Get rid of post your... junk threads

[Kardan]

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.

Averages are a really poor way of measuring data.

For example, the average human has less than 2 arms.

- - - Updated - - -

And the average number of posts on this forum per week is something like 0.04 posts.

[GommeInc]

Averages are a really poor way of measuring data.

For example, the average human has less than 2 arms.

Agreed, hence why it's better to just look at the last few days. So 9 posts in What are you listening to? #2 on Saturday and 8 yesterday isn't an alarming number, especially when the supposedly bad members who have abused these threads would have to take years to get any real benefit from them.

[Yawn]

no it is better to look at the whole picture :facepalm: kardan posted a breakdown of the main culprits post count and yes it is alarming

shockWAVES has 1k posts in 1 of these threads which = 5k tokens = 1 gold bar (for wat the 3rd time i told u this???) THAT is alarming is it not?

[FlyingJesus]

Ah, so you wrote the rule and know the two are separate?

No, I read the rule and know.

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.

I don't get how you still can't see that there is a difference between the words "pointless" and "non-discussive"

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).

That isn't what I thought at all, in that thread you were also making things up that I never wrote. You are terrible at debates because you do not read what is written and instead come up with your own half-arguments that haven't even existed. You also told me that laws "had to be read as a whole" and then tried backing it up using only parts which was quite hilarious, but that's not actually got anything to do with this thread so I don't know why you keep going on about it.

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.

The point of it is that all use of those threads is abuse of it. We don't let people get away with posting a bit of porn or a few pictures of dead babies, and while those are clearly more extreme it's still about rule breaking not being acted upon.

[The Don]

Tom you seem to think you know better than the rules. If the discretion clause was meant to apply to a different rule it would be located next to it and not where it is currently. What you think the rule should be and what it actually is are two different things.

[GommeInc]

No, I read the rule and know.

So you know they're separate... how? Looking at the other rules, each part of the rule is to be read as a whole. So each ~ is a provision. Also, you've fallen into an obvious trap. If each sentence in the rule is a separate provision, then the bit saying "moderators have discretion" still reigns supreme over the entire rule - so your argument is terribly flawed So this has been solved - these posts do not break that rule because it ultimately comes down to moderator discretion. You can't pick and choose, and you've made a terrible error in your judgement.

I don't get how you still can't see that there is a difference between the words "pointless" and "non-discussive"

Seeing as this is about supposedly pointless posts I honestly do not care. As it's been continuously laid out, these posts are not pointless, nor are the threads. This is such a non-problem it's incredibly boring to discuss. Non-discussive? Not all posts are going to be - not everyone reads posts in a thread but they rely on the topic and make a post on that. It happens all the time in the forums. You would have to be naive to assume members will read every post in a thread. Look at the debates forum - loads of posts lack any replies so clearly they've not added to a discussion as they've been overlooked. Shall we force members to reply to every post they see so posts create discussion?

That isn't what I thought at all, in that thread you were also making things up that I never wrote. You are terrible at debates because you do not read what is written and instead come up with your own half-arguments that haven't even existed. You also told me that laws "had to be read as a whole" and then tried backing it up using only parts which was quite hilarious, but that's not actually got anything to do with this thread so I don't know why you keep going on about it.

You did write them - I kept pointing you to the exact posts you made because you kept getting confused. You're a terrible person to discuss things with because you change your mind, deny things you've written and refuse to acknowledge key flaws in your argument (the one above being a new one. If sentences are to be taken as separate "clauses" then moderator discretion is key - the rule is therefore not being broken. You made a error there). The rape thread made it clear you do not take arguments seriously and if you do, you refuse to accept how wrong you are. The fact that it wasn't rape even if a man had done it was ultimately made you lose that argument - a woman got a longer sentence and tougher punishment compared to a man in the same state for what was a worse/equal to offence.

The point of it is that all use of those threads is abuse of it. We don't let people get away with posting a bit of porn or a few pictures of dead babies, and while those are clearly more extreme it's still about rule breaking not being acted upon.

