Get rid of post your... junk threads

[GommeInc]

Or if it doesn't actively promote discussion... there is nothing in the rule that says that a thread must necessarily ask for no discussion for it to not be promoting discussion since that is ridiculous

The rule doesn't ask that they do either, otherwise nearly all threads ever created should be closed from the start. Most threads start off neutral - it's up for the members to discuss the topic or posts within the thread. As that has happened in these threads, they're clearly within the rules.

...

Again you fail to explain what is wrong here.
If I reply to someone in that thread, we have a discussion correct? If you can't be bothered to write then I assume you have no argument.

"I could reply to "I am listening to Lady Gaga" and a discussion is there"
"A discussion by definition is "the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas." Exchanging an idea is not a discussion, it's one way - it needs to be ideas with an "s". It requires a response."

By replying to someone who has made a statement, reaction or proposition, I am beginning a discussion. Correct? Yes as it's in the rules and the plain English definition of discuss. I am providing the required response. The fact you can't comprehend this is alarming, especially when discussions have existed in these threads. Correct? Obviously I am because they are right there in black and white, especially in "What are you listening to? #2". As they do have discussions in them, which is all that matters and there's nothing stating otherwise, they're not against the rules. Correct? Good.

So we finally agree that these threads allow for discussion? They clearly do so you can't deny that and you can't honestly believe all threads should ask for a discussion, since hardly any do. Again I provide proof - Current Affairs.

So what exactly is your point as you clearly haven't understood the rule and you want it changed, even though it's obvious you're the only one who doesn't understand. Kardan has had it explained by The Don and you're the only one still arguing invalid points because you're having difficulties understanding the rule, especially the reiteration of the forum department having discretion. As @Phil has said he knows they are not abused and has already said they are there to stay. The rule doesn't need changing either as it clearly is doing it's job. Why do you want the rule changed if you want the threads to stay as they are? It makes no sense and it's either down to pedanticism or having nothing better to do with your time. Since this literally has been a waste of time seeing as even the Forum Manager can see they're not producing a large number of posts.

[Yawn]

phil when u read this is it possible to ban users from individual threads

[FlyingJesus]

The rule doesn't ask that they do either

Yes it does

If I reply to someone in that thread, we have a discussion correct?

No, not correct. One reply to one post is not a discussion as you literally said a few posts ago. If that user then responds in kind it may be considered a discussion, but that's not what you've said (well, what you've said this time anyway, I'm sure it'll flip again soon). This is so basic.

By replying to someone who has made a statement, reaction or proposition, I am beginning a discussion. Correct?

No but you may be attempting to. Once again, something is not a discussion merely because it has the potential to be one.

As they do have discussions in them, which is all that matters and there's nothing stating otherwise, they're not against the rules. Correct? Good.

Even if they did have discussions in them (which they don't as your idea of "but someone replied" is not a discussion) you're mixing up posts and threads; the thread still does not promote active discussion even if it has the potential to facilitate it.

So we finally agree that these threads allow for discussion? They clearly do so you can't deny that and you can't honestly believe all threads should ask for a discussion, since hardly any do. Again I provide proof - Current Affairs.

By which logic no thread is ever against the rule so the rule itself is pointless. You're still somehow confusing potential for promotion, and yes I absolutely can believe that genuine threads should start with more than just "WELL????????" and Current Affairs threads provide ready-made discussion material, that's really quite clear.

So what exactly is your point as you clearly haven't understood the rule and you want it changed, even though it's obvious you're the only one who doesn't understand. Kardan has had it explained by The Don and you're the only one still arguing invalid points because you're having difficulties understanding the rule, especially the reiteration of the forum department having discretion.

That might be correct if you'd had a single point that hadn't been countered by something other than you changing your mind and ignoring that you'd said the complete opposite of one argument a few posts ago in order to try making a new one. Writing "CORRECT??!?£!" after a sentence doesn't make it so.

The rule doesn't need changing either as it clearly is doing it's job. Why do you want the rule changed if you want the threads to stay as they are? It makes no sense and it's either down to pedanticism or having nothing better to do with your time.

Well quite clearly neither of us have anything better to do with our time but I'll let you keep the ad hom approach for yourself. I do not want the threads to remain as they are obviously, but if they are to do so then the rule needs to be rewritten to properly concern them as (since has been shown no matter how often you ignore it) they do not promote active discussion as per the rule

Since this literally has been a waste of time seeing as even the Forum Manager can see they're not producing a large number of posts.

