Pointless posting

[Neil]

Ah yes, a much discussed topic within Habbox, something that I'm sure isn't too far at the back of peoples minds is how dumb this rule is, I'm not saying pointless posting is bad but it really needs to be sort of.. Re-thought to have purpose, for example;

There is a serious thread about the resession or something, it's all fine until someone posts something about Chuck Norris - this is pointless posting, this is not my point.

Later in the thread say someone replies to the Chuck Norris post with a random fact or something related to Chuck Norris - My point, this is not pointless, it is in reply to a previously made post, though it has little purpose to the main topic, it isn't pointless as it replies to a topic that was raised by another member, whether pointless or not it shouldn't matter.

Obviously not saying get rid of the rule, more the warning given "please do not post pointlessly" if anything the rule and warning should just be "do not create posts with no relation to the main topic".

Just to clarify, this isn't made because I recently received these warnings, I did but that's not the point, it's just unfair to say a post is pointless when it isn't.

xOxOxOx :)

[lick]

Hey i think i know the mod, i got them aswell for replying to things other users talked about

[Robbie]

It does actually say


A pointless post has no relevance to the topic, any previous post

So if you're replying to a previous post it's OK.

[Neil]

It does actually say



So if you're replying to a previous post it's OK.

If it's ok why are so many warnings issued? Really isn't the point in getting rid of pointless posting to get rid of it completely? Not just the guy that starts it? I believe my rule idea would serve much greater, obviously no one will follow it but at least pointless posting will be punished with something that actually makes some degree of sense.

[iAdam]

I agree, however that post shouldn't be there in the first place so if you're replying to it and it isn't relevant then surely your post is irrelevant to the thread aswell?

[xxMATTGxx]

A11. Do not post pointlessly – A pointless post has no relevance to the topic, any previous post or is meaningless (ghnrgher etc). A pointless thread either has no meaning, is something posted that is not true (e.g. false story in news and rumours) or a thread that doesn't prompt a discussion (eg. post the colour of socks you're wearing).

In my eyes, any pointless posts that are nothing to do with the actual "topic title" should be dealt with. It does say in the rule "any previous posts". I will have to think about this a little more. Although I do strongly believe that if there is a pointless post, you shouldn't reply back to it. :) I will also clarify the 'rule' and add any changes to the rule if needed on this weeks Sunday Updates.

[Yonder]

Just reinforce the rule by adding also do not post responses to pointless posts within the thread.

[Catzsy]

I have just been dealing with this thread and actually it probably comes under the umbrella of posting to cause arguments but that in itself can be seen as pointless. I do not think the rule needs to be changed - it is fine as it is. This thread maybe was allowed to carry on longer than it should have been but then its a fine balance and instead of posting about 'pointless posting' it may have been 'why was out thread closed'. It's really helpful if the members can make a contribution by reporting this as well. :)

[FlyingJesus]

In my eyes, any pointless posts that are nothing to do with the actual "topic title" should be dealt with. It does say in the rule "any previous posts". I will have to think about this a little more. Although I do strongly believe that if there is a pointless post, you shouldn't reply back to it. :) I will also clarify the 'rule' and add any changes to the rule if needed on this weeks Sunday Updates.

It's been previously stated that as topics can often change through discussion (ie: someone starts a thread named "what kind of eggs do you prefer?" and it over time turns into a discussion on the merits of various farming techniques) if a post is in relation to the current topic rather than just the thread title topic it is to be counted a relevant. Of course, if somehow the same thread I used as an example came to be a discussion about how anyone with less than 100% True Habbo is a noob then then it can just be moved into spam with a mod note, rather than having warnings given to all involved in the discussion.

That is, so long as it did somehow get there naturally rather than as a spawn off some nonsense post - that, I think, should be the deciding factor.

[xxMATTGxx]

It's been previously stated that as topics can often change through discussion (ie: someone starts a thread named "what kind of eggs do you prefer?" and it over time turns into a discussion on the merits of various farming techniques) if a post is in relation to the current topic rather than just the thread title topic it is to be counted a relevant. Of course, if somehow the same thread I used as an example came to be a discussion about how anyone with less than 100% True Habbo is a noob then then it can just be moved into spam with a mod note, rather than having warnings given to all involved in the discussion.

That is, so long as it did somehow get there naturally rather than as a spawn off some nonsense post - that, I think, should be the deciding factor.

