Pointless posting rule

[Hecktix]

here
here

I think that's what you meant anyway. One of the finest



Alright, well once that's added I don't mind being given a user note for it. Until then, I do. How can I be cautioned for something which isn't yet in the rules?



No, I have not studied law. However, if I realised it was mandatory to study law to use HxF - I would have done so. I assure you.



Hey there,

You just said the rule needs changing now you're saying it's obvious. Damn the users for not guessing the rules! How dare we ask questions about the rules?! I must be 10, you're right! :rolleyes:

You are twisting my words.

I said the rule needs rewording yes, but that's not to say the subjectiveness of rule is not obvious :S In all honesty the written rules are formality, we should all follow a moral code of conduct on Habbox Forum what we'd follow in daily life...

[Immenseman]

You are twisting my words.

I said the rule needs rewording yes, but that's not to say the subjectiveness of rule is not obvious :S In all honesty the written rules are formality, we should all follow a moral code of conduct on Habbox Forum what we'd follow in daily life...

I can say many more things in real life that I can't on here. That's besides the point. If you're suggesting we have an innate moral code, I'd like to see proof. I'd say it's more from the society you live in - HxF is a mix of societies, void point. Oh wait, is this pointless?!

[Nixt]

here
here

I think that's what you meant anyway. One of the finest

Yes I did. In that case, you should be aware of how certain rules can be ambiguous in application. Additionally, on both occasions you were a Moderator quite a while ago (and not for that long, if I recall correctly) and thus you will not be familiar with how Moderators are required to work now, especially in relation to this rule.

Alright, well once that's added I don't mind being given a user note for it. Until then, I do. How can I be cautioned for something which isn't yet in the rules?

Aspects of the rule will be changed or improved. Whether anything specifically will be added is a different story - if we were required to change each rule so it provided a detailed explanation of each offence and how the rule may be applied, you'd have a volume of rule content to read through rather than a short page on the FAQ.

No, I have not studied law. However, if I realised it was mandatory to study law to use HxF - I would have done so. I assure you.

At no point did I state that it was mandatory to study law and I am sure you would have . I was merely using a doctrine of law as an analogy to how we are required to apply rules on occasion. It makes total sense, too.

[FlyingJesus]

That thread was already an utter joke from the start (the one you quoted Nvr in) and regardless, he's top dog so he can do what he likes really, simple as that. We're not born equal and we don't grow up equal, but if you sign up to something and agree to play by the rules you can't complain when you get punished for not doing so

[Immenseman]

Yes I did. In that case, you should be aware of how certain rules can be ambiguous in application. Additionally, on both occasions you were a Moderator quite a while ago (and not for that long, if I recall correctly) and thus you will not be familiar with how Moderators are required to work now, especially in relation to this rule.

granted.

Aspects of the rule will be changed or improved. Whether anything specifically will be added is a different story - if we were required to change each rule so it provided a detailed explanation of each offence and how the rule may be applied, you'd have a volume of rule content to read through rather than a short page on the FAQ.

glad to hear it.

At no point did I state that it was mandatory to study law and I am sure you would have . I was merely using a doctrine of law as an analogy to how we are required to apply rules on occasion. It makes total sense, too.

cool.

That thread was already an utter joke from the start (the one you quoted Nvr in) and regardless, he's top dog so he can do what he likes really, simple as that. We're not born equal and we don't grow up equal, but if you sign up to something and agree to play by the rules you can't complain when you get punished for not doing so

mind you, i wouldn't mind if it was a rule. there wouldn't be an issue then.

[Laggings]

For futher information, read the first post in this thread:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=608213

I know most of you will remember that thread ^_^.

I agree with all of what you're saying jake, as I said it about a month ago.

invincible's reply on msn was that the rules are just an outline, and are only an example, not the real rule....

UL on ban btw jake

[Black_Apalachi]

I'm sure Jake was only just banned in between me viewing page 1 and page 2 of this thread! :S

First off, I can imagine exactly the kind of posts Jake has been pulled on and I can also understand where he is coming from. Just because a discussion drifts away from the thread title towards a different track, doesn't necessarily render the subsequent posts as "pointless". If they are providing cause for feedback from other members then they are the complete opposite of pointless and can't be compared to trolling and posts such as 'uwebjbfij'. A great example of this would be THIS thread which originated as a discussion about an EU law but has developed into an argument about what the EU actually is. Maybe that isn't as off topic as some other examples, but it's still gone away from the original post.

This being said, the rule as it stands implies that posts relevant to those before them are within the rules. However moderators could still go for the roots by looking for the first post that lead to the "off topic" discussion as this will in fact be leading away from the original discussion. On the other hand, if the posts are valid and meaningful and the discussion has some relevance to the original title, then why not let the thread continue to grow?

I would still expect moderators to pick up on blatant pointless posts consisting of random comments which, as kk. mentioned, are followed up with something like; 'OT: yeah I agree' just to make their post seem constructive when it is in fact completely and utterly pointless.

Overall though, I think the rule is moderated well as it is. I don't think it's hard to avoid breaking the rule enough times to be cautioned or banned. I've had a few PMs in the past just diverting my attention back to a pointless post I made, but I've never had a user-note or warning over it. That's pretty much the thing I'm PMed by moderators about most, as well.

[Laggings]

Isn't that exactly what I was saying before?

Even if you're replying to a post that is off-topic, you're still posting something relevant to a previous post.

[FlyingJesus]

The point is that that's fine if the thread topic has changed naturally to that subject. Let's have an example. Habbolover101 makes a thread in film section titled "Space Jam". Now a discussion about Space Jam is fine, and obviously if !!bushlicker!! mentions their love or hate of cartoon/real actor crossovers in film that's a legitimate shift and the discussion can continue along those lines. If, however, -=DOGG=- strolls in and starts chatting about the Plymouth game that is a pointless post, and a post by xfootheadx90x replying to it is by default pointless, as it doesn't add to the thread in any way. The fact that they've posted in the thread and they're replying to someone else means nothing as they're talking to a post that shouldn't be there, which obviously if removed for pointless posting as it should be will render this offshoot as pointless and so on and so forth. Quite logical

[Arch]

The point is that that's fine if the thread topic has changed naturally to that subject. Let's have an example. Habbolover101 makes a thread in film section titled "Space Jam". Now a discussion about Space Jam is fine, and obviously if !!bushlicker!! mentions their love or hate of cartoon/real actor crossovers in film that's a legitimate shift and the discussion can continue along those lines. If, however, -=DOGG=- strolls in and starts chatting about the Plymouth game that is a pointless post, and a post by xfootheadx90x replying to it is by default pointless, as it doesn't add to the thread in any way. The fact that they've posted in the thread and they're replying to someone else means nothing as they're talking to a post that shouldn't be there, which obviously if removed for pointless posting as it should be will render this offshoot as pointless and so on and so forth. Quite logical

That makes sence so i agree with everything said.

Also who cares its just a rule and if your always wanting to change the rules and have problems with them then don't use this forum ? You agree to go along with them when you sign up. Yeah some rules can be dumb and outdated but when you signed up at the time thats what you agree'd too.