Question: Why was the minimum post rule removed?

[Xander Olivieri]

I'm seeing people post with barely anything in the post. While they fall under spam by my reckoning, it's disputable. Posts should have a certain minimum to clarify the difference between contributing posts and spam otherwise there isn't a clear indication of what spam is to newer posters. Questionable/unclear rulings should never be discretionary.

 

[Xander Olivieri]

And the rules are at the discretion of those who view it which should never be an option without another way to justify the ruling. I can flag many posts as spam or off topic if I think they are even if the original poster and others disagree. If the Mod agrees with my sentiment then they'd delete a post that could be argued on whether or not it was or wasn't spam based on the vastly differing viewpoints of the people that saw it.

A rule should never be up to discretion or whim of those in power.

 

[Keiran]

A rule should never be up to discretion or whim of those in power.

There used to be a global rule that every post must have 24 characters minimum. We used to get a lot of posts that were very succint and had to add "/24char" to meet the minimum without bloating their post with unnecessary words.

What we look for now is quality and meaning, not an arbitrary amount of characters within a post. It's up to the moderator what does and doesn't meet their standards; and each forum is gonna have different standards based on the nature of the section.

 

[Xander Olivieri]

There used to be a global rule that every post must have 24 characters minimum. We used to get a lot of posts that were very succint and had to add "/24char" to meet the minimum without bloating their post with unnecessary words.

What we look for now is quality and meaning, not an arbitrary amount of characters within a post. It's up to the moderator what does and doesn't meet their standards; and each forum is gonna have different standards based on the nature of the section.

We had the 4/25 rule when I was a moderator and the posts looked way better than a lot of what I'm seeing posted now. It didn't take a lot of padding. A rule should be universal through a site unless a specific section adopts additional rules. They should all be uniform enough that one cannot question the decision of another. Leaving it up to the discretion of a person without any clear cut is how arguments start and how a lot of people get away with being abusive with their powers.

 

[moon]

We had the 4/25 rule when I was a moderator and the posts looked way better than a lot of what I'm seeing posted now. It didn't take a lot of padding. A rule should be universal through a site unless a specific section adopts additional rules. They should all be uniform enough that one cannot question the decision of another. Leaving it up to the discretion of a person without any clear cut is how arguments start and how a lot of people get away with being abusive with their powers.

It has always been up to the moderator what is okay and not okay in a section - but their decisions are not based on whims or personal tastes. We have the rules to lean on and base our decisions from. If something is posted that is completely random or irrelevant to the point that it disrupts a thread or is against other rules, it is removed. Three word posts or posts with less than 25 words are not necessarily doing that.

So bottom line is that the old 4/25 rule does not help us achieve anything. It merely makes things bothersome.

 

[Xander Olivieri]

I fail to see how it is bothersome, but by this point, past experience tells me to drop it. No one is going to listen and I'm more than sure I'm being made fun of in the staff thread that was used to complain about members. So just screw it.

 

[Nah]

The rule is not completely gone btw. It still exists in the Round Table, the Roleplay Theatre, and FF&W at least, as those sections still kinda need it.

Also length of post =/= quality of post. You still get low-quality posts regardless of if they're 10 characters long or 300 words long (or longer).

 

[ddrox13]

To throw in a non-staff response, I have to agree with the staff. The posts that I would consider horribly unnecessary, while not within the definition of spam, are usually longer than 24chars. A good example seems to be the TCG section, which has a total of what, 3 active users and a lot of people coming to make posts about how they want to start playing again because of Go. Sigh.

 

[donavannj]

To throw in a non-staff response, I have to agree with the staff. The posts that I would consider horribly unnecessary, while not within the definition of spam, are usually longer than 24chars. A good example seems to be the TCG section, which has a total of what, 3 active users and a lot of people coming to make posts about how they want to start playing again because of Go. Sigh.

Not a great example of unnecessary posts, IMO. That's just people trying to get back into either collecting or playing the game, and those have been happening in the section for years.

Just wanted to drop that in.

I still think the 4/25 rule is wholly unnecessary in most sections of PC and it should stay removed. For me, spam is bot link spam, off-topic messages, and arguably non-contributive messages (though I am generally hesitant to remove messages in this last category since they could be argued as on-topic depending on the topic).

 

[Shuhbooty]

Oh, I thought that all BBC and Xeno forums actually (by default with updates) tossed the code in general? I wasn't aware that it was a rule hosted by the forums that wanted them. :) (on another BBC/Xeno forum I'm on they had the same rule, but I thought it just poofed when we upgraded the site.)

Happy to know that's not true now!

 

[Caaethil]

I'm more than sure I'm being made fun of in the staff thread that was used to complain about members. So just screw it.

I feel like there's a story here that I'll want to hear about, but, alas, I'm sure that isn't a story for this thread.

I don't really see how forcing people to put at least 25 characters in their posts is going to encourage quality. this would just become this /25chaaaaaaaaaaarrrrr. And then you have all the same issues you started with, only difference being you're being very controlling without need.

 

[Jamiedh88]

Would this post be classed as ironic?