Why is there...

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why is there a new forum that has been created (under which post counts do not increase) for short reply threads? I recall the forum having a vote in the feedback section, and the majority were clearly against this type of meddling around with what people can or cannot post.

If the vote is just going to be ignored (and I don't even think much of a vote on it, as far as i'm concerned it's none of my business how other people post) then why bother asking in the first place? rather similar to how the EU works.

[Chippiewill]

A vote should be taken into consideration but management will always use discretion over the matter.

[sex]

because scott; cried lol
you can tell the forum will dry up and be merged with spam eventually. it wont work, it worked perfectly fine just the way it was. i dont see why they just didnt move that stupid picture thread.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A vote should be taken into consideration but management will always use discretion over the matter.

From what I remember, wasn't Chris against this proposal and sided with the majority? or is it the case (as I suspect) that a number of forum users who lost the vote have contacted management and hounded them into implementing this as a 'trial'? I do wonder.

[The Don]

because scott; cried lol

pretty much this, there was a huge thread over the post a random picture thread and then scott kicked up a fuss so they made a sub forum and moved all threads there rather than just putting the picture thread in spam

[Chris]

I didn't exactly like the idea to start with but once we found a way of making it fair to everyone then it wasn't such a big issue. So far it hasn't caused any problems so all is good!

[Chippiewill]

From what I remember, wasn't Chris against this proposal.
He didn't really have an opinion (Or at least express one) iirc. And just went with the vote, at some point later he either achieved an opinion or I think Matt implemented the forum. Can't quite remember.

[sex]

I didn't exactly like the idea to start with but once we found a way of making it fair to everyone then it wasn't such a big issue. So far it hasn't caused any problems so all is good!

except the forum has a total of nine threads..... there is only so many of these threads that can be made, its not like every other section where it has a specific topic and there will always be something to post... (obviously not in the case of jokes since even that dried up and got merged). Was that even considered that people will stop posting eventually lol..... i liked them threads cause it was a good way for new users to get their post count up

[xxMATTGxx]

No one will like whatever decision management do in regards of this. So people who aren't a fan will most likely have to deal with the fact that there is a sub-forum for these threads with post count turned off. Now if this forum wasn't HabboxForum and had a different userbase then these threads probably would have stayed where they are as it is the only forum who I've come across that care so much about them.

That is my rant over and I apologise if this annoys anyone.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No one will like whatever decision management do in regards of this. So people who aren't a fan will most likely have to deal with the fact that there is a sub-forum for these threads with post count turned off. Now if this forum wasn't "HabboxForum" and had a different userbase then these threads probably would have stated where they are as it is the only forum who I've come across that care so much about them.

That is my rant over and I apologise if this annoys anyone.

In which case, why was a vote held and why did management not simply say that the results would be ignored if they went the 'wrong way'?

It would have saved a great deal of trouble, time and effort if it was made clear that the results would simply be ignored.

[xxMATTGxx]

In which case, why was a vote held and why did management not simply say that the results would be ignored if they went the 'wrong way'?

It would have saved a great deal of trouble, time and effort if it was made clear that the results would simply be ignored.

Because it was said again and again that people who voted no only did so because they cared about losing their post count.

[The Don]

Because it was said again and again that people who voted no only did so because they cared about losing their post count.

Whatever the reason, they still opted against it lol

[-:Undertaker:-]

Because it was said again and again that people who voted no only did so because they care about losing their post count.

It could easily be argued that people voting yes cared about losing their post count rankings to others. (older users slipping behind)

That is such a silly statement and this has been so badly handled, to hold a vote and then simply turn around and say "well you may think that, but your reasons for voting are invalid so we're just going to ignore the results and go ahead with it anyway."

It is the pretence that our opinions mattered in the first place which irritates me, why not simply be honest from the outset?

[xxMATTGxx]

Whatever the reason, they still opted against it lol


It could easily be argued that people voting yes cared about losing their post count rankings to others. (older users slipping behind)

That is such a silly statement and this has been so badly handled, to hold a vote and then simply turn around and say "well you may think that, but your reasons for voting are invalid so we're just going to ignore the results and go ahead with it anyway."

It is the pretence that our opinions mattered in the first place which irritates me, why not simply be honest from the outset?

If you get all the current active users to say they want it back to where it was with these threads being allowed with post count then we will change it. We haven't told any lies at all and we are always honest, we are only going off what you (the users) have complained about in feedback.

[Sian]

i was wondering why they made that forum, simply because surely that's what spam is also for. But heyho, they could do something worse :)

[The Don]

If you get all the current active users to say they want it back to where it was with these threads being allowed with post count then we will change it.

didn't they do that when they voted in the first place? the only one which was truly spam was the post a random picture thread because there can be absolutely no discussion in it

[xxMATTGxx]

didn't they do that when they voted in the first place?

The poll was crap. Had crap options and most people only voted for yes or no (forgot which one) because they thought we would be getting rid of any posts they have made in those threads.

---------- Post added 07-10-2012 at 07:49 PM ----------

Surprisingly nearly all of the threads in that section are still being posted in with post count turned off!


didn't they do that when they voted in the first place? the only one which was truly spam was the post a random picture thread because there can be absolutely no discussion in it

While that was the case in the recent thread about them which got the sub-forum created, it then turned into talking about all of the others.

[The Don]

The poll was crap. Had crap options and most people only voted for yes or no (forgot which one) because they thought we would be getting rid of any posts they have made in those threads.

---------- Post added 07-10-2012 at 07:49 PM ----------

Surprisingly nearly all of the threads in that section are still being posted in with post count turned off!

I missed the thread where everyone said that was the only reason they voted against it because that wasn't why I voted no :S

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you get all the current active users to say they want it back to where it was with these threads being allowed with post count then we will change it. We haven't told any lies at all and we are always honest, we are only going off what you (the users) have complained about in feedback.

We already had a vote where the majority of active forum users rejected the change and it has now been ignored.


The poll was crap. Had crap options and most people only voted for yes or no (forgot which one) because they thought we would be getting rid of any posts they have made in those threads.

And how have you established this? have you asked or polled every individual forum user who voted in that poll? or is this a weak assumption?

And indeed, since when did a poll involve deciding for other people valid reasons for voting either way?

[xxMATTGxx]

I missed the thread where everyone said that was the only reason they voted against it because that wasn't why I voted no :S
FlyingJesus; (sorry if it wasn't you) pointed out that the majority of users had a very high post count in those threads which could hint towards them only voting for that option to keep their post count.

My honest opinion about it all: I don't care if they have post count or not, Forum Management only changed it because of the users.

[The Don]

FlyingJesus; (sorry if it wasn't you) pointed out that the majority of users had a very high post count in those threads which could hint towards them only voting for that option to keep their post count.

My honest opinion about it all: I don't care if they have post count or not, Forum Management only changed it because of the users.

AKA the only vocal ones (tom, scott etc) ignoring the silent majority

[xxMATTGxx]

AKA the only vocal ones (tom, scott etc) ignoring the silent majority

There is no reason to be silent.

[sex]

FlyingJesus; (sorry if it wasn't you) pointed out that the majority of users had a very high post count in those threads which could hint towards them only voting for that option to keep their post count.

My honest opinion about it all: I don't care if they have post count or not, Forum Management only changed it because of the users.

Only changed it because scott through his toys out of the pram**

i didn't see anyone else in that thread disagree apart from him, he even went as far to ruin the other threads to make a point and make sure they were moved also...

[xxMATTGxx]

I will also like to add on that it's taken two weeks for a thread to be mentioned about this. Do people really care that much? I know Gomme spoke to me about it on my profile and then started discussion how the userbase doesn't take such threads well compared to others.

[-:Undertaker:-]

FlyingJesus; (sorry if it wasn't you) pointed out that the majority of users had a very high post count in those threads which could hint towards them only voting for that option to keep their post count.

I have a high post count as did GommeInc (who I think backed our side) and others, yet we can hardly be accused of wanting to higher our post counts because we don't post that often and when we do, our posts often contain substance in them.

I rejected the proposals because I think people ought to be free to post in which manner they see fit - and if I am overtaken in the post count rankings then so what? assumptions that I and others are wanting to protect or increase my post count are just that, cheap assumptions.


