Get rid of post your... junk threads

[FlyingJesus]

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

If you change a rule it becomes a different one, that's not a difficult thing to comprehend. You said that mods can change 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 not defunct belief that people are being rewarded for making pointless posts. First off they're not pointless and secondly they're really rewarded, unless there's a cache of posts that are hidden from those thread seeing as there are so few posts being made in them. Besides, if they're beign rewarded for being active members then good, keeping members active is a problem.

They're not being active members, they're for the most part making useless posts that contribute nothing at all

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

Bless, still managing not to discern between two different clauses.

Yet the threads are not breaking the rules, it's the posts.

So now you do think the posts are against the rules? If that's true then the threads ought to be moved to Spam as is current practice for threads that have multiple rule breaks in them

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).

What makes one of them self-explanatory and the other not? I listen to music because I like that music, that's fairly self-explanatory. You only being able to think of one reason for someone wanting rep doesn't negate the possibility that discussion could take place, and in any case a post that just says "yes" has the same (lack of) value as one just saying "Beyonce". Now you're trying to differentiate between things that have the exact same value.

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.

Tell me more about how removing post count in these threads and otherwise allowing them to continue is a punishment to anyone.

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.

I've had posts removed from them for trying to discuss things in the past, it's not magical but it is what happened.

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

Spam forum isn't being used right... think about what you're saying here. Spam forum is for anything as long as it doesn't break its forum-specific rules; it cannot be used wrong. Also having a point and being pointless by definition of the rules are not the same thing

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).

You're totally right, responding to people and making conversation isn't discussion at all! There are like 3 threads that I've only posted in once recently, and considering the number of posts I make that's really not a lot. You're also still confusing threads with posts.

Not that I'm saying this is bad, but saying I don't know what a discussion is, from you of all people!?

Yes from me, the person who has the most posts in the most singularly discussive thread on the entire forum.

Re-evaluate your arguments. The moment I reply to a post we have an active discussion

Not if it remains one-sided. If I shout across the street at someone and they don't respond it's not an active discussion.

[GommeInc]

If you change a rule it becomes a different one, that's not a difficult thing to comprehend. You said that mods can change rules.

No I didn't. I clearly said they're the only ones to enforce them. Can't you read again?

They're not being active members, they're for the most part making useless posts that contribute nothing at all

They're still active, so why punish them? What constitutes as contributing? Post a vague reply to a thread and never returning isn't necessarily contributing. This is tedious.

Bless, still managing not to discern between two different clauses.

Yet moderator discretion still reigns supreme, it's even in the T&Cs. I'm amazed you're still not getting it.

So now you do think the posts are against the rules? If that's true then the threads ought to be moved to Spam as is current practice for threads that have multiple rule breaks in them

The threads are not breaking the rules. The posts are if they're not making any discussions, but then again no one really does - you do it all the time. Threads and posts are different things, genius. So no, I don't think the threads should be moved and no I don't want to force members to discuss things which they don't really do in other threads anyway.

What makes one of them self-explanatory and the other not? I listen to music because I like that music, that's fairly self-explanatory. You only being able to think of one reason for someone wanting rep doesn't negate the possibility that discussion could take place, and in any case a post that just says "yes" has the same (lack of) value as one just saying "Beyonce". Now you're trying to differentiate between things that have the exact same value.

Yet these are posts and not threads. Threads with Beyonce in are different to posts with just Beyonce, I'm amazed this confuses you so much. Threads depends on the quality of the posts, and if there aren't any quality posts it's a problem with the members and not the thread - this is pretty obvious. I take it if you see someone hammering with a screwdriver or a piece of wood, you would call the police? Because the consumer who bought that screwdriver using it as a hammer is clearly not using it for its purpose. Blame the consumer and not the seller who sold him the screwdriver. The fact you think threads are to blame is hilarious.

Tell me more about how removing post count in these threads and otherwise allowing them to continue is a punishment to anyone.

