Pointless posting

[FlyingJesus]

Ok so I wasn't going to go all feedback warrior about this but it's getting ridiculous. I got a pointless post warning for pointing out a mistake in the title of a thread while in that very same thread Phil denied that his post was pointless despite being off-topic entirely and closed the case himself. Phil has also TWICE refused to take action on this post (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=739420&p=8093166#post8093166) where not only has a one word answer been used but it's also not even a real answer. The fact that he's friends with Cassie has no bearing on this I'm sure.

So yeah let's clarify what a pointless post is: it's one that doesn't add to any discussion according to the current rules. By that definition simply answering a question with no response to anyone elses posts is "pointless" (since there's no discussion taking place), which seems somewhat excessive and certainly isn't being enforced. Is it then, in the case of these question-and-answer threads, one that doesn't respond to the thread title? If so, my post wasn't pointless and Phil's was, and again the rules aren't being enforced properly. Seems that certain people are picking a little from column A and a little from column B and ignoring anything they don't want to act upon, when for a long long time now we've needed a properly written set of forum rules that actually cover what is and isn't allowed rather than this "at the mod's discretion" tactic that doesn't seem to be working - especially when not all mods have the same ideas and some of them are working on their own reports which I'm sure was never allowed before.

With any luck this is just a personal thing that a certain mod has against me (the same chap seems really adamant on spreading disgusting rumours about me despite not knowing me at all and literally being nothing more than a name to me) as I'd hate for it to be the norm across the forum. Either way, the rules need writing properly with the ambiguous "and do not promote active discussion" sorted out once and for all as currently you can get slammed with a mod notice for doing the exact same thing as everyone else in the thread.

[Samantha]

That's odd, that dinner post I also reported as in earlier years I didn't post a song in the what you're listening to as apparently you can't listen to the tv. I got warned for it, I didn't know it had changed.

The rule has been amended recently, but I think it may need explaining more.

[Phil]

Ok so I wasn't going to go all feedback warrior about this but it's getting ridiculous. I got a pointless post warning for pointing out a mistake in the title of a thread while in that very same thread Phil denied that his post was pointless despite being off-topic entirely and closed the case himself. Phil has also TWICE refused to take action on this post (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=739420&p=8093166#post8093166) where not only has a one word answer been used but it's also not even a real answer. The fact that he's friends with Cassie has no bearing on this I'm sure.

Hey Tom, I think I know the thread you're talking about here but before I answer on it, would you mind linking me to that thread just so I don't look like a complete lunatic? Marking that report (N/A) had nothing to do with my relationship with Cassie. Cassie is not a friend of my, just an acquaintance which is how I see most of the people on this forum. I treat my friends exactly how I treat anyone else on the forum and don't believe I'm bias when judging the posts.


So yeah let's clarify what a pointless post is: it's one that doesn't add to any discussion according to the current rules. By that definition simply answering a question with no response to anyone elses posts is "pointless" (since there's no discussion taking place), which seems somewhat excessive and certainly isn't being enforced. Is it then, in the case of these question-and-answer threads, one that doesn't respond to the thread title? If so, my post wasn't pointless and Phil's was, and again the rules aren't being enforced properly. Seems that certain people are picking a little from column A and a little from column B and ignoring anything they don't want to act upon, when for a long long time now we've needed a properly written set of forum rules that actually cover what is and isn't allowed rather than this "at the mod's discretion" tactic that doesn't seem to be working - especially when not all mods have the same ideas and some of them are working on their own reports which I'm sure was never allowed before.

I think you would see over the past few days the rule has been enforced more and people replying things like "nope" in reply to question threads have had their posts edited with a pointless posting modwarn. Again, I'm not exactly sure what thread/post you're talking about here so I won't answer on that one just yet.

The A7 Pointless Posting rule was always the hardest rule to moderate at Habbox and I'm sure that's not going to change any time soon. What one user might find pointless, another user might not so in the instace of a Moderator being 'on the fence' about a pointless post, they would normally ask one of their colleagues before acting, if of course that's a possibility at the time.


With any luck this is just a personal thing that a certain mod has against me (the same chap seems really adamant on spreading disgusting rumours about me despite not knowing me at all and literally being nothing more than a name to me) as I'd hate for it to be the norm across the forum. Either way, the rules need writing properly with the ambiguous "and do not promote active discussion" sorted out once and for all as currently you can get slammed with a mod notice for doing the exact same thing as everyone else in the thread.

I actually don't have anything against you and I'm certainly not spreading rumours about you and this certainly isn't the place to be discussing that theory. I like to think I treat the forum members the same when reading through the threads and responding to rep

[Aiden]

So can you post 1 word replies?

Matt posted 1 word and an image. If I did that, I'd get a PM about it.

Please Calum keeps sending me PMs about my posts from the 18th... before the rule was put forward.

You lot are terrible.

[FlyingJesus]

You spent like half an hour after the awards yesterday telling people I had a more than platonic relationship with Gina, I would count that as spreading disgusting rumours.

This (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794379&p=8088866#post8088866) is the post where by one or the other definition of "pointless posting" you may have broken the rule; either you didn't and responding to anything about the post is fine in which case my post wasn't pointless or you did break it and closed the case wrongly. Interesting also that "2011" and "never" were deemed to be fine but only I get told off after reporting you

[xxMATTGxx]

So can you post 1 word replies?

Matt posted 1 word and an image. If I did that, I'd get a PM about it.

Please Calum keeps sending me PMs about my posts from the 18th... before the rule was put forward.

You lot are terrible.

I think it would depend on the thread surely. As what I posted is actually related and anyone who knows or likes Formula 1 would know what my post is about. As each team are launching their new cars for the 2014 season over the next coming days.

The post is this, if anyone is interested:


Sauber

http://cdn.sauberf1team.com/fileadmin/user_upload/redactors/images/sm_c33_press_front_side_2014.jpg


If you posted what I posted in that thread and it was actually related then you wouldn't be warned for it. (Or shouldn't be)

[Chris]

Hi Tom, I've dropped you a PM so take a look and get back to me.


You spent like half an hour after the awards yesterday telling people I had a more than platonic relationship with Gina, I would count that as spreading disgusting rumours.

This (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794379&p=8088866#post8088866) is the post where by one or the other definition of "pointless posting" you may have broken the rule; either you didn't and responding to anything about the post is fine in which case my post wasn't pointless or you did break it and closed the case wrongly. Interesting also that "2011" and "never" were deemed to be fine but only I get told off after reporting you

Phils post here is fine. You are allowed to respond to posts like that. Could you direct me to your post that you feel was wrongly dealt with?

[Aiden]

What other people post is 'related'... just because it's not 10802 word doesn't mean it's not related..

---

this post is related to the thread
it answers the question

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794809&p=8093675#post8093675

--

silly mods
fire them matt

[Phil]

So can you post 1 word replies?

Matt posted 1 word and an image. If I did that, I'd get a PM about it.

Please Calum keeps sending me PMs about my posts from the 18th... before the rule was put forward.

You lot are terrible.

Just to refer you to this part of the A& Pointless Posting rule:

Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion. Repeatably posting short replies such as "Yes" or "Nope" is also forbidden. What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department.

Posting short replies is forbidden, especially if it's happening on repeated occasion as it can be assumed that the user is just trying to get their post count up. Although many of the threads that are in Discuss Anything can be answered with just one word, they are left because we want people to discuss their answers rather than just posting one word and then leave the thread and never return.

The post you're talking about, I assume is the one you reported that was posted in the formula One thread. The picture was of a Formula One car as they are discussing the teams new cars. This post is not pointless.

[Aiden]

I reported 4 post with 1 word answers but they was fine?

Shouldn't you people try and keep your members?
Warning them every time they post isn't the way I'd go.

[Yawn]

i get pointless posts all the time and most of the time its stupid and its 1 rule for me and 1 for every1 else

oh well i keep pointless posting anyway. pointless posts r the best kind of posts. mods need to chill they r so anal

[Phil]

You spent like half an hour after the awards yesterday telling people I had a more than platonic relationship with Gina, I would count that as spreading disgusting rumours.

This (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794379&p=8088866#post8088866) is the post where by one or the other definition of "pointless posting" you may have broken the rule; either you didn't and responding to anything about the post is fine in which case my post wasn't pointless or you did break it and closed the case wrongly. Interesting also that "2011" and "never" were deemed to be fine but only I get told off after reporting you

Yeahhh that didn't happen. I'm not going to deny that I mentioned it because I know I did, you were making crude remarks to a good friend of mine. Don't give what you can't take. I heard nothing about this until you were nominated for it and it was actually mentioned in the room many times before I commented on it.

Okay I thought that was the one you were referring to alright but I wanted to make sure. As you can see, I answered the question being asked in the thread several posts before that and then someone commented about an experience that they have heard of so I replied with an experience I have heard of. Do you not think that these discussions are ones that should be taking place instead of people just posting "Yes" and "No"?

[FlyingJesus]

Phils post here is fine. You are allowed to respond to posts like that. Could you direct me to your post that you feel was wrongly dealt with?

2 posts down :P if anything it responds more to the thread than Phil's post lmao


they are left because we want people to discuss their answers rather than just posting one word and then leave the thread and never return.

Obv not working very well:


The point is that there is no discussion. There have been 72 threads made in Discuss Anything so far in January, of which only 8 have the same person posting more than 3 times and only 1 person having posted more than 5 times in one thread

The stat has now changed to 80 threads with 9 that have actual responses of some kind, woooooooooooo (and still only 1 where anyone has 5 posts)


Yeahhh that didn't happen. I'm not going to deny that I mentioned it because I know I did, you were making crude remarks to a good friend of mine. Don't give what you can't take. I heard nothing about this until you were nominated for it and it was actually mentioned in the room many times before I commented on it.

That's just a flat lie, it did happen and I wasn't the only person there calling you out for it. There's a huge difference between accusing someone of something they have not done (and telling others that it's happened) and talking about a case that really did happen. I don't care if you're friends with a paedophile, it doesn't make everyone else one

[Kardan]

I reported 4 post with 1 word answers but they was fine?

Shouldn't you people try and keep your members?
Warning them every time they post isn't the way I'd go.

Skandair, there isn't a rule saying 'Do not create posts with only a single word in them'

[Aiden]

Skandair, there isn't a rule saying 'Do not create posts with only a single word in them'

well why do all my single word ones get reported then

and why do u come on here if all u do is cry about everything :( i like ur gf tho
she seems well nice

[Chris]

2 posts down :P if anything it responds more to the thread than Phil's post lmao

Oh well I can see why that is. Nobody is interested in the spelling of the title. :P

[FlyingJesus]

Nobody's interested in the thread at all by the looks of it

[j0rd]

it's all going down hill since i left, let's make that the reason!!!

[karter]

i'm a victim of stalking by mod nick first of all he doesnt get a joke and gives me a warning and then finds my days old post and gives me warning for that

#stopmodnick

[Kardan]

Wait, do you guys get warnings for pointless posting? I only get a PM telling me to avoid it... Unless that is a warning?

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah my warning was from over a week ago and only happened after I reported Phil hmmmmm either very slow mod responses or something dodgy going on

Karter for mod

[Aiden]

it's a verbal warning as my science teacher would say

[Phil]

I reported 4 post with 1 word answers but they was fine?

Shouldn't you people try and keep your members?
Warning them every time they post isn't the way I'd go.

We are trying to keep are members. I'm sure a lot more pointless posts would arise if people weren't PM'd about it. I'm sure people would get fed up of a forum that is essentially Spam.



That's just a flat lie, it did happen and I wasn't the only person there calling you out for it. There's a huge difference between accusing someone of something they have not done (and telling others that it's happened) and talking about a case that really did happen. I don't care if you're friends with a paedophile, it doesn't make everyone else one

I didn't go tell others it happened? I already said in this thread that I don't deny saying things but why am I being called up on it and not other members of staff? Your thread is titled pointless posting so personally I'd like to drop this but I'd be happy to discuss it over PM with an AGM?


Wait, do you guys get warnings for pointless posting? I only get a PM telling me to avoid it... Unless that is a warning?
No you don't get a warning unless it's extremely excessive! The "Warning" they are referring to is the PM you're talking about :P

[MKR&*42]

Wait, do you guys get warnings for pointless posting? I only get a PM telling me to avoid it... Unless that is a warning?

