Get rid of post your... junk threads

[FlyingJesus]

If the rules are changed to allow for those threads that would solve the immediate problem (although I still think they're crap ) although it does still leave things in a bit of uncertainty; I for one am still unsure as to why my thread was moved other than because e5 is an idiot

[Phil]

If the rules are changed to allow for those threads that would solve the immediate problem (although I still think they're crap ) although it does still leave things in a bit of uncertainty; I for one am still unsure as to why my thread was moved other than because e5 is an idiot

Well I'll have a fiddle with the rule tomorrow (woo more things on the To Do List! ) but yeah, as I said, I don't like the threads at all, I never have. But just because we don't like them doesn't mean they can be scrapped because there are people there that like them and there are people that believe they should stay.

Elliott isn't an idiot and it's about time every left him alone. I actually gave him the permission to move your thread because I'm pretty sure you were just posting it to make a point. Kardan does the same thing.

[FlyingJesus]

He is an idiot, he also twice failed to edit the post that's in my sig because he thinks there's nothing offensive about it. All threads are posted to make a point aren't they?

[Kyle]

threads should not be removed if they promote genuine discussion regardless of their (perceived) motive.

[GommeInc]

Ok now provide a quote that has something to do with what I said :S that's a quote where he can't read a rule's wording properly, nothing to do with his own beliefs about clauses being separate rules which he did quite clearly refute, and that's what I was on about.

It depends if the rule was meant to be written in a similar fashion to legislation where each (~) is a separate provision or if each sentence is a separate provision (or clause, though both are interchangeable). You stated that this may not be true using posting about the premiership as an example and in the same paragraph saying if you kicked a ball yadda yadda does not make you a premier footballer, suggesting that the rule is meant to be read as whole sentences and not using the individual tildes. They put the effort into adding tildes so it seems strange to separate each provision with sentences. That was my point. Although if sentences were to be read as separate clauses then discretion of the forum department is in itself a separate part of the rule and as they're the only ones that can enforce rules this clause is the key clause, similar to a contract where you have limiting liability clauses (we accept no fault for damaged goods etc etc). It reiterates the T&Cs of the forum about how moderators and admins can apply the rules.

If the rules are changed to allow for those threads that would solve the immediate problem (although I still think they're crap ) although it does still leave things in a bit of uncertainty; I for one am still unsure as to why my thread was moved other than because e5 is an idiot

The rules already allows these threads - the threads are not hindering active discussion and nothing is stopping you or other members from discussing the song choices of others. The rule seems to be against threads which are asking for one word answers.

So no I don't think you need to change the rule @Phil as there's nothing you can do. Removing that bit of the rule means threads that are only asking for one word answers are now allowed. The current wording is perfectly fine as it already allows for these threads and at the same time stops people from making threads literally asking for one word answers as per this specific area of the rule:

Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion.

These threads do not "only" allow for short, one or two word answers and they're not stopping people from actively discussing what they are listening to (for example). Your suggestion of maybe messaging troublemakers when they do abuse these threads as per the rule is the only logical suggestion (moderator discretion on abuse or what is pointless) is already covered by the rule. Unless there's a suggestion on what to change in the rule as in, what should it be replaced with.

[Phil]

@GommeInc; As FlyingJesus has been saying, it can be argued that it breaks the following part of the rule:

Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion.

[Yawn]

WAHEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Despect (Forum Moderator) - Please do not pointless post, thanks.

[GommeInc]

@GommeInc; As FlyingJesus has been saying, it can be argued that it breaks the following part of the rule:

Which they don't. Ask yourself this - how can a thread only allow for one or two word answers? Think of how a thread is constructed. These threads ask "What are you listening to?" (for example). There's nothing in the thread title or even the post that says "no discussion" or "only one or two word answers, please". That specific part of the rule only applies to threads which only want one/two word or short answers such as "Are you male or female?" where clearly no discussion can be held and you can only answer with Male, female, yes, no and/or both. He's yet to come back with a valid bit of proof to this and changing the rule because of one person to reflect something not thought through is absurd. I could go into any of these threads and reply to someone and we have a discussion. I could say I am listening to Material Girl by Madonna because it reminds me of a time in Amsterdam where I ran around in spandex. There's nothing stopping me from doing that, therefore the thread is not asking only for short, one or two word answers. Furthermore, if abuse does take place or someone is clearly pointless - you can fall back on the next part of the rule where moderator discretion comes in.

The rule is fine as it is, as it stops abuse and already stops threads that only allow for short, one or two word threads from appearing. The post your threads do not only want short, one or two word answers - they're not asking only for them. If abuse takes place, the rule already covers for this.

[Kardan]

Which they don't. Ask yourself this - how can a thread only allow for one or two word answers? Think of how a thread is constructed. These threads ask "What are you listening to?" (for example). There's nothing in the thread title or even the post that says "no discussion" or "only one or two word answers, please". That specific part of the rule only applies to threads which only want one/two word or short answers such as "Are you male or female?" where clearly no discussion can be held and you can only answer with Male, female, yes, no and/or both. He's yet to come back with a valid bit of proof to this and changing the rule because of one person to reflect something not thought through is absurd. I could go into any of these threads and reply to someone and we have a discussion. I could say I am listening to Material Girl by Madonna because it reminds me of a time in Amsterdam where I ran around in spandex. There's nothing stopping me from doing that, therefore the thread is not asking only for short, one or two word answers. Furthermore, if abuse does take place or someone is clearly pointless - you can fall back on the next part of the rule where moderator discretion comes in.

The rule is fine as it is, as it stops abuse and already stops threads that only allow for short, one or two word threads from appearing. The post your threads do not only want short, one or two word answers - they're not asking only for them. If abuse takes place, the rule already covers for this.

Could you not argue that there's no thread which only asks for a short answer? You could expand on any thread topic really.

[GommeInc]

Could you not argue that there's no thread which only asks for a short answer? You could expand on any thread topic really.

Indeed they could, but threads which literally are only asking for short, one or two word replies. The rule clearly states threads that only want short, one or two word replies. It's a very specific type of thread. This could be "Name a boyband" or something that specific - literally post a boyband. There doesn't have to be any actual activity involved and no discussion. The fact these threads (e.g. What are you listening to? #2 since 2009) have had discussions within them means they do not violate this rule, and you could argue that the members posting are actually listening to a song while posting or have actually watched a programme or film they're posting with, so there is some effort being put into the reply. It's not "Post a song" it's "post a song you are currently listening to", it's got an extra quality to it.

Plus any thread could have a discussion in, it's down to the members and whether or not they want to actively participate. You could also argue the "Money, Money, Money" competition is a violation of the misinterpreted version of the rule. It would be silly to change the rule purely because it would contradict current practice when it is perfectly fine, it's just some people can't read it as it does state "only" which is the key word.