Can moderating just stay as it is

[nvrspk4]

If it doesn't matter where they go why the hell are we still talking about this? :S

[Richie]

The only reason people aren't posting in them is because their post count isn't going up which proves the fact that those threads were used for nothing more than spam, a way to easily gain post count. I'm not fussed if it gets moved back but to me it just doesn't make any sense, most of the posts in the spam forum make more of a discussion than those threads. Can you imagine if your post count went up in spam, how ridiculous would that be?

[the.games]

The only reason people aren't posting in them is because their post count isn't going up which proves the fact that those threads were used for nothing more than spam, a way to easily gain post count. I'm not fussed if it gets moved back but to me it just doesn't make any sense, most of the posts in the spam forum make more of a discussion than those threads. Can you imagine if your post count went up in spam, how ridiculous would that be?

I totally agree with this if I'm honest. It always used to irritate me when post counts increased for posting in those threads, I mean you could get 35 posts a week from each thread.

I'd say let them stay where they are because, lets be honest, we're not going to see a discussion any time soon in any of them!

[Grig]

They don't generate discussion. They were put in forums, in which the purpose was to discuss things, not to post random song titles and get the post count up. A discussion is generated when two people talk about an issue cohesively.

I like it how it is now, in their own little sub-forum. If people don't post, then it just proves the point about post count.

[Kyle]

I totally agree with this if I'm honest. It always used to irritate me when post counts increased for posting in those threads, I mean you could get 35 posts a week from each thread.

I'd say let them stay where they are because, lets be honest, we're not going to see a discussion any time soon in any of them!
It's not really any of your business whether other people's post counts increase or not. If it really is irritating to you that people are gaining a higher postcount quicker than you are then you either need to join in or reevaluate your life.

We're certainly not going to be seeing any discussion in them in their current state because they've already been dismissed at pointless threads and placed into what is essentially a forum bin. I don't really know what you mean by "discussion" but surely allowing a user to contribute to a thread in their own way is contribution enough. The change has had no positive impact other than to shut up a couple of whiners. Why shouldn't it be reversed? Poll plz

[the.games]

It's not really any of your business whether other people's post counts increase or not. If it really is irritating to you that people are gaining a higher postcount quicker than you are then you either need to join in or reevaluate your life.

We're certainly not going to be seeing any discussion in them in their current state because they've already been dismissed at pointless threads and placed into what is essentially a forum bin. I don't really know what you mean by "discussion" but surely allowing a user to contribute to a thread in their own way is contribution enough. The change has had no positive impact other than to shut up a couple of whiners. Why shouldn't it be reversed? Poll plz

I can see where your coming from, but I believe that moving the threads has also had no negative impact. Since the threads were moved, I've found that activity in other threads in the Entertainment section (I'm not too sure about others) has increased. As the moving of these threads has caused more discussion elsewhere I could even argue that their movement has had a positive impact on the forum.

As I said, i understand where you are coming from though.

[Grig]

It's not really any of your business whether other people's post counts increase or not. If it really is irritating to you that people are gaining a higher postcount quicker than you are then you either need to join in or reevaluate your life.

We're certainly not going to be seeing any discussion in them in their current state because they've already been dismissed at pointless threads and placed into what is essentially a forum bin. I don't really know what you mean by "discussion" but surely allowing a user to contribute to a thread in their own way is contribution enough. The change has had no positive impact other than to shut up a couple of whiners. Why shouldn't it be reversed? Poll plz


dis·cus·sion/disˈkəSHən/
Noun:
1. The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
2. A conversation or debate about a certain topic.

Hope that clarified it for you on the definition of what a discussion is. A forum is a 'discussion board' (which is also an alternative name for forum); therefore, those threads created no discussion.

If you wish to take to what is a discussion further, then I suggest getting an OED is the thing to do.

You can contribute to a thread, but not all threads are on equal leveling with one another. Some take more effort to contribute to, rather than pasting something you're listening to. Thus your argument is completely invalid.

[Kyle]

You can contribute to a thread, but not all threads are on equal leveling with one another. Some take more effort to contribute to, rather than pasting something you're listening to. Thus your argument is completely invalid.
ehhhhh

Every single thread, regardless of whether it's currently in the misc. section or not, is going to have a different baseline as to what is deemed an appropriate contribution - hence the subjective application of the pointless posting rule dependant on what the thread topic is.

