counterproductive moderation.

[Catchy]

This was the question asked by the thread poster:

"if you're an animal lover, what are your views on people who just can't stand them?"

Saying that you like animals because they're delicious has nothing to do with that at all.

There's loads of others that didn't express their opinion about people who can't stand animals, I for one didn't yet I don't deem my post as pointless.

[beth]

This was the question asked by the thread poster:

"if you're an animal lover, what are your views on people who just can't stand them?"

Saying that you like animals because they're delicious has nothing to do with that at all.

it's an amusing comment that relates to the content of the original post which may encourage conversation and/or debate.

i think that post is the best proof so far of the overmoderation of the pointless posting rule.

was someone really offended enough to report that?

[Catzsy]

This was the question asked by the thread poster:

"if you're an animal lover, what are your views on people who just can't stand them?"

Saying that you like animals because they're delicious has nothing to do with that at all.

So if FJ had said that he liked animals because they're cute it would have been okay? I am guessing you would think so. Personally I think he was posting something that was a bit off the wall but after all we do eat animals which is a valid answer to the question which could be read as liking them as a species or as fodder! Sorry Chris I think it was way too harsh to edit this.

Got another edit for pointless posting when I've directly answered a thread question, although this time it's been called "unconstructive posting", presumably suggesting that it's not something which can spark discussion. Apparently my reason for liking animals is somehow not worthy of discussion, nor is my revealing of what cheers me up when I'm feeling down. The fact that no-one DID respond does not mean that no-one COULD respond, and if that's the basis we're going by these days then just about every post on the forum is "pointless" or "unconstructive".

I also got an edit yesteday for saying the name of a porn site. Not for linking to it (which is covered in the rules) but simply mentioning it (which is not). I was not graphic, I did not suggest anyone go on it - in fact I actually said not to - and the mere mention of such things is not at any point in the rules alluded to.

Sort it out guys

FJ, the mentioning of a porn site by name has always been against the rules for pretty obvious reasons i.e. some younger member might decide to look up what you had quoted and then his parents walk in the room. It's a no brainer in my opinion. Get a grip!

Pointless posting isn't the easist thing to moderate and I remember Chris saying the other day that the rules have not changed which is true but it really varies from Mod to Mod as it is a judgment call. Chris always thought I was too soft on it - I think that unless it is multiple C&P posts, makes absolutely no sense at all, is just a one/two word answer or is completely off topic and perhaps just a conversation between two people then it should be left alone otherwise it puts members off posting and stifles originality making the forum quite boring.

[beth]

So if FJ had said that he liked animals because they're cute it would have been okay? I am guessing you would think so. Personally I think he was posting something that was a bit off the wall but after all we do eat animals which is a valid answer to the question which could be read as liking them as a species or as fodder! Sorry Chris I think it was way too harsh to edit this.


FJ, the mentioning of a porn site by name has always been against the rules for pretty obvious reasons i.e. some younger member might decide to look up what you had quoted and then his parents walk in the room. It's a no brainer in my opinion. Get a grip!

Pointless posting isn't the easist thing to moderate and I remember Chris saying the other day that the rules have not changed which is true but it really varies from Mod to Mod as it is a judgment call. Chris always thought I was too soft on it - I think that unless it is multiple C&P posts, makes absolutely no sense at all, is just a one/two word answer or is completely off topic and perhaps just a conversation between two people then it should be left alone otherwise it puts members off posting and stifles originality making the forum quite boring.

rosie voice of reason, please return.

[Zak]

all this because of moderation........ *sigh*

edit: i just thought, for irony it would be funny if this post was now labelled pointless

[Chris]

So if FJ had said that he liked animals because they're cute it would have been okay? I am guessing you would think so. Personally I think he was posting something that was a bit off the wall but after all we do eat animals which is a valid answer to the question which could be read as liking them as a species or as fodder! Sorry Chris I think it was way too harsh to edit this.

I'm not saying it isn't harsh, but his post isn't constructive to what the thread creator asked. The rules state that a post is pointless if it isn't constructive.

