Get rid of post your... junk threads

[FlyingJesus]

Yes it is, as they're the only ones to enforce rules. Plus it's current interpretation is fine, seeing as not all posts are going to be strictly there to discuss even elsewhere.

Enforcing rules is now equal to making them. Right. Policemen are now legislators.

Ha, coming from you again? Remind me what you said in the rape thread? You even said in this thread it's not about post count when other members have said it is - so you can shush right there. You apparently have this idea that your view is the view of others when so far it's only you who can't read the rules...

This is exactly what I'm talking about; you keep flipping between whether you're on about just me or the thread as a whole. You've literally just switched it again.

This isn't breaking the rules... We've concluded it hasn't. Although you've changed your argument to now suggest they need re-interpreting, which is a new one. So you've contradicted yourself again. They're breaking the rules and they need re-interpreting... Very consistent argument you don't have there.

No, you've (wrongly) concluded that they don't break the rules despite what the rules say. I have not changed my argument. I still say that they break the rules, as they do.

Yet moderators have discretion, which shouldn't be repeated. Furthermore, they are not doing any damage. I'm yet to see this influx of Habbox Gods.

I don't see anyone becoming a Habbox God by double posting or making off-topic posts in the middle of threads. If you think that the rules ought to be abolished then fair enough that's a different argument, but only enforcing some makes no sense at all.

You're yet to argue why they need to be removed, closed or altered when they're not breaking the rules.

Because they are.

They're on-topic in the forums they're in, therefore they do not break the rules. Post what you're watching or last watched (whatever) is about television and film? Where does it go? TV and Film. You must have had a hard time playing with the children's sorter toy, trying to ram stars into circles if you can't even place the right threads in the correct forums.

And yet they do not promote active discussion. Still. You can talk all you like about where they're placed, but that still isn't the issue. Also I'm pretty sure my only suggestion on where to move them to was (if they can't be adapted to simply have no post count but stay where they are, which seems a pretty fair compromise and has done ever since it was mentioned a long way back) a "non-discussive threads" area, which would absolutely be the right place for them.

If you can't be bothered to post I assume you're making it up. Karter said that averages are useless which I agreed, hence why you use recent data and guess what! Less than 10 posts a day in some of these threads? Oh the horror, look at the abuse these threads are causing!

I have posted, not sure what you're trying to get at here. Quantity isn't that big an issue for me anyway, it's the fact that rules aren't being enforced properly and this not only makes most moderation decisions hypocritical but also breeds the exact uncertainty that makes people just post in Spam - an issue you yourself brought up

[GommeInc]

And there's no point having a rule if it is never enforced.

It is, but it doesn't have to be in these threads. In fact, reading the opening posts for some of them they began with discussion. The oldest, What are you listening to? #2 started off with members commenting on the song choices of others. So clearly that thread isn't against the rules. What are you watching? doesn't suggest in its name it will only have short one or two word answers, it's the members who are at fault and not the OP. Post a picture of your car has opening remarks which look for active discussion but it is up to the members to actively do it.

In fact, it all boils down to what members do with the threads - not the threads themselves. All threads promote active discussion unless they specifically ask something that will only get small answers, such as "Is the sky blue?" or "What's your name?" Threads like "Are you going out to night?" could have one word answers like yes or no, but it's open for members to state where they're going or why they're not going out. So in short, they're not breaking the rule as clearly they are open for interpretation by the members.

Again, as I suggested ages ago - members are to blame but you can't punish members for not using the threads correctly, as forums are meant to be for fun or to waste time, and if members waste their time doing these then it's fine, especially when it has been established they are not actually abused or pointless - hence where the bit in the rule about moderator/forum department discretion comes in.

Enforcing rules is now equal to making them. Right. Policemen are now legislators.

And I said this where? I shall imagine you didn't read the post.

This is exactly what I'm talking about; you keep flipping between whether you're on about just me or the thread as a whole. You've literally just switched it again.

Well seeing as you seem to be the voice for everyone here, by saying it's not about post count but the rule it's hard to understand what your argument is. I commented on this ages ago and you pretty much proclaimed yourself the spokesperson when Kardan and Kyle have different views to you.

No, you've (wrongly) concluded that they don't break the rules despite what the rules say. I have not changed my argument. I still say that they break the rules, as they do.