Tell me why they're a problem which you're yet to do. They're not spam, they do not cause any particular damage, they're not even against the rules (as even you have pointed out the rule is with regards to threads not posts and they do not particularly add to the rewards/token system as there aren't many posts to begin with. You can't because this has been debunkt, liked your entire argument.

I've had posts removed from them for trying to discuss things in the past, it's not magical but it is what happened.

Then it's a problem with the moderators interpreting the rule and not the rule itself, assuming this is true. The fact discussion has happened and occasionally does happen is apparently impossible.

Spam forum isn't being used right... think about what you're saying here. Spam forum is for anything as long as it doesn't break its forum-specific rules; it cannot be used wrong. Also having a point and being pointless by definition of the rules are not the same thing

Many of those threads are perfectly fine and serious, and can fit in other forums. You even agreed with this that people use that forum as it has the best coverage. Where does the rule define pointless? It defines it as being off-topic and these threads and the posts within them are entirely on topic, until someone posts "Peanut Butter" as a song choice. The definition you're suggesting doesn't appear to exist.

You're totally right, responding to people and making conversation isn't discussion at all! There are like 3 threads that I've only posted in once recently, and considering the number of posts I make that's really not a lot. You're also still confusing threads with posts.

Like you, you mean? You didn't discuss anything, you just posted. Show me where you had a conversation, where you discussed something with a member. Oh wait, you didn't - you made a statement that a drawing of a phone isn't a phone and that the gays are smart thread is offensive for everyone. That's not a discussion, that's a statement, so you're hardly innocent here. At least my posts are nearly always in reply to someone or something, and not some sarcastic comment.

Not if it remains one-sided. If I shout across the street at someone and they don't respond it's not an active discussion.

Which is what you do on a daily basis on the forums anyway. Also, that's not a one sided discussion. Shouting across a street is shouting across a street. A one sided discussion is talking about how cute kittens are and just saying "Yes they are cute, aren't they?" "Oh they are aren't they?"

Also, it's obvious this debate is not going in your favour. Moderators and Forum Staff have made their comments that the rule doesn't need changing and there appears to be no further comment from them so this debate seems a bit pointless without their contribution.

[Kardan]

Also, it's obvious this debate is not going in your favour. Moderators and Forum Staff have made their comments that the rule doesn't need changing and there appears to be no further comment from them so this debate seems a bit pointless without their contribution.

Last we heard from @Phil; was that he agreed some action needed to be taken on the 'Post your...' threads and he was deciding between imposing posting restrictions, or removing future post count.

[FlyingJesus]

No I didn't.

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.

Well yes you did.

They're still active, so why punish them? What constitutes as contributing? Post a vague reply to a thread and never returning isn't necessarily contributing. This is tedious.

Still no punishment being suggested.

Yet moderator discretion still reigns supreme, it's even in the T&Cs. I'm amazed you're still not getting it.

In which case no rules matter and everything's a random gamble

The threads are not breaking the rules. The posts are if they're not making any discussions, but then again no one really does - you do it all the time. Threads and posts are different things, genius. So no, I don't think the threads should be moved and no I don't want to force members to discuss things which they don't really do in other threads anyway.

But moving threads that go off-tangent or have lots of rule breaks do get moved to Spam, and I was of the opinion that we were discussion the exercising of the current rules not what changes we wish could be made.

Yet these are posts and not threads. Threads with Beyonce in are different to posts with just Beyonce, I'm amazed this confuses you so much.

How strange, I brought up the difference between threads and posts in a previous reply and you completely ignored it, now you're trying to pretend that I'm the one confusing them. You keep moving the goalposts and claiming that I'm no good at shooting.

Threads depends on the quality of the posts, and if there aren't any quality posts it's a problem with the members and not the thread - this is pretty obvious. I take it if you see someone hammering with a screwdriver or a piece of wood, you would call the police? Because the consumer who bought that screwdriver using it as a hammer is clearly not using it for its purpose. Blame the consumer and not the seller who sold him the screwdriver. The fact you think threads are to blame is hilarious.

There's no law against someone hammering stuff with a screwdriver, there is one about threads that don't promote active discussion. The fact that you think thread starters are never to blame (yet earlier gave an example of one) is truly side-splitting.

