Get rid of post your... junk threads

[The Don]

Which anyone with a brain will see is utterly stupid. Punishing people for making threads that are at least as valid if not more so than existing ones makes no sense whatsoever

I don't care to argue about the 'post your thread' thread (which was extremely limited and was also made whilst you were arguing in this thread which gives the impression it was made simply to prove a point).

The threads are not being abused, they have been allowed for years which according to precedent, and moderator discretion, means they are not breaking the rules. There is no need to change them, if a plethora of ridiculous post your threads arise then moderators can deal with them on an individual basis, there is nothing stupid about that at all. Not all threads are equal, and if I made a 'Post the last Qur'an verse you read whilst at mecca' thread I would absolutely expect it to get moved to spam because it's so limited.

[Kardan]

I don't care to argue about the 'post your thread' thread (which was extremely limited and was also made whilst you were arguing in this thread which gives the impression it was made simply to prove a point).

The threads are not being abused, they have been allowed for years which according to precedent, and moderator discretion, means they are not breaking the rules. There is no need to change them, if a plethora of ridiculous post your threads arise then moderators can deal with them on an individual basis, there is nothing stupid about that at all. Not all threads are equal, and if I made a 'Post the last Qur'an verse you read whilst at mecca' thread I would absolutely expect it to get moved to spam because it's so limited.

I wonder if the forum would allow it if it was the Bible instead (I'm not trying to sound like Undertaker, that's a genuine question - presumably a lot more people on here read the Bible)

[FlyingJesus]

Your limited knowledge of threads doesn't mean that the thread was extremely limited (there are literally millions of types and weights of thread, and more get created all the time), and your impressions matter very little considering you don't know me and can't comment on how serious I was just because you happened not to like it. Your argument is weaker than Ray Charles' eyesight

[The Don]

Your limited knowledge of threads doesn't mean that the thread was extremely limited (there are literally millions of types and weights of thread, and more get created all the time), and your impressions matter very little considering you don't know me and can't comment on how serious I was just because you happened not to like it. Your argument is weaker than Ray Charles' eyesight

What lol I don't need to know anything about you to work out that a thread to post your thread collection is limited on a habbo forum...

[FlyingJesus]

Well no it isn't, I quite clearly just said there are millions of types of thread. Not sure why Habbo has anything to do with it either

[The Don]

Well no it isn't, I quite clearly just said there are millions of types of thread. Not sure why Habbo has anything to do with it either

Why are you nitpicking unnecessary things again? You seem to go off arguing about specific parts of what I say rather than my entire point, and I am yet to see a rebuttal to what I've previously said. Quite clearly each thread should be treated individually, do you disagree with this? If you agree then you also acknowledge that moderator discretion is a necessary thing.

[FlyingJesus]

That's not nitpicking it's a fairly big point considering a thread that was of exactly the same type as the threads in question got moved into Spam and yet it's being argued that these threads don't break the rules. And yes I do disagree that each thread should have the rules applied differently :S

[The Don]

That's not nitpicking it's a fairly big point considering a thread that was of exactly the same type as the threads in question got moved into Spam and yet it's being argued that these threads don't break the rules. And yes I do disagree that each thread should have the rules applied differently :S

Well I guess we fundamentally disagree because I don't think a post what you're listening to thread should be treated the same as a post your police uniform thread.

[GommeInc]

Why would a discussion about names be meaningless, random, or off-topic? And if it is somehow then it falls foul of those clauses, not the one about promoting active discussion, as you were previously claiming that any place that can be posted in can count as support/promotion of discussion even if it doesn't call for it. The fact that you've now changed your mind doesn't support your claims

I have no idea where "names" come from, what you quoted doesn't mention anything of the sort. Also, potential and promote are not the same thing. Again (can't believe this isn't sinking in), all threads have potential - but some threads discourage discussion. That's where the rule is being broken - where threads which actively discourage discussion are not allowed - this is preumably because the thread would be meaningless as per the rule (again, you read rules as whole to gather context, not just a single clause - that's madness). Threads which say "just post yes/no". The fact the rule clearly states "Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion" is important. It says and, not "or".

No it isn't, a thread which does not promote it is. Your interpretation of promote stated that what the thread starter wants has nothing to do with it

Yes it is:

Promote: support or actively encourage.

A thread which does not want discussion is therefore discouraging discussion, it isn't wanted and isn't supported.

I didn't mention the rule as a whole because we are discussing one part of it, but if you want to bring up the entirety you may want to note that it asks for posts to be meaningful and not random, not threads. Threads have to "promote active discussion", and the definition you've used for that allows for quite literally anything because a discussion can arise out of anything. The only way for this to ever not be the case is if it breaks one of the other parts of the rule, which still renders the "promote active discussion" part totally unnecessary.