He can also see that the threads are crap and don't promote discussion, but hey let's ignore the parts of posts we don't like

[GommeInc]

Yes it does

No it doesn't, because if it did nearly all threads on this forum should be removed. Current Affairs would be empty as the threads do not actively promote discussion. Again, many ask for a reaction but that's not a discussion.

No, not correct. One reply to one post is not a discussion as you literally said a few posts ago. If that user then responds in kind it may be considered a discussion, but that's not what you've said (well, what you've said this time anyway, I'm sure it'll flip again soon). This is so basic.

No you clearly read me wrong. I said sharing an idea is not a discussion it's making a statement or passing judgement - sharing ideas is - talking to someone (which is the definition of discuss). When you reply to a person you are sharing your idea with their idea - therefore we have a discussion or specifically the start of a discussion. Not that it matters as you clearly think threads should be closed until a discussion happens. Threads do not start discussions, members do - this is pretty obvious.

No but you may be attempting to. Once again, something is not a discussion merely because it has the potential to be one.

Yet it's still starting a discussion.... So you admit that the threads are not breaking the rule but the members who refuse to start a discussion? As I've been saying for ages - it's not the threads that are in violation as they clearly allow for discussion, but it is the members and forcing them to discuss things will never work as they don't need to as has been acknowledged, they're so trivial that to force people to discuss will only put people off. Discussions can and do exist in these threads, which is all that matters. Correct?

Even if they did have discussions in them (which they don't as your idea of "but someone replied" is not a discussion) you're mixing up posts and threads; the thread still does not promote active discussion even if it has the potential to facilitate it.

Yes it is as it's the start of a discussion. The fact I've posted a definition is proof of this. You never post proof you just cite your own opinion which makes this argument all the more tedious. I don't care what you think, I only care about the facts and the facts prove there are discussions under every definition, even in the rules (on-topic posts etc etc). The fact you now admit that these threads clearly promote discussion is evidence of this - they "support" discussion. Look up the word promote and you will discover it means "support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of." These threads are progressing, correct? Post counts are going up and other people are posting what they are listening to and using the threads - thus the point of the thread is progressing. They support discussion, correct? Yes, because discussions exist in these threads and there is support for them. Coupled with the potential this further proves that these threads are not against the rules.

By which logic no thread is ever against the rule so the rule itself is pointless. You're still somehow confusing potential for promotion, and yes I absolutely can believe that genuine threads should start with more than just "WELL????????" and Current Affairs threads provide ready-made discussion material, that's really quite clear.

Incorrect. They provide ready-made discussion material. If I have material for a dress it doesn't mean I have a dress and it doesn't mean I will even make a dress with it. There's only proof of a discussion when a discussion actually happens and you can't get this from the thread title or the opening post, but you can actively discuss in almost every thread. Posting a thread such as "WELL????" does not provide any information, but a thread saying "What are you listening to?" does, as it's inviting you to post what you are listening to and to discuss, as there's nothing saying not to in the same way as someone posting "Boy trapped in fridge eats foot to survive." So you are suggesting that nearly all threads are against the rule? Nearly all the threads I see under your strange definition of "discuss" that suggests there must be more than one post in reply to someone is a discussion when this rarely happens.

That might be correct if you'd had a single point that hadn't been countered by something other than you changing your mind and ignoring that you'd said the complete opposite of one argument a few posts ago in order to try making a new one. Writing "CORRECT??!?£!" after a sentence doesn't make it so.

You haven't countered many if any points - particularly moderator/forum department discretion, as it's written in black and white it is fact. Saying you disagree with it isn't fact, it's opinion. I am using fact to support my claims - saying "no it doesn't" isn't evidence, which is what you've done the whole time. I've posted definitions of words for you because you're too lazy to look up the definition, I've even cited the rule highlighting areas you clearly do not understand. Pointing out where I ask "is this correct? (or simply "correct?") isn't a counter argument and having a bratty tantrum when you can't think of a response is also not a counter argument. I asked in that comment what you want to see the rule changed to (your point revolves around the rule being wrong when it isn't, you just disagree with it but do not suggest anything).

Well quite clearly neither of us have anything better to do with our time but I'll let you keep the ad hom approach for yourself. I do not want the threads to remain as they are obviously, but if they are to do so then the rule needs to be rewritten to properly concern them as (since has been shown no matter how often you ignore it) they do not promote active discussion as per the rule

So you've changed your point? You said:

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

So you want the rule changed to allow for them, but now you're saying you do not want the threads to remain as they are? Again, I've posted proof that you keep changing your point yet you're yet to - you just say I have and then leave. The fact they do promote discussion is beyond you - they support discussion and there's no quality in the threads saying you can't discuss nor to discuss, but as it says neither you must surely be able to do it. When you go for a walk in the park and there's no sign at all on the grass saying you can walk on it, do you keep to the path? Of course not, as you can deduce that if there is no warning then it is fine.