The rule clearly states it's up for the forum department to decide, or are you denying that again? They clearly do not. Threads promote discussion, but it is up for members to actively discuss. Don't blame the threads, blame the members. Besides, you're one to talk. Many of your posts are quick posts with no room for discussion. So it's hard to argue with a hypocrite.

I don't see anyone becoming a Habbox God by double posting or making off-topic posts in the middle of threads. If you think that the rules ought to be abolished then fair enough that's a different argument, but only enforcing some makes no sense at all.

So you've retracted your point that members are being rewarded for doing nothing?

Because they are.

No they're not, it's the members not wanting to discuss. The threads can be open to discussion but members can't be bothered to as they don't want to be serious. Also, all of these threads have had some amount of discussion, so therefore they do not break the rules.

And yet they do not promote active discussion. Still. You can talk all you like about where they're placed, but that still isn't the issue. Also I'm pretty sure my only suggestion on where to move them to was (if they can't be adapted to simply have no post count but stay where they are, which seems a pretty fair compromise and has done ever since it was mentioned a long way back) a "non-discussive threads" area, which would absolutely be the right place for them.

How do they not? Post what you are listening to can have discussion, but members for the most part don't. However, some members have discussed their song choices, so clearly it's not infringed the rules. Any thread could allow for discussion unless it specifically asks for "Yes/No" responses, which none do. They're open for interpretation by members, because you know, members have a choice and free will.

I have posted, not sure what you're trying to get at here. Quantity isn't that big an issue for me anyway, it's the fact that rules aren't being enforced properly and this not only makes most moderation decisions hypocritical but also breeds the exact uncertainty that makes people just post in Spam - an issue you yourself brought up

Yet they are, as the threads are not to blame but the members and the subsequent posts there after. I could discuss in post what you are listening to. In fact, I could rebut this by simply going to all of these threads and saying "I am listening/watching/driving/using/eating/drink x because y" and I've proven they promote active discussion - whether other members do is down to individuals posts and not the thread. So yeah, they're not breaking the rules.

[Kardan]

It is, but it doesn't have to be in these threads. In fact, reading the opening posts for some of them they began with discussion. The oldest, What are you listening to? #2 started off with members commenting on the song choices of others. So clearly that thread isn't against the rules. What are you watching? doesn't suggest in its name it will only have short one or two word answers, it's the members who are at fault and not the OP. Post a picture of your car has opening remarks which look for active discussion but it is up to the members to actively do it.

In fact, it all boils down to what members do with the threads - not the threads themselves. All threads promote active discussion unless they specifically ask something that will only get small answers, such as "Is the sky blue?" or "What's your name?" Threads like "Are you going out to night?" could have one word answers like yes or no, but it's open for members to state where they're going or why they're not going out. So in short, they're not breaking the rule as clearly they are open for interpretation by the members.

Again, as I suggested ages ago - members are to blame but you can't punish members for not using the threads correctly, as forums are meant to be for fun or to waste time, and if members waste their time doing these then it's fine, especially when it has been established they are not actually abused or pointless - hence where the bit in the rule about moderator/forum department discretion comes in.

The moderator discretion is about pointless posting, now about 'short threads', but if every thread is down to the members, and not the thread creator, why is that rule even in place? Surely it makes sense to get rid of the rule if it can never be enforced?

Also, the 'Don't post just images' rule is in place, but I've not seen it be enforced either

[FlyingJesus]

In which case Ryan you must believe that moderators are encroaching on a lot of other peoples' fun by moving their threads to Spam despite their potential and having been posted in the right place, and we really have no need of moderation (or rules) at all

Also, the 'Don't post just images' rule is in place, but I've not seen it be enforced either

It got enforced for like 2 of Skandair's posts after it was put in place just for him or someone like him

[Kardan]

In which case Ryan you must believe that moderators are encroaching on a lot of other peoples' fun by moving their threads to Spam despite their potential and having been posted in the right place, and we really have no need of moderation (or rules) at all



It got enforced for like 2 of Skandair's posts after it was put in place just for him or someone like him

They need to reword it, because at the moment you can get warned for posting a picture with no text in PAPOY, or in the graphics department.
@Phil;

[GommeInc]

The moderator discretion is about pointless posting, now about 'short threads', but if every thread is down to the members, and not the thread creator, why is that rule even in place? Surely it makes sense to get rid of the rule if it can never be enforced?

