Pointless posting rule

[Immenseman]

Heya,

Just wanted to gauge an opinion on what people thought of the rule. I have taken this quote directly from the forum rules in an unedited version:


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).

Now that to me is very clear in meaning. There are no ambiguities at all in that rule. It's straight forward. As long as your post is in a response to a post that is already in the thread then it can't be classed as pointless. So what's the issue.

Well basically I've been told I will be cautioned because I have been warned 10 times about pointlessly posting. However, when I look back at my posts of which I will provide you with a few examples later in the post they aren't violating this rule. They are in response to another post within said thread. The rule unequivocally states providing it isn't completely random like "bugrwgibr" or replying to another post already made in the thread - it's not pointless. I've PM'd the staff editor about my case as we've already spoken about that and he said he'll sort it.

Anyway, just tried to find some so called pointless posts through my PMs. However, they have all been removed from the forum. Basically, I have been given user notes for replying to a post already made in the thread - but it's not on the same topic as original post. Now, I'm no genius but forums generally revolve around discussion. Discussion is boring should it remain stale and I have violated no rule. I'm not going to be like some people and be like "omg the mod hates me!!! - i'm so targeted!!!" but I just want to know what y'all think.

Do you think the rule is fine as it is and moderators should just moderate it like the rule actually says or does it need to be altered to stop posts moving away from the original topic? Basically, you can't give caution people for breaking no rules. I know you've cautioned me unfairly twice already but three times is a bit iffy.

I think I'll use a quote from the General Manager to express my opinion.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6087830&postcount=27

Please can you give nvrspk4 a usernote for posting off topic like you've given me 10 for identicle cases: http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6086465&postcount=25 I guess the answer is no. I'm quite aware of the rules and I know for a fact I haven't violated it as much as you claim.

Maybe the forum manager could request that all moderators read the rules so they know them at least as much as the members. That is all.

[adaym]

one rule for us

[Nixt]

It will be interesting to see replies to this, that way we can make an effort to update the rules so as to appropriately deal with this type of rule breaking. The key issue with the pointless posting offence is that it is very ambiguous and is there to cover a broad range of issues. Moderators have a lot of discretion when it comes to this rule and it is occasionally to identify the fine line between a rule breaking post and one that abides by the rules. This has been an issue for quite some time and therefore I am going to look into addressing it as soon as possible - all members feedback on the issue is appreciated and will be of great help when it comes to making any changes :).

[Immenseman]

It's not ambiguous at all. There isn't a fine line. There is a bold line. Pointless posting with that rule is posting someone random and spontaneous in a middle of a thread that doesn't link to the original post nor any of the other posts in the thread. It's clear what the General Manager thinks of it but I know the Staff Editor think it needs clearing up a bit. However, as the rule currently stands I have not posted "buregbrsdj" in a thread 10 times like I've been wrongly accused. I know it's happened to other people too.

If you don't want people having the freedom of a discussion on a discussion board then by all means change the rule and make it so all posts must link back to the original post. I'll respect what ever decision you make because you're management. However, at the time being the rule stands as it is so I want to make sure other people aren't fairly penalised due to poor moderation. Poor as in them not understanding the rules.

[FlyingJesus]

Fairly sure it was laid out to us a while back that if there's a topic and someone makes a pointless post, replying to that pointless post is also pointless posting as the topic hasn't naturally changed and therefore the thread's just been hijacked

[Immenseman]

Well I can't remember that and the rules don't clarify that therefore I don't know how I'm supposed to know. If it was in the rules it'd be different and it'd be understandable. It's hard to stick to the rules when they're not actually updated as often as minds are changed which is a regular thing.

[Blinger1]

I personally think if the post has nothing to do with the topic then it should be counted as a pointless post.

[kk.]

i think another thing about this is, when you prove to a moderator that the rule hasnt actually been broken, theyll unedit the post, but not remove the usernote.. because i dont understand why i have so many usernotes..

