Pointless post

[Nixt]

The or is simply a connective to end the continuous list that that sentence is. You could either use "or" or "and" to end the list; "or" suggests that each part is individual and if a post satisfies any of the points in the rule. "And" would imply that a post would have to satisfy ALL those criteria to be pointless which clearly can't happen. For the reasons I said in my previous post the wording of the rule implies a post has to satisfy only one of those criteria to have a point.

AND even if you manage to parse it enough to disprove that (which you probably can ) the spirit of the rule also implies that as long as a post is related to a previous post and isn't nonsense it has a point and therefore isn't pointless.

Yeah if you're being pedantic all of that is relevant. We're not though. If you really want me to write up a list of rules that you cannot bypass by being really fussy about the wording then I'll do it. Expect a list of rules as big as an Act of Parliament though. At the end of the day I could find a loophole in every rule, but as a former Forum Manager you of all people should know that things can't always be perfect. That's just how it is at the end of the day! Moderators have to use their own judgement and try to punish the rule breaking the rule is / was trying to stop. If it doesn't 100% come under the rule, then they are entitled to make an informed judgement. This is what happened in this case. When you were arguing about how one might consider your post being relevant to a previous post I could, to an extent, understand what you were saying... when you start getting really annoying about the wording and questioning what the rule means due to a connective or something I really am not going to try and justify the rule, it's just a Habbo forum after all.

[hah]

i got edited for http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost....37&postcount=5

i was asking a question about someone elses post?? :S

[Yoshimitsui]

i got edited for http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost....37&postcount=5

i was asking a question about someone elses post?? :S

I do think that was dealt with rather strangely, it suggests a personal edit as it was a legitimate question if you look at it impartially. I also don't like the idea of adding smiles to edits. (Not to pick out individuals but i have seen a fair few)

[The Professor]

Yeah if you're being pedantic all of that is relevant. We're not though. If you really want me to write up a list of rules that you cannot bypass by being really fussy about the wording then I'll do it. Expect a list of rules as big as an Act of Parliament though. At the end of the day I could find a loophole in every rule, but as a former Forum Manager you of all people should know that things can't always be perfect. That's just how it is at the end of the day! Moderators have to use their own judgement and try to punish the rule breaking the rule is / was trying to stop. If it doesn't 100% come under the rule, then they are entitled to make an informed judgement. This is what happened in this case. When you were arguing about how one might consider your post being relevant to a previous post I could, to an extent, understand what you were saying... when you start getting really annoying about the wording and questioning what the rule means due to a connective or something I really am not going to try and justify the rule, it's just a Habbo forum after all.

I made a general point about how the rules were worded so that the spirit of the rules was such that if a post was related to a previous post it wasn't pointless. Oli commented on how the word "or" implied something, I just responded to his point using similar reasoning, no need to bite my head off :S I actually said at the end that there isn't much point parsing it that much because the spirit of the rules (the lease pedantic way of going about things) still backed me up imo. Tbh I really don't like the tone of that post :S

Ok clearly I'm in a minority about humourous, vaguely related posts not being pointless (shame but young people will always take that too far anyway so yknow I see the point) but I still stand by my point that the rule seems to be being enforced incorrectly.

[syko2006]

Yea, I ****** up. I couldn't reverse an edit so I left it.

Sorry about that. (A)

[Hecktix]

I do think that was dealt with rather strangely, it suggests a personal edit as it was a legitimate question if you look at it impartially. I also don't like the idea of adding smiles to edits. (Not to pick out individuals but i have seen a fair few)

There's nothing wrong with adding smilies to edits. I've seen it done by certain mods and it makes the edits look friendly, which is a lot better than what you get on other forums.

i got edited for http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost....37&postcount=5

i was asking a question about someone elses post?? :S

PM a Super Moderator if you have a problem, if you read the below post it will get sorted:

Yea, I ****** up. I couldn't reverse an edit so I left it.

Sorry about that. (A)

Nice to see you admit your mistakes Dan

Edit; sorted Dans mistake

[hah]

i pm'd the mod back and never got a reply so i left it... :S

[Nixt]

i pm'd the mod back and never got a reply so i left it... :S

In future I would recommend taking your problem with a Moderator to Oli or myself.

[hah]

i dont blame dan lol, im guessing he edited it because alkaz (who likes to think he is a mod) said "nice pointless posts" and he didn't wanna go against a agm or something like that

[Hecktix]

i dont blame dan lol, im guessing he edited it because alkaz (who likes to think he is a mod) said "nice pointless posts" and he didn't wanna go against a agm or something like that

I see what you mean.

It's been sorted now Graham, don't worry.