Forum...

[Hecktix]

When did that actually change because I always thought that providing it stayed on topic within a post in the thread, it was fine. Or am I being stupid?

It didn't change, see above post! You were the one that wrote the rule

@ dave, read the post above lol it says a post has to be relevant to the topic or another post.

[immense]

So then why can't the rule on pointless posting be amended to what Cat suggested, and Jake, discussions can still spark other discussions in the same thread.

They can't. Read the bit about contributing, my example that I gave about the colour and the car could be penalised with the current rule.

[FlyingJesus]

It was my understanding (having actually written the rule...) that that was indeed the case. The only difference between the current rule and the one proposed appears to be that under the "new" rule people could start a ridiculous conversation that hasn't followed on from the thread at all and only the first person to mention it would be reprimanded. Say there's a thread about fish fingers, if someone posts up "hi I love hairless cats" this would currently be removed for pointless posting, as would replies to it because they are by default pointless - after all, if that post is pointless it should be removed, and therefore replies to it would look out of the blue themselves. It makes very little sense to change this as far as I can see.

[HotelUser]

They can't. Read the bit about contributing, my example that I gave about the colour and the car could be penalised with the current rule.

Sorry, I missed your example Jake! Surly that cannot be considered as pointless posting, because in both you refer to the colour red which is key in the initial post!

[Hecktix]

Sorry, I missed your example Jake! Surly that cannot be considered as pointless posting, because in both you refer to the colour red which is key in the initial post!

This is correct and nothing in the current rule suggests that this would be pointless.

[immense]

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...58#post6461058
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...50#post6460050

This is what I meant. Just got a PM about those. They are replying to two people who have quoted me. Sure, it's not adding anything to the original discussion but it's not my fault I have been spoken to. Being penalised for replying and promoting discussion.

[Nixt]

Neither of those links work for me Jake, even when I try edit your post

[immense]

oh me neither, one min.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...50#post6460050
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...58#post6461058

[Hecktix]

oh me neither, one min.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...50#post6460050
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...58#post6461058

If you have an issue with any moderation then PM me, it's simple really, I happen to agree with you on those two posts aren't pointless and will sort them.

[immense]

Yeah, I'm not bothered about them, just thought using an example was the best way to get my point across. If you agree, maybe alter the rule so the moderators don't interpret it differently as they have done.