Get rid of post your... junk threads

[FlyingJesus]

Holy breadbuckets that was explained literally one post ago learn to read

[Yawn]

:frust::frust::frust::frust::frust:

stop patronising ppl ur the 1 that doesnt get it

[GommeInc]

So moderators do not have discretion?

:frust::frust::frust::frust::frust:

stop patronising ppl ur the 1 that doesnt get it

Says the one who doesn't know what spam is and probably hasn't seen these threads. If you have you would know how little they're posted in, coupled with how old they are.

[FlyingJesus]

Yes they do, over WHAT POSTS ARE POINTLESS OR ABUSE. The part of the rule these threads break is about threads that do not actively promote discussion. That is not the same thing, hence the different words.

[GommeInc]

Yes they do, over WHAT POSTS ARE POINTLESS OR ABUSE. The part of the rule these threads break is about threads that do not actively promote discussion.

Yet moderators have discretion over what is pointless and abuse. It's in the exact same line as that part of the rule. Do you really need it C&P'd again for you to understand?

EDIT: Interestingly, What are you listening to? only received 9 posts yesterday - that's one less compared to the day before. One user made 3 of those posts. Crikey, he'll be Habbox God in about 6,667 days or 18 years if you prefer years.

[Yawn]

So moderators do not have discretion?


Says the one who doesn't know what spam is and probably hasn't seen these threads. If you have you would know how little they're posted in, coupled with how old they are.

are u trying to tell me that shockerz having 1k posts in wat are u watching (5k tokens, 1 gold bars worth) isnt a lot?

they CLEARLY break the forum pointless posting rules so are spam. dont care if u dont think wat the forum considers spam is definitively correct or not that isnt the point :facepalm:

[GommeInc]

are u trying to tell me that shockerz having 1k posts in wat are u watching (5k tokens, 1 gold bars worth) isnt a lot?

they CLEARLY break the forum pointless posting rules so are spam. dont care if u dont think wat the forum considers spam is definitively correct or not that isnt the point :facepalm:

You've contradicted yourself. It is spam, but what the forum considers as spam isn't the point whether or not it is correct? So you're arguing what exactly? They're not overly posted in, correct? They receive quite a small amount. You'd be better off posting in other threads if you want a larger post count - and then you get the arguments of what makes a quality post.

Also, who is shockerz? The only person I've found in that thread is shockwave and he's been a member since 2008 and having 4,763 posts averages to about 793 posts a year. Not that much really. A name change is 300 posts to get 1,500 tokens.

[FlyingJesus]

Yet moderators have discretion over what is pointless and abuse. It's in the exact same line as that part of the rule. Do you really need it C&P'd again for you to understand?

If I write a paragraph that mentions winning the Premiership and later notes that I scored a hat-trick at the park yesterday does that mean I'm a Premiership goalscorer? Two separate clauses are just that; separate clauses. Do you really need this said again for you to understand?

- - - Updated - - -

"Who is shockerz? I've found shockwave" says it all about your comprehension skills really

[GommeInc]

If I write a paragraph that mentions winning the Premiership and later notes that I scored a hat-trick at the park yesterday does that mean I'm a Premiership goalscorer? Two separate clauses are just that; separate clauses. Do you really need this said again for you to understand?

- - - Updated - - -

"Who is shockerz? I've found shockwave" says it all about your comprehension skills really

Ah, so you wrote the rule and know the two are separate? If they are together, then moderator discretion is limited. However, you're arguing it's a separate clause which means that moderators have even more discretion. Going from how the moderators act and the wording - they have discretion over what is pointless and abuse, and seeing as the rule is about pointless posting I shall assume they determine what is pointless in the grand scheme of things. Either way your argument doesn't work. You're grasping at straws, much like when you were trying to tell me how to read legislation which was the funniest thing I have seen - you really did think legislation was about picking and choosing when the offence you were badly citing had to be read as a whole to be guilty of an offence, so don't argue comprehensive skills (especially when you didn't realise people were talking about post count yet lacked the capacity to read their posts - which is a bit rude).

Also, if shockerz does abuse that thread, he's doing a bad job of it. In the last few days he hasn't posted much and irrespective of this he's hardly gaining much from it. He's a 2008 member with quite a low post count.

[Yawn]

You've contradicted yourself. It is spam, but what the forum considers as spam isn't the point whether or not it is correct? So you're arguing what exactly? They're not overly posted in, correct? They receive quite a small amount. You'd be better off posting in other threads if you want a larger post count - and then you get the arguments of what makes a quality post.

Also, who is shockerz? The only person I've found in that thread is shockwave and he's been a member since 2008 and having 4,763 posts averages to about 793 posts a year. Not that much really. A name change is 300 posts to get 1,500 tokens.

wat even?