Get rid of post your... junk threads

[GoldenMerc]

Maybe move them just to spam, that'll solve it. In theory it is spam
Spam meaning crap

[Kardan]

But didn't I tell you like 2 weeks ago why i post in them :S . I just find no interesting threads to my liking :(

Huh? Your reply has no context to my post you quoted?

At the moment we have these 2 solutions for these types of threads:

Close the current thread and re-open them so post count is no longer awarded.
Or, introduce new rules that restrict posting in these threads.

Now, surely the 1st option is better considering you don't care about post count? Otherwise if we pick option 2, your activity will be restricted.

[Mr-Trainor]

But didn't I tell you like 2 weeks ago why i post in them :S . I just find no interesting threads to my liking :(
I said this back when I was in the Forum department, and got told off by the then-manager :(. If there's no threads you find interesting, why not post your own and generate some discussion on a topic that you do find interesting :P?

[!x!dude!x!2]

Huh? Your reply has no context to my post you quoted?

At the moment we have these 2 solutions for these types of threads:

Close the current thread and re-open them so post count is no longer awarded.
Or, introduce new rules that restrict posting in these threads.

Now, surely the 1st option is better considering you don't care about post count? Otherwise if we pick option 2, your activity will be restricted.

This is hard :S . JK . Remove the post count in them because i would still post in it even if we didnt get a post count?

- - - Updated - - -


I said this back when I was in the Forum department, and got told off by the then-manager :(. If there's no threads you find interesting, why not post your own and generate some discussion on a topic that you do find interesting :P?

Well the forum is mostly all United Kingdom and I'm Canadian. So like if I would post something it just be about Canada. I use to post In the music thread ( Like new songs that came out ) but no one comment on them so I gave up.

[Kardan]

Now if only Shockwave.2CC; could give his opinion :P

[Mr-Trainor]

Oh and to be honest, I am against enabling post count in Spam because of the sudden significant (for some people) increases in post counts which would also mean increases in rep power as mentioned a few pages back. I don't think it'd ever happen anyway, but if it did it may be more suitable to create a new forum to replace 'Spam' and move Spam to a subforum within that, as more of an archive than anything.

[Cerys]

This is hard :S . JK . Remove the post count in them because i would still post in it even if we didnt get a post count?

Can I just ask why you post in it? Like if there wasn't any post count then there would really be no point in posting there at all - it doesn't spark a discussion and noone cares what you're watching etc

so idk what you gain from it?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Kardan]

Oh and to be honest, I am against enabling post count in Spam because of the sudden significant (for some people) increases in post counts which would also mean increases in rep power as mentioned a few pages back. I don't think it'd ever happen anyway, but if it did it may be more suitable to create a new forum to replace 'Spam' and move Spam to a subforum within that, as more of an archive than anything.

Well, it all depends if you think post count has meaning or not - clearly you do :P

I don't think it will happen either, since management currently thinks post count has meaning.

[!x!dude!x!2]

Can I just ask why you post in it? Like if there wasn't any post count then there would really be no point in posting there at all - it doesn't spark a discussion and noone cares what you're watching etc

so idk what you gain from it?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

But no one cares what you're watching in the first place ?
Like I said. I post in them because there's no thread I like I guess
But tbh. I wouldn't really care if they were closed or what. It doesn't bother me

[Yawn]

zzZZZZzzz just remove the post count and keep them where they are

[Cerys]

But no one cares what you're watching in the first place ?
Like I said. I post in them because there's no thread I like I guess
But tbh. I wouldn't really care if they were closed or what. It doesn't bother me

Ok fair enough, so you're just posting in them for the sake of it/you have nothing better to do?

Fgs nick go outside and build a snowman instead :lll

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[!x!dude!x!2]

Ok fair enough, so you're just posting in them for the sake of it/you have nothing better to do?

Fgs nick go outside and build a snowman instead :lll

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Ya it sounds about right. Like I get home from work and i'll just look around at threads then if Idon't see any new ones I like then I just post in those then I close the forum.

Are you telling me to go build one because you know it snowed yesterday ;l

[Cerys]

Ya it sounds about right. Like I get home from work and i'll just look around at threads then if Idon't see any new ones I like then I just post in those then I close the forum.

Are you telling me to go build one because you know it snowed yesterday ;l

Oh so like you're trying to make your existance known on the forum or whatever yeye ok I c

Yep exactly. go build one, do a snow angle while you're at it lazy :l

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[!x!dude!x!2]

Oh so like you're trying to make your existance known on the forum or whatever yeye ok I c

Yep exactly. go build one, do a snow angle while you're at it lazy :l

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Well I wouldn't really say "trying to make my existance known" because I know a lot of people don't like me here. So it wouldnt really brother me if people knew i was still around of anything :P

If it makes you feel better I went out yesterday to help my friend shoot a music video for this company

[Shockwave.2CC]

Now if only @Shockwave.2CC (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=53392); could give his opinion :P


Why you want my opinion for

[!x!dude!x!2]

Why you want my opinion for

should the "what are you listening to" and the "what did you last watch" and the others . be closed so no one can post in it or just remove the post count from them

[Kardan]

Why you want my opinion for

Just your thoughts on these types of thread really.

What would you think if post count was disabled for these threads?
What would you think if restrictions were put in place for posting in these threads? (E.g: You can only post here 3 times a day)

- - - Updated - - -


should the "what are you listening to" and the "what did you last watch" and the others . be closed so no one can post in it or just remove the post count from them

They wouldn't be closed, you would only be allowed to post into them 3 times a day for example.

[!x!dude!x!2]

Just your thoughts on these types of thread really.

What would you think if post count was disabled for these threads?
What would you think if restrictions were put in place for posting in these threads? (E.g: You can only post here 3 times a day)

- - - Updated - - -



They wouldn't be closed, you would only be allowed to post into them 3 times a day for example.

Actually I wouldn't care it was only " 3 times a day" that would be fine with me
But kardan what about harryzuhairi90 ? they seem to be posting in these a lot :P

[Shockwave.2CC]

I don't really know why everyone is getting so worked up on these kind of threads

But, if the post counts were disabled it would make people happy i guess and if there was a restriction then it would be fine because I only post in there like 5-10 times a day maybe

[Kardan]

Actually I wouldn't care it was only " 3 times a day" that would be fine with me
But kardan what about harryzuhairi90 ? they seem to be posting in these a lot :P

I didn't notice his activity until this thread was created :P
harryzuhairi90;

[scottish]

I don't really know why everyone is getting so worked up on these kind of threads

But, if the post counts were disabled it would make people happy i guess and if there was a restriction then it would be fine because I only post in there like 5-10 times a day maybe

The restriction mostly spoke of is 3 times a day.

So you'd prefer post count disabled?

[Shockwave.2CC]

The restriction mostly spoke of is 3 times a day.

So you'd prefer post count disabled?

Nahh i could restrict myself to 3 a day

[Kardan]

So if the people that post in the threads are happy with the restrictions, and the restrictions don't have an impact on those that don't post in those threads, it's just down to whether moderation can do it I guess.

[Shockwave.2CC]

But I still don't know why everyone's getting worked up about it

[buttons]

Actually I wouldn't care it was only " 3 times a day" that would be fine with me
But kardan what about harryzuhairi90 ? they seem to be posting in these a lot :P


I didn't notice his activity until this thread was created :P
@harryzuhairi90 (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=118199);
he's only newly active leave him alone maybe he doesn't know that it bothers u guys so much!!
th ppl who post there don't even have high post counts

[Kardan]

he's only newly active leave him alone maybe he doesn't know that it bothers u guys so much!!
th ppl who post there don't even have high post counts

I just thought it would be unfair if I only got the opinions of those that had post count in the thousands :P

[The Don]

So if the people that post in the threads are happy with the restrictions, and the restrictions don't have an impact on those that don't post in those threads, it's just down to whether moderation can do it I guess.

Yeh because shockwave speaks for everyone.....

[Kardan]

Yeh because shockwave speaks for everyone.....

Surely the only people that matter are the people that would be impacted by the restrictions, and the moderation team?

[GommeInc]

Well, part of the system *is* broken.

At the moment, Habbox says post count matters (this being shown by some forums having post count removed).

It seems wrong that you can post full sentences that relate to previous posts and get warned for pointless posting.

But you can easily post 'This series Ep 1', 'This series Ep 2', 'This series Ep 3' and not get warned (and get post count), but you don't get post count for typing '1', '2', '3' in forum games.

To make clear, the main problem isn't post count (I couldn't care if post count got disabled for everyone, or enabled everywhere) - it's more about making the rules consistent (especially when it says repeatedly posting one word answers is against the rules).
Because Series EP 1 is a separate topic of discussion. What's the point discussing EP 2 in EP 1? If there is a lot of discussion about whatever series this is then it's perfectly acceptable - if not? Well, it doesn't matter as you can just not read the thread as you're perfectly at liberty to do so. It's not exactly hard to skim read and you do not have to read every topic in the "recent posts" area.

Also, the reason the Spam forum has no post count is because it's strictly a spam forum. The problem is that the Spam forum is now its own community where users purposely post threads which they known will get attention there. It's blatantly obvious.


Just an example of the current 'pointless posting' rule, which essentially revolves around 'Don't pointless post for post count/tokens':

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799526 - Thread gets moved to spam because it's 'better suited'. Why? Is it because it's a 'Post your' thread? :P

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=798747&p=8137273#post8137273 - This post gets rightfully warned with a pointless post... but

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=798583&p=8135606#post8135606 - This post gets reported and gets refused - despite the posts being virtually identical.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=798747 - Only *some* threads get moved to spam for pointless posting

Apparently, you can post two sets of 'Congratulations' in the same congratulations thread and not get warned for pointless posting (Was reported and not warned):

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799458&p=8145702#post8145702
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799458&p=8146841#post8146841

And then of course, with these 'post your' threads, you can post 'PJs' or 'News' repeatedly, despite there being a forum rule against that.
The problem is as I said to scottish - Habbox wouldn't know the meaning of the word pointless if you white washed a wall, wrote the definition in huge letters and sat them down to read it while Stephen Fry loudly defines it in a deafening voice.

Also, isn't this being a bit anal over nothing? Your problem seems to be with the rule which I've always said has been poorly written - the "post your" threads as by the definition of the Pointless Posting rule are not pointless as they clearly have a point. Say out loud "The point behind the post your setup thread is to post my setup". That's the point, to post your setup. Same for "post what you're wearing" - if people say PJs then they've grasped the simple concept of what the point behind the thread is - to post what they're wearing.

I would go through all the maths and statistics I did the last time this discussion came up where it was discovered that the number of posts in those threads would hardly make someone a Habbox God anytime soon. It was something like, assuming 30 people have ever posted in one of those threads, they would have made about 975 posts within the 3 years of their presumed membership, which isn't a lot and quite a waste of time if that's what they're aiming for - but there's no use focusing on assumptions which is what is wrong with this thread, as it assumes people are posting in these threads to raise their post count when they may just be bored and doing for a mild kick of entertainment - which seems to be unwanted on this forum these days - "fun" is a horrible thing.

[Charz777]

Post count really isn't the issue. I understand that everyone moans about how the people posting there don't deserve post counts for all those pointless posts.

BUT. Post count aside, it's those threads that are actually the annoyance.

I don't really care for post count, I wouldn't care either way if it was removed. But what does annoy me is that every time I click the 'What's New' tab, there is the 'What are you watching/wearing/listening to' threads every time. They are so beyond pointless.

When we ran the Mole there were some complaints about our threads clogging up the games forum so they got moved together. Now I know sticking them somewhere won't stop them showing on What's New, but in the same respect they are clogging up the forum with pointless crap.

That's the only thing that bothers me about them.

So, they can't be trashed because they are 'important to history, or the last 9 years worth of posts' blah blah...' Fine. But as a community do we really think that important posts of the forum's history is what John was wearing on a Friday night 9 years ago? Because I don't think that's important. And if they are needed for history, then fine. Close them, keep them for history, but don't let it go any further... Just stop them from now on.

T'is tres annoying!

[FlyingJesus]

Why are people so bothered about their post counts? The only problem I see here is that the quality of posts might suffer, which isn't even an issue since you can just choose to ignore those threads...

Can choose to ignore porn, gore, racism, and all sorts of other things but we don't reward people for posting those


1) Post count is worthless.
2) Blame members who religiously post threads in the Spam forum. Many of the threads in there should be in other forums.
3) Again - post counts are useless - maybe stop obsessing over something so trivial.
4) They're not "forum games". How absurd.
5) One would argue obsessing over post counts is a waste of life from both sides - they're not worth anything which is a dig at the pro and anti sides.
6) Spam isn't being used for its intended purpose (as usual) though forum games could have post count enabled - it is just post count after all.

It isn't and pretty much never has been an issue of post count, as is said in this thread many many times. It's an issue of people getting rewarded for making pointless posts that are against the rules


Also, finally the biggest error in this anti logic - what's the illogical rationale behind there being a boost in "real" threads? Getting rid of a type of thread does not de facto mean an increase in other threads - if anything it will be the opposite, you're suggesting a new demographic of user will appear when this is not true.

Has anyone actually suggested this


Furthermore, you're suggesting the forum become even more miserable and anti-social. These discussions naturally exist in any type of forum.

They're not discussions (which is the entire point) and they're not social


And that falls into moderator discretion. Clearly due to the history and sheer size of some of the 'post your threads' they have been allowed to stay. Also not to mention different moderators are going to have different opinions on things which is why some stuff will always be inconsistent.

Yeah the moderator discretion idea is totally stupid, it means that there is no way to know whether your completely legitimate thread might be moved to spam because a certain moderator thinks you're trolling and won't listen to reason. It literally comes down to "shut up we can do what we want"


So is there anyone that is against post count being enabled everywhere? I don't think I've seen anyone with that opinion yet?

I am because the entire reason these threads are a problem is because they are pointless posts. Pointless posts should not be rewarded

[Kardan]

Because Series EP 1 is a separate topic of discussion. What's the point discussing EP 2 in EP 1? If there is a lot of discussion about whatever series this is then it's perfectly acceptable - if not? Well, it doesn't matter as you can just not read the thread as you're perfectly at liberty to do so. It's not exactly hard to skim read and you do not have to read every topic in the "recent posts" area.

Also, the reason the Spam forum has no post count is because it's strictly a spam forum. The problem is that the Spam forum is now its own community where users purposely post threads which they known will get attention there. It's blatantly obvious.

I feel the reasons that people post threads in spam, when they could be posted elsewhere, is because the moderation restrictions in spam are virtually gone. You feel a lot more free to have a conversation with someone without being warned.

Not sure how the other spam regulars feel about that.

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah we're not allowed conversations in other threads so why wait for e5 to come along and move it when you can put it there to begin

[GommeInc]

It isn't and pretty much never has been an issue of post count, as is said in this thread many many times. It's an issue of people getting rewarded for making pointless posts that are against the rules
Rewarded in what way? It seems entirely about post count - seeing as this thread seems to be going on about posts and more specifically about pointless posts. The last time this discussion came up it was discovered these threads do not really boost post count at all unless people literally lived in them, and as double posting rules exist it sort of defeats the way they can work anyway.


Has anyone actually suggested this
Seems to be the desired outcome.


They're not discussions (which is the entire point) and they're not social
Yet they're not pointless either - also they can be social, but members are refusing to do so. Again, the problem is the members not the topics and as you can't force members to change the way they act unless you really want to see membership drop again.


I am because the entire reason these threads are a problem is because they are pointless posts. Pointless posts should not be rewarded
They're not pointless. What your thinking is the word "useless" or "purposeless". The point behind these threads is blatantly obvious. The point is to post your "thing"...


I feel the reasons that people post threads in spam, when they could be posted elsewhere, is because the moderation restrictions in spam are virtually gone. You feel a lot more free to have a conversation with someone without being warned.

Not sure how the other spam regulars feel about that.
So the problem is with moderation and not the threads? The problem clearly is the rule. Moderators enforce the rule and are the active body - they should be moving threads from Spam to other forums just as they would do with any other threads in other forums.

[FlyingJesus]

No I'm going by the actual rule on pointless posting

[Kardan]

They're not pointless. What your thinking is the word "useless" or "purposeless". The point behind these threads is blatantly obvious. The point is to post your "thing"...

But you're only allowed to post certain 'things', posting your thread for example, is not allowed :P

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and GommeInc; as established earlier, there isn't a double posting rule in these threads, as they are adding "information". So you can double post all you like.

[Yawn]

y limit the problem (restrict 3 posts a day) when u could quite as easily eliminate the problem all together by removing post count from the thread

if ppl believe the posts to be spam then they shouldnt count for anything

[The Don]

Surely the only people that matter are the people that would be impacted by the restrictions, and the moderation team?

And more people than just shockwave use it which Is precisely my point.

[Kardan]

And more people than just shockwave use it which Is precisely my point.

Well I've tagged the 3 people that post in it everyday, is there anyone I'm missing that post more than 3 times per day in the threads?

[GommeInc]

But you're only allowed to post certain 'things', posting your thread for example, is not allowed :P

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and GommeInc; as established earlier, there isn't a double posting rule in these threads, as they are adding "information". So you can double post all you like.
Then re-establish the rule, although as they're not really a problem it would be a waste of time unless moderators enforce a qualitative post check so members add substance e.g. in "Post what you're wearing" - instead of the response "PJs", ask for the response "I'm in my PJs because I am off to bed" or some boring drivel that no one will read anyway, which happens in quite a few other threads already. The Gaming forum has a lot of ignored posts so you could argue they're useless. No one needs to know how excited you are about Assassins Creed Unity. There's a fine line and you could argue ad nauseam about how useless a post is. If anything rep gives them quality and acknowledgement.


Well I've tagged the 3 people that post in it everyday, is there anyone I'm missing that post more than 3 times per day in the threads?
How many posts are they making a day? If it's less than ten on average each then what a waste of time for a non-problem.

EDIT:
Last thing you ate seems to receive about 3 posts a day if you're lucky.
Post your Setup goes from active to inactive - it's currently the latter.
Post your Desktop same as above
Last thing you watched had 13 posts yesterday
Last thing you listened to had 5 posts yesterday
Post your music setup is inactive
Recommend a book - 6 years old and not that active - pfft, no one reads.
Post a picture of your vehicle - hasn't been posted in for a few days
What are you wearing at the moment - 2 posts yesterday and 2 post so far today

I can't help but thing this is all a lot about nothing - some of these threads are ancient and not really spammed in. Last time I did an averages test it was something like 97 posts a day on average, but some of these threads were made when membership and activity was high so it's not reliable, especially when now these threads aren't reach very high numbers (and as it's half-term at the moment it's quite worrying).

[Yawn]

the posts and entire thread is still complete trash no matter how many rules u implement -.-

[Blinger]

Is it also an issue that they're stickied threads?

[FlyingJesus]

Ryan why are you still banging on about the number of posts when it's an issue of rulebreaking

[GommeInc]

Ryan why are you still banging on about the number of posts when it's an issue of rulebreaking
You're doing what you did with the rape thread - failing to read the first post and truly understanding it - this is to do with post count. If you bothered to read Kardan's post I was replying to he even looks at post count rather than the (non)rule breaking. He was citing members who supposedly post a lot each day when a quick bit of looking shows that there are not many posts being made a day. Telling people not to reply with a counter-argument is incredibly rude.

Here are some snippets and the crux of this thread:

The main ones that are being used to boost post count.


It's so blatantly used to boost post count and everyone knows it, do something about it @Phil;


Either move them to forum games or whatever section is used for spam posts like that sort so they lose their post count and have wasted weeks of their life constantly trying to boost it (for the luls) or archive it so they keep post count and open new thread in forum games or where ever


or, enable post count in spam and forum games

it's illogical to leave it as it is.
This is all to do with post count - people are supposedly doing it to boost their post count yet there is no evidence of it. Again, no one has done their homework and jumped to conclusions. 3 posts a day in some of these threads is not spamming the forum with unruly posts. The most I've found is 10 - it's laughable that this non-issue arises and if I recall these threads are not receiving the same attention as they did the last time this (non)problem arose, people are posting less generally. I'm sure I discovered last time it was about 30 posts a day between loads of people - this has significantly changed.

Furthermore - there is no mention of the pointless posting rule at the beginning of this thread. Even further is the problem with the "pointless posting" rule breaks that are allegedly happening. Time to cite the rule:


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.
~ You may not make posts that contain plain images only. Images that includes text are allowed so long as they are relevant to the threads discussion. This rule does not apply to the forum games or spam forums.
These posts are not pointless regarding the opening remarks - they are in reply to the thread topic: An off-topic post has no relevance to the topic or any previous post that is relevant

It does not break the second area (ROFLCOPTER etc etc)
They do not break the next bit as the threads do allow for active discussion it's just that members refuse to write more to give their posts quality and as I said earlier - would it really matter? Not all posts are read or understood - quite a lot go ignored. It's a trivial matter where you're forcing people to care about something that doesn't need to be cared about - you'll be destroying the point of a forum if everyone and everything had to be serious. Furthermore, these threads do not break the forum rule as it clearly states an important clause: "What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department." This means the rule is only broken if the moderators say it is, and as these posts are not by any definition pointless the moderators are acting in accordance with the textbook definition of pointless, the fact they too seem to acknowledge this is a non problem, that these threads are in the right forums (moving them to forum games means they're in the wrong forum as they're not even games for starters) and that these threads are not being spammed in - contrary to belief.

[Yawn]

ur post is too long and says too many different things

but ur wrong gommeinc, rly wrong

[GommeInc]

ur post is too long and says too many different things

but ur wrong gommeinc, rly wrong
Post reasons why then. It's fact - those threads do not generate that many posts. It's also fact the pointless posting rule isn't being violated with these threads.

It's such a non-problem that there's a reason why every time these threads (anti-"Post your" feedback threads) end up amounting to nothing is because there is nothing wrong with them :P

[Kardan]

Post reasons why then. It's fact - those threads do not generate that many posts. It's also fact the pointless posting rule isn't being violated with these threads.

It's such a non-problem that there's a reason why every time these threads (anti-"Post your" feedback threads) end up amounting to nothing is because there is nothing wrong with them :P

Despite them being some of the biggest threads on the forum.

[FlyingJesus]

You're doing what you did with the rape thread - failing to read the first post and truly understanding it

And you're doing what you did with it; failing to see where the thread has evolved to because you don't have any genuine refutations to the newer arguments. You're also somehow still managing to not even read the rules properly despite posting them yourself.

~ Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion.
The idea that moderator discretion covers any and all abuses is absurd considering it's right there in writing with specific guidelines, and as has been said before the moderator's own ideas come into what is a singular "meaningless" post rather than being an out for them when they don't feel like upholding those parts of the rule that aren't ambiguous. Your claim that the rule is only broken if mods say so doesn't hold any water because it isn't in reference to the part about non-discussive threads - as is clear from the absence of any such wording in that part. Yet again, they do not allow for discussion as has already been covered some pages back if you cared to become clued-up on what you're trying to defend. Also again (I seem to often have to repeat myself with you as you love to bring up points that have already been countered) I nor anyone else at this stage is advocating for them to be put in Forum Games. Do try to keep up with the thread.

[Yawn]

zZZzzzz how many times does it need to be said that these do generate a lot of posts
shockerz has over 1k posts in wat are u watching alone zzZzZzz if every day they make a few posts it soon adds up

its still a problem that could be easily overcome even if its minimal posts each day. y does it need to be ignored

and just because ppl choose to not create discussion doesnt mean the thread is not just a stagnant mess of posts with no discussion at all EVER. they also clearly break the rules

the thread PROVES to create no discussion and its just ppl endlessly posting the bare minimum

[GommeInc]

And you're doing what you did with it; failing to see where the thread has evolved to because you don't have any genuine refutations to the newer arguments. You're also somehow still managing to not even read the rules properly despite posting them yourself.

~ Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion.
The idea that moderator discretion covers any and all abuses is absurd considering it's right there in writing with specific guidelines, and as has been said before the moderator's own ideas come into what is a singular "meaningless" post rather than being an out for them when they don't feel like upholding those parts of the rule that aren't ambiguous. Your claim that the rule is only broken if mods say so doesn't hold any water because it isn't in reference to the part about non-discussive threads - as is clear from the absence of any such wording in that part. Yet again, they do not allow for discussion as has already been covered some pages back if you cared to become clued-up on what you're trying to defend. Also again (I seem to often have to repeat myself with you as you love to bring up points that have already been countered) I nor anyone else at this stage is advocating for them to be put in Forum Games. Do try to keep up with the thread.
You can talk, I've been posting them - hence my reply to Kardan's post which you seem to think was ages ago when actually it was on the last page. So the bit on bold is absolute rubbish. Seems your advice needs to be taken ;) Catch up.

So as this is clearly about post count, my point still is yet to be countered - on Saturday, many of those threads only received 3 posts each. The most on Saturday was 10 in the post what you're listening to thread, by quite a few different people. Hardly shocking. As for the rule, moderator discretion has absolute power but you seem to have a habit of ignoring most of a rule and only focusing on one bit - similar to the rape thread where you hilariously made it obvious you do not know how to read legislation and kept referring to one bit but failing to read the law in general - no wonder you don't understand context!

So let's establish that:

1) These threads do not break the rules.
2) They are not pointless.
3) They are not spammed in.


zZZzzzz how many times does it need to be said that these do generate a lot of posts
shockerz has over 1k posts in wat are u watching alone zzZzZzz if every day they make a few posts it soon adds up

its still a problem that could be easily overcome even if its minimal posts each day. y does it need to be ignored

and just because ppl choose to not create discussion doesnt mean the thread is not just a stagnant mess of posts with no discussion at all EVER. they also clearly break the rules

the thread PROVES to create no discussion and its just ppl endlessly posting the bare minimum
No they don't. Use maths and look at the threads before casting wild assumptions. I highlighted that over the weekend, or Saturday specifically, the biggest offender had about 10 posts in. Shock and horror, the number of posts is painful! Furthermore, thousands of posts isn't a lot - they're worthless. If you want to obtain Forum God then you'll have to better than that, and as they're not post in that much you'll have a hard time getting to any worthwhile user group.

Post count goes with Member Ranks. Post count on its own is completely worthless (in fact, useless) and the idea people were rewarded (rebutted ages ago) was ridiculous, seeing as there weren't many posts to begin with).


Despite them being some of the biggest threads on the forum.
And oldest. What are you listening to dates back to 2009. You purposely ignored the fact that these threads are ancient and on average only produce about 30 posts per person (if the last time I checked out averages were correct). Also, loads of members have since disappeared since then so that further diminishes that argument.

[Kyle]

1) These threads do not break the rules.
2) They are not pointless.
3) They are not spammed in.
Aside from the addition the the rule last year that allowed management discretion in dealing with these threads they would be breaking rules. The only point of the threads is... well.. who knows. they are not 'spammed' but a select group of users post only in them and the majority of their post counts come from there which is imo a problem that should be addressed.

[FlyingJesus]

By genuine refutations I mean ones that make sense and don't avoid how things are actually written. It's still not about post count so you're wrong again there, and mod discretion is very clearly not absolute since it says IN THE WORDING (something you ignored in the other thread that you've for some reason brought up) what it refers to - "What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department" - which is not non-discussive posts

So let's establish that:

1) These threads do break the rules.
2) They are pointless as per the wording of the rules.
3) Whether they're spammed in or not is of no matter because that isn't the issue no matter how often you try to say it is.

[GommeInc]

Aside from the addition the the rule last year that allowed management discretion in dealing with these threads they would be breaking rules. The only point of the threads is... well.. who knows. they are not 'spammed' but a select group of users post only in them and the majority of their post counts come from there which is imo a problem that should be addressed.
So? If that's their only activity then why punish them? If they're enjoying using the forums they are of no problem. Plus the low number of posts being made in these threads daily mean they're hardly denting the number of posts on the forum. There are 7,542,272 posts. The biggest "What are you..." thread is the "What are you listening to #2" thread, which only has 29,255. Hardly a dent. In fact, given its age (I was wrong - it was created in 2005 NOT 2009) it's seen far more activity in the past than it has now.

[Yawn]

i feel like this just goes in circles

yes it is a lot and they get tokens. i dont care how little u think it apparently is its still spam and should be treated like it u pest

[GommeInc]

By genuine refutations I mean ones that make sense and don't avoid how things are actually written. It's still not about post count so you're wrong again there, and mod discretion is very clearly not absolute since it says IN THE WORDING (something you ignored in the other thread that you've for some reason brought up) what it refers to - "What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department" - which is not non-discussive posts

So let's establish that:

1) These threads do break the rules.
2) They are pointless as per the wording of the rules.
3) Whether they're spammed in or not is of no matter because that isn't the issue no matter how often you try to say it is.
Are you really blind? Can you not read?

Read Kyle's post above yours: "...a select group of users post only in them and the majority of their post counts come from there which is imo a problem that should be addressed."

Kardan also said "...there isn't a double posting rule in these threads, as they are adding "information". So you can double post all you like."

They're arguing it is about post count. In fact, you're the only one arguing it isn't and still not acknowledging they're not breaking the rules as again, moderators have discretion.

Can you really not read this part of the rule? You seem to not understand plain and simple English:
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.

So:
1) They do not break the rules
2) They are not pointless as per the wording of the rules
3) Yes it is, you're the only arguing otherwise but are too blind to read others people posts.


i feel like this just goes in circles

yes it is a lot and they get tokens. i dont care how little u think it apparently is its still spam and should be treated like it u pest
Dictionary:
Spamming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming)
Spam (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/spam.html)
Urban Dictionary Spam (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spam)

It's not spam.

[FlyingJesus]

I do understand English very well, obviously far better than you as you seem to believe that "pointless or abuse" is the same thing as "do not promote active discussion". Hint: they're different things. Does it say "what is classed as discussive"? Pretty sure it doesn't, so that is not what it means. You're just making things up here

As for the post count thing, that's only as a consequence of them being rule-breaking posts. No-one is suggesting that posting lots is a bad thing, only that posting lots of rule-breaking posts is.

[Yawn]

spam by forums definition who cares the point still stands zzZZzzz

[GommeInc]

I do understand English very well, obviously far better than you as you seem to believe that "pointless or abuse" is the same thing as "do not promote active discussion". Hint: they're different things. Does it say "what is classed as discussive"? Pretty sure it doesn't, so that is not what it means. You're just making things up here

As for the post count thing, that's only as a consequence of them being rule-breaking posts. No-one is suggesting that posting lots is a bad thing, only that posting lots of rule-breaking posts is.
Yet they're not breaking the rules. Hence why they're left. Moderators have discretion after all, something you keep refusing to accept. Furthermore, they're harmless which is probably why moderators do not care. They're simple to ignore and do no damage. Why this obsession exists is beyond me, as they're not bad nor are they good - they're normal for forums.


spam by forums definition who cares the point still stands zzZZzzz
Which is? You keep changing your point so it's hard to know what it is. The neo-definition of spam these days is someone obsessively and continuously posting something somewhere. As these are not posted in that much that definition doesn't really apply here.

[FlyingJesus]

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

Yes
They
Do

[GommeInc]

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

Yes
They
Do
And what comes directly after that bit? ;)

~ 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.

I hate having to stop people from purposely missing out information. Reminds me of a certain thread :rolleyes:

So...

No
They
Don't

[FlyingJesus]

Holy breadbuckets that was explained literally one post ago learn to read

[Yawn]

:frust::frust::frust::frust::frust:

stop patronising ppl ur the 1 that doesnt get it

[GommeInc]

So moderators do not have discretion?


:frust::frust::frust::frust::frust:

stop patronising ppl ur the 1 that doesnt get it
Says the one who doesn't know what spam is and probably hasn't seen these threads. If you have you would know how little they're posted in, coupled with how old they are.

[FlyingJesus]

Yes they do, over WHAT POSTS ARE POINTLESS OR ABUSE. The part of the rule these threads break is about threads that do not actively promote discussion. That is not the same thing, hence the different words.

[GommeInc]

Yes they do, over WHAT POSTS ARE POINTLESS OR ABUSE. The part of the rule these threads break is about threads that do not actively promote discussion.
Yet moderators have discretion over what is pointless and abuse. It's in the exact same line as that part of the rule. Do you really need it C&P'd again for you to understand?