I'm just wondering why it should matter whether there is a discussion so long as there is an actual contribution. You yourself may enjoy taking part in and reading proper discussions but other forum members have their own ideas about how they'd like to contribute. Just because you've taken more effort to think about and structure your posts it doesn't give you the right to belittle what others feel they have to offer... especially when it doesn't actually affect you.

[the.games]

A7. Do not post pointlessly ~ ~ Do not post off-topic ~ An off-topic post has no relevance to the topic or any previous post that is relevant, or does little to positively contribute to the discussion.
~ Do not spam/make pointless posts. It is not allowed to post random, meaningless, posts or threads on the forum. Examples of this are (ROFLCOPTER!!!!!!); (BYRDSB +HKK; ) (I am a plane)
~ Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion.

Threads like 'What are you watching' get replies such as 'Robin Hood' or 'Harry Potter', both of which are two word answers. This is why I'd see the threads as pointless, and therefore post count should not increase within them.

As I'll say again and again, I see where your coming from, though! :P

[Kyle]

The rule was changed after the threads were moved...

[the.games]

As far as I'm aware that rule has been there since I got my mod trial in August. :P

[Kyle]

As far as I'm aware that rule has been there since I got my mod trial in August. :P
I'm quite sure that there was a section of the rule that gave the sort of threads in misc a certain amount of immunity to the rule dating back to at least 2 years ago. Obviously previous forum management felt that those threads did serve some purpose!

[GommeInc]

They don't generate discussion. They were put in forums, in which the purpose was to discuss things, not to post random song titles and get the post count up. A discussion is generated when two people talk about an issue cohesively.
Most threads in this forum do not generate a discussion. It's a point people fail to provide actual evidence for. If a discussion is when two people talk about an issue cohesively, then there are a lot of fake-rule breakers out there. Quite a lot of people make just one post in a thread and never return - that's not a discussion, that's just contribution. How do you entail to enforce this fake-rule that the forum must only be for discussion? Because there are a lot of members not joining in a discussion, they're merely contributing a post and leaving, which is partly what a forum is about (for some reason HxF has this idea that forums are strictly for discussions :S)

Also, I'd like to see the rule which says "You must only use this forum for discussion", because there's a reason there isn't one because it's a rule that cannot be enforced, especially given the definition of discussion you have provided.

As far as I can tell, you think the "Post when Habbo is Down", "Post your Speedtest Results" and the "Post your Desktop/Setup" threads should be in that forum. They clearly do not create discussion, no more than the other threads where there's the odd few members who decide to reply to each other, but that is in itself not a discussion more an acknowledgement. A discussion afterall, by your definition requires the two people to converse about a point to reach a decision or exchange ideas. What most people in these threads are doing is merely acknowledging rather than committing to a discussion. Hence, your logic doesn't really work.


I totally agree with this if I'm honest. It always used to irritate me when post counts increased for posting in those threads, I mean you could get 35 posts a week from each thread.
35 posts a week? Pfft, those posts are all worthless - the post ranking system requires a hell of a lot more to actually mean anything.

Also, you quoted Rule A7. A rule which doesn't make these threads pointless. Most of these apparently offensive threads contain more than 2 words. The biggests offender, What are you listening to?, has an average of 5 posts.

Then there's the real life definition of point and pointless, and seeing as these threads all have a purpose then they are clearly not pointless. Again, another claim people forget to provide actual evidence for.

[Kardan]

Just a little comment, if 'People are abusing the threads to gain post count' isn't considered a valid reason, how is 'It makes the forum look ugly' a valid reason? The fact is, there are a few sub-forums with less threads than Misc.

[GommeInc]

Just a little comment, if 'People are abusing the threads to gain post count' isn't considered a valid reason, how is 'It makes the forum look ugly' a valid reason? The fact is, there are a few sub-forums with less threads than Misc.
Simple. Considering there are now more reasons to move those threads back to their right place than there were to remove them in the first place, that forum is now becoming a bit of an eye sore to look at when that forum has so little threads in there, which is evidence that these sorts of threads can't be that much of a problem if so few exist. Besides, those threads weren't ever abused, as that assumes that people were gaining a lot when actually they weren't.

I assume the other forums which lack threads you are thinking of are the Debates Forum? Official debates are removed from that when they are over.

