Pointless post

[The Professor]

A11. Do not post pointlessly – A pointless post has no relevance to the topic, any previous post that is relevant, is meaningless (ghnrgher etc) or does little to contribute to the discussion. 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). Replying to a pointless post will also be considered pointlessly posting.

Copy-pasted directly from the rules. I have to say that the moderation of this rule seems to be vastly different to what the rules say. I'll use two examples:

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=6328820#post6328820

This post was made by a forum moderator and edited by the staff editor so it clearly isn't a case of poor moderation on the part of the moderators, it seems to be written into the mod guide that this rule should be moderated wrongly. That post was clearly in response to a previous post in the thread (he commented "oh cool" in response to "I might be coming back") and clearly furthered the discussion, making it not pointless by the definition of the rule on two counts.

Second example (and the one I got edited for):

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6331843&postcount=6

Again I place no blame on the moderator because I don't believe it's his fault. That post was again in relation to a previous post (as illustrated by the quote in bold) and was supposed to be humourous. Obviously being humourous doesn't qualify it as not pointless by the definition of the rule but the fact that it is there to be funny AND is related to a previous post makes it not pointless by the laws of common sense.

A little bird tells me moderators have been instructed to enforce this rule much more strictly and to different criteria to what the forum rules outline. This clearly is wrong on both counts; the rule should be moderated in line with the forum rules and enforcing it more strictly in the first place imo is not needed.

Any opinions?

[syko2006]

I have an opinion yes, it's as follows.

Orangeesh's post could have simply been sent in a visitor message and didn't contribute to the thread topic at all, this can be seen as simply trying to raise post count.

Same sort of situation with your post, it really did not contribute to the thread in any constructive way, it really was just, pointless. The moderator(s) take consideration into what they think is pointless or not and your post in my opinion was pointless and I think that other moderators/staff on the forum might think the same. I am not aware that we have been told to enforce this rule as much as possible, the total of pointless posts on the forum has just risen as far as I know. :)

[Nixt]

I can see your point regarding the first decision. It is arguable... however a decision made by the staff editor is not mine to override or debate. As per your second point, I think it's somewhat ambiguous. You were responding to a previous post, yes you were trying to be humorous however I've got to say in my opinion it does little to contribute to the discussion. It might make a few people laugh and say "lol" or something, but I wouldn't say it's massively relevant.

I don't know who your 'little bird' is, either - but they're wrong, there has been no Moderator instruction regarding the pointless posting rule for a while, and if I recall correctly the last time they were instructed regarding said rule they were told to be more lenient.

[The Professor]

I have an opinion yes, it's as follows.

Orangeesh's post could have simply been sent in a visitor message and didn't contribute to the thread topic at all, this can be seen as simply trying to raise post count.

Same sort of situation with your post, it really did not contribute to the thread in any constructive way, it really was just, pointless. The moderator(s) take consideration into what they think is pointless or not and your post in my opinion was pointless and I think that other moderators/staff on the forum might think the same. I am not aware that we have been told to enforce this rule as much as possible, the total of pointless posts on the forum has just risen as far as I know. :)

I demonstrated in both examples how they both comply with the rule. You could say any post on the forum could be sent in a visitor message, we'd have a rather empty forum if that was the case though!

EDIT to repsond to Garion:


I agree with your first point, but a decision made my the staff editor is not mine to override. As per your second point, I think it's somewhat ambiguous. You were responding to a previous post, yes you were trying to be humorous however I've got to say in my opinion it does little to contribute to the discussion. It might make a few people laugh and say "lol" or something, but I wouldn't say it's massively relevant.

I don't know who your 'little bird' is, either - but they're wrong, there has been no Moderator instruction regarding the pointless posting rule for a while, and if I recall correctly the last time they were instructed regarding said rule they were told to be more lenient.

Yeah I agree with it not necessarily contribute to the discussion it does still have a point (making it not pointless in the spirit of the rule) and it is related to a previous post in the thread (making it not pointless by the letter of the rule). Being massively relevant isnt a prerequisite of being pointless.