EDIT: Interestingly, What are you listening to? only received 9 posts yesterday - that's one less compared to the day before. One user made 3 of those posts. Crikey, he'll be Habbox God in about 6,667 days or 18 years if you prefer years.

[Yawn]

So moderators do not have discretion?


Says the one who doesn't know what spam is and probably hasn't seen these threads. If you have you would know how little they're posted in, coupled with how old they are.

are u trying to tell me that shockerz having 1k posts in wat are u watching (5k tokens, 1 gold bars worth) isnt a lot?

they CLEARLY break the forum pointless posting rules so are spam. dont care if u dont think wat the forum considers spam is definitively correct or not that isnt the point :facepalm:

[GommeInc]

are u trying to tell me that shockerz having 1k posts in wat are u watching (5k tokens, 1 gold bars worth) isnt a lot?

they CLEARLY break the forum pointless posting rules so are spam. dont care if u dont think wat the forum considers spam is definitively correct or not that isnt the point :facepalm:
You've contradicted yourself. It is spam, but what the forum considers as spam isn't the point whether or not it is correct? So you're arguing what exactly? They're not overly posted in, correct? They receive quite a small amount. You'd be better off posting in other threads if you want a larger post count - and then you get the arguments of what makes a quality post.

Also, who is shockerz? The only person I've found in that thread is shockwave and he's been a member since 2008 and having 4,763 posts averages to about 793 posts a year. Not that much really. A name change is 300 posts to get 1,500 tokens.

[FlyingJesus]

Yet moderators have discretion over what is pointless and abuse. It's in the exact same line as that part of the rule. Do you really need it C&P'd again for you to understand?

If I write a paragraph that mentions winning the Premiership and later notes that I scored a hat-trick at the park yesterday does that mean I'm a Premiership goalscorer? Two separate clauses are just that; separate clauses. Do you really need this said again for you to understand?

- - - Updated - - -

"Who is shockerz? I've found shockwave" says it all about your comprehension skills really

[GommeInc]

If I write a paragraph that mentions winning the Premiership and later notes that I scored a hat-trick at the park yesterday does that mean I'm a Premiership goalscorer? Two separate clauses are just that; separate clauses. Do you really need this said again for you to understand?

- - - Updated - - -

"Who is shockerz? I've found shockwave" says it all about your comprehension skills really
Ah, so you wrote the rule and know the two are separate? If they are together, then moderator discretion is limited. However, you're arguing it's a separate clause which means that moderators have even more discretion. Going from how the moderators act and the wording - they have discretion over what is pointless and abuse, and seeing as the rule is about pointless posting I shall assume they determine what is pointless in the grand scheme of things. Either way your argument doesn't work. You're grasping at straws, much like when you were trying to tell me how to read legislation which was the funniest thing I have seen - you really did think legislation was about picking and choosing when the offence you were badly citing had to be read as a whole to be guilty of an offence, so don't argue comprehensive skills (especially when you didn't realise people were talking about post count yet lacked the capacity to read their posts - which is a bit rude).

Also, if shockerz does abuse that thread, he's doing a bad job of it. In the last few days he hasn't posted much and irrespective of this he's hardly gaining much from it. He's a 2008 member with quite a low post count.

[Yawn]

You've contradicted yourself. It is spam, but what the forum considers as spam isn't the point whether or not it is correct? So you're arguing what exactly? They're not overly posted in, correct? They receive quite a small amount. You'd be better off posting in other threads if you want a larger post count - and then you get the arguments of what makes a quality post.

Also, who is shockerz? The only person I've found in that thread is shockwave and he's been a member since 2008 and having 4,763 posts averages to about 793 posts a year. Not that much really. A name change is 300 posts to get 1,500 tokens.

wat even?

[Kardan]

You've contradicted yourself. It is spam, but what the forum considers as spam isn't the point whether or not it is correct? So you're arguing what exactly? They're not overly posted in, correct? They receive quite a small amount. You'd be better off posting in other threads if you want a larger post count - and then you get the arguments of what makes a quality post.

Also, who is shockerz? The only person I've found in that thread is shockwave and he's been a member since 2008 and having 4,763 posts averages to about 793 posts a year. Not that much really. A name change is 300 posts to get 1,500 tokens.

Averages are a really poor way of measuring data.

For example, the average human has less than 2 arms.

- - - Updated - - -

And the average number of posts on this forum per week is something like 0.04 posts.

[GommeInc]

Averages are a really poor way of measuring data.

For example, the average human has less than 2 arms.
Agreed, hence why it's better to just look at the last few days. So 9 posts in What are you listening to? #2 on Saturday and 8 yesterday isn't an alarming number, especially when the supposedly bad members who have abused these threads would have to take years to get any real benefit from them.

[Yawn]

no it is better to look at the whole picture :facepalm: kardan posted a breakdown of the main culprits post count and yes it is alarming

shockWAVES has 1k posts in 1 of these threads which = 5k tokens = 1 gold bar (for wat the 3rd time i told u this???) THAT is alarming is it not?

[FlyingJesus]

Ah, so you wrote the rule and know the two are separate?

No, I read the rule and know.


If they are together, then moderator discretion is limited. However, you're arguing it's a separate clause which means that moderators have even more discretion. Going from how the moderators act and the wording - they have discretion over what is pointless and abuse, and seeing as the rule is about pointless posting I shall assume they determine what is pointless in the grand scheme of things.

I don't get how you still can't see that there is a difference between the words "pointless" and "non-discussive"


You're grasping at straws, much like when you were trying to tell me how to read legislation which was the funniest thing I have seen - you really did think legislation was about picking and choosing when the offence you were badly citing had to be read as a whole to be guilty of an offence, so don't argue comprehensive skills (especially when you didn't realise people were talking about post count yet lacked the capacity to read their posts - which is a bit rude).

That isn't what I thought at all, in that thread you were also making things up that I never wrote. You are terrible at debates because you do not read what is written and instead come up with your own half-arguments that haven't even existed. You also told me that laws "had to be read as a whole" and then tried backing it up using only parts which was quite hilarious, but that's not actually got anything to do with this thread so I don't know why you keep going on about it.


Also, if shockerz does abuse that thread, he's doing a bad job of it. In the last few days he hasn't posted much and irrespective of this he's hardly gaining much from it. He's a 2008 member with quite a low post count.

The point of it is that all use of those threads is abuse of it. We don't let people get away with posting a bit of porn or a few pictures of dead babies, and while those are clearly more extreme it's still about rule breaking not being acted upon.

[The Don]

Tom you seem to think you know better than the rules. If the discretion clause was meant to apply to a different rule it would be located next to it and not where it is currently. What you think the rule should be and what it actually is are two different things.

[GommeInc]

No, I read the rule and know.
So you know they're separate... how? Looking at the other rules, each part of the rule is to be read as a whole. So each ~ is a provision. Also, you've fallen into an obvious trap. If each sentence in the rule is a separate provision, then the bit saying "moderators have discretion" still reigns supreme over the entire rule - so your argument is terribly flawed :P So this has been solved - these posts do not break that rule because it ultimately comes down to moderator discretion. You can't pick and choose, and you've made a terrible error in your judgement.


I don't get how you still can't see that there is a difference between the words "pointless" and "non-discussive"
Seeing as this is about supposedly pointless posts I honestly do not care. As it's been continuously laid out, these posts are not pointless, nor are the threads. This is such a non-problem it's incredibly boring to discuss. Non-discussive? Not all posts are going to be - not everyone reads posts in a thread but they rely on the topic and make a post on that. It happens all the time in the forums. You would have to be naive to assume members will read every post in a thread. Look at the debates forum - loads of posts lack any replies so clearly they've not added to a discussion as they've been overlooked. Shall we force members to reply to every post they see so posts create discussion?


That isn't what I thought at all, in that thread you were also making things up that I never wrote. You are terrible at debates because you do not read what is written and instead come up with your own half-arguments that haven't even existed. You also told me that laws "had to be read as a whole" and then tried backing it up using only parts which was quite hilarious, but that's not actually got anything to do with this thread so I don't know why you keep going on about it.
You did write them - I kept pointing you to the exact posts you made because you kept getting confused. You're a terrible person to discuss things with because you change your mind, deny things you've written and refuse to acknowledge key flaws in your argument (the one above being a new one. If sentences are to be taken as separate "clauses" then moderator discretion is key - the rule is therefore not being broken. You made a error there). The rape thread made it clear you do not take arguments seriously and if you do, you refuse to accept how wrong you are. The fact that it wasn't rape even if a man had done it was ultimately made you lose that argument - a woman got a longer sentence and tougher punishment compared to a man in the same state for what was a worse/equal to offence.


The point of it is that all use of those threads is abuse of it. We don't let people get away with posting a bit of porn or a few pictures of dead babies, and while those are clearly more extreme it's still about rule breaking not being acted upon.
They're not being abused - the number of posts in those threads are trivial. It's not even rule breaking - you accepted that when you made the terrible error in your argument that the rule isn't meant to be read as a whole, forgetting that moderator discretion is alive and well.

Honestly, this is so meaningless. Threads like that always exist on forums "What did you do today?" etc are all common place on forums. If people enjoy posting in those threads then let them, especially when they clearly are doing no damage what so ever. Anally following rules at the detriment of user enjoyment creates a dictatorship. It's like having a fun police - a contradiction in terms that should never be allowed, especially when these threads are clearly not being abused not causing any problems other than somehow annoying irrational members with perhaps too much time on their hands.


no it is better to look at the whole picture :facepalm: kardan posted a breakdown of the main culprits post count and yes it is alarming

shockWAVES has 1k posts in 1 of these threads which = 5k tokens = 1 gold bar (for wat the 3rd time i told u this???) THAT is alarming is it not?
Going by his post count that's 1/5 of his activity. Hardly a problem and 1k posts isn't that much seeing as he's been a member since 2008. Furthermore, does the forum even recognise past posts when calculating tokens? Because if it doesn't then this is in fact wrong.

[FlyingJesus]

Tom you seem to think you know better than the rules. If the discretion clause was meant to apply to a different rule it would be located next to it and not where it is currently. What you think the rule should be and what it actually is are two different things.

If the discretion clause was supposed to apply to that part it would say so. It does not. It says explicitly what it refers to.


So you know they're separate... how?

Because of what the words say.


If each sentence in the rule is a separate provision, then the bit saying "moderators have discretion" still reigns supreme over the entire rule - so your argument is terribly flawed :P So this has been solved - these posts do not break that rule because it ultimately comes down to moderator discretion. You can't pick and choose, and you've made a terrible error in your judgement.

That's not true at all because you're still refusing to read it. "Moderators have discretion" is not what it says, "What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department" is what it says. That is very specific. I'm not the one picking and choosing here, you're leaving out vital parts of the wording to fit with your flawed argument.


Non-discussive? Not all posts are going to be

Of course not, but the rule is about creating threads that don't promote discussion, not about every post in existence needing to be replied to.


Shall we force members to reply to every post they see so posts create discussion?

Of course not, but the rule is about creating threads that don't promote discussion, not about every post in existence needing to be replied to.
I seem to have to do a lot of repeating with you, largely because you keep creating arguments that I haven't put forward.


The fact that it wasn't rape even if a man had done it was ultimately made you lose that argument - a woman got a longer sentence and tougher punishment compared to a man in the same state for what was a worse/equal to offence.

Not that that has anything at all to do with this thread but sex with an non-consenting individual is rape, and minors legally cannot consent to sex - something that you tried claiming otherwise and brought up all sorts of non-related ideas to try to push.


It's not even rule breaking - you accepted that when you made the terrible error in your argument that the rule isn't meant to be read as a whole, forgetting that moderator discretion is alive and well.

Yes it is, congrats on again showing your inability to read by seeing only the parts of the rule that you want to see.


Honestly, this is so meaningless. Threads like that always exist on forums "What did you do today?" etc are all common place on forums. If people enjoy posting in those threads then let them, especially when they clearly are doing no damage what so ever. Anally following rules at the detriment of user enjoyment creates a dictatorship.

Not saying to stop them posting so not looking to stop anyone's enjoyment. Look at that, you're making things up again.

[GommeInc]

If the discretion clause was supposed to apply to that part it would say so. It does not. It says explicitly what it refers to.
You stated this:

If I write a paragraph that mentions winning the Premiership and later notes that I scored a hat-trick at the park yesterday does that mean I'm a Premiership goalscorer? Two separate clauses are just that; separate clauses. Do you really need this said again for you to understand?
So it's a separate clause, correct? "What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department." Therefore, moderators have absolute discretion over what is pointless and guess what? The rule is about pointless posting, ergo the threads are not against the rules. If anything the rule contradicts itself, but many standard rules like this do, and as the forum department is the authority their discretion is absolute. Coupled with the rule about leaving moderation to the moderators, it's blatantly obvious that moderators have discretion and, as I seem to have to repeat, these threads do not break the rules unless the forum department says so. As they clearly are not anal over this, they clearly are using the rule as written to give themselves said discretion but not giving a damn, as the matter is so trivial there's no point splitting hairs over it.

Seriously, it's easy to make you argue with yourself as you continuously contradict yourself. One moment you state that not all things are separate then you say they're specific. You put a new spin on "stop hitting yourself" with "stop arguing with yourself".


as pointless or abuse[/B] is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department" is what it says. That is very specific. I'm not the one picking and choosing here, you're leaving out vital parts of the wording to fit with your flawed argument.
And what is the rule in general? About pointless posting therefore they have discretion to choose what is pointless and not - therefore they're not against the rules. It's pretty obvious - a rule about pointless posting with a standard clause saying what is consider pointless under the rule is down to the discretion of the moderators.


Of course not, but the rule is about creating threads that don't promote discussion, not about every post in existence needing to be replied to.
Actually it's a sub-section of a greater rule about pointless posting - so that's not true. The rule is about pointless posting in general. The bit about active discussion falls under the rule of pointless posting, but isn't a rule by itself - hence why it comes under A7. Do not post pointlessly.


Of course not, but the rule is about creating threads that don't promote discussion, not about every post in existence needing to be replied to.
I seem to have to do a lot of repeating with you, largely because you keep creating arguments that I haven't put forward.
See above, you're badly misreading the rule thinking threads that do not create discussion are under some new rule that doesn't exist - they're in actual covered by a much broader rule on pointless posting in general. Coupled with the fact that you yourself stated that not all clauses are to be read as a single clause but separate you've kind of tripped up on yourself, particularly where rule A9 Leave moderating to the moderators comes into question and the now separate clause of "What is considered pointless or abuse is down to the discretion of the moderators. So yeah, they're not breaking any rule unless the moderators say so, not someone or a group of people who seem to obsess over harmless threads.


Not that that has anything at all to do with this thread but sex with an non-consenting individual is rape, and minors legally cannot consent to sex - something that you tried claiming otherwise and brought up all sorts of non-related ideas to try to push.
And we discovered how wrong you were, seeing as it was your baseless opinion. Firstly, educated people such as doctors, judges and the Government discovered that children can actually legally consent to medical treatment and sex. Secondly, children (specifically under 16s - over 13s) do have sex and the huge flaw in your logic is that if a 14 year old has sex with another 14 year old they are both rapists... So anyone under 16 having sex with another under 16 is de facto a rapist? Amazing logic - well done. Furthermore, you assumed the law is black and white, much like your take on life it seems. Children can legally have sex, but an adult cannot legally have sex with someone under the age of 16. The law works both ways and isn't black and white. Hence your argument was ridiculous and you refused to read my evidence and proclaimed through your own arrogant ignorance that your opinion is apparently greater over the opinions of actual, education men and women

If children have the capacity to consent and understand things, then the punishment on the adult should be lessened, unless it was against the over 13's volition and they were, in a sense, forced to have sex. Rape is a much more heinous crime than you bother to admit. Not forgetting your examples on cases which were apparently rape (even though they weren't) were incredibly stupid - especially when a quick Google search revealed a man who did something similar wasn't convicted of rape yet apparently he would or should have been under your supposed logic. But I guess you were just shooting hot air without really knowing the full story :rolleyes:


Yes it is, congrats on again showing your inability to read by seeing only the parts of the rule that you want to see.
See above to how much of a hypocrite you are. Moderators have absolute discretion. If you bothered looking beyond what you want to see you would also note Rule 9 which reflects how moderators have absolute discretion vover rule breaking. But given the rape thread and this thread your inability to read should be pretty obvious now. You see just what you want to see, and do not bother to see the fuller picture :rolleyes:


Not saying to stop them posting so not looking to stop anyone's enjoyment. Look at that, you're making things up again.
Never said you were, it was blatantly a passing judgement over how ridiculous this thread and past threads are. They do not do any harm, they clearly do not break the rules and they provide enjoyment to members, so there's no need to punish people for harmless activity.

[Kyle]

look at more than just last few days or since the thread began

look at thread for last 3-6 months or something

[GommeInc]

look at more than just last few days or since the thread began

look at thread for last 3-6 months or something
What are you referring to? You've lost me :)

[Kyle]

What are you referring to? You've lost me :)
the points people keep raising about "oh shockwave onlyposted x times in last few days" or "oh it's barely any posts since 2005 when the thread began".

need to look at number of posts people are making since the thread became a problem and began to be exploited to get a clearer picture of the problem.

[GommeInc]

the points people keep raising about "oh shockwave onlyposted x times in last few days" or "oh it's barely any posts since 2005 when the thread began".

need to look at number of posts people are making since the thread became a problem and began to be exploited to get a clearer picture of the problem.
Depends if it ever really became a problem. Seeing as he's been a member since 2008 and most of his posts have been made elsewhere it sort of hints it's not quite as big a problem. Coupled with how posts are not worth much and that activity should generally be awarded, it seems about right really. He's been here since 2008, maybe he's earned the gold bar?

Also, does the token system take into account posts before it was implemented? I may secretly be a millionaire and not know it.

[Kyle]

Depends if it ever really became a problem. Seeing as he's been a member since 2008 and most of his posts have been made elsewhere it sort of hints it's not quite as big a problem. Coupled with how posts are not worth much and that activity should generally be awarded, it seems about right really. He's been here since 2008, maybe he's earned the gold bar?

Also, does the token system take into account posts before it was implemented? I may secretly be a millionaire and not know it.
no it doesn't, which is one of the reasons it could have become a problem, since certain people may have only become 'active' in these threads since the introduction of the token system. not being a huge problem does not take away from the fact that it is still a problem.

[GommeInc]

no it doesn't, which is one of the reasons it could have become a problem, since certain people may have only become 'active' in these threads since the introduction of the token system. not being a huge problem does not take away from the fact that it is still a problem.
But you would literally have to post loads to reap any reward, and as we've discovered there's not really many posts being made - not in the biggest problem threads from what I've seen. It may have been a problem when it was first introduced, but it seems to have solved itself - maybe through members being bored? Dealing with it now is like going to put out a house fire when it's already gone out and a new house has already been built in its place :P

[FlyingJesus]

You stated this:

So it's a separate clause, correct? "What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department." Therefore, moderators have absolute discretion over what is pointless and guess what? The rule is about pointless posting, ergo the threads are not against the rules. If anything the rule contradicts itself, but many standard rules like this do, and as the forum department is the authority their discretion is absolute. Coupled with the rule about leaving moderation to the moderators, it's blatantly obvious that moderators have discretion and, as I seem to have to repeat, these threads do not break the rules unless the forum department says so. As they clearly are not anal over this, they clearly are using the rule as written to give themselves said discretion but not giving a damn, as the matter is so trivial there's no point splitting hairs over it.

Seriously, it's easy to make you argue with yourself as you continuously contradict yourself. One moment you state that not all things are separate then you say they're specific. You put a new spin on "stop hitting yourself" with "stop arguing with yourself".

You are deliberately not reading properly, I'm sure of it. No-one's actually this stupid without trying. You're trying to tell me that separate and specific are opposites, really? I'm not contradicting myself at all because "these things are different" is the same as "these things are different". There is no room for discretion when a point is totally specific, so obviously (to anyone with a brain) discretion cannot apply to all areas.


See above, you're badly misreading the rule thinking threads that do not create discussion are under some new rule that doesn't exist - they're in actual covered by a much broader rule on pointless posting in general. Coupled with the fact that you yourself stated that not all clauses are to be read as a single clause but separate you've kind of tripped up on yourself, particularly where rule A9 Leave moderating to the moderators comes into question and the now separate clause of "What is considered pointless or abuse is down to the discretion of the moderators. So yeah, they're not breaking any rule unless the moderators say so, not someone or a group of people who seem to obsess over harmless threads.

Again trying to suggest that absolutes are up for discussion. There cannot be discretion over points that are quantitatively one or another.


And we discovered how wrong you were, seeing as it was your baseless opinion. Firstly, educated people such as doctors, judges and the Government discovered that children can actually legally consent to medical treatment and sex. Secondly, children (specifically under 16s - over 13s) do have sex and the huge flaw in your logic is that if a 14 year old has sex with another 14 year old they are both rapists... So anyone under 16 having sex with another under 16 is de facto a rapist? Amazing logic - well done.

Clearly you didn't read that thread either. Medical treatment has nothing to do with sex, and two minors engaging in sex has nothing to do with an adult having sex with a minor. You are adept at comparing irrelevant points, not so good at sticking to what's actually being discussed


Furthermore, you assumed the law is black and white, much like your take on life it seems. Children can legally have sex, but an adult cannot legally have sex with someone under the age of 16.

Which is what the thread was about. Cheers.


Never said you were, it was blatantly a passing judgement over how ridiculous this thread and past threads are. They do not do any harm, they clearly do not break the rules and they provide enjoyment to members, so there's no need to punish people for harmless activity.

Good of you to admit that you're making things up for the sake of looking like you have a valid point, but there's no need to continue doing so by pretending that anyone's calling for punishments.

[GommeInc]

You are deliberately not reading properly, I'm sure of it. No-one's actually this stupid without trying. You're trying to tell me that separate and specific are opposites, really? I'm not contradicting myself at all because "these things are different" is the same as "these things are different". There is no room for discretion when a point is totally specific, so obviously (to anyone with a brain) discretion cannot apply to all areas.
So you admit you contradicted yourself when you said that they are separate clauses (clauses being each "~" - can't believe I've had to point that out. A clause isn't a sentence, it's a point - maybe if you learnt how to read since the rape thread you would know what a clause or a provision is) and then are now trying to argue they are specific e.g. each sentence- even though you've failed to read the rule again by ignoring the sentence between "active discussion" and moderator discretion? Good. So moderators do have discretion over what is pointless and abuse. Guess what that means? It's not against the rules. So you've finally after x amount of pages discovered that moderators have discretion over what is pointless.


Clearly you didn't read that thread either. Medical treatment has nothing to do with sex, and two minors engaging in sex has nothing to do with an adult having sex with a minor. You are adept at comparing irrelevant points, not so good at sticking to what's actually being discussed
Clearly you failed to read the thread and everything I said - consent is universal. It's not picked and chosen like what you keep doing to the pointless posting rule which clearly states that what is pointless and abuse is down to what the moderators think - in plain English terms.


Which is what the thread was about. Cheers.
No it wasn't, it was about a woman who allegedly raped a child. Your point was had a man done it then he would be called a rapist. This was in fact false as a man who had done the same was convicted of sexual intercourse/sex with a minor (someone under 16 but over 13) which isn't rape other than in your uneducated over opinionated mind. It was ultimately about rape, a very specific crime. You were too ignorant to look up the theory behind it as it's very specific and heinous crime. So no it wasn't and you know it wasn't.


Good of you to admit that you're making things up for the sake of looking like you have a valid point, but there's no need to continue doing so by pretending that anyone's calling for punishments.
So what is your point exactly? You want the rule enforced? That would punish members - if they are posting comments which do not promote active discussion as per the rule. It clearly is about punishing members from doing something that gives them entertainment. I can't believe how daft you have been this last year. If you don't want members to be punished then clearly you have no clue what you're arguing and are possibly doing it to annoy or troll. If don't want them punished, then you don't want anything to change and must surely admit it clearly isn't about the rule as any rule change will lead to punishing or restricting what members can do, which would lead to red writing everywhere which is, guess what? A punishment.

[FlyingJesus]

So you admit you contradicted yourself when you said that they are separate clauses (clauses being each "~" - can't believe I've had to point that out. A clause isn't a sentence, it's a point - maybe if you learnt how to read since the rape thread you would know what a clause or a provision is) and then are now trying to argue they are specific e.g. each sentence- even though you've failed to read the rule again by ignoring the sentence between "active discussion" and moderator discretion? Good. So moderators do have discretion over what is pointless and abuse. Guess what that means? It's not against the rules. So you've finally after x amount of pages discovered that moderators have discretion over what is pointless.

In grammar, a clause is the smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition. I'm not speaking legalese, I'm speaking English.


No it wasn't, it was about a woman who allegedly raped a child. Your point was had a man done it then he would be called a rapist. This was in fact false as a man who had done the same was convicted of sexual intercourse/sex with a minor (someone under 16 but over 13) which isn't rape other than in your uneducated over opinionated mind. It was ultimately about rape, a very specific crime. You were too ignorant to look up the theory behind it as it's very specific and heinous crime. So no it wasn't and you know it wasn't.

I do love it when people try telling me what I meant as though they know me better than I do. It's great because it makes it easy to tell that they're an idiot.


So what is your point exactly? You want the rule enforced? That would punish members

No it wouldn't as the intended fix is to give these threads their own area for people who pretend to enjoy non-discussive posting, not to get rid of it or to ban everyone who's involved.


It clearly is about punishing members from doing something that gives them entertainment.

Clearly isn't since no punishment has been mentioned.


I can't believe how daft you have been this last year. If you don't want members to be punished then clearly you have no clue what you're arguing and are possibly doing it to annoy or troll. If don't want them punished, then you don't want anything to change and must surely admit it clearly isn't about the rule as any rule change will lead to punishing or restricting what members can do, which would lead to red writing everywhere which is, guess what? A punishment.

Or perhaps you could look at what's actually being suggested, that would be a good idea. I have not put forth any suggestion for restricting what anyone can do - you're yet again fighting with shadows.

[GommeInc]

In grammar, a clause is the smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition. I'm not speaking legalese, I'm speaking English.
So you do admit that moderators have discretion when it comes to what is pointless and abuse? If we use the standard definition of clause, then "What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department" is it's own clause as is "Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion." However, as moderators are the only ones to punish members by enforcing the rules, it is blatantly obvious that the discretion clause takes precedence - not forgetting the fact it's in the Terms and Conditions (which I've read but clearly you haven't but you do seem to focus on something small and do not take in the bigger picture).


I do love it when people try telling me what I meant as though they know me better than I do. It's great because it makes it easy to tell that they're an idiot.
Ah, argumentum ad hominem ;) When people resort to that they admit they're wrong, and as you clearly said in black and white that "if a man were to have done the same thing, he would be called a rapist" and you deny it one can only deduce that you're in denial. As it was not true it showed you clearly do not know what the offence entails. Heck, other members knew this too - you were the only one not to.


No it wouldn't as the intended fix is to give these threads their own area for people who pretend to enjoy non-discussive posting, not to get rid of it or to ban everyone who's involved.
Oh so you did not say:

Ryan why are you still banging on about the number of posts when it's an issue of rulebreaking
No mention of placing them in a separate forum - which isn't mentioned in the rule at all. I can't read your mind and if you can't be bothered to post this suggestion then forgive me for lacking this ability. Not that it matters as you're clearly changing your argument where you've failed to support another.

Also, putting these in one forum is absurd as they're on topic in the forums they're in. Furthermore, by placing them in Forum Games (when they're not games) or in a specific forum contradicts general moderator practice where threads should be in the most appropriate forum. So "What are you watching?" is on-topic and relevant in TV and Film. Also, do you really want to move Post your Desktop and Post your Setup from Technology? Or are you going to suggest picking and choosing what can and can't go in there based on subjective reasoning? :rolleyes: Not that this matters as you stated this is about rulebreaking according to you and not what forum they should be in.


Clearly isn't since no punishment has been mentioned.
Rules generally tend to be about enforcing them, which involves punishment. Look at the current way rules are enforced - red writing, infractions and/or bans - punishments.


Or perhaps you could look at what's actually being suggested, that would be a good idea. I have not put forth any suggestion for restricting what anyone can do - you're yet again fighting with shadows.
Moving these threads into another forum when they're on-topic and relevant in their current forums is ridiculous and absurd, especially when they're harmless. I said that ages ago but you decided to ignore those posts and focus on the rule, even though you messed up that argument by failing to read it properly. The Don even picked you out on it.

[FlyingJesus]

So you do admit that moderators have discretion when it comes to what is pointless and abuse? If we use the standard definition of clause, then "What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department" is it's own clause as is "Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion."

Yes that is exactly what I have been saying. It does not however follow that:


as moderators are the only ones to punish members by enforcing the rules, it is blatantly obvious that they have absolute discretion.

Because that is not stated. Something that is "blatantly obvious" is what's written down.


Ah, argumentum ad hominem ;) When people resort to that they admit they're wrong

Fab stuff

Are you really blind? Can you not read?

Says the one who doesn't know what spam is

lacked the capacity to read their posts

You're a terrible person to discuss things with

you do not take arguments seriously

annoying irrational members with perhaps too much time on their hands.

how much of a hypocrite you are.


Oh so you did not say:

No mention of placing them in a separate forum - which isn't mentioned in the forum at all Again, you're changing your argument where you've failed to support another.

Oh no, a whole post where I didn't lay out the entirety of my opinion. It has been s (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146053#post8146053)p (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146651#post8146651)o (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146625#post8146625)k (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8147776#post8147776)e (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146552#post8146552)n (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146275#post8146275) a (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8147730#post8147730)b (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8149951#post8149951)o (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146436#post8146436)u (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146543#post8146543)t (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146281#post8146281) a (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146608#post8146608)t (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146562#post8146562) l (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146561#post8146561)e (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146615#post8146615)n (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146279#post8146279)g (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146442#post8146442)t (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146233#post8146233)h (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8149953#post8149953)* in this very thread (although I disagree with them going to either Spam or Forum Games as some have said), I'm not changing my argument at all.

*each of these letters is a separate post which you seem to have missed out on


Also, putting these in one forum is absurd as they're on topic in the forums they're in.

If the prior mention of a plugin or some such device to make singular threads not have post counts comes to fruition then I have no problem with their placement, merely their function


Furthermore, by placing them in Forum Games (when they're not games) or in a specific forum contradicts general moderator practice where threads should be in the most appropriate forum. So "What are you watching?" is on-topic and relevant in TV and Film.

As above, also quite hilarious that you worry about contradicting general moderator practice when such behaviour would also dictate moving these threads for breaking the rules ;) although having said that, if the new area was named Non-Discussive Threads or something similar that would then be the most appropriate forum for them anyway


Also, do you really want to move Post your Desktop and Post your Setup from Technology? Or are you going to suggest picking and choosing what can and can't go in there based on subjective reasoning? :rolleyes: Not that this matters as you stated this is about rulebreaking according to you and not what forum they should be in.

I can't claim to know those ones so well, but if they aren't areas of conversation then again they are of the same ilk - however I have been told previously that they do involve discussion because they're things people actually like to talk about. So yeah depends on their content


Rules generally tend to be about enforcing them, which involves punishment. Look at the current way rules are enforced - red writing, infractions and/or bans - punishments.

And yet none of this has been suggested. Moving threads or removing post counts from them involves none of those things, and if the current ones are closed then recreated (as has been suggested often) there's no detriment to anyone whatsoever.


Moving these threads into another forum when they're on-topic and relevant in their current forums is ridiculous and absurd, especially when they're harmless. I said that ages ago but you decided to ignore those posts and focus on the rule, even though you messed up that argument by failing to read it properly. The Don even picked you out on it.

Well done you, but apparently you've decided to ignore all posts refuting this and focus on post count, even though you messed up that argument by failing to count properly. Kyle and Kardan even picked you out on it.

[GommeInc]

Yes that is exactly what I have been saying. It does not however follow that: Because that is not stated. Something that is "blatantly obvious" is what's written down.
So you can enforce the rules can you? Last I checked it was only moderators or to be general - the forum department. It is blatantly obvious, seeing as I can't, you can't and ordinary members can't.


