Get rid of post your... junk threads

[Kyle]

What are you referring to? You've lost me

the points people keep raising about "oh shockwave onlyposted x times in last few days" or "oh it's barely any posts since 2005 when the thread began".

need to look at number of posts people are making since the thread became a problem and began to be exploited to get a clearer picture of the problem.

[GommeInc]

the points people keep raising about "oh shockwave onlyposted x times in last few days" or "oh it's barely any posts since 2005 when the thread began".

need to look at number of posts people are making since the thread became a problem and began to be exploited to get a clearer picture of the problem.

Depends if it ever really became a problem. Seeing as he's been a member since 2008 and most of his posts have been made elsewhere it sort of hints it's not quite as big a problem. Coupled with how posts are not worth much and that activity should generally be awarded, it seems about right really. He's been here since 2008, maybe he's earned the gold bar?

Also, does the token system take into account posts before it was implemented? I may secretly be a millionaire and not know it.

[Kyle]

Depends if it ever really became a problem. Seeing as he's been a member since 2008 and most of his posts have been made elsewhere it sort of hints it's not quite as big a problem. Coupled with how posts are not worth much and that activity should generally be awarded, it seems about right really. He's been here since 2008, maybe he's earned the gold bar?

Also, does the token system take into account posts before it was implemented? I may secretly be a millionaire and not know it.

no it doesn't, which is one of the reasons it could have become a problem, since certain people may have only become 'active' in these threads since the introduction of the token system. not being a huge problem does not take away from the fact that it is still a problem.

[GommeInc]

no it doesn't, which is one of the reasons it could have become a problem, since certain people may have only become 'active' in these threads since the introduction of the token system. not being a huge problem does not take away from the fact that it is still a problem.

But you would literally have to post loads to reap any reward, and as we've discovered there's not really many posts being made - not in the biggest problem threads from what I've seen. It may have been a problem when it was first introduced, but it seems to have solved itself - maybe through members being bored? Dealing with it now is like going to put out a house fire when it's already gone out and a new house has already been built in its place

[FlyingJesus]

You stated this:

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".

You are deliberately not reading properly, I'm sure of it. No-one's actually this stupid without trying. You're trying to tell me that separate and specific are opposites, really? I'm not contradicting myself at all because "these things are different" is the same as "these things are different". There is no room for discretion when a point is totally specific, so obviously (to anyone with a brain) discretion cannot apply to all areas.

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.

Again trying to suggest that absolutes are up for discussion. There cannot be discretion over points that are quantitatively one or another.

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.

Clearly you didn't read that thread either. Medical treatment has nothing to do with sex, and two minors engaging in sex has nothing to do with an adult having sex with a minor. You are adept at comparing irrelevant points, not so good at sticking to what's actually being discussed

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.

Which is what the thread was about. Cheers.

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.

Good of you to admit that you're making things up for the sake of looking like you have a valid point, but there's no need to continue doing so by pretending that anyone's calling for punishments.

[GommeInc]

You are deliberately not reading properly, I'm sure of it. No-one's actually this stupid without trying. You're trying to tell me that separate and specific are opposites, really? I'm not contradicting myself at all because "these things are different" is the same as "these things are different". There is no room for discretion when a point is totally specific, so obviously (to anyone with a brain) discretion cannot apply to all areas.

So you admit you contradicted yourself when you said that they are separate clauses (clauses being each "~" - can't believe I've had to point that out. A clause isn't a sentence, it's a point - maybe if you learnt how to read since the rape thread you would know what a clause or a provision is) and then are now trying to argue they are specific e.g. each sentence- even though you've failed to read the rule again by ignoring the sentence between "active discussion" and moderator discretion? Good. So moderators do have discretion over what is pointless and abuse. Guess what that means? It's not against the rules. So you've finally after x amount of pages discovered that moderators have discretion over what is pointless.

