Pointless post

[The Professor]

A11. Do not post pointlessly – A pointless post has no relevance to the topic, any previous post that is relevant, is meaningless (ghnrgher etc) or does little to contribute to the discussion. 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). Replying to a pointless post will also be considered pointlessly posting.

Copy-pasted directly from the rules. I have to say that the moderation of this rule seems to be vastly different to what the rules say. I'll use two examples:

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...20#post6328820

This post was made by a forum moderator and edited by the staff editor so it clearly isn't a case of poor moderation on the part of the moderators, it seems to be written into the mod guide that this rule should be moderated wrongly. That post was clearly in response to a previous post in the thread (he commented "oh cool" in response to "I might be coming back") and clearly furthered the discussion, making it not pointless by the definition of the rule on two counts.

Second example (and the one I got edited for):

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost....43&postcount=6

Again I place no blame on the moderator because I don't believe it's his fault. That post was again in relation to a previous post (as illustrated by the quote in bold) and was supposed to be humourous. Obviously being humourous doesn't qualify it as not pointless by the definition of the rule but the fact that it is there to be funny AND is related to a previous post makes it not pointless by the laws of common sense.

A little bird tells me moderators have been instructed to enforce this rule much more strictly and to different criteria to what the forum rules outline. This clearly is wrong on both counts; the rule should be moderated in line with the forum rules and enforcing it more strictly in the first place imo is not needed.

Any opinions?

[syko2006]

I have an opinion yes, it's as follows.

Orangeesh's post could have simply been sent in a visitor message and didn't contribute to the thread topic at all, this can be seen as simply trying to raise post count.

Same sort of situation with your post, it really did not contribute to the thread in any constructive way, it really was just, pointless. The moderator(s) take consideration into what they think is pointless or not and your post in my opinion was pointless and I think that other moderators/staff on the forum might think the same. I am not aware that we have been told to enforce this rule as much as possible, the total of pointless posts on the forum has just risen as far as I know.

[Nixt]

I can see your point regarding the first decision. It is arguable... however a decision made by the staff editor is not mine to override or debate. As per your second point, I think it's somewhat ambiguous. You were responding to a previous post, yes you were trying to be humorous however I've got to say in my opinion it does little to contribute to the discussion. It might make a few people laugh and say "lol" or something, but I wouldn't say it's massively relevant.

I don't know who your 'little bird' is, either - but they're wrong, there has been no Moderator instruction regarding the pointless posting rule for a while, and if I recall correctly the last time they were instructed regarding said rule they were told to be more lenient.

[The Professor]

I have an opinion yes, it's as follows.

Orangeesh's post could have simply been sent in a visitor message and didn't contribute to the thread topic at all, this can be seen as simply trying to raise post count.

Same sort of situation with your post, it really did not contribute to the thread in any constructive way, it really was just, pointless. The moderator(s) take consideration into what they think is pointless or not and your post in my opinion was pointless and I think that other moderators/staff on the forum might think the same. I am not aware that we have been told to enforce this rule as much as possible, the total of pointless posts on the forum has just risen as far as I know.

I demonstrated in both examples how they both comply with the rule. You could say any post on the forum could be sent in a visitor message, we'd have a rather empty forum if that was the case though!

EDIT to repsond to Garion:

I agree with your first point, but a decision made my the staff editor is not mine to override. As per your second point, I think it's somewhat ambiguous. You were responding to a previous post, yes you were trying to be humorous however I've got to say in my opinion it does little to contribute to the discussion. It might make a few people laugh and say "lol" or something, but I wouldn't say it's massively relevant.

I don't know who your 'little bird' is, either - but they're wrong, there has been no Moderator instruction regarding the pointless posting rule for a while, and if I recall correctly the last time they were instructed regarding said rule they were told to be more lenient.

Yeah I agree with it not necessarily contribute to the discussion it does still have a point (making it not pointless in the spirit of the rule) and it is related to a previous post in the thread (making it not pointless by the letter of the rule). Being massively relevant isnt a prerequisite of being pointless.

I take your second point, I shall slap their wrist

[Hecktix]

I have an opinion yes, it's as follows.

Orangeesh's post could have simply been sent in a visitor message and didn't contribute to the thread topic at all, this can be seen as simply trying to raise post count.

Same sort of situation with your post, it really did not contribute to the thread in any constructive way, it really was just, pointless. The moderator(s) take consideration into what they think is pointless or not and your post in my opinion was pointless and I think that other moderators/staff on the forum might think the same. I am not aware that we have been told to enforce this rule as much as possible, the total of pointless posts on the forum has just risen as far as I know.

