Pointless posting

[Neil]

Ah yes, a much discussed topic within Habbox, something that I'm sure isn't too far at the back of peoples minds is how dumb this rule is, I'm not saying pointless posting is bad but it really needs to be sort of.. Re-thought to have purpose, for example;

There is a serious thread about the resession or something, it's all fine until someone posts something about Chuck Norris - this is pointless posting, this is not my point.

Later in the thread say someone replies to the Chuck Norris post with a random fact or something related to Chuck Norris - My point, this is not pointless, it is in reply to a previously made post, though it has little purpose to the main topic, it isn't pointless as it replies to a topic that was raised by another member, whether pointless or not it shouldn't matter.

Obviously not saying get rid of the rule, more the warning given "please do not post pointlessly" if anything the rule and warning should just be "do not create posts with no relation to the main topic".

Just to clarify, this isn't made because I recently received these warnings, I did but that's not the point, it's just unfair to say a post is pointless when it isn't.

xOxOxOx

[lick]

Hey i think i know the mod, i got them aswell for replying to things other users talked about

[Robbie]

It does actually say

A pointless post has no relevance to the topic, any previous post

So if you're replying to a previous post it's OK.

[Neil]

It does actually say



So if you're replying to a previous post it's OK.

If it's ok why are so many warnings issued? Really isn't the point in getting rid of pointless posting to get rid of it completely? Not just the guy that starts it? I believe my rule idea would serve much greater, obviously no one will follow it but at least pointless posting will be punished with something that actually makes some degree of sense.

[iAdam]

I agree, however that post shouldn't be there in the first place so if you're replying to it and it isn't relevant then surely your post is irrelevant to the thread aswell?

[xxMATTGxx]

A11. Do not post pointlessly – A pointless post has no relevance to the topic, any previous post or is meaningless (ghnrgher etc). A pointless thread either has no meaning, is something posted that is not true (e.g. false story in news and rumours) or a thread that doesn't prompt a discussion (eg. post the colour of socks you're wearing).

In my eyes, any pointless posts that are nothing to do with the actual "topic title" should be dealt with. It does say in the rule "any previous posts". I will have to think about this a little more. Although I do strongly believe that if there is a pointless post, you shouldn't reply back to it. I will also clarify the 'rule' and add any changes to the rule if needed on this weeks Sunday Updates.

[Yonder]

Just reinforce the rule by adding also do not post responses to pointless posts within the thread.

[Catzsy]

I have just been dealing with this thread and actually it probably comes under the umbrella of posting to cause arguments but that in itself can be seen as pointless. I do not think the rule needs to be changed - it is fine as it is. This thread maybe was allowed to carry on longer than it should have been but then its a fine balance and instead of posting about 'pointless posting' it may have been 'why was out thread closed'. It's really helpful if the members can make a contribution by reporting this as well.

[FlyingJesus]

In my eyes, any pointless posts that are nothing to do with the actual "topic title" should be dealt with. It does say in the rule "any previous posts". I will have to think about this a little more. Although I do strongly believe that if there is a pointless post, you shouldn't reply back to it. I will also clarify the 'rule' and add any changes to the rule if needed on this weeks Sunday Updates.

It's been previously stated that as topics can often change through discussion (ie: someone starts a thread named "what kind of eggs do you prefer?" and it over time turns into a discussion on the merits of various farming techniques) if a post is in relation to the current topic rather than just the thread title topic it is to be counted a relevant. Of course, if somehow the same thread I used as an example came to be a discussion about how anyone with less than 100% True Habbo is a noob then then it can just be moved into spam with a mod note, rather than having warnings given to all involved in the discussion.

That is, so long as it did somehow get there naturally rather than as a spawn off some nonsense post - that, I think, should be the deciding factor.

[xxMATTGxx]

It's been previously stated that as topics can often change through discussion (ie: someone starts a thread named "what kind of eggs do you prefer?" and it over time turns into a discussion on the merits of various farming techniques) if a post is in relation to the current topic rather than just the thread title topic it is to be counted a relevant. Of course, if somehow the same thread I used as an example came to be a discussion about how anyone with less than 100% True Habbo is a noob then then it can just be moved into spam with a mod note, rather than having warnings given to all involved in the discussion.

That is, so long as it did somehow get there naturally rather than as a spawn off some nonsense post - that, I think, should be the deciding factor.

There will be exceptions as what you have said is correct. The rule will stay the same but I shall create a thread in the Moderator forum so situations like this can be dealt with the appropriate action.