Clearly you didn't read that thread either. Medical treatment has nothing to do with sex, and two minors engaging in sex has nothing to do with an adult having sex with a minor. You are adept at comparing irrelevant points, not so good at sticking to what's actually being discussed

Clearly you failed to read the thread and everything I said - consent is universal. It's not picked and chosen like what you keep doing to the pointless posting rule which clearly states that what is pointless and abuse is down to what the moderators think - in plain English terms.

Which is what the thread was about. Cheers.

No it wasn't, it was about a woman who allegedly raped a child. Your point was had a man done it then he would be called a rapist. This was in fact false as a man who had done the same was convicted of sexual intercourse/sex with a minor (someone under 16 but over 13) which isn't rape other than in your uneducated over opinionated mind. It was ultimately about rape, a very specific crime. You were too ignorant to look up the theory behind it as it's very specific and heinous crime. So no it wasn't and you know it wasn't.

Good of you to admit that you're making things up for the sake of looking like you have a valid point, but there's no need to continue doing so by pretending that anyone's calling for punishments.

So what is your point exactly? You want the rule enforced? That would punish members - if they are posting comments which do not promote active discussion as per the rule. It clearly is about punishing members from doing something that gives them entertainment. I can't believe how daft you have been this last year. If you don't want members to be punished then clearly you have no clue what you're arguing and are possibly doing it to annoy or troll. If don't want them punished, then you don't want anything to change and must surely admit it clearly isn't about the rule as any rule change will lead to punishing or restricting what members can do, which would lead to red writing everywhere which is, guess what? A punishment.

[FlyingJesus]

So you admit you contradicted yourself when you said that they are separate clauses (clauses being each "~" - can't believe I've had to point that out. A clause isn't a sentence, it's a point - maybe if you learnt how to read since the rape thread you would know what a clause or a provision is) and then are now trying to argue they are specific e.g. each sentence- even though you've failed to read the rule again by ignoring the sentence between "active discussion" and moderator discretion? Good. So moderators do have discretion over what is pointless and abuse. Guess what that means? It's not against the rules. So you've finally after x amount of pages discovered that moderators have discretion over what is pointless.

In grammar, a clause is the smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition. I'm not speaking legalese, I'm speaking English.

No it wasn't, it was about a woman who allegedly raped a child. Your point was had a man done it then he would be called a rapist. This was in fact false as a man who had done the same was convicted of sexual intercourse/sex with a minor (someone under 16 but over 13) which isn't rape other than in your uneducated over opinionated mind. It was ultimately about rape, a very specific crime. You were too ignorant to look up the theory behind it as it's very specific and heinous crime. So no it wasn't and you know it wasn't.

I do love it when people try telling me what I meant as though they know me better than I do. It's great because it makes it easy to tell that they're an idiot.

So what is your point exactly? You want the rule enforced? That would punish members

No it wouldn't as the intended fix is to give these threads their own area for people who pretend to enjoy non-discussive posting, not to get rid of it or to ban everyone who's involved.

It clearly is about punishing members from doing something that gives them entertainment.

Clearly isn't since no punishment has been mentioned.

I can't believe how daft you have been this last year. If you don't want members to be punished then clearly you have no clue what you're arguing and are possibly doing it to annoy or troll. If don't want them punished, then you don't want anything to change and must surely admit it clearly isn't about the rule as any rule change will lead to punishing or restricting what members can do, which would lead to red writing everywhere which is, guess what? A punishment.

Or perhaps you could look at what's actually being suggested, that would be a good idea. I have not put forth any suggestion for restricting what anyone can do - you're yet again fighting with shadows.

[GommeInc]

In grammar, a clause is the smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition. I'm not speaking legalese, I'm speaking English.

So you do admit that moderators have discretion when it comes to what is pointless and abuse? If we use the standard definition of clause, then "What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department" is it's own clause as is "Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion." However, as moderators are the only ones to punish members by enforcing the rules, it is blatantly obvious that the discretion clause takes precedence - not forgetting the fact it's in the Terms and Conditions (which I've read but clearly you haven't but you do seem to focus on something small and do not take in the bigger picture).

I do love it when people try telling me what I meant as though they know me better than I do. It's great because it makes it easy to tell that they're an idiot.