My honest opinion about it all: I don't care if they have post count or not, Forum Management only changed it because of the users.

The majority of users rejected the proposal.

[Chris]

Why is everything on this forum made into a big deal? Members haven't lost any post count from the previous threads but will no longer gain anymore. This has made it fair on those who wanted to keep their posts but has also made it fair on those who believe they were abusing the threads for that reason.

I decided to trial it and so far so good.

[The Don]

There is no reason to be silent.

most people don't care enough to argue about it but the fact that more people voted no obviously means that's what majority of people wanted

[xxMATTGxx]

Only changed it because scott through his toys out of the pram**

i didn't see anyone else in that thread disagree apart from him, he even went as far to ruin the other threads to make a point and make sure they were moved also...

Scott brought up the argument other threads are the same as the images one. Then If I remember correctly the users who actually posted that thread also said they don't like the other threads either.

---------- Post added 07-10-2012 at 07:57 PM ----------


most people don't care enough to argue about it but the fact that more people voted no obviously means that's what majority of people wanted

Then that means it isn't a problem surely? :P

---------- Post added 07-10-2012 at 07:57 PM ----------


I have a high post count as did GommeInc (who I think backed our side) and others, yet we can hardly be accused of wanting to higher our post counts because we don't post that often and when we do, our posts often contain substance in them.

I rejected the proposals because I think people ought to be free to post in which manner they see fit - and if I am overtaken in the post count rankings then so what?



The majority of users rejected the proposal.

A high post count in the threads that are in that sub-forum? Not a a high post count in general.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why is everything on this forum made into a big deal? Members haven't lost any post count from the previous threads but will no longer gain anymore. This has made it fair on those who wanted to keep their posts but has also made it fair on those who believe they were abusing the threads for that reason.

I decided to trial it and so far so good.

Because a poll was held, the majority rejected the proposal and it was ignored.

I find the fact the poll has been completely ignored much more irritating than the proposal itself.

[Chris]

The final decision lies with us. We wont be running anymore polls for feedback if it's going to cause issues like this because it seems that someone is always going to moan regardless.

[Chippiewill]

Because a poll was held, the majority rejected the proposal and it was ignored.
It was not ignored, it was taken under consideration. It was hardly a landslide either way.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The final decision lies with us. We wont be running anymore polls for feedback if it's going to cause issues like this because it seems that someone is always going to moan regardless.

Oh well that's better, at least admitting that it doesn't particulary matter what the majority think is better than pretending to and then ignoring it.

And i'm genuinely not being sarcastic in that remark because it would save all this hassle - but it is rather sad to see echoes of ---MAD---esque policy returning (more forum rules being created, user polls created but then being ignored when the vote goes the 'wrong way').

[FlyingJesus]

FlyingJesus; (sorry if it wasn't you) pointed out that the majority of users had a very high post count in those threads which could hint towards them only voting for that option to keep their post count.

Yeah that was me, massive amount of the people who voted against the change had over 100 posts in those threads as well as giving no actual reason for their vote other than the occasional OMF WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH?!?!? which is not an argument at all


I have a high post count as did GommeInc (who I think backed our side) and others, yet we can hardly be accused of wanting to higher our post counts because we don't post that often and when we do, our posts often contain substance in them.

You can't state that changes should be made due to majority votes and then fall back on minority statistics to back up your view. The point wasn't that people saying no had high post counts, it was that they had a large number of posts in those threads, and the majority of those saying no were part of that reasoning


I rejected the proposals because I think people ought to be free to post in which manner they see fit

And they are, just in the proper place


most people don't care enough to argue about it but the fact that more people voted no obviously means that's what majority of people wanted

Actual logic and reasoning is a far better way to make decisions than simple majority votes, especially when people aren't even willing (or able) to back up their views. That aside, Habbox has never been a democracy

[The Don]

The final decision lies with us. We wont be running anymore polls for feedback if it's going to cause issues like this because it seems that someone is always going to moan regardless.

ALL HEIL CHRIS

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133d/essays/images/Hecksalute.jpg

it would make more sense to admit you made a poor decision and change it rather than just sound ignorant

[Chris]

Oh well that's better, at least admitting that it doesn't particulary matter what the majority think is better than pretending to and then ignoring it.

And i'm genuinely not being sarcastic in that remark because it would save all this hassle - but it is rather sad to see echoes of ---MAD---esque policy returning (more forum rules being created, user polls created but then being ignored when the vote goes the 'wrong way').

No new forum rules have been created. Polls aren't here to make a decision, it's been made clear plenty of times that we make the final decision.


ALL HEIL CHRIS

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133d/essays/images/Hecksalute.jpg

it would make more sense to admit you made a poor decision and change it rather than just sound ignorant

Thats your opinion, at the end of the day we aren't going to please everyone regardless of how hard we try.

[sex]

ALL HEIL CHRIS

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133d/essays/images/Hecksalute.jpg

it would make more sense to admit you made a poor decision and change it rather than just sound ignorant

omg lmao!!! but yeah chris seems like a very ignorant person, he obviously wont admit he is wrong lol......

[xxMATTGxx]

If anyone believes this has turned into a whole ---MAD-- situation then you are most likely high on drugs. HabboxForum is not strict, we aren't ignoring users or banning people for the sake of it. We are less strict now than we were a good few years ago.

While the poll could have been improved which I'll apologise for but we never do say that polls do make the final decision of anything here at Habbox. It wasn't fully ignored.

[Chris]

omg lmao!!! but yeah chris seems like a very ignorant person, he obviously wont admit he is wrong lol......

Like I said thats your opinion and you're welcome to it but I stick by what we changed.

[Kardan]

Personally I don't have an issue with it (surprise, surprise) since the majority of users got the fair deal from it - nobody lost post count,, but nobody will gain post count in the future.

Habbox have two options with post count really, either let it have a meaning by disabling it in areas where pointless posts are high, or just enabling it across the whole forum - I don't mind either option, either let post count mean something or nothing, not somewhere in between.

When the forum poll was held, I protested on the forum that it was silly that whatever the forum poll said had to hold and I'm glad that forum management saw the flaw in that.

The new sub forum isn't really an issue, people still post in the threads - all is good.

[nvrspk4]

For the love of god -this forum is not, has never been, and should not be run by majority opinion.

The management sought the input of their users, saw that the vote was fairly close but also was swayed by the arguments raised by users in the thread itself.

Not only that, they found a *gasp* compromise. The majority got something they really wanted, the minority (and I say minority with hesitance because from what I remember it was close) also got something they wanted. This came from listening to the feedback of the users in the thread.

Management makes the decisions, I am happy that they sought feedback and arguments from the members.

PS: It was a long time ago so maybe the memory is fuzzy but in the "MAD-esque" era the results were actually hidden from the users.

[Grig]

I agree with the current decision. It didn't contribute to discussion at all.

Post count is not life (but knowing some on this forum, hxf is life and they need a good shot of vodka).

To whoever said there are few actual posts on discussion, the rule in not to blame. The blame lies on the fact that the forum is dwindling (and has been for a while) and more things should be done to spice it up. I used to say before, it should be a democracy, but it's not. At the end of the day, you do not hold stakes on this forum and whoever management is at the time will make the final decision.

I actually think user opinion is listened to much more greatly than it was before and management are easily swayed, which to some could be seen as a sign of weakness in terms of a U-turn. But this is not a government but a forum for Habbo, so it's not.

[lawrawrrr]

OH LOOK ANOTHER FEEDBACK THREAD ON THE SAME THING

The forum was NOT on the list of options - the poll wasn't comprehensive enough to cover all options. Most people who voted 'no' were worried about losing their post count - which they haven't now. It was just a way for certain people to abuse their post counts before, without discussing, so yes I think this is a good idea. Unless someone can think of a way that these threads in any way promote discussion?

[Andii]

FlyingJesus; (sorry if it wasn't you) pointed out that the majority of users had a very high post count in those threads which could hint towards them only voting for that option to keep their post count.

My honest opinion about it all: I don't care if they have post count or not, Forum Management only changed it because of the users.

Lol from what I Read people are crying over spilt milk. It's already happened so tbh they need to get over it. The way I see it is people simply posted to boost their post count up and that's why most people voted against this. But it can also e said for threads like runescape acchievent threads as you could just make one and post every single time you get up a rank.