Tell me why they're a problem which you're yet to do. They're not spam, they do not cause any particular damage, they're not even against the rules (as even you have pointed out the rule is with regards to threads not posts and they do not particularly add to the rewards/token system as there aren't many posts to begin with. You can't because this has been debunkt, liked your entire argument.

Really? If a thread does not allow for discussion it is against the rules, and if the posts that follow it are (by definition of the rules) pointless then they are also at fault, not just one or the other. Either the threads break the rule and should be removed, or the posts break the rule (as you keep now telling me) and should be removed, but either way they're clearly not right. I'm not sure why you keep banging on about them not being against the rules when they are and have been shown to be time and time again.

Then it's a problem with the moderators interpreting the rule and not the rule itself, assuming this is true. The fact discussion has happened and occasionally does happen is apparently impossible.

Impossible according to whom? Clearly not me as I literally just gave you an example of it happening by my own hand

Many of those threads are perfectly fine and serious, and can fit in other forums. You even agreed with this that people use that forum as it has the best coverage. Where does the rule define pointless? Oh wait, it doesn't so you're making up the rules again (something I and The Don picked up on :rolleyes

Yes, people use Spam. They do not misuse it. There is no way to misuse it. As for defining pointless, there are several ways that the forum rules define it. Off-topic or non-contributive posts in the first line, random or meaningless posts/threads in the second, threads that do not promote active discussion as well as repetitive posting of the same thing in the third, and plain images in the fourth. That's where. In the words.

Like you, you mean? You didn't discuss anything, you just posted. Show me where you had a conversation, where you discussed something with a member. Oh wait, you didn't - you made a statement that a drawing of a phone isn't a phone and that the gays are smart thread is offensive for everyone. That's not a discussion, that's a statement, so you're hardly innocent here. At least my posts are nearly always in reply to someone or something, and not some sarcastic comment.

As I said, that's the case for about 3 of my recent posts, and all of those bring up new and valid points even if they don't make use of quote tags. Regardless of either of our posting habits this point was originally about not knowing what a discussion is (rather than claiming to be some perfect epigon of the God of Conversation, and knowledge of something is not the same as use of it.

Which is what you do on a daily basis on the forums anyway. Also, that's not a one sided discussion. Shouting across a street is shouting across a street. A one sided discussion is talking about how cute kittens are and just saying "Yes they are cute, aren't they?" "Oh they are aren't they?"

Clearly not what I do, and I never said the words "one sided discussion", I said that it wasn't a discussion at all. Do try to respond to what I've actually said in at least one of your posts.

Also, it's obvious this debate is not going in your favour. Moderators and Forum Staff have made their comments that the rule doesn't need changing and there appears to be no further comment from them so this debate seems a bit pointless without their contribution.

Or is it merely useless also I'm pretty sure our forum manager was more inclined to make the change than allow its continuance so not sure which authority you're looking to, maybe e5 who appears to be your protege in debate techniques

[The Don]

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

You've just made that up. Each rule is separated by a tilde (~). If you look at the rules the moderator discretion clause is clearly attached to the non discussive part, there is not a tilde separating them, and as you yourself pointed out earlier, was added specifically for the post your threads. The threads do not break the rules.

[Kardan]

You've just made that up. Each rule is separated by a tilde (~). If you look at the rules the moderator discretion clause is clearly attached to the non discussive part, there is not a tilde separating them, and as you yourself pointed out earlier, was added specifically for the post your threads. The threads do not break the rules.

We're both right, the rule is about pointless posting, but is also attached to the part you said which I forgot about, so would refer to both parts, my bad.

[GommeInc]

Show Hide

Well yes you did.

Show me - I clearly said "Yes it is, as they're the only ones to enforce rules." You must be really bad at English to think I said "Yes they do, they're the only ones to create rules." Yes it is? Yes it is to what? To re-interpret? That's not creating rules, genius. That's re-interpreting. Re-interpreting is not creating rules. I'm amazed you think that :S

Still no punishment being suggested.