Oh no, a whole post where I didn't lay out the entirety of my opinion. It has been s (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146053#post8146053)p (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146651#post8146651)o (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146625#post8146625)k (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8147776#post8147776)e (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146552#post8146552)n (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146275#post8146275) a (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8147730#post8147730)b (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8149951#post8149951)o (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146436#post8146436)u (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146543#post8146543)t (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146281#post8146281) a (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146608#post8146608)t (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146562#post8146562) l (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146561#post8146561)e (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146615#post8146615)n (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146279#post8146279)g (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146442#post8146442)t (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8146233#post8146233)h (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8149953#post8149953)* in this very thread (although I disagree with them going to either Spam or Forum Games as some have said), I'm not changing my argument at all.

*each of these letters is a separate post which you seem to have missed out on
Most not by you it seems, so I am meant to read your mind now? :rolleyes: Also, some of your claims were wrong and have been proven wrong or exaggerated. Gaining reward for little effort? What a load of rubbish when these posts aren't even abused (something yet to be rebutted).


If the prior mention of a plugin or some such device to make singular threads not have post counts comes to fruition then I have no problem with their placement, merely their function
You're yet to argue why post count in these threads is harmful. I posted evidence it is not and refuted such claims. 10 posts on average in the last few days is hardly damaging to the moral integrity of the forum :rolleyes:


As above, also quite hilarious that you worry about contradicting general moderator practice when such behaviour would also dictate moving these threads for breaking the rules ;) although having said that, if the new area was named Non-Discussive Threads or something similar that would then be the most appropriate forum for them anyway
Again, you're assuming these are harmful and are yet to state why. There's no point moving threads that are harmless - it's been establish they do not break the rules and do not produce large post counts. If members who have only been here for a year had about 5,000 posts from these then maybe, but given current member trends many barely last 2 years.


I can't claim to know those ones so well, but if they aren't areas of conversation then again they are of the same ilk - however I have been told previously that they do involve discussion because they're things people actually like to talk about. So yeah depends on their content
So people don't watch TV? Post what you last watched seems to be a pretty obvious area of interest, seeing as television programmes and films are somewhat of a hobby for some. As I said ages ago, it isn't the threads that are the problem but the members - maybe moderator could tweak the threads to ask why as well as what? Some members in those threads already state why they're watching it or add a qualifier such as "Game of Thrones - it's amazing". Perhaps promote these sorts of posts rather than immediately eradicate them?


And yet none of this has been suggested. Moving threads or removing post counts from them involves none of those things, and if the current ones are closed then recreated (as has been suggested often) there's no detriment to anyone whatsoever.
It is when moving them to another forum, which has been suggested. If people have an interest in music, they go to the music forum. Post what you are listening to #2 is about music, therefore its appropriate forum is the Music forum. As that's not being abused and moderators have discovered as such, they're not doing any damage. Again, you're refusing to state why these threads should be moved when no harm is being done.


Well done you, but apparently you've decided to ignore all posts refuting this and focus on post count, even though you messed up that argument by failing to count properly. Kyle and Kardan even picked you out on it.
Where was this? What are you listening to? #2 had 9 posts on Saturday and 8 on Sunday. Or are you going to argue it didn't? EDIT: Actually, Saturday was 5 and Sunday was 9. Point still remains, hardly abused.

[Kardan]

Worth noting that people aren't abusing Post your Setup/Desktop/Car etc. by posting many similar things a day.

[GommeInc]

Worth noting that people aren't abusing Post your Setup/Desktop/Car etc. by posting many similar things a day.
They're generally "non-discussive" and are just print-screens. Discussion rarely if ever happens. Setup requires more effort but very little discussion happens and the car topic is the same, except people tend to give a name of a car then leave. Plus you could argue many standard threads are not really discussions - many members just post their view and never return. One of the main culprits is arguing in this thread ^

[Kardan]

They're generally "non-discussive" and are just print-screens. Discussion rarely if ever happens. Setup requires more effort but very little discussion happens and the car topic is the same, except people tend to give a name of a car then leave. Plus you could argue many standard threads are not really discussions - many members just post their view and never return. One of the main culprits is arguing in this thread ^

I would say that the Desktop thread has the same amount of discussion in the Music thread, that very rarely you'll get two people actually having a conversation.

The Car and Setup thread seem to be fine though.

[GommeInc]

I would say that the Desktop thread has the same amount of discussion in the Music thread, that very rarely you'll get two people actually having a conversation.

The Car and Setup thread seem to be fine though.
Yet they're not actively promoting discussion. You can't pick and choose which threads are appropriate... Forcing members to actively discuss is impossible, and doesn't actually happen. Members just post their view on a topic and then leave, often never returning or even speaking to other members. I can name one member who doesn't actively discuss and he's using this thread :rolleyes: Going through his forum posts, he makes a post and then leaves - he doesn't actively discuss anything. To discuss is to talk about (something) with a person or people.

[FlyingJesus]

So you can enforce the rules can you? Last I checked it was only moderators or to be general - the forum department. It is blatantly obvious, seeing as I can't, you can't and ordinary members can't.

No but that has nothing to do with the claim that mod discretion is all-encompassing :S having the ability to enforce rules is not the same as having the ability to change or re-interpret them


Most not by you it seems, so I am meant to read your mind now?

No you're supposed to read the thread. You accuse me of changing my mind (which I haven't) and then flip-flop between whether you're responding to the thread in general or only me - but then consistency clearly isn't your strong suit as you seem to see everything as malleable, even fact.


You're yet to argue why post count in these threads is harmful. I posted evidence it is not and refuted such claims. 10 posts on average in the last few days is hardly damaging to the moral integrity of the forum :rolleyes:

Again, you're assuming these are harmful and are yet to state why. There's no point moving threads that are harmless - it's been establish they do not break the rules and do not produce large post counts. If members who have only been here for a year had about 5,000 posts from these then maybe, but given current member trends many barely last 2 years.

Why are any rule-breaking posts/threads "harmful"? No-one dies when you double post and the world doesn't end if you avoid the filter but these things are still dealt with as they're in the rules.


So people don't watch TV? Post what you last watched seems to be a pretty obvious area of interest, seeing as television programmes and films are somewhat of a hobby for some.

Avoiding the point as ever I see. They are non-discussive threads, this should not need repeating this often.


As I said ages ago, it isn't the threads that are the problem but the members - maybe moderator could tweak the threads to ask why as well as what? Some members in those threads already state why they're watching it or add a qualifier such as "Game of Thrones - it's amazing". Perhaps promote these sorts of posts rather than immediately eradicate them?

I'm not suggesting eradication, I don't know why you're still after all these posts making things up.


It is when moving them to another forum, which has been suggested. If people have an interest in music, they go to the music forum. Post what you are listening to #2 is about music, therefore its appropriate forum is the Music forum. As that's not being abused and moderators have discovered as such, they're not doing any damage. Again, you're refusing to state why these threads should be moved when no harm is being done.

*+*BeCauSe THeY BReaK THe RuLeS*+* the same rules which see genuine threads put into Spam and people cautioned for replying to the thread title. Either something needs to be done about the threads or something needs to be done about the rules - I'd prefer the former but whatever works.


Where was this? What are you listening to? #2 had 9 posts on Saturday and 8 on Sunday. Or are you going to argue it didn't? EDIT: Actually, Saturday was 5 and Sunday was 9. Point still remains, hardly abused.

Because you picked and chose what you wanted from it rather than looking at the big picture... now where did I see someone attempting to discredit people who do that? Hmmm

[Kardan]

Yet they're not actively promoting discussion. You can't pick and choose which threads are appropriate... Forcing members to actively discuss is impossible, and doesn't actually happen. Members just post their view on a topic and then leave, often never returning or even speaking to other members. I can name one member who doesn't actively discuss and he's using this thread :rolleyes: Going through his forum posts, he makes a post and then leaves - he doesn't actively discuss anything. To discuss is to talk about (something) with a person or people.

Then moderators need to start taking action based on these forum rules:

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

You may not make posts that contain plain images only. Images that includes text are allowed so long as they are relevant to the threads discussion. This rule does not apply to the forum games or spam forums.

[GommeInc]

No but that has nothing to do with the claim that mod discretion is all-encompassing :S having the ability to enforce rules is not the same as having the ability to change or re-interpret them
Yes it is, as they're the only ones to enforce rules. Plus it's current interpretation is fine, seeing as not all posts are going to be strictly there to discuss even elsewhere.


No you're supposed to read the thread. You accuse me of changing my mind (which I haven't) and then flip-flop between whether you're responding to the thread in general or only me - but then consistency clearly isn't your strong suit as you seem to see everything as malleable, even fact.
Ha, coming from you again? Remind me what you said in the rape thread? ;) You even said in this thread it's not about post count when other members have said it is - so you can shush right there. You apparently have this idea that your view is the view of others when so far it's only you who can't read the rules...


Why are any rule-breaking posts/threads "harmful"? No-one dies when you double post and the world doesn't end if you avoid the filter but these things are still dealt with as they're in the rules.
This isn't breaking the rules... We've concluded it hasn't. Although you've changed your argument to now suggest they need re-interpreting, which is a new one. So you've contradicted yourself again. They're breaking the rules and they need re-interpreting... Very consistent argument you don't have there.


Avoiding the point as ever I see. They are non-discussive threads, this should not need repeating this often.
Yet moderators have discretion, which shouldn't be repeated. Furthermore, they are not doing any damage. I'm yet to see this influx of Habbox Gods.


I'm not suggesting eradication, I don't know why you're still after all these posts making things up.
You're yet to argue why they need to be removed, closed or altered when they're not breaking the rules.


*+*BeCauSe THeY BReaK THe RuLeS*+* the same rules which see genuine threads put into Spam and people cautioned for replying to the thread title. Either something needs to be done about the threads or something needs to be done about the rules - I'd prefer the former but whatever works.
They're on-topic in the forums they're in, therefore they do not break the rules. Post what you're watching or last watched (whatever) is about television and film? Where does it go? TV and Film. You must have had a hard time playing with the children's sorter toy, trying to ram stars into circles if you can't even place the right threads in the correct forums.


Because you picked and chose what you wanted from it rather than looking at the big picture... now where did I see someone attempting to discredit people who do that? Hmmm
If you can't be bothered to post I assume you're making it up. Karter said that averages are useless which I agreed, hence why you use recent data and guess what! Less than 10 posts a day in some of these threads? Oh the horror, look at the abuse these threads are causing!

Seriously, you're arguing over nothing...


Then moderators need to start taking action based on these forum rules:

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

You may not make posts that contain plain images only. Images that includes text are allowed so long as they are relevant to the threads discussion. This rule does not apply to the forum games or spam forums.
So you want to punish members? According to FlyingJesus no one is suggesting this. It's this sort of idea which would see this forum lose even more members. They're just posts on an internet forum, there are bigger problems in the world. They don't need to take action on common forum activity.

[Kardan]

So you want to punish members? According to FlyingJesus no one is suggesting this. It's this sort of idea which would see this forum lose even more members. They're just posts on an internet forum, there are bigger problems in the world. They don't need to take action on common forum activity.

If the moderators don't want to actually use the rules, then the rules need to be rewritten :P

[GommeInc]

If the moderators don't want to actually use the rules, then the rules need to be rewritten :P
Which is again something that apparently isn't a suggestion - just a reinterpretation. Your spokesperson isn't doing a very good job it seems.

There's no point re-writing a rule for a problem that doesn't exist. These threads are not as used as other threads on the forum. In fact, going by the number of posts they've generated and the total number of posts on the forum they produce such a minute figure. Should members who do not wish to discuss be punished? Ones that just make comments?

[Kardan]

Which is again something that apparently isn't a suggestion - just a reinterpretation. Your spokesperson isn't doing a very good job it seems.

There's no point re-writing a rule for a problem that doesn't exist. These threads are not as used as other threads on the forum. In fact, going by the number of posts they've generated and the total number of posts on the forum they produce such a minute figure. Should members who do not wish to discuss be punished? Ones that just make comments?

And there's no point having a rule if it is never enforced.

[FlyingJesus]

Yes it is, as they're the only ones to enforce rules. Plus it's current interpretation is fine, seeing as not all posts are going to be strictly there to discuss even elsewhere.

Enforcing rules is now equal to making them. Right. Policemen are now legislators.


Ha, coming from you again? Remind me what you said in the rape thread? ;) You even said in this thread it's not about post count when other members have said it is - so you can shush right there. You apparently have this idea that your view is the view of others when so far it's only you who can't read the rules...

This is exactly what I'm talking about; you keep flipping between whether you're on about just me or the thread as a whole. You've literally just switched it again.


This isn't breaking the rules... We've concluded it hasn't. Although you've changed your argument to now suggest they need re-interpreting, which is a new one. So you've contradicted yourself again. They're breaking the rules and they need re-interpreting... Very consistent argument you don't have there.

No, you've (wrongly) concluded that they don't break the rules despite what the rules say. I have not changed my argument. I still say that they break the rules, as they do.


Yet moderators have discretion, which shouldn't be repeated. Furthermore, they are not doing any damage. I'm yet to see this influx of Habbox Gods.

I don't see anyone becoming a Habbox God by double posting or making off-topic posts in the middle of threads. If you think that the rules ought to be abolished then fair enough that's a different argument, but only enforcing some makes no sense at all.


You're yet to argue why they need to be removed, closed or altered when they're not breaking the rules.

Because they are.


They're on-topic in the forums they're in, therefore they do not break the rules. Post what you're watching or last watched (whatever) is about television and film? Where does it go? TV and Film. You must have had a hard time playing with the children's sorter toy, trying to ram stars into circles if you can't even place the right threads in the correct forums.

And yet they do not promote active discussion. Still. You can talk all you like about where they're placed, but that still isn't the issue. Also I'm pretty sure my only suggestion on where to move them to was (if they can't be adapted to simply have no post count but stay where they are, which seems a pretty fair compromise and has done ever since it was mentioned a long way back) a "non-discussive threads" area, which would absolutely be the right place for them.


If you can't be bothered to post I assume you're making it up. Karter said that averages are useless which I agreed, hence why you use recent data and guess what! Less than 10 posts a day in some of these threads? Oh the horror, look at the abuse these threads are causing!

I have posted, not sure what you're trying to get at here. Quantity isn't that big an issue for me anyway, it's the fact that rules aren't being enforced properly and this not only makes most moderation decisions hypocritical but also breeds the exact uncertainty that makes people just post in Spam - an issue you yourself brought up

[GommeInc]

And there's no point having a rule if it is never enforced.
It is, but it doesn't have to be in these threads. In fact, reading the opening posts for some of them they began with discussion. The oldest, What are you listening to? #2 started off with members commenting on the song choices of others. So clearly that thread isn't against the rules. What are you watching? doesn't suggest in its name it will only have short one or two word answers, it's the members who are at fault and not the OP. Post a picture of your car has opening remarks which look for active discussion but it is up to the members to actively do it.

In fact, it all boils down to what members do with the threads - not the threads themselves. All threads promote active discussion unless they specifically ask something that will only get small answers, such as "Is the sky blue?" or "What's your name?" Threads like "Are you going out to night?" could have one word answers like yes or no, but it's open for members to state where they're going or why they're not going out. So in short, they're not breaking the rule as clearly they are open for interpretation by the members.

Again, as I suggested ages ago - members are to blame but you can't punish members for not using the threads correctly, as forums are meant to be for fun or to waste time, and if members waste their time doing these then it's fine, especially when it has been established they are not actually abused or pointless - hence where the bit in the rule about moderator/forum department discretion comes in.


Enforcing rules is now equal to making them. Right. Policemen are now legislators.
And I said this where? I shall imagine you didn't read the post.


This is exactly what I'm talking about; you keep flipping between whether you're on about just me or the thread as a whole. You've literally just switched it again.
Well seeing as you seem to be the voice for everyone here, by saying it's not about post count but the rule it's hard to understand what your argument is. I commented on this ages ago and you pretty much proclaimed yourself the spokesperson when Kardan and Kyle have different views to you.


No, you've (wrongly) concluded that they don't break the rules despite what the rules say. I have not changed my argument. I still say that they break the rules, as they do.
The rule clearly states it's up for the forum department to decide, or are you denying that again? They clearly do not. Threads promote discussion, but it is up for members to actively discuss. Don't blame the threads, blame the members. Besides, you're one to talk. Many of your posts are quick posts with no room for discussion. So it's hard to argue with a hypocrite.


I don't see anyone becoming a Habbox God by double posting or making off-topic posts in the middle of threads. If you think that the rules ought to be abolished then fair enough that's a different argument, but only enforcing some makes no sense at all.
So you've retracted your point that members are being rewarded for doing nothing?


Because they are.
No they're not, it's the members not wanting to discuss. The threads can be open to discussion but members can't be bothered to as they don't want to be serious. Also, all of these threads have had some amount of discussion, so therefore they do not break the rules.


And yet they do not promote active discussion. Still. You can talk all you like about where they're placed, but that still isn't the issue. Also I'm pretty sure my only suggestion on where to move them to was (if they can't be adapted to simply have no post count but stay where they are, which seems a pretty fair compromise and has done ever since it was mentioned a long way back) a "non-discussive threads" area, which would absolutely be the right place for them.
How do they not? Post what you are listening to can have discussion, but members for the most part don't. However, some members have discussed their song choices, so clearly it's not infringed the rules. Any thread could allow for discussion unless it specifically asks for "Yes/No" responses, which none do. They're open for interpretation by members, because you know, members have a choice and free will.


I have posted, not sure what you're trying to get at here. Quantity isn't that big an issue for me anyway, it's the fact that rules aren't being enforced properly and this not only makes most moderation decisions hypocritical but also breeds the exact uncertainty that makes people just post in Spam - an issue you yourself brought up
Yet they are, as the threads are not to blame but the members and the subsequent posts there after. I could discuss in post what you are listening to. In fact, I could rebut this by simply going to all of these threads and saying "I am listening/watching/driving/using/eating/drink x because y" and I've proven they promote active discussion - whether other members do is down to individuals posts and not the thread. So yeah, they're not breaking the rules.

[Kardan]

It is, but it doesn't have to be in these threads. In fact, reading the opening posts for some of them they began with discussion. The oldest, What are you listening to? #2 started off with members commenting on the song choices of others. So clearly that thread isn't against the rules. What are you watching? doesn't suggest in its name it will only have short one or two word answers, it's the members who are at fault and not the OP. Post a picture of your car has opening remarks which look for active discussion but it is up to the members to actively do it.

In fact, it all boils down to what members do with the threads - not the threads themselves. All threads promote active discussion unless they specifically ask something that will only get small answers, such as "Is the sky blue?" or "What's your name?" Threads like "Are you going out to night?" could have one word answers like yes or no, but it's open for members to state where they're going or why they're not going out. So in short, they're not breaking the rule as clearly they are open for interpretation by the members.

Again, as I suggested ages ago - members are to blame but you can't punish members for not using the threads correctly, as forums are meant to be for fun or to waste time, and if members waste their time doing these then it's fine, especially when it has been established they are not actually abused or pointless - hence where the bit in the rule about moderator/forum department discretion comes in.

The moderator discretion is about pointless posting, now about 'short threads', but if every thread is down to the members, and not the thread creator, why is that rule even in place? Surely it makes sense to get rid of the rule if it can never be enforced?

Also, the 'Don't post just images' rule is in place, but I've not seen it be enforced either :P

[FlyingJesus]

In which case Ryan you must believe that moderators are encroaching on a lot of other peoples' fun by moving their threads to Spam despite their potential and having been posted in the right place, and we really have no need of moderation (or rules) at all


Also, the 'Don't post just images' rule is in place, but I've not seen it be enforced either :P

It got enforced for like 2 of Skandair's posts after it was put in place just for him or someone like him

[Kardan]

In which case Ryan you must believe that moderators are encroaching on a lot of other peoples' fun by moving their threads to Spam despite their potential and having been posted in the right place, and we really have no need of moderation (or rules) at all



It got enforced for like 2 of Skandair's posts after it was put in place just for him or someone like him

They need to reword it, because at the moment you can get warned for posting a picture with no text in PAPOY, or in the graphics department.
Phil;

[GommeInc]

The moderator discretion is about pointless posting, now about 'short threads', but if every thread is down to the members, and not the thread creator, why is that rule even in place? Surely it makes sense to get rid of the rule if it can never be enforced?

Also, the 'Don't post just images' rule is in place, but I've not seen it be enforced either :P
A picture paints a thousand words. That part of the rule should be completely removed although as moderator discretion exists some that are not reported are done so according to that rule. Also, you do know forum discretion is universal throughout the forum? It's in the T&Cs how they enforce rules. Blindly following rules can lead to unwanted outcomes - it happens in the legal industry where the courts will not necessarily follow Parliament in every law they pass. Same forum moderators and management.

Also I've said for ages the Spam forum isn't a real Spam forum. But as members don't use the forum properly (look at these threads for instance) it's hardly surprising. As you can't punish them for fear of putting them off, you can only persuade them to do what's right. Not that it matters as these types of threads are common place on forums anyway.

[Kardan]

A picture paints a thousand words. That part of the rule should be completely removed although as moderator discretion exists some that are not reported are done so according to that rule. Also, you do know forum discretion is universal throughout the forum? It's in the T&Cs how they enforce rules. Blindly following rules can lead to unwanted outcomes - it happens in the legal industry where the courts will not necessarily follow Parliament in every law they pass. Same forum moderators and management.

Then why on earth do they feel the need to state it for 'What is considered pointless', if that's how the forum should work universally?

But yes, it is quite obvious it works like that currently with the behaviour of some super mods, but I feel that discretion shouldn't be used everywhere.

If a post explicitly breaks a rule, it should be acted upon. Only if the rules are unclear if a rule is broken should discretion be used.

[FlyingJesus]

And I said this where? I shall imagine you didn't read the post.


having the ability to enforce rules is not the same as having the ability to change or re-interpret them

Yes it is, as they're the only ones to enforce rules.

Imagination is a fine thing


Well seeing as you seem to be the voice for everyone here, by saying it's not about post count but the rule it's hard to understand what your argument is. I commented on this ages ago and you pretty much proclaimed yourself the spokesperson when Kardan and Kyle have different views to you.

Ahhh I see, me giving my opinions means I think I'm speaking for everyone. You're really not getting anywhere with this.


The rule clearly states it's up for the forum department to decide, or are you denying that again? They clearly do not. Threads promote discussion, but it is up for members to actively discuss. Don't blame the threads, blame the members.

No, the rule clearly states that it's up to them to decide if a post is pointless or abuse.


Many of your posts are quick posts with no room for discussion. So it's hard to argue with a hypocrite.

Are they indeed? I thought you just said that anything can be discussed and it's the fault of everyone afterwards... it certainly is hard to argue with a hypocrite. Besides, this is about threads not individual posts. That has been said before a few times.


So you've retracted your point that members are being rewarded for doing nothing?

Nope. Minuscule as they might be, the rewards do exist. Aside from numbers going up it's surely not exactly a detriment to these people that they're granted the right to make short (pointless) posts when others are cautioned for it.


No they're not, it's the members not wanting to discuss. The threads can be open to discussion but members can't be bothered to as they don't want to be serious. Also, all of these threads have had some amount of discussion, so therefore they do not break the rules.

Potential for is not promotion of.


How do they not? Post what you are listening to can have discussion, but members for the most part don't. However, some members have discussed their song choices, so clearly it's not infringed the rules. Any thread could allow for discussion unless it specifically asks for "Yes/No" responses, which none do. They're open for interpretation by members, because you know, members have a choice and free will.

As above. By your logic nothing is Spam and no posts are ever pointless, which as I said is a different matter entirely.


Yet they are, as the threads are not to blame but the members and the subsequent posts there after. I could discuss in post what you are listening to. In fact, I could rebut this by simply going to all of these threads and saying "I am listening/watching/driving/using/eating/drink x because y" and I've proven they promote active discussion - whether other members do is down to individuals posts and not the thread. So yeah, they're not breaking the rules.

That wouldn't prove anything of the sort, one person making a longer post is not a discussion :S do you really not know what a discussion is?

[GommeInc]

Imagination is a fine thing
Uh huh, where's the word create? Looks like it was in your imagination after all ;)


Ahhh I see, me giving my opinions means I think I'm speaking for everyone. You're really not getting anywhere with this.

It isn't and pretty much never has been an issue of post count, as is said in this thread many many times. It's an issue of people getting rewarded for making pointless posts that are against the rules

As above - loads of people have said it is to do with post count. Your reply was to a general post not directly at someone. Also, funnily enough it contains a now defunct belief that people are being rewarded for making pointless posts. First off they're not pointless and secondly are they really rewarded Unless there's a cache of posts that are hidden from those thread they're not, seeing as there are so few posts being made in them. Besides, if they're being rewarded for being active members then good, keeping members active is a problem.


No, the rule clearly states that it's up to them to decide if a post is pointless or abuse.
Finally you understand. As it's in the rule it's not against the rules.


Are they indeed? I thought you just said that anything can be discussed and it's the fault of everyone afterwards... it certainly is hard to argue with a hypocrite. Besides, this is about threads not individual posts. That has been said before a few times.
Yet the threads are not breaking the rules, it's the posts. Are you really failing to comprehend my point? Listening to and watching both allow for active discussion, it is up for the members to decide to actively discuss and you cannot force them to. Grasp that, it's pretty important. A thread that only allows for small posts literally has to ask for them e.g. "Do you want rep?" Yes and no should be the answer, yet "What are you listening to" can - members can reply to a post asking "Oh why is that then?" while in the former example members can't really ask that as it's self-explanatory why they want rep (also not forgetting it is against another rule).


Nope. Minuscule as they might be, the rewards do exist. Aside from numbers going up it's surely not exactly a detriment to these people that they're granted the right to make short (pointless) posts when others are cautioned for it.
These members are post elsewhere so they're being rewarded for their activity. Do you not want members to be active? Again this boils down to you wanting to punish members as these threads are not against the rules but the posts members may make are.


Potential for is not promotion of.
It's not potential, it's fact. Bother to read the threads - people have discussed songs. They're not restricted by some magical system stopping them from discussing. Again, it's a problem with the members and as you can't punish them there's nothing you can do. Maybe a moderator could make a post asking for them to post more - asking the members, not the thread creators.


As above. By your logic nothing is Spam and no posts are ever pointless, which as I said is a different matter entirely.
Exactly, I've stated many times the Spam forum is not being used right and indeed many posts are not pointless. Finally you understand after 20 or so pages! The word you're looking for is useless not pointless. The fact these threads have a point e.g. what are you listening to and the posts have a point e.g. responding with Arctic Monkeys is pretty obvious for anyone who can pick up a dictionary and understand the words on papage


That wouldn't prove anything of the sort, one person making a longer post is not a discussion :S do you really not know what a discussion is?
Neither do you. Looking at your past posts you seem to not want to discuss any threads. You make a post and leave - where's the discussion? Hence, you're a hypocrite for not discussing the thread topic at hand A discussion is talking to a person or people - something you have not done in quite a few of your recent posts (gays being smarter, are we slaves to our phones etc). Not that I'm saying this is bad, but saying I don't know what a discussion is, from you of all people!? Re-evaluate your arguments. The moment I reply to a post we have an active discussion and nothing is stopping me as it would be on-topic, which is apparently impossible in these threads as it is "against the rules." As it is perfectly possible they therefore do not break the rules. It's as simple as that - the threads are fine, but the members are not discussing anything. Note: members, not threads.


Then why on earth do they feel the need to state it for 'What is considered pointless', if that's how the forum should work universally?

But yes, it is quite obvious it works like that currently with the behaviour of some super mods, but I feel that discretion shouldn't be used everywhere.

If a post explicitly breaks a rule, it should be acted upon. Only if the rules are unclear if a rule is broken should discretion be used.
The word is "reiterate". As it's a highly debatable area they have purposely reiterated it so members know that this particular rule is down to the final judgement of the moderator.

At least you're talking about the posts - the threads do not break the rules but the posts certainly could do with a bit more quality to them, but if members do not want to discuss why they are listening to "x" you simply cannot force them to.

[Lewis]

The post your threads are so boring and pointless. I'd be more than happy to see them gone or moved to spam. I mean, it doesn't affect me really, but still.

[FlyingJesus]

Uh huh, where's the word create? Looks like it was in your imagination after all ;)

If you change a rule it becomes a different one, that's not a difficult thing to comprehend. You said that mods can change rules.


As above - loads of people have said it is to do with post count. Your reply was to a general post not directly at someone. Also, funnily enough it contains a not defunct belief that people are being rewarded for making pointless posts. First off they're not pointless and secondly they're really rewarded, unless there's a cache of posts that are hidden from those thread seeing as there are so few posts being made in them. Besides, if they're beign rewarded for being active members then good, keeping members active is a problem.

They're not being active members, they're for the most part making useless posts that contribute nothing at all


Finally you understand. As it's in the rule it's not against the rules.

Bless, still managing not to discern between two different clauses.


Yet the threads are not breaking the rules, it's the posts.

So now you do think the posts are against the rules? If that's true then the threads ought to be moved to Spam as is current practice for threads that have multiple rule breaks in them


Are you really failing to comprehend my point? Listening to and watching both allow for active discussion, it is up for the members to decide to actively discuss and you cannot force them to. Grasp that, it's pretty important. A thread that only allows for small posts literally has to ask for them e.g. "Do you want rep?" Yes and no should be the answer, yet "What are you listening to" can - members can reply to a post asking "Oh why is that then?" while in the former example members can't really ask that as it's self-explanatory why they want rep (also not forgetting it is against another rule).

What makes one of them self-explanatory and the other not? I listen to music because I like that music, that's fairly self-explanatory. You only being able to think of one reason for someone wanting rep doesn't negate the possibility that discussion could take place, and in any case a post that just says "yes" has the same (lack of) value as one just saying "Beyonce". Now you're trying to differentiate between things that have the exact same value.


These members are post elsewhere so they're being rewarded for their activity. Do you not want members to be active? Again this boils down to you wanting to punish members as these threads are not against the rules but the posts members may make are.

Tell me more about how removing post count in these threads and otherwise allowing them to continue is a punishment to anyone.


It's not potential, it's fact. Bother to read the threads - people have discussed songs. They're not restricted by some magical system stopping them from discussing. Again, it's a problem with the members and as you can't punish them there's nothing you can do. Maybe a moderator could make a post asking for them to post more - asking the members, not the thread creators.

I've had posts removed from them for trying to discuss things in the past, it's not magical but it is what happened.


Exactly, I've stated many times the Spam forum is not being used right and indeed many posts are not pointless. Finally you understand after 20 or so pages! The word you're looking for is useless not pointless. The fact these threads have a point e.g. what are you listening to and the posts have a point e.g. responding with Arctic Monkeys is pretty obvious for anyone who can pick up a dictionary and understand the words on papage

Spam forum isn't being used right... think about what you're saying here. Spam forum is for anything as long as it doesn't break its forum-specific rules; it cannot be used wrong. Also having a point and being pointless by definition of the rules are not the same thing


Neither do you. Looking at your past posts you seem to not want to discuss any threads. You make a post and leave - where's the discussion? Hence, you're a hypocrite for not discussing the thread topic at hand A discussion is talking to a person or people - something you have not done in quite a few of your recent posts (gays being smarter, are we slaves to our phones etc).

You're totally right, responding to people and making conversation isn't discussion at all! There are like 3 threads that I've only posted in once recently, and considering the number of posts I make that's really not a lot. You're also still confusing threads with posts.


Not that I'm saying this is bad, but saying I don't know what a discussion is, from you of all people!?

Yes from me, the person who has the most posts in the most singularly discussive thread on the entire forum.


Re-evaluate your arguments. The moment I reply to a post we have an active discussion

Not if it remains one-sided. If I shout across the street at someone and they don't respond it's not an active discussion.

[GommeInc]

If you change a rule it becomes a different one, that's not a difficult thing to comprehend. You said that mods can change rules.
No I didn't. I clearly said they're the only ones to enforce them. Can't you read again?


They're not being active members, they're for the most part making useless posts that contribute nothing at all
They're still active, so why punish them? What constitutes as contributing? Post a vague reply to a thread and never returning isn't necessarily contributing. This is tedious.


