This is sorta an open letter to the moderators, in addition to me checking to see what other users think of the "low content" rule and how it's being handled.
I'll start by admitting that I'm not a particularly active forum user around here and that I mostly come to this site for the entertaining videos. Therefore, you can take my points with a grain of salt. If you don't agree with this observation of mine, then more power to you but this is based on my own personal experience on this forum.
The first and only time I ever received a warning for one of my posts was during a topic called "Characters that inspire absolute terror from a francise?". The premise was simple; what computer character scared you? I checked it out and figured that people were posting pictures of monsters from relatively recent games and decided to be oh-so-clever and dig into my childhood.
I posted a single solitary picture and left it at that.
Imagine my surprise, when I find a message in my inbox, that didn't state that someone had replied to me the exact word: "OMG! Those guys were the worst! You have brought back dearest nostalgic memories, that I will treasure forever and ever, and for that I will always love you." but rather: "This message is being automatically sent by the forum system to let you know that you have been issued a warning by a forum moderator."
This is how I was introduced to the "low content" rule or at very least how I was encouraged to actually bother reading through the forum rules and skim through this bit of text:
What exactly does the low content rule refer to and how is it moderated?
Remember that this is first and foremost a discussion forum. If you aren't discussing something, don't post it. Nobody wants to read a bunch of "First" and "this" and "lol"'s strung together. Similarly, links, videos and images should always be used to strengthen a stated opinion. It's more about what you say than how many words you use to say it.
For those who don't know, that thing in the picture is a Chryssalid, as it was depicted in the original Xcom game. Terror missions where these guys popped up were nightmares, seeing as how you not only had to fight the zombified civilians/team members that they managed to infect but also a brand new Chryssalid that was guarantied to arise from every... single... zombie that you shot down. Yeah, that's right. The Chryssalids in the original games were harder than the ones you're dealing with in the new game.
Yes, I should have/would have/could have mentioned that in my post, and it certainly would have enriched my contribution, if I had. I'll admit that in hindsight (I'll also admit that for the next 6 months, that one fracking green dot in my Forum Health Meter stuck out like a blistering sore thumb, every time I found a reason to open my profile -rasen frasen stupid green dot- ¬_¬).
So what's the problem? Clearly it sounds like I agree with the rule, right?
Well, in a way, I do; I hate just as much as the next person whenever a retard feels compelled to post "First!" in a thread, as if that somehow validated his or her existence.
But do I agree how the moderators enforce it?
More importantly, could I have possibly written a longer lead-in, for a single question?
The answer to both questions: No, I don't think so.
More and more am I noticing people receiving "low content" warnings for posts that I don't think they deserved that warning for. It usually happens when the thread topic is a question of some sort, like the one I received my warning for. The thread I'm gonna spotlight, which subsequently triggered this rant of mine, is this one:
What is your GOTY so far?
I'm gonna ask that people go to post nr 4 and 32 and click on them, so you can see what they received a warning for.
They wrote a single word answer, that clearly dictated what they thought was game of the year, just like the question dictated. Ironically, I noticed that in both cases, their GOTY is Dishonored and I'm gonna assume it's a coincidence and not accuse the moderator of being biased.
So why the warning? Because they didn't list a good reason why they picked that game? Well, then, while still focusing on page 1 of that thread, how come posts 14 and 27 didn't receive a warning? All they did was post the name of their game and add ",no contest/all the way" behind it. How does that make their post a valid contribution?
Hell, take a look at post 3 and 9. They posted... gasp... two games but no explanation why they picked them.
And if we check the next page, we find people that posted a one word post, simply stating the name of the game and they haven't received a warning yet, as I'm writing this.
So what gives? Why are people being arbitrarily punished for low content posts, when others slip by the radar? How's that fair? Why are you punishing these particular posts at all?
Feel free to post your own opinion on this one particular rule and whether or not you think it's...
a) ...a necessary rule that ensures an enjoyable experience, here at the Escapist forum.
b) ...being correctly handled by the moderators.
Finally, I wish to apologize for the very long post. I was feeling particularly rantful. For consolation, please enjoy this silly little survey (participation is not mandatory).
Edit: Poll is experiencing technical difficulties. Apparently, if you include an apostrophe in the text, it will cause it to cut off all text that's written after it.
Another Edit: Can't fix it. Bottom line. Option 1 and 2 both mean Yes, while option 4 and 5 both mean No. I was just being silly with the options, including a long version/short version answers, as a jab on the low content rule.