[FlyingJesus]

Well it's kind of obvious that starting a random conversation in the middle of a serious thread isn't following the pointless posting rule, it can't really take much brain activity to work it out

[Immenseman]

Well it's kind of obvious that starting a random conversation in the middle of a serious thread isn't following the pointless posting rule, it can't really take much brain activity to work it out
Well if you read the entirety of the original post (which doesn't take much brain activity) you'd realise I have acknowledged random comments are violating said rule. :eusa_wall

[Hecktix]

I personally think if the post has nothing to do with the topic then it should be counted as a pointless post.

And FJ, that pornstar in your signature is hot ;)

I agree (to the top part anyway :P)

Mods are told they have discretion with this rule.

If there is a thread about X, and you post in it about Y with no reason to do so, this is pointless and off topic. Then if your post is ignored and X continues to get discussed, then someone replies to your post about Y - that's also pointless.

It's very poorly written in the rules in my opinion and a re-writing has been looked into in the mod forum, not particularly changing the way the rule is applied but simply changing the way it's worded on the rules to clearly distinguish what a pointless post is.

It's nothing to do with poor moderation at all.

Garion's said he's looking into it and this will be done sooner than people think :)

@ kk, mods can't edit usernotes once posted, that's why. You don't have many for pointless posting though :S

[Immenseman]

I class as using the rule in a different way from how it's written is poor moderation. Just because it has been highlighted as needing changing it doesn't mean that members are supposed to know this. They are going to abide by what the rule says, it allows you to reply to any post within a thread regardless of the post you're replying to is sticking to the original topic. Obviously it's different if one person said "uwebjbfij" and the next said "bugwrg".

Also, just for the record I don't mind if you change the rule or if you keep it the same. I want consistency and I don't want users to have guess what moderator will deal with them and how strict they are. The rule is clear. The way moderators apply it isn't. I want it to be clearer, that is all.

[Nixt]

It's not ambiguous at all. There isn't a fine line. There is a bold line. Pointless posting with that rule is posting someone random and spontaneous in a middle of a thread that doesn't link to the original post nor any of the other posts in the thread. It's clear what the General Manager thinks of it but I know the Staff Editor think it needs clearing up a bit. However, as the rule currently stands I have not posted "buregbrsdj" in a thread 10 times like I've been wrongly accused. I know it's happened to other people too.

If you don't want people having the freedom of a discussion on a discussion board then by all means change the rule and make it so all posts must link back to the original post. I'll respect what ever decision you make because you're management. However, at the time being the rule stands as it is so I want to make sure other people aren't fairly penalised due to poor moderation. Poor as in them not understanding the rules.

The rule itself is indeed quite specific, however offences are never clear. They are always ambiguous. Some more than others. Forgive me, but one can only appreciate it if they are exposed to Forum Moderation - something I do not believe you have ever had the benefit of experiencing. I cannot discuss the actual details of your PM, this is not the Forum for it :).

I would encourage freedom of discussion and I am immensely pleased and impressed with the way in which this Forum has come on in leaps and bounds in terms of what we allow people to discuss and how they may discuss it. We have no intention of enforcing a rule that makes members respond to the first post, and the first post only. We merely need to clarify things such as that responding to a pointless post already posted in the thread is still a violation of the rules, and just make it generally clearer what is considered a pointless post. It will never be against the rules to post regarding an earlier post.

Although not clear, the rules do state that "a pointless post has no relevance to the topic". Now, although it does state that posts that have relevance to further posts are not pointless - surely if the original post is pointless, any comments regarding that post will also be pointless? That's common sense... surely? I do not know if you have ever studied law but there are regular occasions in which statute law is not clear on what it intends and judges must then interpret in their own way to prevent someone getting away with something that is clearly against the rules; this is what Moderators are doing. Moderation in regard to this rule is not bad. The rule itself is poorly written and we are seeking to improve this.

[Hecktix]

I class as using the rule in a different way from how it's written is poor moderation. Just because it has been highlighted as needing changing it doesn't mean that members are supposed to know this. They are going to abide by what the rule says, it allows you to reply to any post within a thread regardless of the post you're replying to is sticking to the original topic. Obviously it's different if one person said "uwebjbfij" and the next said "bugwrg".