Bless, still managing not to discern between two different clauses.
Yet moderator discretion still reigns supreme, it's even in the T&Cs. I'm amazed you're still not getting it.


So now you do think the posts are against the rules? If that's true then the threads ought to be moved to Spam as is current practice for threads that have multiple rule breaks in them
The threads are not breaking the rules. The posts are if they're not making any discussions, but then again no one really does - you do it all the time. Threads and posts are different things, genius. So no, I don't think the threads should be moved and no I don't want to force members to discuss things which they don't really do in other threads anyway.


What makes one of them self-explanatory and the other not? I listen to music because I like that music, that's fairly self-explanatory. You only being able to think of one reason for someone wanting rep doesn't negate the possibility that discussion could take place, and in any case a post that just says "yes" has the same (lack of) value as one just saying "Beyonce". Now you're trying to differentiate between things that have the exact same value.
Yet these are posts and not threads. Threads with Beyonce in are different to posts with just Beyonce, I'm amazed this confuses you so much. Threads depends on the quality of the posts, and if there aren't any quality posts it's a problem with the members and not the thread - this is pretty obvious. I take it if you see someone hammering with a screwdriver or a piece of wood, you would call the police? Because the consumer who bought that screwdriver using it as a hammer is clearly not using it for its purpose. Blame the consumer and not the seller who sold him the screwdriver. The fact you think threads are to blame is hilarious.


Tell me more about how removing post count in these threads and otherwise allowing them to continue is a punishment to anyone.
Tell me why they're a problem which you're yet to do. They're not spam, they do not cause any particular damage, they're not even against the rules (as even you have pointed out the rule is with regards to threads not posts and they do not particularly add to the rewards/token system as there aren't many posts to begin with. You can't because this has been debunkt, liked your entire argument.


I've had posts removed from them for trying to discuss things in the past, it's not magical but it is what happened.
Then it's a problem with the moderators interpreting the rule and not the rule itself, assuming this is true. The fact discussion has happened and occasionally does happen is apparently impossible.


Spam forum isn't being used right... think about what you're saying here. Spam forum is for anything as long as it doesn't break its forum-specific rules; it cannot be used wrong. Also having a point and being pointless by definition of the rules are not the same thing
Many of those threads are perfectly fine and serious, and can fit in other forums. You even agreed with this that people use that forum as it has the best coverage. Where does the rule define pointless? It defines it as being off-topic and these threads and the posts within them are entirely on topic, until someone posts "Peanut Butter" as a song choice. The definition you're suggesting doesn't appear to exist.


You're totally right, responding to people and making conversation isn't discussion at all! There are like 3 threads that I've only posted in once recently, and considering the number of posts I make that's really not a lot. You're also still confusing threads with posts.
Like you, you mean? You didn't discuss anything, you just posted. Show me where you had a conversation, where you discussed something with a member. Oh wait, you didn't - you made a statement that a drawing of a phone isn't a phone and that the gays are smart thread is offensive for everyone. That's not a discussion, that's a statement, so you're hardly innocent here. At least my posts are nearly always in reply to someone or something, and not some sarcastic comment.


Not if it remains one-sided. If I shout across the street at someone and they don't respond it's not an active discussion.
Which is what you do on a daily basis on the forums anyway. Also, that's not a one sided discussion. Shouting across a street is shouting across a street. A one sided discussion is talking about how cute kittens are and just saying "Yes they are cute, aren't they?" "Oh they are aren't they?"

Also, it's obvious this debate is not going in your favour. Moderators and Forum Staff have made their comments that the rule doesn't need changing and there appears to be no further comment from them so this debate seems a bit pointless without their contribution.

[Kardan]

Also, it's obvious this debate is not going in your favour. Moderators and Forum Staff have made their comments that the rule doesn't need changing and there appears to be no further comment from them so this debate seems a bit pointless without their contribution.

Last we heard from Phil; was that he agreed some action needed to be taken on the 'Post your...' threads and he was deciding between imposing posting restrictions, or removing future post count.

[FlyingJesus]

No I didn't.

having the ability to enforce rules is not the same as having the ability to change or re-interpret them

Yes it is, as they're the only ones to enforce rules.
Well yes you did.


They're still active, so why punish them? What constitutes as contributing? Post a vague reply to a thread and never returning isn't necessarily contributing. This is tedious.

Still no punishment being suggested.


Yet moderator discretion still reigns supreme, it's even in the T&Cs. I'm amazed you're still not getting it.

In which case no rules matter and everything's a random gamble


The threads are not breaking the rules. The posts are if they're not making any discussions, but then again no one really does - you do it all the time. Threads and posts are different things, genius. So no, I don't think the threads should be moved and no I don't want to force members to discuss things which they don't really do in other threads anyway.

But moving threads that go off-tangent or have lots of rule breaks do get moved to Spam, and I was of the opinion that we were discussion the exercising of the current rules not what changes we wish could be made.


Yet these are posts and not threads. Threads with Beyonce in are different to posts with just Beyonce, I'm amazed this confuses you so much.

How strange, I brought up the difference between threads and posts in a previous reply and you completely ignored it, now you're trying to pretend that I'm the one confusing them. You keep moving the goalposts and claiming that I'm no good at shooting.


Threads depends on the quality of the posts, and if there aren't any quality posts it's a problem with the members and not the thread - this is pretty obvious. I take it if you see someone hammering with a screwdriver or a piece of wood, you would call the police? Because the consumer who bought that screwdriver using it as a hammer is clearly not using it for its purpose. Blame the consumer and not the seller who sold him the screwdriver. The fact you think threads are to blame is hilarious.

There's no law against someone hammering stuff with a screwdriver, there is one about threads that don't promote active discussion. The fact that you think thread starters are never to blame (yet earlier gave an example of one) is truly side-splitting.


Tell me why they're a problem which you're yet to do. They're not spam, they do not cause any particular damage, they're not even against the rules (as even you have pointed out the rule is with regards to threads not posts and they do not particularly add to the rewards/token system as there aren't many posts to begin with. You can't because this has been debunkt, liked your entire argument.

Really? If a thread does not allow for discussion it is against the rules, and if the posts that follow it are (by definition of the rules) pointless then they are also at fault, not just one or the other. Either the threads break the rule and should be removed, or the posts break the rule (as you keep now telling me) and should be removed, but either way they're clearly not right. I'm not sure why you keep banging on about them not being against the rules when they are and have been shown to be time and time again.


Then it's a problem with the moderators interpreting the rule and not the rule itself, assuming this is true. The fact discussion has happened and occasionally does happen is apparently impossible.

Impossible according to whom? Clearly not me as I literally just gave you an example of it happening by my own hand


Many of those threads are perfectly fine and serious, and can fit in other forums. You even agreed with this that people use that forum as it has the best coverage. Where does the rule define pointless? Oh wait, it doesn't so you're making up the rules again (something I and The Don picked up on :rolleyes:)

Yes, people use Spam. They do not misuse it. There is no way to misuse it. As for defining pointless, there are several ways that the forum rules define it. Off-topic or non-contributive posts in the first line, random or meaningless posts/threads in the second, threads that do not promote active discussion as well as repetitive posting of the same thing in the third, and plain images in the fourth. That's where. In the words.


Like you, you mean? You didn't discuss anything, you just posted. Show me where you had a conversation, where you discussed something with a member. Oh wait, you didn't - you made a statement that a drawing of a phone isn't a phone and that the gays are smart thread is offensive for everyone. That's not a discussion, that's a statement, so you're hardly innocent here. At least my posts are nearly always in reply to someone or something, and not some sarcastic comment.

As I said, that's the case for about 3 of my recent posts, and all of those bring up new and valid points even if they don't make use of quote tags. Regardless of either of our posting habits this point was originally about not knowing what a discussion is (rather than claiming to be some perfect epigon of the God of Conversation, and knowledge of something is not the same as use of it.


Which is what you do on a daily basis on the forums anyway. Also, that's not a one sided discussion. Shouting across a street is shouting across a street. A one sided discussion is talking about how cute kittens are and just saying "Yes they are cute, aren't they?" "Oh they are aren't they?"

Clearly not what I do, and I never said the words "one sided discussion", I said that it wasn't a discussion at all. Do try to respond to what I've actually said in at least one of your posts.


Also, it's obvious this debate is not going in your favour. Moderators and Forum Staff have made their comments that the rule doesn't need changing and there appears to be no further comment from them so this debate seems a bit pointless without their contribution.

Or is it merely useless ;) also I'm pretty sure our forum manager was more inclined to make the change than allow its continuance so not sure which authority you're looking to, maybe e5 who appears to be your protege in debate techniques

[The Don]

The moderator discretion is about pointless posting, now about 'short threads', but if every thread is down to the members, and not the thread creator, why is that rule even in place? Surely it makes sense to get rid of the rule if it can never be enforced?

Also, the 'Don't post just images' rule is in place, but I've not seen it be enforced either :P

You've just made that up. Each rule is separated by a tilde (~). If you look at the rules the moderator discretion clause is clearly attached to the non discussive part, there is not a tilde separating them, and as you yourself pointed out earlier, was added specifically for the post your threads. The threads do not break the rules.

[Kardan]

You've just made that up. Each rule is separated by a tilde (~). If you look at the rules the moderator discretion clause is clearly attached to the non discussive part, there is not a tilde separating them, and as you yourself pointed out earlier, was added specifically for the post your threads. The threads do not break the rules.

We're both right, the rule is about pointless posting, but is also attached to the part you said which I forgot about, so would refer to both parts, my bad.

[GommeInc]

Well yes you did.
Show me - I clearly said "Yes it is, as they're the only ones to enforce rules." You must be really bad at English to think I said "Yes they do, they're the only ones to create rules." Yes it is? Yes it is to what? To re-interpret? That's not creating rules, genius. That's re-interpreting. Re-interpreting is not creating rules. I'm amazed you think that :S


Still no punishment being suggested.
It is when they're doing no harm and their activity is apparently worth nothing unless they're forcefully discussing a thread - something you don't even do.


In which case no rules matter and everything's a random gamble
Don't be pedantic. This rule is specifically against off-topic posts. Posts in these threads are on-topic. The threads promote active discussion - it's yet to be disputed - it's up to the members to discuss the topic of the thread, and seeing as discussions can happen they therefore do not break the rule. This is pretty obvious. A thread that asks "What are you listening to?" lacks any sort of information that specifically says "Post one word answers". A thread that asks "Would you like to be rich - Yes or No?" clearly violates the rule as it is actively seeking just one word answers and no discussion. How can you not get this?


But moving threads that go off-tangent or have lots of rule breaks do get moved to Spam, and I was of the opinion that we were discussion the exercising of the current rules not what changes we wish could be made.
Yet the current rules are not being violated. These threads can have active discussion, if members choose not to that's a fault with the members and not the thread. See above as to what represents a rule violating thread.


How strange, I brought up the difference between threads and posts in a previous reply and you completely ignored it, now you're trying to pretend that I'm the one confusing them. You keep moving the goalposts and claiming that I'm no good at shooting.
Stay on-topic and actually reply to the quote. They are different? Correct. Good. Move on and stop this pathetic attitude you have when your argument falls apart.


There's no law against someone hammering stuff with a screwdriver, there is one about threads that don't promote active discussion. The fact that you think thread starters are never to blame (yet earlier gave an example of one) is truly side-splitting.
So where and why are they not promoting active discussion? At least prove this. I have at least proven they promote active discussion - you denying it is not proving it, which is something you do. You think it is wrong therefore it must be wrong, yet you never actually post any hard hitting evidence. I can go into all of these threads and reply to someone saying "Oh I like that song/episode/film etc" and we have a discussion - there are no restraints suggesting the contrary. Perhaps you need to look up a text book definition of discussion and stop being so pedantic over a proven non-problem.


Really? If a thread does not allow for discussion it is against the rules, and if the posts that follow it are (by definition of the rules) pointless then they are also at fault, not just one or the other. Either the threads break the rule and should be removed, or the posts break the rule (as you keep now telling me) and should be removed, but either way they're clearly not right. I'm not sure why you keep banging on about them not being against the rules when they are and have been shown to be time and time again.
No it isn't unless the Forum Department says it is - stop agreeing and disagreeing with this well known fact. Also, define a pointless post under the forum rules. Enlighten me. The rule clearly states a pointless post is "off-topic". These posts are not off-topic. They're in reply to the topic and are, guess what? On-topic. I clearly am right and you say I'm not without any evidence isn't proof - it's in the rules for heaven's sake! You're making up the rules to justify your position!

I could go into any of these threads and reply to someone agreeing or disagreeing with them about their post and we have a discussion - therefore the thread is not breaking the rules - the thread are not purposely stopping people from active discussion unless you have a thread that literally asks you to post one word answers or to that effect. If a member replies to the thread and does not discuss anything, it is still not against the rules unless it is off-topic e.g. saying Tesco Lorry in a thread about what do you like to drink. I could argue a meaningless post is someone replying to a thread about "Are we slaves to our mobiles phones?" with "what's not real about a phone" as a meaningless post. Don't you agree that this is not a discussion and against the rules? Of course you do - you know the definition of discussion - to talk to a person or people and people who say this are not talking to others, just making a passing comment :rolleyes:


Impossible according to whom? Clearly not me as I literally just gave you an example of it happening by my own hand
You apparently. So are you saying I can't go into any of these threads and reply to another member? Because I can and have done in the past. Boom, there's a discussion and the thread has allowed it. Therefore, no rule has been broken. Have you finally got it yet? It's not about you as you seem to think, other people have discussed songs in those threads and not been warned for it and if they are, guess what? The moderators are wrong for not allowing it - a problem with the moderators and members, not the thread and rule.


Yes, people use Spam. They do not misuse it. There is no way to misuse it. As for defining pointless, there are several ways that the forum rules define it. Off-topic or non-contributive posts in the first line, random or meaningless posts/threads in the second, threads that do not promote active discussion as well as repetitive posting of the same thing in the third, and plain images in the fourth. That's where. In the words.
Which they do not break unless you've forgotten what words mean again:
Meaning: "what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action."
Why did they make said post? To post (an action) in reply to a thread about music (for example). Therefore, they do not break the rule under being meaningless - they have meaning.

Off-topic: "(especially of posts on an Internet message board) not relevant to the subject in question".
Similar and builds on above. In, for example, a thread asking what you are listening to and you post a song, let's say Stay The Night, you are posting on-topic. Ergo, it's not violating the off-topic posting.

Contribute: "give (something, especially money) in order to help achieve or provide something."
A member who posts in these threads is providing their answer to the topic. Let's say Stay The Night as a response to what you are listening to - they are providing a song (on-topic) in response (meaning) to the thread (topic).

I can't believe I've had to define words for you again, like when you said these posts were pointless when not even the rule defines it in your favour or a standard definition :/

Point: "cite a fact or situation as evidence of something."
A member who posts a song in response to a topic about music is citing a fact (a song) as evidence of being a song, to the topic in question.

Pointless would be saying "That's not a song" without any evidence other than just saying that it's not a song - there's no explanation just a statement, like saying "what's not real about a phone" in a topic asking if we're slaves to our phones :rolleys:


As I said, that's the case for about 3 of my recent posts, and all of those bring up new and valid points even if they don't make use of quote tags. Regardless of either of our posting habits this point was originally about not knowing what a discussion is (rather than claiming to be some perfect epigon of the God of Conversation, and knowledge of something is not the same as use of it.
Saying "No and what's not real about a phone" is not contributing or bringing any valid points. So you admit by your own definition that you don't know what a discussion is and are therefore breaking the rules? Why "no"? That's not contributing to Dragga's thread at all. Saying "what's not real about a real phone" isn't in reply to anything. In fact, are you suggesting this thread is pointless, because you can't discuss anything? Seeing as you didn't contribute anything other than a whimsical comment and a pointless statement, one would argue that Dragga's thread breaks the rule too. Don't deny it by saying it doesn't matter about our posting trends, when clearly the ones at fault in post your threads are the members for not discussing anything - the threads obviously allow it hence why they do not break the rules.


Clearly not what I do, and I never said the words "one sided discussion", I said that it wasn't a discussion at all. Do try to respond to what I've actually said in at least one of your posts.
You didn't, but the comment you were replying to specifically says: "The moment I reply to a post we have an active discussion" in which you replied "Not if it remains one-sided." It being the discussion as there's nothing else you could possibly be replying to. Looks like you're frustrated that once again I've caught you out with your poorly developed argument and you try to deny things you've said (much like when you said a man who commits the same offence as a woman would be called a rapist when a man who did do the same thing wasn't convicted of rape or called a rapist at all - he was called a child sex offender, the same as the woman - but you deny this even though it's in black and white).


Or is it merely useless ;) also I'm pretty sure our forum manager was more inclined to make the change than allow its continuance so not sure which authority you're looking to, maybe e5 who appears to be your protege in debate techniques
Which isn't against the rules ;) Also, last I saw he didn't particularly care and other forum department staff said it isn't a problem, which is correct, it isn't. As I'm the only one who has gone into these threads and posted numbers, calculated the number of posts a day these make and measured them up to the token and user reward system, and they cannot be rebutted seeing as it's the only solid piece of evidence here other than the rule which clearly recognises these threads are not against it.


You've just made that up. Each rule is separated by a tilde (~). If you look at the rules the moderator discretion clause is clearly attached to the non discussive part, there is not a tilde separating them, and as you yourself pointed out earlier, was added specifically for the post your threads. The threads do not break the rules.
It's good someone gets it.

[FlyingJesus]

Show me - I clearly said "Yes it is, as they're the only ones to enforce rules." You must be really bad at English to think I said "Yes they do, they're the only ones to create rules." Yes it is? Yes it is to what? To re-interpret? That's not creating rules, genius. That's re-interpreting. Re-interpreting is not creating rules. I'm amazed you think that :S

My god you really don't know how to read words do you? I said they do not have the ability to change rules, you said they did. It's really exceptionally simple.


It is when they're doing no harm and their activity is apparently worth nothing unless they're forcefully discussing a thread - something you don't even do.

Tell me what the punishment is then, because I haven't stated one.


Don't be pedantic. This rule is specifically against off-topic posts. Posts in these threads are on-topic. The threads promote active discussion - it's yet to be disputed - it's up to the members to discuss the topic of the thread, and seeing as discussions can happen they therefore do not break the rule. This is pretty obvious. A thread that asks "What are you listening to?" lacks any sort of information that specifically says "Post one word answers". A thread that asks "Would you like to be rich - Yes or No?" clearly violates the rule as it is actively seeking just one word answers and no discussion. How can you not get this?

I'm the pedantic one because I don't assume that threads have to specifically ask for one word answers to be such threads, right. As for it not yet having been disputed that they promote active discussion, again you're failing to read (although I'm not surprised by now) - it's been stated over and over that active discussion has been actively stifled in those threads, and the reply "well that shouldn't have happened" has no bearing on the fact that it did.


Yet the current rules are not being violated. These threads can have active discussion, if members choose not to that's a fault with the members and not the thread. See above as to what represents a rule violating thread.

In which case once again any thread can potentially have discussion and the rule is worthless.


Stay on-topic and actually reply to the quote.

This from you is the most hilarious thing I've seen in weeks. My life isn't that interesting clearly but even so.


They are different? Correct. Good. Move on and stop this pathetic attitude you have when your argument falls apart.

Um. That was my point, not yours.


So where and why are they not promoting active discussion? At least prove this. I have at least proven they promote active discussion - you denying it is not proving it, which is something you do. You think it is wrong therefore it must be wrong, yet you never actually post any hard hitting evidence. I can go into all of these threads and reply to someone saying "Oh I like that song/episode/film etc" and we have a discussion - there are no restraints suggesting the contrary. Perhaps you need to look up a text book definition of discussion and stop being so pedantic over a proven non-problem.

You've proven nothing of the sort, you've said that a few posts here and there among the 30,000 have been replies to someone. You're still believing for some reason that one reply constitutes a discussion when it's actually just you screaming into a void. Once again it becomes clear that you have no idea what a discussion is, as you seem to think it's any time a single direct reply is made.


No it isn't unless the Forum Department says it is - stop agreeing and disagreeing with this well known fact. Also, define a pointless post under the forum rules. Enlighten me. The rule clearly states a pointless post is "off-topic". These posts are not off-topic. They're in reply to the topic and are, guess what? On-topic. I clearly am right and you say I'm not without any evidence isn't proof - it's in the rules for heaven's sake! You're making up the rules to justify your position!

I did this like two posts ago, your failure to read is not my fault. I'm making up no rules, I posted the exact contents of them - off topic is only one way a post can be pointless, but then you do love to miss out on parts of things that don't fit with your ideas and then claim to have the upper hand.


I could go into any of these threads and reply to someone agreeing or disagreeing with them about their post and we have a discussion

No, that is not a discussion. That may be an attempt at one but a single reply is not a discussion.


the thread are not purposely stopping people from active discussion

They are when they're moderated in that way, as has been stated before.


unless you have a thread that literally asks you to post one word answers or to that effect.

Don't be so pedantic!11!!OM!!IBN!!!


If a member replies to the thread and does not discuss anything, it is still not against the rules unless it is off-topic e.g. saying Tesco Lorry in a thread about what do you like to drink. I could argue a meaningless post is someone replying to a thread about "Are we slaves to our mobiles phones?" with "what's not real about a phone" as a meaningless post. Don't you agree that this is not a discussion and against the rules? Of course you do - you know the definition of discussion - to talk to a person or people and people who say this are not talking to others, just making a passing comment :rolleyes:

Yeah asking a direct question about the topic (as the original post claimed that phones are "contantly taking our attention from real life") totally isn't discussive at all, you're so so right. Clearly you have absolutely no idea what a discussion is. You're quite literally trying to tell me that asking a person why they like a song is a discussion but asking why someone holds a certain view isn't. You're all over the place.


You apparently. So are you saying I can't go into any of these threads and reply to another member? Because I can and have done in the past. Boom, there's a discussion and the thread has allowed it. Therefore, no rule has been broken. Have you finally got it yet? It's not about you as you seem to think, other people have discussed songs in those threads and not been warned for it and if they are, guess what? The moderators are wrong for not allowing it - a problem with the moderators and members, not the thread and rule.

*+*THaT'S NoT a DiiSCuSSiioN*+* your conversations must be really boring if they consist solely of BUT WHY and no further response.


Which they do not break unless you've forgotten what words mean again:
[insert dictionary quotes here]

That's fab stuff but I didn't suggest that those parts were being broken ever. I'm not sure why you're so convinced that arguing against things that I haven't said will make you look good but I've quite clearly been speaking about the discussive quality (or not) of those threads, which you've only refuted with inaccuracies. If we're doing definitions, let's look at discussion since you're not up to speed with what that means:

dis·cus·sion (dĭ-skŭsh′ən)
n.
1. Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.

Note that it isn't a discussion if it only involves one person


Saying "No and what's not real about a phone" is not contributing or bringing any valid points. So you admit by your own definition that you don't know what a discussion is and are therefore breaking the rules? Why "no"? That's not contributing to Dragga's thread at all. Saying "what's not real about a real phone" isn't in reply to anything.

Whoops, you've once again not read the thread properly. It is absolutely a reply to something, as I explained above. Once again, your failure to read is not my fault.


In fact, are you suggesting this thread is pointless, because you can't discuss anything? Seeing as you didn't contribute anything other than a whimsical comment and a pointless statement, one would argue that Dragga's thread breaks the rule too.

If you were actually correct about my post (which you're still not) then my post would be pointless, not the thread because it quite clearly says "Tell me what you think" which is a demand for conversation. You really do seem to miss out a lot of things that people write when you're trying furiously to make a point. You're also still mistaking potential for promotion.


You didn't, but the comment you were replying to specifically says: "The moment I reply to a post we have an active discussion" in which you replied "Not if it remains one-sided." It being the discussion as there's nothing else you could possibly be replying to. Looks like you're frustrated that once again I've caught you out with your poorly developed argument and you try to deny things you've said (much like when you said a man who commits the same offence as a woman would be called a rapist when a man who did do the same thing wasn't convicted of rape or called a rapist at all - he was called a child sex offender, the same as the woman - but you deny this even though it's in black and white).

Once again misread what I've said, not "caught me out". Clearly I am not referring to discussion because I'm saying that it isn't one at all, the state of posting replies is one-sided as it does not become a discussion. You really ought to know what a discussion is by now, it's been said enough times. Also you have no leg to stand on when claiming that someone's denying what they wrote; see the first quote of the past few replies for your own denial despite quoting your words exactly, not just trying to redefine a post.


Which isn't against the rules ;) Also, last I saw he didn't particularly care and other forum department staff said it isn't a problem, which is correct, it isn't.

You have a very funny way of reading things (ie: not reading them at all apparently) as every single one of Phil's posts other than his first placeholder one is suggesting closing the threads and remaking them. The last thing he said was that he hadn't come to a decision, not that he didn't care.


It's good someone gets it.

Do they? Because previously you said they weren't separate rules at all, but when someone makes that claim with a different view suddenly it's quite correct. Changing your mind again, funny that.

[The Don]

Do they? Because previously you said they weren't separate rules at all, but when someone makes that claim with a different view suddenly it's quite correct. Changing your mind again, funny that.
He said going by your logic, re-read what he wrote because your post is not true.

[FlyingJesus]

No dear, he previously said

The bit about active discussion falls under the rule of pointless posting, but isn't a rule by itself - hence why it comes under A7. Do not post pointlessly.

Leave the lying to Ryan, he's much more practised at it

[The Don]

I too can selectively quote Ryan.

No dear, he previously said


Leave the lying to Ryan, he's much more practised at it


Ah, so you wrote the rule and know the two are separate? If they are together, then moderator discretion is limited. However, you're arguing it's a separate clause which means that moderators have even more discretion. Going from how the moderators act and the wording - they have discretion over what is pointless and abuse, and seeing as the rule is about pointless posting I shall assume they determine what is pointless in the grand scheme of things. Either way your argument doesn't work.

[FlyingJesus]

Ok now provide a quote that has something to do with what I said :S that's a quote where he can't read a rule's wording properly, nothing to do with his own beliefs about clauses being separate rules which he did quite clearly refute, and that's what I was on about.

[The Don]

Ok now provide a quote that has something to do with what I said :S that's a quote where he can't read a rule's wording properly, nothing to do with his own beliefs about clauses being separate rules which he did quite clearly refute, and that's what I was on about.

Either way this argument is irrelevant because the clause is quite clearly attached to the discussive posts rule. Going by logic if the moderators have allowed threads to remain for years they clearly don't break the rules due to moderator discretion.

[Yawn]

the threads should be made spam

[buttons]

lmao i love how feedback threads are literally

- forum members debate
- one or two staff members with power to change what you are asking for give their view
- said staff members stop replying
- forum members continue debate/arguing for a few days
- thread dies and nothing happens in regards to what was wanted changed
- cycle repeats in a few months with new issue

[Phil]

- said staff members stop replying


Just want to clear up that I'm not ignoring this thread and I have been reading all of the discussion. I'm just sitting back and viewing peoples thoughts on it and I won't let it die without a decision being made :P

[FlyingJesus]

According to Ryan that means you're 7000% against it

[Kyle]

Just want to clear up that I'm not ignoring this thread and I have been reading all of the discussion. I'm just sitting back and viewing peoples thoughts on it and I won't let it die without a decision being made :P
a penny for your thoughts

decision ultimately lies with you so it would be nice for you to have a stance on things rather than let members deliberate for another 40 pages

[Yawn]

i think u should clarify the rules on pointless posting and the whole discresion yada yada phillip

[Phil]

a penny for your thoughts

decision ultimately lies with you so it would be nice for you to have a stance on things rather than let members deliberate for another 40 pages

Well I've also been limited for the past two days so y'know lalala.

Okay, at the beginning I wanted something to be done about these forums as I dislike them as much as some of you do. I was jumping between these two decisions:

1. Limit the amount of posts that could be made per user per thread in one day.
2. Close the thread that is there and open a new one in a forum that doesn't contribute to post count.

Now I'm not sure sure. It was either @The Dom; or GommeInc; that pointed out that there aren't actually that many posts in these threads made daily. Yeah the argument that some people could have like 1000 between the three/four threads but those threads are open for like nine years so really, it's not a terrible amount.

I think what we really need to do is perhaps review the rule A7 and reword it so these kind of threads don't break a part of one of the rules. We should also start for people that are abusing these threads and if it gets to be too much, we can PM the user and perhaps give a limit to that user for a certain amount of time.

At the moment, it's making most sense not to move those threads.

[FlyingJesus]

If the rules are changed to allow for those threads that would solve the immediate problem (although I still think they're crap :P) although it does still leave things in a bit of uncertainty; I for one am still unsure as to why my thread was moved other than because e5 is an idiot

[Phil]

If the rules are changed to allow for those threads that would solve the immediate problem (although I still think they're crap :P) although it does still leave things in a bit of uncertainty; I for one am still unsure as to why my thread was moved other than because e5 is an idiot

Well I'll have a fiddle with the rule tomorrow (woo more things on the To Do List! :P) but yeah, as I said, I don't like the threads at all, I never have. But just because we don't like them doesn't mean they can be scrapped because there are people there that like them and there are people that believe they should stay.

Elliott isn't an idiot and it's about time every left him alone. I actually gave him the permission to move your thread because I'm pretty sure you were just posting it to make a point. Kardan does the same thing.

[FlyingJesus]

He is an idiot, he also twice failed to edit the post that's in my sig because he thinks there's nothing offensive about it. All threads are posted to make a point aren't they?

[Kyle]

threads should not be removed if they promote genuine discussion regardless of their (perceived) motive.

[GommeInc]

Ok now provide a quote that has something to do with what I said :S that's a quote where he can't read a rule's wording properly, nothing to do with his own beliefs about clauses being separate rules which he did quite clearly refute, and that's what I was on about.
It depends if the rule was meant to be written in a similar fashion to legislation where each (~) is a separate provision or if each sentence is a separate provision (or clause, though both are interchangeable). You stated that this may not be true using posting about the premiership as an example and in the same paragraph saying if you kicked a ball yadda yadda does not make you a premier footballer, suggesting that the rule is meant to be read as whole sentences and not using the individual tildes. They put the effort into adding tildes so it seems strange to separate each provision with sentences. That was my point. Although if sentences were to be read as separate clauses then discretion of the forum department is in itself a separate part of the rule and as they're the only ones that can enforce rules this clause is the key clause, similar to a contract where you have limiting liability clauses (we accept no fault for damaged goods etc etc). It reiterates the T&Cs of the forum about how moderators and admins can apply the rules.


If the rules are changed to allow for those threads that would solve the immediate problem (although I still think they're crap :P) although it does still leave things in a bit of uncertainty; I for one am still unsure as to why my thread was moved other than because e5 is an idiot
The rules already allows these threads - the threads are not hindering active discussion and nothing is stopping you or other members from discussing the song choices of others. The rule seems to be against threads which are asking for one word answers.

So no I don't think you need to change the rule Phil as there's nothing you can do. Removing that bit of the rule means threads that are only asking for one word answers are now allowed. The current wording is perfectly fine as it already allows for these threads and at the same time stops people from making threads literally asking for one word answers as per this specific area of the rule:


Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion.
These threads do not "only" allow for short, one or two word answers and they're not stopping people from actively discussing what they are listening to (for example). Your suggestion of maybe messaging troublemakers when they do abuse these threads as per the rule is the only logical suggestion (moderator discretion on abuse or what is pointless) is already covered by the rule. Unless there's a suggestion on what to change in the rule as in, what should it be replaced with.

[Phil]

GommeInc; As FlyingJesus has been saying, it can be argued that it breaks the following part of the rule:

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

[Yawn]

WAHEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://i55.tinypic.com/2czblag.gif

Edited by Despect (Forum Moderator) - Please do not pointless post, thanks.