I get PMs. I presume they are usernotes and people are incorrectly naming them warnings?

If they're genuine warnings then what

[FlyingJesus]

But I thought it was ok to respond to things other than the title if it's arisen in the thread ;)

[Kardan]

Yeah my warning was from over a week ago and only happened after I reported Phil hmmmmm either very slow mod responses or something dodgy going on

Karter for mod

I wouldn't say it's slow mod responses, I've reported posts lately and had very quick responses. So looks like people are fishing for reports.

- - - Updated - - -


I get PMs. I presume they are usernotes and people are incorrectly naming them warnings?

If they're genuine warnings then what

Does the forum still even have the yellow card warning/red card infraction system anymore? It's been so long since I got a warning/infraction I don't know :( I mean, in the past year I must have racked up many many PMs for pointless posting - they've never added up to anything though.

[Aiden]

I think Chris and Matt should re-write the rules. There seems to be flaws and if you just made it simple people would understand.

I bet them rules have been the same for years lol.

[Matthew]

I wouldn't say it's slow mod responses, I've reported posts lately and had very quick responses. So looks like people are fishing for reports.

- - - Updated - - -



Does the forum still even have the yellow card warning/red card infraction system anymore? It's been so long since I got a warning/infraction I don't know :( I mean, in the past year I must have racked up many many PMs for pointless posting - they've never added up to anything though.


yeah it still does. You never get warned for pointless posts but the usernote > warning > infraction still stands for other rule breaks

[FlyingJesus]

Was prob written by someone from the news department they're all basically illiterate by the looks of things

[Kardan]

Can someone link me to Tom's pointless post and Phil's non-pointless pointless post?

[Phil]

Can someone link me to Tom's pointless post and Phil's non-pointless pointless post?

Mine: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794379&p=8088866#post8088866
Tom: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794379&p=8088963#post8088963

[Calum0812]

Wait, do you guys get warnings for pointless posting? I only get a PM telling me to avoid it... Unless that is a warning?
Pointless posting can't lead to warnings or infractions unless you take the mick and go and post 2 letters in 20 threads, then it is at the discretion of SMODs.
Other rules, if you do it within 2 months you get a warning and if you do it again you get an infraction.

[Yawn]

u cant get a warning of infraction for it unless u do it excessively like spamming, no?

so warning for pointless posting is pointless. u should just live a little a 1 word answer or chilled response not need to be warned

[karter]

"please leave moderation to moderators"

sure will do..if you do it correctly

[j0rd]

only a few weeks or so ago everyone was praising the forum department. what's gone wrong?

[Kardan]

I'd say Phil's post isn't pointless, it's just the evolving nature of the discussion in the thread. I'd also argue that Tom's isn't pointless, he does have a point in his post :P But it doesn't fit into the discussion in the thread, so I can see why it would be warned.

The question is though, how come a mod finds a pointless post a week later?

And are one word answers really any better than someone correcting spelling/grammar?

[Inseriousity.]

Feel free to join then :)
or get martin off dnhl so I can hire him lol.

As for pointless posting, my own opinion of this is that a post is pointless if it doesn't connect with the thread in any way. For example, my feedback today shouldn't have technically been in the thank you forum but the thank you thread was about the awards, the feedback was about the awards so there was a connection. So I actually wouldn't classify 'dinner' as pointless because you eat dinner so it makes sense (perhaps then there's an argument there about these type of threads). I didn't check all the other posts but if there is an attempt at trying to make a conversation - even if that conversation doesn't include everyone - and there is a line of connection that means it makes sense then that's fine too. Despite that, I am known for being really relaxed about forum rules (fired from mod trial) and I'm not sure that's wise when there's a 100-posts-a-week competition. Perhaps the rules regarding that need to be stricter to deter the increase in rule-breaking rather than getting really technical and specific with the rules.

[Kardan]

only a few weeks or so ago everyone was praising the forum department. what's gone wrong?

Thread topic quality deteriorated.

[FlyingJesus]

only a few weeks or so ago everyone was praising the forum department. what's gone wrong?

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=792226

[Phil]

I'd say Phil's post isn't pointless, it's just the evolving nature of the discussion in the thread. I'd also argue that Tom's isn't pointless, he does have a point in his post :P But it doesn't fit into the discussion in the thread, so I can see why it would be warned.

The question is though, how come a mod finds a pointless post a week later?

And are one word answers really any better than someone correcting spelling/grammar?

I would argue they're probably better because they're actually on topic..

I can't answer your question on how mods find week old edits unless they are fishing for them or they are reported to a SMOD. I'd hope the mods are reading the threads more than once per week :P

[j0rd]

phil's post is off-topic honestly, it would have been dealt with if it was anyone else..

[Chris]

only a few weeks or so ago everyone was praising the forum department. what's gone wrong?

Thats nothing new. As soon as you do something that somebody doesn't like they turn on you. :P

The system for pointless posting works slightly different to other rules. You will start off with PM's for all of your pointless posts, however if it gets to the point where you've made 10 pointless posts in a day or two then you will be put onto a caution. The caution lasts 2 to 3 days and can be reduced or extended depending on how you behave while on the caution.

[Aiden]

the other day sam me and laura all posted off topic and it was just moved to a privbate forum lol

hxf staff: germany
hxf members: britain

[FlyingJesus]

Dinner.

[Kardan]

I would argue they're probably better because they're actually on topic..

I can't answer your question on how mods find week old edits unless they are fishing for them or they are reported to a SMOD. I'd hope the mods are reading the threads more than once per week :P

But my point is, is a one word on topic post any better than a longer off topic post? To me, they both seem equally valid for 'pointless posting'.

I mean, Skandair got warned for saying 'Alone' in the Who do you go shopping with thread? But Emily didn't get warned for saying 2011 in the 'When were you last in an Ambulance'.

So even if we only include short on-topic answers, some people get warned, others don't.

[Aiden]

does sam get a pm?

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794379&p=8088973#post8088973
Samanfa; sorry for bullying u

[Phil]

the other day sam me and laura all posted off topic and it was just moved to a privbate forum lol

hxf staff: germany
hxf members: britain

I moved these because it was about two pages of off topic posting and rather than leaving them all there and editing each one, I removed the negative atmosphere from the thread.

[Kardan]

phil's post is off-topic honestly, it would have been dealt with if it was anyone else..

I'd disagree, if we enforced pointless posting for posts like that, those threads essentially become dead. When I quote other people and reply to them, I always find it stupid to put at the end of my post:


OT; I go bed at midnight

Even though I already said that in my first post in the thread. Just seems silly.

[Chris]

But my point is, is a one word on topic post any better than a longer off topic post? To me, they both seem equally valid for 'pointless posting'.

I mean, Skandair got warned for saying 'Alone' in the Who do you go shopping with thread? But Emily didn't get warned for saying 2011 in the 'When were you last in an Ambulance'.

So even if we only include short on-topic answers, some people get warned, others don't.

You're right here. There should be some consistency in the way posts are edited, but at the moment nobody seems to know what is pointless and what isn't. It's difficult to revise the rules because we could end up with problems either way.

[FlyingJesus]

if we enforced pointless posting for posts like that, those threads essentially become dead.

Not a huge loss considering there's no discussion in them at all anyway :P

[Yawn]

But my point is, is a one word on topic post any better than a longer off topic post? To me, they both seem equally valid for 'pointless posting'.

I mean, Skandair got warned for saying 'Alone' in the Who do you go shopping with thread? But Emily didn't get warned for saying 2011 in the 'When were you last in an Ambulance'.

So even if we only include short on-topic answers, some people get warned, others don't.
this is wat i mean 1 rule for some and another rule for others
me and skandair get the worst of it because we have bad reputations for pointless posts. its totally bias

wats more if skandair had said "i go alone" it wouldnt have been pointless and it literally adds NOTHING to his post

[Phil]

But my point is, is a one word on topic post any better than a longer off topic post? To me, they both seem equally valid for 'pointless posting'.

I mean, Skandair got warned for saying 'Alone' in the Who do you go shopping with thread? But Emily didn't get warned for saying 2011 in the 'When were you last in an Ambulance'.

So even if we only include short on-topic answers, some people get warned, others don't.

Yes, I agree, they're equally as bad as each other. I can't speak for other Mod's here (and I don't believe I PM'd Aiden so excuse me if I'm wrong) but all of these kind of posts before the reminder was posted, I'm leaving how they were and posts since that announcement has been made, I have been editing. Of course, that is just how I'm doing it, other Mod's are doing it how they see best.

Edit:

I am going out now, I'll reply more later!!

[Kardan]

You're right here. There should be some consistency in the way posts are edited, but at the moment nobody seems to know what is pointless and what isn't. It's difficult to revise the rules because we could end up with problems either way.

Well, either way there are problems, so we might as well try and get consistency.

The way I interpret the rules, one word answers ARE allowed. You are not allowed to post threads that ONLY allow for one word answers. The ambulance thread allows for more discussion (You get people talking about experiences etc.). The same goes for the shopping thread, people talk about how they shop. Skandair shouldn't have been warned for that.

On the other hand, you could punish Skandair if he was constantly posting one word answers in threads, as that would suggest post count boosting - but that would mean removing posts rather than warning posts.

[Aiden]

Is anyone going to add a warning thing to this post then?

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794379&p=8088973#post8088973

[Calum0812]

I did have a massive paragraph but no one would read it so I'll just say this.

Pointless posting should be defined as anything that does not promote active discussion. If it is not "reply-able" then surely it is pointless on a forum?

[Kardan]

this is wat i mean 1 rule for some and another rule for others
me and skandair get the worst of it because we have bad reputations for pointless posts. its totally bias

wats more if skandair had said "i go alone" it wouldnt have been pointless and it literally adds NOTHING to his post

Very true, and back in the day, I definitely got more than my fair shares of mod warns for pointless posting when the 'Misc' subforum got removed and post count got re-added.

[FlyingJesus]

I did have a massive paragraph but no one would read it so I'll just say this.

Pointless posting should be defined as anything that does not promote active discussion. If it is not "reply-able" then surely it is pointless on a forum?

Best remove "Discuss Anything" then

[Aiden]

you can reply to anything...

person a: whats ur fav colour
person b: red
person c: quoting red - omg same, do u have a shade you like?
person b: yeah yeah, i like the ruby kinda colour

[Kardan]

I did have a massive paragraph but no one would read it so I'll just say this.

Pointless posting should be defined as anything that does not promote active discussion. If it is not "reply-able" then surely it is pointless on a forum?

If we enforce the rule like that, we best get rid of all of my favourite threads :D :D :D :D (What you wear, what you listen too, what you last watched on TV)

[FlyingJesus]

you can reply to anything...

person a: whats ur fav colour
person b: red
person c: quoting red - omg same, do u have a shade you like?
person b: yeah yeah, i like the ruby kinda colour

Oddly enough of all those, person B's first post would be the one that gets a mod notice :P

[j0rd]

I'd disagree, if we enforced pointless posting for posts like that, those threads essentially become dead. When I quote other people and reply to them, I always find it stupid to put at the end of my post:

it's not pointless, but it is off-topic. i was in the department and someone would have jumped on that if it was a normal user

[Kardan]

Oddly enough of all those, person B's first post would be the one that gets a mod notice :P

Yet Person B is the only one replying directly to the topic :P

[FlyingJesus]

THAT'S WHY IT'S ODD 4GOD KORDIN

[Aiden]

Oddly enough of all those, person B's first post would be the one that gets a mod notice :P

I know but person B's first post can still cause discussion... it takes 2 to have a conversation (unless you're mad) so they should punish the whole forum for not engaging enough :)

[Kardan]

it's not pointless, but it is off-topic. i was in the department and someone would have jumped on that if it was a normal user

The forum count off-topic posts as pointless posts. As per the rules:


Do not post pointlessly ~ ~ Do not post off-topic

[Calum0812]

If we enforce the rule like that, we best get rid of all of my favourite threads :D :D :D :D (What you wear, what you listen too, what you last watched on TV)
I honestly think those threads should have no effect on post count. There are certain members who post in there more times a day than I've posted in my whole life... Just there for more post count and tokens and DOESN'T PROMOTE ACTIVE DISCUSSION ARGHHH :P


you can reply to anything...

person a: whats ur fav colour
person b: red
person c: quoting red - omg same, do u have a shade you like?
person b: yeah yeah, i like the ruby kinda colour
Or person B could say "yeah I like red, like the ruby colour" hence not pointless...