To be fair, you don't need something written up officially to know whether something's pointless or not.

It doesn't take a genius to work it out. Users know when they are pointless posting however they manipulate the way the rule is written to attempt to get their way out of trouble occasionally and in all honesty technically there's nothing wrong with that. However it's so often said on this forum "we aren't a forum full of 10 year olds" - well 10 year olds need rules laid out for them nice and neatly, last time I checked, teens could use something called common sense.

[kk.]

@ kk, mods can't edit usernotes once posted, that's why. You don't have many for pointless posting though :S

well i have no idea what the others are for anyway :'( and the last three pointless posting ones on there are all irrelevant >:[



If there is a thread about X, and you post in it about Y with no reason to do so, this is pointless and off topic. Then if your post is ignored and X continues to get discussed, then someone replies to your post about Y - that's also pointless.


as for this part, i disagree. what if someone posts about Y and then the person replying to Y doesnt reply because theyve only just noticed it and its a few posts down, and it could actually be quite relevant to the topic. But then yoy go into the grounds of what if someone posts something about XY and then someone quotes and only talks about Y when the topics about X.

lol XY is a man

[FlyingJesus]

Well if you read the entirety of the original post (which doesn't take much brain activity) you'd realise I have acknowledged random comments are violating said rule. :eusa_wall

If you knew what your own thread was about you might realise I was on about how obvious it is not to reply to such things and so make a conversation of it. If someone did post "uwebjbfij" (to use one of your examples) and I responded, I'd think it quite justified that I get a warning for pointless posting as it doesn't further the thread in any way whatsoever. The addition about responding to a post rather than simply the thread title was put in so that discussions could evolve and become useful, not so they could turn to spam

[Sammeth.]

I suggested to general management about a month ago that this rule should be reworded to make it more clear. I think the position on it was made clear, however maybe in light of this thread it could be rethunked over.

Edit: Yeah, thats a pretty accurate post right there Tom have some rep.

[Immenseman]

The rule itself is indeed quite specific, however offences are never clear. They are always ambiguous. Some more than others. Forgive me, but one can only appreciate it if they are exposed to Forum Moderation - something I do not believe you have ever had the benefit of experiencing. I cannot discuss the actual details of your PM, this is not the Forum for it :).

here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=278351&highlight=Immenseman)
here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=438731&highlight=Immenseman)

I think that's what you meant anyway. One of the finest :')


I would encourage freedom of discussion and I am immensely pleased and impressed with the way in which this Forum has come on in leaps and bounds in terms of what we allow people to discuss and how they may discuss it. We have no intention of enforcing a rule that makes members respond to the first post, and the first post only. We merely need to clarify things such as that responding to a pointless post already posted in the thread is still a violation of the rules, and just make it generally clearer what is considered a pointless post. It will never be against the rules to post regarding an earlier post.

Alright, well once that's added I don't mind being given a user note for it. Until then, I do. How can I be cautioned for something which isn't yet in the rules?


Although not clear, the rules do state that "a pointless post has no relevance to the topic". Now, although it does state that posts that have relevance to further posts are not pointless - surely if the original post is pointless, any comments regarding that post will also be pointless? That's common sense... surely? I do not know if you have ever studied law but there are regular occasions in which statute law is not clear on what it intends and judges must then interpret in their own way to prevent someone getting away with something that is clearly against the rules; this is what Moderators are doing. Moderation in regard to this rule is not bad. The rule itself is poorly written and we are seeking to improve this.

No, I have not studied law. However, if I realised it was mandatory to study law to use HxF - I would have done so. I assure you.


To be fair, you don't need something written up officially to know whether something's pointless or not.

It doesn't take a genius to work it out. Users know when they are pointless posting however they manipulate the way the rule is written to attempt to get their way out of trouble occasionally and in all honesty technically there's nothing wrong with that. However it's so often said on this forum "we aren't a forum full of 10 year olds" - well 10 year olds need rules laid out for them nice and neatly, last time I checked, teens could use something called common sense.