There will be exceptions as what you have said is correct. The rule will stay the same but I shall create a thread in the Moderator forum so situations like this can be dealt with the appropriate action. :)

[GommeInc]

There will be exceptions as what you have said is correct. The rule will stay the same but I shall create a thread in the Moderator forum so situations like this can be dealt with the appropriate action. :)
From my experience, making rules up as you go along is a huge no-no. Never mention in a rule anything to do about exceptions. Just leave the rule as it is and deal with pointless posts when they are seen as pointless. If moderators can't understand that then they shouldn't of been promoted to moderator status. Simplez *click*. The first pointless post should be dealt with, anything after that with reply to that post isn't pointless - the chances of someone reading the first pointless post is quite small, people tend to look at the first few posts and leave it at that, the majority in most cases will keep on topic about something like children who can't behave in the classroom while a sub-debate about sperm in the classroom is perfectly fine. :)

[xxMATTGxx]

From my experience, making rules up as you go along is a huge no-no. Never mention in a rule anything to do about exceptions. Just leave the rule as it is and deal with pointless posts when they are seen as pointless. If moderators can't understand that then they shouldn't of been promoted to moderator status. Simplez *click*. The first pointless post should be dealt with, anything after that with reply to that post isn't pointless - the chances of someone reading the first pointless post is quite small, people tend to look at the first few posts and leave it at that, the majority in most cases will keep on topic about something like children who can't behave in the classroom while a sub-debate about sperm in the classroom is perfectly fine. :)

In a way I agree, but "Pointless Posting" is one of the very few minor rules on the forum and there isn't an actual infraction for it. So a simple explanation to the department on what to do would be ideal, wouldn't you agree? Although that should cover in the moderator guide. Which is being rewritten for the team. :)

[The Professor]

I'm not sure I'm quite grasping what's going on here. Are mods warning for replies to offtopic posts now?

[xxMATTGxx]

I'm not sure I'm quite grasping what's going on here. Are mods warning for replies to offtopic posts now?

Normal moderators are now allowed to deal with pointless posts. Although, I think this thread was more regarding pointless replies to the first pointless post.

[Catzsy]

I'm not sure I'm quite grasping what's going on here. Are mods warning for replies to offtopic posts now?

No Alex. Actually there was a confusion between posting to cause arguements and pointless posting which has now been cleared up.

[Neil]

I'm not sure I'm understanding, seems like alot of mixed comments are going here, are you saying you're allowed to reply to a pointless comment but you'd rather people didn't? :S

[Catzsy]

I'm not sure I'm understanding, seems like alot of mixed comments are going here, are you saying you're allowed to reply to a pointless comment but you'd rather people didn't? :S

Normally pointless post is something completely random that doesn't in anyway contribute to the thread at all so there would be no need to reply to it.

The confusion was that in the thread you are referring to it was 'posting to cause arguements' rather than being although because that doesn't contribute positively to a thread could be seen as pointless too.

Obviously replying to someboy who is posting to cause arguments is just going to fuel more arguments so best to report than risk getting an edit yourself for the same rule break.

Topics can develop during the course of a thread as FJ has decribed very well but random comments and posting to cause arguments is not allowed.

[Neil]

Normally pointless post is something completely random that doesn't in anyway contribute to the thread at all so there would be no need to reply to it.

The confusion was that in the thread you are referring to it was 'posting to cause arguements' rather than being although because that doesn't contribute positively to a thread could be seen as pointless too.

Obviously replying to someboy who is posting to cause arguments is just going to fuel more arguments so best to report than risk getting an edit yourself for the same rule break.

Topics can develop during the course of a thread as FJ has decribed very well but random comments and posting to cause arguments is not allowed.

So pointless posting is allowed providing it doesn't cause an arguement? That makes sense so if some gets a warning for posting pointlessly it isn't a proper warning because it isn't starting an arguement? Or is that post still warnable but ones that reply are fine?

[Catzsy]

So pointless posting is allowed providing it doesn't cause an arguement? That makes sense so if some gets a warning for posting pointlessly it isn't a proper warning because it isn't starting an arguement? Or is that post still warnable but ones that reply are fine?

The sanctions for pointless posting and posting to cause arguements are different.

Pointless posting - for random comments that has nothing to do with the topics & contributes nothing positive to a thread there is an edit. If a member persistently does this on a regular basis then it is referred to a Super Moderator who can decide to give a final pm warning or warning or in the case of loads of pointless posting in a short time i.e. spam can caution or even ban.

Posting to cause an argument is a step up from pointless because although it still doesn't contribute anything positive to a thread it is also argumentative and usually only done to target a member or group of members. This invites a pm [for the first rule break] followed by a warning then infraction if the member keeps breaking the rule.

Action is only taken on replies if they break the rules although a thread may well be closed because of persistent arguments amongst some of the members. :)