Ah, argumentum ad hominem When people resort to that they admit they're wrong, and as you clearly said in black and white that "if a man were to have done the same thing, he would be called a rapist" and you deny it one can only deduce that you're in denial. As it was not true it showed you clearly do not know what the offence entails. Heck, other members knew this too - you were the only one not to.

No it wouldn't as the intended fix is to give these threads their own area for people who pretend to enjoy non-discussive posting, not to get rid of it or to ban everyone who's involved.

Oh so you did not say:

Ryan why are you still banging on about the number of posts when it's an issue of rulebreaking

No mention of placing them in a separate forum - which isn't mentioned in the rule at all. I can't read your mind and if you can't be bothered to post this suggestion then forgive me for lacking this ability. Not that it matters as you're clearly changing your argument where you've failed to support another.

Also, putting these in one forum is absurd as they're on topic in the forums they're in. Furthermore, by placing them in Forum Games (when they're not games) or in a specific forum contradicts general moderator practice where threads should be in the most appropriate forum. So "What are you watching?" is on-topic and relevant in TV and Film. Also, do you really want to move Post your Desktop and Post your Setup from Technology? Or are you going to suggest picking and choosing what can and can't go in there based on subjective reasoning? :rolleyes: Not that this matters as you stated this is about rulebreaking according to you and not what forum they should be in.

Clearly isn't since no punishment has been mentioned.

Rules generally tend to be about enforcing them, which involves punishment. Look at the current way rules are enforced - red writing, infractions and/or bans - punishments.

Or perhaps you could look at what's actually being suggested, that would be a good idea. I have not put forth any suggestion for restricting what anyone can do - you're yet again fighting with shadows.

Moving these threads into another forum when they're on-topic and relevant in their current forums is ridiculous and absurd, especially when they're harmless. I said that ages ago but you decided to ignore those posts and focus on the rule, even though you messed up that argument by failing to read it properly. The Don even picked you out on it.

[FlyingJesus]

So you do admit that moderators have discretion when it comes to what is pointless and abuse? If we use the standard definition of clause, then "What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department" is it's own clause as is "Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion."

Yes that is exactly what I have been saying. It does not however follow that:

as moderators are the only ones to punish members by enforcing the rules, it is blatantly obvious that they have absolute discretion.

Because that is not stated. Something that is "blatantly obvious" is what's written down.

Ah, argumentum ad hominem When people resort to that they admit they're wrong

Fab stuff

Show Hide

Are you really blind? Can you not read?

Says the one who doesn't know what spam is

lacked the capacity to read their posts

You're a terrible person to discuss things with

you do not take arguments seriously

annoying irrational members with perhaps too much time on their hands.

how much of a hypocrite you are.

Oh so you did not say:

No mention of placing them in a separate forum - which isn't mentioned in the forum at all Again, you're changing your argument where you've failed to support another.

Oh no, a whole post where I didn't lay out the entirety of my opinion. It has been spoken about at length* in this very thread (although I disagree with them going to either Spam or Forum Games as some have said), I'm not changing my argument at all.

*each of these letters is a separate post which you seem to have missed out on

Also, putting these in one forum is absurd as they're on topic in the forums they're in.

If the prior mention of a plugin or some such device to make singular threads not have post counts comes to fruition then I have no problem with their placement, merely their function

Furthermore, by placing them in Forum Games (when they're not games) or in a specific forum contradicts general moderator practice where threads should be in the most appropriate forum. So "What are you watching?" is on-topic and relevant in TV and Film.

As above, also quite hilarious that you worry about contradicting general moderator practice when such behaviour would also dictate moving these threads for breaking the rules although having said that, if the new area was named Non-Discussive Threads or something similar that would then be the most appropriate forum for them anyway

Also, do you really want to move Post your Desktop and Post your Setup from Technology? Or are you going to suggest picking and choosing what can and can't go in there based on subjective reasoning? :rolleyes: Not that this matters as you stated this is about rulebreaking according to you and not what forum they should be in.