[GommeInc]

I questioned this too Dan, apparently it's right to ignore the majority for the whines of the minority who simply want to go against the grain. Why these threads have caused such a fuss when every forum in the world has them is beyond me, and then there's this false idea that post counts actually mean something - no forum takes them seriously and they lack any substantial powers! If I hate a type of thread, I ignore them - I don't impose daft, unfounded ideas on the majority because I have a proverbial bee in my bonnet and have the inability to ignore posts, taking each one seriously.

And then there's the lack of care going into the decision. Post Your Setup/Desktop/Vehicle all fall within the poorly written criteria to be in Spam Forum Mk2, because they do not make for worthwhile discussions and only involve short replies - the excuse that came back was that the threads cannot be abused, well neither can the threads in that forum as to abuse these threads assumes that something worth while will come of it - yet posts are virtually worthless in the post ranking system. If bias and poor implementation come into question, then it simply won't work (especially when the majority said NO). It's another active area of the forum that's been removed for the sake of it - no thought, no consideration and poor judgment.


Lol from what I Read people are crying over spilt milk. It's already happened so tbh they need to get over it. The way I see it is people simply posted to boost their post count up and that's why most people voted against this. But it can also e said for threads like runescape acchievent threads as you could just make one and post every single time you get up a rank.
Post counts are worthless, if people are purposely boosting their post counts I would love to know what they seek to achieve. To get any worthwhile achievements you literally have to make a few thousand posts in these threads to get anywhere up the post ranking system. Unfortunately, this has been overlooked and the decision made on what appears to be a whim :/


I agree with the current decision. It didn't contribute to discussion at all.

Post count is not life (but knowing some on this forum, hxf is life and they need a good shot of vodka).

To whoever said there are few actual posts on discussion, the rule in not to blame. The blame lies on the fact that the forum is dwindling (and has been for a while) and more things should be done to spice it up.
Removing one active part of the forum will not create forum activity... The forum will continue to dwindle while daft changes for the sake of change happen. If they want to spice the forum up, don't touch non-problematic areas. The forum seems less appealing with a poorly worded and clearly over-bearing forum based on a false notion :P Adding a new forum which has barely any threads in it seems more of a problem than a solution.


You can't state that changes should be made due to majority votes and then fall back on minority statistics to back up your view. The point wasn't that people saying no had high post counts, it was that they had a large number of posts in those threads, and the majority of those saying no were part of that reasoning
Proof? The members list says differently and I'm not an avid user of those threads, unless I'm missing something? :/ I have no idea where this false notion that posts actually mean something comes from. Someone help me out? Those threads aren't as spammed in as you may think. A simple bit of mathematics and you realise that, to make any substantial changes to your profile with regards to the post ranking system, you would literally have to make thousands of posts. No one has done that.

[FlyingJesus]

How can you use the members list to see how many posts people have in certain threads? Think you're totally missing what's being said.

Things that haven't been claimed:
*People who wanted the threads to remain open had large post counts
*People with large post counts have posted in those pointless threads lots

Things that have been claimed:
*The majority of people who voted against nerfing the threads had over 100 posts in those threads

What value people put on posts is up to them entirely, but whatever your stance on that might be "posts don't even matter!!!!" is not a valid argument for suggesting that pointless threads require a post count. As for ignoring the majority, yes in a place that isn't a democracy (ie: right here) that is entirely ok to do, especially if the majority opinion is unfounded and overridden by actual reasoning.
Nothing has been removed except for the post count in a few threads - which you claim to not care about. With that logic, I can't actually see what your point is.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No new forum rules have been created. Polls aren't here to make a decision, it's been made clear plenty of times that we make the final decision.

That is a dishonest reply, quite clearly members are now restricted to the type of replies and type of threads they can post in certain forums.


*The majority of people who voted against nerfing the threads had over 100 posts in those threads

And? why is this any of your concern and why does it bother you?

As for cluttering up the forum, everybody is just as capable as myself and Ryan are and *drum roll* don't click on them.


The forum was NOT on the list of options - the poll wasn't comprehensive enough to cover all options. Most people who voted 'no' were worried about losing their post count - which they haven't now. It was just a way for certain people to abuse their post counts before, without discussing, so yes I think this is a good idea. Unless someone can think of a way that these threads in any way promote discussion?

Another example of somebody finding reasons to dismiss people's votes based on personal assumptions.

Can I ask how you reached this conclusion and even if true, why is it any of your business as to why people voted a certain way. A question was asked of the forum users, the users considered all the arguments (and personal preferences as well) and then made individual choices.

That is usually how a poll works.


Unless someone can think of a way that these threads in any way promote discussion?

I can, by the fact that people who enjoy posting in these threads (not me, probably not you either) are therefore more likely to stay on the forum for a longer period of time and thus post more. Indeed this is especially true of younger forum members (whom are rarer these days) as I know from my own experience i'd often try and reach certain milestones in the post count.

[FlyingJesus]

And? why is this any of your concern and why does it bother you?

They are pointless posts. You not thinking that anything should ever be restricted except for foreigners and homosexuality doesn't mean that rules no longer exist for everyone else. No-one has been stopped from making these posts, just directed to a certain area for it as we are with all threads. Really do not see what the issue can possibly be, especially for people who "don't care" about post counts. If the making and posting in of these threads had been made punishable (as was previously the case) then I'd see your point, but this isn't what's happened

[-:Undertaker:-]

They are pointless posts. You not thinking that anything should ever be restricted except for foreigners and homosexuality

I don't believe that, don't try and slur me.


doesn't mean that rules no longer exist for everyone else. No-one has been stopped from making these posts, just directed to a certain area for it as we are with all threads. Really do not see what the issue can possibly be, especially for people who "don't care" about post counts. If the making and posting in of these threads had been made punishable (as was previously the case) then I'd see your point, but this isn't what's happened

If you don't care about post counts, then why does it matter to you? are you not capable of what me, Ryan and the rest of the forum have done for years which is - if you don't like the look of a thread then don't click on it, and if you don't like a post then you scroll past it and ignore it?

Let the individual manage what he or she reads, rather than moderators micro-managing everything into seperate forums.

[FlyingJesus]

Find me the place where I said that I specifically do not care about post counts (hint: I didn't, and that part wasn't about me), and while you're at it try finding an actual argument against categorising threads, because what we've also done for years is be able to quickly and easily locate or skip over entire areas that either do or do not entice us rather than having one bulletin board of every single thread that's going on without any organisation, and this change has only added to that convenience. YET AGAIN, no posting rights have been removed and no-one has been punished - the grievance you are attempting to fight doesn't exist.

[nvrspk4]

I questioned this too Dan, apparently it's right to ignore the majority for the whines of the minority who simply want to go against the grain. Why these threads have caused such a fuss when every forum in the world has them is beyond me, and then there's this false idea that post counts actually mean something - no forum takes them seriously and they lack any substantial powers! If I hate a type of thread, I ignore them - I don't impose daft, unfounded ideas on the majority because I have a proverbial bee in my bonnet and have the inability to ignore posts, taking each one seriously.

I think that you will find plenty of people saying "post counts don't matter" but if there was suddenly a proposal to remove the post count statistic, there would be a very clear majority against it. In that case I could turn your logic on its head and say that you don't care about post count, but since you don't care why force yours down the side that does care about post count?

Clearly that's not an entirely valid argument but you're approaching the entire debate from the perspective of "post counts don't matter" as a settled and accepted fact, which is far from the truth. Post counts matter on this forum. Ask me what I think about that and I have an opinion more similar to yours.

Also, FJ did do an analysis on the number of posts by those who were vocally opposed to the switch had in those given threads, so he does have some factual basis for his claim.

------------

Still, that's off from the point of this thread. It seems that Forum Management came to a compromise that pleased a decent number from both sides - keep your current post count, don't count them any more. When you compromise certainly everyone is going to be a little unhappy but can you really argue that for the majority of the forum this change is all negatives?

If the argument is that Management doesn't listen, the rationale provided and the arguments that are cited by management from users from the thread clearly shows that management did listen, took users view into account, and made a decision. If the argument is that the majority of voters voted one way and therefore management is obligated to make that decision, then I would just say that's not how this works, nor is it how this should work.