It is when they're doing no harm and their activity is apparently worth nothing unless they're forcefully discussing a thread - something you don't even do.

In which case no rules matter and everything's a random gamble

Don't be pedantic. This rule is specifically against off-topic posts. Posts in these threads are on-topic. The threads promote active discussion - it's yet to be disputed - it's up to the members to discuss the topic of the thread, and seeing as discussions can happen they therefore do not break the rule. This is pretty obvious. A thread that asks "What are you listening to?" lacks any sort of information that specifically says "Post one word answers". A thread that asks "Would you like to be rich - Yes or No?" clearly violates the rule as it is actively seeking just one word answers and no discussion. How can you not get this?

But moving threads that go off-tangent or have lots of rule breaks do get moved to Spam, and I was of the opinion that we were discussion the exercising of the current rules not what changes we wish could be made.

Yet the current rules are not being violated. These threads can have active discussion, if members choose not to that's a fault with the members and not the thread. See above as to what represents a rule violating thread.

How strange, I brought up the difference between threads and posts in a previous reply and you completely ignored it, now you're trying to pretend that I'm the one confusing them. You keep moving the goalposts and claiming that I'm no good at shooting.

Stay on-topic and actually reply to the quote. They are different? Correct. Good. Move on and stop this pathetic attitude you have when your argument falls apart.

There's no law against someone hammering stuff with a screwdriver, there is one about threads that don't promote active discussion. The fact that you think thread starters are never to blame (yet earlier gave an example of one) is truly side-splitting.

So where and why are they not promoting active discussion? At least prove this. I have at least proven they promote active discussion - you denying it is not proving it, which is something you do. You think it is wrong therefore it must be wrong, yet you never actually post any hard hitting evidence. I can go into all of these threads and reply to someone saying "Oh I like that song/episode/film etc" and we have a discussion - there are no restraints suggesting the contrary. Perhaps you need to look up a text book definition of discussion and stop being so pedantic over a proven non-problem.

Really? If a thread does not allow for discussion it is against the rules, and if the posts that follow it are (by definition of the rules) pointless then they are also at fault, not just one or the other. Either the threads break the rule and should be removed, or the posts break the rule (as you keep now telling me) and should be removed, but either way they're clearly not right. I'm not sure why you keep banging on about them not being against the rules when they are and have been shown to be time and time again.

No it isn't unless the Forum Department says it is - stop agreeing and disagreeing with this well known fact. Also, define a pointless post under the forum rules. Enlighten me. The rule clearly states a pointless post is "off-topic". These posts are not off-topic. They're in reply to the topic and are, guess what? On-topic. I clearly am right and you say I'm not without any evidence isn't proof - it's in the rules for heaven's sake! You're making up the rules to justify your position!

I could go into any of these threads and reply to someone agreeing or disagreeing with them about their post and we have a discussion - therefore the thread is not breaking the rules - the thread are not purposely stopping people from active discussion unless you have a thread that literally asks you to post one word answers or to that effect. If a member replies to the thread and does not discuss anything, it is still not against the rules unless it is off-topic e.g. saying Tesco Lorry in a thread about what do you like to drink. I could argue a meaningless post is someone replying to a thread about "Are we slaves to our mobiles phones?" with "what's not real about a phone" as a meaningless post. Don't you agree that this is not a discussion and against the rules? Of course you do - you know the definition of discussion - to talk to a person or people and people who say this are not talking to others, just making a passing comment :rolleyes:

Impossible according to whom? Clearly not me as I literally just gave you an example of it happening by my own hand

You apparently. So are you saying I can't go into any of these threads and reply to another member? Because I can and have done in the past. Boom, there's a discussion and the thread has allowed it. Therefore, no rule has been broken. Have you finally got it yet? It's not about you as you seem to think, other people have discussed songs in those threads and not been warned for it and if they are, guess what? The moderators are wrong for not allowing it - a problem with the moderators and members, not the thread and rule.