The Misc. forums only reason to exist is to please very few people whose original reasons are becoming less valid by the day, especially when those people either:

Misread forum rules
Forgot the meanings of words
Forget that these threads are common place
Aren't aware that the forum is filled with threads that lack discussion
Forget what a forum actually is; OR
Simply have something against other members and are trying to impose their half-baked views on them when the reality is that these threads do no actual harm to the forum.

[Chippiewill]

Besides, those threads weren't ever abused,
They were abused for years and people would frequently rack up 5+ posts in each a day. Just because you didn't notice doesn't make the point less valid.

---------- Post added 20-10-2012 at 03:11 PM ----------


The rule was changed after the threads were moved...
It was not, I have complained about the threads for several years and throughout the entire time that specific rule changed once to allow people to confirm other people's conclusions with "I agree" or "This is a good idea".

[Richie]

It's not really any of your business whether other people's post counts increase or not. If it really is irritating to you that people are gaining a higher postcount quicker than you are then you either need to join in or reevaluate your life.

We're certainly not going to be seeing any discussion in them in their current state because they've already been dismissed at pointless threads and placed into what is essentially a forum bin. I don't really know what you mean by "discussion" but surely allowing a user to contribute to a thread in their own way is contribution enough. The change has had no positive impact other than to shut up a couple of whiners. Why shouldn't it be reversed? Poll plz

http://i.imgur.com/fxIvE.png

If people don't post in them just because their post count doesn't go up it just proves what the use of the thread was for :P

[Kyle]

http://i.imgur.com/fxIvE.png

If people don't post in them just because their post count doesn't go up it just proves what the use of the thread was for :P
People are still posting in them, just not as much. As has been stated numerous times already - why should it matter to you or anyone else what other people are doing to contribute to the forum activity, so long as it instils them with a sense that they at least belong to the community and are actively posting within its boards. Better that than alienate users by moving threads they enjoy posting in to a subsection of the forum whose purpose is to collect threads deemed too worthless to deserve a post count!

[Richie]

People are still posting in them, just not as much. As has been stated numerous times already - why should it matter to you or anyone else what other people are doing to contribute to the forum activity, so long as it instils them with a sense that they at least belong to the community and are actively posting within its boards. Better that than alienate users by moving threads they enjoy posting in to a subsection of the forum whose purpose is to collect threads deemed too worthless to deserve a post count!

The thing is I quite frankly couldn't give a crap if post count went up in them or not I just find it to be pointless if they did. It'd be like arguing ALTHOUGH SPAM POSTS ARE POINTLESS WE SHOULD ALLOW POST COUNT TO GAIN BECAUSE THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING IN THEIR OWN WAY.

[GommeInc]

They were abused for years and people would frequently rack up 5+ posts in each a day. Just because you didn't notice doesn't make the point less valid.
5 posts :O Oh the damage to the system! 5 posts isn't a lot, and it's certainly not abuse at all. The ranking system doesn't give posts a lot of value and 5 posts a day is completely worthless...

Honestly, why do people think these threads were abused, then state such miniscule numbers? It's ridiculous and doesn't prove a point.

[Lee]

5 posts :O Oh the damage to the system! 5 posts isn't a lot, and it's certainly not abuse at all. The ranking system doesn't give posts a lot of value and 5 posts a day is completely worthless...

Honestly, why do people think these threads were abused, then state such miniscule numbers? It's ridiculous and doesn't prove a point.

You seem to have overlooked the + sign he used, i'd say 5 posts is generous.

[GommeInc]

You seem to have overlooked the + sign he used, i'd say 5 posts is generous.
Add a zero and it wouldn't even be a concern, but 5+ hints that it's not that much more than 5 :/ Besides, the threads don't have that many posts in. The "What are you listening to? #2" thread had approx. 24920 posts and is 7 years old. A simple bit of maths returns a rather surprising result:

365 x 7 = 2555
24920 divided by 2555 = 9.76 (posts a day).

If we're panicking about 9.76 posts a day in one thread posted in by a large number of users, I think we should all have our heads examined :/ 24920 posts out of the total forum count (7,100,000) really isn't that impressive. Unfortunately, factual information seems to be swept under the carpet :/

Plus the way people are acting, there should be loads of members in the Platinum rank, or at least high up in the ranking system, but all the Top Posters are active throughout the forum. Again, another fact swept away by misguided opinions and subjective thinking.

EDIT: This thread is technically more active than these supposedly abused threads. If this thread keeps being posted in at its current rate, it will reach 687,527 in 7 years.