Best remove "Discuss Anything" then
Can't say I'd disagree. Some of those threads should be in spam. Any one word answer threads should be in spam but there are some people who make active discussion out of them so it's a blurred line

[Yawn]

omg 1 word answers r not POINTLESS stop this
sams post is not pointless and under no circumstances should it be considered pointless
just because it says "never" and nothing else. everything that needs to be said is summed up in 1 word

u all make me so angry

[Aiden]

[QUOTE=Calum0812;8094702Or person B could say "yeah I like red, like the ruby colour" hence not pointless...[/QUOTE]

I think even a mod knows it's not pointless. It's up to other members to make a discussion.

If I posted a whole paragraph about how much I love the colour red, it doesn't make a difference.

[Kardan]

omg 1 word answers r not POINTLESS stop this
sams post is not pointless and under no circumstances should it be considered pointless
just because it says "never" and nothing else. everything that needs to be said is summed up in 1 word

u all make me so angry

You are right.

Nowhere under the rules does it say 'One word post = Pointless post'

[j0rd]

The forum count off-topic posts as pointless posts. As per the rules:

yes i know, but they aren't the same thing are they?

pointless is basically what the word describes
off-topic is when the post is different to the main thread discussion

[FlyingJesus]

There's more genuine discussion in spam than DA anyway I mean there's a 46k post thread that's essentially one long discussion :P

[Yawn]

off topic is the only posts u should be warning

[Calum0812]

I think even a mod knows it's not pointless. It's up to other members to make a discussion.

If I posted a whole paragraph about how much I love the colour red, it doesn't make a difference.
Hey, mods don't make the rules, we just enforce them


Nowhere under the rules does it say 'One word post = Pointless post'
It did until it was edited today. It did read something like "You may not make one or two word replies"

[Matthew]

does sam get a pm?

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794379&p=8088973#post8088973
@Samanfa (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=68263); sorry for bullying u

This is why the rule is so hard.

If sam posts, "I've never been in an ambulance" then its fine, though just "never" which is (bar missing a few words) identical to the first is arguably pointless.

Its hard because whilst you don't want threads full of one word replies, you do sometimes have to take a step back and say "well that one word reply did answer the question..."

IMO if threads are being created and are being allowed to stay which allow for one word replies, then the one word replies should be allowed to remain also. Either you remove these threads or you let the one word replies stay.

Argh its so hard, I bet I contradicted myself somewhere in there but its a difficult one.

[GoldenMerc]

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=792226
2 true, funny that it should of been jord who was next smod... guess asslicking does work

phil's post is off-topic honestly, it would have been dealt with if it was anyone else..
both off topic, problem is not sure who does myke's old job they used to be the only person who could give an infraction to staff..

Thats nothing new. As soon as you do something that somebody doesn't like they turn on you. :P

no one's ever liked you other than bolt though :s

it's not pointless, but it is off-topic. i was in the department and someone would have jumped on that if it was a normal user
its like being in the police, get a drink driver everyone's praising you, mr jesus you were just a victim

[Inseriousity.]

it's not pointless, but it is off-topic. i was in the department and someone would have jumped on that if it was a normal user

No it's not unless topics now need to strictly adhere to the title, which is quite frankly ridiculous when said topic title is so specific. Someone took the thread title and posted about it on the general theme to which Phil replied. That's not off topic, that's called discussion. If discussion is actually generated, threads evolve out of their beginnings into something new. This is why most spam threads are actually interesting because there is more freedom to bounce from one topic to another.

[MKR&*42]

Tbh I think it should only be deemed "pointless" (any post) as long as it's completely irrelevant to the thread at hand.

So posting "Dinner" in the thread about food would be fine.
Tom's post about correcting the thread title would be fine.
Phil's post referring to an ambulance in a thread concerning ambulances would be fine.

But if I posted something like

Chicken

in the "what are you wearing right now" thread, then that would be pointless. Otherwise I think everything else (even "dinner" no matter how broad it is) shouldn't warrant any warning as it is quite clear some people do have stigma attached to them and can get pointless post for anything, that someone else might not.

[Aiden]

http://moonfirecharms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/catching-fire-three-finger-salute.gif

HabboxForum at the moment.

All the districts (old people, spammers, trolls, smart ppl, noobs) are uniting and fighting the capitol!

ANALOGY

- - - Updated - - -


Hey, mods don't make the rules, we just enforce them


It did until it was edited today. It did read something like "You may not make one or two word replies"

But you do choose if you give the warning. It's up to you.

[Inseriousity.]

Tbh I think it should only be deemed "pointless" (any post) as long as it's completely irrelevant to the thread at hand.

So posting "Dinner" in the thread about food would be fine.
Tom's post about correcting the thread title would be fine.
Phil's post referring to an ambulance in a thread concerning ambulances would be fine.

But if I posted something like

Chicken

in the "what are you wearing right now" thread, then that would be pointless. Otherwise I think everything else (even "dinner" no matter how broad it is) shouldn't warrant any warning as it is quite clear some people do have stigma attached to them and can get pointless post for anything, that someone else might not.

but what if you're lady gaga and actually wearing food? :P

[Matthew]

Tbh I think it should only be deemed "pointless" (any post) as long as it's completely irrelevant to the thread at hand.

So posting "Dinner" in the thread about food would be fine.
Tom's post about correcting the thread title would be fine.
Phil's post referring to an ambulance in a thread concerning ambulances would be fine.

But if I posted something like

Chicken

in the "what are you wearing right now" thread, then that would be pointless. Otherwise I think everything else (even "dinner" no matter how broad it is) shouldn't warrant any warning as it is quite clear some people do have stigma attached to them and can get pointless post for anything, that someone else might not.

I'm inclined to agree with this, I mean ultimately one word replies can answer a topic just as well as a 10 word reply

But then you don't want to see loads of one word replies everywhere..

I'd hate to be Chris; here (A)

[Yawn]

Tbh I think it should only be deemed "pointless" (any post) as long as it's completely irrelevant to the thread at hand.

So posting "Dinner" in the thread about food would be fine.
Tom's post about correcting the thread title would be fine.
Phil's post referring to an ambulance in a thread concerning ambulances would be fine.

But if I posted something like

Chicken

in the "what are you wearing right now" thread, then that would be pointless. Otherwise I think everything else (even "dinner" no matter how broad it is) shouldn't warrant any warning as it is quite clear some people do have stigma attached to them and can get pointless post for anything, that someone else might not.

http://i.minus.com/iMHi3ez0JSvOC.gif

-

this post is the future of habbox cant warn me now HAHAHHAHAHHHA

[Kardan]

Hey, mods don't make the rules, we just enforce them


It did until it was edited today. It did read something like "You may not make one or two word replies"

Didn't even notice that the date on the rules had changed.
Chris;

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794721&p=8092674#post8092674

This thread says:


So to be clear, from now on we will be:

•Moving any threads that allow for one or two worded replies to spam. If you disagree with a thread being moved then please contact me via PM.

This rule is different from the one in the rules. The rules state that if a thread can ONLY give short replies, it gets moved. Your new rule in the announcement says if ANY thread CAN be answered with a short reply, it gets moved...

If the new rule is the case, you best get moving many, many, many threads.

[MKR&*42]

but what if you're lady gaga and actually wearing food? :P

Lmao I worried someone would bring up a meat dress or something.

[Aiden]

i can answer anything with one word... try me

[Matthew]

i can answer anything with one word... try me

What is your full name?

[Aiden]

What is your full name?

stalker >.>

[Calum0812]

This rule is different from the one in the rules. The rules state that if a thread can ONLY give short replies, it gets moved. Your new rule in the announcement says if ANY thread CAN be answered with a short reply, it gets moved...

If the new rule is the case, you best get moving many, many, many threads.
They have been changed further since that announcement but I assume an announcement wasn't posted due to the small changes, however, these small changes mean big things for pointless posts (like the one word thing being changed slightly).

The rule needs to be re-done, make sure everyone is CRYSTAL CLEAR and then post an announcement. Moderator discretion isn't enough in this case because of how much this rule is broken

[Matthew]

stalker >.>

Well given that you have a link to your twitter in your signature, I'd say hardly :P

[j0rd]

No it's not unless topics now need to strictly adhere to the title, which is quite frankly ridiculous when said topic title is so specific. Someone took the thread title and posted about it on the general theme to which Phil replied. That's not off topic, that's called discussion. If discussion is actually generated, threads evolve out of their beginnings into something new. This is why most spam threads are actually interesting because there is more freedom to bounce from one topic to another.

I'm just going on what would have been deemed pointless before, and that would have.

[Aiden]

Well given that you have a link to your twitter in your signature, I'd say hardly :P

Hopefully you'd say 'hardly' followed by a whole paragraph or you might get a warning. :)

And btw is that against the rules? asking for my private ifno?

report you anyway

[Kardan]

They have been changed further since that announcement but I assume an announcement wasn't posted due to the small changes, however, these small changes mean big things for pointless posts (like the one word thing being changed slightly).

The rule needs to be re-done, make sure everyone is CRYSTAL CLEAR and then post an announcement. Moderator discretion isn't enough in this case because of how much this rule is broken

The forum rules have the correct rule, it's just confusing that there is a rule alteration in the announcements forum that changes the rule, without it being changed in the actual rules. The post just needs editing :P

[Yawn]

that rule about moving to spam is dreadful

especially when u have threads like "what did u last eat" *STICKIED*

[Jordan]

I think we need to scrap it. Unless the post is off topic then we leave it as they are answering what the thread asks. If people are seen to be using short worded replies as a quick way to increase post count/tokens then I think that is where we start editing their posts / removing them so they are back to square one.

It's getting boring now.

[FlyingJesus]

No it's not unless topics now need to strictly adhere to the title, which is quite frankly ridiculous when said topic title is so specific. Someone took the thread title and posted about it on the general theme to which Phil replied. That's not off topic, that's called discussion. If discussion is actually generated, threads evolve out of their beginnings into something new. This is why most spam threads are actually interesting because there is more freedom to bounce from one topic to another.

Entirely agree. I brought up Phil's post because I was getting told off for "off topic" posts that weren't; I don't think his post was genuinely a bad one but it highlights just how ridiculous the current rules are - they actually hinder discussion if followed :P


Well given that you have a link to your twitter in your signature, I'd say hardly :P

Whether he meant to or not, he did reply to your question with a one word answer haha

[Calum0812]

The forum rules have the correct rule, it's just confusing that there is a rule alteration in the announcements forum that changes the rule, without it being changed in the actual rules. The post just needs editing :P
Yeah I see what you mean but the rules were changed today without an announcement, the only way you'd know is if you see the last edited by date.

I'm confusing myself here, then again, that's not difficult.

[Matthew]

Entirely agree. I brought up Phil's post because I was getting told off for "off topic" posts that weren't; I don't think his post was genuinely a bad one but it highlights just how ridiculous the current rules are - they actually hinder discussion if followed :P



Whether he meant to or not, he did reply to your question with a one word answer haha

He sorta avoided the question though :(

[The Don]

Why don't we scrap the pointless posting rule and add a [serious] prefix (similar to the system used on ask reddit) which people can add to their threads whereby the current pointless posting rules will be enforced? Then add a rule along the lines of "Discussion must bear relevance to the thread or any content that may arise from it" so that allows for threads to evolve whilst also preventing all the problems that arise from people pointless posting. This also allows serious threads to remain on topic. Then include spam in post count.

[Chris]

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. Repeatably posting short replies such as "Yes" or "Nope" is also forbidden. What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department.


What do people suggest we change in order to make it understandable for everybody as well as fair?

[Calum0812]

Why don't we scrap the pointless posting rule and add a [serious] prefix (similar to the system used on ask reddit) which people can add to their threads whereby the current pointless posting rules will be enforced? Then add a rule along the lines of "Discussion must bear relevance to the thread or any content that may arise from it" so that allows for threads to evolve whilst also preventing all the problems that arise from people pointless posting. Then include spam in post count.
You could argue that all forums are [Serious] and if you don't want to be serious, spam is there with no pointless post rule enforced.