[GommeInc]

GommeInc; As FlyingJesus has been saying, it can be argued that it breaks the following part of the rule:
Which they don't. Ask yourself this - how can a thread only allow for one or two word answers? Think of how a thread is constructed. These threads ask "What are you listening to?" (for example). There's nothing in the thread title or even the post that says "no discussion" or "only one or two word answers, please". That specific part of the rule only applies to threads which only want one/two word or short answers such as "Are you male or female?" where clearly no discussion can be held and you can only answer with Male, female, yes, no and/or both. He's yet to come back with a valid bit of proof to this and changing the rule because of one person to reflect something not thought through is absurd. I could go into any of these threads and reply to someone and we have a discussion. I could say I am listening to Material Girl by Madonna because it reminds me of a time in Amsterdam where I ran around in spandex. There's nothing stopping me from doing that, therefore the thread is not asking only for short, one or two word answers. Furthermore, if abuse does take place or someone is clearly pointless - you can fall back on the next part of the rule where moderator discretion comes in.

The rule is fine as it is, as it stops abuse and already stops threads that only allow for short, one or two word threads from appearing. The post your threads do not only want short, one or two word answers - they're not asking only for them. If abuse takes place, the rule already covers for this.

[Kardan]

Which they don't. Ask yourself this - how can a thread only allow for one or two word answers? Think of how a thread is constructed. These threads ask "What are you listening to?" (for example). There's nothing in the thread title or even the post that says "no discussion" or "only one or two word answers, please". That specific part of the rule only applies to threads which only want one/two word or short answers such as "Are you male or female?" where clearly no discussion can be held and you can only answer with Male, female, yes, no and/or both. He's yet to come back with a valid bit of proof to this and changing the rule because of one person to reflect something not thought through is absurd. I could go into any of these threads and reply to someone and we have a discussion. I could say I am listening to Material Girl by Madonna because it reminds me of a time in Amsterdam where I ran around in spandex. There's nothing stopping me from doing that, therefore the thread is not asking only for short, one or two word answers. Furthermore, if abuse does take place or someone is clearly pointless - you can fall back on the next part of the rule where moderator discretion comes in.

The rule is fine as it is, as it stops abuse and already stops threads that only allow for short, one or two word threads from appearing. The post your threads do not only want short, one or two word answers - they're not asking only for them. If abuse takes place, the rule already covers for this.

Could you not argue that there's no thread which only asks for a short answer? You could expand on any thread topic really.

[GommeInc]

Could you not argue that there's no thread which only asks for a short answer? You could expand on any thread topic really.
Indeed they could, but threads which literally are only asking for short, one or two word replies. The rule clearly states threads that only want short, one or two word replies. It's a very specific type of thread. This could be "Name a boyband" or something that specific - literally post a boyband. There doesn't have to be any actual activity involved and no discussion. The fact these threads (e.g. What are you listening to? #2 since 2009) have had discussions within them means they do not violate this rule, and you could argue that the members posting are actually listening to a song while posting or have actually watched a programme or film they're posting with, so there is some effort being put into the reply. It's not "Post a song" it's "post a song you are currently listening to", it's got an extra quality to it.

Plus any thread could have a discussion in, it's down to the members and whether or not they want to actively participate. You could also argue the "Money, Money, Money" competition is a violation of the misinterpreted version of the rule. It would be silly to change the rule purely because it would contradict current practice when it is perfectly fine, it's just some people can't read it as it does state "only" which is the key word.

[FlyingJesus]

"do not promote active discussion"

jfc

[Kardan]

Indeed they could, but threads which literally are only asking for short, one or two word replies. The rule clearly states threads that only want short, one or two word replies. It's a very specific type of thread. This could be "Name a boyband" or something that specific - literally post a boyband. There doesn't have to be any actual activity involved and no discussion. The fact these threads (e.g. What are you listening to? #2 since 2009) have had discussions within them means they do not violate this rule, and you could argue that the members posting are actually listening to a song while posting or have actually watched a programme or film they're posting with, so there is some effort being put into the reply. It's not "Post a song" it's "post a song you are currently listening to", it's got an extra quality to it.

Plus any thread could have a discussion in, it's down to the members and whether or not they want to actively participate. You could also argue the "Money, Money, Money" competition is a violation of the misinterpreted version of the rule. It would be silly to change the rule purely because it would contradict current practice when it is perfectly fine, it's just some people can't read it as it does state "only" which is the key word.

But a 'Name the boyband' thread could have discussion in it. So essentially the rule isn't doing anything?

[GommeInc]

"do not promote active discussion"

jfc
And you're yet to answer how this works in practice. The threads clearly have had discussions in them, so they do promote it. Members are just not feeling compelled to - that's a problem with the members, not the thread.


But a 'Name the boyband' thread could have discussion in it. So essentially the rule isn't doing anything?
Indeed it could, but it's just naming a boyband. At least people who are posting what they are listening to are probably listening to the music at the time, and it would be relevant as some new songs are going to be the subject of a discussion. However if members don't want to discuss their song choices you can't make them. Again, it's a problem with members not wanting to actively discuss - it happens elsewhere in the forum where members just post a statement and leave. You can't force them and there's no harm in it, as at least it shows there is some forum activity.

Also, if people do start abusing them, moderators have discretion under the rule to determine what is abuse and pointless. So the rule covers itself with reiterating discretion from the T&Cs. As Phil even acknowledges, there threads are not being abuse - ergo they are not violating the rule.

[FlyingJesus]

So if I made a thread called iuopebguebnsiud and a discussion arose in it that thread would have actively promoted the discussion in your eyes as opposed to just facilitating it.

Threads that promote discussion ask discussive questions, not "copy and paste from your itunes or whatever"

[Kardan]

And you're yet to answer how this works in practice. The threads clearly have had discussions in them, so they do promote it. Members are just not feeling compelled to - that's a problem with the members, not the thread.


Indeed it could, but it's just naming a boyband. At least people who are posting what they are listening to are probably listening to the music at the time, and it would be relevant as some new songs are going to be the subject of a discussion. However if members don't want to discuss their song choices you can't make them. Again, it's a problem with members not wanting to actively discuss - it happens elsewhere in the forum where members just post a statement and leave. You can't force them and there's no harm in it, as at least it shows there is some forum activity.

So the rule that starts with 'Do not post threads...' actually has nothing to do with the thread starter and is all down to the people that post in it?

The rule needs rewriting then.

[GommeInc]

So if I made a thread called iuopebguebnsiud and a discussion arose in it that thread would have actively promoted the discussion in your eyes as opposed to just facilitating it.

Threads that promote discussion ask discussive questions, not "copy and paste from your itunes or whatever"
No because you've clearly not read the rule:

Forum Rules
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.
~ You may not make posts that contain plain images only. Images that includes text are allowed so long as they are relevant to the threads discussion. This rule does not apply to the forum games or spam forums.
So posting "iuopebguebnsiud" violates the rule as it's random and meaningless.

Also, threads that promote discussion do not always ask discussive questions. Look at current affairs, many a time have people just plopped a link in the post with the headline in the thread title and left it there. It's not asking for a discussion.

So you're wrong with both points you just made, one for not knowing the rule covers saying "iuopebguebnsiud" as a thread and another for thinking all threads ask for discussion. In fact, Current Affairs asks for a reaction which isn't a discussion, it's a reaction.


So the rule that starts with 'Do not post threads...' actually has nothing to do with the thread starter and is all down to the people that post in it?

The rule needs rewriting then.
No as there is nothing wrong with the rule, as it's been acknowledged there is no harm being done to the forum. The rule seems to want threads which are only asking for short replies to not be posted and not promote active discussion. This is very specific and depends on the language used in the thread. If the thread asks "Post a boyband" it's not asking or promoting discussion as it just wants a boyband and doesn't rely on any added quality such as a boyband you like at the moment or are listening to at the moment. Post what you are listening to is different in that it has a quality to it - you have to be listening to a band. As there is nothing in the title or even the opening thread to suggest it only wants this then discussion must surely be allowed as there's nothing stopping you from reply to someone saying "Oh I like that song too!" which has happened before. There are no restraints. If there were, it would be against the rule.

[FlyingJesus]

You're missing the point of the example. I'm not suggesting that an actual thread should be called that, it was an illustration on how you seem to believe that every thread somehow promotes discussion magically unless it says ONLY POST YES OR NO in the title. Once again, promotion not potential.

Reactions tend to be discussive; a discussion in fact generally happens to be two or more people reacting to each other's words. That is what a discussion is. We're back to you not knowing what a discussion is apparently, oh dear.

[Kardan]

No because you've clearly not read the rule:

So posting "iuopebguebnsiud" violates the rule as it's random and meaningless.

Also, threads that promote discussion do not always ask discussive questions. Look at current affairs, many a time have people just plopped a link in the post with the headline in the thread title and left it there. It's not asking for a discussion.

So you're wrong with both points you just made, one for not knowing the rule covers saying "iuopebguebnsiud" as a thread and another for thinking all threads ask for discussion. In fact, Current Affairs asks for a reaction which isn't a discussion, it's a reaction.


No as there is nothing wrong with the rule, as it's been acknowledged there is no harm being done to the forum. The rule seems to want threads which are only asking for short replies to not be posted and not promote active discussion. This is very specific and depends on the language used in the thread. If the thread asks "Post a boyband" it's not asking or promoting discussion as it just wants a boyband and doesn't rely on any added quality such as a boyband you like at the moment or are listening to at the moment. Post what you are listening to is different in that it has a quality to it - you have to be listening to a band. As there is nothing in the title or even the opening thread to suggest it only wants this then discussion must surely be allowed as there's nothing stopping you from reply to someone saying "Oh I like that song too!" which has happened before. There are no restraints. If there were, it would be against the rule.

So 'Post a word' would fall foul of that rule, but 'Post the word you last said' wouldn't?

[GommeInc]

You're missing the point of the example. I'm not suggesting that an actual thread should be called that, it was an illustration on how you seem to believe that every thread somehow promotes discussion magically unless it says ONLY POST YES OR NO in the title. Once again, promotion not potential.

Reactions tend to be discussive; a discussion in fact generally happens to be two or more people reacting to each other's words. That is what a discussion is. We're back to you not knowing what a discussion is apparently, oh dear.
No I'm not as it clearly is in the rule. So you're saying posting that isn't against the rules despite it clearly saying it is? So you're saying these threads have not had discussions in them? They clearly have. Therefore they're not against the rules. Not all threads promote (actively encourage) discussion - "Where are you going this summer?" doesn't but if discussion happens then this is good. Where does "What are you listening to?" state it only wants short, one or two word replies and where does it actively not want discussion? There's nothing in the thread saying it doesn't want discussions to take place and as acknowledged they have done. To promote something you have to actively encourage, and threads rarely ask this. If anything, Undertaker's threads all actively promote discussion as he asks at the end of each of his posts "Discuss?" or "What are your thoughts?"

Reactions are not de facto discussions, the fact you put "tend" in there suggests you acknowledge this. A reaction is "something done, felt, or thought in response to a situation or event." The reactions to the knife attacks in the US school are a prime example. Many are just posting reactions e.g. "scary", "hope everyone makes a full recovery". This is not a discussion. A discussion by definition is "the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas." Exchanging an idea is not a discussion, it's one way - it needs to be ideas with an "s". It requires a response. To discuss is to "talk about (something) with a person or people." These posts are exchanging ideas with the thread in the same way posting a song in response is an exchange with the thread "What are you listening to?"


So 'Post a word' would fall foul of that rule, but 'Post the word you last said' wouldn't?
Not necessarily, as an extra quality is attached to it. It's the same for "Last gig you went to?" A problem only arises if these threads are abused or have pointless posts - therefore the part of the rule which reiterates the T&Cs that the forum department has discretion. As acknowledged, these threads lack any abuse happening and there is no pointless posting (reply with a song to a thread about songs is both on-topic and has a point - to post in reply to a thread about a song with a song).

[FlyingJesus]

So you're saying posting that isn't against the rules despite it clearly saying it is?

No


So you're saying these threads have not had discussions in them?

No


where does it actively not want discussion?

Irrelevant since saying DO NOT DISCUSS THIS is not the only way not to promote discussion


To promote something you have to actively encourage

Thanks for repeating my point


A discussion by definition is "the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas." Exchanging an idea is not a discussion, it's one way

Absolutely pissing that you're saying this despite trying to refute that exact point for like 5 pages when I was saying it to you

[Kardan]

No I'm not as it clearly is in the rule. So you're saying posting that isn't against the rules despite it clearly saying it is? So you're saying these threads have not had discussions in them? They clearly have. Therefore they're not against the rules. Not all threads promote (actively encourage) discussion - "Where are you going this summer?" doesn't but if discussion happens then this is good. Where does "What are you listening to?" state it only wants short, one or two word replies and where does it actively not want discussion? There's nothing in the thread saying it doesn't want discussions to take place and as acknowledged they have done. To promote something you have to actively encourage, and threads rarely ask this. If anything, Undertaker's threads all actively promote discussion as he asks at the end of each of his posts "Discuss?" or "What are your thoughts?"

Reactions are not de facto discussions, the fact you put "tend" in there suggests you acknowledge this. A reaction is "something done, felt, or thought in response to a situation or event." The reactions to the knife attacks in the US school are a prime example. Many are just posting reactions e.g. "scary", "hope everyone makes a full recovery". This is not a discussion. A discussion by definition is "the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas." Exchanging an idea is not a discussion, it's one way - it needs to be ideas with an "s". It requires a response. To discuss is to "talk about (something) with a person or people." These posts are exchanging ideas with the thread in the same way posting a song in response is an exchange with the thread "What are you listening to?"


Not necessarily, as an extra quality is attached to it. It's the same for "Last gig you went to?" A problem only arises if these threads are abused or have pointless posts - therefore the part of the rule which reiterates the T&Cs that the forum department has discretion. As acknowledged, these threads lack any abuse happening and there is no pointless posting (reply with a song to a thread about songs is both on-topic and has a point - to post in reply to a thread about a song with a song).

So there would be no reason in the rules to remove the 'Post the last word you said' thread, provided everyone was replying with a word (And not an image for example).

[GommeInc]

Deleted the pointless replies as you clearly said your example for no reason.


Irrelevant since saying DO NOT DISCUSS THIS is not the only way not to promote discussion
So you want moderators to read the minds of thread creators? Since many of these threads have had discussions in clearly they are not against the rules. Not all threads are going to ask members to actively discuss their ideas - you're suggesting they must do.


Thanks for repeating my point
Yet not all threads actively encourage. Look at the example I gave of Current Affairs and actually reply. A reaction is not a discussion.


Absolutely pissing that you're saying this despite trying to refute that exact point for like 5 pages when I was saying it to you
Yet discussions exist in these threads and can have discussions. Show me where these threads are not actively encouraging discussions or promoting them. The very fact discussions happen in them rebuts this remark, hence they're not against the rules. It is a problem with the members, not the thread.


So there would be no reason in the rules to remove the 'Post the last word you said' thread, provided everyone was replying with a word (And not an image for example).
Depends if the thread is abused and the thread is actively asking for no discussion - which would be violating the rules, particularly since the forum department has discretion. They will probably deem this sort of thread a violation anyway as it's too vague and decide to actively use their discretion to close it, under "pointless" or "abuse" if it gets out of hand. The forum department discretion is there to determine which threads are pointless or abused - and you could say that the last word you used is verging a bit too close to pointless as it doesn't really serve a purpose isn't exactly hard to post, while what you've watched and what you've listened to requires a bit more effort.

[FlyingJesus]

So you want moderators to read the minds of thread creators? Since many of these threads have had discussions in clearly they are not against the rules. Not all threads are going to ask members to actively discuss their ideas - you're suggesting they must do.

They apparently read my mind and decided that I was "trolling" by posting a legitimate thread. And yes I believe discussion threads are supposed to ask for opinions and discussions, there was a big thing about it previously where we were told to explicitly ask for reasons and extrapolations when asking thread questions


Yet not all threads actively encourage. Look at the example I gave of Current Affairs and actually reply. A reaction is not a discussion.

A reaction to a discussion topic is.


Show me where these threads are not actively encouraging discussions or promoting them.

SHOW ME A NEGATIVE really

[GommeInc]

They apparently read my mind and decided that I was "trolling" by posting a legitimate thread. And yes I believe discussion threads are supposed to ask for opinions and discussions, there was a big thing about it previously where we were told to explicitly ask for reasons and extrapolations when asking thread questions
Clearly isn't enforced then going by Current Affairs and you can see why, it's unenforceable as it's unnatural to assume everyone wants to discuss on a forum. People just reply to the thread once and leave - that's not a discussion, that's just posting a statement and leaving. It happens all the time :P


A reaction to a discussion topic is.
And a discussion topic is? What are you listening to? is a discussion thread - people have had discussions in there. There's no restraints. If members refuse to discuss anything it's ultimately the members at fault.


SHOW ME A NEGATIVE really
I shall take that as you can't post examples.

[Kardan]

GommeInc; What if I post 'Post the last place you travelled to' - surely that thread requires more effort than 'What you last watched/ate'?

Personally I have the feeling no matter what 'Post your...' thread I post, it will get removed :P

[GommeInc]

GommeInc; What if I post 'Post the last place you travelled to' - surely that thread requires more effort than 'What you last watched/ate'?

Personally I have the feeling no matter what 'Post your...' thread I post, it will get removed :P
Same as previously, there's nothing stopping a discussion in them - what you last ate could have people replying to "Domino's pizza" with "Oh two for Tuesdays?"

On what grounds? People already do - what are you doing for Christmas was popular last year. Provided it isn't meaningless. You could just write in the opening post something that adds greater depth to it.

[Kardan]

Same as previously, there's nothing stopping a discussion in them - what you last ate could have people replying to "Domino's pizza" with "Oh two for Tuesdays?"

On what grounds? People already do - what are you doing for Christmas was popular last year. Provided it isn't meaningless. You could just write in the opening post something that adds greater depth to it.

Well, mods like moving my posts to spam because 'It's proving a point', and I'm not so sure where the forum rule is on that :P

But I'll post the 'Post the last place you travelled to', and we'll see if it gets removed/moved to spam :P

[FlyingJesus]

Clearly isn't enforced then going by Current Affairs and you can see why, it's unenforceable as it's unnatural to assume everyone wants to discuss on a forum. People just reply to the thread once and leave - that's not a discussion, that's just posting a statement and leaving. It happens all the time :P

You're again forgetting that we're talking about whether the threads promote discussion, not whether discussion actually follows.


And a discussion topic is? What are you listening to? is a discussion thread

No it isn't because "I am listening to Lady Gaga" "I am listening to MCR" "I am listening to Queen" is not a discussion, nor can it be without deviating from the thread's intentions


I shall take that as you can't post examples.

As you ought to know, asking someone to prove a negative is ridiculous. That said, all you need to do is look at the threads. We can look at the starter post of the main culprit:

google.com
Whoa steady on people won't know where to stop talking!
Then one that actually asks for more:

What phone do you have at the moment?
Is it a good phone or is it a phone that you think is rubbish?
At the moment I have a Samsung Tocco Light, I really love my phone, although I wanted a blackberry for my birthday :( LOL
That is an example of a good thread start which is actively attempting to start discussion.

[GommeInc]

Well, mods like moving my posts to spam because 'It's proving a point', and I'm not so sure where the forum rule is on that :P

But I'll post the 'Post the last place you travelled to', and we'll see if it gets removed/moved to spam :P
If it does I'll argue how stupid it is like I said to Tom about one of his posts or threads being tampered with :P


You're again forgetting that we're talking about whether the threads promote discussion, not whether discussion actually follows.
But how does a thread go about this? As you said, there was apparently a change somewhere asking members to ask questions in the opening post yet not all threads actively promote discussions - probably because thread creators have better things to be thinking about than the expectations of members pursuing a conversation.


No it isn't because "I am listening to Lady Gaga" "I am listening to MCR" "I am listening to Queen" is not a discussion, nor can it be without deviating from the thread's intentions
But as I said, discussions have broken out in that thread. The thread is neither asking for nor against discussions. If it is specifically against them or lacks any quality for a discussion from the start it is against the rules (posting dskjdksjdskjd" for example). What you are listening to/watching etc are posing questions, the question marks after each of these is opening itself up for responses and arguably discussion if members wish to. It revolves back to members and how they are acting - I could reply to "I am listening to Lady Gaga" and a discussion is there, and the thread is neither for nor against it. You could argue grammar is important here and that the question mark is what is asking for responses/reaction/discussion, even when the opening post does not do it.


As you ought to know, asking someone to prove a negative is ridiculous. That said, all you need to do is look at the threads. We can look at the starter post of the main culprit:
Yet people still had a discussion. Also, I have no idea what the img tag is doing there. Another thread has it too.

[FlyingJesus]

If it is specifically against them or lacks any quality for a discussion from the start

Or if it doesn't actively promote discussion... there is nothing in the rule that says that a thread must necessarily ask for no discussion for it to not be promoting discussion since that is ridiculous


I could reply to "I am listening to Lady Gaga" and a discussion is there


This is not a discussion. A discussion by definition is "the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas." Exchanging an idea is not a discussion, it's one way - it needs to be ideas with an "s". It requires a response.

...

[GommeInc]

Or if it doesn't actively promote discussion... there is nothing in the rule that says that a thread must necessarily ask for no discussion for it to not be promoting discussion since that is ridiculous
The rule doesn't ask that they do either, otherwise nearly all threads ever created should be closed from the start. Most threads start off neutral - it's up for the members to discuss the topic or posts within the thread. As that has happened in these threads, they're clearly within the rules.


...
Again you fail to explain what is wrong here.
If I reply to someone in that thread, we have a discussion correct? If you can't be bothered to write then I assume you have no argument.

"I could reply to "I am listening to Lady Gaga" and a discussion is there"
"A discussion by definition is "the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas." Exchanging an idea is not a discussion, it's one way - it needs to be ideas with an "s". It requires a response."

By replying to someone who has made a statement, reaction or proposition, I am beginning a discussion. Correct? Yes as it's in the rules and the plain English definition of discuss. I am providing the required response. The fact you can't comprehend this is alarming, especially when discussions have existed in these threads. Correct? Obviously I am because they are right there in black and white, especially in "What are you listening to? #2". As they do have discussions in them, which is all that matters and there's nothing stating otherwise, they're not against the rules. Correct? Good.

So we finally agree that these threads allow for discussion? They clearly do so you can't deny that and you can't honestly believe all threads should ask for a discussion, since hardly any do. Again I provide proof - Current Affairs.

So what exactly is your point as you clearly haven't understood the rule and you want it changed, even though it's obvious you're the only one who doesn't understand. Kardan has had it explained by The Don and you're the only one still arguing invalid points because you're having difficulties understanding the rule, especially the reiteration of the forum department having discretion. As Phil has said he knows they are not abused and has already said they are there to stay. The rule doesn't need changing either as it clearly is doing it's job. Why do you want the rule changed if you want the threads to stay as they are? It makes no sense and it's either down to pedanticism or having nothing better to do with your time. Since this literally has been a waste of time seeing as even the Forum Manager can see they're not producing a large number of posts.

[Yawn]

phil when u read this is it possible to ban users from individual threads

[FlyingJesus]

The rule doesn't ask that they do either

Yes it does


If I reply to someone in that thread, we have a discussion correct?

No, not correct. One reply to one post is not a discussion as you literally said a few posts ago. If that user then responds in kind it may be considered a discussion, but that's not what you've said (well, what you've said this time anyway, I'm sure it'll flip again soon). This is so basic.


By replying to someone who has made a statement, reaction or proposition, I am beginning a discussion. Correct?

No but you may be attempting to. Once again, something is not a discussion merely because it has the potential to be one.


As they do have discussions in them, which is all that matters and there's nothing stating otherwise, they're not against the rules. Correct? Good.

Even if they did have discussions in them (which they don't as your idea of "but someone replied" is not a discussion) you're mixing up posts and threads; the thread still does not promote active discussion even if it has the potential to facilitate it.


So we finally agree that these threads allow for discussion? They clearly do so you can't deny that and you can't honestly believe all threads should ask for a discussion, since hardly any do. Again I provide proof - Current Affairs.

By which logic no thread is ever against the rule so the rule itself is pointless. You're still somehow confusing potential for promotion, and yes I absolutely can believe that genuine threads should start with more than just "WELL????????" and Current Affairs threads provide ready-made discussion material, that's really quite clear.


So what exactly is your point as you clearly haven't understood the rule and you want it changed, even though it's obvious you're the only one who doesn't understand. Kardan has had it explained by The Don and you're the only one still arguing invalid points because you're having difficulties understanding the rule, especially the reiteration of the forum department having discretion.

That might be correct if you'd had a single point that hadn't been countered by something other than you changing your mind and ignoring that you'd said the complete opposite of one argument a few posts ago in order to try making a new one. Writing "CORRECT??!?£!" after a sentence doesn't make it so.


The rule doesn't need changing either as it clearly is doing it's job. Why do you want the rule changed if you want the threads to stay as they are? It makes no sense and it's either down to pedanticism or having nothing better to do with your time.

Well quite clearly neither of us have anything better to do with our time but I'll let you keep the ad hom approach for yourself. I do not want the threads to remain as they are obviously, but if they are to do so then the rule needs to be rewritten to properly concern them as (since has been shown no matter how often you ignore it) they do not promote active discussion as per the rule


Since this literally has been a waste of time seeing as even the Forum Manager can see they're not producing a large number of posts.

He can also see that the threads are crap and don't promote discussion, but hey let's ignore the parts of posts we don't like

[GommeInc]

Yes it does
No it doesn't, because if it did nearly all threads on this forum should be removed. Current Affairs would be empty as the threads do not actively promote discussion. Again, many ask for a reaction but that's not a discussion.


No, not correct. One reply to one post is not a discussion as you literally said a few posts ago. If that user then responds in kind it may be considered a discussion, but that's not what you've said (well, what you've said this time anyway, I'm sure it'll flip again soon). This is so basic.
No you clearly read me wrong. I said sharing an idea is not a discussion it's making a statement or passing judgement - sharing ideas is - talking to someone (which is the definition of discuss). When you reply to a person you are sharing your idea with their idea - therefore we have a discussion or specifically the start of a discussion. Not that it matters as you clearly think threads should be closed until a discussion happens. Threads do not start discussions, members do - this is pretty obvious.


No but you may be attempting to. Once again, something is not a discussion merely because it has the potential to be one.
Yet it's still starting a discussion.... So you admit that the threads are not breaking the rule but the members who refuse to start a discussion? As I've been saying for ages - it's not the threads that are in violation as they clearly allow for discussion, but it is the members and forcing them to discuss things will never work as they don't need to as has been acknowledged, they're so trivial that to force people to discuss will only put people off. Discussions can and do exist in these threads, which is all that matters. Correct?


Even if they did have discussions in them (which they don't as your idea of "but someone replied" is not a discussion) you're mixing up posts and threads; the thread still does not promote active discussion even if it has the potential to facilitate it.
Yes it is as it's the start of a discussion. The fact I've posted a definition is proof of this. You never post proof you just cite your own opinion which makes this argument all the more tedious. I don't care what you think, I only care about the facts and the facts prove there are discussions under every definition, even in the rules (on-topic posts etc etc). The fact you now admit that these threads clearly promote discussion is evidence of this - they "support" discussion. Look up the word promote and you will discover it means "support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of." These threads are progressing, correct? Post counts are going up and other people are posting what they are listening to and using the threads - thus the point of the thread is progressing. They support discussion, correct? Yes, because discussions exist in these threads and there is support for them. Coupled with the potential this further proves that these threads are not against the rules.


By which logic no thread is ever against the rule so the rule itself is pointless. You're still somehow confusing potential for promotion, and yes I absolutely can believe that genuine threads should start with more than just "WELL????????" and Current Affairs threads provide ready-made discussion material, that's really quite clear.
Incorrect. They provide ready-made discussion material. If I have material for a dress it doesn't mean I have a dress and it doesn't mean I will even make a dress with it. There's only proof of a discussion when a discussion actually happens and you can't get this from the thread title or the opening post, but you can actively discuss in almost every thread. Posting a thread such as "WELL????" does not provide any information, but a thread saying "What are you listening to?" does, as it's inviting you to post what you are listening to and to discuss, as there's nothing saying not to in the same way as someone posting "Boy trapped in fridge eats foot to survive." So you are suggesting that nearly all threads are against the rule? Nearly all the threads I see under your strange definition of "discuss" that suggests there must be more than one post in reply to someone is a discussion when this rarely happens.


That might be correct if you'd had a single point that hadn't been countered by something other than you changing your mind and ignoring that you'd said the complete opposite of one argument a few posts ago in order to try making a new one. Writing "CORRECT??!?£!" after a sentence doesn't make it so.
You haven't countered many if any points - particularly moderator/forum department discretion, as it's written in black and white it is fact. Saying you disagree with it isn't fact, it's opinion. I am using fact to support my claims - saying "no it doesn't" isn't evidence, which is what you've done the whole time. I've posted definitions of words for you because you're too lazy to look up the definition, I've even cited the rule highlighting areas you clearly do not understand. Pointing out where I ask "is this correct? (or simply "correct?") isn't a counter argument and having a bratty tantrum when you can't think of a response is also not a counter argument. I asked in that comment what you want to see the rule changed to (your point revolves around the rule being wrong when it isn't, you just disagree with it but do not suggest anything).


Well quite clearly neither of us have anything better to do with our time but I'll let you keep the ad hom approach for yourself. I do not want the threads to remain as they are obviously, but if they are to do so then the rule needs to be rewritten to properly concern them as (since has been shown no matter how often you ignore it) they do not promote active discussion as per the rule
So you've changed your point? You said:


If the rules are changed to allow for those threads that would solve the immediate problem (although I still think they're crap :P) although it does still leave things in a bit of uncertainty; I for one am still unsure as to why my thread was moved other than because e5 is an idiot
So you want the rule changed to allow for them, but now you're saying you do not want the threads to remain as they are? Again, I've posted proof that you keep changing your point yet you're yet to - you just say I have and then leave. The fact they do promote discussion is beyond you - they support discussion and there's no quality in the threads saying you can't discuss nor to discuss, but as it says neither you must surely be able to do it. When you go for a walk in the park and there's no sign at all on the grass saying you can walk on it, do you keep to the path? Of course not, as you can deduce that if there is no warning then it is fine.

The rule, again, does not need to be re-written. The rule allows for them as the rule is specifically written to not ask for threads to actively promote discussion as that would mean every thread would have to ask members to strictly discuss a point. It is there to stop threads with literally no way of a discussion from face value being posted suggest as "WHAT????" or "Are you male/female?" as they do not exactly allow for active discussion to exist. Furthermore, the rule clearly reiterates moderator discretion to support the rule. The fact the rule has been working perfectly seems beyond you. Moderators enforce the rules and they've done so swimmingly, they allow these threads as there is nothing stopping people from having a discussion, but if members choose not to it is their choice as you can't force them to.


He can also see that the threads are crap and don't promote discussion, but hey let's ignore the parts of posts we don't like
Yet he doesn't say this so making up his mind for him is irrelevant. Phil has acknowledged cold hard fact that they are not being abused and there are not many posts in these threads anyway (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8153943#post8153943).

So to summarise:


Forum Rule
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.
~ You may not make posts that contain plain images only. Images that includes text are allowed so long as they are relevant to the threads discussion. This rule does not apply to the forum games or spam forums.

Promote: "support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of."
~ support: "give approval, comfort, or encouragement to".
~~ approval: "the belief that someone or something is good or acceptable."
~ progress: "forward or onward movement towards a destination."

The rule promotes these threads, by giving them support - which is approval that is defined as something that is acceptable. These threads further progress - they move forward with people posting on-topic (as is in the rule) and therefore being active, and the ultimate destination and ultimate goal for any forum is that the entire forum is active. And if these threads promote activity on the forum they can be nothing but good.

[karter]

close those threads and close this thread bye

[FlyingJesus]

No it doesn't, because if it did nearly all threads on this forum should be removed.

That's not a reason.


No you clearly read me wrong. I said sharing an idea is not a discussion it's making a statement or passing judgement - sharing ideas is - talking to someone (which is the definition of discuss). When you reply to a person you are sharing your idea with their idea - therefore we have a discussion or specifically the start of a discussion. Not that it matters as you clearly think threads should be closed until a discussion happens. Threads do not start discussions, members do - this is pretty obvious.

Members have discussions, threads start them. If not then by definition the discussions that arise are off-topic. I do not believe that threads should be closed until a discussion happens, I have never said anything along those lines and you're yet again shooting at straw men.