Also, the 'Don't post just images' rule is in place, but I've not seen it be enforced either

A picture paints a thousand words. That part of the rule should be completely removed although as moderator discretion exists some that are not reported are done so according to that rule. Also, you do know forum discretion is universal throughout the forum? It's in the T&Cs how they enforce rules. Blindly following rules can lead to unwanted outcomes - it happens in the legal industry where the courts will not necessarily follow Parliament in every law they pass. Same forum moderators and management.

Also I've said for ages the Spam forum isn't a real Spam forum. But as members don't use the forum properly (look at these threads for instance) it's hardly surprising. As you can't punish them for fear of putting them off, you can only persuade them to do what's right. Not that it matters as these types of threads are common place on forums anyway.

[Kardan]

A picture paints a thousand words. That part of the rule should be completely removed although as moderator discretion exists some that are not reported are done so according to that rule. Also, you do know forum discretion is universal throughout the forum? It's in the T&Cs how they enforce rules. Blindly following rules can lead to unwanted outcomes - it happens in the legal industry where the courts will not necessarily follow Parliament in every law they pass. Same forum moderators and management.

Then why on earth do they feel the need to state it for 'What is considered pointless', if that's how the forum should work universally?

But yes, it is quite obvious it works like that currently with the behaviour of some super mods, but I feel that discretion shouldn't be used everywhere.

If a post explicitly breaks a rule, it should be acted upon. Only if the rules are unclear if a rule is broken should discretion be used.

[FlyingJesus]

And I said this where? I shall imagine you didn't read the post.

Show Hide

having the ability to enforce rules is not the same as having the ability to change or re-interpret them

Yes it is, as they're the only ones to enforce rules.

Imagination is a fine thing

Well seeing as you seem to be the voice for everyone here, by saying it's not about post count but the rule it's hard to understand what your argument is. I commented on this ages ago and you pretty much proclaimed yourself the spokesperson when Kardan and Kyle have different views to you.

Ahhh I see, me giving my opinions means I think I'm speaking for everyone. You're really not getting anywhere with this.

The rule clearly states it's up for the forum department to decide, or are you denying that again? They clearly do not. Threads promote discussion, but it is up for members to actively discuss. Don't blame the threads, blame the members.

No, the rule clearly states that it's up to them to decide if a post is pointless or abuse.

Many of your posts are quick posts with no room for discussion. So it's hard to argue with a hypocrite.

Are they indeed? I thought you just said that anything can be discussed and it's the fault of everyone afterwards... it certainly is hard to argue with a hypocrite. Besides, this is about threads not individual posts. That has been said before a few times.

So you've retracted your point that members are being rewarded for doing nothing?

Nope. Minuscule as they might be, the rewards do exist. Aside from numbers going up it's surely not exactly a detriment to these people that they're granted the right to make short (pointless) posts when others are cautioned for it.

No they're not, it's the members not wanting to discuss. The threads can be open to discussion but members can't be bothered to as they don't want to be serious. Also, all of these threads have had some amount of discussion, so therefore they do not break the rules.

Potential for is not promotion of.

How do they not? Post what you are listening to can have discussion, but members for the most part don't. However, some members have discussed their song choices, so clearly it's not infringed the rules. Any thread could allow for discussion unless it specifically asks for "Yes/No" responses, which none do. They're open for interpretation by members, because you know, members have a choice and free will.

As above. By your logic nothing is Spam and no posts are ever pointless, which as I said is a different matter entirely.

Yet they are, as the threads are not to blame but the members and the subsequent posts there after. I could discuss in post what you are listening to. In fact, I could rebut this by simply going to all of these threads and saying "I am listening/watching/driving/using/eating/drink x because y" and I've proven they promote active discussion - whether other members do is down to individuals posts and not the thread. So yeah, they're not breaking the rules.

That wouldn't prove anything of the sort, one person making a longer post is not a discussion :S do you really not know what a discussion is?