[The Don]

What do people suggest we change in order to make it understandable for everybody as well as fair?

Why don't we scrap the pointless posting rule and add a [serious] prefix (similar to the system used on ask reddit) which people can add to their threads whereby the current pointless posting rules will be enforced? Then add a rule along the lines of "Discussion must bear relevance to the thread or any content that may arise from it" so that allows for threads to evolve whilst also preventing all the problems that arise from people pointless posting. This also allows serious threads to remain on topic. Then include spam in post count.

[Aiden]

He sorta avoided the question though :(

ur not even allowed to share private info so your thread would be removed
next question plz

[Calum0812]

i can answer anything with one word... try me
Accepted.

Describe yourself in two words.

[MKR&*42]

Accepted.

Describe yourself in two words.

Wicked

suck on that

[Aiden]

Accepted.

Describe yourself in two words.

gayboy

:)

[Calum0812]

gayboy

:)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gayboy
Isn't a word :(

ON TOPIC ANYWAY...
For those serious about getting the rule changed, it seems Chris is quite open to suggestions so please feel free to make some, even rewrite the entire rule and lets all have ONE BIG HAPPY DISCUSSION

[xxMATTGxx]

Why don't we scrap the pointless posting rule and add a [serious] prefix (similar to the system used on ask reddit) which people can add to their threads whereby the current pointless posting rules will be enforced? Then add a rule along the lines of "Discussion must bear relevance to the thread or any content that may arise from it" so that allows for threads to evolve whilst also preventing all the problems that arise from people pointless posting. This also allows serious threads to remain on topic. Then include spam in post count.

Interesting idea actually - What are everyone's views on having something like this put into place?

[The Don]

You could argue that all forums are [Serious] and if you don't want to be serious, spam is there with no pointless post rule enforced.

Well the forums are there to filter subjects down into similar topics so people can easily view the content they are interested in. Spam is much more similar to messenger in the sense that the topics don't have to be about a particular subject and people can post completely off topic, basically forcing the topic into another one, whereas this system would allow conversations to naturally change. The serious tags would most likely be used by people in debates (in some circumstances)/health related threads etc where the content should revolve around the original topic.

[Aiden]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gayboy
Isn't a word :(

ON TOPIC ANYWAY...
For those serious about getting the rule changed, it seems Chris is quite open to suggestions so please feel free to make some, even rewrite the entire rule and lets all have ONE BIG HAPPY DISCUSSION

Maybe not but it is a combination of two words. Making a post with two words in a single word.

BITE ME.

ot; forum rules r gd

[Matthew]

Well the forums are there to filter subjects down into similar topics so people can easily view the content they are interested in. Spam is much more similar to messenger in the sense that the topics don't have to be about a particular subject and people can post completely off topic, basically forcing the topic into another one, whereas this system would allow conversations to naturally change. The serious tags would most likely be used by people in debates (in some circumstances)/health related threads etc where the content should revolve around the original topic.

I like the idea, but it would rely on people actually using the tags. We have a lot of prefix tags at the moment which a lot of people just forget/can't be bothered to use :P

[xxMATTGxx]

I like the idea, but it would rely on people actually using the tags. We have a lot of prefix tags at the moment which a lot of people just forget/can't be bothered to use :P

You can force people to use prefixes by the way. Just a lot of them are currently optional - But if you look at the support forum for example. You have to choose one before you can post the thread.

[Matthew]

You can force people to use prefixes by the way. Just a lot of them are currently optional - But if you look at the support forum for example. You have to choose one before you can post the thread.

Oh in that case I don't see a problem then!

[The Don]

I like the idea, but it would rely on people actually using the tags. We have a lot of prefix tags at the moment which a lot of people just forget/can't be bothered to use :P

Maybe when creating a thread the user would have to choose a prefix option (no prefix, serious prefix etc) before the thread is made. So for example, if they forgot to choose a prefix and pressed submit the thread would not be made and a message would appear at the top reminding them to select a prefix.

Edit: Yeh, Matt beat me to it...

[FlyingJesus]

I don't see the need for tags when as has been mentioned we already have the discretion between DA and Spam. What really needs to be taken note of is the fact that nearly all of the threads currently going (which all last about the same amount of time since the same people post there once and move on) are questions with pretty closed answers. Discussing why you like red or how you came to never have been in an ambulance is not going to happen because they just aren't discussion questions; threads that are going to at least pretend to be worth something should be asking for opinions, not flat answers. That has its own problems because you still get people with "it's ok I guess" or the always useful "I don't know" but there ought to be a bit more to it.

Frankly I don't see the point of the Discuss Anything forum at all. It's Spam but with a post count and less discussion. The two (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794685) threads (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794628) that had some actual discussion in them didn't last long because it wasn't possible for the braindead wastes of oxygen to post two words and leave, so clearly no-one's using the area for its intended purpose anyway.

[The Don]

I don't see the need for tags when as has been mentioned we already have the discretion between DA and Spam. What really needs to be taken note of is the fact that nearly all of the threads currently going (which all last about the same amount of time since the same people post there once and move on) are questions with pretty closed answers. Discussing why you like red or how you came to never have been in an ambulance is not going to happen because they just aren't discussion questions; threads that are going to at least pretend to be worth something should be asking for opinions, not flat answers. That has its own problems because you still get people with "it's ok I guess" or the always useful "I don't know" but there ought to be a bit more to it.

Frankly I don't see the point of the Discuss Anything forum at all. It's Spam but with a post count and less discussion. The two (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794685) threads (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794628) that had some actual discussion in them didn't last long because it wasn't possible for the braindead wastes of oxygen to post two words and leave, so clearly no-one's using the area for its intended purpose anyway.

I would argue that discuss anything is for any topic that doesn't fit within another section (history, questions such as the british empire one etc) and spam is a glorified chat box.

[Kardan]

I would argue that discuss anything is for any topic that doesn't fit within another section (history, questions such as the british empire one etc) and spam is a glorified chat box.

I would agree with you, but it seems that just lately the chat box has been leaking into DA.

[Chris]

Why don't we scrap the pointless posting rule and add a [serious] prefix (similar to the system used on ask reddit) which people can add to their threads whereby the current pointless posting rules will be enforced? Then add a rule along the lines of "Discussion must bear relevance to the thread or any content that may arise from it" so that allows for threads to evolve whilst also preventing all the problems that arise from people pointless posting. This also allows serious threads to remain on topic. Then include spam in post count.

It's an interesting idea and I would be willing to try it if thats what people really want, but is it really that much different from the assorted/misc forum that we had last year?

[FlyingJesus]

I would argue with you, but it seems that just lately the chat box has been leaking into DA.

You mean you would agree with him :P and yes so would I usually but if a section isn't being used for its purpose then it's pointless having it

Why did the Misc Threads thing even get reverted wasn't it only the spammy disabled kids who found it difficult to boost their post count with real posts that didn't want it

[Kardan]

You mean you would agree with him :P and yes so would I usually but if a section isn't being used for its purpose then it's pointless having it

Why did the Misc Threads thing even get reverted wasn't it only the spammy disabled kids who found it difficult to boost their post count with real posts that didn't want it

I do, sometimes my brain just folds in on itself and I end up writing another word that begins with the same letter, but means something completely different. I said agree in my head :(

As far as I know, the misc subforum got removed because it wasn't used (Because people weren't interested in posting if they didn't get post count/tokens)

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah so basically it was proved that Discuss Anything was an extra spam forum and was used only for boosting so they... brought it back

[The Don]

It's an interesting idea and I would be willing to try it if thats what people really want, but is it really that much different from the assorted/misc forum that we had last year?

Yes because it applies to literally every thread and not just the "what is your" threads

[Chris]

Yes because it applies to literally every thread and not just the "what is your" threads

True!

Can I get others opinions on this please? :)

[The Don]

Yeah so basically it was proved that Discuss Anything was an extra spam forum and was used only for boosting so they... brought it back

Why do people boost their post count though? Is there actually anything to be gained from it? If we enabled post counts in spam it would make them essentially meaningless anyway...

[Kardan]

So can someone tell me the difference between:

[Serious] Nigel Farage gives UKIP Weather Forecast


What a brilliant display by Mr. Farage - hopefully UKIP will gain more supporters because of this terrific piece

And...

[Not Serious] Nigel Farage gives UKIP Weather Forecase


LEL DAT FARAGE, HE SO FUNNY. DID U SEE HIS SOCKS HE WAS WEREING?

WHY DID FARAGE CROSS THE ROAD? TO DEPORT IMMIGRANTS.

Because that's how I see it at the moment.

- - - Updated - - -


Why do people boost their post count though? Is there actually anything to be gained from it? If we enabled post counts in spam it would make them essentially meaningless anyway...

Some people like having high post count/tokens/whatever - which is pointless from the point of view for everyone else.

At the moment though, there is post 100 times in a week = free VIP until you don't post 100 times in a week scheme.

[Inseriousity.]

[inserious] please please please
lolol

Not a fan of the idea personally but mostly for what tom says about how it's a good solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Threads are just too specific tbh rather than about a general theme. "what is your favourite shade of red" for example would be a bad thread because there isn't really any room for it to develop into anything other than answering it. I don't want to be too snobby about all of these threads though because sometimes there can be.

[The Don]

So can someone tell me the difference between:

[Serious] Nigel Farage gives UKIP Weather Forecast




And...

[Not Serious] Nigel Farage gives UKIP Weather Forecase



Because that's how I see it at the moment.


An example of what would most likely be a serious thread is http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794576 where the original poster wants the thread to remain specifically about that topic (the original post).

A thread without a serious tag would allow the conversation to move away from the original topic. Take this thread for example http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794072, notice how the conversation died out because it was forced to remain around that topic? In a non serious thread someone could post "reminds me of this [busta rhymes video]" and then the discussion would progress as someone could perhaps comment "I'm not a fan of busta rhymes since most of his new stuff is etc..." even though the original post wasn't about busta rhymes but a different artist.

[Yawn]

i think this could all be solved if u just chillaxed a bit and look back at haydens post regarding pointless/off topic

[Kardan]

Would that not mean we could get this happening?

[Serious] Beyoncé's new song
[Not Serious] Beyoncé's new song

So we have two threads on the same topic. One you can ONLY talk about the new song, but in the other, you can talk about other things that Beyoncé has done.

[GommeInc]

Both aren't pointless as they're in reply to something (going back to phil and FlyingJesus' posts)... Did someone get finger happy dishing out the warnings?

Also one word answers to threads aren't pointless, they're just useless (or not particularly helpful or useful). Pointless literally has to be completely irrelevant, like shouting CHOCOLATE MILK in a discussion about cancer statistics are on the drop. Saying dinner in reply to what you just ate isn't particularly useful, as you're left asking what they had for dinner. Their point is clearly they had dinner as the last thing to eat.


Why do people boost their post count though? Is there actually anything to be gained from it? If we enabled post counts in spam it would make them essentially meaningless anyway...
Post counts are incredibly useless anyway, so agreed with this. Spam often has good topics in which for some reason are posted there rather than in the forum. Rep is a bit useless too. No one brags about their post counts or rep, and if they do they deserved to be laughed at.

[FlyingJesus]

Why do people boost their post count though? Is there actually anything to be gained from it? If we enabled post counts in spam it would make them essentially meaningless anyway...

Yeah you get awards and free VIP and MOTM and all sorts. Then again Hx seems to enjoy rewarding people for bad things like Martin getting 3 awards last night for preying on kids. Def wouldn't suggest a post count in Spam that would not be useful to anyone :P

[GommeInc]

Yeah you get awards and free VIP and MOTM and all sorts. Then again Hx seems to enjoy rewarding people for bad things like Martin getting 3 awards last night for preying on kids. Def wouldn't suggest a post count in Spam that would not be useful to anyone :P
What?

[Aiden]

post count in spam would be the worst thing ever

- - - Updated - - -


What?


Habbox Awards 2013 durr ;)

[GommeInc]

Habbox Awards 2013 durr ;)
I like how that was awarded :P How did that even come out? Was it in TV Guide? It's so weird! It's like awarding prisoners for their crimes at a local/regional show - Greatest gardener - Patricia. Biggest drama: When Alf slept with his entire family, including his animals. Unfortunately, Alf cannot be with us today as he's serving time at Her Majesty's pleasure :P

Post count in Spam would be counter-productive, if anything many of the threads in there could probably go in Discuss Anything.