Hey there,

You just said the rule needs changing now you're saying it's obvious. Damn the users for not guessing the rules! How dare we ask questions about the rules?! I must be 10, you're right! :rolleyes:

[kk.]

If you knew what your own thread was about you might realise I was on about how obvious it is not to reply to such things and so make a conversation of it. If someone did post "uwebjbfij" (to use one of your examples) and I responded, I'd think it quite justified that I get a warning for pointless posting as it doesn't further the thread in any way whatsoever. The addition about responding to a post rather than simply the thread title was put in so that discussions could evolve and become useful, not so they could turn to spam

ok but theres a flaw. if someone posted 'uwebjbfij' and youd already posted in that thread, say it was a congratulations thread, you could then say 'why post pointlessly, OT: wd again' and you wouldnt get a warning, even though you know youre posting pointlessly. and this actually happens very often

[Immenseman]

If you knew what your own thread was about you might realise I was on about how obvious it is not to reply to such things and so make a conversation of it. If someone did post "uwebjbfij" (to use one of your examples) and I responded, I'd think it quite justified that I get a warning for pointless posting as it doesn't further the thread in any way whatsoever. The addition about responding to a post rather than simply the thread title was put in so that discussions could evolve and become useful, not so they could turn to spam
Yes, that's exactly the thing. I'd say some of mine are on a par with what Nvrspk4 said. It was totally irrelevant to the general topic of the thread yet he posted it because it was in response to a post above. This is commonly known as discussion. Spam is Stupid Pointless Annoying Messages - it'd be fine if that's what they handed out user notes for. It isn't.

[Hecktix]

here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=278351&highlight=Immenseman)
here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=438731&highlight=Immenseman)

I think that's what you meant anyway. One of the finest :')



Alright, well once that's added I don't mind being given a user note for it. Until then, I do. How can I be cautioned for something which isn't yet in the rules?



No, I have not studied law. However, if I realised it was mandatory to study law to use HxF - I would have done so. I assure you.



Hey there,

You just said the rule needs changing now you're saying it's obvious. Damn the users for not guessing the rules! How dare we ask questions about the rules?! I must be 10, you're right! :rolleyes:

You are twisting my words.

I said the rule needs rewording yes, but that's not to say the subjectiveness of rule is not obvious :S In all honesty the written rules are formality, we should all follow a moral code of conduct on Habbox Forum what we'd follow in daily life...

[Immenseman]

You are twisting my words.

I said the rule needs rewording yes, but that's not to say the subjectiveness of rule is not obvious :S In all honesty the written rules are formality, we should all follow a moral code of conduct on Habbox Forum what we'd follow in daily life...
I can say many more things in real life that I can't on here. That's besides the point. If you're suggesting we have an innate moral code, I'd like to see proof. I'd say it's more from the society you live in - HxF is a mix of societies, void point. Oh wait, is this pointless?!

[Nixt]

here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=278351&highlight=Immenseman)
here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=438731&highlight=Immenseman)

I think that's what you meant anyway. One of the finest :')



Yes I did. In that case, you should be aware of how certain rules can be ambiguous in application. Additionally, on both occasions you were a Moderator quite a while ago (and not for that long, if I recall correctly) and thus you will not be familiar with how Moderators are required to work now, especially in relation to this rule.




(http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=278351&highlight=Immenseman)
Alright, well once that's added I don't mind being given a user note for it. Until then, I do. How can I be cautioned for something which isn't yet in the rules?

Aspects of the rule will be changed or improved. Whether anything specifically will be added is a different story - if we were required to change each rule so it provided a detailed explanation of each offence and how the rule may be applied, you'd have a volume of rule content to read through rather than a short page on the FAQ.




No, I have not studied law. However, if I realised it was mandatory to study law to use HxF - I would have done so. I assure you.

At no point did I state that it was mandatory to study law and I am sure you would have ;). I was merely using a doctrine of law as an analogy to how we are required to apply rules on occasion. It makes total sense, too.