I can't claim to know those ones so well, but if they aren't areas of conversation then again they are of the same ilk - however I have been told previously that they do involve discussion because they're things people actually like to talk about. So yeah depends on their content

Rules generally tend to be about enforcing them, which involves punishment. Look at the current way rules are enforced - red writing, infractions and/or bans - punishments.

And yet none of this has been suggested. Moving threads or removing post counts from them involves none of those things, and if the current ones are closed then recreated (as has been suggested often) there's no detriment to anyone whatsoever.

Moving these threads into another forum when they're on-topic and relevant in their current forums is ridiculous and absurd, especially when they're harmless. I said that ages ago but you decided to ignore those posts and focus on the rule, even though you messed up that argument by failing to read it properly. The Don even picked you out on it.

Well done you, but apparently you've decided to ignore all posts refuting this and focus on post count, even though you messed up that argument by failing to count properly. Kyle and Kardan even picked you out on it.

[GommeInc]

Yes that is exactly what I have been saying. It does not however follow that: Because that is not stated. Something that is "blatantly obvious" is what's written down.

So you can enforce the rules can you? Last I checked it was only moderators or to be general - the forum department. It is blatantly obvious, seeing as I can't, you can't and ordinary members can't.

Oh no, a whole post where I didn't lay out the entirety of my opinion. It has been spoken about at length* in this very thread (although I disagree with them going to either Spam or Forum Games as some have said), I'm not changing my argument at all.

*each of these letters is a separate post which you seem to have missed out on

Most not by you it seems, so I am meant to read your mind now? :rolleyes: Also, some of your claims were wrong and have been proven wrong or exaggerated. Gaining reward for little effort? What a load of rubbish when these posts aren't even abused (something yet to be rebutted).

If the prior mention of a plugin or some such device to make singular threads not have post counts comes to fruition then I have no problem with their placement, merely their function

You're yet to argue why post count in these threads is harmful. I posted evidence it is not and refuted such claims. 10 posts on average in the last few days is hardly damaging to the moral integrity of the forum :rolleyes:

As above, also quite hilarious that you worry about contradicting general moderator practice when such behaviour would also dictate moving these threads for breaking the rules although having said that, if the new area was named Non-Discussive Threads or something similar that would then be the most appropriate forum for them anyway

Again, you're assuming these are harmful and are yet to state why. There's no point moving threads that are harmless - it's been establish they do not break the rules and do not produce large post counts. If members who have only been here for a year had about 5,000 posts from these then maybe, but given current member trends many barely last 2 years.

I can't claim to know those ones so well, but if they aren't areas of conversation then again they are of the same ilk - however I have been told previously that they do involve discussion because they're things people actually like to talk about. So yeah depends on their content

So people don't watch TV? Post what you last watched seems to be a pretty obvious area of interest, seeing as television programmes and films are somewhat of a hobby for some. As I said ages ago, it isn't the threads that are the problem but the members - maybe moderator could tweak the threads to ask why as well as what? Some members in those threads already state why they're watching it or add a qualifier such as "Game of Thrones - it's amazing". Perhaps promote these sorts of posts rather than immediately eradicate them?

And yet none of this has been suggested. Moving threads or removing post counts from them involves none of those things, and if the current ones are closed then recreated (as has been suggested often) there's no detriment to anyone whatsoever.

It is when moving them to another forum, which has been suggested. If people have an interest in music, they go to the music forum. Post what you are listening to #2 is about music, therefore its appropriate forum is the Music forum. As that's not being abused and moderators have discovered as such, they're not doing any damage. Again, you're refusing to state why these threads should be moved when no harm is being done.

Well done you, but apparently you've decided to ignore all posts refuting this and focus on post count, even though you messed up that argument by failing to count properly. Kyle and Kardan even picked you out on it.

Where was this? What are you listening to? #2 had 9 posts on Saturday and 8 on Sunday. Or are you going to argue it didn't? EDIT: Actually, Saturday was 5 and Sunday was 9. Point still remains, hardly abused.