[lawrawrrr]

Another example of somebody finding reasons to dismiss people's votes based on personal assumptions.

Can I ask how you reached this conclusion and even if true, why is it any of your business as to why people voted a certain way. A question was asked of the forum users, the users considered all the arguments (and personal preferences as well) and then made individual choices.

That is usually how a poll works.

I can, by the fact that people who enjoy posting in these threads (not me, probably not you either) are therefore more likely to stay on the forum for a longer period of time and thus post more. Indeed this is especially true of younger forum members (whom are rarer these days) as I know from my own experience i'd often try and reach certain milestones in the post count.

Because the poll was purely to ask if these threads should have their own sub forum - it gave the impression that post count would be lost, which is what (the people I talked to anyway) were concerned about. If it's none of my business then why the hell is it any of yours? As a moderator I'm expected to interact with the community to find out what's best in the forum for them. The poll didn't give the full question, which was wrong. I think the majority of people in that thread that voted 'no' to the sub-forum were either worried about losing their current post count, or worried about losing future post count as they'd no longer be able to abuse it.

And by the way, that's not a way they promote discussion, that's a way to promote members using those threads. Which isn't discussion.

[Grig]

Quality always overrides quantity.

The amount of times I see poorly worded responses or people posting crap that barely contributes to the discussion on hand is uncanny. I personally have a lower post count than some, but I like to respond thoroughly and not say "I love it" on every topic created.

Those threads contributed to the "I love it" kind of responses, which is why they very sensibly got moved to a new sub-forum. I base reputation of a person based on the quality of their posts, not when they sit there all day making pointless contributions. It doesn't take away from the fun or anything. Sure, some may be less inclined to post; but those who truly use the forum will continue nonetheless.

[GommeInc]

Things that have been claimed:
*The majority of people who voted against nerfing the threads had over 100 posts in those threads
And these people are? To make a claim you must provide actual evidence rather than make a half-baked claim. If the people who voted for keeping the threads have large post counts then who are they? The Members List seems to suggest that those with large post counts are active throughout the forum - Recursion, you, me, Undertaker, to name a few. The people who have over 100 posts in those threads have no worth in the forum at all. Also, are you seriously basing your claims on 100 posts? Those 100 posts are worthless in the grand scheme of the post count system... Add one zero and you're half way to an actual problem.


What value people put on posts is up to them entirely, but whatever your stance on that might be "posts don't even matter!!!!" is not a valid argument for suggesting that pointless threads require a post count. As for ignoring the majority, yes in a place that isn't a democracy (ie: right here) that is entirely ok to do, especially if the majority opinion is unfounded and overridden by actual reasoning.
Nothing has been removed except for the post count in a few threads - which you claim to not care about. With that logic, I can't actually see what your point is.
The Post System turns the value of posts from something subjective e.g. what people think is the value, to what is the actual value e.g. objective. Posts counts are useless and there is a clear lack of reasoning from the 2 members who wanted change versus the few providing actual evidence. What are the arguments for putting the effort into changing the system when there are no arguments for removing post count? To remove post count suggests that posts are worth something... when we've established they are worthless, especially for "100" posts (a clearly laughable and ridiculous argument).

My point is that it's laughable that change for the sake of change is happening again. Why does Habbox Forum again feel the need to make mediocre changes because two members have nothing better to do than moan about valueless posts? Since when were forums strictly about making all posts having a strict point? If you don't like those threads, don't use them - they were not causing any problems (as 100 posts is a small, pathetic amount of posts).

Also, I am yet to see these threads actually spammed in. One argument from matt was that they have the potential to be abused and spammed. Potential is the keyword - it's purely speculative.

Quality always overrides quantity.

The amount of times I see poorly worded responses or people posting crap that barely contributes to the discussion on hand is uncanny. I personally have a lower post count than some, but I like to respond thoroughly and not say "I love it" on every topic created.

Those threads contributed to the "I love it" kind of responses, which is why they very sensibly got moved to a new sub-forum. I base reputation of a person based on the quality of their posts, not when they sit there all day making pointless contributions. It doesn't take away from the fun or anything. Sure, some may be less inclined to post; but those who truly use the forum will continue nonetheless.
So imposing your views makes it better? Nothing is stopping you from making useful, quality posts. It seems the argument people are forming is that they spend too much time caring about posts, becoming somewhat dull and boring in their approach to using a forum. Besides, these "useless" posts will continue to be made, they just don't contribute to what has been established as the useless post system. When they allowed for posts counts, they were already hidden away and were not being abused, as FlyingJesus has already provided evidence that some people have only made over 100 posts, which really isn't that much and nothing to care about.

Also, what makes a useless post? Do people enter a large, topical thread and literally read every posts? Who here has taken the time to read the 60 posts in this thread for instance? Anyone?

[FlyingJesus]

And these people are? To make a claim you must provide actual evidence rather than make a half-baked claim. If the people who voted for keeping the threads have large post counts then who are they? The Members List seems to suggest that those with large post counts are active throughout the forum - Recursion, you, me, Undertaker, to name a few. The people who have over 100 posts in those threads have no worth in the forum at all. Also, are you seriously basing your claims on 100 posts? Those 100 posts are worthless in the grand scheme of the post count system... Add one zero and you're half way to an actual problem.

Why are you insisting on not reading my posts as I've actually written them? The members list has nothing to do with this as no-one has ever suggested that the people who wanted the threads to stay where they were had large post counts. Read the actual words that I'm saying: the majority of people who voted against the change had a large number of posts IN THOSE THREADS. That's what I've been saying all along, I hope you noticed the important bit this time around. As a clue, look for the big red lettering. As for evidence and names, in the original poll thread I posted the list along with what threads I've checked to find the numbers - using the "who has posted in this thread" figures, not the members list because (say it with me now!) my argument is not at all concerned with total post count.


The Post System turns the value of posts from something subjective e.g. what people think is the value, to what is the actual value e.g. objective. Posts counts are useless and there is a clear lack of reasoning from the 2 members who wanted change versus the few providing actual evidence. What are the arguments for putting the effort into changing the system when there are no arguments for removing post count? To remove post count suggests that posts are worth something... when we've established they are worthless, especially for "100" posts (a clearly laughable and ridiculous argument).

Once again, that is your opinion on the value of posts, and does not equal fact. I appreciate the fact that you personally don't care about post count, but if everyone agreed with that then this wouldn't be an issue, so the very fact that it came up at all proves that to some at least it is of some importance, however little. As for "2 members who wanted change", I suggest looking at the extremely close poll that you keep praising. If opinions don't count unless they're vocalised and reasoned continually then those for the change actually far outnumber those voiceless people who wanted to block it without saying anything whatsoever about their opinion. You're attempting to tell people that only a handful cared about changing things around, but even fewer (read: you and Dan) are being obstinate about going back on the decision.


My point is that it's laughable that change for the sake of change is happening again. Why does Habbox Forum again feel the need to make mediocre changes because two members have nothing better to do than moan about valueless posts? Since when were forums strictly about making all posts having a strict point? If you don't like those threads, don't use them - they were not causing any problems (as 100 posts is a small, pathetic amount of posts).

It wasn't change for the change of change, it was change for the sake of allowing people to continue posting as they wished without implicitly promoting rule-breaking. You keep telling us that 100 posts means nothing, but this was an at least situation not capped at 100 exactly, and even so the totals add up to an obscene amount of totally pointless posts that don't add anything to discussion and in many cases actively stifle it. Previously the rule was that these threads were not to be allowed at all outside of spam, and the change gave these threads a place to thrive where they might otherwise be drowned out, at the expense of no-one.


Also, I am yet to see these threads actually spammed in. One argument from matt was that they have the potential to be abused and spammed. Potential is the keyword - it's purely speculative.

They aren't spammed in because they weren't moved to Spam as was at one point suggested - rather they were given their own area with defined rules that keep the threads exactly as they were supposed to flow without the risk of derailing. I don't know if you're totally incapable of getting your head around the idea of "pointless posts", but the forum definition is that posts which do not contribute to active discussion are deemed pointless. Simple flat statement answers fit this definition, which is what the threads in question are entirely comprised of, and so these threads were/are essentially pointless through and through. Giving them an area in which to operate meant that anyone who did enjoy these threads could continue to do so rather than dumping them in Spam to die.