[FlyingJesus]

That thread was already an utter joke from the start (the one you quoted Nvr in) and regardless, he's top dog so he can do what he likes really, simple as that. We're not born equal and we don't grow up equal, but if you sign up to something and agree to play by the rules you can't complain when you get punished for not doing so

[Immenseman]

Yes I did. In that case, you should be aware of how certain rules can be ambiguous in application. Additionally, on both occasions you were a Moderator quite a while ago (and not for that long, if I recall correctly) and thus you will not be familiar with how Moderators are required to work now, especially in relation to this rule.
granted.


Aspects of the rule will be changed or improved. Whether anything specifically will be added is a different story - if we were required to change each rule so it provided a detailed explanation of each offence and how the rule may be applied, you'd have a volume of rule content to read through rather than a short page on the FAQ.
glad to hear it.


At no point did I state that it was mandatory to study law and I am sure you would have ;). I was merely using a doctrine of law as an analogy to how we are required to apply rules on occasion. It makes total sense, too.
cool.

That thread was already an utter joke from the start (the one you quoted Nvr in) and regardless, he's top dog so he can do what he likes really, simple as that. We're not born equal and we don't grow up equal, but if you sign up to something and agree to play by the rules you can't complain when you get punished for not doing so

mind you, i wouldn't mind if it was a rule. there wouldn't be an issue then.

[Laggings]

For futher information, read the first post in this thread:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=608213

I know most of you will remember that thread ^_^.

I agree with all of what you're saying jake, as I said it about a month ago.

invincible's reply on msn was that the rules are just an outline, and are only an example, not the real rule....

UL on ban btw jake :(

[Black_Apalachi]

I'm sure Jake was only just banned in between me viewing page 1 and page 2 of this thread! :S

First off, I can imagine exactly the kind of posts Jake has been pulled on and I can also understand where he is coming from. Just because a discussion drifts away from the thread title towards a different track, doesn't necessarily render the subsequent posts as "pointless". If they are providing cause for feedback from other members then they are the complete opposite of pointless and can't be compared to trolling and posts such as 'uwebjbfij'. A great example of this would be THIS (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=612267) thread which originated as a discussion about an EU law but has developed into an argument about what the EU actually is. Maybe that isn't as off topic as some other examples, but it's still gone away from the original post.

This being said, the rule as it stands implies that posts relevant to those before them are within the rules. However moderators could still go for the roots by looking for the first post that lead to the "off topic" discussion as this will in fact be leading away from the original discussion. On the other hand, if the posts are valid and meaningful and the discussion has some relevance to the original title, then why not let the thread continue to grow?

I would still expect moderators to pick up on blatant pointless posts consisting of random comments which, as kk. mentioned, are followed up with something like; 'OT: yeah I agree' just to make their post seem constructive when it is in fact completely and utterly pointless.

Overall though, I think the rule is moderated well as it is. I don't think it's hard to avoid breaking the rule enough times to be cautioned or banned. I've had a few PMs in the past just diverting my attention back to a pointless post I made, but I've never had a user-note or warning over it. That's pretty much the thing I'm PMed by moderators about most, as well.

[Laggings]

Isn't that exactly what I was saying before?

Even if you're replying to a post that is off-topic, you're still posting something relevant to a previous post.

[FlyingJesus]

The point is that that's fine if the thread topic has changed naturally to that subject. Let's have an example. Habbolover101 makes a thread in film section titled "Space Jam". Now a discussion about Space Jam is fine, and obviously if !!bushlicker!! mentions their love or hate of cartoon/real actor crossovers in film that's a legitimate shift and the discussion can continue along those lines. If, however, -=DOGG=- strolls in and starts chatting about the Plymouth game that is a pointless post, and a post by xfootheadx90x replying to it is by default pointless, as it doesn't add to the thread in any way. The fact that they've posted in the thread and they're replying to someone else means nothing as they're talking to a post that shouldn't be there, which obviously if removed for pointless posting as it should be will render this offshoot as pointless and so on and so forth. Quite logical

[Arch]

The point is that that's fine if the thread topic has changed naturally to that subject. Let's have an example. Habbolover101 makes a thread in film section titled "Space Jam". Now a discussion about Space Jam is fine, and obviously if !!bushlicker!! mentions their love or hate of cartoon/real actor crossovers in film that's a legitimate shift and the discussion can continue along those lines. If, however, -=DOGG=- strolls in and starts chatting about the Plymouth game that is a pointless post, and a post by xfootheadx90x replying to it is by default pointless, as it doesn't add to the thread in any way. The fact that they've posted in the thread and they're replying to someone else means nothing as they're talking to a post that shouldn't be there, which obviously if removed for pointless posting as it should be will render this offshoot as pointless and so on and so forth. Quite logical

That makes sence so i agree with everything said.

