One word posts =\

[JunkfoodMan]

Is it possible to disallow one-word posts (Such as "Ok" or "Cool."), Because most of the time they contribute absolutely nothing to a topic, and sometimes (in my case) make me angry and susceptible to flaming. Posts that retaliate to an argument containing one line is more of an invitation to further an argument, ie.

"I think xxx is xxx because..."
"Cool."
*Pointless Bump*

Any opinions on this matter? =\

[Tural]

No.

But really, no, we are not going to do that. There is no post length requirement, and there should not be. If you don't like it, don't respond, or don't come back to the thread. You're wanting to force people to elaborate on things which very often do not require elaboration. Say someone asks a simple question, "Does this mean this?" - "Yes." Oh, but wait, that person can't answer the question under the new rule. The rule needs to be universal. You can't pick and choose some one-word posts, so you can allow them unless they break a rule, or you can disallow all of them. There is no need to disallow them just because you don't like them. If they are "susceptible to flaming," then you had better hope the person responding isn't an idiot who's going to flame.

[JunkfoodMan]

Well Obviously "Yes" is good, But "No" without any explanation is what annoys me. "Why not?" is more of a question, whereas I see no reason to question somebody when they say "Yes". An answer of "No" requires justification the majority of the time.
I just see some one-word posts as spam.
I mean, Perhaps I shouldn't of put it so vague as Any one-word posts, But the ones that are useless or nonconstructive to a topic should be regarded as spam, and thus the poster receiving a warning of some sort.

[Tural]

Then report them for being spam, but there is no rule, nor will there be, against the length of a post. If they are already spam, there is no need to add a rule about it...

[JunkfoodMan]

After all of this time on these forums, I have totally forgotten about that report button...
I see your point. You can lock this now.

[RaVNzCRoFT]

There's really no way to enforce this, other than the [annoying as hell] minimum-character post setting.

[Sarb]

True.

[Tural]

How clever of you, and completely necessary too.

[GametagAeonFlux]

How clever of you, and completely necessary too.

Perhaps the same could be said of your post.

Anyways, this topic's going nowhere, and I know we're not supposed to lock shit in here but if this is what people are going to be doing, I see no reason not to.

[Tural]

Addressing someone's spam as a staff member does not fall under spam itself.

[GametagAeonFlux]

Addressing someone's spam as a staff member does not fall under spam itself.

Doing it in a sarcastic, cynical manner does though.

Continue this conversation on AIM or PM me.