I take your second point, I shall slap their wrist :P

[Hecktix]

I have an opinion yes, it's as follows.

Orangeesh's post could have simply been sent in a visitor message and didn't contribute to the thread topic at all, this can be seen as simply trying to raise post count.

Same sort of situation with your post, it really did not contribute to the thread in any constructive way, it really was just, pointless. The moderator(s) take consideration into what they think is pointless or not and your post in my opinion was pointless and I think that other moderators/staff on the forum might think the same. I am not aware that we have been told to enforce this rule as much as possible, the total of pointless posts on the forum has just risen as far as I know. :)

Couldn't have really put it better myself.

I don't think this is the mods being strict at all? They are following the rule to a tee, your post breaks the:


does little to contribute to the discussion

Part of the rule, so I fail to see how this is not moderating in line with the forum rules?

In regards to orangeesh's post, I kind of see a point but also, it still does little to contribute.

[The Professor]

Couldn't have really put it better myself.

I don't think this is the mods being strict at all? They are following the rule to a tee, your post breaks the:



Part of the rule, so I fail to see how this is not moderating in line with the forum rules?

In regards to orangeesh's post, I kind of see a point but also, it still does little to contribute.


A11. Do not post pointlessly – A pointless post has no relevance to the topic, any previous post that is relevant, is meaningless (ghnrgher etc) or does little to contribute to the discussion. 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). Replying to a pointless post will also be considered pointlessly posting.

The way the rule is written implies that if if a post does not satisfy ANY of the criteria in the rules it is pointless. That is exactly why the clause "any previous post that is relevant" is in there; a post does not have to be on topic as long as it has relevance to a previous post in the theread. The clause was put into the rules to allow conversation to evolve naturally without having to rigidly stick to the original topic.

[Hecktix]

The way the rule is written implies that if if a post does not satisfy ANY of the criteria in the rules it is pointless. That is exactly why the clause "any previous post that is relevant" is in there; a post does not have to be on topic as long as it has relevance to a previous post in the theread. The clause was put into the rules to allow conversation to evolve naturally without having to rigidly stick to the original topic.

Yes the clause states a post can be relevant to any other post within the thread however the post still has to contribute to the thread.

The only kind of reply your post could have recieved would be things like "lol", which are pointless :S

Your post did very little to contribute to the discussion so it's pointless. Even though it ticks the relevant to another post part, it doesn't tick the second part of contributing to the thread.

So in regards to your post it breaches the part in red:

A11. Do not post pointlessly – A pointless post has no relevance to the topic, any previous post that is relevant, is meaningless (ghnrgher etc) or does little to contribute to the discussion.

The word "OR" suggests that it either breaks the first part or the second part.

Yours broke the second part.

[Orangeesh]

In regards to orangeesh's post, I kind of see a point but also, it still does little to contribute.

If I had posted in that thread and said something like 'I like rubber ducks' then yes completely pointless has no relevance to anyone's post or the thread.

But my post was quoting someone else who said they were thinking of returning to the section, I then replied saying,' Hi Davi, how you been?'
Ok yes I could of posted in a visitor message but quoting him in the thread was alot easier. I was simply asking how he was and being nice, I can't see how I was being pointless or meaningless, I thought at the time I was contributing a reply to Davi's post, although Im just a moderator, what would I know.

[Hecktix]

If I had posted in that thread and said something like 'I like rubber ducks' then yes completely pointless has no relevance to anyone's post or the thread.

But my post was quoting someone else who said they were thinking of returning to the section, I then replied saying,' Hi Davi, how you been?'
Ok yes I could of posted in a visitor message but quoting him in the thread was alot easier. I was simply asking how he was and being nice, I can't see how I was being pointless or meaningless, although Im just a moderator, what would I know.

No need to be rude now is there, afterall, you are a moderator ;)

Both Garion and I said we can see why it could be said your post is not pointless, however we are not in the position to judge the Staff Editor :)

[The Professor]

Yes the clause states a post can be relevant to any other post within the thread however the post still has to contribute to the thread.