Also who cares its just a rule and if your always wanting to change the rules and have problems with them then don't use this forum ? You agree to go along with them when you sign up. Yeah some rules can be dumb and outdated but when you signed up at the time thats what you agree'd too.

[Black_Apalachi]

That makes sence so i agree with everything said.

Also who cares its just a rule and if your always wanting to change the rules and have problems with them then don't use this forum ? You agree to go along with them when you sign up. Yeah some rules can be dumb and outdated but when you signed up at the time thats what you agree'd too.

he won't be for some time! :P

[Laggings]

The point is that that's fine if the thread topic has changed naturally to that subject. Let's have an example. Habbolover101 makes a thread in film section titled "Space Jam". Now a discussion about Space Jam is fine, and obviously if !!bushlicker!! mentions their love or hate of cartoon/real actor crossovers in film that's a legitimate shift and the discussion can continue along those lines. If, however, -=DOGG=- strolls in and starts chatting about the Plymouth game that is a pointless post, and a post by xfootheadx90x replying to it is by default pointless, as it doesn't add to the thread in any way. The fact that they've posted in the thread and they're replying to someone else means nothing as they're talking to a post that shouldn't be there, which obviously if removed for pointless posting as it should be will render this offshoot as pointless and so on and so forth. Quite logical

Then the rule needs to be changed, like I said, to include 'is pointless if it is in reply to another pointless post'. Because Arch could make a post about Lady Gaga, and Robald could reply to it with a pointless post like 'I like toast'. Then anyone that replies to that post is considered on-topic because it's relevant to a previous post, even if that previous post wasn't on-topic.

[Black_Apalachi]

Then the rule needs to be changed, like I said, to include 'is pointless if it is in reply to another pointless post'. Because Arch could make a post about Lady Gaga, and Robald could reply to it with a pointless post like 'I like toast'. Then anyone that replies to that post is considered on-topic because it's relevant to a previous post, even if that previous post wasn't on-topic.

Yeah, mods just need to be allowed to use their own common sense to make a judgement when it comes to outlandish posts such as that.

[Laggings]

Yes but it's not technically in the rules though.

[Black_Apalachi]

Yes but it's not technically in the rules though.

A lot of rules have technicalities that are not stated and are instead left to the moderators' common sense. I think this is more favourable than the other side of the coin which will be every single post being edited even though it's plain to see that the post isn't trying to be an annoyance.

[Laggings]

Then what's the point of the rules if half of them are just what the mods want to do?
If it's not stated clearly, or documented anywhere, how can we be expected to follow a rule we don't know about?

[Black_Apalachi]

It's not whatever the mods want to do as such. There are super mods and managers higher up to control this anyway.

[Laggings]

Then why even publicly post the rules if it's only half the rule?

[Grig]

Yeh Jake, I shall agree there. The fact of the matter is, many people have different definitons for this particular term. I think, it is not followed to such an extent and I agree with you Jake, sometimes it's not clear at all why you get warned. For example, a couple of weeks back I get warned for quoting a past saying "epic" and the persons name, which was an opinion and not pointless at all, I even quoted the post.

I do however this there wil be no solution to this issue, purely for the reason that it is very hard for there to be any agreement on what is 'pointless', because my definton may be different to yours etc.