Do people enter a large, topical thread and literally read every posts?

Yes

[GommeInc]

Why are you insisting on not reading my posts as I've actually written them? The members list has nothing to do with this as no-one has ever suggested that the people who wanted the threads to stay where they were had large post counts. Read the actual words that I'm saying: the majority of people who voted against the change had a large number of posts IN THOSE THREADS. That's what I've been saying all along, I hope you noticed the important bit this time around. As a clue, look for the big red lettering. As for evidence and names, in the original poll thread I posted the list along with what threads I've checked to find the numbers - using the "who has posted in this thread" figures, not the members list because (say it with me now!) my argument is not at all concerned with total post count.
Why are you insisting on not reading mine? I don't care about the people who post in those threads and neither should you. As I said: The people who have over 100 posts in those threads have no worth in the forum at all. The people who we should be caring about are those actually in the Members List as actually having high post count but no evidence of getting those high post counts from using those threads. I was pointing out how incredibly lame your argument was, how narrow-minded it is to only care about those threads rather than looking at the bigger picture :rolleyes:


Once again, that is your opinion on the value of posts, and does not equal fact. I appreciate the fact that you personally don't care about post count, but if everyone agreed with that then this wouldn't be an issue, so the very fact that it came up at all proves that to some at least it is of some importance, however little. As for "2 members who wanted change", I suggest looking at the extremely close poll that you keep praising. If opinions don't count unless they're vocalised and reasoned continually then those for the change actually far outnumber those voiceless people who wanted to block it without saying anything whatsoever about their opinion. You're attempting to tell people that only a handful cared about changing things around, but even fewer (read: you and Dan) are being obstinate about going back on the decision.
Look at the Rank System. it's not opinion, it is FACT. Posts are useless, you need loads to climb the ranking system. It's still shocking you think 100 posts is a lot and spam, when 100 posts gets you no where in the post system. I strongly suggest you look at the requirements in the rank system, rather than complaining about threads which really do not abuse the system. You're still yet to answer where this idea that posts mean a lot comes from, but I suspect you realise this and that's why you disregard factual information and continue your needless attack for pointless change on threads which really aren't as outrageous as you'd think.


It wasn't change for the change of change, it was change for the sake of allowing people to continue posting as they wished without implicitly promoting rule-breaking. You keep telling us that 100 posts means nothing, but this was an at least situation not capped at 100 exactly, and even so the totals add up to an obscene amount of totally pointless posts that don't add anything to discussion and in many cases actively stifle it. Previously the rule was that these threads were not to be allowed at all outside of spam, and the change gave these threads a place to thrive where they might otherwise be drowned out, at the expense of no-one.
What rule is this? Pointless posting? Hardly damaging. 100 posts means nothing, add a zero to the end and there should be concern, yet there's no proof that people are quite literally spamming those threads. It all seems to be speculation and very little observation.

As I said, I think it's laughable that people really care that much about post counts without really diving into any research. Just screaming "pointless" without ever really thinking. When I did some calculations, I totalled an average of 935 posts per person in the "What are you listening to?" thread. This in itself isn't all that alarming when put next to the Rank System. It gets even worse when that total could be considerably less when you calculate the age of the thread and that the number was based on the number of people who had viewed that thread - a function only recently installed so the number of average posts could be considerably less.


They aren't spammed in because they weren't moved to Spam as was at one point suggested - rather they were given their own area with defined rules that keep the threads exactly as they were supposed to flow without the risk of derailing.
So you admit they aren't and weren't a problem, that people weren't spamming in them? I honestly don't understand where your argument is going. So they aren't abused and that people aren't making as many posts in them... This change for the sake of change is getting all the worse.



I don't know if you're totally incapable of getting your head around the idea of "pointless posts", but the forum definition is that posts which do not contribute to active discussion are deemed pointless. Simple flat statement answers fit this definition, which is what the threads in question are entirely comprised of, and so these threads were/are essentially pointless through and through.
Ah yes, the forum definition. Say no more, this forum acts so differently that it becomes self-destructive. Also, most threads have posts which meet those requirements, again another flaw with the change - unless you like seeing mod warnings about pointless posting, even though they are on-topic? It's typical HxF - confusing the word "off-topic" and "pointless". Also, you've completely ruined your argument with this:

Giving them an area in which to operate meant that anyone who did enjoy these threads could continue to do so rather than dumping them in Spam to die.

If people were enjoying them, surely they have a point? :rolleyes:

EDIT: 158 posts in that thread since the 19th September... My God there's some spamming going on.

[FlyingJesus]

Why are you insisting on not reading mine? I don't care about the people who post in those threads and neither should you. As I said: The people who have over 100 posts in those threads have no worth in the forum at all. The people who we should be caring about are those actually in the Members List as actually having high post count but no evidence of getting those high post counts from using those threads. I was pointing out how incredibly lame your argument was, how narrow-minded it is to only care about those threads rather than looking at the bigger picture :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting that people having high post counts without using those threads means that those threads can't possibly be problematic in any way? Still not sure what the members list has to do with this argument, and I don't see how you can say "I don't care about the people who post in those threads and neither should you" when those threads are the only topic of conversation here.


Look at the Rank System. it's not opinion, it is FACT. Posts are useless, you need loads to climb the ranking system. It's still shocking you think 100 posts is a lot and spam, when 100 posts gets you no where in the post system. I strongly suggest you look at the requirements in the rank system, rather than complaining about threads which really do not abuse the system. You're still yet to answer where this idea that posts mean a lot comes from, but I suspect you realise this and that's why you disregard factual information and continue your needless attack for pointless change on threads which really aren't as outrageous as you'd think.

AGAIN, 100 posts minimum. For us, not a lot, for new members a huge deal. As for post count meaning something or not, I've already stated that it's down to the individual to work out whether or not they think there's an inherent value in big numbers - you think not because the ranking system has large requirements for progression, someone else might think they are important simply for something as intangible as bragging rights. Whatever anyone's reasoning, it's all opinion on that point.


What rule is this? Pointless posting? Hardly damaging. 100 posts means nothing, add a zero to the end and there should be concern, yet there's no proof that people are quite literally spamming those threads. It all seems to be speculation and very little observation.

Yes, the pointless posting rule. If it wasn't a rule then you'd have a point, but it is. I can name several rules on the forum and in life that I don't believe the breaking of would cause any real damage, but they're rules nonetheless. And again (I feel I have to repeat myself a lot to you because you keep arguing against things I'm not actually saying) I haven't said that the threads are spammed. This "speculation" you're on about doesn't exist.


As I said, I think it's laughable that people really care that much about post counts without really diving into any research. Just screaming "pointless" without ever really thinking. When I did some calculations, I totalled an average of 935 posts per person in the "What are you listening to?" thread. This in itself isn't all that alarming when put next to the Rank System. It gets even worse when that total could be considerably less when you calculate the age of the thread and that the number was based on the number of people who had viewed that thread - a function only recently installed so the number of average posts could be considerably less.

I think it's laughable that people really care that much about category changes without really having a valid opinion. Just screaming "pointless" without ever really thinking.

ONCE AGAIN (seriously) if you don't care about post counts then this should not be an issue for you. You keep going on about skipping over something you don't like, that's a lot easier to do with one subforum than a multitude of threads - by your own creed you should be overjoyed that not seeing things you don't want to see has been made easier for you.


So you admit they aren't and weren't a problem, that people weren't spamming in them? I honestly don't understand where your argument is going. So they aren't abused and that people aren't making as many posts in them... This change for the sake of change is getting all the worse.

*+*I NEVER SAID THEY WERE SPAMMED*+* In fact, as you later pick up, I said the opposite. Please, please, please, stop shooting at straw men. The threads broke the forum rules, that and nothing more is literally the entire point.


Ah yes, the forum definition. Say no more, this forum acts so differently that it becomes self-destructive. Also, most threads have posts which meet those requirements, again another flaw with the change - unless you like seeing mod warnings about pointless posting, even though they are on-topic? It's typical HxF - confusing the word "off-topic" and "pointless".

I don't necessarily agree with the way the forum defines certain things or with all of the rules that have been implemented, but that is not the point at all. The point is that those rules and definitions do exist, and ought to be followed.