[The Don]

Would that not mean we could get this happening?

[Serious] Beyoncé's new song
[Not Serious] Beyoncé's new song

So we have two threads on the same topic. One you can ONLY talk about the new song, but in the other, you can talk about other things that Beyoncé has done.

The serious tag would most likely not be used in that sort of thread, however if that did happen and two threads were made, the serious version would be buried due to the limited conversation allowed compared to the non serious thread. The serious tag was suggested to keep important threads on topic, and allow other threads freedom to change topic (naturally), which is not currently allowed in the rules. It's not foolproof :P But obviously the current rules aren't working and need updating. Any other suggestions?

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah you get awards and free VIP and MOTM and all sorts. Then again Hx seems to enjoy rewarding people for bad things like Martin getting 3 awards last night for preying on kids. Def wouldn't suggest a post count in Spam that would not be useful to anyone :P

Yeh I guess if the current incentives stayed the same enabling post count in spam would be ridiculous as it would get spammed with terrible threads.

I was against it in the past, but if we had a like system or something similar we could reward people for their post quality rather than quantity as people would be more inclined to like a post than rep one as there are quite a few restrictions on repping people. Then remove all incentives for post quantity and enable post count everywhere?

[Kardan]

I just feel that we currently have that freedom, and that the serious tag would just restrict threads and because of that it wouldn't get used very much.

[FlyingJesus]

Technically in the rules threads can evolve since it states that "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" so moving from YER I LAKE BALONS to talking about an experience with balloon animals to talk about an experience with clowns should be fine. Seems that mods are less happy about allowing that to happen (when it doesn't break any rules) than letting people post crap answers with no discussion value (which does break the rule)

[Chris]

Technically in the rules threads can evolve since it states that "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" so moving from YER I LAKE BALONS to talking about an experience with balloon animals to talk about an experience with clowns should be fine. Seems that mods are less happy about allowing that to happen (when it doesn't break any rules) than letting people post crap answers with no discussion value (which does break the rule)

Your example is definitely allowed. If a thread was talking about balloon animals and then the topic suddenly turned to the weather then that would be off topic.

[FlyingJesus]

WEATHER BALLOONS

[e5]

Wait, do you guys get warnings for pointless posting? I only get a PM telling me to avoid it... Unless that is a warning?
A PM is only ever a friendly reminder asking you to avoid breaking that rule so further action doesn't have to be taken against your account. I think people forget this or are not aware of this.

If you get a warning (yellow card) this is clearly stated in the PM that you have received a warning. Same with the infraction.

Pointless posts for example are usually subjected "Pointless posting" rather than "You have received a warning for pointless posting" when you haven't.

You then then given a usernote against your account (which you can't see) which is just a reference to other mods as to which rules you have broken and how long ago.



Does the forum still even have the yellow card warning/red card infraction system anymore? It's been so long since I got a warning/infraction I don't know :( I mean, in the past year I must have racked up many many PMs for pointless posting - they've never added up to anything though.
Yeah.


u cant get a warning of infraction for it unless u do it excessively like spamming, no?

so warning for pointless posting is pointless. u should just live a little a 1 word answer or chilled response not need to be warned
You are not yellow carded unless you break the pointless posting rule many times in 1 day or over a period of time.


Feel free to join then :)
or get martin off dnhl so I can hire him lol.

As for pointless posting, my own opinion of this is that a post is pointless if it doesn't connect with the thread in any way. For example, my feedback today shouldn't have technically been in the thank you forum but the thank you thread was about the awards, the feedback was about the awards so there was a connection. So I actually wouldn't classify 'dinner' as pointless because you eat dinner so it makes sense (perhaps then there's an argument there about these type of threads). I didn't check all the other posts but if there is an attempt at trying to make a conversation - even if that conversation doesn't include everyone - and there is a line of connection that means it makes sense then that's fine too. Despite that, I am known for being really relaxed about forum rules (fired from mod trial) and I'm not sure that's wise when there's a 100-posts-a-week competition. Perhaps the rules regarding that need to be stricter to deter the increase in rule-breaking rather than getting really technical and specific with the rules.

I think posting 'Dinner' and going by the current rules, is a pointless post. Yes, we all have dinner but this thread really requires a response of what food/drink you last had rather than the generic "breakfast" "dinner" "tea" as we all have that. 'Weetabix' 'ham and cheese sandwich' 'sausage and mash' would be more a more appropriate answer than 'Dinner', 'breakfast' or 'tea'.


this is wat i mean 1 rule for some and another rule for others
me and skandair get the worst of it because we have bad reputations for pointless posts. its totally bias

wats more if skandair had said "i go alone" it wouldnt have been pointless and it literally adds NOTHING to his post
I personally think that threads that allow for one word replies should be in spam altogether. That doesn't necessarily apply to all threads, but for example "Do u shower at night or morning (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794854)" is a bit of a pointless thread to me. I did happen to reply to this, ironically, but I actually made something of my post, but it's a very easy thread just to reply with "night" or "morning". I suppose this could apply to a lot of thread of the forum, but just my opinion anyway.


omg 1 word answers r not POINTLESS stop this
sams post is not pointless and under no circumstances should it be considered pointless
just because it says "never" and nothing else. everything that needs to be said is summed up in 1 word

u all make me so angry

One word answers aren't always pointless to me. However according to the forum rules, 1 word replies are deemed to be breaking the rules.

Would you feel more comforted if we changed it from being called 'pointless posting' to 'Please do not reply to threads with just one word' so it directly links to the rule of not posting 1 word replies?


http://i.minus.com/iMHi3ez0JSvOC.gif

-

this post is the future of habbox cant warn me now HAHAHHAHAHHHA


WEATHER BALLOONS


Dinner.

Nice work in taking advantage of breaking the rule in a feedback thread.

[FlyingJesus]

Thanks I tried really hard

[Kardan]

However according to the forum rules, 1 word replies are deemed to be breaking the rules.

Not anymore!

[e5]

As i'm not one of those 'power hungry' mods that people often describe, i'll use my sense of humour and better judgement and let the posts slip of course :P
Thanks I tried really hard

Some people do need to understands that rules break are also up to the discretion of the mods. This doesn't mean " I don't edit my friends post and and I edit peoples posts I don't like ". It means they use their own judgement to decide if a post break the rules to an extent where they need a warning or edit for it, if it doesn't and the post isn't there to just increase post count, then there shouldn't be a problem.

[Daltron]

I got a pointless posting warning in this thread for not being serious: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794559

When everyone else is not being serious either. And other people have said way more sarcastic comments than mine in the thread and get no warning? Thanks Calum, not bias at all.

- - - Updated - - -

How do we appeal a pointless post warning? I feel that is extremely unwarranted if no one else gets it.

[Calum0812]

I got a pointless posting warning in this thread for not being serious: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794559

When everyone else is not being serious either. And other people have said way more sarcastic comments than mine in the thread and get no warning? Thanks Calum, not bias at all.

- - - Updated - - -

How do we appeal a pointless post warning? I feel that is extremely unwarranted if no one else gets it.
Support forum, here is a link http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1543
And it wasn't a warning, just a reminder

[Daltron]

Support forum, here is a link http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1543
And it wasn't a warning, just a reminder

Why did no one else in that thread get a reminder?

[Calum0812]

Why did no one else in that thread get a reminder?
There are ways to discuss this, not here, but in a support thread

[Daltron]

my reply could have been serious for all you know
other people saying they will nibble it off or dump them and that's serious??

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah please don't discuss pointless posting in a thread about pointless posting

[Daltron]

There are ways to discuss this, not here, but in a support thread

This is a thread about pointless posting and the limits of it, so I suspect your response to this is relevant and on topic and this is the perfect place to discuss it..

[Nick]

Lets bring the Misc subforum back and have regular happy hours where post counts increase in there. You can all do your 1 word replies then

[FlyingJesus]

I will accept that as long as it's called Crappy Hour

[Nick]

I will accept that as long as it's called Crappy Hour

ok done

[Yawn]

omg that ingrown toe nail 1 is worst 1 yet im pissing myself how is that pointless
and if that is pointless y r the others not pointless

as if any1 is going to appeal a pointless post reminder when it actually means nothing calum
jesus

[MKR&*42]

This is why you reallyyy need to relax ur rules

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794954&p=8095219#post8095219

this is by far one of the silliest pointless posting reminders I have seen.

[sex]

I got a pointless posting warning in this thread for not being serious: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794559

When everyone else is not being serious either. And other people have said way more sarcastic comments than mine in the thread and get no warning? Thanks Calum, not bias at all.

- - - Updated - - -

How do we appeal a pointless post warning? I feel that is extremely unwarranted if no one else gets it.


Support forum, here is a link http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1543
And it wasn't a warning, just a reminder


my reply could have been serious for all you know
other people saying they will nibble it off or dump them and that's serious??

I'm crying at that
I SAID NIBBLE IT OFF AND YOU SAID PAINT IT PINK AND GET EDITED LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


my stomach sore

anyways some new mod just warmed me for infroming the user of a law about hanging flags
Drewar; ..............

[Daltron]

I'm crying at that
I SAID NIBBLE IT OFF AND YOU SAID PAINT IT PINK AND GET EDITED LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO



Maybe I should have offered to nibble the toenail off too then my post wouldn't be edited :D

[Yawn]

this forum is so lame

[sex]

Maybe I should have offered to nibble the toenail off too then my post wouldn't be edited :D

paint it pink then nibble it off cause you like the taste of nail polish

[Daltron]

My position has officially changed and hopefully this is more in line with everyone else's serious responses.
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794559&page=3

[FlyingJesus]

Only 2 more of Calum's jobs for him to show himself as totally inept at in this thread, come on old chap you can do it!

[mrwoooooooo]

Lulz

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Eric]

so whats the conclusion??

[Nick]

so whats the conclusion??

Goodluck getting an answer i say :)

[Daltron]

so whats the conclusion??


We are still waiting on Calum0812; to explain how my post was pointless and everyone elses is okay in this thread:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794559


In general conclusion I don't knpw :D

Just don't post anywhere and let this forum die and you won't get in trouble

[Nick]

We are still waiting on Calum0812; to explain how my post was pointless and everyone elses is okay in this thread:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794559


In general conclusion I don't knpw :D

Just don't post anywhere and let this forum die and you won't get in trouble

Honestly, I wouldn't have edited that as for what yourself and I can see there are lot of other pointless posts and the whole thread just should have been moved. I've moved it to spam now anyway

[Kardan]

Nice to see pointless posting reminders for non-pointless posts even after this thread :P

- - - Updated - - -

Are comments made about a thread itself considered pointless? Because that's where the majority of my 'reminders' come from...

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794209&p=8089778#post8089778
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=747642&page=34

:(

[e5]

To be fair, it nothing you need to worry about. You didn't pointless post 10 times or whatever in the same day/hour so it isn't going to affect you. understand it may be the principle of it, but I'm sure you could reply to the PM calum sent you and discuss it with him there.

my reply could have been serious for all you know
other people saying they will nibble it off or dump them and that's serious??

- - - Updated - - -


Nice to see pointless posting reminders for non-pointless posts even after this thread :P

- - - Updated - - -

Are comments made about a thread itself considered pointless? Because that's where the majority of my 'reminders' come from...

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794209&p=8089778#post8089778
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=747642&page=34

:(


Your second post edited was made on the 12th January, anyway and was most certainly pointless :P

[Daltron]

Thank you Nick; e5;

At least some moderators have common sense.

[e5]

I do understand peoples points though.
Before this thread was moved to spam, both these posts had the exact same meaning but only one was edited as the other one contained 5 more characters and 2 spaces :P

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794559&p=8090935#post8090935 [EDITED POST]

nothing

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794559&p=8090967#post8090967

nothing at all

[Kardan]

To be fair, it nothing you need to worry about. You didn't pointless post 10 times or whatever in the same day/hour so it isn't going to affect you. understand it may be the principle of it, but I'm sure you could reply to the PM calum sent you and discuss it with him there.


- - - Updated - - -




Your second post edited was made on the 12th January, anyway and was most certainly pointless :P

So if I posted 'Clearly you don't get what the other person was saying, they mean you are making the server a bad place', would I get warned? Because it means exactly the same thing...

