Pointless posting

[GommeInc]

There will be exceptions as what you have said is correct. The rule will stay the same but I shall create a thread in the Moderator forum so situations like this can be dealt with the appropriate action.

From my experience, making rules up as you go along is a huge no-no. Never mention in a rule anything to do about exceptions. Just leave the rule as it is and deal with pointless posts when they are seen as pointless. If moderators can't understand that then they shouldn't of been promoted to moderator status. Simplez *click*. The first pointless post should be dealt with, anything after that with reply to that post isn't pointless - the chances of someone reading the first pointless post is quite small, people tend to look at the first few posts and leave it at that, the majority in most cases will keep on topic about something like children who can't behave in the classroom while a sub-debate about sperm in the classroom is perfectly fine.

[xxMATTGxx]

From my experience, making rules up as you go along is a huge no-no. Never mention in a rule anything to do about exceptions. Just leave the rule as it is and deal with pointless posts when they are seen as pointless. If moderators can't understand that then they shouldn't of been promoted to moderator status. Simplez *click*. The first pointless post should be dealt with, anything after that with reply to that post isn't pointless - the chances of someone reading the first pointless post is quite small, people tend to look at the first few posts and leave it at that, the majority in most cases will keep on topic about something like children who can't behave in the classroom while a sub-debate about sperm in the classroom is perfectly fine.

In a way I agree, but "Pointless Posting" is one of the very few minor rules on the forum and there isn't an actual infraction for it. So a simple explanation to the department on what to do would be ideal, wouldn't you agree? Although that should cover in the moderator guide. Which is being rewritten for the team.

[The Professor]

I'm not sure I'm quite grasping what's going on here. Are mods warning for replies to offtopic posts now?

[xxMATTGxx]

I'm not sure I'm quite grasping what's going on here. Are mods warning for replies to offtopic posts now?

Normal moderators are now allowed to deal with pointless posts. Although, I think this thread was more regarding pointless replies to the first pointless post.

[Catzsy]

I'm not sure I'm quite grasping what's going on here. Are mods warning for replies to offtopic posts now?

No Alex. Actually there was a confusion between posting to cause arguements and pointless posting which has now been cleared up.

[Neil]

I'm not sure I'm understanding, seems like alot of mixed comments are going here, are you saying you're allowed to reply to a pointless comment but you'd rather people didn't? :S

[Catzsy]

I'm not sure I'm understanding, seems like alot of mixed comments are going here, are you saying you're allowed to reply to a pointless comment but you'd rather people didn't? :S

Normally pointless post is something completely random that doesn't in anyway contribute to the thread at all so there would be no need to reply to it.

The confusion was that in the thread you are referring to it was 'posting to cause arguements' rather than being although because that doesn't contribute positively to a thread could be seen as pointless too.

Obviously replying to someboy who is posting to cause arguments is just going to fuel more arguments so best to report than risk getting an edit yourself for the same rule break.

Topics can develop during the course of a thread as FJ has decribed very well but random comments and posting to cause arguments is not allowed.

[Neil]

Normally pointless post is something completely random that doesn't in anyway contribute to the thread at all so there would be no need to reply to it.

The confusion was that in the thread you are referring to it was 'posting to cause arguements' rather than being although because that doesn't contribute positively to a thread could be seen as pointless too.

Obviously replying to someboy who is posting to cause arguments is just going to fuel more arguments so best to report than risk getting an edit yourself for the same rule break.

Topics can develop during the course of a thread as FJ has decribed very well but random comments and posting to cause arguments is not allowed.

So pointless posting is allowed providing it doesn't cause an arguement? That makes sense so if some gets a warning for posting pointlessly it isn't a proper warning because it isn't starting an arguement? Or is that post still warnable but ones that reply are fine?

[Catzsy]

So pointless posting is allowed providing it doesn't cause an arguement? That makes sense so if some gets a warning for posting pointlessly it isn't a proper warning because it isn't starting an arguement? Or is that post still warnable but ones that reply are fine?

The sanctions for pointless posting and posting to cause arguements are different.

Pointless posting - for random comments that has nothing to do with the topics & contributes nothing positive to a thread there is an edit. If a member persistently does this on a regular basis then it is referred to a Super Moderator who can decide to give a final pm warning or warning or in the case of loads of pointless posting in a short time i.e. spam can caution or even ban.

Posting to cause an argument is a step up from pointless because although it still doesn't contribute anything positive to a thread it is also argumentative and usually only done to target a member or group of members. This invites a pm [for the first rule break] followed by a warning then infraction if the member keeps breaking the rule.

Action is only taken on replies if they break the rules although a thread may well be closed because of persistent arguments amongst some of the members.