They're not being abused - the number of posts in those threads are trivial. It's not even rule breaking - you accepted that when you made the terrible error in your argument that the rule isn't meant to be read as a whole, forgetting that moderator discretion is alive and well.

Honestly, this is so meaningless. Threads like that always exist on forums "What did you do today?" etc are all common place on forums. If people enjoy posting in those threads then let them, especially when they clearly are doing no damage what so ever. Anally following rules at the detriment of user enjoyment creates a dictatorship. It's like having a fun police - a contradiction in terms that should never be allowed, especially when these threads are clearly not being abused not causing any problems other than somehow annoying irrational members with perhaps too much time on their hands.

no it is better to look at the whole picture :facepalm: kardan posted a breakdown of the main culprits post count and yes it is alarming

shockWAVES has 1k posts in 1 of these threads which = 5k tokens = 1 gold bar (for wat the 3rd time i told u this???) THAT is alarming is it not?

Going by his post count that's 1/5 of his activity. Hardly a problem and 1k posts isn't that much seeing as he's been a member since 2008. Furthermore, does the forum even recognise past posts when calculating tokens? Because if it doesn't then this is in fact wrong.

[FlyingJesus]

Tom you seem to think you know better than the rules. If the discretion clause was meant to apply to a different rule it would be located next to it and not where it is currently. What you think the rule should be and what it actually is are two different things.

If the discretion clause was supposed to apply to that part it would say so. It does not. It says explicitly what it refers to.

So you know they're separate... how?

Because of what the words say.

If each sentence in the rule is a separate provision, then the bit saying "moderators have discretion" still reigns supreme over the entire rule - so your argument is terribly flawed So this has been solved - these posts do not break that rule because it ultimately comes down to moderator discretion. You can't pick and choose, and you've made a terrible error in your judgement.

That's not true at all because you're still refusing to read it. "Moderators have discretion" is not what it says, "What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department" is what it says. That is very specific. I'm not the one picking and choosing here, you're leaving out vital parts of the wording to fit with your flawed argument.

Non-discussive? Not all posts are going to be

Of course not, but the rule is about creating threads that don't promote discussion, not about every post in existence needing to be replied to.

Shall we force members to reply to every post they see so posts create discussion?

Of course not, but the rule is about creating threads that don't promote discussion, not about every post in existence needing to be replied to.
I seem to have to do a lot of repeating with you, largely because you keep creating arguments that I haven't put forward.

The fact that it wasn't rape even if a man had done it was ultimately made you lose that argument - a woman got a longer sentence and tougher punishment compared to a man in the same state for what was a worse/equal to offence.

Not that that has anything at all to do with this thread but sex with an non-consenting individual is rape, and minors legally cannot consent to sex - something that you tried claiming otherwise and brought up all sorts of non-related ideas to try to push.

It's not even rule breaking - you accepted that when you made the terrible error in your argument that the rule isn't meant to be read as a whole, forgetting that moderator discretion is alive and well.

Yes it is, congrats on again showing your inability to read by seeing only the parts of the rule that you want to see.

Honestly, this is so meaningless. Threads like that always exist on forums "What did you do today?" etc are all common place on forums. If people enjoy posting in those threads then let them, especially when they clearly are doing no damage what so ever. Anally following rules at the detriment of user enjoyment creates a dictatorship.

Not saying to stop them posting so not looking to stop anyone's enjoyment. Look at that, you're making things up again.

[GommeInc]

If the discretion clause was supposed to apply to that part it would say so. It does not. It says explicitly what it refers to.

You stated this:

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?

So it's a separate clause, correct? "What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department." Therefore, moderators have absolute discretion over what is pointless and guess what? The rule is about pointless posting, ergo the threads are not against the rules. If anything the rule contradicts itself, but many standard rules like this do, and as the forum department is the authority their discretion is absolute. Coupled with the rule about leaving moderation to the moderators, it's blatantly obvious that moderators have discretion and, as I seem to have to repeat, these threads do not break the rules unless the forum department says so. As they clearly are not anal over this, they clearly are using the rule as written to give themselves said discretion but not giving a damn, as the matter is so trivial there's no point splitting hairs over it.

