Pointless posting rule

[Hecktix]

I personally think if the post has nothing to do with the topic then it should be counted as a pointless post.

And FJ, that pornstar in your signature is hot

I agree (to the top part anyway )

Mods are told they have discretion with this rule.

If there is a thread about X, and you post in it about Y with no reason to do so, this is pointless and off topic. Then if your post is ignored and X continues to get discussed, then someone replies to your post about Y - that's also pointless.

It's very poorly written in the rules in my opinion and a re-writing has been looked into in the mod forum, not particularly changing the way the rule is applied but simply changing the way it's worded on the rules to clearly distinguish what a pointless post is.

It's nothing to do with poor moderation at all.

Garion's said he's looking into it and this will be done sooner than people think

@ kk, mods can't edit usernotes once posted, that's why. You don't have many for pointless posting though :S

[Immenseman]

I class as using the rule in a different way from how it's written is poor moderation. Just because it has been highlighted as needing changing it doesn't mean that members are supposed to know this. They are going to abide by what the rule says, it allows you to reply to any post within a thread regardless of the post you're replying to is sticking to the original topic. Obviously it's different if one person said "uwebjbfij" and the next said "bugwrg".

Also, just for the record I don't mind if you change the rule or if you keep it the same. I want consistency and I don't want users to have guess what moderator will deal with them and how strict they are. The rule is clear. The way moderators apply it isn't. I want it to be clearer, that is all.

[Nixt]

It's not ambiguous at all. There isn't a fine line. There is a bold line. Pointless posting with that rule is posting someone random and spontaneous in a middle of a thread that doesn't link to the original post nor any of the other posts in the thread. It's clear what the General Manager thinks of it but I know the Staff Editor think it needs clearing up a bit. However, as the rule currently stands I have not posted "buregbrsdj" in a thread 10 times like I've been wrongly accused. I know it's happened to other people too.

If you don't want people having the freedom of a discussion on a discussion board then by all means change the rule and make it so all posts must link back to the original post. I'll respect what ever decision you make because you're management. However, at the time being the rule stands as it is so I want to make sure other people aren't fairly penalised due to poor moderation. Poor as in them not understanding the rules.

The rule itself is indeed quite specific, however offences are never clear. They are always ambiguous. Some more than others. Forgive me, but one can only appreciate it if they are exposed to Forum Moderation - something I do not believe you have ever had the benefit of experiencing. I cannot discuss the actual details of your PM, this is not the Forum for it .

I would encourage freedom of discussion and I am immensely pleased and impressed with the way in which this Forum has come on in leaps and bounds in terms of what we allow people to discuss and how they may discuss it. We have no intention of enforcing a rule that makes members respond to the first post, and the first post only. We merely need to clarify things such as that responding to a pointless post already posted in the thread is still a violation of the rules, and just make it generally clearer what is considered a pointless post. It will never be against the rules to post regarding an earlier post.

Although not clear, the rules do state that "a pointless post has no relevance to the topic". Now, although it does state that posts that have relevance to further posts are not pointless - surely if the original post is pointless, any comments regarding that post will also be pointless? That's common sense... surely? I do not know if you have ever studied law but there are regular occasions in which statute law is not clear on what it intends and judges must then interpret in their own way to prevent someone getting away with something that is clearly against the rules; this is what Moderators are doing. Moderation in regard to this rule is not bad. The rule itself is poorly written and we are seeking to improve this.

[Hecktix]

I class as using the rule in a different way from how it's written is poor moderation. Just because it has been highlighted as needing changing it doesn't mean that members are supposed to know this. They are going to abide by what the rule says, it allows you to reply to any post within a thread regardless of the post you're replying to is sticking to the original topic. Obviously it's different if one person said "uwebjbfij" and the next said "bugwrg".

To be fair, you don't need something written up officially to know whether something's pointless or not.

It doesn't take a genius to work it out. Users know when they are pointless posting however they manipulate the way the rule is written to attempt to get their way out of trouble occasionally and in all honesty technically there's nothing wrong with that. However it's so often said on this forum "we aren't a forum full of 10 year olds" - well 10 year olds need rules laid out for them nice and neatly, last time I checked, teens could use something called common sense.

[kk.]