[Chippiewill]

Add a zero and it wouldn't even be a concern, but 5+ hints that it's not that much more than 5 :/ Besides, the threads don't have that many posts in. The "What are you listening to? #2" thread had approx. 24920 posts and is 7 years old. A simple bit of maths returns a rather surprising result:

For a lot of those 7 years it was locked, Jin put it into use when the original thread got too large (Way, way larger than 24920 posts)

[Casanova]

No he didn't :P The only abbreviations that are allowed are in the faqs!!

If that were the case then what about THIS (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=721034) thread?

send your apologies to my inbox. HAH. love you :(.

[xxMATTGxx]

If that were the case then what about THIS (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=721034) thread?

send your apologies to my inbox. HAH. love you :(.

"IDGAF" which is what the link you have posted is about is already mentioned in the FAQ :P

[Casanova]

"IDGAF" which is what the link you have posted is about is already mentioned in the FAQ :P

I'm going to be honest on this one, i forget what I was discussing but if I remember rightly lee was giving someone into trouble/had done/was saying abbreviations aren't allowed. You had already agreed unless it's targetting someone or offensive TO someone it's acceptable. so I can't say "I don't give a fu._ck" but I can say IDGAF. or FS or FFS but not fu._cksake or for fu_.cksake.

[mrwoooooooo]

just shove em all in spam and be done with it already

[GommeInc]

What I don't understand is why some threads go to spam... Loads involve quite interesting discussions and could sit comfortably in other forums. It's all the more puzzling when the forum desc. says: "A place for pointless threads and posts", yet these threads have a point and a purpose. It completely voids the opinions of the few in this thread which believe this forum should only be for discussions and any threads that do not promote discussion must be moved to Spam or the Misc Forum, yet the Spam forum is rife with topical, interesting threads worthy of position in the rest of the forum.

There was an autism one which was quite interesting which was in spam, and that could of been in Discuss Anything because it was about taking a survey to find out how autistic you are, and there was a lot of discussion. A Halloween thread made in Spam could be in Discuss Anything, as it's obviously discussing Halloween ( Rozi is asking people to post their costumes, their activities etc). Someone said they were losing their Frankies and Benny's virginity, and that thread was filled with people sharing their views on the restaurant.

The spam forum seems to be the Discuss Anything forum by another name, and is testament to how useless posts must be if people are willing to post threads in that forum where posts don't count. The mind really does boggle. It makes me wonder you have all the forums when the Spam forum clearly is its own culture, and why it's even called the Spam forum when many threads in that forum aren't spam :P

[Samantha]

What I don't understand is why some threads go to spam... Loads involve quite interesting discussions and could sit comfortably in other forums. It's all the more puzzling when the forum desc. says: "A place for pointless threads and posts", yet these threads have a point and a purpose. It completely voids the opinions of the few in this thread which believe this forum should only be for discussions and any threads that do not promote discussion must be moved to Spam or the Misc Forum, yet the Spam forum is rife with topical, interesting threads worthy of position in the rest of the forum.

There was an autism one which was quite interesting which was in spam, and that could of been in Discuss Anything because it was about taking a survey to find out how autistic you are, and there was a lot of discussion. A Halloween thread made in Spam could be in Discuss Anything, as it's obviously discussing Halloween ( Rozi is asking people to post their costumes, their activities etc). Someone said they were losing their Frankies and Benny's virginity, and that thread was filled with people sharing their views on the restaurant.

The spam forum seems to be the Discuss Anything forum by another name, and is testament to how useless posts must be if people are willing to post threads in that forum where posts don't count. The mind really does boggle. It makes me wonder you have all the forums when the Spam forum clearly is its own culture, and why it's even called the Spam forum when many threads in that forum aren't spam :P

I think in my case with the Frankie and Bennys thread I honestly thought it would be derailed quickly and I knew in spam I'd get quick responses (quicker than other forums in some case). Nor did I know discussion would be made from it. I do see your point though, more so with some threads than others.