[The Professor]

The point is that that's fine if the thread topic has changed naturally to that subject. Let's have an example. Habbolover101 makes a thread in film section titled "Space Jam". Now a discussion about Space Jam is fine, and obviously if !!bushlicker!! mentions their love or hate of cartoon/real actor crossovers in film that's a legitimate shift and the discussion can continue along those lines. If, however, -=DOGG=- strolls in and starts chatting about the Plymouth game that is a pointless post, and a post by xfootheadx90x replying to it is by default pointless, as it doesn't add to the thread in any way. The fact that they've posted in the thread and they're replying to someone else means nothing as they're talking to a post that shouldn't be there, which obviously if removed for pointless posting as it should be will render this offshoot as pointless and so on and so forth. Quite logical

I like the premise but practically that rule is very difficult to enforce because it forces all members to become moderators and people will get unfairly penalised under that rule when they reply to a borderline pointless post. Obviously the example you used is clear cut, but if someone came into the thread and posted "I like who framed roger rabbit!" legitamately thinking they'e continuing a conversation about cartoon/live action crossovers, someone replies to that post agreeing with them and a moderator decides it's pointless, both those people will be penalised when the second one won't be aware he was doing anything wrong.

[Hecktix]

Then why even publicly post the rules if it's only half the rule?

Read my post about ten year olds and manipulation

[FlyingJesus]

Then the rule needs to be changed, like I said, to include 'is pointless if it is in reply to another pointless post'. Because Arch could make a post about Lady Gaga, and Robald could reply to it with a pointless post like 'I like toast'. Then anyone that replies to that post is considered on-topic because it's relevant to a previous post, even if that previous post wasn't on-topic.

Aye hence my last bit where I said about how replying to a post that shouldn't be there is by continuation a post that shouldn't be there - clearly if something is off topic it will be removed, and in removing it all subsequent posts on that new subject will be rendered pointless. Just makes straight sense really


I like the premise but practically that rule is very difficult to enforce because it forces all members to become moderators and people will get unfairly penalised under that rule when they reply to a borderline pointless post. Obviously the example you used is clear cut, but if someone came into the thread and posted "I like who framed roger rabbit!" legitamately thinking they'e continuing a conversation about cartoon/live action crossovers, someone replies to that post agreeing with them and a moderator decides it's pointless, both those people will be penalised when the second one won't be aware he was doing anything wrong.

In your example the moderator would be in the wrong though, as Roger Rabbit is not only an excellent film worthy of discussion in any thread but is also a cartoon/live mix as the hypothetical thread had turned into a chat about. I think the biggest problem with working out pointless posts is when staff members (especially higher management) get involved because that obviously then appears to be a green light for anyone else, and complicates what should really be a fairly simple rule


Read my post about ten year olds and manipulation

Damn I got so excited about the possibilites there until I read it :(

[Accipiter]

just got a warning for this when it perfectly points towards the first post of the thread itself...

now thats some screwed stuff... Discussions often do form from first comments, Especially in alterations section where its basically a focus group

[Jamesy]

You recieved a warning for being rude.

[Black_Apalachi]

You recieved a warning for being rude.

So is this post against the rules or not? The answer to this is the answer to the thread :).

[Accipiter]

thats what it was for...

infracted for telling the truth... what a bummer.

[Nixt]

So is this post against the rules or not? The answer to this is the answer to the thread :).

No, because the post he is responding to is about a warning he received which (he thinks) was because of pointless posting, which is the rule being discussed in this thread. Therefore voiceover's post was on topic, and Jamesy's reply is fine because he is replying to a previous post in the thread that was relevant to the thread topic. If however voiceover posted saying "JUST GOT AN INFRACTION FOR SAYING ****!" and Jamesy replied, his post would be against the rules.

[Accipiter]

yeah my fault D: i skim read cause i was cold :(

apologies :)

[Black_Apalachi]

No, because the post he is responding to is about a warning he received which (he thinks) was because of pointless posting, which is the rule being discussed in this thread. Therefore voiceover's post was on topic, and Jamesy's reply is fine because he is replying to a previous post in the thread that was relevant to the thread topic. If however voiceover posted saying "JUST GOT AN INFRACTION FOR SAYING ****!" and Jamesy replied, his post would be against the rules.

I see, so does this not agree with Jake's original issue?