@ kk, mods can't edit usernotes once posted, that's why. You don't have many for pointless posting though :S

well i have no idea what the others are for anyway and the last three pointless posting ones on there are all irrelevant >:[

If there is a thread about X, and you post in it about Y with no reason to do so, this is pointless and off topic. Then if your post is ignored and X continues to get discussed, then someone replies to your post about Y - that's also pointless.

as for this part, i disagree. what if someone posts about Y and then the person replying to Y doesnt reply because theyve only just noticed it and its a few posts down, and it could actually be quite relevant to the topic. But then yoy go into the grounds of what if someone posts something about XY and then someone quotes and only talks about Y when the topics about X.

lol XY is a man

[FlyingJesus]

Well if you read the entirety of the original post (which doesn't take much brain activity) you'd realise I have acknowledged random comments are violating said rule. :eusa_wall

If you knew what your own thread was about you might realise I was on about how obvious it is not to reply to such things and so make a conversation of it. If someone did post "uwebjbfij" (to use one of your examples) and I responded, I'd think it quite justified that I get a warning for pointless posting as it doesn't further the thread in any way whatsoever. The addition about responding to a post rather than simply the thread title was put in so that discussions could evolve and become useful, not so they could turn to spam

[Sammeth.]

I suggested to general management about a month ago that this rule should be reworded to make it more clear. I think the position on it was made clear, however maybe in light of this thread it could be rethunked over.

Edit: Yeah, thats a pretty accurate post right there Tom have some rep.

[Immenseman]

The rule itself is indeed quite specific, however offences are never clear. They are always ambiguous. Some more than others. Forgive me, but one can only appreciate it if they are exposed to Forum Moderation - something I do not believe you have ever had the benefit of experiencing. I cannot discuss the actual details of your PM, this is not the Forum for it .

here
here

I think that's what you meant anyway. One of the finest

I would encourage freedom of discussion and I am immensely pleased and impressed with the way in which this Forum has come on in leaps and bounds in terms of what we allow people to discuss and how they may discuss it. We have no intention of enforcing a rule that makes members respond to the first post, and the first post only. We merely need to clarify things such as that responding to a pointless post already posted in the thread is still a violation of the rules, and just make it generally clearer what is considered a pointless post. It will never be against the rules to post regarding an earlier post.

Alright, well once that's added I don't mind being given a user note for it. Until then, I do. How can I be cautioned for something which isn't yet in the rules?

Although not clear, the rules do state that "a pointless post has no relevance to the topic". Now, although it does state that posts that have relevance to further posts are not pointless - surely if the original post is pointless, any comments regarding that post will also be pointless? That's common sense... surely? I do not know if you have ever studied law but there are regular occasions in which statute law is not clear on what it intends and judges must then interpret in their own way to prevent someone getting away with something that is clearly against the rules; this is what Moderators are doing. Moderation in regard to this rule is not bad. The rule itself is poorly written and we are seeking to improve this.

No, I have not studied law. However, if I realised it was mandatory to study law to use HxF - I would have done so. I assure you.

To be fair, you don't need something written up officially to know whether something's pointless or not.

It doesn't take a genius to work it out. Users know when they are pointless posting however they manipulate the way the rule is written to attempt to get their way out of trouble occasionally and in all honesty technically there's nothing wrong with that. However it's so often said on this forum "we aren't a forum full of 10 year olds" - well 10 year olds need rules laid out for them nice and neatly, last time I checked, teens could use something called common sense.

Hey there,

You just said the rule needs changing now you're saying it's obvious. Damn the users for not guessing the rules! How dare we ask questions about the rules?! I must be 10, you're right! :rolleyes:

[kk.]

If you knew what your own thread was about you might realise I was on about how obvious it is not to reply to such things and so make a conversation of it. If someone did post "uwebjbfij" (to use one of your examples) and I responded, I'd think it quite justified that I get a warning for pointless posting as it doesn't further the thread in any way whatsoever. The addition about responding to a post rather than simply the thread title was put in so that discussions could evolve and become useful, not so they could turn to spam

ok but theres a flaw. if someone posted 'uwebjbfij' and youd already posted in that thread, say it was a congratulations thread, you could then say 'why post pointlessly, OT: wd again' and you wouldnt get a warning, even though you know youre posting pointlessly. and this actually happens very often

[Immenseman]

If you knew what your own thread was about you might realise I was on about how obvious it is not to reply to such things and so make a conversation of it. If someone did post "uwebjbfij" (to use one of your examples) and I responded, I'd think it quite justified that I get a warning for pointless posting as it doesn't further the thread in any way whatsoever. The addition about responding to a post rather than simply the thread title was put in so that discussions could evolve and become useful, not so they could turn to spam

Yes, that's exactly the thing. I'd say some of mine are on a par with what Nvrspk4 said. It was totally irrelevant to the general topic of the thread yet he posted it because it was in response to a post above. This is commonly known as discussion. Spam is Stupid Pointless Annoying Messages - it'd be fine if that's what they handed out user notes for. It isn't.