Yes, people use Spam. They do not misuse it. There is no way to misuse it. As for defining pointless, there are several ways that the forum rules define it. Off-topic or non-contributive posts in the first line, random or meaningless posts/threads in the second, threads that do not promote active discussion as well as repetitive posting of the same thing in the third, and plain images in the fourth. That's where. In the words.

Which they do not break unless you've forgotten what words mean again:
Meaning: "what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action."
Why did they make said post? To post (an action) in reply to a thread about music (for example). Therefore, they do not break the rule under being meaningless - they have meaning.

Off-topic: "(especially of posts on an Internet message board) not relevant to the subject in question".
Similar and builds on above. In, for example, a thread asking what you are listening to and you post a song, let's say Stay The Night, you are posting on-topic. Ergo, it's not violating the off-topic posting.

Contribute: "give (something, especially money) in order to help achieve or provide something."
A member who posts in these threads is providing their answer to the topic. Let's say Stay The Night as a response to what you are listening to - they are providing a song (on-topic) in response (meaning) to the thread (topic).

I can't believe I've had to define words for you again, like when you said these posts were pointless when not even the rule defines it in your favour or a standard definition :/

Point: "cite a fact or situation as evidence of something."
A member who posts a song in response to a topic about music is citing a fact (a song) as evidence of being a song, to the topic in question.

Pointless would be saying "That's not a song" without any evidence other than just saying that it's not a song - there's no explanation just a statement, like saying "what's not real about a phone" in a topic asking if we're slaves to our phones :rolleys:

As I said, that's the case for about 3 of my recent posts, and all of those bring up new and valid points even if they don't make use of quote tags. Regardless of either of our posting habits this point was originally about not knowing what a discussion is (rather than claiming to be some perfect epigon of the God of Conversation, and knowledge of something is not the same as use of it.

Saying "No and what's not real about a phone" is not contributing or bringing any valid points. So you admit by your own definition that you don't know what a discussion is and are therefore breaking the rules? Why "no"? That's not contributing to Dragga's thread at all. Saying "what's not real about a real phone" isn't in reply to anything. In fact, are you suggesting this thread is pointless, because you can't discuss anything? Seeing as you didn't contribute anything other than a whimsical comment and a pointless statement, one would argue that Dragga's thread breaks the rule too. Don't deny it by saying it doesn't matter about our posting trends, when clearly the ones at fault in post your threads are the members for not discussing anything - the threads obviously allow it hence why they do not break the rules.

Clearly not what I do, and I never said the words "one sided discussion", I said that it wasn't a discussion at all. Do try to respond to what I've actually said in at least one of your posts.

You didn't, but the comment you were replying to specifically says: "The moment I reply to a post we have an active discussion" in which you replied "Not if it remains one-sided." It being the discussion as there's nothing else you could possibly be replying to. Looks like you're frustrated that once again I've caught you out with your poorly developed argument and you try to deny things you've said (much like when you said a man who commits the same offence as a woman would be called a rapist when a man who did do the same thing wasn't convicted of rape or called a rapist at all - he was called a child sex offender, the same as the woman - but you deny this even though it's in black and white).

Or is it merely useless also I'm pretty sure our forum manager was more inclined to make the change than allow its continuance so not sure which authority you're looking to, maybe e5 who appears to be your protege in debate techniques

Which isn't against the rules Also, last I saw he didn't particularly care and other forum department staff said it isn't a problem, which is correct, it isn't. As I'm the only one who has gone into these threads and posted numbers, calculated the number of posts a day these make and measured them up to the token and user reward system, and they cannot be rebutted seeing as it's the only solid piece of evidence here other than the rule which clearly recognises these threads are not against it.

You've just made that up. Each rule is separated by a tilde (~). If you look at the rules the moderator discretion clause is clearly attached to the non discussive part, there is not a tilde separating them, and as you yourself pointed out earlier, was added specifically for the post your threads. The threads do not break the rules.

It's good someone gets it.