Pointless posting isn't the easist thing to moderate and I remember Chris saying the other day that the rules have not changed which is true but it really varies from Mod to Mod as it is a judgment call. Chris always thought I was too soft on it - I think that unless it is multiple C&P posts, makes absolutely no sense at all, is just a one/two word answer or is completely off topic and perhaps just a conversation between two people then it should be left alone otherwise it puts members off posting and stifles originality making the forum quite boring.

Scott will be discussing it with Brandon and Matt to see what changes could be made to it. Despite what some may think, I do want to see it more relaxed, but until a decision has been made I will continue to moderate under the current rules.

[Mathew]

oh my life matt, firstly: are you mystic meg? no-one knows the results of a trial before a trial so that's rubbish. you don't want it to work out so you are predicting a negative result.

secondly sucking the life? please get a grip. the rest of the forum is fun and welcoming, it's not like we're shutting normal spam and saying NO MORE CONVERSATIONAL POSTS JUST POST IN CURRENT AFFAIRS OR HABBO NEWS.

I've already said to give it a trial but I'm predicting it will show nothing. Very much like you're giving it a trial just because you expect a positive result. Not everyone has to agree with you!

Of course, the whole ordeal is being taken far too seriously. Perhaps I'm just too laid back, but the point of a forum is to have fun: not to please people with some amazing statistics. Both would be nice, obviously, but removing something which has worked fine for years is pretty daft.

[jasey]

So if FJ had said that he liked animals because they're cute it would have been okay? I am guessing you would think so. Personally I think he was posting something that was a bit off the wall but after all we do eat animals which is a valid answer to the question which could be read as liking them as a species or as fodder! Sorry Chris I think it was way too harsh to edit this.


FJ, the mentioning of a porn site by name has always been against the rules for pretty obvious reasons i.e. some younger member might decide to look up what you had quoted and then his parents walk in the room. It's a no brainer in my opinion. Get a grip!

Pointless posting isn't the easist thing to moderate and I remember Chris saying the other day that the rules have not changed which is true but it really varies from Mod to Mod as it is a judgment call. Chris always thought I was too soft on it - I think that unless it is multiple C&P posts, makes absolutely no sense at all, is just a one/two word answer or is completely off topic and perhaps just a conversation between two people then it should be left alone otherwise it puts members off posting and stifles originality making the forum quite boring.

I am so glad you were here to welcome me to the forum when I joined. I totally agree with your views and even if you don't have time to be a MOD right now I think I speak for everyone when I express appreciation for you posting your opinion in threads like this. It not only helps everyone because you are so reasonable but also shows you care so much about the HxF community in the sense that you would take the time to give input even though it is no longer your obligation. Cheers, Rosie! You are the best.

[GommeInc]

I'm not saying it isn't harsh, but his post isn't constructive to what the thread creator asked. The rules state that a post is pointless if it isn't constructive.

Then don't follow the rules like a mindless robot, especially when the rules are misguided and contradict basic meanings of words. It wasn't pointless at all, a pointless post would be saying "I like chocolate raisins" in a thread about your views on people who dislike animals. His post wasn't pointless, because the thread is about animals. He likes animals because they are edible. These sorts of things should not be spelled out to people under a false meaning of the word "point" and "pointless".

EDIT:

Also, the Staff Spam thread should just removed. It clearly has no reason to exist. Staff should be interacting with members, so a spam thread contradicts what staff should be doing.

[Chris]

Then don't follow the rules like a mindless robot, especially when the rules are misguided and contradict basic meanings of words. It wasn't pointless at all, a pointless post would be saying "I like chocolate raisins" in a thread about your views on people who dislike animals. His post wasn't pointless, because the thread is about animals. He likes animals because they are edible. These sorts of things should not be spelled out to people under a false meaning of the word "point" and "pointless".

It wasn't pointless but it was unconstructive to the original question. Like I said, forum management are going to discuss it and change it if they see a need to.