[GommeInc]

Imagination is a fine thing

Uh huh, where's the word create? Looks like it was in your imagination after all

Ahhh I see, me giving my opinions means I think I'm speaking for everyone. You're really not getting anywhere with this.

It isn't and pretty much never has been an issue of post count, as is said in this thread many many times. It's an issue of people getting rewarded for making pointless posts that are against the rules

As above - loads of people have said it is to do with post count. Your reply was to a general post not directly at someone. Also, funnily enough it contains a now defunct belief that people are being rewarded for making pointless posts. First off they're not pointless and secondly are they really rewarded Unless there's a cache of posts that are hidden from those thread they're not, seeing as there are so few posts being made in them. Besides, if they're being rewarded for being active members then good, keeping members active is a problem.

No, the rule clearly states that it's up to them to decide if a post is pointless or abuse.

Finally you understand. As it's in the rule it's not against the rules.

Are they indeed? I thought you just said that anything can be discussed and it's the fault of everyone afterwards... it certainly is hard to argue with a hypocrite. Besides, this is about threads not individual posts. That has been said before a few times.

Yet the threads are not breaking the rules, it's the posts. Are you really failing to comprehend my point? Listening to and watching both allow for active discussion, it is up for the members to decide to actively discuss and you cannot force them to. Grasp that, it's pretty important. A thread that only allows for small posts literally has to ask for them e.g. "Do you want rep?" Yes and no should be the answer, yet "What are you listening to" can - members can reply to a post asking "Oh why is that then?" while in the former example members can't really ask that as it's self-explanatory why they want rep (also not forgetting it is against another rule).

Nope. Minuscule as they might be, the rewards do exist. Aside from numbers going up it's surely not exactly a detriment to these people that they're granted the right to make short (pointless) posts when others are cautioned for it.

These members are post elsewhere so they're being rewarded for their activity. Do you not want members to be active? Again this boils down to you wanting to punish members as these threads are not against the rules but the posts members may make are.

Potential for is not promotion of.

It's not potential, it's fact. Bother to read the threads - people have discussed songs. They're not restricted by some magical system stopping them from discussing. Again, it's a problem with the members and as you can't punish them there's nothing you can do. Maybe a moderator could make a post asking for them to post more - asking the members, not the thread creators.

As above. By your logic nothing is Spam and no posts are ever pointless, which as I said is a different matter entirely.

Exactly, I've stated many times the Spam forum is not being used right and indeed many posts are not pointless. Finally you understand after 20 or so pages! The word you're looking for is useless not pointless. The fact these threads have a point e.g. what are you listening to and the posts have a point e.g. responding with Arctic Monkeys is pretty obvious for anyone who can pick up a dictionary and understand the words on papage

That wouldn't prove anything of the sort, one person making a longer post is not a discussion :S do you really not know what a discussion is?

Neither do you. Looking at your past posts you seem to not want to discuss any threads. You make a post and leave - where's the discussion? Hence, you're a hypocrite for not discussing the thread topic at hand A discussion is talking to a person or people - something you have not done in quite a few of your recent posts (gays being smarter, are we slaves to our phones etc). Not that I'm saying this is bad, but saying I don't know what a discussion is, from you of all people!? Re-evaluate your arguments. The moment I reply to a post we have an active discussion and nothing is stopping me as it would be on-topic, which is apparently impossible in these threads as it is "against the rules." As it is perfectly possible they therefore do not break the rules. It's as simple as that - the threads are fine, but the members are not discussing anything. Note: members, not threads.

Then why on earth do they feel the need to state it for 'What is considered pointless', if that's how the forum should work universally?

But yes, it is quite obvious it works like that currently with the behaviour of some super mods, but I feel that discretion shouldn't be used everywhere.

If a post explicitly breaks a rule, it should be acted upon. Only if the rules are unclear if a rule is broken should discretion be used.

The word is "reiterate". As it's a highly debatable area they have purposely reiterated it so members know that this particular rule is down to the final judgement of the moderator.

At least you're talking about the posts - the threads do not break the rules but the posts certainly could do with a bit more quality to them, but if members do not want to discuss why they are listening to "x" you simply cannot force them to.

[Lewis]

The post your threads are so boring and pointless. I'd be more than happy to see them gone or moved to spam. I mean, it doesn't affect me really, but still.