And hey, just because my examples are old doesn't mean they're not relevant :P Here's another old example that I think is unfair, being warned for posting something in the 'Things you want to say to another person' which can be LITERALLY ANYTHING...

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=712388&p=7804454#post7804454

- - - Updated - - -

And way back in the day I got warned for a pointless post because I didn't refer to the topic title in every post, even though I was going with the flow of the thread, got this one reversed though :P

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=768245&p=7799361#post7799361

So it was a lot worse a year or so ago I would say...

[e5]

So if I posted 'Clearly you don't get what the other person was saying, they mean you are making the server a bad place', would I get warned? Because it means exactly the same thing...

And hey, just because my examples are old doesn't mean they're not relevant :P Here's another old example that I think is unfair, being warned for posting something in the 'Things you want to say to another person' which can be LITERALLY ANYTHING...

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=712388&p=7804454#post7804454

So "Clearly you don't get what the other person was saying, they mean you are making the server a bad place" means the exact same thing as "whoosh" now does it? :P Could have fooled me!


And no, old examples are fine, although that was from a different moderator who's not in the department now...

and with that thread, no, I guess your post wasn't pointless as its something you'd have like to said to someone.

I notice Chris removed an edit on your first post of "hiya" but you then posted again saying "hiya again" so I could see why a mod would look at that as pointless :P

[Kardan]

And here... http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=768252&p=7799093#post7799093

I join the thread, I say my preference and I also say 'I don't really consider this a debate'

Undertaker joins, says his preference, says it is a debate.

I comment on him saying it was a debate, and I get warned because I didn't state my preference... even though I already did. As I said earlier, I find it stupid to constantly having to go [OT; Family Guy] on every post in order to contribute to the thread.

- - - Updated - - -


So "Clearly you don't get what the other person was saying, they mean you are making the server a bad place" means the exact same thing as "whoosh" now does it? :P Could have fooled me!


And no, old examples are fine, although that was from a different moderator who's not in the department now...

and with that thread, no, I guess your post wasn't pointless as its something you'd have like to said to someone.

I notice Chris removed an edit on your first post of "hiya" but you then posted again saying "hiya again" so I could see why a mod would look at that as pointless :P

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woosh
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whoosh

And maybe MODs looked at my post wrong, I said "Hiya" and then "Hiya again" as something I wanted to say. Not "Hiya" and I would like to say "Hiya" again... Just strange that I get warned for it, yet I'm sure I could find you many examples of people saying the same thing is What you wear/What you eat/What you watch/What you listen :P

[Nick]

So if I posted 'Clearly you don't get what the other person was saying, they mean you are making the server a bad place', would I get warned? Because it means exactly the same thing...

And hey, just because my examples are old doesn't mean they're not relevant :P Here's another old example that I think is unfair, being warned for posting something in the 'Things you want to say to another person' which can be LITERALLY ANYTHING...

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=712388&p=7804454#post7804454

- - - Updated - - -

And way back in the day I got warned for a pointless post because I didn't refer to the topic title in every post, even though I was going with the flow of the thread, got this one reversed though :P

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=768245&p=7799361#post7799361

So it was a lot worse a year or so ago I would say...

If it hasn't got anything to do with the thread or as in the rules it is something like 'roflcopter' 'ierutjikfd' i'd class it as a pointless post. Also if you are answering/replying to another persons question I don't think it should be pointless if you don't exactly answer to what the thread starter is talking about. I think before any of us try to edit it as a pointless post, I think we really need to think and look at it thoroughly before we actually do anything.

[Kardan]

If it hasn't got anything to do with the thread or as in the rules it is something like 'roflcopter' 'ierutjikfd' i'd class it as a pointless post. Also if you are answering/replying to another persons question I don't think it should be pointless if you don't exactly answer to what the thread starter is talking about. I think before any of us try to edit it as a pointless post, I think we really need to think and look at it thoroughly before we actually do anything.

I think that really is the issue here. Most of these pointless post examples people are bringing up are referring to something that is happening or was mentioned in the thread - it's just not referring to the title topic directly. Especially whoever posted the comment about the flagpole... How on earth is that one pointless? :P

[Nick]

I think that really is the issue here. Most of these pointless post examples people are bringing up are referring to something that is happening or was mentioned in the thread - it's just not referring to the title topic directly. Especially whoever posted the comment about the flagpole... How on earth is that one pointless? :P

It was reported and there was a moderator online for that section so i sent it to them without actually taking a good look myself, which i should have :$

[xxMATTGxx]

Yeah I agree that flagpole post shouldn't be classed as pointless.

[karter]

Thank you @Nick (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=75119); @e5 (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=30040);

At least some moderators have common sense.

uh nick especially doesn't

[sex]

Yeah I agree that flagpole post shouldn't be classed as pointless.

Thank god Matt
Someone with common sense!

- - - Updated - - -

omg i got done for typing lots of random numbers and saying it was my mobile number
AHHHHHHHH FIRE THEM ALL

[Yawn]

uh nick especially doesn't

init

i reported a thread as AP and nick didnt know it meant already posted
nick also told me that calling a mixed race american muslim 'osama bin ladin' in a mocking way wasnt rude

[Nick]

init

i reported a thread as AP and nick didnt know it meant already posted
nick also told me that calling a mixed race american muslim 'osama bin ladin' in a mocking way wasnt rude

How was i ment to know what AP was straight of the bat. No one else has reported something as AP

[karter]

nick also told me that calling a mixed race american muslim 'osama bin ladin' in a mocking way wasnt rude

what the **** .....jerk

[Yawn]

How was i ment to know what AP was straight of the bat. No one else has reported something as AP
stay away frmo me nick im on a rampage

[Nick]

stay away frmo me nick im on a rampage

This is the thing. You wanna bite bite bite but you don't want to talk and reason out so we can fix the problem?!?!

[karter]

can anyone show me the osama post

[Yawn]

This is the thing. You wanna bite bite bite but you don't want to talk and reason out so we can fix the problem?!?!
ur racist

- - - Updated - - -


can anyone show me the osama post

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=788874&p=8026467#post8026467
xx

fierycold as well...he is a habbo icon and u let cian mock him like that smh
(is fierycold white or mixed i cant tell but its rly rude and QUITE offensive)

[karter]

mhm dude's got time for meaningless warnings but doesnt do his job when it's needed

time to apologize

also people who +repped that post need to die .. casual racism is so cute init

[Matt]

BITE ME.

ot; forum rules r gd

*REMOVED*

Edited by iPhil (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not be rude to other users, thanks!

[Chippiewill]

ok done


Lets bring the Misc subforum back and have regular happy hours where post counts increase in there. You can all do your 1 word replies then

Nick for Forum Manager 2014

[GommeInc]

We are still waiting on Calum0812; to explain how my post was pointless and everyone elses is okay in this thread:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794559


In general conclusion I don't knpw :D

Just don't post anywhere and let this forum die and you won't get in trouble
That wouldn't be pointless for the obvious fact it has a point - you could paint it pink, but whether or not that would help the situation is another problem entirely.

[Aiden]

REMOVED

You're rudeness has made me see a new light and I will now be a good boy...

lol no be quiet

:)

[sex]

*REMOVED*

Edited by e5 (Forum Moderator) Please do not be rude towards other members, thanks.

[Calum0812]

*REMOVED*
Calum's actually busy doing school work. As you're all aware, I'm still new, still learning and mistakes are made - people need to get a little perspective and not have a huge moan about it and make it personal. If people have a complaint then feel free to raise it with Chris via the support forum.

[sex]

Calum's actually busy doing school work. As you're all aware, I'm still new, still learning and mistakes are made - people need to get a little perspective and not have a huge moan about it and make it personal. If people have a complaint then feel free to raise it with Chris via the support forum.

*REMOVED*

Edited by e5 (Forum Moderator) Please do not be rude towards other members, thanks.

[Calum0812]

*REMOVED*
I thought your one deserved a reply considering it went from moaning about my moderating to get a bit personal

[Jordan]

To be honest you are all moaning at how bad the pointless posting rule is, yet it is hard for moderators to know what is correct and what isn't considering the rule is complete rubbish. Not everyone is going to agree that it's pointless and not everyone is going to agree that it isn't. I just think that we have established that the rule needs a lot of work to make it understandable and to continually pick out posts which fall into this rule is stupid.

Wait until something is done before we all criticise moderators issuing the pointless posting rule when you all know that this feedback thread is here to discuss what can be done to change it.

[Phil]

If people could actually stop targetting individual moderators and actually suggest some ideas for change it'd be fantastic and frankly, it'd be a little more mature.

[sex]

If people could actually stop targetting individual moderators and actually suggest some ideas for change it'd be fantastic and frankly, it'd be a little more mature.

there are over 100 replies im sure there are plenty ideas yet no one seems to be listening

ps i know i target people but at least i admit it and i dont tell others not to even tho i do it myself
ya get me

[Phil]

there are over 100 replies im sure there are plenty ideas yet no one seems to be listening

There were I think two suggestions in the whole thread

[Calum0812]

there are over 100 replies im sure there are plenty ideas yet no one seems to be listening
We don't have the power to change rules, that falls down to Chris; so we're in the same boat as you, we can't do anything except enforce what we're given

[Yawn]

no i like it when the gays get their claws out

[The Don]

Why don't we just ban skandair? Problem solved

[!x!dude!x!2]

I do understand peoples points though.
Before this thread was moved to spam, both these posts had the exact same meaning but only one was edited as the other one contained 5 more characters and 2 spaces :P

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794559&p=8090935#post8090935 [EDITED POST]


http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794559&p=8090967#post8090967

i didn't put just one word witch would count as a pointless point

[Phil]

Why don't we just ban skandair? Problem solved

That won't solve the problem. The problem isn't necessarily his threads, it's the pointless replies that are posted and how they are dealt with.

[Yawn]

no the problem is u guys r too strict

[Jazz]

I kinda understand the annoyance of pointless posting, I've had so many PM's about it and its a frustrating rule to follow while moderating (hence why, like everyone.. I sometimes get it wrong). The rule does need a look into how strict it is, but moderators have to follow our rules too and moderate correctly

Personally I think it would be a good time to trial different rule changes, I wouldn't want the pointless posting rule gone because then it would be a forum full of crap. The rule does however need another think! What springs to mind is a rule set in Habboxlive about song titles, they used to be similar in ruling to P-Posting but were made into a 3 strike system.

3 minor breaks = 1 PM/Caution
1 major break = 1 PM/Caution

Something on those lines? Maybe have a base rules for the majority of the more general forums then have tailored pointless posting rules for the more serious/informative sections (current affairs, habbo news, graphics [cc rule already there] etc).

Pointless posting is an issue, and I think if the rule was taken out completely they might as well just turn the forum into a chatbox.

"Chabbox = The place where prats procrastinate"

[Phil]

no the problem is u guys r too strict

The problem is people are breaking the rules and can't handle the PM's.

[Kardan]

Can the MODs actually link me to some pointless posts that are actual issues? Most of the 'pointless posts' I see are people replying to someone, but not referring to the thread title. I wouldn't call that a serious issue.

[Phil]

Can the MODs actually link me to some pointless posts that are actual issues? Most of the 'pointless posts' I see are people replying to someone, but not referring to the thread title. I wouldn't call that a serious issue.

As long as I have been a Moderator; pointless posts that were the problem were posts that had nothing to do with the thread or had very little contribution to the thread.
More recently the problem has been a lot of users posting on every thread they can with just one or two words. This really started when the Posting Statistics came back and people were trying to get post count up in order to receive the tokens and reputation.

[Yawn]

The problem is people are braking the rules and can't handle the PM's.

i highly doubt ANY1 cares about a pm which wont lead to anything (otherwise ppl wouldve stop)
the problem is the rules r too uptight and anal about creating discussion where there doesnt need to be discussion and trying to label perfectly acceptable posts as pointless

u all need to stop and change immediately. which other forums r this boring and lame. naturally i see warnings for off topic posts on other forums but never pointless 1s e.g. for 1 word answers. ur on a habbo forum pls dont forget that losers

[Calum0812]

Can the MODs actually link me to some pointless posts that are actual issues? Most of the 'pointless posts' I see are people replying to someone, but not referring to the thread title. I wouldn't call that a serious issue.
Generally people who don't actually contribute anything, just post one or two word answers - not a lot of ifgserufgsreghsriuhgidurhg being posted

[Jordan]

I really think we should allow short worded replies as long as they are on topic. However if it is clearly seen that a user is repeatedly posting one worded answers in threads over a period of time to probably gain post count then action should be taken. Something needs to be done anyway.