Seriously, it's easy to make you argue with yourself as you continuously contradict yourself. One moment you state that not all things are separate then you say they're specific. You put a new spin on "stop hitting yourself" with "stop arguing with yourself".

as pointless or abuse[/B] is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department" is what it says. That is very specific. I'm not the one picking and choosing here, you're leaving out vital parts of the wording to fit with your flawed argument.

And what is the rule in general? About pointless posting therefore they have discretion to choose what is pointless and not - therefore they're not against the rules. It's pretty obvious - a rule about pointless posting with a standard clause saying what is consider pointless under the rule is down to the discretion of the moderators.

Of course not, but the rule is about creating threads that don't promote discussion, not about every post in existence needing to be replied to.

Actually it's a sub-section of a greater rule about pointless posting - so that's not true. The rule is about pointless posting in general. The bit about active discussion falls under the rule of pointless posting, but isn't a rule by itself - hence why it comes under A7. Do not post pointlessly.

Of course not, but the rule is about creating threads that don't promote discussion, not about every post in existence needing to be replied to.
I seem to have to do a lot of repeating with you, largely because you keep creating arguments that I haven't put forward.

See above, you're badly misreading the rule thinking threads that do not create discussion are under some new rule that doesn't exist - they're in actual covered by a much broader rule on pointless posting in general. Coupled with the fact that you yourself stated that not all clauses are to be read as a single clause but separate you've kind of tripped up on yourself, particularly where rule A9 Leave moderating to the moderators comes into question and the now separate clause of "What is considered pointless or abuse is down to the discretion of the moderators. So yeah, they're not breaking any rule unless the moderators say so, not someone or a group of people who seem to obsess over harmless threads.

Not that that has anything at all to do with this thread but sex with an non-consenting individual is rape, and minors legally cannot consent to sex - something that you tried claiming otherwise and brought up all sorts of non-related ideas to try to push.

And we discovered how wrong you were, seeing as it was your baseless opinion. Firstly, educated people such as doctors, judges and the Government discovered that children can actually legally consent to medical treatment and sex. Secondly, children (specifically under 16s - over 13s) do have sex and the huge flaw in your logic is that if a 14 year old has sex with another 14 year old they are both rapists... So anyone under 16 having sex with another under 16 is de facto a rapist? Amazing logic - well done. Furthermore, you assumed the law is black and white, much like your take on life it seems. Children can legally have sex, but an adult cannot legally have sex with someone under the age of 16. The law works both ways and isn't black and white. Hence your argument was ridiculous and you refused to read my evidence and proclaimed through your own arrogant ignorance that your opinion is apparently greater over the opinions of actual, education men and women

If children have the capacity to consent and understand things, then the punishment on the adult should be lessened, unless it was against the over 13's volition and they were, in a sense, forced to have sex. Rape is a much more heinous crime than you bother to admit. Not forgetting your examples on cases which were apparently rape (even though they weren't) were incredibly stupid - especially when a quick Google search revealed a man who did something similar wasn't convicted of rape yet apparently he would or should have been under your supposed logic. But I guess you were just shooting hot air without really knowing the full story :rolleyes:

Yes it is, congrats on again showing your inability to read by seeing only the parts of the rule that you want to see.

See above to how much of a hypocrite you are. Moderators have absolute discretion. If you bothered looking beyond what you want to see you would also note Rule 9 which reflects how moderators have absolute discretion vover rule breaking. But given the rape thread and this thread your inability to read should be pretty obvious now. You see just what you want to see, and do not bother to see the fuller picture :rolleyes:

Not saying to stop them posting so not looking to stop anyone's enjoyment. Look at that, you're making things up again.

Never said you were, it was blatantly a passing judgement over how ridiculous this thread and past threads are. They do not do any harm, they clearly do not break the rules and they provide enjoyment to members, so there's no need to punish people for harmless activity.

[Kyle]

look at more than just last few days or since the thread began

look at thread for last 3-6 months or something

[GommeInc]

look at more than just last few days or since the thread began

look at thread for last 3-6 months or something

What are you referring to? You've lost me