[FlyingJesus]

Show me - I clearly said "Yes it is, as they're the only ones to enforce rules." You must be really bad at English to think I said "Yes they do, they're the only ones to create rules." Yes it is? Yes it is to what? To re-interpret? That's not creating rules, genius. That's re-interpreting. Re-interpreting is not creating rules. I'm amazed you think that :S

My god you really don't know how to read words do you? I said they do not have the ability to change rules, you said they did. It's really exceptionally simple.

It is when they're doing no harm and their activity is apparently worth nothing unless they're forcefully discussing a thread - something you don't even do.

Tell me what the punishment is then, because I haven't stated one.

Don't be pedantic. This rule is specifically against off-topic posts. Posts in these threads are on-topic. The threads promote active discussion - it's yet to be disputed - it's up to the members to discuss the topic of the thread, and seeing as discussions can happen they therefore do not break the rule. This is pretty obvious. A thread that asks "What are you listening to?" lacks any sort of information that specifically says "Post one word answers". A thread that asks "Would you like to be rich - Yes or No?" clearly violates the rule as it is actively seeking just one word answers and no discussion. How can you not get this?

I'm the pedantic one because I don't assume that threads have to specifically ask for one word answers to be such threads, right. As for it not yet having been disputed that they promote active discussion, again you're failing to read (although I'm not surprised by now) - it's been stated over and over that active discussion has been actively stifled in those threads, and the reply "well that shouldn't have happened" has no bearing on the fact that it did.

Yet the current rules are not being violated. These threads can have active discussion, if members choose not to that's a fault with the members and not the thread. See above as to what represents a rule violating thread.

In which case once again any thread can potentially have discussion and the rule is worthless.

Stay on-topic and actually reply to the quote.

This from you is the most hilarious thing I've seen in weeks. My life isn't that interesting clearly but even so.

They are different? Correct. Good. Move on and stop this pathetic attitude you have when your argument falls apart.

Um. That was my point, not yours.

So where and why are they not promoting active discussion? At least prove this. I have at least proven they promote active discussion - you denying it is not proving it, which is something you do. You think it is wrong therefore it must be wrong, yet you never actually post any hard hitting evidence. I can go into all of these threads and reply to someone saying "Oh I like that song/episode/film etc" and we have a discussion - there are no restraints suggesting the contrary. Perhaps you need to look up a text book definition of discussion and stop being so pedantic over a proven non-problem.

You've proven nothing of the sort, you've said that a few posts here and there among the 30,000 have been replies to someone. You're still believing for some reason that one reply constitutes a discussion when it's actually just you screaming into a void. Once again it becomes clear that you have no idea what a discussion is, as you seem to think it's any time a single direct reply is made.

No it isn't unless the Forum Department says it is - stop agreeing and disagreeing with this well known fact. Also, define a pointless post under the forum rules. Enlighten me. The rule clearly states a pointless post is "off-topic". These posts are not off-topic. They're in reply to the topic and are, guess what? On-topic. I clearly am right and you say I'm not without any evidence isn't proof - it's in the rules for heaven's sake! You're making up the rules to justify your position!

I did this like two posts ago, your failure to read is not my fault. I'm making up no rules, I posted the exact contents of them - off topic is only one way a post can be pointless, but then you do love to miss out on parts of things that don't fit with your ideas and then claim to have the upper hand.

I could go into any of these threads and reply to someone agreeing or disagreeing with them about their post and we have a discussion

No, that is not a discussion. That may be an attempt at one but a single reply is not a discussion.

the thread are not purposely stopping people from active discussion

They are when they're moderated in that way, as has been stated before.

unless you have a thread that literally asks you to post one word answers or to that effect.

Don't be so pedantic!11!!OM!!IBN!!!

If a member replies to the thread and does not discuss anything, it is still not against the rules unless it is off-topic e.g. saying Tesco Lorry in a thread about what do you like to drink. I could argue a meaningless post is someone replying to a thread about "Are we slaves to our mobiles phones?" with "what's not real about a phone" as a meaningless post. Don't you agree that this is not a discussion and against the rules? Of course you do - you know the definition of discussion - to talk to a person or people and people who say this are not talking to others, just making a passing comment :rolleyes:

Yeah asking a direct question about the topic (as the original post claimed that phones are "contantly taking our attention from real life") totally isn't discussive at all, you're so so right. Clearly you have absolutely no idea what a discussion is. You're quite literally trying to tell me that asking a person why they like a song is a discussion but asking why someone holds a certain view isn't. You're all over the place.