[Jazz]

Can the MODs actually link me to some pointless posts that are actual issues? Most of the 'pointless posts' I see are people replying to someone, but not referring to the thread title. I wouldn't call that a serious issue.

It would become a serious issue if you took the rule out completely, surely? If you made an important thread for example and had 205 replies with people saying "my thumb hurts" or "i got my tesco clubcard stuck in the drain" with all 205 replies being completely irrelevant to the thread, that wouldn't annoy you at all? That wouldn't be an issue?

[Kardan]

When I said examples, I meant physical examples of posts - I was expecting links Calum0812; iPhil;

It's also worth noting that one word answers are allowed, so no examples of those please.

[Yawn]

:rolleyes:

like seriously no1 is stopping u writing an essay for all ur responses if u want to but that doesnt mean every1 else needs to do the same and write a needlessly drawn out post which can be summed up in a few words

[Calum0812]

When I said examples, I meant physical examples of posts - I was expecting links @Calum0812 (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=112488); @iPhil (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=67954);

It's also worth noting that one word answers are allowed, so no examples of those please.
They were banned until the last rule update yesterday morning when the rule was rephrased

[Kardan]

It would become a serious issue if you took the rule out completely, surely? If you made an important thread for example and had 205 replies with people saying "my thumb hurts" or "i got my tesco clubcard stuck in the drain" with all 205 replies being completely irrelevant to the thread, that wouldn't annoy you at all? That wouldn't be an issue?

I would like examples of people doing that please.

- - - Updated - - -


They were banned until the last rule update yesterday morning when the rule was rephrased

Indeed, but you still claim that pointless posting is an issue even with this rule change?

[Aiden]

Calum0812; did you remove my user notes from them two older post?

you should or you might as well go back to 2012 and find all my one worded answers from that year too

[Phil]

i highly doubt ANY1 cares about a pm which wont lead to anything (otherwise ppl wouldve stop)
the problem is the rules r too uptight and anal about creating discussion where there doesnt need to be discussion and trying to label perfectly acceptable posts as pointless

u all need to stop and change immediately. which other forums r this boring and lame. naturally i see warnings for off topic posts on other forums but never pointless 1s e.g. for 1 word answers. ur on a habbo forum pls dont forget that losers

sigh..

If the PM's didn't happen I'm sure more of it would happen. Clearly people don't like getting these PM's so if they weren't sent, more people would pointless post.


I really think we should allow short worded replies as long as they are on topic. However if it is clearly seen that a user is repeatedly posting one worded answers in threads over a period of time to probably gain post count then action should be taken. Something needs to be done anyway.

This is what I'm trying to think of now. Some sort of system where you can post one word replies as long as they're on topic unless it is clear that you are doing it just to raise post count and spam the forum. There have been users that have been doing it OTT and their posts have been removed from the forum but of course this is only in drastic cases. Of course, even if I come up with a system, I can't put it into place. Hopefulyl all mods can have a discussion about it sometime soon.


When I said examples, I meant physical examples of posts - I was expecting links Calum0812; iPhil;

It's also worth noting that one word answers are allowed, so no examples of those please.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=747642&p=8084021#post8084021
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794209&p=8089778#post8089778

[Calum0812]

Indeed, but you still claim that pointless posting is an issue even with this rule change?
I think one and two word replies don't contribute to the thread and are therefore pointless and worthless posts on a forum where discussion is what it thrives on.

@Calum0812 (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=112488); did you remove my user notes from them two older post?
I don't have permissions to do that

[Jazz]

I would like examples of people doing that please.

It doesn't happen on this forum because we have the pointless post rule? Most forums have established pointless posting rules to stop the flood of off topic comments and snide remarks, our one is stricter than most and I will hold my hands up and say that (even though i've already said it) but there needs to be some rules to at least hold a structure together?

I'm not trying to defend the rule at current, but I would of thought people understood why their is a pointless posting rule on a forum, with sections to segregate different topics.

[Aiden]

I think one and two word replies don't contribute to the thread and are therefore pointless and worthless posts on a forum where discussion is what it thrives on.

I don't have permissions to do that

You don't have permission to delete your own mistakes... okay...

So moderators can be trusted with destroying the delegate bond between staff and members but cant edit a usernote lol
Chris; why u not solve my problems
:(

[Yawn]

ofc 1 or 2 worded posts contribute to a thread if they answer the question :rolleyes:

[Calum0812]

You don't have permission to delete your own mistakes... okay...

So moderators can be trusted with destroying the delegate bond between staff and members but cant edit a usernote lol
@Chris (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=55895); why u not solve my problems
:(
I imagine it is because in giving us permission to do that, we could delete any usernote, hence allowing us to wipe a user's history

[Kardan]

sigh..

If the PM's didn't happen I'm sure more of it would happen. Clearly people don't like getting these PM's so if they weren't sent, more people would pointless post.



This is what I'm trying to think of now. Some sort of system where you can post one word replies as long as they're on topic unless it is clear that you are doing it just to raise post count and spam the forum. There have been users that have been doing it OTT and their posts have been removed from the forum but of course this is only in drastic cases. Of course, even if I come up with a system, I can't put it into place. Hopefulyl all mods can have a discussion about it sometime soon.



http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=747642&p=8084021#post8084021
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794209&p=8089778#post8089778

As I've stated, the first example shouldn't be considered pointless. It relates to the discussion going on in the thread at the time, and if it was considered pointless for being a single word - that is no longer an issue.

The second example, if you claim that post is pointless, you are essentially saying it is equivalent to me posting 'CHEWITS ARE PHYSICALLY IBUPROFEN'. It clearly isn't, the post has a point and fits in with comments that others have made in the thread.

This is why the MOD department is getting flack, because they can't differentiate between these types of posts.

[Aiden]

I imagine it is because in giving us permission to do that, we could delete any usernote, hence allowing us to wipe a user's history

So they don't trust you enough...

btw not targeting u, i still like u lol

[Kardan]

I think one and two word replies don't contribute to the thread and are therefore pointless and worthless posts on a forum where discussion is what it thrives on.

I don't have permissions to do that

Nowhere in the rules does it state that one or two word replies are pointless posting - so you cannot warn people for pointless posting in this case. So in the discussion I'm trying to have here, one/two word posts are irrelevant assuming they make sense with the context of the thread.

- - - Updated - - -


It doesn't happen on this forum because we have the pointless post rule? Most forums have established pointless posting rules to stop the flood of off topic comments and snide remarks, our one is stricter than most and I will hold my hands up and say that (even though i've already said it) but there needs to be some rules to at least hold a structure together?

I'm not trying to defend the rule at current, but I would of thought people understood why their is a pointless posting rule on a forum, with sections to segregate different topics.

So 5 minutes ago you say 'Pointless posting is an issue' and now you say 'It doesn't happen on this forum'.

It's also worth noting that we're not trying to get the rule removed, it just needs to be relaxed.

[Phil]

As I've stated, the first example shouldn't be considered pointless. It relates to the discussion going on in the thread at the time, and if it was considered pointless for being a single word - that is no longer an issue.

The second example, if you claim that post is pointless, you are essentially saying it is equivalent to me posting 'CHEWITS ARE PHYSICALLY IBUPROFEN'. It clearly isn't, the post has a point and fits in with comments that others have made in the thread.

This is why the MOD department is getting flack, because they can't differentiate between these types of posts.

First example: What has 'whoosh' to do with anything?
Second example: Actually sorry you're right, that's more considered off topic rather than pointless.

Sorry for choose two of your own posts but as you asked the question I thought it might be the fairest thing to do just because I didn't want to pick anyone out

[Chris]

Well I can see this has still gone nowhere. I can't change the rules if nobody is going to agree on anything.


As I've stated, the first example shouldn't be considered pointless. It relates to the discussion going on in the thread at the time, and if it was considered pointless for being a single word - that is no longer an issue.

The second example, if you claim that post is pointless, you are essentially saying it is equivalent to me posting 'CHEWITS ARE PHYSICALLY IBUPROFEN'. It clearly isn't, the post has a point and fits in with comments that others have made in the thread.

This is why the MOD department is getting flack, because they can't differentiate between these types of posts.

Both are breaking rule A7 in some form.

[Phil]

It's also worth noting that we're not trying to get the rule removed, it just needs to be relaxed.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it needs to be relaxed but before we relax it, we need to discover to what sort of extent do we need to relax it.

[Jazz]

So 5 minutes ago you say 'Pointless posting is an issue' and now you say 'It doesn't happen on this forum'.

It's also worth noting that we're not trying to get the rule removed, it just needs to be relaxed.

"If you made an important thread for example and had 205 replies with people saying "my thumb hurts" or "i got my tesco clubcard stuck in the drain" with all 205 replies being completely irrelevant to the thread, that wouldn't annoy you at all? That wouldn't be an issue?" You asked me examples of this kind of situation, that we don't have because of the pointless posting rule, it wasn't to do with current posting problems, it was an example of what could and probably would happen if the P-posting rule was to be scrapped, that was the point.

I know not all of the users said about rule removal but some did (in this thread and spam). It wasn't targeting any user, it was a general observation. I agree completely that the rule needs to be addressed and softened.

[Yawn]

Tbh I think it should only be deemed "pointless" (any post) as long as it's completely irrelevant to the thread at hand.

So posting "Dinner" in the thread about food would be fine.
Tom's post about correcting the thread title would be fine.
Phil's post referring to an ambulance in a thread concerning ambulances would be fine.

But if I posted something like

Chicken

in the "what are you wearing right now" thread, then that would be pointless. Otherwise I think everything else (even "dinner" no matter how broad it is) shouldn't warrant any warning as it is quite clear some people do have stigma attached to them and can get pointless post for anything, that someone else might not.


relax it to this extent NOW RIGHT THIS SECOND

[Calum0812]

So they don't trust you enough...

btw not targeting u, i still like u lol
I guess some spoil it for others in the past (someone has abused permissions), but if me and Phil wanted to, we could really wreck the forum, so they must trust us. I could ban people if I wanted to screw them over so hmmm... Not sure. They take backups and mods can be trusted I guess.

It's alright I'm not taking too much of this personally, mods are the people everyone hates, who is gonna thank us for sending them a PM

Nowhere in the rules does it state that one or two word replies are pointless posting - so you cannot warn people for pointless posting in this case. So in the discussion I'm trying to have here, one/two word posts are irrelevant assuming they make sense with the context of the thread.
Yes, but the rules did say that the other day hence why people have been getting PMs. Since the rule was updated people shouldn't get a PM automatically for a one or two word reply but can still if it is, in the mods opinion, pointless.

[Kardan]

First example: What has 'whoosh' to do with anything?
Second example: Actually sorry you're right, that's more considered off topic rather than pointless.

Sorry for choose two of your own posts but as you asked the question I thought it might be the fairest thing to do just because I didn't want to pick anyone out

For the 3rd time this thread:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whoosh
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woosh

It essentially means that someone has totally missed a reference. In the thread Scottish says 'Dragga, you need to edit your sig. It says 'Stay away from the rude ones!' - That doesn't really work'

Scottish was referring to Dragga basically being rude to other people and kicking them off the server. Dragga however thinks Scottish is referring to the people he kicked off as being rude. So Dragga replies 'Cool, I'll get round to removing that part of my sig now', whereas Scottish meant that he should remove it because it's silly to hear that the rude person.

So Dragga misinterpreted what Scottish was saying, so I said 'whoosh' (imagine my hand flying straight over my head). It would be equivalent to me saying 'Wow, I don't think you understood what Scottish meant'.

- - - Updated - - -


Well I can see this has still gone nowhere. I can't change the rules if nobody is going to agree on anything.



Both are breaking rule A7 in some form.

