Pointless posting

[Phil]

I quoted my post with a reference to the word.

Why didn't I reply to the PM? Because

1) I don't get a caution/infraction.
2) Whenever I do decide to reply, the mod will refer me to a super mod, who refers me to Chris, who refers me to general management. It's just not worth it.

Sorry was eating.

That's because Moderators or Super Moderators don't have the ability to remove usernotes from a users account. Why not cut out all the reffering and just contact who you need to contact or use the support forum?

This next statement isn't directed at you Aiden.

It just seems like users have been PM'd for pointless posting and since one user has posted its flaw, everyone else is saying "OH YEAH! I was pointless posted for a stupid reason too!". I have had replies to I think one or two pointless post PM's in which I actually saw that I was wrong and I have had the usernote removed.

[Kardan]

Fair enough with moderators not having the ability to remove usernotes, but I think super mods should have that ability.

Anyway, I was getting too caught up in my own pointless posts (I'm just annoyed that people don't know what whoosh means ), but what I personally think needs to happen:

Stop warning for pointless posts when someone is replying to a non-pointless post already made in the thread. It seems silly to keep having to refer back to the thread title when it's not needed. (Examples: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...93#post7799093,
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...61#post7799361 - Got this 2nd one reversed)

Allow discussion of the thread itself rather than only the topic of the thread so we can correct someone's spelling/grammar, and tell someone they misinterpreted something. (Examples: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...63#post8088963, http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...21#post8084021)

[Yawn]

thankfully this has shed light on how stupid the current pointless posting rules are
not to mention all of the thread moving into spam as well that hasnt helped and makes ppl more mad

[Chris]

I quoted my post with a reference to the word.

Why didn't I reply to the PM? Because

1) I don't get a caution/infraction.
2) Whenever I do decide to reply, the mod will refer me to a super mod, who refers me to Chris, who refers me to general management. It's just not worth it.

I don't refer to general management unless it's something I literally cannot deal with. I'm the end of the line for forum issues.

[Phil]

Fair enough with moderators not having the ability to remove usernotes, but I think super mods should have that ability.

Anyway, I was getting too caught up in my own pointless posts (I'm just annoyed that people don't know what whoosh means ), but what I personally think needs to happen:

Stop warning for pointless posts when someone is replying to a non-pointless post already made in the thread. It seems silly to keep having to refer back to the thread title when it's not needed. (Examples: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...93#post7799093,
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...61#post7799361 - Got this 2nd one reversed)

Allow discussion of the thread itself rather than only the topic of the thread so we can correct someone's spelling/grammar, and tell someone they misinterpreted something. (Examples: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...63#post8088963, http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...21#post8084021)

I actually agree with the first point you made here and personally I wouldn't edit a post like that because it's generating discussion.
I disagree with the second point, I still think that Toms point it pointless. Your post is less pointless now but would have still been better if you actually said it went over his head and/or explained why. I think you can see the Moderators confusion with that one (and mine because I believe I passed on that report to the Moderator)

[FlyingJesus]

Just gonna summarise the issue in a very basic form:

*We currently have a rule that has no actual punishment if it's broken
*This rule is also hugely ambiguous and is open to interpretation by whichever mod sees it
*Since the moderators are not avatars of one root being, they do not see everything the same way
*Therefore some people are being told off for breaking a rule when near identical posts aren't
*Everyone's confused because not even the people who are supposed to be policing posts know what's pointless or not

what needs to be done:

*A clear definition of what constitutes a "pointless" post needs to be agreed upon and set into the rules
*Some action needs to be taken against offenders rather than a PM which only annoys people and sets nothing straight
*Therefore EITHER (as much as it pains me to say it because I hate question-and-answer threads with no actual discussion) the rule ought to be fairly lenient in what it allows to pass as not pointless so as not to ban everyone for spewing crap
*OR it gets enforced properly in an attempt to make genuine discussion happen and all the threads that the 12 year olds make are sent to Spam, leaving Discuss Anything more empty and desolate than Skandair's head and we may as well delete it since anything of substance will fit in a different category anyway

[Kardan]

I actually agree with the first point you made here and personally I wouldn't edit a post like that because it's generating discussion.
I disagree with the second point, I still think that Toms point it pointless. Your post is less pointless now but would have still been better if you actually said it went over his head and/or explained why. I think you can see the Moderators confusion with that one (and mine because I believe I passed on that report to the Moderator)

It also bugs me that off topic posts are referred to as pointless, but they often do have a point to them. Tom's post isn't pointless, it's just off topic

Surely this post should be pointless then, since it does not talk about the topic in the thread title, and is just correcting spelling/grammar/language.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...63#post8092463

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, wow... and look at this classic moderation right here:

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794694&p=8092859#post8092859
And then 1 post later...
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=794694&p=8092879#post8092879

Hahaha...

[e5]

Personally, I edit posts for off-topic and pointless. I wasn't aware that mods edit posts calling them pointless as apposed to off-topic, although the punishment (if we can call it that?) is the same; a PM

It also bugs me that off topic posts are referred to as pointless, but they often do have a point to them. Tom's post isn't pointless, it's just off topic

Surely this post should be pointless then, since it does not talk about the topic in the thread title, and is just correcting spelling/grammar/language.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...63#post8092463

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, wow... and look at this classic moderation right here:

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...59#post8092859
And then 1 post later...
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...79#post8092879

Hahaha...

[Phil]

It also bugs me that off topic posts are referred to as pointless, but they often do have a point to them. Tom's post isn't pointless, it's just off topic

Surely this post should be pointless then, since it does not talk about the topic in the thread title, and is just correcting spelling/grammar/language.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...63#post8092463

That's a hard one as even though it is off topic from the original question asked, he is answering someone's question. However if Jordan orginally posted "Is oftenly even a word" and nothing else, I would consider that pointless

- - - Updated - - -

Just gonna summarise the issue in a very basic form:

*We currently have a rule that has no actual punishment if it's broken
*This rule is also hugely ambiguous and is open to interpretation by whichever mod sees it
*Since the moderators are not avatars of one root being, they do not see everything the same way
*Therefore some people are being told off for breaking a rule when near identical posts aren't
*Everyone's confused because not even the people who are supposed to be policing posts know what's pointless or not

what needs to be done:

*A clear definition of what constitutes a "pointless" post needs to be agreed upon and set into the rules
*Some action needs to be taken against offenders rather than a PM which only annoys people and sets nothing straight
*Therefore EITHER (as much as it pains me to say it because I hate question-and-answer threads with no actual discussion) the rule ought to be fairly lenient in what it allows to pass as not pointless so as not to ban everyone for spewing crap
*OR it gets enforced properly in an attempt to make genuine discussion happen and all the threads that the 12 year olds make are sent to Spam, leaving Discuss Anything more empty and desolate than Skandair's head and we may as well delete it since anything of substance will fit in a different category anyway

Just letting you know I'm not ignoring this, just giving it thought atm

[Kardan]

That's a hard one as even though it is off topic from the original question asked, he is answering someone's question. However if Jordan orginally posted "Is oftenly even a word" and nothing else, I would consider that pointless

Ah, so... @FlyingJesus; got warned because he was the first person to realise it and didn't say anything on topic... But if he was the second person to realise, and he replied to the first person - whilst still not saying anything on topic, he would have been fine.

Seems entirely logical.