The only kind of reply your post could have recieved would be things like "lol", which are pointless :S

Your post did very little to contribute to the discussion so it's pointless. Even though it ticks the relevant to another post part, it doesn't tick the second part of contributing to the thread.

So in regards to your post it breaches the part in red:

A11. Do not post pointlessly – A pointless post has no relevance to the topic, any previous post that is relevant, is meaningless (ghnrgher etc) or does little to contribute to the discussion.

The word "OR" suggests that it either breaks the first part or the second part.

Yours broke the second part.



The or is simply a connective to end the continuous list that that sentence is. You could either use "or" or "and" to end the list; "or" suggests that each part is individual and if a post satisfies any of the points in the rule. "And" would imply that a post would have to satisfy ALL those criteria to be pointless which clearly can't happen. For the reasons I said in my previous post the wording of the rule implies a post has to satisfy only one of those criteria to have a point.

AND even if you manage to parse it enough to disprove that (which you probably can :P) the spirit of the rule also implies that as long as a post is related to a previous post and isn't nonsense it has a point and therefore isn't pointless.

[Nixt]

The or is simply a connective to end the continuous list that that sentence is. You could either use "or" or "and" to end the list; "or" suggests that each part is individual and if a post satisfies any of the points in the rule. "And" would imply that a post would have to satisfy ALL those criteria to be pointless which clearly can't happen. For the reasons I said in my previous post the wording of the rule implies a post has to satisfy only one of those criteria to have a point.

AND even if you manage to parse it enough to disprove that (which you probably can :P) the spirit of the rule also implies that as long as a post is related to a previous post and isn't nonsense it has a point and therefore isn't pointless.

Yeah if you're being pedantic all of that is relevant. We're not though. If you really want me to write up a list of rules that you cannot bypass by being really fussy about the wording then I'll do it. Expect a list of rules as big as an Act of Parliament though. At the end of the day I could find a loophole in every rule, but as a former Forum Manager you of all people should know that things can't always be perfect. That's just how it is at the end of the day! Moderators have to use their own judgement and try to punish the rule breaking the rule is / was trying to stop. If it doesn't 100% come under the rule, then they are entitled to make an informed judgement. This is what happened in this case. When you were arguing about how one might consider your post being relevant to a previous post I could, to an extent, understand what you were saying... when you start getting really annoying about the wording and questioning what the rule means due to a connective or something I really am not going to try and justify the rule, it's just a Habbo forum after all.

[hah]

i got edited for http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6324037&postcount=5

i was asking a question about someone elses post?? :S

[Yoshimitsui]

i got edited for http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6324037&postcount=5

i was asking a question about someone elses post?? :S

I do think that was dealt with rather strangely, it suggests a personal edit as it was a legitimate question if you look at it impartially. I also don't like the idea of adding smiles to edits. (Not to pick out individuals but i have seen a fair few)

[The Professor]

Yeah if you're being pedantic all of that is relevant. We're not though. If you really want me to write up a list of rules that you cannot bypass by being really fussy about the wording then I'll do it. Expect a list of rules as big as an Act of Parliament though. At the end of the day I could find a loophole in every rule, but as a former Forum Manager you of all people should know that things can't always be perfect. That's just how it is at the end of the day! Moderators have to use their own judgement and try to punish the rule breaking the rule is / was trying to stop. If it doesn't 100% come under the rule, then they are entitled to make an informed judgement. This is what happened in this case. When you were arguing about how one might consider your post being relevant to a previous post I could, to an extent, understand what you were saying... when you start getting really annoying about the wording and questioning what the rule means due to a connective or something I really am not going to try and justify the rule, it's just a Habbo forum after all.

I made a general point about how the rules were worded so that the spirit of the rules was such that if a post was related to a previous post it wasn't pointless. Oli commented on how the word "or" implied something, I just responded to his point using similar reasoning, no need to bite my head off :S I actually said at the end that there isn't much point parsing it that much because the spirit of the rules (the lease pedantic way of going about things) still backed me up imo. Tbh I really don't like the tone of that post :S

Ok clearly I'm in a minority about humourous, vaguely related posts not being pointless (shame but young people will always take that too far anyway so yknow I see the point) but I still stand by my point that the rule seems to be being enforced incorrectly.

