'What...' threads that do not contribute to discussion...

[Kardan]

A7. Do not post pointlessly ~ ~ Do not post off-topic ~ An off-topic post has no relevance to the topic or any previous post that is relevant, or does little to positively contribute to the discussion.
~ Do not spam/make pointless posts. It is not allowed to post random, meaningless, posts or threads on the forum. Examples of this are (ROFLCOPTER!!!!!!); (BYRDSB +HKK; ) (I am a plane)
~ Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion.

These threads very clearly come under that last heading, as therefore do all of the replies within them

I wonder what would happen if we reported the threads saying they are breaking rule A7 - surely the moderators in that section would have to close them?

[edible]

But it's not within the forum rules, that was the main point of this thread. It's against the rules to create posts that consist of a few words and do not contribute to discussion.

But you do have a good point, but I'm afraid many people will argue how you advance user groups and also rep power without post count.

A7. Do not post pointlessly ~ ~ Do not post off-topic ~ An off-topic post has no relevance to the topic or any previous post that is relevant, or does little to positively contribute to the discussion.
~ Do not spam/make pointless posts. It is not allowed to post random, meaningless, posts or threads on the forum. Examples of this are (ROFLCOPTER!!!!!!); (BYRDSB +HKK; ) (I am a plane)
~ Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion.

These threads very clearly come under that last heading, as therefore do all of the replies within them

Active discussion is a discussion that is active. These discussions are active. Maybe it could be rehashed to promote clarity. However, unless there is a 17 page thread based on 5 words I would suggest there is a deeper issue here(!)

[Kardan]

Active discussion is a discussion that is active. These discussions are active. Maybe it could be rehashed to promote clarity. However, unless there is a 17 page thread based on 5 words I would suggest there is a deeper issue here(!)

There is no discussion value in these threads, this is what is meant by active discussion. Also many many posts are indeed one or two word answers.

[edible]

There is no discussion value in these threads, this is what is meant by active discussion. Also many many posts are indeed one or two word answers.

Now you're reading the rules in a way which suits your argument. In my opinion, an active discussion is an active thread with posts that reply to the OP.

[Chris]

Only with regards to the music thread, because for some reason "IT'S AN INSTITUTION!!!" was always deemed a good enough excuse to not make the change while completely stripping the VIP subforum section despite it having been (in its time) a hub of strong activity and community. Frankly the reasoning is exactly the same as when we got the post count from forum games removed all that time ago, and it's still relevant:



edit:


I know you're new to the job but since you mentioned previous forum managers before I assume that you have some idea of the history of the role, so not sure why you're suddenly suggesting that poll results dictate the way in which the forum works

The poll isn't dictating anything. I could have said no immediately but instead there was a poll which allowed everyone to vote fairly. It's not being introduced.

[Kardan]

Now you're reading the rules in a way which suits your argument. In my opinion, an active discussion is an active thread with posts that reply to the OP.

True, but I could say you're doing the same This does need clarifying then, but surely you are saying every thread is an active discussion just because it is active. I'm saying for it to be clarified as 'active discussion' it must be active, and there must be discussion

[edible]

True, but I could say you're doing the same This does need clarifying then, but surely you are saying every thread is an active discussion just because it is active. I'm saying for it to be clarified as 'active discussion' it must be active, and there must be discussion

Disagree because the rule also states that it has to have relevance to the OP or proceeding posts. If it was just a case of it being active you could have a thread title "Thread to test the Z key" with everyone replying ZZZZZ or something similar

[Kardan]

Disagree because the rule also states that it has to have relevance to the OP or proceeding posts. If it was just a case of it being active you could have a thread title "Thread to test the Z key" with everyone replying ZZZZZ or something similar

Well, the rules needs clarifying. The 'active discussion' maybe be down to interpretation, but the "which only allow for short, one or two word answers" isn't down to interpretation, and the threads mentioned do break this rule.

[FlyingJesus]

In my opinion, an active discussion is an active thread with posts that reply to the OP.

If that were the generally accepted view then this wouldn't be an issue, but considering some of the edits I've had in the past (mostly from Chris, oddly!) that isn't how the forum is currently run. If we can get confirmation from management that this is the newly-accepted definition of "discussion" on HxF then I guess the issue is closed, but personally I see it as problematic considering how pointless an OP can be and how much more interesting a new tangent of discussion can become within a thread, which would be rendered pointless by your definition as it wouldn't relate to the OP

[edible]

If that were the generally accepted view then this wouldn't be an issue, but considering some of the edits I've had in the past (mostly from Chris, oddly!) that isn't how the forum is currently run. If we can get confirmation from management that this is the newly-accepted definition of "discussion" on HxF then I guess the issue is closed, but personally I see it as problematic considering how pointless an OP can be and how much more interesting a new tangent of discussion can become within a thread, which would be rendered pointless by your definition as it wouldn't relate to the OP

I was just concentrating on two words of the rule you posted in here. The rule also clarifies that it's perfectly acceptable for a new tangent of discussion to be born in an existing thread. Of course, if the OP is pointless then the thread will be closed, as was discussed with Kardan in the preceding posts.