Originally posted by Dip Low

Oh so the "pointless" points just stem from some weird autistic need for posts with words in them?

Originally posted by KyKy

Originally posted by KyKy

Originally posted by Kworb

I wouldn't say it's a "weird autistic need", it's just marketing really. The look of something is everything. That's why Apple products are so popular. Might be a mess on the inside but as long as it looks attractive, people will flock to it.

Originally posted by Kworb

I wouldn't say it's a "weird autistic need", it's just marketing really. The look of something is everything. That's why Apple products are so popular. Might be a mess on the inside but as long as it looks attractive, people will flock to it.

Originally posted by Dip Low

pressed because no one will ever write an essay when you're permabanned

Originally posted by MrPeanut

I guess. Just seems needless and nitpicky when people post the same .gif over and over and aren't adding much text to it each time. I don't think there have been any compelling arguments to categorize smilie/.gif-only posts as "pointless."

Like this post wouldn't get warned:



But this post would be:



If you want a pop music forum mainly aimed at teenagers to be devoted solely to substantive discussion then a) good luck not going to happen and b) you'd need to make much more sweeping changes, like disallowing .gifs altogether (which I don't think anyone who enjoys ATRL for what it is wants).

As it is it just seems rather arbitrary and a waste of everyone's time to be warning the smilie/.gif-only posts when often they're expressing a thought just the same as one that has like three words of text, so they're almost never really "pointless," in which case y'all should come up with a better rationale for disallowing them.

Originally posted by KyKy

Originally posted by Kworb

I don't think it's as big of a deal as you make it seem. The only issue right now is that the "pointless" warning is not clear enough, making it seem unfair when one post gets warned and the other doesn't. If we do put our foot down and explicitly allow or disallow these textless posts, people would simply get used to it.

Originally posted by MrPeanut

But warning those posts does little (if anything) to change the overall aesthetic. People usually do post something with a .gif and the abundance of .gifs and smilies won't go away unless you make a rule against them or make a requirement for how much text you need to have in each post to balance it out.

Originally posted by Dip Low

Eh, sounds autistic.

I mean, you aren't selling iPhones. This is a free forum that is subsidized by ads. Do advertisers really give a **** if there's some posts that only have .gifs?

And as if some pretentious assface is gonna browse and see a post with only a smiley and think "Oh well I've never seen such disregard for the english language, I'll go read the New Yorker now and never come here again"

Originally posted by Kworb

I do think it makes a significant difference when you're reading through a forum. It's annoying and pointless when a post is quoted ten times in a thread and everyone only posts a smiley under it.

Originally posted by KyKy