You apparently. So are you saying I can't go into any of these threads and reply to another member? Because I can and have done in the past. Boom, there's a discussion and the thread has allowed it. Therefore, no rule has been broken. Have you finally got it yet? It's not about you as you seem to think, other people have discussed songs in those threads and not been warned for it and if they are, guess what? The moderators are wrong for not allowing it - a problem with the moderators and members, not the thread and rule.

*+*THaT'S NoT a DiiSCuSSiioN*+* your conversations must be really boring if they consist solely of BUT WHY and no further response.

Which they do not break unless you've forgotten what words mean again:
[insert dictionary quotes here]

That's fab stuff but I didn't suggest that those parts were being broken ever. I'm not sure why you're so convinced that arguing against things that I haven't said will make you look good but I've quite clearly been speaking about the discussive quality (or not) of those threads, which you've only refuted with inaccuracies. If we're doing definitions, let's look at discussion since you're not up to speed with what that means:

dis·cus·sion (dĭ-skŭsh′ən)
n.
1. Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.

Note that it isn't a discussion if it only involves one person

Saying "No and what's not real about a phone" is not contributing or bringing any valid points. So you admit by your own definition that you don't know what a discussion is and are therefore breaking the rules? Why "no"? That's not contributing to Dragga's thread at all. Saying "what's not real about a real phone" isn't in reply to anything.

Whoops, you've once again not read the thread properly. It is absolutely a reply to something, as I explained above. Once again, your failure to read is not my fault.

In fact, are you suggesting this thread is pointless, because you can't discuss anything? Seeing as you didn't contribute anything other than a whimsical comment and a pointless statement, one would argue that Dragga's thread breaks the rule too.

If you were actually correct about my post (which you're still not) then my post would be pointless, not the thread because it quite clearly says "Tell me what you think" which is a demand for conversation. You really do seem to miss out a lot of things that people write when you're trying furiously to make a point. You're also still mistaking potential for promotion.

You didn't, but the comment you were replying to specifically says: "The moment I reply to a post we have an active discussion" in which you replied "Not if it remains one-sided." It being the discussion as there's nothing else you could possibly be replying to. Looks like you're frustrated that once again I've caught you out with your poorly developed argument and you try to deny things you've said (much like when you said a man who commits the same offence as a woman would be called a rapist when a man who did do the same thing wasn't convicted of rape or called a rapist at all - he was called a child sex offender, the same as the woman - but you deny this even though it's in black and white).

Once again misread what I've said, not "caught me out". Clearly I am not referring to discussion because I'm saying that it isn't one at all, the state of posting replies is one-sided as it does not become a discussion. You really ought to know what a discussion is by now, it's been said enough times. Also you have no leg to stand on when claiming that someone's denying what they wrote; see the first quote of the past few replies for your own denial despite quoting your words exactly, not just trying to redefine a post.

Which isn't against the rules Also, last I saw he didn't particularly care and other forum department staff said it isn't a problem, which is correct, it isn't.

You have a very funny way of reading things (ie: not reading them at all apparently) as every single one of Phil's posts other than his first placeholder one is suggesting closing the threads and remaking them. The last thing he said was that he hadn't come to a decision, not that he didn't care.

It's good someone gets it.

Do they? Because previously you said they weren't separate rules at all, but when someone makes that claim with a different view suddenly it's quite correct. Changing your mind again, funny that.

[The Don]

Do they? Because previously you said they weren't separate rules at all, but when someone makes that claim with a different view suddenly it's quite correct. Changing your mind again, funny that.

He said going by your logic, re-read what he wrote because your post is not true.

[FlyingJesus]

No dear, he previously said

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.

Leave the lying to Ryan, he's much more practised at it