[syko2006]

Yea, I ****** up. I couldn't reverse an edit so I left it.

Sorry about that. (A)

[Hecktix]

I do think that was dealt with rather strangely, it suggests a personal edit as it was a legitimate question if you look at it impartially. I also don't like the idea of adding smiles to edits. (Not to pick out individuals but i have seen a fair few)

There's nothing wrong with adding smilies to edits. I've seen it done by certain mods and it makes the edits look friendly, which is a lot better than what you get on other forums.


i got edited for http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6324037&postcount=5

i was asking a question about someone elses post?? :S

PM a Super Moderator if you have a problem, if you read the below post it will get sorted:


Yea, I ****** up. I couldn't reverse an edit so I left it.

Sorry about that. (A)

Nice to see you admit your mistakes Dan :)

Edit; sorted Dans mistake :)

[hah]

i pm'd the mod back and never got a reply so i left it... :S

[Nixt]

i pm'd the mod back and never got a reply so i left it... :S

In future I would recommend taking your problem with a Moderator to Oli or myself.

[hah]

i dont blame dan lol, im guessing he edited it because alkaz (who likes to think he is a mod) said "nice pointless posts" and he didn't wanna go against a agm or something like that :P

[Hecktix]

i dont blame dan lol, im guessing he edited it because alkaz (who likes to think he is a mod) said "nice pointless posts" and he didn't wanna go against a agm or something like that :P

I see what you mean.

It's been sorted now Graham, don't worry.

[GommeInc]

Humour, socialising and friendly banter are not allowed. I don't quite understand why the post of the couple is pointless, it's just thrown in as humour and does no harm to the discussion and is on topic - HotelUser is talking to someone of the opposite sex and texting, something can be assumed as courtship ;) The first one is okay if the other two were discussion something, though it could be considered rude using someones thread for a discussion, and editing the post saying "leave the moderating to the moderators" is quite rude, when he politely told them to use the PM feature :/

Infact, he wasn't posting against the rules (the guy who told them to PM each other instead). So a pointless edit, me thinks.

[syko2006]

Oh yea, forgot to say.

If I've added a smiley to an edit and you're reading this and it was your edit, I'm sorry if it came accross patronising. I read Yoshi's post and wondered why, then checked out the edit and thought, yea fair enough it can probably feel patronising.

Sorry! :D

[Nixt]

Oh yea, forgot to say.

If I've added a smiley to an edit and you're reading this and it was your edit, I'm sorry if it came accross patronising. I read Yoshi's post and wondered why, then checked out the edit and thought, yea fair enough it can probably feel patronising.

Sorry! :D

Not at all, I don't think you should be sorry for it. I regularly put a smiley at the end of my edits. Indeed, for a period while I was a Moderator it was compulsory to do so. It's a friendly thing that I think makes the edits seem more like a friendly reminder than a harsh warning.

[syko2006]

Not at all, I don't think you should be sorry for it. I regularly put a smiley at the end of my edits. Indeed, for a period while I was a Moderator it was compulsory to do so. It's a friendly thing that I think makes the edits seem more like a friendly reminder than a harsh warning.

That's what I was trying to get accross in my edit. :D

[GommeInc]

Not at all, I don't think you should be sorry for it. I regularly put a smiley at the end of my edits. Indeed, for a period while I was a Moderator it was compulsory to do so. It's a friendly thing that I think makes the edits seem more like a friendly reminder than a harsh warning.
Any news on the new moderator edit system/new VB version? The red writing has always seemed to be a bit harsh, whether or not a smiley has been put on the end. Like being slapped and punched by a dominatrix, and then told afterwards they "love you really, you old sausage."

[Hecktix]

Next vb version: definitely next week!

New Moderator edits won't be happening, we came up with several alternatives which didn't get General Management approval :)

[syko2006]

Any news on the new moderator edit system/new VB version? The red writing has always seemed to be a bit harsh, whether or not a smiley has been put on the end. Like being slapped and punched by a dominatrix, and then told afterwards they "love you really, you old sausage."