So you admit that the threads are not breaking the rule but the members who refuse to start a discussion?

No, and I don't know how you'd get that from me continually saying that the threads are breaking the rule


As I've been saying for ages - it's not the threads that are in violation as they clearly allow for discussion

Allowing for =/= promotion of


Discussions can and do exist in these threads, which is all that matters. Correct?

No, again congratulating yourself is not actually the same as being right


Yes it is as it's the start of a discussion. The fact I've posted a definition is proof of this.

You posted a definition which goes exactly against what you're trying to claim here.


You never post proof

Well I do as you'd know if you read my posts, but often I don't need to as you provide hilarious counterarguments to your own prior posts for me


The fact you now admit that these threads clearly promote discussion

What :S no I don't, 4real try debating with what I actually post not what you wish I'd written


they "support" discussion. Look up the word promote and you will discover it means "support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of."

Facilitating is not the same as supporting or encouraging, and even if it were all you're doing here is telling me that the rule is pointless


These threads are progressing, correct?

No, not in a discussive manner


They support discussion, correct?

No, they just allow for it if it happens by chance


There's only proof of a discussion when a discussion actually happens and you can't get this from the thread title or the opening post, but you can actively discuss in almost every thread.

Cool story but proof of a discussion happening isn't the point, it's about whether a thread actively promotes it. You have been told this many times before


Posting a thread such as "WELL????" does not provide any information, but a thread saying "What are you listening to?" does, as it's inviting you to post what you are listening to and to discuss

Fantastic, although what I meant by threads starting with WELL???? is exactly what these threads are doing; posing a question in the title and then nothing further in the opening post ie "What are you listening to?" as the title and a complete absence of any sort of continuation in the post


So you are suggesting that nearly all threads are against the rule? Nearly all the threads I see under your strange definition of "discuss" that suggests there must be more than one post in reply to someone is a discussion when this rarely happens.

As you keep saying, one cannot force members to continue a conversation they don't want to get involved in. The issue is (as it has been throughout) the opening, not the follow-up


You haven't countered many if any points - particularly moderator/forum department discretion, as it's written in black and white it is fact. Saying you disagree with it isn't fact, it's opinion.

Kinda have actually, and especially that one. If you want to forget all about it then fair enough but don't accuse me of not having done something where I have (or vice versa as you do quite a lot)


I am using fact to support my claims - saying "no it doesn't" isn't evidence, which is what you've done the whole time. I've posted definitions of words for you because you're too lazy to look up the definition, I've even cited the rule highlighting areas you clearly do not understand.

And yet every time I've countered with logical arguments which throw your nonsense right out of the water because you're more focused on trying to get a one-up than actually following the thread. Telling me I don't understand things when I've not been shown to be wrong (even in the eyes of the Forum Manager) doesn't mean you're on top


Pointing out where I ask "is this correct? (or simply "correct?") isn't a counter argument and having a bratty tantrum when you can't think of a response is also not a counter argument. I asked in that comment what you want to see the rule changed to (your point revolves around the rule being wrong when it isn't, you just disagree with it but do not suggest anything).

You didn't ask that at all, you asked why I'd want it changed and I answered you. I think the one having a bratty tantrum is the one who's constantly ignoring parts he doesn't like and making up conversations that haven't happened.


So you've changed your point? You said:

So you want the rule changed to allow for them, but now you're saying you do not want the threads to remain as they are?

Either or, I thought that would be obvious. That's not changing my point, that's stating that one or the other has to change for logic and consistancy's sake


Again, I've posted proof that you keep changing your point yet you're yet to - you just say I have and then leave.

This is proof that you haven't been reading my posts at all! Several times I've shown quotes where you say one thing and then another later on that contradicts the former, and you either just ignore it or change the subject


The fact they do promote discussion is beyond you - they support discussion and there's no quality in the threads saying you can't discuss nor to discuss, but as it says neither you must surely be able to do it. When you go for a walk in the park and there's no sign at all on the grass saying you can walk on it, do you keep to the path? Of course not, as you can deduce that if there is no warning then it is fine.

The rule, again, does not need to be re-written. The rule allows for them as the rule is specifically written to not ask for threads to actively promote discussion as that would mean every thread would have to ask members to strictly discuss a point. It is there to stop threads with literally no way of a discussion from face value being posted suggest as "WHAT????" or "Are you male/female?" as they do not exactly allow for actively discussion to exist.

A discussion could arise in any thread, even those that you've used as examples (and especially the second), in which case if we adopt your ridiculous idea that potential is the same as promotion then the rule is totally unnecessary.


Yet he doesn't say this so making up his mind for him is irrelevant. Phil has acknowledged cold hard fact that they are not being abused and there are not many posts in these threads anyway (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8153943#post8153943).

Ok fab but that isn't what we're discussing here since I haven't said that billions upon billions of posts are made there

[buttons]

scottish; dare u to close this sick of seein it pop up

[GommeInc]

Members have discussions, threads start them. If not then by definition the discussions that arise are off-topic. I do not believe that threads should be closed until a discussion happens, I have never said anything along those lines and you're yet again shooting at straw men.
And there's no evidence that these threads are against them. So if you don't want threads closed until a discussion happens then there's no reasonable action that can be taken - seeing as these threads have discussions and allow for them, there is no issue. Promoting discussions isn't necessary if discussions happen anyway.


No, and I don't know how you'd get that from me continually saying that the threads are breaking the rule
Yet you're yet to prove this. I gave you the definition of promote. Prove it wrong.


Allowing for =/= promotion of
No, again congratulating yourself is not actually the same as being right
As above.
Until you post any evidence other than saying no all the time :rolleyes:


You posted a definition which goes exactly against what you're trying to claim here.
How? Again, no evidence to support yourself. They do as they have done. Do you even read these threads? The worst offender had a discussion right at the beginning. They're supported and promoted.


Well I do as you'd know if you read my posts, but often I don't need to as you provide hilarious counterarguments to your own prior posts for me
No you don't. I've given definitions of words - you just post "no they don't". That's not proof, that's denying the facts.


What :S no I don't, 4real try debating with what I actually post not what you wish I'd written


Facilitating is not the same as supporting or encouraging, and even if it were all you're doing here is telling me that the rule is pointless
So you're denying the facts, the definitions of what promote means? Again, I gave you a definition - where's your counter definition?


No, not in a discussive manner
Again, rarely threads do this. Saying no isn't a counter-argument - provide proof.


No, they just allow for it if it happens by chance
Yet discussions can happen and do happen, which is all that matters. This is known as denial - they allow for discussions and discussions have happened. Honestly, you have no argument.


Cool story but proof of a discussion happening isn't the point, it's about whether a thread actively promotes it. You have been told this many times before
Yes it is, you can't deny this.They do promote discussion - I gave you an operating and practical definition of promote:


support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.
Get a thesaurus out:

Facilitate | Support | Promote | Help | Aid | Forward | Make Easy | Ease


Fantastic, although what I meant by threads starting with WELL???? is exactly what these threads are doing; posing a question in the title and then nothing further in the opening post ie "What are you listening to?" as the title and a complete absence of any sort of continuation in the post
No they're not. Give me an answer to "WELL????" You can't. Well what? With "Post what you're listening to?" it's asking you to post music/songs. "WELL????" is asking me... nothing. Completely different. How are they the same? It's self-explanatory.


As you keep saying, one cannot force members to continue a conversation they don't want to get involved in. The issue is (as it has been throughout) the opening, not the follow-up
The opening is fine. If a thread asks what I am listening to, it is blatantly asking me what song I am listening to and to share the title of it with people. As these threads promote it, by support, facilitating, aid and helping me to share, it is blatantly obvious they promote it - or are you denying thesauruses and dictionaries are wrong and your definition is absolute? :rolleyes:


Kinda have actually, and especially that one. If you want to forget all about it then fair enough but don't accuse me of not having done something where I have (or vice versa as you do quite a lot)
No you didn't. It's fact - moderator discretion does exist. It's in the rule. I picked you out on it and you refuse to accept it exists. If you do not want to read a rule or even the T&Cs that's your problem.


And yet every time I've countered with logical arguments which throw your nonsense right out of the water because you're more focused on trying to get a one-up than actually following the thread. Telling me I don't understand things when I've not been shown to be wrong (even in the eyes of the Forum Manager) doesn't mean you're on top
Saying "no" isn't a logical argument. You're yet to post definitions of words and apply them to the rule - I've done that constantly. The Forum Manager hasn't even said he agrees with you - he said a rule change may work, and I've explained why the rule doesn't need to change by even supporting my argument. All you've done is post your opinion, I've posted facts such as the rule itself, the T&Cs, logical arguments and definitions. All you've done is deny, which isn't an argument.


You didn't ask that at all, you asked why I'd want it changed and I answered you. I think the one having a bratty tantrum is the one who's constantly ignoring parts he doesn't like and making up conversations that haven't happened.
And your suggestion was? You didn't post it, you just said a rule change to support those threads should be fine, yet it is now evident that they already are under the very definition of promote: to support, encourage or further progress.


Either or, I thought that would be obvious. That's not changing my point, that's stating that one or the other has to change for logic and consistancy's sake
No it is not obvious. You stated it in two different posts. Clearly you're now denying your argument. So which is it, you want the threads removed or you want them to stay? If you want them to stay, the rule doesn't need to be changed as they are already promoting discussion under the definition of promote - you're yet to argue why the definition of promote is wrong with any logical argument other than "no it doesn't mean that" which is denying the facts - promote means that, if you don't accept that then there's no helping you if you deny fact.


This is proof that you haven't been reading my posts at all! Several times I've shown quotes where you say one thing and then another later on that contradicts the former, and you either just ignore it or change the subject
Which I've rebutted. You for some reason quoted me quoting the definition of reaction and posting a reaction isn't a discussion. A discussion is talking to a person or people - sharing an idea with someone. A reaction isn't.


A discussion could arise in any thread, even those that you've used as examples (and especially the second), in which case if we adopt your ridiculous idea that potential is the same as promotion then the rule is totally unnecessary.
If a discussion could arise in any thread, then they are promoted. You can't deny what the definition of promote means. It means: "support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of." These threads support discussion, there's nothing stopping people from having a discussion unless they specifically ask not to. Are you really denying the definition of a word for your own definition? Because that's not fact, it's an opinion.


Ok fab but that isn't what we're discussing here since I haven't said that billions upon billions of posts are made there
So why mention what Phil apparently believes when that's all he's stated? Again I post proof that counters your argument that Phil apparently thinks these threads do not promote discussion, yet all he's actually accepted so far is that these threads are not being abused.


Honestly, I'm posting evidence countering your argument - evidence suggested as definitions of words. Saying "no" to fact isn't a counter-argument, it's denial.

So do you accept that these threads promote discussion? Remember, you must read this:



prəˈməʊt
verb
1.
support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.
"some regulation is still required to promote competition"
synonyms: encourage, further, advance, assist, aid, help, contribute to, foster, nurture, develop, boost, stimulate, forward; More
antonyms: obstruct, impede
give publicity to (a product, organization, or venture) so as to increase sales or public awareness.
"they are using famous personalities to promote the library nationally"
synonyms: advertise, publicize, give publicity to, beat/bang the drum for, popularize, sell, market, merchandise; More
attempt to ensure the passing of (a private Act of Parliament).
"the government of the day would not be promoting the bill"
2.
raise (someone) to a higher position or rank.
"she was promoted to General Manager"
synonyms: advance, upgrade, give promotion to, give a higher position to, elevate, move up, raise, improve the position/status of, aggrandize
Obstruct and impede are the opposite of promote. If these threads are not obstructing they must be... guess what? Promoting them.

[Phil]

Hey sorry everyone I've been out all day! Guys I have no idea what you're even arguing anymore, I literally could see anything I could answer any more than I already have. If you have a question or thought you want answering can you mention and ask me.


phil when u read this is it possible to ban users from individual threads

It's not possible to ban people from threads but it is possible to ban them from certain forums for a period of time. There's probably a plugin out there for that though.

[Kyle]

@scottish (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=53890); dare u to close this sick of seein it pop up
seconded. it has run its course and it just 2 users arguing technicalities in a circular fashion. phil needs to come to decision based on these facts he has been presented with.

[FlyingJesus]

Promoting discussions isn't necessary

Could end the thread here since you're now trying to argue against the specific wording of the rule


Yet you're yet to prove this. I gave you the definition of promote. Prove it wrong.

Your definition was literally claiming that doing nothing counts as promotion because you twisted the words in it. You keep telling me to prove the opposite to things that you haven't actually proven at all


As above.
Until you post any evidence other than saying no all the time :rolleyes:

Well I have to say no a lot because you keep making assumptions about me that are wrong


How? Again, no evidence to support yourself. They do as they have done. Do you even read these threads? The worst offender had a discussion right at the beginning. They're supported and promoted.

The only promotion of discussion comes from a tiny minority of posts, not the thread itself. You're getting muddled


No you don't. I've given definitions of words - you just post "no they don't". That's not proof, that's denying the facts.

That's clearly not all I've done - or clear at least to anyone who reads my posts properly - you just post "no you haven't". That's not proof, that's denying the facts.


So you're denying the facts, the definitions of what promote means? Again, I gave you a definition - where's your counter definition?

There's no need for one since your analysis of the definition was flawed to begin with - you're claiming that doing nothing is "support"


Again, rarely threads do this. Saying no isn't a counter-argument - provide proof.

Great news but I didn't suggest that all threads progress with discussions since that's totally beside the point


Yet discussions can happen and do happen, which is all that matters. This is known as denial - they allow for discussions and discussions have happened. Honestly, you have no argument.

Denial is something you're obviously well versed in, since you're still pretending that how a thread might possibly evolve has some bearing on its starting point. I do have an argument, and your attempt at a counter is a retrospective look at a tiny number of posts which has nothing to do with any of my claims


Yes it is, you can't deny this.They do promote discussion - I gave you an operating and practical definition of promote:

Yawn. You gave me a definition which you twisted beyond its meaning


No they're not. Give me an answer to "WELL????" You can't. Well what? With "Post what you're listening to?" it's asking you to post music/songs. "WELL????" is asking me... nothing. Completely different. How are they the same? It's self-explanatory.

Wow. You actually cannot read. I was being obtuse when I've said it before but this really proves it. WELL??? as an example was not as a thread title, but an opening post; it would still have the title. It is essentially what these threads mostly do in that they pose a question in the title and then do not expand upon them in any way.


The opening is fine. If a thread asks what I am listening to, it is blatantly asking me what song I am listening to and to share the title of it with people. As these threads promote it, by support, facilitating, aid and helping me to share, it is blatantly obvious they promote it - or are you denying thesauruses and dictionaries are wrong and your definition is absolute? :rolleyes:

A thesaurus almost never gives words that mean 100% the same thing as you ought to know, and you skewed the dictionary definition to include something that these threads don't even do. There is no promotion or support of discussion in the opening post of them


No you didn't. It's fact - moderator discretion does exist. It's in the rule. I picked you out on it and you refuse to accept it exists. If you do not want to read a rule or even the T&Cs that's your problem.

Yes I did. I showed how it did not refer to the point I was discussing and you got stroppy.


Saying "no" isn't a logical argument. You're yet to post definitions of words and apply them to the rule - I've done that constantly. The Forum Manager hasn't even said he agrees with you - he said a rule change may work, and I've explained why the rule doesn't need to change by even supporting my argument. All you've done is post your opinion, I've posted facts such as the rule itself, the T&Cs, logical arguments and definitions. All you've done is deny, which isn't an argument.

That is not all I've done and you'd know that if you read my posts. Seriously, the amount of straw men you're shooting down the F in HxF might as well stand for Farm. You're the one denying my involvement


And your suggestion was? You didn't post it, you just said a rule change to support those threads should be fine, yet it is now evident that they already are under the very definition of promote: to support, encourage or further progress.

Psssssst changing the question after being proved wrong doesn't actually mean I've done something wrong, just thought you'd like to know


No it is not obvious. You stated it in two different posts. Clearly you're now denying your argument. So which is it, you want the threads removed or you want them to stay? If you want them to stay, the rule doesn't need to be changed as they are already promoting discussion under the definition of promote - you're yet to argue why the definition of promote is wrong with any logical argument other than "no it doesn't mean that" which is denying the facts - promote means that, if you don't accept that then there's no helping you if you deny fact.

Obvious to anyone who can put more than one post together without confusing themselves then. I'm not denying my argument at all, I'm explaining to you that one or the other needs to be changed - because the rule does not cover them currently, despite your insistence that you can't possibly be wrong at all no matter how many times it's shown to you. I haven't said that the definition is wrong, only your application. I wonder if there's a single post in this thread where you haven't made up something I haven't said?


Which I've rebutted. You for some reason quoted me quoting the definition of reaction and posting a reaction isn't a discussion. A discussion is talking to a person or people - sharing an idea with someone. A reaction isn't.

Yes and along with it I quoted you attempting to claim that a single reply to someone (a reaction) is a discussion right away. You seem to believe that a discussion requires no involvement from a further party.


If a discussion could arise in any thread, then they are promoted.

Then all threads are valid and the rule needs changing, fab. You agree.


You can't deny what the definition of promote means. It means: "support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of." These threads support discussion, there's nothing stopping people from having a discussion unless they specifically ask not to. Are you really denying the definition of a word for your own definition? Because that's not fact, it's an opinion.

I'm (again) not denying the definition, only your application of it. The threads do not support discussion because they are asking purely for a flat answer


So why mention what Phil apparently believes when that's all he's stated? Again I post proof that counters your argument that Phil apparently thinks these threads do not promote discussion, yet all he's actually accepted so far is that these threads are not being abused.

Because that isn't all that he's stated :S he also spoke about changes to the rule and how it currently doesn't work in relation to the threads in question


Honestly, I'm posting evidence countering your argument - evidence suggested as definitions of words. Saying "no" to fact isn't a counter-argument, it's denial.

All I'm denying is things that you're pretending I've said which I haven't, which ironically you've just done again


So do you accept that these threads promote discussion? Remember, you must read this:


Obstruct and impede are the opposite of promote. If these threads are not obstructing they must be... guess what? Promoting them.

Wow guess I must be promoting slavery and genocide. Come on, you know that opposites are not the only options, right?


Guys I have no idea what you're even arguing anymore

Mostly just Ryan claiming I've said things that I haven't said tbh

[scottish]

seconded. it has run its course and it just 2 users arguing technicalities in a circular fashion. phil needs to come to decision based on these facts he has been presented with.

It's entertaining watching them quote each other sentence by sentence commenting on it though

Phil; what is your decision

[Yawn]

i havent been reading for a couple of days but i know that gommeinc is wrong -.-

[GommeInc]

Hidden all the rubbish

Could end the thread here since you're now trying to argue against the specific wording of the rule
Your definition was literally claiming that doing nothing counts as promotion because you twisted the words in it. You keep telling me to prove the opposite to things that you haven't actually proven at all
Go on prove the opposite, you've done it again here - twisted the words? How? I clearly posted evidence and as I can interpret it that way so can the forum department. I've proven the definition of promote countless times. Denying the meaning isn't a counter-argument, but shows you're in denial for not accepting fact...


Well I have to say no a lot because you keep making assumptions about me that are wrong.
The only promotion of discussion comes from a tiny minority of posts, not the thread itself. You're getting muddled
Yet the threads are promoting discussion as I keep saying. Even if it is a minority (which only ever happens anyway - Discuss Anything is proof yet again), the threads are still promoting discussion.



I don't care, I want proof in a counter-argument. Saying you disagree is not a counter-argument. Go on, post proof for once rather than post an opinion. You keep denying facts - I've posted the definition of words because you fail to understand just how wrong you are.

[quote=FlyingJesus]There's no need for one since your analysis of the definition was flawed to begin with - you're claiming that doing nothing is "support"
It is, it's blatantly obvious to anyone with more than an E in English. Support is "to carrybear all or part of the weight of; hold up" and is further defined as: "to be capable of bearing; withstand". Since these threads carry discussions, no matter how small, they support discussion. They are also capable of discussions, since discussions have existed. Can you really not think of a counter-argument without just saying "no"?


Great news but I didn't suggest that all threads progress with discussions since that's totally beside the point
So you admit you're wrong? As they are clearly supported by these threads, they are therefore promoted by the threads themselves. You do not need an active word to promote a discussion since it's rare for threads to do so.


Denial is something you're obviously well versed in, since you're still pretending that how a thread might possibly evolve has some bearing on its starting point. I do have an argument, and your attempt at a counter is a retrospective look at a tiny number of posts which has nothing to do with any of my claims
This is another pointless remark that doesn't need replying to. Your argument is and has always been flawed and you fail to post a counter-argument.


Yawn. You gave me a definition which you twisted beyond its meaning
No I didn't but as you again haven't posted evidence I shall accept this as you being wrong. Excellent.


Wow. You actually cannot read. I was being obtuse when I've said it before but this really proves it. WELL??? as an example was not as a thread title, but an opening post; it would still have the title. It is essentially what these threads mostly do in that they pose a question in the title and then do not expand upon them in any way.
I've given up quoting your posts as it's a waste of time as you fail to post any counter-argument and just post an opinion saying "no" and then go on a hypocritical ad hominem attack without any grounding.

So I'll post directly to Phil who seems to have more than two brain cells to rub together and clearly has some rational thought.

Phil:

The word promote means:

"support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of."

The rule doesn't need changing. To support something, is to "bear all or part of the weight of; hold up." It also further means "to be capable of bearing; withstand"

As these threads are capable of bearing a discussion they are not against the rule so you don't have to edit the rule based on one person's poor ability to read a dictionary. As promote means to "support or actively encourage", and these threads support active discussion, they are well within the rules.

So what do you think? As I've contributed to the discussion by highlighted that these threads are not abused, and that the threads clearly promote discussion (as above), the rule isn't being broken. The only real action is to deal with members who may abuse these threads. BUT, as the threads are not being abused, is it really wise to try to stop members using these threads if it provides them with some mild form of entertainment? If they are using these threads and gaining post count, they are contributing to overall forum activity and surely this should be rewarded since active membership is a problem?


seconded. it has run its course and it just 2 users arguing technicalities in a circular fashion. phil needs to come to decision based on these facts he has been presented with.
Well that shouldn't be difficult, since I'm the only one pointing out the facts here :P It's only one member who seems to not understand the rules - you can't change a rule because someone either denies what it means or fails to read it properly.


Hey sorry everyone I've been out all day! Guys I have no idea what you're even arguing anymore, I literally could see anything I could answer any more than I already have. If you have a question or thought you want answering can you mention and ask me.
I'm just picking out how he doesn't seem to post any evidence of why the threads are against the rule. Since I've posted evidence that these threads are not abused (it was something low like 6 posts a day in the middle of the week) it seems absurd to change the rule, especially when the rule is perfectly fine. Promote literally means to support or encourage active discussion, and as support means to be capable (and these threads have had discussions in them therefore they are capable, nothing is stopping you from having a discussion) it would be absurd to change the rule when the write word (promote) has been used. He seems to deny this but refuses to post any evidence to the contrary, and blames my application, when you can't apply the rule any other way since support = bear the weight/be capable of. I post evidence and he denies my evidence, without any explanation or counter-argument. If he can't be bothered to explain or post evidence then why should he be listened to?

[FlyingJesus]

"You keep telling me to prove the opposite to things that you haven't actually proven at all"
"Go on prove the opposite"

lmao

All of your "proof" has been countered with logic and reasoning, and whenever I post something you can't just say "PROVE IT" to you ignore it completely (like when you claimed that only polar opposites exist and no middle grounds) but let's keep this simple. There are basically 3 ways this can go:

1) These threads are breaking the rules because they do not promote discussion, and as such they should be dealt with properly
2) These threads are breaking the rules because they do not promote discussion, and as such the rule should be updated to allow them in certain instances
3) These threads are not breaking the rules, and as such the rule is useless and should be removed since literally all threads can "promote" discussion by doing nothing at all. If this is the case then Spam should be deleted as a forum and all threads within it moved to their appropriate forums.

[GommeInc]

"You keep telling me to prove the opposite to things that you haven't actually proven at all"
"Go on prove the opposite"

lmao

All of your "proof" has been countered with logic and reasoning, and whenever I post something you can't just say "PROVE IT" to you ignore it completely (like when you claimed that only polar opposites exist and no middle grounds) but let's keep this simple. There are basically 3 ways this can go:

1) These threads are breaking the rules because they do not promote discussion, and as such they should be dealt with properly
2) These threads are breaking the rules because they do not promote discussion, and as such the rule should be updated to allow them in certain instances
3) These threads are not breaking the rules, and as such the rule is useless and should be removed since literally all threads can "promote" discussion by doing nothing at all. If this is the case then Spam should be deleted as a forum and all threads within it moved to their appropriate forums.
See, no proof yet again Phil. The fact I said that polar opposites do not just need to exist is enough, yet apparently here he thinks I did - not that it matters and it is his fault this debate has gone beyond its means because he argues rubbish without, as you have seen, no evidence or proof. I asked him if he was to walk on grass with no sign saying not or a sign not even saying you are allowed to, would he breaking any law/by-law? Clearly not - if nothing is telling you anything you assume you are allowed to. Much like these threads: There have been discussions in them, they do not state they only want one word answers or no discussion... It falls within the rule too seeing as active discussion is promoted, seeing as they support discussions as with the simple definition of promote.

3) Has already been discredited. The rule clearly would not allow a thread with "WHAT????" in the title as it's not asking a question you can answer. At least "What are you listening to?" implies you post music. It's pretty obvious and you refuse to post evidence to the contrary. Also, threads which actively not want discussion by saying "Just say male/female/etc". This would be in violation of the rule.

[FlyingJesus]

You told me that if X doesn't hinder Y it is promoting it. The evidence is in your posts, I shouldn't need to re-quote you again and again for you to be able to see it, especially when you just ignore it anyway. Also going by your idea of "reply = discussion", even a thread that does ask for a simple answer can potentially have a discussion and by your logic still wouldn't be against the rule, so again the rule would not be needed.

[GommeInc]

You told me that if X doesn't hinder Y it is promoting it. The evidence is in your posts, I shouldn't need to re-quote you again and again for you to be able to see it, especially when you just ignore it anyway. Also going by your idea of "reply = discussion", even a thread that does ask for a simple answer can potentially have a discussion and by your logic still wouldn't be against the rule, so again the rule would not be needed.
It is, because nothing is hindering it therefore it can be assumed it is allowed. The fact I asked you if walking on grass that doesn't say you can or cannot is pretty obvious of this - you didn't answer this as above, either. You assume you can walk on grass unless otherwise told not. It's typical human nature. Not bringing law in purposely but in the United Kingdom as citizens laws are there to stop you from acting in a certain way - if there is no law it is permitted unless the police or courts activate their constitutional role of being able to act to stop people from acting in a certain way if it is against public morality, health and policy. Similar to the rules here - the forum department has discretion of what constitutes breaking a rule and as these threads are not they do not need to enforce a rule which doesn't ask for it nor is being abused as Phil has acknowledged. For public authorities and the government, they can only act if a law tells them too. It's why moderators and the forum department get a lot of hassle when they make up a rule to attack a member because how is a member to know not to act if no one will them?

Using the word promote again as you clearly keep denying what it means: "support or actively encourage". If nothing is hindering discussion, there's nothing to say it isn't supported either. Again, proof of this elsewhere which you seem to keep denying is with the Current Affairs forums. Many threads (other than Undertakers) do not ask for discussion, yet you can do and it happens. Same for these threads - nothing is telling you not to discuss these threads. Why? Because they too are promoting discussion. Promote, as I keep having to tell you, means to "support or actively encourage". As these threads are supporting discussions because we know discussions have existed, they fall within the rules.

Again, you're failing to grasp my point. Asking "WELLL???" isn't asking anything - it lacks any quality. Well what? How would you answer a thread like this? You can't as, unlike "Post what you are listening to?" which actually is promoting discussion, it isn't asking for a type of response and is open to discussion, which (using the rule against this logic you have) is against the rules as in order for a post to be on-topic as per the rule, it has to be based on the topic of the thread - what is the topic "WELLL???" is asking? There isn't one - it can be argued it is asking for you to post against the rule by making off-topic posts since members can't post on-topic other than to ask "Well what?" which is again against the rules under short/meaningless/one or two word answer replies, unless the first post gives it a quality. Since "Post what you are listening to?" gives the thread a quality just in the title, to post what you are listening to and the answer is obviously music or maybe even the radio, the posts will therefore be on-topic AND as nothing is stopping you from discussing someone else's song choice, it is promoting discussion as discussions are clearly supported. What's not to understand with this?

[FlyingJesus]

So now you've changed it to allowing = promoting

Also you're still missing the point of the WELL thing even though it's been explained: that is basically what these threads are saying in the opening post, it was never said that that was the title at all. That said, even if that was the title one could reply with "yes I am well thank you, how are you?" which is the start of a conversation. As is "I wonder what this thread is about" with someone replying with an idea of what it could be - pretty ridiculous examples but still conversations and still by your logic not a rulebreaking thread.

[GommeInc]

So now you've changed it to allowing = promoting
So I see you've ignored my point again. Evidence to the contrary that if x doesn't hinder y then y is still hindered or y is pointless?
Promote = "support or encourage". If x doesn't hinder y then yes it is allowing it. Why? Because it is supporting it or facilitating it. Allowing and promoting can be used in the same sentence or synonymously (again this is proof I am much better at English than you). If I create a system which supports PHP coding, I am promoting it by allowing it to be supported and therefore allowing it to be used in my system.

The YouTube "Promotion on YouTube" page has another example: Promoting your videos with Fan Finder and AdWords for Video allows you to connect with audiences."

So using my example again: If x doesn't hinder y, then it is assumed it is allowed (because promote means to support - capable of bearing / allow - to let happen)


Also you're still missing the point of the WELL thing even though it's been explained: that is basically what these threads are saying in the opening post, it was never said that that was the title at all. That said, even if that was the title one could reply with "yes I am well thank you, how are you?" which is the start of a conversation. As is "I wonder what this thread is about" with someone replying with an idea of what it could be - pretty ridiculous examples but still conversations and still by your logic not a rulebreaking thread.
You are still missing my point. If a thread asks "WELLL???" and nothing else, it is against the rules as it asking you to post off-topic posts since the topic hasn't been established. The difference here is that "Post what you are listening to?" doesn't need an opening post as the task at hand is in the thread title. It is asking you to post what you are listening to - isn't this really obvious? :S "WELLL???" isn't asking you to do anything although the wonderful thing about the rule is that a moderator could either close it there and then or maybe ask what the purpose of the thread is before taking action - forum department discretion is therefore activated - they may change the thread title to be more specific. Furthermore, the thread wouldn't fit in a forum as it again lacks a quality - further making it "pointless". It would only really work in Spam. It's why the argument for moving these threads to forum games which was one action Phil was considering wouldn't work because these threads are on-topic in their current forums.

Also, the rule is clearly there for threads asking for you to break other areas of the rule. Again, a thread asking for you not to discuss or to post off-topic posts, or a thread only asking for short, one or two word answers such as "What gender are you?" without any qualitative post to accompany it or simply asking for you to reply with "male/female/both", unless the OP posts later saying it's for something useful like college although why anyone would need data from a tiny forum is beyond me. If this area of the rule didn't exist, threads which are asking you to break the pointless posting rule will be allowed, contradicting the aims of the rule.

[FlyingJesus]

Discuss Anything

Also... asks for one word (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=800236), asks for a yes/no answer (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799845), asks for a single date (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=800108), asks specifically for just an episode title (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799996), asks specifically for just a nail polish (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=751154), and yet there is more discussion in them other than the Habbo names one than in What Are You Listening To ie: some. Either they should have been shut down from the start because of their wording or yet again the rule is not needed

[GommeInc]

Discuss Anything

Also... asks for one word (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=800236), asks for a yes/no answer (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799845), asks for a single date (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=800108), asks specifically for just an episode title (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799996), asks specifically for just a nail polish (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=751154), and yet there is more discussion in them other than the Habbo names one than in What Are You Listening To ie: some. Either they should have been shut down from the start because of their wording or yet again the rule is not needed
Discuss Anything is a forum and isn't in the rules as members can't make forums.