Also, you've completely ruined your argument with this:

Giving them an area in which to operate meant that anyone who did enjoy these threads could continue to do so rather than dumping them in Spam to die.

If people were enjoying them, surely they have a point? :rolleyes:

In the same way that forum games threads have - or had - a point
In the same way that spam threads have a point
In the same way that posting porn might have a point

To repeat myself once more, I am talking about the forum rules definition of pointless, which those threads by their very nature come under because not only do users refrain from making any actual conversation in them, but due to the fact that people didn't want them derailed/spammed it is actually punishable to try. Quite obviously the forum rules are not perfect and are sometimes downright daft and I certainly would never suggest that they're the absolute Word, but if they're not changing (would hate to advocate for change!) then I'd rather see them actually upheld as they stand than ignored in various random instances just for moderation's ease, as that sort of thing leads to ---MAD----like systems where every post you make could get you banned or promoted on the whim of whoever sees it first.

[GommeInc]

Still not sure what the members list has to do with this argument, and I don't see how you can say "I don't care about the people who post in those threads and neither should you" when those threads are the only topic of conversation here.
Well seeing as your entire argument seems to rest on certain members having 100 posts at least in those threads and thinking that's bad when actually the people high up in the member list post rank are all old users, so these threads can't be problematic. Also, I've bolded the parts of the quote you don't seem to understand. The problem here are people spamming and making pointless posts, not the threads (as you talk about bragging, pointless posting etc which is what users do, threads lack personalities and ability to make posts).


AGAIN, 100 posts minimum. For us, not a lot, for new members a huge deal. As for post count meaning something or not, I've already stated that it's down to the individual to work out whether or not they think there's an inherent value in big numbers - you think not because the ranking system has large requirements for progression, someone else might think they are important simply for something as intangible as bragging rights. Whatever anyone's reasoning, it's all opinion on that point.
AGAIN, I refer you to the ranking system requirements. For new members, they will have to make over 1,000/2,000 posts to actually be a big deal :rolleyes: Also, no one brags about their posts... What are we, 6? Also, to brag assumes there's power. Again, I refer you to the rank system and the requirements to gain anything really to brag about... Also, I am yet to see someone brag about their posts. So that argument seems unjust.


Yes, the pointless posting rule. If it wasn't a rule then you'd have a point, but it is. I can name several rules on the forum and in life that I don't believe the breaking of would cause any real damage, but they're rules nonetheless. And again (I feel I have to repeat myself a lot to you because you keep arguing against things I'm not actually saying) I haven't said that the threads are spammed. This "speculation" you're on about doesn't exist.
Oh dear, you're on those people who demand rules be religiously followed, when these posts all have a point within their respective threads. Please don't tell me I have to explain why posting about the music you're listening to has a point in the "What are you Listening to?" thread, when it is in the correct forum about music...


ONCE AGAIN (seriously) if you don't care about post counts then this should not be an issue for you. You keep going on about skipping over something you don't like, that's a lot easier to do with one subforum than a multitude of threads - by your own creed you should be overjoyed that not seeing things you don't want to see has been made easier for you.
It's the principle of changing things for the sake of change, without any real discussion. There's no benefits of moving the threads at all, it literally was for the sake of change. Also, I am one of those things called a human, which can skim over something uninteresting. I'm slightly concerned about your mental well-being if these threads seem to offend you.


*+*I NEVER SAID THEY WERE SPAMMED*+* In fact, as you later pick up, I said the opposite. Please, please, please, stop shooting at straw men. The threads broke the forum rules, that and nothing more is literally the entire point.
Depends if you follow tedious details. Technically they do not break forum rules, as they are not pointless. Seeing as the posts are made in threads which are in the correct forums, they actually do serve a point: "To post what you're listening to". I'm shocked you over-look this. Just because you over-value your opinions with blind rage over what are harmless posts in harmless threads. I'll give you a test. What is the point of the "Post your vehicle thread"? And you say the majority who said NO lacked reason, when the minority seem to lack reason too.


I don't necessarily agree with the way the forum defines certain things or with all of the rules that have been implemented, but that is not the point at all. The point is that those rules and definitions do exist, and ought to be followed.
Even when they're harmless? People who think like that should never own forums, and they will only be dull and bureaucratic - something Habbox should steer well clear of and used to until this poorly reasoned decision.



In the same way that forum games threads have - or had - a point
In the same way that spam threads have a point
In the same way that posting porn might have a point

To repeat myself once more, I am talking about the forum rules definition of pointless, which those threads by their very nature come under because not only do users refrain from making any actual conversation in them, but due to the fact that people didn't want them derailed/spammed it is actually punishable to try. Quite obviously the forum rules are not perfect and are sometimes downright daft and I certainly would never suggest that they're the absolute Word, but if they're not changing (would hate to advocate for change!) then I'd rather see them actually upheld as they stand than ignored in various random instances just for moderation's ease, as that sort of thing leads to ---MAD----like systems where every post you make could get you banned or promoted on the whim of whoever sees it first.
I've just looked at the rule and if you're so hell-bent on following definitions... You are aware most of these threads have posts with more than 2 word posts?

~ Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion.

Going to this thread: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=760172

Most posts have 5 words, so therefore do not break the rule/definition of pointless posts. So yeah, you're needless following of the rules for the sake of strictness has collapsed. You could say "Ah, but it also says and do not promote active discussion". However, you can only use that excuse if the post fulfills the "one or two words" criteria, because it clearly says "AND" not "OR". So your argument on technicalities is incredibly flawed.

And you said the majority lacked reason. I dread to think what the minority lack then :P

[FlyingJesus]

Well seeing as your entire argument seems to rest on certain members having 100 posts at least in those threads and thinking that's bad when actually the people high up in the member list post rank are all old users, so these threads can't be problematic. Also, I've bolded the parts of the quote you don't seem to understand. The problem here are people spamming and making pointless posts, not the threads (as you talk about bragging, pointless posting etc which is what users do, threads lack personalities and ability to make posts).

Nope, the point is STILL that the threads were pointless by forum rule definition. The forum rules may be at fault in the way they're written, but that's certainly not my doing and I'm not to be held accountable for the mess they're in :P


AGAIN, I refer you to the ranking system requirements. For new members, they will have to make over 1,000/2,000 posts to actually be a big deal :rolleyes: Also, no one brags about their posts... What are we, 6? Also, to brag assumes there's power. Again, I refer you to the rank system and the requirements to gain anything really to brag about... Also, I am yet to see someone brag about their posts. So that argument seems unjust.

You're still just saying "I don't think post count matters, so it doesn't". If tangible rewards were all that anyone cared about why would people make threads about reaching particular milestones that yield no such reward?


Oh dear, you're on those people who demand rules be religiously followed, when these posts all have a point within their respective threads. Please don't tell me I have to explain why posting about the music you're listening to has a point in the "What are you Listening to?" thread, when it is in the correct forum about music...

I'm one of those people who expect that rules be followed for all instances or are repealed, because otherwise they are worthless. ONCE MORE, I'm talking about the forum definition of pointless, not the real-world definition or my personal definition.


It's the principle of changing things for the sake of change, without any real discussion. There's no benefits of moving the threads at all, it literally was for the sake of change. Also, I am one of those things called a human, which can skim over something uninteresting. I'm slightly concerned about your mental well-being if these threads seem to offend you.

There was a lot of discussion, and reasons were given and have continued to be given. You not seeing it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I have never said that the threads offended me but congrats on putting more words into my mouth that I haven't said - I merely noted that since you advocate for skipping past unwanted content, this change should delight you as it's made doing so much easier.


Depends if you follow tedious details. Technically they do not break forum rules, as they are not pointless. Seeing as the posts are made in threads which are in the correct forums, they actually do serve a point: "To post what you're listening to". I'm shocked you over-look this. Just because you over-value your opinions with blind rage over what are harmless posts in harmless threads. I'll give you a test. What is the point of the "Post your vehicle thread"? And you say the majority who said NO lacked reason, when the minority seem to lack reason too.

No rage, just reading. "Post your vehicle" apparently has discussion about the vehicles posted, I don't frequent it so I'm not aware of what level of discussion it holds, but the threads that were moved had no discussion and didn't even allow discussion to take place which is ridiculous. 4real I have never disputed that these threads can be said to have a point, merely that they don't fit the forum definition. I don't get how that's hard to grasp.