[GommeInc]

I think in my case with the Frankie and Bennys thread I honestly thought it would be derailed quickly and I knew in spam I'd get quick responses (quicker than other forums in some case). Nor did I know discussion would be made from it. I do see your point though, more so with some threads than others.
Indeed, it just seems strange that people immediately post in there to get a response. Obviously it's not your fault as it seems to be a problem with the forum in general, people are keeping to the Spam forum for some reason :P It's as if the rest of the forum is unwelcoming and useless. It's even more puzzling when management change the way people post threads for the sake of discussion and post counts, when post counts clearly aren't worth a lot to people if they're happy to post in the Spam forum, incl. useful and interesting threads. It's sort of double standards, or the head not knowing what the foot is doing :P

[David]

how does saying why someone is banned fall under trying to be a moderator? makes no sense

[Chris]

how does saying why someone is banned fall under trying to be a moderator? makes no sense

No idea why it comes under that rule. Would make better sense under rule A5 which is where I'm going to move it to now!

[Lee]

how does saying why someone is banned fall under trying to be a moderator? makes no sense

It's covered in the quote I sent you via PM Dave, also in regards to the first bit of your reply that falls under Rule A5 - Posting Private Info regarding dismissals.

[David]

It's covered in the quote I sent you via PM Dave, also in regards to the first bit of your reply that falls under Rule A5 - Posting Private Info regarding dismissals.

and the second part, were you briefly removed your post?

[Lee]

and the second part, were you briefly removed your post?

Yeah your right there, I removed it because at first I thought I was wrong and you where right however a quick glance at the rules clarified that.

[David]

shouldnt remove your posts even if you are wrong

[Chris]

I've modified rule A9 to remove the part about discussing bans and moved it to rule A5 as it's more suitable there.

[Lee]

shouldnt remove your posts even if you are wrong

I didn't remove it I unapproved it whilst I got confirmation. That would have also gave me chance to edit if necessary without misleading the user who I quoted.

[David]

also why filter bobba market, wont stop people going on it

[xxMATTGxx]

also why filter bobba market, wont stop people going on it

Because it breaks rules which are also against Sulakes rules.

[GommeInc]

Warning people for mentioning ban reasons under the privacy rule is a bit weird :P It should be taken as speculation. I could say Lee was banned in 2010 for posting sexually explicit images of himself with farm animals. It isn't true, but does that mean I'll get a warning? There's a flaw in the rule. Rule A4 could be modified to include breaches of forum rules as well as illegal activity, because surely accusations are bad whatever way you look at it?

So A4 could become:

A4. Do not post accusations about breaking the rules, hacking or scamming, or illegal activities by other members ~ making baseless accusations only leads to arguments and often members are targeted wrongly or unfairly. We do not allow you to accuse anyone of breaking the forum rules, hacking, scamming or illegal activities with or without evidence so as to maintain a positive atmosphere about the forum.

You could probably word it better, but the bit that makes me think this is the right sort of rule is the description "making baseless accusations only leads to arguments and often members are targeted wrongly or unfairly." It is unfair to tell other members why someone is banned, and possibly unfair for the moderator who may get attacked for it, even though banned members seem to reappear anyway and all is well again :P

[mrwoooooooo]

jesus gomme you arent half going on about nothing lately

[Chris]

Rule A4 is fine. There is nothing wrong with A5 or A9 either, parts just needed swapping around.

[sex]

im pretty sure people have been allowed mention why people were banned for years...... well since before lee and chris anyways :rolleyes: lol

[GommeInc]

jesus gomme you arent half going on about nothing lately
At least this time I am being helpful :P

[Chris]

im pretty sure people have been allowed mention why people were banned for years...... well since before lee and chris anyways :rolleyes: lol

It's always been in the rules.

[sex]

It's always been in the rules.

well its never been enforced then because people have always openly discussed why other users are banned. do you mind posting the old rule because i cannot remember it mentioning bans one bit, i might be wrong though.

[Chippiewill]

So A4 could become:
The rules aren't a legal document, as long as people get the gist it's fine.

[GommeInc]

well its never been enforced then because people have always openly discussed why other users are banned. do you mind posting the old rule because i cannot remember it mentioning bans one bit, i might be wrong though.
He might not remember, despite apparently always being in the loop even though the rule change about abbreviations made it obvious he isn't :P


The rules aren't a legal document, as long as people get the gist it's fine.
No one seems to know the gist :P Looking at the constant rule changes lately, it's the exact opposite.

[xxMATTGxx]

Constant rule changes because a specific someone keeps asking them to be changed? ;)

Don't hit me

[Chris]

No more rules are being changed unless theres a good reason for it. They've been as they are for years and there has never been any problems before.