That's all very well and good but you have to read rules as whole, not just one part of it. Also, you seem to be mixing up potential and promote :/ A thread which discourages discussion is against the rules, correct? Well obviously as it is not promoting discussion.

Cool

Way to pointless post.

Those are pretty terrible examples since they both only require a simple memory check. In fact, the latter is even easier since it's about current happenings

Last I checked you can say a word any time, while listening requires more effort - but if you disagree without really explaining why then it's your own time you're wasting.

You're right rules should never be clear and the best way to enjoy oneself is to never know whether you can do something or not just in case e5 doesn't like it

Ah I see, a bratty tizz. These threads are not a problem and it's clear what you need to do when you make a thread similar to these. Just don't ask for one or two word answers and say something like "Just yes or no answers and please don't have a discussion". Since you can't read, the rule clearly states and - not or.

Which anyone with a brain will see is utterly stupid. Punishing people for making threads that are at least as valid if not more so than existing ones makes no sense whatsoever

And yeah keep it open, it's funny to see Ryan change his mind when parts of his arguments don't conclude the way he wants them to

Or people without a brain who can't comprehend simple concepts and are so anal about really petty things :rolleyes: The fact that new threads asking "what are you doing in the summer?" and "post the last place you travelled to" which are all new and seem to be surviving suggests that someone is over-exaggerating his claims (which isn't surprising since you seem to refuse to post evidence and go by opinion). Also claiming I change my argument is hilarious. Maybe if you had one it would be easy to understand. You want it removed from the rule because... you don't know what promote means? I think changing a rule because one person doesn't understand is stupid, since it seems to be only you wanting the rule changed (The Don can read it and Kardan understood a few pages back).

Also, did someone really post a thread called "Post your thread?" Because it's blatantly obvious why that's against the rules and anyone with two brain cells to rub together can understand why...

[FlyingJesus]

I have no idea where "names" come from, what you quoted doesn't mention anything of the sort. Also, potential and promote are not the same thing. Again (can't believe this isn't sinking in), all threads have potential - but some threads discourage discussion. That's where the rule is being broken - where threads which actively discourage discussion are not allowed - this is preumably because the thread would be meaningless as per the rule (again, you read rules as whole to gather context, not just a single clause - that's madness). Threads which say "just post yes/no". The fact the rule clearly states "Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion" is important. It says and, not "or".

Fab, you don't even read your own points I see. Names came from the "just a note" thread since that's what it was about. Potential and promotion not being the same thing is my point from many many pages ago, thank you for changing your mind to agree to me. You spent days and days trying to counter what I was saying and now are literally saying word for word what I've been saying all along.

Yes it is:

Promote: support or actively encourage.

A thread which does not want discussion is therefore discouraging discussion, it isn't wanted and isn't supported.

It is supported as per your own definition of support that I quoted (which you then claimed was me pointlessly posting... seriously if you can't be bothered to keep up with your own arguments what are you doing)

That's all very well and good but you have to read rules as whole, not just one part of it. Also, you seem to be mixing up potential and promote :/ A thread which discourages discussion is against the rules, correct? Well obviously as it is not promoting discussion.

Bless, coming at me with my own points again

Last I checked you can say a word any time, while listening requires more effort - but if you disagree without really explaining why then it's your own time you're wasting.

Listening is a totally passive act, quite easy to do.

Ah I see, a bratty tizz. These threads are not a problem and it's clear what you need to do when you make a thread similar to these. Just don't ask for one or two word answers and say something like "Just yes or no answers and please don't have a discussion". Since you can't read, the rule clearly states and - not or.

Calls me bratty and goes on to use ad homs and plain repetition. Hilarious that you tell me I can't read when you're ignoring literally every point because you don't seem to understand how to follow up a basic argument without changing it halfway through

Or people without a brain who can't comprehend simple concepts and are so anal about really petty things :rolleyes: The fact that new threads asking "what are you doing in the summer?" and "post the last place you travelled to" which are all new and seem to be surviving suggests that someone is over-exaggerating his claims (which isn't surprising since you seem to refuse to post evidence and go by opinion). Also claiming I change my argument is hilarious. Maybe if you had one it would be easy to understand. You want it removed from the rule because... you don't know what promote means? I think changing a rule because one person doesn't understand is stupid, since it seems to be only you wanting the rule changed (The Don can read it and Kardan understood a few pages back).

I'm not sure why you're telling me I don't know what promote means when for the past few pages I've been solely using your definitions. Really the counterpoints write themselves when you're this ridiculous. Not sure why you think that me claiming you've changed your argument is hilarious when you demonstrably have done several times, even in this post.

Also, did someone really post a thread called "Post your thread?" Because it's blatantly obvious why that's against the rules and anyone with two brain cells to rub together can understand why...

And why might that be? It was a discussion about fabric threads, not breaking any rules whatsoever. Maybe if I only had two brain cells like you I'd also think it was against the rules but I happen to possess a few more than that