Even when they're harmless? People who think like that should never own forums, and they will only be dull and bureaucratic - something Habbox should steer well clear of and used to until this poorly reasoned decision.

Which Habbox have you been a part of for the past 8 years :S


I've just looked at the rule and if you're so hell-bent on following definitions... You are aware most of these threads have posts with more than 2 word posts?

~ Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion.

Going to this thread: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=760172

Most posts have 5 words, so therefore do not break the rule/definition of pointless posts. So yeah, you're needless following of the rules for the sake of strictness has collapsed. You could say "Ah, but it also says and do not promote active discussion". However, you can only use that excuse if the post fulfills the "one or two words" criteria, because it clearly says "AND" not "OR". So your argument on technicalities is incredibly flawed.

Going by that logic there's almost never any case for pointless posts/threads as in a "What colour are your socks" thread someone could say "My socks are blue" and that's more than 2 words but still doesn't spark conversation. If the forum wants to adopt that as its code then fair enough but as far as I'm aware they're still making edits under the guise of pointless posting rules for posts that answer thread titles without adding extra information as they have done pretty much since the rule was edited to be written in that way. I've been told many times by Chris that such posts are deemed pointless and that it's an immovable issue, so while I agree with you that it doesn't make a lot of sense it is the current way that things are done. By all means suggest a more inclusive or exclusive rewriting of the rule and I'll probably support it because it is so badly worded at present, but for now it is what it is.


And you said the majority lacked reason. I dread to think what the minority lack then :P

The ability to make posts stating simple methods and reasoning without being insulted, apparently. Also a social life

[GommeInc]

I've purposely cut out most of your post as it was about following the forum definition of pointless posting, which will now be discussed by the below quote:

Going by that logic there's almost never any case for pointless posts/threads as in a "What colour are your socks" thread someone could say "My socks are blue" and that's more than 2 words but still doesn't spark conversation. If the forum wants to adopt that as its code then fair enough but as far as I'm aware they're still making edits under the guise of pointless posting rules for posts that answer thread titles without adding extra information as they have done pretty much since the rule was edited to be written in that way. I've been told many times by Chris that such posts are deemed pointless and that it's an immovable issue, so while I agree with you that it doesn't make a lot of sense it is the current way that things are done. By all means suggest a more inclusive or exclusive rewriting of the rule and I'll probably support it because it is so badly worded at present, but for now it is what it is.
Don't blame me, the rule clearly states that the definition of pointless posting is:

1. Posts with only one or two words; and
2. Do not promote active discussion

As you've been saying, you demand rules are followed even if you disagree with them (a strange way to live your life but hey-**). Your entire argument was quite literally based on the fact (which is now just an idea as the fact has now be rebuked) that the threads should not be allowed because they fall within the forum definition of pointless. However, as the rules clearly state - posts are only pointless if they only contain between one or two words AND do not promote active discussion. Nearly all of these threads are actually well within the rules, particularly the biggest culprit: What are you listening to?

As you follow the rules by their definitions, it seems you've de facto joined the reasonable and logical forum majority, as you should now agree the threads and indeed the posts are not against the forum rules. Welcome aboard ;)

In all seriousness, I also think rules should be followed, unless there is an obscrurity and a rather obnoxious result. It's similar in the approach to the 4 rules of construction and 3 rules of language which any other law student may know about (statutory interpretation).


The ability to make posts stating simple methods and reasoning without being insulted, apparently. Also a social life
You're the one who said that the majority lacked any reason, which as it goes seems a bit harsh when you don't seem to know the rules either :P Also, I too have a social life. My activity recently has been rather awful - but I did have a law exam yesterday and spent quite a long time revising for it.

[Kardan]

Basically management need to change and to or, and then everything is fine.

/thread.

[GommeInc]

Basically management need to change and to or, and then everything is fine.

/thread.
Not /thread at all as again no thought has gone into it :P

Management are fine, Chris and Matt both did not want to make changes to the thread and post policy. They just felt they had to for some strange reason or other.

Changing "and" to "or" won't solve anything. The rules talk about posts that should in some way promote discussion, it doesn't mention threads and there's a very good reason for it. Threads all promote discussion upon creation, it's up to the users to carry on discussion with their posts. Afterall, there must be a point to make a thread and the point behind some of these threads is to find out what someone is doing or thinks.

Take the "What are you listening to?" thread, it clearly is promoting discussion by asking "What is...", as by asking "What" is a form of opening to a discussion. This thread is opening discussions by asking "Why is..."

In short, don't touch anything without having a damn good think, and repeal this rather pointless change to the forum which won't change how dull and empty the forum has been in recent months.

[Kardan]

Not /thread at all as again no thought has gone into it :P

Management are fine, Chris and Matt both did not want to make changes to the thread and post policy. They just felt they had to for some strange reason or other.

Changing "and" to "or" won't solve anything. The rules talk about posts that should in some way promote discussion, it doesn't mention threads and there's a very good reason for it. Threads all promote discussion upon creation, it's up to the users to carry on discussion with their posts. Afterall, there must be a point to make a thread and the point behind some of these threads is to find out what someone is doing or thinks.

Take the "What are you listening to?" thread, it clearly is promoting discussion by asking "What is...", as by asking "What" is a form of opening to a discussion. This thread is opening discussions by asking "Why is..."

In short, don't touch anything without having a damn good think, and repeal this rather pointless change to the forum which won't change how dull and empty the forum has been in recent months.

You have very good points Gomme, but so does Tom, and basically you two just have different interpretations on what the rule means/says.

I agree with Tom that the threads don't promote discussion and are mainly there for post count, but you are right Gomme that technically they don't break the rules because how they are written, changing and to or would solve some aspects, but the 'promote discussion' probably needs to be expanded more in the rules.

I think me and Tom see 'promote discussion' as people actually talking about the music they are listening to, rather than stating it as it simply encourages post count, where as you are equally as right saying that all the posts are esentially doing what the thread title asks them.

How though, would reversing the change make it any better? Of course it all dependson people's opinions on post count. Many members don't give a damn about post count and fair enough, and others do, so it's never going to be possible to please everyone, so management are right to try and find something that pleases the majority, and in this case, I think it does.

Now, I don't mean the majority (55/60%) that voted against the change, I mean the majority of people (~90%) that benefit from this, the people that didn't want post count to be abused get the new forum, and people that want the threads for actually posting in them, and not abusing post count, gets them. So the management have took the right decision in pleasing ~90% than the ~60% in not having the forum.

Essentially I'm sure this debate could last absolutely forever, and hey, these are the threads that promote discussion - we should have more threads like these than 'T-Shirt and Jeans' over and over again :P

I think this is less a debate on the new forum (which has been discussed endlessly) but more on post count and what it means to the forum. As I've said before, I don't care either way - you either make it worthless to everyone and enable it everywhere to all past, current and future threads - or you make it mean something and limit it in certain areas (Spam, Forum Games, Misc etc).

[GommeInc]

You have very good points Gomme, but so does Tom, and basically you two just have different interpretations on what the rule means/says.

I agree with Tom that the threads don't promote discussion and are mainly there for post count, but you are right Gomme that technically they don't break the rules because how they are written, changing and to or would solve some aspects, but the 'promote discussion' probably needs to be expanded more in the rules.

I think me and Tom see 'promote discussion' as people actually talking about the music they are listening to, rather than stating it as it simply encourages post count, where as you are equally as right saying that all the posts are esentially doing what the thread title asks them.

How though, would reversing the change make it any better? Of course it all dependson people's opinions on post count. Many members don't give a damn about post count and fair enough, and others do, so it's never going to be possible to please everyone, so management are right to try and find something that pleases the majority, and in this case, I think it does.

Now, I don't mean the majority (55/60%) that voted against the change, I mean the majority of people (~90%) that benefit from this, the people that didn't want post count to be abused get the new forum, and people that want the threads for actually posting in them, and not abusing post count, gets them. So the management have took the right decision in pleasing ~90% than the ~60% in not having the forum.