"What's your Habbo name?" serves a purpose in Habbo in General (which was my point earlier, if it has a certain quality such as to help some for college), so it is fine. How else would you do it? Not everyone will put it on their profile or know to do so - plus you can see what someone's name was before they changed it. Plus it won't be abused and nothing is stopping you from asking why someone chose that name.

"When do you break up for the summer?" doesn't ask for a single date. The fact people have said more than that below debunks this...

"Wrestlemania 30 - TONIGHT" doesn't ask for yes/no replies, the fact people are saying more debunks this.

"What's your favourite Doctor Who episode?" isn't asking specifically for a title - where is it saying "just post the title of the episode"? Again, the fact the thread has left it open to people to discuss suggests it is promoting it (and it is, people are posting and discussing it).

Again, you seem to be not grasping the definition of promote and understanding the rule. I've told you countless times what "promote" means. It is to "support or encourage", "establish". Also, you still don't seem to understand that just because something doesn't say you should just do something, means you can't do something else. Are you going to answer my question?

"If you were to go to a park and there is no sign on the grass or anywhere else in the park saying you can or cannot walk on the grass, would you still not walk on the grass?"

You are still allowed to - nothing is telling you not to. Since these threads are not stopping you from posting why you like an episode or to reply to someone else, they are promoting discussion, as discussion is clearly supported until it specifically says "only short, one or two word answers" or "off-topic posts, please" (which sounds like a forum game and probably is one).

[FlyingJesus]

Discuss Anything is a forum and isn't in the rules as members can't make forums.

What :S I was saying that threads which don't fit elsewhere can go in Discuss Anything, in response to you saying "the thread wouldn't fit in a forum"


"What's your Habbo name?" serves a purpose in Habbo in General (which was my point earlier, if it has a certain quality such as to help some for college), so it is fine. How else would you do it? Not everyone will put it on their profile or know to do so - plus you can see what someone's name was before they changed it. Plus it won't be abused and nothing is stopping you from asking why someone chose that name.

I'm not claiming that it's not being used right, I'm stating that it asks people specifically to post short answers


"When do you break up for the summer?" doesn't ask for a single date. The fact people have said more than that below debunks this...

"Wrestlemania 30 - TONIGHT" doesn't ask for yes/no replies, the fact people are saying more debunks this.

"What's your favourite Doctor Who episode?" isn't asking specifically for a title - where is it saying "just post the title of the episode"? Again, the fact the thread has left it open to people to discuss suggests it is promoting it (and it is, people are posting and discussing it).

People saying more than the thread asks is exactly my point - if that can happen despite a yes/no question like "Any watching it?" then literally no thread at all will fall foul of the rule by your logic and therefore that part of it is pointles. Thanks for agreeing


Again, you seem to be not grasping the definition of promote and understanding the rule. I've told you countless times what "promote" means. It is to "support or encourage", "establish". Also, you still don't seem to understand that just because something doesn't say you should just do something, means you can't do something else.

Grasping that pretty well considering that's the exact approach I'm talking about putting into practice


Are you going to answer my question?

"If you were to go to a park and there is no sign on the grass or anywhere else in the park saying you can or cannot walk on the grass, would you still not walk on the grass?"

Prob unless it was wet or something.


You are still allowed to - nothing is telling you not to. Since these threads are not stopping you from posting why you like an episode or to reply to someone else, they are promoting discussion, as discussion is clearly supported until it specifically says "only short, one or two word answers" or "off-topic posts, please" (which sounds like a forum game and probably is one).

This is where it all falls apart. If literally just being a space where discussion can happen is promotion of discussion, even threads like that would be fine because it's still entirely possible to have discussions in them. In fact just because of peoples' contrary nature I bet they'd spark more discussion than most threads currently do :P so if we use your interpretation of threads that "promote active discussion" no threads could possible be in contravention of it unless they start off locked

[Phil]

Guys my electricity has been gone and I have a lot of stuff to do so I'll read what you've posted sometime tonight or tomorrow. I have a lot to do :P

[GommeInc]

What :S I was saying that threads which don't fit elsewhere can go in Discuss Anything, in response to you saying "the thread wouldn't fit in a forum"
Oh I see, well depends on the content. By face value it would go in spam as the title doesn't give anything away and moderators tend to dislike threads which do not give the topic in the thread title.


I'm not claiming that it's not being used right, I'm stating that it asks people specifically to post short answers
No it isn't, if it were it would be specifically asking for short answers e.g. "just your Habbo name". There's nothing in the thread to suggest it only wants Habbo names. Plus as the rule reiterates forum department discretion moderators can interpret the rule to allow this sort of thread as it is being used correctly and relevant in that forum.


People saying more than the thread asks is exactly my point - if that can happen despite a yes/no question like "Any watching it?" then literally no thread at all will fall foul of the rule by your logic and therefore that part of it is pointles. Thanks for agreeing
But I disagree and obviously will as those threads are not against the rules. But threads can fall foul of the rule hence why that bit exists, I've posted examples already. If a thread literally asks for no discussion or is asking for just one word answers then the rule is being violated.


Grasping that pretty well considering that's the exact approach I'm talking about putting into practice
So you agree the rule doesn't need changing now? You were happy to disagree with the definition of promote only a page ago. Seeing as you seem to accept what it means these threads clearly allow for discussion (or to "promote" discussion by not stating you cannot or should not discuss). If the threads said not to discuss and actively went out of their way by telling members not to discuss it would fall foul of the rule. As it doesn't and it supports discussion as per the definition of promote, they are therefore within the rule.



Still not stopping you from walking on the grass. It's like not touching a thread because it is of no interest to you.

[quote=FlyingJesus]This is where it all falls apart. If literally just being a space where discussion can happen is promotion of discussion, even threads like that would be fine because it's still entirely possible to have discussions in them. In fact just because of peoples' contrary nature I bet they'd spark more discussion than most threads currently do :P so if we use your interpretation of threads that "promote active discussion" no threads could possible be in contravention of it unless they start off locked
Since that is what "promote" and "promotion" can and does mean then yes, provided there is a possibility of discussion and nothing saying not to then it is promotion. As I have stated - threads against this part of the rule are ones that go out of their way to not want discussion or specifically state it only wants one word or "pointless" threads, or lack any "serious" discussion which seems to be the impression I'm getting after reading the spam forum threads. Threads like "WELLL???" with no quality other than that as the thread title and no post that can easily allow you to understand what the point of the thread is may be against the rule (if the thread doesn't appear to evolve or later on the OP makes it obvious it hasn't got a point). Moderators can leave it for members to argue what the OP means: "I am well thank you", WELL??? what? :P" etc. If the OP says "Just bored and making a thread" then the thread is clearly in violation of the rule and if I recall correctly moderators just move this sort of thread into spam to die or to allow to carry on as a random discussion thread with no actual topic. It's a "do as you please" thread, rather than a "do as long as it has a topic" thread. This thread (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=800234) looks like one example where it was posted somewhere else and as it served no purpose in the forum it was posted in, it was moved to spam.

[FlyingJesus]

Oh I see, well depends on the content. By face value it would go in spam as the title doesn't give anything away and moderators tend to dislike threads which do not give the topic in the thread title.

What people tend to dislike has no influence on the Anything in "Discuss Anything" :P


No it isn't, if it were it would be specifically asking for short answers e.g. "just your Habbo name". There's nothing in the thread to suggest it only wants Habbo names. Plus as the rule reiterates forum department discretion moderators can interpret the rule to allow this sort of thread as it is being used correctly and relevant in that forum.

But some (such as the WWE thread) do specifically ask for a yes/no since the literal wording in it is just "are you going to watch it?". The whole thing about the potential for more works further than the words on the screen obviously and once again going by your logic nothing at all could go against the "promotion" of discussion since even asking for one word answers could prompt a reply of "but why? What reason do you have for only wanting short answers?" which is again more discussion than many current threads have, and with your interpretation of the wording would be absolutely fine.


But I disagree and obviously will as those threads are not against the rules. But threads can fall foul of the rule hence why that bit exists, I've posted examples already. If a thread literally asks for no discussion or is asking for just one word answers then the rule is being violated.

Examples which don't hold up to scrutiny if your reasoning is stuck to properly


So you agree the rule doesn't need changing now? You were happy to disagree with the definition of promote only a page ago. Seeing as you seem to accept what it means these threads clearly allow for discussion (or to "promote" discussion by not stating you cannot or should not discuss). If the threads said not to discuss and actively went out of their way by telling members not to discuss it would fall foul of the rule. As it doesn't and it supports discussion as per the definition of promote, they are therefore within the rule.

No because if we accept your interpretation of the definitions then nothing at all can break the rules since even attempting to can spark a conversation, and according to your own words simply allowing for it (which is the case unless a thread is closed as soon as it's made) is some sort of promotion of active discussion, and that renders the rule unnecessary.


Since that is what "promote" and "promotion" can and does mean then yes, provided there is a possibility of discussion and nothing saying not to then it is promotion. As I have stated - threads against this part of the rule are ones that go out of their way to not want discussion or specifically state it only wants one word or "pointless" threads, or lack any "serious" discussion which seems to be the impression I'm getting after reading the spam forum threads. Threads like "WELLL???" with no quality other than that as the thread title and no post that can easily allow you to understand what the point of the thread is may be against the rule (if the thread doesn't appear to evolve or later on the OP makes it obvious it hasn't got a point). Moderators can leave it for members to argue what the OP means: "I am well thank you", WELL??? what? :P" etc. If the OP says "Just bored and making a thread" then the thread is clearly in violation of the rule and if I recall correctly moderators just move this sort of thread into spam to die or to allow to carry on as a random discussion thread with no actual topic. It's a "do as you please" thread, rather than a "do as long as it has a topic" thread. This thread (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=800234) looks like one example where it was posted somewhere else and as it served no purpose in the forum it was posted in, it was moved to spam.

Again if we fully accept your idea of potential = promotion then in a community that isn't restricted by the will of a thread creator all threads that are made and not immediately closed "promote" discussion simply by existing. There is no thread at all that can forcefully restrict conversation without intervention, and such intervention wouldn't be necessary if the current rules were enforced to the letter. There is literally no way at all to have an open thread that cannot potentially have a conversation held in it

[Sian]

ok, so, as much as this is going in a circle and it's even between who likes these threads and who hates them. What if I float around the idea of those who do abuse it, to get thread bans for a day or so?

Opinions?
Phil;

[GommeInc]

What people tend to dislike has no influence on the Anything in "Discuss Anything" :P
Moderators, not people ;) If moderators think a thread is against the rule (does not support, allow etc) they can exert their discretion.


But some (such as the WWE thread) do specifically ask for a yes/no since the literal wording in it is just "are you going to watch it?". The whole thing about the potential for more works further than the words on the screen obviously and once again going by your logic nothing at all could go against the "promotion" of discussion since even asking for one word answers could prompt a reply of "but why? What reason do you have for only wanting short answers?" which is again more discussion than many current threads have, and with your interpretation of the wording would be absolutely fine.
It isn't asking "just", you can't assume something that isn't there or even hinted, especially when the opening post says contrary to this "Any watching it? I'm gonna attempt" - furthermore you're focusing on the smaller picture and not the bigger picture. The thread is on-topic in that forum, is about a specific event and is open to discussion therefore it promotes it (support, encourages etc). The rule is there to stop threads which ask "just" or "only", and none of these threads are doing that. If a thread is actively wanting to discourage discussion it is against the rule. It's very specific and done so on purpose for the very reason that all threads are capable of discussion unless the creator of the thread goes out of their way to ask for no discussion.


Examples which don't hold up to scrutiny if your reasoning is stuck to properly
What's not to understand? If a thread clearly discourages discussion because the creator says so or makes it clear, it is against the rule. It's what the rule says. Threads which "only allow for ... and do not promote". Threads which are against the rule disallow for ... and discourage active discussion. It rarely happens, but if it does the rule stops it and allows the moderators to act. This is coupled with earlier on in the rule where it states that t is not allowed to post meaningless threads.


No because if we accept your interpretation of the definitions then nothing at all can break the rules since even attempting to can spark a conversation, and according to your own words simply allowing for it (which is the case unless a thread is closed as soon as it's made) is some sort of promotion of active discussion, and that renders the rule unnecessary.
Again you've not understood the rule (it's not my interpretation as it's black and white in the rules). Threads which disallow and discourage discussion are meaningless. You can post "why can't we discuss?" but the intentions of the thread are clear from the beginning. This can be coupled with other areas of the rule such as posting threads which are random.


Again if we fully accept your idea of potential = promotion then in a community that isn't restricted by the will of a thread creator all threads that are made and not immediately closed "promote" discussion simply by existing. There is no thread at all that can forcefully restrict conversation without intervention, and such intervention wouldn't be necessary if the current rules were enforced to the letter. There is literally no way at all to have an open thread that cannot potentially have a conversation held in it
Not entirely, you get other areas of the rule which assist this specific bit of the rule. A thread which discourages discussion from the start is in violation of the rule, and posts thereafter become meaningless if the thread from the very start was meaningless. A thread that has been created by a member who doesn't care about it and just does it for laughs has made a meaningless and random thread with no topic, and if they say "I don't care what you think" at the beginning or afterwards it clearly discourages active discussion conversation - you get a contradiction in terms where people discuss something that lacks an actual topic and is "pointless" (random, off-topic etc) - which usually results in the thread being moved to Spam. The last time this area of the rule was enforced a lot was when that member who made one or two accounts and was trying to be funny by posting threads in loads of forums without really stating a topic and ended up just offending people. Can't remember the names although pleb comes to mind (although that's probably how I described the member when the threads first appeared :P). Moderators closed the threads or moved them to Spam as the forums they were in (Current Affairs was one) did not relate to the subject area of the forum.


ok, so, as much as this is going in a circle and it's even between who likes these threads and who hates them. What if I float around the idea of those who do abuse it, to get thread bans for a day or so?

Opinions?
Phil;
It's been suggested :) Problem is the threads aren't abused so it's unlikely it will ever be used. Technically it's in the rules and T&Cs that moderators/the forum department can deem posts/threads pointless so they could act on that.

[FlyingJesus]

You keep switching between believing that the potential for discussion is promotion and believing that specific wording matters - if it's one it can't be the other. Even literally saying "do not discuss anything at all in this thread" promotes discussion under your interpretation of the word and therefore won't break that part of the rule even if it tries to :P in which case of course such a clause cannot be brought into effect ever and should be removed

[mrwoooooooo]

get a life pls guiz

[GommeInc]

You keep switching between believing that the potential for discussion is promotion and believing that specific wording matters - if it's one it can't be the other. Even literally saying "do not discuss anything at all in this thread" promotes discussion under your interpretation of the word and therefore won't break that part of the rule even if it tries to :P in which case of course such a clause cannot be brought into effect ever and should be removed
Why can't it be both? Nothing is black and white, context is key and every situation is different. Every thread has potential, but not every thread wants a discussion. I was quite clear... It can be brought into effect and I posted examples - threads which clearly do not promote active discussion by specifically stating they do not want it or making it obvious there is no topic for discussion. The thread "just a note (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=800234)" is a good example. It's just someone making a note... of a name.

[FlyingJesus]

It can't be both because either threads promote discussion simply by existing or they don't :P and "just a note" doesn't say "don't reply to this" in the same way that none of the ones I posted do, but you said those still promote discussion even when they literally asked for yes or no answers. In this case it absolutely is black or white because you're making a statement of supposed fact

[GommeInc]

It can't be both because either threads promote discussion simply by existing or they don't :P and "just a note" doesn't say "don't reply to this" in the same way that none of the ones I posted do, but you said those still promote discussion even when they literally asked for yes or no answers. In this case it absolutely is black or white because you're making a statement of supposed fact
Yes and if they don't promote discussion they're against the rule. Unless a thread actively goes out of its way to not want a discussion e.g. a note on someone's name, it is within the rule.. Again, you're failing to read the rule. A thread that actively discourages discussion is against the rules. If all else fails read the rule in the opposite and you have what's not wanted. Also it's clear that just a note isn't wanting a discussion seeing as the OP says "just a note". Just is the very important word here ;)

Also, they do not ask for one word answers - you keep refusing to post where they say "only" or "just". I don't think literally means what you think it means in this context. Wrestlemania did not ask "just say yes or no", it asked are you watching it - nothing indicating "just" in any part of the thread. Thus, the thread promotes discussion (since we established that just because something isn't saying we can or can't does not mean we can't). Also the fact its in its relevant forum and is relevant to forum members. A note about someone's name isn't exactly useful to members. In fact, it's meaningless under the rule.

Threads do have potential, but the rule is clearly concerned not with just potential but threads that do not promote discussion which is how it is working at the moment. Just a note is an example of this, where the thread is "just" a note of someone's name. I have no idea where that thread was posted but none of the forums seem relevant other than for Habbo In General, and as the creator of it doesn't seem to want to discuss anything and the posts in reply to it would only be meaningless or off-topic, it's kind of obvious why it's in Spam :P

[FlyingJesus]

Unless a thread actively goes out of its way to not want a discussion e.g. a note on someone's name, it is within the rule.. Again, you're failing to read the rule. A thread that actively discourages discussion is against the rules. If all else fails read the rule in the opposite and you have what's not wanted.

What no now you're telling me that what isn't written in the rules is what the rule is about. There's no part of it that says "asking people not to discuss things is against the rules", it just says "threads that do not promote active discussion"; and by your interpretation of the definition all threads do regardless of what they actually ask for


but the rule is clearly concerned not with just potential but threads that do not promote discussion

Which has been my point all along, and again your claims are that potential is promotion

[GommeInc]

What no now you're telling me that what isn't written in the rules is what the rule is about. There's no part of it that says "asking people not to discuss things is against the rules", it just says "threads that do not promote active discussion"; and by your interpretation of the definition all threads do regardless of what they actually ask for
Read it again... The rule is against threads that specifically do not want discussion or do not allow it. It's why it wants threads which promote it - therefore, threads which do not allow it (or "promote" it) are against the rules. You're diverging from the point again... Also, you seem to think potential is important - the rule isn't concerned with just potential, but threads which have a topic and are not against discussion - seeing as the remainder of the rule suggests that moderators are looking for abuse and "pointless" replies. Potential is part of a much bigger picture. The bigger picture takes into account "abuse", what's defined as "pointless" (off-topic, meaningless, random), relevance and repetition. You're doing what you did the Sexual Offences legislation by not reading the rule in its entirety by picking on individual provisions, when all individual provisions shape the rule that's broken. A thread needs to be "meaningful" (i.e. not be random), have a topic and not only allow for short replies and must not prevent discussion (to use the opposite of promote). Since threads rarely do this it's rarely used, but in case members do e.g. "just a note", the rule can be used. It seems to just focus on main board forums, and moves them to Spam because they have potential, but as they lack relevance/meaning they're unwanted in the forum they were originally posted in as the threads will be off-topic anyway (since just a note lacks an actual topic and seems to be for the poster's benefit rather than the benefit of the members - why he/she couldn't write it down or save it on their computer is beyond me).


Which has been my point all along, and again your claims are that potential is promotion
Then why are we arguing if the rule is fine as it is? All this because of the word promote.

[FlyingJesus]

Read it again... The rule is against threads that specifically do not want discussion or do not allow it. It's why it wants threads which promote it - therefore, threads which do not allow it (or "promote" it) are against the rules. You're diverging from the point again...

Not diverging from the point, that's been the point all along :P


Also, you seem to think potential is important - the rule isn't concerned with just potential, but threads which have a topic and are not against discussion - seeing as the remainder of the rule suggests that moderators are looking for abuse and "pointless" replies. Potential is part of a much bigger picture. The bigger picture takes into account "abuse", what's defined as "pointless" (off-topic, meaningless, random), relevance and repetition.

You're the one who brought potential into the discussion by claiming that the threads in question can allow for discussion and therefore by your logic promote it. You're literally giving me my own points here


You're doing what you did the Sexual Offences legislation by not reading the rule in its entirety by picking on individual provisions, when all individual provisions shape the rule that's broken. A thread needs to be "meaningful" (i.e. not be random), have a topic and not only allow for short replies and must not prevent discussion (to use the opposite of promote). Since threads rarely do this it's rarely used, but in case members do e.g. "just a note", the rule can be used. It seems to just focus on main board forums, and moves them to Spam because they have potential, but as they lack relevance/meaning they're unwanted in the forum they were originally posted in as the threads will be off-topic anyway (since just a note lacks an actual topic and seems to be for the poster's benefit rather than the benefit of the members - why he/she couldn't write it down or save it on their computer is beyond me).

You seem to be missing the point of what I'm saying - if (as you've postulated time and time again) a thread "promotes" discussion simply by existing then it does so no matter what the content, and therefore the part about not promoting discussion has no place in the rules since it's impossible to break. "Just a note" has a topic (that someone's real name needs to be remembered for some reason), isn't just a jumble of letters, and by your own ruling allows perfectly for long replies and discussion


Then why are we arguing if the rule is fine as it is? All this because of the word promote.

Because you're trying to apply the rules differently to different threads despite them being of the exact same value :P

[GommeInc]

You're the one who brought potential into the discussion by claiming that the threads in question can allow for discussion and therefore by your logic promote it. You're literally giving me my own points here
Again you're being anal over a small point when I clearly said promote means to support. All threads have potential, but not all threads want a discussion. Not all threads support discussion. Support and potential are not the same thing. Anyone can potentially steal, but the law does not support it. It's threads which do not want a discussion which are against the rules (just a note) as they do not allow for any meaningful discussion . You're again focusing on one small part of the rule and not reading it as a whole. When you read a rule as a whole you get given the context - it's quite obvious seeing as the rule uses meaningless/random/off-topic to describe what is "pointless". This is again diverging from the original point of what promote means. Since it means to support or encourage, and as these threads do support discussion, then clearly the rule is fine as it is. Threads which are random, meaningless and go out of their way to discourage discussion are against the rule - they do not support discussion. They can potentially have discussion, but since those discussions would be meaningless, random and possibly off-topic there is no point allowing them and they may as well be moved to Spam (which they are). This is coupled with the same clause which says "forum department has discretion", which gives moderators the power to determine what is and isn't pointless.


You seem to be missing the point of what I'm saying - if (as you've postulated time and time again) a thread "promotes" discussion simply by existing then it does so no matter what the content, and therefore the part about not promoting discussion has no place in the rules since it's impossible to break. "Just a note" has a topic (that someone's real name needs to be remembered for some reason), isn't just a jumble of letters, and by your own ruling allows perfectly for long replies and discussion
But it is possible to break - a thread which does not want discussion is against the rules. Again, you're not reading the rule as a whole. A thread that does not want a discussion is meaningless. The bit asking for threads to promote discussion supports the bit in the rule that asks for threads to be meaningful and not random. A thread that does not want discussion has potential, but does not want it from the start, so the thread is meaningless as per the rule from the beginning - "just a note" is an example. Also promote does not mean potential - promote means support or encourage. Potential can be hindered or disallowed e.g. theft. Without it, threads like "WHAT????" would not be against the rules and moderators could not enforce their discretion. I keep giving you examples of threads which have fallen foul of the rule e.g. "just a note". A thread may have potential for discussion, but threads which are meaningless and off-topic from the beginning are only going to harvest "off-topic, meaningless and random" posts.


Because you're trying to apply the rules differently to different threads despite them being of the exact same value :P
Again I refer to you seeing things in black and white. Different threads have different values. A thread asking "what did you last say" require minimal effort compared to "what are you listening to". Rules can be applied differently, it's the magic of interpretation. Without it you get a systematic, robotic way of dealing with forums which should never exist - ever. The fact the T&Cs support discretion rather than this horrible idea of strict, systematic application of rules should show you the forum is there to be enjoyed. Which goes back to my original point that too much is being made of these threads when clearly members enjoy using them and if it makes them active then they deserve those post counts, since it shows forum activity. Coupled with them not being abused makes it all the more "pointless" to try and take action over them.

[The Don]

Your argument has lost all meaning now. The threads are not being abused, they have been allowed for years which according to precedent, and moderator discretion, means they are not breaking the rules. Each thread is dealt with on an individual basis which is why the 'Post your thread' thread was moved to spam and not the other larger ones. Phil; xxMATTGxx; Wispur; can you please just put this thread to rest now, it shouldn't take 45 pages and over 400 posts to reach a decision. Look at the daily post count in those threads and you will see that they are not being abused, and that this whole issue has been blown way out of proportion.

We've also moved these threads before and they were promptly moved back into place. Why on earth are we discussing such a trivial issue all over again?

[Kardan]

Your argument has lost all meaning now. The threads are not being abused, they have been allowed for years which according to precedent, and moderator discretion, means they are not breaking the rules. Each thread is dealt with on an individual basis which is why the 'Post your thread' thread was moved to spam and not the other larger ones. Phil; xxMATTGxx; Wispur; can you please just put this thread to rest now, it shouldn't take 45 pages and over 400 posts to reach a decision. Look at the daily post count in those threads and you will see that they are not being abused, and that this whole issue has been blown way out of proportion.

We've also moved these threads before and they were promptly moved back into place. Why on earth are we discussing such a trivial issue all over again?

I don't want this thread closing, I find it amusing that they're going around in circles, and I wonder who is going to give up first :P

[FlyingJesus]

Threads which are random, meaningless and go out of their way to discourage discussion are against the rule - they do not support discussion. They can potentially have discussion, but since those discussions would be meaningless, random and possibly off-topic there is no point allowing them and they may as well be moved to Spam (which they are).

Why would a discussion about names be meaningless, random, or off-topic? And if it is somehow then it falls foul of those clauses, not the one about promoting active discussion, as you were previously claiming that any place that can be posted in can count as support/promotion of discussion even if it doesn't call for it. The fact that you've now changed your mind doesn't support your claims


But it is possible to break - a thread which does not want discussion is against the rules.

No it isn't, a thread which does not promote it is. Your interpretation of promote stated that what the thread starter wants has nothing to do with it


Again, you're not reading the rule as a whole. A thread that does not want a discussion is meaningless. The bit asking for threads to promote discussion supports the bit in the rule that asks for threads to be meaningful and not random.

I didn't mention the rule as a whole because we are discussing one part of it, but if you want to bring up the entirety you may want to note that it asks for posts to be meaningful and not random, not threads. Threads have to "promote active discussion", and the definition you've used for that allows for quite literally anything because a discussion can arise out of anything. The only way for this to ever not be the case is if it breaks one of the other parts of the rule, which still renders the "promote active discussion" part totally unnecessary.


Also promote does not mean potential - promote means support or encourage.


Support is "to carrybear all or part of the weight of; hold up" and is further defined as: "to be capable of bearing; withstand"

Cool


Again I refer to you seeing things in black and white. Different threads have different values. A thread asking "what did you last say" require minimal effort compared to "what are you listening to".

Those are pretty terrible examples since they both only require a simple memory check. In fact, the latter is even easier since it's about current happenings


Rules can be applied differently, it's the magic of interpretation. Without it you get a systematic, robotic way of dealing with forums which should never exist - ever. The fact the T&Cs support discretion rather than this horrible idea of strict, systematic application of rules should show you the forum is there to be enjoyed.

You're right rules should never be clear and the best way to enjoy oneself is to never know whether you can do something or not just in case e5 doesn't like it

- - - Updated - - -


Each thread is dealt with on an individual basis which is why the 'Post your thread' thread was moved to spam and not the other larger ones.

Which anyone with a brain will see is utterly stupid. Punishing people for making threads that are at least as valid if not more so than existing ones makes no sense whatsoever

And yeah keep it open, it's funny to see Ryan change his mind when parts of his arguments don't conclude the way he wants them to

[The Don]

Which anyone with a brain will see is utterly stupid. Punishing people for making threads that are at least as valid if not more so than existing ones makes no sense whatsoever

I don't care to argue about the 'post your thread' thread (which was extremely limited and was also made whilst you were arguing in this thread which gives the impression it was made simply to prove a point).

The threads are not being abused, they have been allowed for years which according to precedent, and moderator discretion, means they are not breaking the rules. There is no need to change them, if a plethora of ridiculous post your threads arise then moderators can deal with them on an individual basis, there is nothing stupid about that at all. Not all threads are equal, and if I made a 'Post the last Qur'an verse you read whilst at mecca' thread I would absolutely expect it to get moved to spam because it's so limited.

[Kardan]

I don't care to argue about the 'post your thread' thread (which was extremely limited and was also made whilst you were arguing in this thread which gives the impression it was made simply to prove a point).

The threads are not being abused, they have been allowed for years which according to precedent, and moderator discretion, means they are not breaking the rules. There is no need to change them, if a plethora of ridiculous post your threads arise then moderators can deal with them on an individual basis, there is nothing stupid about that at all. Not all threads are equal, and if I made a 'Post the last Qur'an verse you read whilst at mecca' thread I would absolutely expect it to get moved to spam because it's so limited.

I wonder if the forum would allow it if it was the Bible instead (I'm not trying to sound like Undertaker, that's a genuine question - presumably a lot more people on here read the Bible)

[FlyingJesus]

Your limited knowledge of threads doesn't mean that the thread was extremely limited (there are literally millions of types and weights of thread, and more get created all the time), and your impressions matter very little considering you don't know me and can't comment on how serious I was just because you happened not to like it. Your argument is weaker than Ray Charles' eyesight

[The Don]

Your limited knowledge of threads doesn't mean that the thread was extremely limited (there are literally millions of types and weights of thread, and more get created all the time), and your impressions matter very little considering you don't know me and can't comment on how serious I was just because you happened not to like it. Your argument is weaker than Ray Charles' eyesight

What lol I don't need to know anything about you to work out that a thread to post your thread collection is limited on a habbo forum...

[FlyingJesus]

Well no it isn't, I quite clearly just said there are millions of types of thread. Not sure why Habbo has anything to do with it either

[The Don]

Well no it isn't, I quite clearly just said there are millions of types of thread. Not sure why Habbo has anything to do with it either

Why are you nitpicking unnecessary things again? You seem to go off arguing about specific parts of what I say rather than my entire point, and I am yet to see a rebuttal to what I've previously said. Quite clearly each thread should be treated individually, do you disagree with this? If you agree then you also acknowledge that moderator discretion is a necessary thing.

[FlyingJesus]

That's not nitpicking it's a fairly big point considering a thread that was of exactly the same type as the threads in question got moved into Spam and yet it's being argued that these threads don't break the rules. And yes I do disagree that each thread should have the rules applied differently :S

[The Don]

That's not nitpicking it's a fairly big point considering a thread that was of exactly the same type as the threads in question got moved into Spam and yet it's being argued that these threads don't break the rules. And yes I do disagree that each thread should have the rules applied differently :S

Well I guess we fundamentally disagree because I don't think a post what you're listening to thread should be treated the same as a post your police uniform thread.

[GommeInc]

Why would a discussion about names be meaningless, random, or off-topic? And if it is somehow then it falls foul of those clauses, not the one about promoting active discussion, as you were previously claiming that any place that can be posted in can count as support/promotion of discussion even if it doesn't call for it. The fact that you've now changed your mind doesn't support your claims
I have no idea where "names" come from, what you quoted doesn't mention anything of the sort. Also, potential and promote are not the same thing. Again (can't believe this isn't sinking in), all threads have potential - but some threads discourage discussion. That's where the rule is being broken - where threads which actively discourage discussion are not allowed - this is preumably because the thread would be meaningless as per the rule (again, you read rules as whole to gather context, not just a single clause - that's madness). Threads which say "just post yes/no". The fact the rule clearly states "Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion" is important. It says and, not "or".


No it isn't, a thread which does not promote it is. Your interpretation of promote stated that what the thread starter wants has nothing to do with it
Yes it is:

Promote: support or actively encourage.

A thread which does not want discussion is therefore discouraging discussion, it isn't wanted and isn't supported.


I didn't mention the rule as a whole because we are discussing one part of it, but if you want to bring up the entirety you may want to note that it asks for posts to be meaningful and not random, not threads. Threads have to "promote active discussion", and the definition you've used for that allows for quite literally anything because a discussion can arise out of anything. The only way for this to ever not be the case is if it breaks one of the other parts of the rule, which still renders the "promote active discussion" part totally unnecessary.
That's all very well and good but you have to read rules as whole, not just one part of it. Also, you seem to be mixing up potential and promote :/ A thread which discourages discussion is against the rules, correct? Well obviously as it is not promoting discussion.