Especially love the way you put that, made me lol! :P

Next vb version: definitely next week!

New Moderator edits won't be happening, we came up with several alternatives which didn't get General Management approval :)

Were the mod edits to be coming them ugly white boxes with the red outlines?

[Hecktix]

They were one of the options Dan, not one of the better ones mind :P

[syko2006]

They were one of the options Dan, not one of the better ones mind :P

Ahhh! I'm happy to stick with the good old fashioned text edit. :P

[Titch]

Next vb version: definitely next week!

New Moderator edits won't be happening, we came up with several alternatives which didn't get General Management approval :)

Going to hold you to that quote!

[Hecktix]

I've been doing some bug spotting for Jamesy on the latest version (the one we want to put on these forums) and they are pretty much done now.

It's a large update and could take some time, so Jin needs to set some time aside for it and at the moment he's told me end of next week.

Until now, we have been waiting for the specific version to be released, this has now happened and it's looking all good to go, so you should be able to hold me to that quote.

[hah]

Next vb version: definitely next week!

New Moderator edits won't be happening, we came up with several alternatives which didn't get General Management approval :)

maybe they would be approved if it wasn't a 10-2jmin ob and time was took like the chf ones

[Black_Apalachi]

I'm not sure about the first one but as people have suggested, it was probably borderline. As for the second one, it really doesn't contribute at all. I'm pretty sure any post that is pretty much just an image posted generally as a joke, will be edited.


... I also don't like the idea of adding smiles to edits. (Not to pick out individuals but i have seen a fair few)

I love the fact this was mentioned! :P I've often seen moderators that always use the suffix; 'Thanks :)', and thought that even though they're probably just trying to be friendly, the use of that particular emoticon seems kind of condescending almost. That's not the correct word really.. it's hard to describe.

Anyway if any form of moderation edit boxes come into play, I've seen how they're used on other Habbo forums and they often seem unnecessary. When a post is edited, it's not always for disciplinary purposes so a big red box that says 'Notice' could seem fairly severe at times.

[Catzsy]

I'm not sure about the first one but as people have suggested, it was probably borderline. As for the second one, it really doesn't contribute at all. I'm pretty sure any post that is pretty much just an image posted generally as a joke, will be edited.



I love the fact this was mentioned! :P I've often seen moderators that always use the suffix; 'Thanks :)', and thought that even though they're probably just trying to be friendly, the use of that particular emoticon seems kind of condescending almost. That's not the correct word really.. it's hard to describe.

Anyway if any form of moderation edit boxes come into play, I've seen how they're used on other Habbo forums and they often seem unnecessary. When a post is edited, it's not always for disciplinary purposes so a big red box that says 'Notice' could seem fairly severe at times.

I say thanks? Does it come over badly as I am genuinely just trying to be polite and not authoritarian. If it does come over badly I will stop doing it.

[Jordy]

Hmm it is difficult to draw a line here but over the past few weeks, most humourous posts are generally considered pointless now.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6318269&postcount=18

That post for example, a few weeks ago, would of never been infracted I reckon.

[syko2006]

Hmm it is difficult to draw a line here but over the past few weeks, most humourous posts are generally considered pointless now.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6318269&postcount=18

That post for example, a few weeks ago, would of never been infracted I reckon.

I did wonder why that post was edited at first, then I realised it was a male that posted it.

It makes sense that it was edited lol. :)

[Catzsy]

Hmm it is difficult to draw a line here but over the past few weeks, most humourous posts are generally considered pointless now.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6318269&postcount=18

That post for example, a few weeks ago, would of never been infracted I reckon.

I can sort of see what you are getting at but that member had every right to challenge the edit. I made a mistake by not reading the thread properly a couple of days ago and it was sorted as soon as I realised and this was because the member pointed it out to me.

[Black_Apalachi]

I say thanks? Does it come over badly as I am genuinely just trying to be polite and not authoritarian. If it does come over badly I will stop doing it.

I don't want to say that because it might just be how I personally perceive it and in any case, it depends on the particular context at the time. It's definitely not something worth making a decent moderator worry about needlessly anyway :D