Essentially I'm sure this debate could last absolutely forever, and hey, these are the threads that promote discussion - we should have more threads like these than 'T-Shirt and Jeans' over and over again :P

I think this is less a debate on the new forum (which has been discussed endlessly) but more on post count and what it means to the forum. As I've said before, I don't care either way - you either make it worthless to everyone and enable it everywhere to all past, current and future threads - or you make it mean something and limit it in certain areas (Spam, Forum Games, Misc etc).
There's no interpretation necessary, the rule is clear :P Tom's original interpretation was that the rule says pointless posting is where there is no discussion at all, when in actual fact the pointless posting rule says pointless posting is when posts only contain 2 words. It's purely factual that the threads are well within the rules, making the change seem unnecessary and unjust.

Also, there's no evidence the threads are there for post count. As Tom said, some (not all) users make at least 100 posts in those threads, which means absolutely nothing. To assume it was there for post count suggests that the post/rank system is actually worth something, when in actual fact posts are worthless. So these few people who care so much about posts have a rather invalid opinion.

Then there was the claim that users brag about their post counts, another claim that was debunked because of lack of proof. The only claim that hasn't been voided is that people are looking too much into the threads and posts when they're easy to ignore, not spammed in and hardly make a dent in the total forum count, including the actual Members List where the top forum posters are active throughout the forum. The evidence that this was a clever idea seem to be thinning with each new claim, making the change seem incredibly pointless. Again, HxF is the only forum I know of that has a vendetta against normal forum behaviour, making for a over-bearing forum experience.

Also, what are the benefits of moving the threads? The only benefits seem to be for the few who care too much about post count (yet you state you don't care, so Matt/Chris seem to of made this decision on behalf of no one it seems). The move has made the forum seem untidy. The threads were all on-topic in their respective threads, now they're in an untidy forum with a dreadful forum description created on a whim to please what seems to be no one now, originally it was a handful of people who have clouded their judgment over the false impression that posts are worth something.

[Kardan]

There's no interpretation necessary, the rule is clear :P Tom's original interpretation was that the rule says pointless posting is where there is no discussion at all, when in actual fact the pointless posting rule says pointless posting is when posts only contain 2 words. It's purely factual that the threads are well within the rules, making the change seem unnecessary and unjust.

Also, there's no evidence the threads are there for post count. As Tom said, some (not all) users make at least 100 posts in those threads, which means absolutely nothing. To assume it was there for post count suggests that the post/rank system is actually worth something, when in actual fact posts are worthless. So these few people who care so much about posts have a rather invalid opinion.

Then there was the claim that users brag about their post counts, another claim that was debunked because of lack of proof. The only claim that hasn't been voided is that people are looking too much into the threads and posts when they're easy to ignore, not spammed in and hardly make a dent in the total forum count, including the actual Members List where the top forum posters are active throughout the forum. The evidence that this was a clever idea seem to be thinning with each new claim, making the change seem incredibly pointless. Again, HxF is the only forum I know of that has a vendetta against normal forum behaviour, making for a over-bearing forum experience.

Also, what are the benefits of moving the threads? The only benefits seem to be for the few who care too much about post count (yet you state you don't care, so Matt/Chris seem to of made this decision on behalf of no one it seems). The move has made the forum seem untidy. The threads were all on-topic in their respective threads, now they're in an untidy forum with a dreadful forum description created on a whim to please what seems to be no one now, originally it was a handful of people who have clouded their judgment over the false impression that posts are worth something.

Then surely instead of arguing over this sub-forum you should be arguing for post count to be made redundant :)

And you are obviously misinterpreting the pointless posting rule, because 'blue ketchup cats' for example, is obviously a pointless post - even though it has three words. Also you can't use the top forum posters of all time as a measure for the spamming in those threads - if you looked at the top forum posters for the day/week/month last month and before, you will see they were heavily dominated by users posting in those particular threads - but of course, none of this matters if post count has no meaning :P

[GommeInc]

Then surely instead of arguing over this sub-forum you should be arguing for post count to be made redundant :)

And you are obviously misinterpreting the pointless posting rule, because 'blue ketchup cats' for example, is obviously a pointless post - even though it has three words. Also you can't use the top forum posters of all time as a measure for the spamming in those threads - if you looked at the top forum posters for the day/week/month last month and before, you will see they were heavily dominated by users posting in those particular threads - but of course, none of this matters if post count has no meaning :P
I don't want to make post counts redundant at all as that would be completely against normal forum behaviour ;) My argument is purely with these false ideas people have over these threads and the posts within them, and the lack of explanation over the change when the people who wanted change aren't aware of the rules and don't seem to have many (if any) valid claims.

That's not pointless at all, it needs context. If it was said in a thread about cars it would be off-topic and violate the part of the pointless posting rule about on-topic/off-topic posts. "Off-topic" and "pointless" are two completely different words. Also, as I said, those posters aren't doing damage, there's this strange idea they are when actually the ranking system seems to be withstanding the use of these threads (or was until someone made the changes without proper discussion).

[Kardan]

I don't want to make post counts redundant at all as that would be completely against normal forum behaviour ;) My argument is purely with these false ideas people have over these threads and the posts within them, and the lack of explanation over the change when the people who wanted change aren't aware of the rules and don't seem to have many (if any) valid claims.

That's not pointless at all, it needs context. If it was said in a thread about cars it would be off-topic and violate the part of the pointless posting rule about on-topic/off-topic posts. "Off-topic" and "pointless" are two completely different words. Also, as I said, those posters aren't doing damage, there's this strange idea they are when actually the ranking system seems to be withstanding the use of these threads (or was until someone made the changes without proper discussion).

I think the main claim that people have against the threads is that they are not worthy of post count because quite frankly there's no real discussion value from the post at all.

[GommeInc]

I think the main claim that people have against the threads is that they are not worthy of post count because quite frankly there's no real discussion value from the post at all.
That's a problem with the people using them, than the actual threads. The threads all promote discussion given the first post of each thread asking a question in return for an answer. Besides, if they do not promote real discussion, why not completely remove them? As is evident, post count isn't an issue because 1) The ranking system requires a lot of posts, with which these threads do not provide a lot of and 2) No-one brags about post count. If anything, people brag about the years they're registered these days.

[Kardan]

That's a problem with the people using them, than the actual threads. The threads all promote discussion given the first post of each thread asking a question in return for an answer. Besides, if they do not promote real discussion, why not completely remove them? As is evident, post count isn't an issue because 1) The ranking system requires a lot of posts, with which these threads do not provide a lot of and 2) No-one brags about post count. If anything, people brag about the years they're registered these days.

I agree that nobody brags about post count, but people did abuse it. One user has 5,000 posts having being registered a year, which is clearly a very high post/time ratio, and another user would post in the music thread, and post again two minutes later before the first song could even finish... Yes, it's an issue with the people that theywant to abuse it in the first place, but it's these threads that they were abusing it in, so one way to combat it is putting the threads in there current position - if management restored the threads and just warned users for excessive posting then fair enough, but I'm sure another feedback thread will open on what counts as 'excessive posting' :) And as far as I'm aware, threads rarely ever get removed, just closed or moved.

As I've said before, people take the 'promote discussion' rule differently, management should clarify (for about the 904th time...)

[GommeInc]

I agree that nobody brags about post count, but people did abuse it. One user has 5,000 posts having being registered a year, which is clearly a very high post/time ratio, and another user would post in the music thread, and post again two minutes later before the first song could even finish... Yes, it's an issue with the people that theywant to abuse it in the first place, but it's these threads that they were abusing it in, so one way to combat it is putting the threads in there current position - if management resroted the threads and just warned users for excessive posting then fair enough, but I'm sure another feedback thread will open on what counts as 'excessive posting' :) And as far as I'm aware, threads rarely ever get removed, just closed or moved.

As I've said before, people take the 'promote discussion' rule differently, management should clarify (for about the 904th time...)
Again, context needs to be inserted. Did that user make all of his posts using just those threads and actually abuse the threads? Intent is important. 5,000 is a lot, but most of these threads don't really have as many posts in as you would think. Given the age of some of them, most of the users have either moved on or been banned :P

Applying 5,000 posts to the Ranking System doesn't give them any real benefits of the system, and it would be wrong to speculate that they were posting in those threads purposely to raise their post count to get any decent features without real evidence. If they're so interested in those threads, then they must serve a purpose - giving them a point in the real definition of the word. Also, if they've been on for one year, then those threads have helped keep a user interested in the forum - which is far more important than post counts ;)