Cool
Way to pointless post.


Those are pretty terrible examples since they both only require a simple memory check. In fact, the latter is even easier since it's about current happenings
Last I checked you can say a word any time, while listening requires more effort - but if you disagree without really explaining why then it's your own time you're wasting.


You're right rules should never be clear and the best way to enjoy oneself is to never know whether you can do something or not just in case e5 doesn't like it
Ah I see, a bratty tizz. These threads are not a problem and it's clear what you need to do when you make a thread similar to these. Just don't ask for one or two word answers and say something like "Just yes or no answers and please don't have a discussion". Since you can't read, the rule clearly states and - not or.


Which anyone with a brain will see is utterly stupid. Punishing people for making threads that are at least as valid if not more so than existing ones makes no sense whatsoever

And yeah keep it open, it's funny to see Ryan change his mind when parts of his arguments don't conclude the way he wants them to
Or people without a brain who can't comprehend simple concepts and are so anal about really petty things :rolleyes: The fact that new threads asking "what are you doing in the summer?" and "post the last place you travelled to" which are all new and seem to be surviving suggests that someone is over-exaggerating his claims (which isn't surprising since you seem to refuse to post evidence and go by opinion). Also claiming I change my argument is hilarious. Maybe if you had one it would be easy to understand. You want it removed from the rule because... you don't know what promote means? I think changing a rule because one person doesn't understand is stupid, since it seems to be only you wanting the rule changed (The Don can read it and Kardan understood a few pages back).

Also, did someone really post a thread called "Post your thread?" Because it's blatantly obvious why that's against the rules and anyone with two brain cells to rub together can understand why...

[FlyingJesus]

I have no idea where "names" come from, what you quoted doesn't mention anything of the sort. Also, potential and promote are not the same thing. Again (can't believe this isn't sinking in), all threads have potential - but some threads discourage discussion. That's where the rule is being broken - where threads which actively discourage discussion are not allowed - this is preumably because the thread would be meaningless as per the rule (again, you read rules as whole to gather context, not just a single clause - that's madness). Threads which say "just post yes/no". The fact the rule clearly states "Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion" is important. It says and, not "or".

Fab, you don't even read your own points I see. Names came from the "just a note" thread since that's what it was about. Potential and promotion not being the same thing is my point from many many pages ago, thank you for changing your mind to agree to me. You spent days and days trying to counter what I was saying and now are literally saying word for word what I've been saying all along.



Yes it is:

Promote: support or actively encourage.

A thread which does not want discussion is therefore discouraging discussion, it isn't wanted and isn't supported.

It is supported as per your own definition of support that I quoted (which you then claimed was me pointlessly posting... seriously if you can't be bothered to keep up with your own arguments what are you doing)


That's all very well and good but you have to read rules as whole, not just one part of it. Also, you seem to be mixing up potential and promote :/ A thread which discourages discussion is against the rules, correct? Well obviously as it is not promoting discussion.

Bless, coming at me with my own points again


Last I checked you can say a word any time, while listening requires more effort - but if you disagree without really explaining why then it's your own time you're wasting.

Listening is a totally passive act, quite easy to do.


Ah I see, a bratty tizz. These threads are not a problem and it's clear what you need to do when you make a thread similar to these. Just don't ask for one or two word answers and say something like "Just yes or no answers and please don't have a discussion". Since you can't read, the rule clearly states and - not or.

Calls me bratty and goes on to use ad homs and plain repetition. Hilarious that you tell me I can't read when you're ignoring literally every point because you don't seem to understand how to follow up a basic argument without changing it halfway through


Or people without a brain who can't comprehend simple concepts and are so anal about really petty things :rolleyes: The fact that new threads asking "what are you doing in the summer?" and "post the last place you travelled to" which are all new and seem to be surviving suggests that someone is over-exaggerating his claims (which isn't surprising since you seem to refuse to post evidence and go by opinion). Also claiming I change my argument is hilarious. Maybe if you had one it would be easy to understand. You want it removed from the rule because... you don't know what promote means? I think changing a rule because one person doesn't understand is stupid, since it seems to be only you wanting the rule changed (The Don can read it and Kardan understood a few pages back).

I'm not sure why you're telling me I don't know what promote means when for the past few pages I've been solely using your definitions. Really the counterpoints write themselves when you're this ridiculous. Not sure why you think that me claiming you've changed your argument is hilarious when you demonstrably have done several times, even in this post.


Also, did someone really post a thread called "Post your thread?" Because it's blatantly obvious why that's against the rules and anyone with two brain cells to rub together can understand why...

And why might that be? It was a discussion about fabric threads, not breaking any rules whatsoever. Maybe if I only had two brain cells like you I'd also think it was against the rules but I happen to possess a few more than that

[GommeInc]

Fab, you don't even read your own points I see. Names came from the "just a note" thread since that's what it was about. Potential and promotion not being the same thing is my point from many many pages ago, thank you for changing your mind to agree to me. You spent days and days trying to counter what I was saying and now are literally saying word for word what I've been saying all along.
I never said that but as you fail to provide evidence I shall assume you're doing what you always do and making up a point (like when you didn't know what promote meant). Also posting a name is meaningless seeing as it was done clearly for the thread creator - it had no "meaning" to anyone else.


It is supported as per your own definition of support that I quoted (which you then claimed was me pointlessly posting... seriously if you can't be bothered to keep up with your own arguments what are you doing)
To be honest I'm bored replying for what is a non-problem.
Also, no it isn't. Saying it is without providing evidence isn't a counter-argument. Look up support again, oh wait you just replied with cool :rolleyes:


Bless, coming at me with my own points again
Stop wasting time again :rolleyes:


Listening is a totally passive act, quite easy to do.
So you can listen to music without opening a media player or doing anything? Honestly this is so pointless.


Calls me bratty and goes on to use ad homs and plain repetition. Hilarious that you tell me I can't read when you're ignoring literally every point because you don't seem to understand how to follow up a basic argument without changing it halfway through
If you're going to ignore a post and have a little whine then yes it is bratty, especially when you can't get your point across without looking ridiculous. Also your argument is hilarious purely because you can't read rules and seem to not know what certain words mean (support, discuss, promote to name a few). Dictionary.com, Oxford Dictionary and whatever Google have had a lot of use out of me.


I'm not sure why you're telling me I don't know what promote means when for the past few pages I've been solely using your definitions. Really the counterpoints write themselves when you're this ridiculous. Not sure why you think that me claiming you've changed your argument is hilarious when you demonstrably have done several times, even in this post.
It's nice to know you now know what it means,. The fact you're yet to provide a valid argument rather than pick on posts rather than the point is beyond me. It seems The Don noticed it too, how you seem to focus on small parts of a person's posts completely ignoring what it says as a whole (I again refer to how you fail to read rules as whole and only seem to see things in black and white). The fact you think potential and promote are the same is absurd and you're yet to actually use my definitions against me. All I've seen is a really half-baked opinion. Not forgetting that it is only you wanting the rule changed.


And why might that be? It was a discussion about fabric threads, not breaking any rules whatsoever. Maybe if I only had two brain cells like you I'd also think it was against the rules but I happen to possess a few more than that
Was it a discussion? Seems to be wanting just fabric threads in a clearly bratty way to make a point as The Don noticed. It wouldn't surprise me if it was written as Post Your Thread either, when anyone with two brain cells two rub together would know that in order for that to promote discussion would be to write it as "What thread are you currently using to sew with?" If that was to target the "Post what you're listening to?" thread it's blatantly obvious why those two are different. One is asking what you are listening to, the other just wants a fabric thread posted which is meaningless under the rule.

[FlyingJesus]

I never said that but as you fail to provide evidence I shall assume you're doing what you always do and making up a point (like when you didn't know what promote meant). Also posting a name is meaningless seeing as it was done clearly for the thread creator - it had no "meaning" to anyone else.

"I never said that" while quoting a passage that quoted you saying exactly that. Right. You are a joke.


To be honest I'm bored replying for what is a non-problem.
Also, no it isn't. Saying it is without providing evidence isn't a counter-argument. Look up support again, oh wait you just replied with cool :rolleyes:

Yes I replied with "cool" after quoting the definition that you yourself posted. Apparently stating the definition isn't evidence now...


Stop wasting time again :rolleyes:

By pointing out that you're repeating my own points back at me? I'm pretty sure you're the one wasting time in that case since you've wasted several days and pages of posts arguing against something that you're now trying to claim as your own point


So you can listen to music without opening a media player or doing anything? Honestly this is so pointless.

Yes of course I can :S You're right about it being pointless though; the entire reason I replied to that part in the first place is because your example was crap, as you're now proving


If you're going to ignore a post and have a little whine then yes it is bratty, especially when you can't get your point across without looking ridiculous. Also your argument is hilarious purely because you can't read rules and seem to not know what certain words mean (support, discuss, promote to name a few). Dictionary.com, Oxford Dictionary and whatever Google have had a lot of use out of me.

I haven't ignored posts, and (again) for the past few pages I've been using your definitions.


It's nice to know you now know what it means,. The fact you're yet to provide a valid argument rather than pick on posts rather than the point is beyond me. It seems The Don noticed it too, how you seem to focus on small parts of a person's posts completely ignoring what it says as a whole (I again refer to how you fail to read rules as whole and only seem to see things in black and white). The fact you think potential and promote are the same is absurd and you're yet to actually use my definitions against me. All I've seen is a really half-baked opinion. Not forgetting that it is only you wanting the rule changed.

Bloody hell you are genuinely illiterate. I do not think that potential and promotion are the same thing; it is your definitions that say they are. I have used your definitions against you and you just ignored it and decided that I was posting off-topic because you didn't want to read it.


Was it a discussion? Seems to be wanting just fabric threads in a clearly bratty way to make a point as The Don noticed. It wouldn't surprise me if it was written as Post Your Thread either, when anyone with two brain cells two rub together would know that in order for that to promote discussion would be to write it as "What thread are you currently using to sew with?" If that was to target the "Post what you're listening to?" thread it's blatantly obvious why those two are different. One is asking what you are listening to, the other just wants a fabric thread posted which is meaningless under the rule.

Brilliant, you're claiming that two threads with the exact same discussive elements are totally different. You've been saying for pages and pages that unless a thread literally states that it does not want discussion it's fine, and then flip your argument completely when it comes to a thread that I made which clearly does not do that and is/was open to discussion. Also posting about thread in a conversation about threads is not meaningless, try again.

[GommeInc]

"I never said that" while quoting a passage that quoted you saying exactly that. Right. You are a joke.
How so? You clearly never quoted me - I didn't see my name or a quote containing the post. Again, no evidence coming from you as per usual :rolleyes:


Yes I replied with "cool" after quoting the definition that you yourself posted. Apparently stating the definition isn't evidence now...
No that's just quoting me quoting the definition...


By pointing out that you're repeating my own points back at me? I'm pretty sure you're the one wasting time in that case since you've wasted several days and pages of posts arguing against something that you're now trying to claim as your own point
So you don't want the rule changed now? My point is it works and it clearly does. You're the only one thinking it doesn't.


Yes of course I can :S You're right about it being pointless though; the entire reason I replied to that part in the first place is because your example was crap, as you're now proving
So you accept you waste time by ignoring points? You did it earlier. I said the rule clearly states "one word answers and does not promote". The argument seems to be you thought it meant "or". Not that it matters since the same clause says "forum department has discretion."


I haven't ignored posts, and (again) for the past few pages I've been using your definitions.
You have. Loads of times. The fact you didn't reply to my point that the rule clearly says "and". Your argument seems to be to point out problems in someone's posts rather than their argument, and ignore the key issues, and waste time arguing a really moot point.


Bloody hell you are genuinely illiterate. I do not think that potential and promotion are the same thing; it is your definitions that say they are. I have used your definitions against you and you just ignored it and decided that I was posting off-topic because you didn't want to read it.
So you're wasting time again, since potential and promote are different? All threads have potential, but threads which actively discourage discussion are against the rules. Do you finally accept that, because if not then you need to read the rule again - if you can't read the rule that's your problem and since you're the only one with the problem I think may be you should stop being anal over an easy to read rule...



Brilliant, you're claiming that two threads with the exact same discussive elements are totally different. You've been saying for pages and pages that unless a thread literally states that it does not want discussion it's fine, and then flip your argument completely when it comes to a thread that I made which clearly does not do that and is/was open to discussion. Also posting about thread in a conversation about threads is not meaningless, try again.
Since you're a serial pointless poster maybe e5 thought it was meaningless? Clearly it was since not even the members of the Spam forum were interested in it (so it lacked "meaning").

Also Phil mentioned a while ago you seem to annoy e5 or at least try to bully him. It wouldn't be surprising that e5 saw this as a way to annoy him and close it using his discretion.

[buttons]

I AM SO SICK OF SEEING THIS THREAD
FOR THE SAKE OF MY SANITY PLZ CLOSE scottish;

[Chippiewill]

Get rid of this thread. Has even less productive discussion than the threads it's talking about.

[FlyingJesus]

How so? You clearly never quoted me - I didn't see my name or a quote containing the post. Again, no evidence coming from you as per usual :rolleyes:

It's not my fault that you're blind. The very first paragraph that I quoted (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8159740#post8159740) contains the words "potential and promote are not the same thing". The evidence is in the post.


No that's just quoting me quoting the definition...

Which is what I said :S you claimed that part of my post was pointless despite it clearly pointing out the definition of support that you supposedly believe wholeheartedly in - or did until it became inconvenient for you


So you don't want the rule changed now? My point is it works and it clearly does. You're the only one thinking it doesn't.

I'm really not sure why you keep making things up that I haven't said, it's not the best tactic.


So you accept you waste time by ignoring points? You did it earlier. I said the rule clearly states "one word answers and does not promote". The argument seems to be you thought it meant "or". Not that it matters since the same clause says "forum department has discretion."

Oh goody more making up things I haven't said. You seem to be very forgetful of your own arguments since you previously were claiming that any thread that can possibly house a conversation isn't against the rules, and then changed your mind and also magically changed the wording of the rule to fit with what you wanted it to say.


You have. Loads of times. The fact you didn't reply to my point that the rule clearly says "and". Your argument seems to be to point out problems in someone's posts rather than their argument, and ignore the key issues, and waste time arguing a really moot point.

Wonderful news except that I've not claimed anything to the contrary, so it's not a point that needs to be discussed.


So you're wasting time again, since potential and promote are different? All threads have potential, but threads which actively discourage discussion are against the rules. Do you finally accept that, because if not then you need to read the rule again - if you can't read the rule that's your problem and since you're the only one with the problem I think may be you should stop being anal over an easy to read rule...

Yes promotion and potential are different, that's what I've been saying for days now. And no, you're the one that needs to read the rule again because there's nothing that says "actively discourage", it's about not promoting discussion. Now that you've decided to agree with me at last that potential is not promotion it really ought to be clear that looking at the words which actually are in the rule, the "active" role must be encouragement as opposed to just not allowing discouraging. You keep claiming that I look at everything in black and white and then do just that with promote/discourage even though there is quite obviously a lot of middle ground between the two words.


Since you're a serial pointless poster maybe e5 thought it was meaningless? Clearly it was since not even the members of the Spam forum were interested in it (so it lacked "meaning").

Am I indeed? Pretty sure the vast majority of my posts are not pointless at all actually, and well done on somehow morphing the definition of "meaning" to be "things lots of people are interested in". Not sure how you reached that but it makes as much sense as most of your other paragraphs I suppose.

[GommeInc]

It's not my fault that you're blind. The very first paragraph that I quoted (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8159740#post8159740) contains the words "potential and promote are not the same thing". The evidence is in the post.
That's your post. Where did I actually say it? Paraphrasing from your post isn't evidence. The fact my post you quoted clearly says "Also, potential and promote are not the same thing" lso seems to allude you.


Which is what I said :S you claimed that part of my post was pointless despite it clearly pointing out the definition of support that you supposedly believe wholeheartedly in - or did until it became inconvenient for you
When did it become inconvenient? Seems to be working rather well, unlike you who seems to not post any evidence...


I'm really not sure why you keep making things up that I haven't said, it's not the best tactic.
Well seeing as the rule clearly is against threads which discourages discussion it's pretty obvious, and since it works in practice there's no argument for it being changed - other than because you can't understand it.


Oh goody more making up things I haven't said. You seem to be very forgetful of your own arguments since you previously were claiming that any thread that can possibly house a conversation isn't against the rules, and then changed your mind and also magically changed the wording of the rule to fit with what you wanted it to say.
Correct, but (you can't seem to read the word "but" or some reason, probably because you're doing what you do and missing points or purposely misreading to support an unknown argument), threads which discourage discussion are against the rule. It's blatantly obvious. Unless a thread clearly makes it clear that a discussion is not wanted, then it is well within the rules. This was accredited when I asked you if you would not walk on grass if there was or wasn't a sign saying otherwise. You seemed to agree because you answered "only if my feet would get wet" or something stupid - as it wasn't a real answer I took it as accepting.

Also you have so many failed points. Threads like Wrestlemania which you argued "just" want yes/no answers. Until it says "just" it is within the rules. Correct? Yes.


Wonderful news except that I've not claimed anything to the contrary, so it's not a point that needs to be discussed.
So you don't read rules as a whole then? Clearly this is important seeing as the rule clearly says: "Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion." Only allow for short, one or two answers. So threads asking "just post" only want one or two word answers are against the rules. Correct? Yes, as it is in the rules (basic English reading applies) ..."and do not active promote discussion" suggests (quite obviously) that it reaffirms the same sentence that a thread that discourages it by either asking just for one word answers or the thread creator later says they do not want replies, or want it closed, it is against the rules or wants the moderators to use the rule to close the thread. "just a note" is an example of this seeing as it must have been moved from the main forum for a reason, and as it was meaningless and didn't want a discussion as it was "just a note" it clearly was in breach of the rule. If I can interpret it like so, then so can moderators.


Yes promotion and potential are different, that's what I've been saying for days now. And no, you're the one that needs to read the rule again because there's nothing that says "actively discourage", it's about not promoting discussion. Now that you've decided to agree with me at last that potential is not promotion it really ought to be clear that looking at the words which actually are in the rule, the "active" role must be encouragement as opposed to just not allowing discouraging. You keep claiming that I look at everything in black and white and then do just that with promote/discourage even though there is quite obviously a lot of middle ground between the two words.
Honestly it's like talking to a brick wall. A thread which actively discourages conversation isn't promoting active discussion. The opposite of promote is to discourage, that's what the rule is against, discouraging people from having a discussion.. Are you really incapable of basic reasoning? If I post a thread asking for no-one to discuss anything, what am I doing? Not promoting a discussion. It's really that simple yet somehow English evades you. It seems you need to know the definition of promote again:

Promote - noun
support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.

What's the opposite of encourage? Discourage. What happens if I discourage people from having a discussion? I am not promoting it.

Also I never said potential and promote were the same thing, but you fail to post evidence.

[FlyingJesus]

That's your post. Where did I actually say it? Paraphrasing from your post isn't evidence. The fact my post you quoted clearly says "Also, potential and promote are not the same thing" lso seems to allude you.

Again deciding not to read. It's IN YOUR POST (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=8159723#post8159723) literally the second sentence, I showed myself quoting it and you've even just mentioned it yourself, so not sure why you think it hasn't been shown and clearly you've just proved yourself that you were lying when you claimed not to have said it.


When did it become inconvenient? Seems to be working rather well, unlike you who seems to not post any evidence...

You ignoring things is not my lacking, and clearly your previous ideas became inconvenient because I showed how taking them on board would mean changes and you didn't like the outcome so you changed your mind rather than accept it.


Well seeing as the rule clearly is against threads which discourages discussion it's pretty obvious, and since it works in practice there's no argument for it being changed - other than because you can't understand it.

There is an argument for being changed; if there wasn't I wouldn't keep postulating one. You not understanding what I'm saying and flipping things around all the time is (once again) not my fault.


Correct, but (you can't seem to read the word "but" or some reason, probably because you're doing what you do and missing points or purposely misreading to support an unknown argument), threads which discourage discussion are against the rule. It's blatantly obvious. Unless a thread clearly makes it clear that a discussion is not wanted, then it is well within the rules. This was accredited when I asked you if you would not walk on grass if there was or wasn't a sign saying otherwise. You seemed to agree because you answered "only if my feet would get wet" or something stupid - as it wasn't a real answer I took it as accepting.

So essentially when you see something you don't like you just assume that you're right. The rule still does not say the word "discourage", it does however say "encourage". Your example with the grass was irrelevant since there is no overriding law saying one should not walk on grass unless instructed, whereas there is a rule here stating that a thread must actually promote discussion, and here again your own definitions work against you - either by promotion it requires active promotion and threads must ask discussive questions and not flat ones, or we accept your idea that "support" counts as promotion in which case even asking people not to discuss the topic isn't against the rules since that doesn't actually stop anyone - just like not asking doesn't stop people. If that's the case, that part of the rule cannot ever be broken and shouldn't be there. This is really very simple.


Also you have so many failed points. Threads like Wrestlemania which you argued "just" want yes/no answers. Until it says "just" it is within the rules. Correct? Yes.

Again my point is that if that's the case, nothing can break that part of the rule. Do at least attempt to read what I'm saying rather than just the bit you can twist into something else.


So you don't read rules as a whole then? Clearly this is important seeing as the rule clearly says: "Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion." Only allow for short, one or two answers. So threads asking "just post" only want one or two word answers are against the rules. Correct? Yes, as it is in the rules (basic English reading applies) ..."and do not active promote discussion" suggests (quite obviously) that it reaffirms the same sentence that a thread that discourages it by either asking just for one word answers or the thread creator later says they do not want replies, or want it closed, it is against the rules or wants the moderators to use the rule to close the thread. "just a note" is an example of this seeing as it must have been moved from the main forum for a reason, and as it was meaningless and didn't want a discussion as it was "just a note" it clearly was in breach of the rule. If I can interpret it like so, then so can moderators.

This entire paragraph is like saying "the Japanese invaded Manchuria in the past therefore it must be fine to invade Manchuria or it wouldn't have happened". Also as I'm (still) only talking about removing one part of the rule and have no problems with the rest of it there's no need for me to try arguing against the whole of it, that would be rather daft.


Honestly it's like talking to a brick wall. A thread which actively discourages conversation isn't promoting active discussion. The opposite of promote is to discourage, that's what the rule is against, discouraging people from having a discussion.. Are you really incapable of basic reasoning? If I post a thread asking for no-one to discuss anything, what am I doing? Not promoting a discussion. It's really that simple yet somehow English evades you.

PLS DUN FINK OV BLACKN WHIT!! I'm sure you'll now tell me I'm having a bratty tizz as you do any time I call you out for being hypocritical, but really if you think that all things which do not discourage a thing promote it then you have a long way to go in terms of understanding the world. I countered this bizarre reasoning before when I said "Wow guess I must be promoting slavery and genocide" and you entirely ignored it in your reply. A lack of discouragement is not promotion.


It seems you need to know the definition of promote again:

Promote - noun
support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.

What's the opposite of encourage? Discourage. What happens if I discourage people from having a discussion? I am not promoting it.

Also I never said potential and promote were the same thing, but you fail to post evidence.

See above for why your "if X isn't Y it must be Z" theory doesn't hold any water, and as for potential = promotion, it seems you need to know the definition of support again. You previously stated it as:
"to carrybear all or part of the weight of; hold up" and is further defined as: "to be capable of bearing; withstand"
As I said before (and of course you ignored the point and told me I was posting pointlessly because you had no answer) which absolutely covers potential, especially in the second point. Once more you change your mind, tell me I haven't posted evidence where I have, and then claim absurdly to have the upper hand. Once again, if a thread is "capable of bearing" conversation (ie; HAS POTENTIAL, which is always the case unless it breaks one of the other parts of the rule) then by your definitions it is promoting discussion no matter what instructions it may have suggesting not to discuss the topic. If that's the case, the part about promoting active discussion ought to be removed since it cannot possibly be broken, and if not then everything else in your argument falls apart. You can pick between a small loss and a giant one, basically.

[Kyle]

crikey talk about beating a dead horse
the thread has served its purpose by drawing attention to the threads in question and deterring people that spam them from doing so in favour of actually joining in discussions. Shockwave in particular has been much more active and engaged with topics put to him recently, so all is well.

[GommeInc]

crikey talk about beating a dead horse
the thread has served its purpose by drawing attention to the threads in question and deterring people that spam them from doing so in favour of actually joining in discussions. Shockwave in particular has been much more active and engaged with topics put to him recently, so all is well.
Seeing as it is only one member who can't read the rule it seems this problem died out about 20 pages ago when it was stated that these threads are not abused or a problem, and the forum manager even acknowledged they weren't a problem either. It's a shame some people like to pointlessly rant over such a boring non-problem to change something for what does seem to be for the sake of change...

[FlyingJesus]

Just keep repeating "you can't read" and -rep me rather than actually respond when I tear your posts apart, it makes you look great. I keep responding because you keep being wrong, and I know how huge your ego is already without the extra excuse of me not replying so you can claim to be right.

[GommeInc]

Just keep repeating "you can't read" and -rep me rather than actually respond when I tear your posts apart, it makes you look great. I keep responding because you keep being wrong, and I know how huge your ego is already without the extra excuse of me not replying so you can claim to be right.
Since you're the only one having problems reading the rule and the only one wanting the rule to be changed for no reason this thread and your argument has been a waste of time. If you can't figure out that the opposite of encourage is discourage, and that's what the rule is against, threads which discourage discussion, then God help you. No one seems to be agreeing with you that the rule needs changing. If you have problems with moderators dealing with threads then go to this forum (http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8) to query decisions or this forum to complain about a member of staff (http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1543).

Since your point was that the rule should be changed to allow these threads (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8153948#post8153948), which has been debunked since clearly it does as threads are always being made asking what you are doing (this summer, where you last travelled to), you're asking for a change to the rule despite the rule already allowing these threads. Fine logic. Change for the sake of change.

[FlyingJesus]

I haven't once said that encourage/discourage aren't opposites btw, I've said that they are not the only possibilities which ought to be extremely clear especially since you've been given examples. You seem totally unable to carry any argument to its logical conclusion even when it's your own postulation. And my point since then has been that part of the rule is unnecessary and just causes problems if we accept that it does already allow for these threads. That is not change for the sake of changes, it's change for the sake of clarity and to combat obvious moderator abuses.

[GommeInc]

I haven't once said that encourage/discourage aren't opposites btw, I've said that they are not the only possibilities which ought to be extremely clear especially since you've been given examples. You seem totally unable to carry any argument to its logical conclusion even when it's your own postulation. And my point since then has been that part of the rule is unnecessary and just causes problems if we accept that it does already allow for these threads. That is not change for the sake of changes, it's change for the sake of clarity and to combat obvious moderator abuses.
It is change for the sake of change. You want the rule changed to allow these threads. You said so here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8153948#post8153948).

Since these threads are not against the rules, as otherwise they wouldn't even be on the forum, it is change for the sake of change. It isn't unnecessary either, since it makes it clear that threads that only want short, one or two word answers" are not promoting discussion as they're literally asking for "just short, one or two word answers". If a thread asks for your to post "just a cake", it clearly is not promoting a discussion.

Also, if you think moderators are abusing their powers report them, not push for a rule to be changed.

EDIT: The only thing that needs changing in the rule is "repeatably" to "repeatedly".

[FlyingJesus]

Back to your definitions not matching up with your conclusions: see here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8160337#post8160337). If support = promotion and potential = support then potential = promotion, something neither of us apparently believe despite your repetition of these definitions, but if we do stick with those then the only way in which a thread can possibly not be promoting discussion (without falling foul of any other rule breaks) is by starting off locked. Feel free to carry on ignoring that if you want but it won't make you right. I believe you were the one who claimed that the "and" in the rule meant that both parts had to be true for it to be a rulebreak.

[GommeInc]

Back to your definitions not matching up with your conclusions: see here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8160337#post8160337). If support = promotion and potential = support then potential = promotion, something neither of us apparently believe despite your repetition of these definitions, but if we do stick with those then the only way in which a thread can possibly not be promoting discussion (without falling foul of any other rule breaks) is by starting off locked. Feel free to carry on ignoring that if you want but it won't make you right. I believe you were the one who claimed that the "and" in the rule meant that both parts had to be true for it to be a rulebreak.
Promote and potential are not the same thing. Also, making up an argument for someone is delusional. So, actually quote me rather than make an argument up.

Honestly, just give up - it's only you wanting the rule changed. Since you said in this post (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=799518&p=8153948#post8153948) that the rule does not allow for these threads, yet clearly it does and can under any definition of promote (it's not my definition - it is the defintion). I'm noticing you seem to not be replying to this part of my posts, suggesting you are trying to deny what you've said (which is familiar to the "rape" thread you messed up because you don't know what it means).

Again, this argument is still going yet it's only you who seems to have a problem with the rule :rolleyes: Did you ignore my post on purpose? Well obviously you did, hence why you're going back on an old argument that was debunked ages ago.

Tell me again where Wrestlemania is asking for "just" "short, one or two word answers" :rolleyes:

[FlyingJesus]

jfc I'm not saying that promotion and potential are the same thing; the definitions you quoted are.


The word promote means:

"support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of."

The rule doesn't need changing. To support something, is to "bear all or part of the weight of; hold up." It also further means "to be capable of bearing; withstand"

As these threads are capable of bearing a discussion they are not against the rule

You literally in words on the screen said that being capable of having a discussion (ie: potential) is the same thing as promoting it. There's your quote, I'm not making anything up. My point since that has been that if that's the case, even threads which ask you not to discuss the topic aren't against the rule either so that part needs removing since it cannot be contravened. I don't know why I've had to say this so many times.

As for the Wrestlemania thread, it clearly says "yes or no?". If it has to have the word "just" for you to be able to comprehend that it's asking for one of two answers then you have no right at all telling anyone how to read.

[GommeInc]

jfc I'm not saying that promotion and potential are the same thing; the definitions you quoted are.



You literally in words on the screen said that being capable of having a discussion (ie: potential) is the same thing as promoting it. There's your quote, I'm not making anything up. My point since that has been that if that's the case, even threads which ask you not to discuss the topic aren't against the rule either so that part needs removing since it cannot be contravened. I don't know why I've had to say this so many times.

As for the Wrestlemania thread, it clearly says "yes or no?". If it has to have the word "just" for you to be able to comprehend that it's asking for one of two answers then you have no right at all telling anyone how to read.
So you ignored the bit where I said "All threads have potential, but not all threads promote it" :rolleyes: Yet again you prove you do not look at the bigger picture :rolleyes: As The Don noticed, you look at the start of an argument and forget to read the rest for context.

Where does Wrestlemania say post "yes or no?" It says:


Any watching it? I'm gonna attempt

Don't follow wrestling but my brother does and he's gonna watch it lol so i'm gonna join him until I fall asleep woo
I don't see it asking "post just yes or no". Do you really need people to post at the end of each thread "Discuss?" Are you really that simple?

[FlyingJesus]

So you ignored the bit where I said "All threads have potential, but not all threads promote it" :rolleyes: Yet again you prove you do not look at the bigger picture :rolleyes: As The Don noticed, you look at the start of an argument and forget to read the rest for context.

Yes obviously calling you out for changing your mind is ignoring your post. And just repeating yourself is not proving anything; if you don't think potential is promotion (which is quite right, it isn't) then why did you say it was with your use of definitions? There isn't a bigger picture, these are the words you said. You're yet again ignoring the point of my post in order to talk about something else because you don't have a real answer for it.


Where does Wrestlemania say post "yes or no?" It says:


I don't see it asking "post just yes or no". Do you really need people to post at the end of each thread "Discuss?" Are you really that simple?

No, but you apparently feel that the opposite is true - namely that unless a thread says not to discuss things it is actively promoting discussion - and that this is a universal law in spite of the definitions that you yourself were working with. You try telling me that I'm not looking at context and then ignore it completely for my posts where the mention of that thread was clearly an example of why your reasoning doesn't hold up.

[Kardan]

I wonder what will happen to these threads!!!