Food Forum Moderation: Emoji-only posts being treated as spam

Dear moderators—with all due respect—I think you’re being a bit too heavy-handed in some areas. There are definitely more pressing issues to address than deleting every single post that consists of "only" an emoji (or a quote paired with one). If an emoji is pure spam, fine, delete it. But sometimes it just means "I agree with the post above" or "I'm backing what I just quoted." That actually adds value to the discussion—because when you wipe those out, you lose any sense of how many people actually support a specific side or opinion.

It’s not like I’m so sensitive that my heart breaks over an emoji on my own post, but right now, it honestly looks like there are more people throwing shade (to use a local burger joint analogy, if that helps) than there are people who simply dislike constant negativity and nitpicking.

Look, I’m well aware the rules say don't post nothing but emojis, but I still think there should be some discretion regarding what constitutes a "serious offense" versus someone just missing a detail or forgetting a rule.

It took me a while to come back to a topic I used to enjoy, and now I’m regretting it. 😢

I guess the rule feels kind of silly as long as there’s still a thanks or like button on posts.

Because honestly, between

👍

and

I totally agree 👍

there isn't really much of a difference anyway.

I’m certainly no culinary expert—that’s hardly my field—but I simply had to weigh in here because I’ve been arguing for a change in this specific area for quite some time now.

The current situation is rather absurd: if you post nothing but a smiley face, most moderators will just scrub your comment entirely—and in the best-case scenario, you might even end up with a Cardboard warning (much like on Reddit, which happens to be my usual haunt).
On the other hand, if you pair that same smiley with a little note—something like, "Just checking in, since I can't just leave a single emoji"—then suddenly it’s perfectly acceptable (as if adding a few unnecessary words makes it any more constructive than the icon itself). 🤷

Now, don't get me wrong—I’m not suggesting we should encourage a tidal wave of meaningless, random emojis cluttering the boards—but I do believe the way this is handled needs a complete overhaul.

I’ve seen some PDFs where they don't even let you get away with basic stuff like "I agree," "+1," or "same here," and honestly? I think that's totally fair. You get so many people spamming nonsense that if they didn't have those rules, you'd end up scrolling through ten posts in a row that are nothing but a string of emojis.

There’s a rule about emojis, and honestly, I don't see why anyone's should be treated as more special than anyone else's.

Nobody actually got a Cardboard, the post just got nuked. Next time, maybe throw a few actual words in there so we don't run into any issues.

Besides, you're starting a whole thread just to complain about someone else's post being deleted.😕

People love to dress up a simple "I agree" in all sorts of fancy linguistic packaging—as if adding more syllables somehow makes the sentiment more constructive—but let's be honest, it’s just fluff. 🤷

There are moments when the only response I actually feel like typing is a blunt "I agree." 🤷

If the rules are going to be this rigid, then at least get rid of the whole Cardboard warning system for low-effort posts.
Because, in my estimation, the sheer amount of effort a moderator has to expend to issue a Cardboard for a post like that is roughly equal to the effort it takes to simply hit delete—especially when we're talking about those digital PDF logs where everything gets documented.

graniteridge6 said:Sometimes the only response I actually want to write is just "I agree."🤷

It would be nice if "I agree" didn't always come wrapped in a massive wall of quoted text. Or, alternatively, if people didn't quote the entire damn page just to say 🙂 .

The rules on Lies are pretty straightforward. When someone decides to ignore them, to me, it signals they either don't care about the guidelines or they couldn't be bothered to read them properly. Honestly, I don't see any reason not to issue a Cardboard. (And truthfully, those are usually the same people who slide into my DMs asking why they got flagged because they skipped the rules entirely.) But most of the time, we just delete it.

Matthew Anderson said:It would be nice if an occasional "I agree" didn't require quoting an entire novel—or, conversely, why we can't just quote the whole thing using 🙂.

Well, I'm with you on that. 😬

That’s my point—not every "I agree" is created equal, and those replies consisting of nothing but a single emoji? That’s basically automated spam.

I realize this is a bit of a slippery slope—where does the line get drawn regarding what he gets to leave up versus what I don't?—but at least then there could be some consistency with the Cardboard pile-ups; things could actually be deleted properly.

Take, for instance—I nearly died laughing at that post by Million and those twins 🤣. If I write, "This is gold!" and add some emojis, that's a perfectly fine post. But if I had posted *only* the emojis, the sentiment remains identical, yet according to the rulebook, it would get thrown into the Cardboard bin. That part is what escapes me.
Those of us who have been around here for a while—the veterans, so to speak—already know exactly how to phrase things to avoid getting wiped or sent to the Cardboard bin, but it honestly feels a bit unfair when you see someone get flagged just because they haven't mastered the "unspoken rules."

