Pointless posting rule

[Immenseman]

Heya,

Just wanted to gauge an opinion on what people thought of the rule. I have taken this quote directly from the forum rules in an unedited version:

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).

Now that to me is very clear in meaning. There are no ambiguities at all in that rule. It's straight forward. As long as your post is in a response to a post that is already in the thread then it can't be classed as pointless. So what's the issue.

Well basically I've been told I will be cautioned because I have been warned 10 times about pointlessly posting. However, when I look back at my posts of which I will provide you with a few examples later in the post they aren't violating this rule. They are in response to another post within said thread. The rule unequivocally states providing it isn't completely random like "bugrwgibr" or replying to another post already made in the thread - it's not pointless. I've PM'd the staff editor about my case as we've already spoken about that and he said he'll sort it.

Anyway, just tried to find some so called pointless posts through my PMs. However, they have all been removed from the forum. Basically, I have been given user notes for replying to a post already made in the thread - but it's not on the same topic as original post. Now, I'm no genius but forums generally revolve around discussion. Discussion is boring should it remain stale and I have violated no rule. I'm not going to be like some people and be like "omg the mod hates me!!! - i'm so targeted!!!" but I just want to know what y'all think.

Do you think the rule is fine as it is and moderators should just moderate it like the rule actually says or does it need to be altered to stop posts moving away from the original topic? Basically, you can't give caution people for breaking no rules. I know you've cautioned me unfairly twice already but three times is a bit iffy.

I think I'll use a quote from the General Manager to express my opinion.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost....0&postcount=27

Please can you give nvrspk4 a usernote for posting off topic like you've given me 10 for identicle cases: http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost....5&postcount=25 I guess the answer is no. I'm quite aware of the rules and I know for a fact I haven't violated it as much as you claim.

Maybe the forum manager could request that all moderators read the rules so they know them at least as much as the members. That is all.

[adaym]

one rule for us

[Nixt]

It will be interesting to see replies to this, that way we can make an effort to update the rules so as to appropriately deal with this type of rule breaking. The key issue with the pointless posting offence is that it is very ambiguous and is there to cover a broad range of issues. Moderators have a lot of discretion when it comes to this rule and it is occasionally to identify the fine line between a rule breaking post and one that abides by the rules. This has been an issue for quite some time and therefore I am going to look into addressing it as soon as possible - all members feedback on the issue is appreciated and will be of great help when it comes to making any changes .

[Immenseman]

It's not ambiguous at all. There isn't a fine line. There is a bold line. Pointless posting with that rule is posting someone random and spontaneous in a middle of a thread that doesn't link to the original post nor any of the other posts in the thread. It's clear what the General Manager thinks of it but I know the Staff Editor think it needs clearing up a bit. However, as the rule currently stands I have not posted "buregbrsdj" in a thread 10 times like I've been wrongly accused. I know it's happened to other people too.

If you don't want people having the freedom of a discussion on a discussion board then by all means change the rule and make it so all posts must link back to the original post. I'll respect what ever decision you make because you're management. However, at the time being the rule stands as it is so I want to make sure other people aren't fairly penalised due to poor moderation. Poor as in them not understanding the rules.

[FlyingJesus]

Fairly sure it was laid out to us a while back that if there's a topic and someone makes a pointless post, replying to that pointless post is also pointless posting as the topic hasn't naturally changed and therefore the thread's just been hijacked

[Immenseman]

Well I can't remember that and the rules don't clarify that therefore I don't know how I'm supposed to know. If it was in the rules it'd be different and it'd be understandable. It's hard to stick to the rules when they're not actually updated as often as minds are changed which is a regular thing.

[Blinger1]

I personally think if the post has nothing to do with the topic then it should be counted as a pointless post.

[kk.]

i think another thing about this is, when you prove to a moderator that the rule hasnt actually been broken, theyll unedit the post, but not remove the usernote.. because i dont understand why i have so many usernotes..

[FlyingJesus]

Well it's kind of obvious that starting a random conversation in the middle of a serious thread isn't following the pointless posting rule, it can't really take much brain activity to work it out

[Immenseman]

Well it's kind of obvious that starting a random conversation in the middle of a serious thread isn't following the pointless posting rule, it can't really take much brain activity to work it out

Well if you read the entirety of the original post (which doesn't take much brain activity) you'd realise I have acknowledged random comments are violating said rule. :eusa_wall