moderators who can't take anything into context are the problem. Sometimes a thread or response elicits only a very short reply and adding more unto the post is actually the low content part. | |
Could you give any examples of these threads that only require a one word response? If you can answer the thread in one answer, either you are not putting enough thought into your answer or the thread itself doesn't have enough of a discussion value to warrant existence. Even the example given earlier (post your favorite song), you can state WHY it's your favorite song, what does it mean to you, etc. | |
Well I don't remember the exact thread but I posted something and a user responded with 'Yeah I agree'. He/she probably felt that there was nothing more to add and just wanted to share my sentiment. But because of low content warnings they started talking about cake or something, which was nothing to do with the thread. This doesn't happen often but it does happen. | |
If they had absolutely nothing else to add, then there's no point for them to add anything else; they didn't need to post. You could argue that it shouldn't be the case but the Escapist has made how it feels about it pretty clear. Slightly off-topic but I'm surprised that people think that adding "Yes, also here is some extra text because I don't want to get Mod wrath" does anything. It won't be auto-flagged but if someone reports it, you still get a warning (as you should based on the rules here). | |
Had to resist simply posting "yes" or "no", though someone beat me to it. yes it is good, and your example of people thinking thinking there superior because they post long winded posts is pretty bad, no offense. | |
I think it's helpful because, to be completely honest, when I see "First!!!!" or "+1" or "lawl" and nothing else, it makes me want to reach through and wring the poster's neck. I enjoy going places online where I can discuss things. Posts that don't add to the discussion are a waste of everyone's time. | |
Death hunter said it best. I mean if you really want to post for the thrill of posting, check out the forum games section. In Off Topic and the other forums we want to hear your thoughts on the matter in more depth than "Yeah, I thought it was neat." or "lol, it rocks/sucks/______". Low content happens to be the only thing I've been punished with to date <.< | |
I think what annoys me most about the rule is the fact they don't seem to punish you for: "Yes. No I'll type another line so the forum mods don't get mad at low content". To me that deserves warning more than just a "Yes" because its still low content while adding drivel. | |
It does get punished, from what I've seen. It's just not as obvious as the posts that are just one word. | |
Just to let you know, I did the same thing once. I have one warning on my bar. These two things are not unrelated. But, no, I don't think it's that useful. Sometimes psots are just concise...I could certainly blather on about nothing and aoid a low content warning without actually having any content to speak of. | |
A short post is not always a low content post. As long as it's relevant to the subject and there's no need to add more, 1 sentence is fine. | |
How would removing the low content rule stop the "smug idiots who think it's clever to make long posts to feel even more smug"? I don't think it does, all it does is let people make pointless one word responses. | |
No. First, they could just apply a limit of characters. That way you are warned before you fall into the mistake of posting a low content reply. So it doesn't prevent low content. Only regulates it. Second, sometimes people drift away trying to fill their post. I have. I read my own post and thought it was even worse than not contributing to the thread. Third, a lot of people get away with it, anyway. | |
nope................ anyway I think its annoying to have to struggle to lengthen your post out of fear of the ban-hammer, I once got a ruse shock over a low content post and now I take no chances in some ways I can see why but really, I dont think its needed here and a litttle harsh | |
I'm one of those idiots who posts ridiculously long posts, and trusting the OP: feel ever so smug about each of them. I had no idea about that before, but now I know. NOW WE KNOW! Mitchell & Webb FTW. EDIT: re-examining the original post, I found out to be not only smug, but also completely wrong all the time. The rule tends to take away the couple-words comments which are completely useless. And honestly, I wouldn't be here at all if well-thought posts would instantly be covered between "LOL", "(quote) this" and "i agreeee". I think there's still a lot of posts that we'd do better without, that don't give anything to the conversation, like just throwing the first snappy sentence that comes to mind, in hunt for the first post or whatever. So, all it does is good. And in my opinion, there could just as well be stricter rules about the quality of post content, but I see the implementation and carrying out of such rules to be impossible in practice. | |
Considering you can avoid the low content rule by writing about the low content rule, no. | |
I think it's absolute bullshit. Sometimes a short reply is all that is required. For example, if someone asks, say, "What game was Niko Bellic in?", you need not say more than simply "GTA IV". But, because of the no low content rule, you have to fill the post out with addtional bullshit, lest answering the OP's question get you a strike. It needs to go. replace it with a "Don't spam" rule, which AFAIK we already have. Let low-content but helpful posts slide, smack around those who do dumb "FIRST" shit, we all win. | |
Perhaps. But to avoid a low content post, I'll discuss the fact that this is indeed a low content post, thus making it longer but still just as useless. OT: People can get around it quite easily. Over on the Steam Forums, if they want to write a low content post, they just add "10char" or similar to the end, to make it up to the required minimum. | |
Yes. (I'm hoping the mods will appreciate the irony) | |
My name... is JoJoDisclaimer: the above image is an artist's impression and may or may not depict the likeness of this Escapist user. JoJo does not take responsibility for any robots, super-powered agents or disappointing sequels that are produced as a consequence of this picture. | |
The way I see it is that if your post only requires a 'yes' or 'no' then its a thread that probably has a poll... If it has a poll then your answer is allready in the poll count so there is no point of the post! I prefer to be able to read justification and arguements, than pointless posts, especially as that is what generates conversation and debate! Another annoying one is when people post threads where the first post is just the title repeated! Again, that is pointless... I like to know why someone is asking, or what caused them to want to know! Its even worse when someone asks for suggestions on a topic, but doesn't say what they are into, or what they have already played/read/seen/heard/tasted/smelled... | |
The Escapist just has a different purpose than most forums; here, the point is to contribute to genuine discussions, rather than to just be a collection of shouting people. I love the Escapist for its low content post rule because it tangibly illustrates its ideals for the community. I wouldn't have it any other way. And not to say, "GTFO," but the Escapist is moderated in a way to maintain a specific kind of environment here. While the culture has evolved, this still stands in contrast to other online communities which generally are a beautiful and terrible, writhing social mass. | |
| Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT | |
There is a rule on the Escapist that prevents people from posting low content posts too prevent bad debates and 'LOL' posts from happening, but isn't that kind of a double edged sword? 'Cause you'll then have smug people feeling more smug and superiour of themselves when they post ridiculous long posts, even though they are completely wrong. Is the rule good, or bad? And if it is bad, what should we do to prevent low content posts?
EDIT: And if it is good, what should we do to prevent smug idiots?