What I mean is—an emoji post followed by a bit of text? That passes. I'm not just talking about your PDF specifically.

graniteridge6 said:but I honestly feel bad whenever I see someone get a Cardboard just because they didn't catch some "trick."

Look, they got the Cardboard because they didn't bother reading the rules. There isn't some secret trick involved here.

Matthew Anderson said:The Cardboard penalty was handed out simply because he didn't bother to actually read the rules—there’s no hidden catch or conspiracy here.

To be perfectly honest, I have never sat down and read the full set of Lies regulations. 😁
I tend to glance at them when they pop up—usually irrelevant to the topic at hand—but I felt the need to mention it. 😁

At any rate, I am aware that his actions technically violate a rule, which leads me to believe that the policy itself should be amended. Not by deleting posts, mind you, but by replacing deletions with a Cardboard warning.

Because, frankly, the current way is just nonsensical.

And I refuse to go on a long-winded rant again about "post quality"—specifically those instances where someone drops a few sentences under an emoji that offer absolutely zero more substance than the icon itself.

That is just my take on it—and look, I'm not suggesting this forum should be a sanctuary where everyone's opinion is treated as gospel, but once a topic has been opened, I feel entitled to weigh in. 😛

graniteridge6 said:Basically, I know he’s technically breaking the rules, which is why I think we should just scrap that specific rule entirely. Not deleting it, just handing out a Cardboard warning instead.

I don't really get this part. If someone skips the rules and messes up, are the rules actually at fault, and so they need to be updated? 🤔

Reading through a PDF takes, what, three minutes tops? Even if they're super long (like those massive employee handbooks you see at places like Starbucks, but that's a whole other thing), anyone planning to actually hang out here seriously can handle that.

Elizabeth Davis said:I’m struggling to wrap my head around this part—if someone fails to read the rules and ends up breaking them, does that mean the rules themselves are at fault, and therefore they need to be overhauled? 🤔

Scanning through a set of rules in a PDF takes, what, three minutes tops? Even if they’re incredibly long—think like those massive healthcare policy manuals you see in D.C.—anyone who actually intends to be a serious contributor here can certainly afford that small window of time.

The thing is, not everyone arrives here with "serious contributor" intentions.
When I first registered, the idea of becoming a regular fixture on this forum never even crossed my mind; I just popped in because I had one specific question, posted my thoughts on that thread, and moved on. Most of my entries were just direct hits from Google searches.
I didn't even realize there was a specific rulebook for every single PDF that required my undivided attention—thankfully, I didn't end up accumulating a massive stack of Cardboard in my early days since I didn't accidentally trip over any regulations. 😁
Usually, the folks who just drop a lone smiley face are exactly the ones with a negligible post count. I know this firsthand because I find myself sending them private messages quite often, asking them to go back and edit their posts.

graniteridge6 said:Not everyone here treats this place like their full-time job.
Back when I first joined, I didn't dream of becoming a regular fixture on this forum; I just had one specific question, answered it, and moved on. Most of my visits were just landing directly on certain threads via Google.
I wasn't even aware there were specific rules for every single PDF that I was supposed to study, and honestly, I got lucky that I didn't rack up a massive stack of Cardboard warnings early on by accidentally breaking something. 😁
The people who just drop a single smiley face are usually the ones with almost no post history. I know because I'm constantly sending them private messages asking them to actually edit their posts.

Whether they take it seriously or not, the rules are still there. People tend to ignore them or just couldn't care less. Regardless, thanks for pointing that out.

Matthew Anderson said:Whether they mean it or not, rules exist—it's just that most people couldn't care less and don't bother reading them. Regardless, thanks for pointing it out.

Well, look, I didn't read them either—not because I was being indifferent, mind you, but simply because for the longest time, I wasn't even aware they existed. I’m not talking about those obvious, common-sense things, like being outright rude to someone, but rather some technicality where I might have inadvertently broken a rule without realizing it. Now that I've been around this forum for a while, everything feels quite clear and logical; back then, though, it felt like a total thicket of threads, and I was just hunting for the specific topic I needed—the rules didn't exactly jump off the page at me. Most of the time, I wasn't even browsing the main forum index, but rather using a search engine to land directly on a specific thread, since I wasn't interested in the forum as a whole entity. Judging by how people respond, it seems I'm certainly not alone in that approach—who knows, perhaps it's a common habit.

That's all. 😉

Elizabeth Davis said:I don't really get this part. If someone doesn't read the rules and breaks one, are the rules and them actually at fault and in need of 🤔changing?

