Pointless posting rule

[Black_Apalachi]

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 Yeah some rules can be dumb and outdated but when you signed up at the time thats what you agree'd too.

he won't be for some time!

[Laggings]

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

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.

[Black_Apalachi]

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.

Yeah, mods just need to be allowed to use their own common sense to make a judgement when it comes to outlandish posts such as that.

[Laggings]

Yes but it's not technically in the rules though.

[Black_Apalachi]

Yes but it's not technically in the rules though.

A lot of rules have technicalities that are not stated and are instead left to the moderators' common sense. I think this is more favourable than the other side of the coin which will be every single post being edited even though it's plain to see that the post isn't trying to be an annoyance.

[Laggings]

Then what's the point of the rules if half of them are just what the mods want to do?
If it's not stated clearly, or documented anywhere, how can we be expected to follow a rule we don't know about?

[Black_Apalachi]

It's not whatever the mods want to do as such. There are super mods and managers higher up to control this anyway.

[Laggings]

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

[Grig]

Yeh Jake, I shall agree there. The fact of the matter is, many people have different definitons for this particular term. I think, it is not followed to such an extent and I agree with you Jake, sometimes it's not clear at all why you get warned. For example, a couple of weeks back I get warned for quoting a past saying "epic" and the persons name, which was an opinion and not pointless at all, I even quoted the post.

I do however this there wil be no solution to this issue, purely for the reason that it is very hard for there to be any agreement on what is 'pointless', because my definton may be different to yours etc.

[The Professor]

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

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.