Do you not understand the meaning of whoosh either?
And for the 2nd one, I understand it's breaking the rule - but I'm pretty sure that's what people want to change about the rules. They shouldn't be so strict. Essentially, for me to reply to Undertaker, I would need to keep saying (FAMILY GUY) in my post - even though I've already said it once in the thread already. It seems stupid that I have to repeat my answers to avoid a warning.

[Phil]

For the 3rd time this thread:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whoosh
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woosh

It essentially means that someone has totally missed a reference. In the thread Scottish says 'Dragga, you need to edit your sig. It says 'Stay away from the rude ones!' - That doesn't really work'

Scottish was referring to Dragga basically being rude to other people and kicking them off the server. Dragga however thinks Scottish is referring to the people he kicked off as being rude. So Dragga replies 'Cool, I'll get round to removing that part of my sig now', whereas Scottish meant that he should remove it because it's silly to hear that the rude person.

So Dragga misinterpreted what Scottish was saying, so I said 'whoosh' (imagine my hand flying straight over my head). It would be equivalent to me saying 'Wow, I don't think you understood what Scottish meant'.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you not understand the meaning of whoosh either?
And for the 2nd one, I understand it's breaking the rule - but I'm pretty sure that's what people want to change about the rules. They shouldn't be so strict. Essentially, for me to reply to Undertaker, I would need to keep saying (FAMILY GUY) in my post - even though I've already said it once in the thread already. It seems stupid that I have to repeat my answers to avoid a warning.

That's still unnecessary? :P

[Chris]

For the 3rd time this thread:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whoosh
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woosh

It essentially means that someone has totally missed a reference. In the thread Scottish says 'Dragga, you need to edit your sig. It says 'Stay away from the rude ones!' - That doesn't really work'

Scottish was referring to Dragga basically being rude to other people and kicking them off the server. Dragga however thinks Scottish is referring to the people he kicked off as being rude. So Dragga replies 'Cool, I'll get round to removing that part of my sig now', whereas Scottish meant that he should remove it because it's silly to hear that the rude person.

So Dragga misinterpreted what Scottish was saying, so I said 'whoosh' (imagine my hand flying straight over my head). It would be equivalent to me saying 'Wow, I don't think you understood what Scottish meant'.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you not understand the meaning of whoosh either?
And for the 2nd one, I understand it's breaking the rule - but I'm pretty sure that's what people want to change about the rules. They shouldn't be so strict. Essentially, for me to reply to Undertaker, I would need to keep saying (FAMILY GUY) in my post - even though I've already said it once in the thread already. It seems stupid that I have to repeat my answers to avoid a warning.

I have no idea what this whoosh thing is about but I'll let you debate that with Phil :P

As for the post about undertaker, I fail to see how that has anything to do with the threads discussion? It's completely irrelevant and off topic.

[Kardan]

That's still unnecessary? :P

So me telling someone they misinterpreted a post is unnecessary?

[Phil]

So me telling someone they misinterpreted a post is unnecessary?

No not at all but if you actually pointed it out to them and explained it it would have been fine. You posted a sound effect of your hand going over your head :S

[Kardan]

I have no idea what this whoosh thing is about but I'll let you debate that with Phil :P

As for the post about undertaker, I fail to see how that has anything to do with the threads discussion? It's completely irrelevant and off topic.

http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1j02yu/what_does_whoosh_mean/

As for the Undertaker thing, I realiseI've just been commenting about the wrong pointless post :P The one linked can be pointless - I'm on about the one in the Family Guy/American Dad debate that I linked earlier. My bad.

- - - Updated - - -


No not at all but if you actually pointed it out to them and explained it it would have been fine. You posted a sound effect of your hand going over your head :S

So basically we can't use internet terms on an internet based forum because the MODs might not understand what it means?

[Phil]

http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1j02yu/what_does_whoosh_mean/

As for the Undertaker thing, I realiseI've just been commenting about the wrong pointless post :P The one linked can be pointless - I'm on about the one in the Family Guy/American Dad debate that I linked earlier. My bad.

- - - Updated - - -



So basically we can't use internet terms on an internet based forum because the MODs might not understand what it means?

Okay let me ask you this, when you received the PM, I assume you didn't agree with it? What did you do?

[Kardan]

Okay let me ask you this, when you received the PM, I assume you didn't agree with it? What did you do?

I quoted my post with a reference to the word.

Why didn't I reply to the PM? Because

1) I don't get a caution/infraction.
2) Whenever I do decide to reply, the mod will refer me to a super mod, who refers me to Chris, who refers me to general management. It's just not worth it.

[e5]

Yeah that would be more off-topic than pointless i guess. I consider posts carefully, always, before editing :P
If it hasn't got anything to do with the thread or as in the rules it is something like 'roflcopter' 'ierutjikfd' i'd class it as a pointless post. Also if you are answering/replying to another persons question I don't think it should be pointless if you don't exactly answer to what the thread starter is talking about. I think before any of us try to edit it as a pointless post, I think we really need to think and look at it thoroughly before we actually do anything.

[Phil]

I quoted my post with a reference to the word.

Why didn't I reply to the PM? Because

1) I don't get a caution/infraction.
2) Whenever I do decide to reply, the mod will refer me to a super mod, who refers me to Chris, who refers me to general management. It's just not worth it.

Sorry was eating.

That's because Moderators or Super Moderators don't have the ability to remove usernotes from a users account. Why not cut out all the reffering and just contact who you need to contact or use the support forum?

This next statement isn't directed at you Aiden.

It just seems like users have been PM'd for pointless posting and since one user has posted its flaw, everyone else is saying "OH YEAH! I was pointless posted for a stupid reason too!". I have had replies to I think one or two pointless post PM's in which I actually saw that I was wrong and I have had the usernote removed.

[Kardan]

Fair enough with moderators not having the ability to remove usernotes, but I think super mods should have that ability.

Anyway, I was getting too caught up in my own pointless posts (I'm just annoyed that people don't know what whoosh means :P), but what I personally think needs to happen:

Stop warning for pointless posts when someone is replying to a non-pointless post already made in the thread. It seems silly to keep having to refer back to the thread title when it's not needed. (Examples: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=768252&p=7799093#post7799093,
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=768245&p=7799361#post7799361 - Got this 2nd one reversed)

Allow discussion of the thread itself rather than only the topic of the thread so we can correct someone's spelling/grammar, and tell someone they misinterpreted something. (Examples: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794379&p=8088963#post8088963, http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=747642&p=8084021#post8084021)

[Yawn]

thankfully this has shed light on how stupid the current pointless posting rules are
not to mention all of the thread moving into spam as well that hasnt helped and makes ppl more mad

[Chris]

I quoted my post with a reference to the word.

Why didn't I reply to the PM? Because

1) I don't get a caution/infraction.
2) Whenever I do decide to reply, the mod will refer me to a super mod, who refers me to Chris, who refers me to general management. It's just not worth it.

I don't refer to general management unless it's something I literally cannot deal with. I'm the end of the line for forum issues. :P

[Phil]

Fair enough with moderators not having the ability to remove usernotes, but I think super mods should have that ability.

Anyway, I was getting too caught up in my own pointless posts (I'm just annoyed that people don't know what whoosh means :P), but what I personally think needs to happen:

Stop warning for pointless posts when someone is replying to a non-pointless post already made in the thread. It seems silly to keep having to refer back to the thread title when it's not needed. (Examples: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=768252&p=7799093#post7799093,
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=768245&p=7799361#post7799361 - Got this 2nd one reversed)

Allow discussion of the thread itself rather than only the topic of the thread so we can correct someone's spelling/grammar, and tell someone they misinterpreted something. (Examples: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794379&p=8088963#post8088963, http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=747642&p=8084021#post8084021)

I actually agree with the first point you made here and personally I wouldn't edit a post like that because it's generating discussion.
I disagree with the second point, I still think that Toms point it pointless. Your post is less pointless now but would have still been better if you actually said it went over his head and/or explained why. I think you can see the Moderators confusion with that one (and mine because I believe I passed on that report to the Moderator)

[FlyingJesus]

Just gonna summarise the issue in a very basic form:

*We currently have a rule that has no actual punishment if it's broken
*This rule is also hugely ambiguous and is open to interpretation by whichever mod sees it
*Since the moderators are not avatars of one root being, they do not see everything the same way
*Therefore some people are being told off for breaking a rule when near identical posts aren't
*Everyone's confused because not even the people who are supposed to be policing posts know what's pointless or not

what needs to be done:

*A clear definition of what constitutes a "pointless" post needs to be agreed upon and set into the rules
*Some action needs to be taken against offenders rather than a PM which only annoys people and sets nothing straight
*Therefore EITHER (as much as it pains me to say it because I hate question-and-answer threads with no actual discussion) the rule ought to be fairly lenient in what it allows to pass as not pointless so as not to ban everyone for spewing crap
*OR it gets enforced properly in an attempt to make genuine discussion happen and all the threads that the 12 year olds make are sent to Spam, leaving Discuss Anything more empty and desolate than Skandair's head and we may as well delete it since anything of substance will fit in a different category anyway

[Kardan]

I actually agree with the first point you made here and personally I wouldn't edit a post like that because it's generating discussion.
I disagree with the second point, I still think that Toms point it pointless. Your post is less pointless now but would have still been better if you actually said it went over his head and/or explained why. I think you can see the Moderators confusion with that one (and mine because I believe I passed on that report to the Moderator)

It also bugs me that off topic posts are referred to as pointless, but they often do have a point to them. Tom's post isn't pointless, it's just off topic :P

Surely this post should be pointless then, since it does not talk about the topic in the thread title, and is just correcting spelling/grammar/language.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794694&p=8092463#post8092463

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, wow... and look at this classic moderation right here:

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794694&p=8092859#post8092859
And then 1 post later...
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794694&p=8092879#post8092879

Hahaha...

[e5]

Personally, I edit posts for off-topic and pointless. I wasn't aware that mods edit posts calling them pointless as apposed to off-topic, although the punishment (if we can call it that?) is the same; a PM

It also bugs me that off topic posts are referred to as pointless, but they often do have a point to them. Tom's post isn't pointless, it's just off topic :P

Surely this post should be pointless then, since it does not talk about the topic in the thread title, and is just correcting spelling/grammar/language.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794694&p=8092463#post8092463

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, wow... and look at this classic moderation right here:

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794694&p=8092859#post8092859
And then 1 post later...
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794694&p=8092879#post8092879

Hahaha...

[Phil]

It also bugs me that off topic posts are referred to as pointless, but they often do have a point to them. Tom's post isn't pointless, it's just off topic :P

Surely this post should be pointless then, since it does not talk about the topic in the thread title, and is just correcting spelling/grammar/language.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794694&p=8092463#post8092463



That's a hard one as even though it is off topic from the original question asked, he is answering someone's question. However if Jordan orginally posted "Is oftenly even a word" and nothing else, I would consider that pointless

- - - Updated - - -


Just gonna summarise the issue in a very basic form:

*We currently have a rule that has no actual punishment if it's broken
*This rule is also hugely ambiguous and is open to interpretation by whichever mod sees it
*Since the moderators are not avatars of one root being, they do not see everything the same way
*Therefore some people are being told off for breaking a rule when near identical posts aren't
*Everyone's confused because not even the people who are supposed to be policing posts know what's pointless or not

what needs to be done:

*A clear definition of what constitutes a "pointless" post needs to be agreed upon and set into the rules
*Some action needs to be taken against offenders rather than a PM which only annoys people and sets nothing straight
*Therefore EITHER (as much as it pains me to say it because I hate question-and-answer threads with no actual discussion) the rule ought to be fairly lenient in what it allows to pass as not pointless so as not to ban everyone for spewing crap
*OR it gets enforced properly in an attempt to make genuine discussion happen and all the threads that the 12 year olds make are sent to Spam, leaving Discuss Anything more empty and desolate than Skandair's head and we may as well delete it since anything of substance will fit in a different category anyway

Just letting you know I'm not ignoring this, just giving it thought atm :P

[Kardan]

That's a hard one as even though it is off topic from the original question asked, he is answering someone's question. However if Jordan orginally posted "Is oftenly even a word" and nothing else, I would consider that pointless

Ah, so... FlyingJesus; got warned because he was the first person to realise it and didn't say anything on topic... But if he was the second person to realise, and he replied to the first person - whilst still not saying anything on topic, he would have been fine.

Seems entirely logical.