I mean, reading through a PDF of rules takes maybe three minutes tops—even if they’re super long (kind of like those medical insurance documents, but that's a whole different story). I guess anyone planning on being a serious part of this community can definitely spare that little bit of time.

Sure, you should definitely give the rules a read, but it's not like we're living in North Korea where you have to mow down every newbie with a machine gun just because they made a harmless mistake. I feel like it would be more fair if the moderators just gave people a heads-up about the violation and pointed them toward the right section instead of just coldly tossing out a Cardboard ban. It's all about people relations, you know? This isn't the NYPD where they can just flex their authority however they want; it's a website that actually relies on (new) users to survive. Even the local police usually don't go full force for a first offense; they typically just give you a warning 😁

Nathan Turner3 said:There’s a rule about emojis. I don't see why anyone's would be more special than someone else's to justify leaving them up.

Nobody got a Cardboard—the post was just deleted. Next time, maybe throw in a few actual words? Then there won't be any issues.

Besides, you're starting a whole thread just to complain that someone else's post got taken down. 😕

Like I already said, that "other person's post" was a reaction to mine—it was agreeing with a specific point in a discussion that had at least two sides.

Sure, the poster technically broke a rule by not saying, "I agree, I think that too, blah blah blah," but the people commenting on this thread last night feel there's barely a difference between 👍 and "I agree 👍." Basically, it's the same thing.

My point is that we should probably judge when an emoji is just spam versus when it actually contributes to the flow of the conversation. It might be worth actually reading the thread and understanding the context before jumping into mass moderation—and by moderation, I mean deleting. Not saying that happened here, by the way.

Last time I started a thread here regarding how the food section was moderated, maybe I was being a bit emotional or clumsy with my wording. But it still bothered me—I read the thread right before the cleanup, and when I came back, half the stuff that seemed perfectly reasonable and useful was gone. I get that you had reasons for a thorough sweep, but it would be nice if you left the parts of posts that didn't actually violate the rules.

When I post here, I'm not just defending myself or looking out for my own interests; I'm advocating for a quality discussion that isn't undermined by blind moderation.

You don't have to take my side—you're the moderators and I'm just "one of the users." I can always leave if I don't like it, but I have the right—and the desire—to voice my opinion, especially since I wouldn't want to leave. If I don't have to.

graniteridge6 said:Look, it’s not that I didn't care enough to read them; I honestly just had no idea they even existed.

Not reading the rules—or being oblivious to the fact that they exist—doesn't exempt you from the penalty. As long as people keep using that kind of logic, there's really no reason to change the rule, at least not here on Lies.

Now, I didn't exactly claim that, Matthew Anderson.
My point—if I can call it that—is simply that rules should primarily exist to shield users from harassment, data leaks, and similar nonsense.
Sure, they serve a purpose in maintaining some semblance of order on the forum, but I feel that you moderators ought to focus more on attracting and retaining new people; it would be a nice gesture to guide them toward the guidelines rather than just handing out a Cardboard penalty immediately.
I’m not suggesting this is your fundamental duty, per se, but—well—it makes for a much more pleasant atmosphere.
It’s much like how we don't issue a penalty for messy multi-quoting—we just give a gentle nudge instead—and I believe the same logic should apply here. Of course, I'm not talking about those users who simply refuse to listen, though I suspect such individuals will remain in the minority.

graniteridge6 said:Look, Matthew Anderson, that’s not even what I was getting at.
My point is that the rules should primarily be there to protect users from harassment, data leaks, and stuff like that.
Sure, they're necessary for keeping some semblance of order on the forum, but I feel like you guys as mods should focus more on attracting and keeping new people around. It would go a long way if you actually guided them toward the rules instead of just handing out a Cardboard warning immediately.
I'm not saying it's your job description, but it’s just... nicer.
It’s the same logic as multi-quoting—you don't just slap someone with a penalty right away; you give them a heads-up first. I think it should work the same way here. Of course, that doesn't apply to the trolls who won't listen to reason, but I'd bet they're in the minority.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. If someone can't be bothered to read the rules, I don't see much point in trying to "keep" them on the site.

graniteridge6 said:Maybe we shouldn't hand out warnings for bad multi-quoting either—just a heads-up instead. I mean, obviously not for people who actually listen to the advice, but I guess those folks would be the minority anyway.

The instructions are right there in the pinned rules at the top. It's not exactly a scavenger hunt.
As for keeping users around, making sure threads stay readable is part of the deal. Rules aren't just about preventing insults; they’re meant to keep this place from becoming a total eyesore. I mean, who actually wants to read posts that are just emojis or "I agree"? That kind of spam is only fun for the people doing the spamming. The whole point of an American forum is to have actual discussions and share opinions, not just sign off on everyone else's thoughts.