Pointless posting rule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laggings

Then why even publicly post the rules if it's only half the rule?

---

Read my post about ten year olds and manipulation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laggings

Then the rule needs to be changed, like I said, to include 'is pointless if it is in reply to another pointless post'. Because Arch could make a post about Lady Gaga, and Robald could reply to it with a pointless post like 'I like toast'. Then anyone that replies to that post is considered on-topic because it's relevant to a previous post, even if that previous post wasn't on-topic.

---

Aye hence my last bit where I said about how replying to a post that shouldn't be there is by continuation a post that shouldn't be there - clearly if something is off topic it will be removed, and in removing it all subsequent posts on that new subject will be rendered pointless. Just makes straight sense really

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Professor-Alex

I like the premise but practically that rule is very difficult to enforce because it forces all members to become moderators and people will get unfairly penalised under that rule when they reply to a borderline pointless post. Obviously the example you used is clear cut, but if someone came into the thread and posted "I like who framed roger rabbit!" legitamately thinking they'e continuing a conversation about cartoon/live action crossovers, someone replies to that post agreeing with them and a moderator decides it's pointless, both those people will be penalised when the second one won't be aware he was doing anything wrong.

---

In your example the moderator would be in the wrong though, as Roger Rabbit is not only an excellent film worthy of discussion in any thread but is also a cartoon/live mix as the hypothetical thread had turned into a chat about. I think the biggest problem with working out pointless posts is when staff members (especially higher management) get involved because that obviously then appears to be a green light for anyone else, and complicates what should really be a fairly simple rule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invincible

Read my post about ten year olds and manipulation

---

Damn I got so excited about the possibilites there until I read it :(

just got a warning for this when it perfectly points towards the first post of the thread itself...

now thats some screwed stuff... Discussions often do form from first comments, Especially in alterations section where its basically a focus group

You recieved a warning for being rude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesy

You recieved a warning for being rude.

---

So is this post against the rules or not? The answer to this is the answer to the thread :).

thats what it was for...

infracted for telling the truth... what a bummer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robald

So is this post against the rules or not? The answer to this is the answer to the thread :).

---

No, because the post he is responding to is about a warning he received which (he thinks) was because of pointless posting, which is the rule being discussed in this thread. Therefore voiceover's post was on topic, and Jamesy's reply is fine because he is replying to a previous post in the thread that was relevant to the thread topic. If however voiceover posted saying "JUST GOT AN INFRACTION FOR SAYING ****!" and Jamesy replied, his post would be against the rules.

yeah my fault D: i skim read cause i was cold :(

apologies :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garion

No, because the post he is responding to is about a warning he received which (he thinks) was because of pointless posting, which is the rule being discussed in this thread. Therefore voiceover's post was on topic, and Jamesy's reply is fine because he is replying to a previous post in the thread that was relevant to the thread topic. If however voiceover posted saying "JUST GOT AN INFRACTION FOR SAYING ****!" and Jamesy replied, his post would be against the rules.

---

I see, so does this not agree with Jake's original issue?