Couldn't have really put it better myself.

I don't think this is the mods being strict at all? They are following the rule to a tee, your post breaks the:

does little to contribute to the discussion

Part of the rule, so I fail to see how this is not moderating in line with the forum rules?

In regards to orangeesh's post, I kind of see a point but also, it still does little to contribute.

[The Professor]

Couldn't have really put it better myself.

I don't think this is the mods being strict at all? They are following the rule to a tee, your post breaks the:



Part of the rule, so I fail to see how this is not moderating in line with the forum rules?

In regards to orangeesh's post, I kind of see a point but also, it still does little to contribute.

A11. Do not post pointlessly – A pointless post has no relevance to the topic, any previous post that is relevant, is meaningless (ghnrgher etc) or does little to contribute to the discussion. 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). Replying to a pointless post will also be considered pointlessly posting.

The way the rule is written implies that if if a post does not satisfy ANY of the criteria in the rules it is pointless. That is exactly why the clause "any previous post that is relevant" is in there; a post does not have to be on topic as long as it has relevance to a previous post in the theread. The clause was put into the rules to allow conversation to evolve naturally without having to rigidly stick to the original topic.

[Hecktix]

The way the rule is written implies that if if a post does not satisfy ANY of the criteria in the rules it is pointless. That is exactly why the clause "any previous post that is relevant" is in there; a post does not have to be on topic as long as it has relevance to a previous post in the theread. The clause was put into the rules to allow conversation to evolve naturally without having to rigidly stick to the original topic.

Yes the clause states a post can be relevant to any other post within the thread however the post still has to contribute to the thread.

The only kind of reply your post could have recieved would be things like "lol", which are pointless :S

Your post did very little to contribute to the discussion so it's pointless. Even though it ticks the relevant to another post part, it doesn't tick the second part of contributing to the thread.

So in regards to your post it breaches the part in red:

A11. Do not post pointlessly – A pointless post has no relevance to the topic, any previous post that is relevant, is meaningless (ghnrgher etc) or does little to contribute to the discussion.

The word "OR" suggests that it either breaks the first part or the second part.

Yours broke the second part.

[Orangeesh]

In regards to orangeesh's post, I kind of see a point but also, it still does little to contribute.

If I had posted in that thread and said something like 'I like rubber ducks' then yes completely pointless has no relevance to anyone's post or the thread.

But my post was quoting someone else who said they were thinking of returning to the section, I then replied saying,' Hi Davi, how you been?'
Ok yes I could of posted in a visitor message but quoting him in the thread was alot easier. I was simply asking how he was and being nice, I can't see how I was being pointless or meaningless, I thought at the time I was contributing a reply to Davi's post, although Im just a moderator, what would I know.

[Hecktix]

If I had posted in that thread and said something like 'I like rubber ducks' then yes completely pointless has no relevance to anyone's post or the thread.

But my post was quoting someone else who said they were thinking of returning to the section, I then replied saying,' Hi Davi, how you been?'
Ok yes I could of posted in a visitor message but quoting him in the thread was alot easier. I was simply asking how he was and being nice, I can't see how I was being pointless or meaningless, although Im just a moderator, what would I know.

No need to be rude now is there, afterall, you are a moderator

Both Garion and I said we can see why it could be said your post is not pointless, however we are not in the position to judge the Staff Editor

[The Professor]

Yes the clause states a post can be relevant to any other post within the thread however the post still has to contribute to the thread.

The only kind of reply your post could have recieved would be things like "lol", which are pointless :S

Your post did very little to contribute to the discussion so it's pointless. Even though it ticks the relevant to another post part, it doesn't tick the second part of contributing to the thread.

So in regards to your post it breaches the part in red:

A11. Do not post pointlessly – A pointless post has no relevance to the topic, any previous post that is relevant, is meaningless (ghnrgher etc) or does little to contribute to the discussion.

The word "OR" suggests that it either breaks the first part or the second part.

Yours broke the second part.

The or is simply a connective to end the continuous list that that sentence is. You could either use "or" or "and" to end the list; "or" suggests that each part is individual and if a post satisfies any of the points in the rule. "And" would imply that a post would have to satisfy ALL those criteria to be pointless which clearly can't happen. For the reasons I said in my previous post the wording of the rule implies a post has to satisfy only one of those criteria to have a point.

AND even if you manage to parse it enough to disprove that (which you probably can ) the spirit of the rule also implies that as long as a post is related to a previous post and isn't nonsense it has a point and therefore isn't pointless.