The rule, again, does not need to be re-written. The rule allows for them as the rule is specifically written to not ask for threads to actively promote discussion as that would mean every thread would have to ask members to strictly discuss a point. It is there to stop threads with literally no way of a discussion from face value being posted suggest as "WHAT????" or "Are you male/female?" as they do not exactly allow for active discussion to exist. Furthermore, the rule clearly reiterates moderator discretion to support the rule. The fact the rule has been working perfectly seems beyond you. Moderators enforce the rules and they've done so swimmingly, they allow these threads as there is nothing stopping people from having a discussion, but if members choose not to it is their choice as you can't force them to.

He can also see that the threads are crap and don't promote discussion, but hey let's ignore the parts of posts we don't like

Yet he doesn't say this so making up his mind for him is irrelevant. Phil has acknowledged cold hard fact that they are not being abused and there are not many posts in these threads anyway.

So to summarise:

Forum Rule
A7. Do not post pointlessly ~ ~ Do not post off-topic ~ An off-topic post has no relevance to the topic or any previous post that is relevant, or does little to positively contribute to the discussion.
~ Do not spam/make pointless posts. It is not allowed to post random, meaningless, posts or threads on the forum. Examples of this are (ROFLCOPTER!!!!!!); (BYRDSB +HKK; ) (I am a plane)
~ Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion. Repeatably posting short replies such as "Yes" or "Nope" is also forbidden. What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department.
~ You may not make posts that contain plain images only. Images that includes text are allowed so long as they are relevant to the threads discussion. This rule does not apply to the forum games or spam forums.

Promote: "support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of."
~ support: "give approval, comfort, or encouragement to".
~~ approval: "the belief that someone or something is good or acceptable."
~ progress: "forward or onward movement towards a destination."

The rule promotes these threads, by giving them support - which is approval that is defined as something that is acceptable. These threads further progress - they move forward with people posting on-topic (as is in the rule) and therefore being active, and the ultimate destination and ultimate goal for any forum is that the entire forum is active. And if these threads promote activity on the forum they can be nothing but good.

[karter]

close those threads and close this thread bye

[FlyingJesus]

No it doesn't, because if it did nearly all threads on this forum should be removed.

That's not a reason.

No you clearly read me wrong. I said sharing an idea is not a discussion it's making a statement or passing judgement - sharing ideas is - talking to someone (which is the definition of discuss). When you reply to a person you are sharing your idea with their idea - therefore we have a discussion or specifically the start of a discussion. Not that it matters as you clearly think threads should be closed until a discussion happens. Threads do not start discussions, members do - this is pretty obvious.

Members have discussions, threads start them. If not then by definition the discussions that arise are off-topic. I do not believe that threads should be closed until a discussion happens, I have never said anything along those lines and you're yet again shooting at straw men.

So you admit that the threads are not breaking the rule but the members who refuse to start a discussion?

No, and I don't know how you'd get that from me continually saying that the threads are breaking the rule

As I've been saying for ages - it's not the threads that are in violation as they clearly allow for discussion

Allowing for =/= promotion of

Discussions can and do exist in these threads, which is all that matters. Correct?

No, again congratulating yourself is not actually the same as being right

Yes it is as it's the start of a discussion. The fact I've posted a definition is proof of this.

You posted a definition which goes exactly against what you're trying to claim here.

You never post proof

Well I do as you'd know if you read my posts, but often I don't need to as you provide hilarious counterarguments to your own prior posts for me

The fact you now admit that these threads clearly promote discussion

What :S no I don't, 4real try debating with what I actually post not what you wish I'd written

they "support" discussion. Look up the word promote and you will discover it means "support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of."

Facilitating is not the same as supporting or encouraging, and even if it were all you're doing here is telling me that the rule is pointless

These threads are progressing, correct?

No, not in a discussive manner

They support discussion, correct?

No, they just allow for it if it happens by chance

There's only proof of a discussion when a discussion actually happens and you can't get this from the thread title or the opening post, but you can actively discuss in almost every thread.

Cool story but proof of a discussion happening isn't the point, it's about whether a thread actively promotes it. You have been told this many times before

Posting a thread such as "WELL????" does not provide any information, but a thread saying "What are you listening to?" does, as it's inviting you to post what you are listening to and to discuss

Fantastic, although what I meant by threads starting with WELL???? is exactly what these threads are doing; posing a question in the title and then nothing further in the opening post ie "What are you listening to?" as the title and a complete absence of any sort of continuation in the post

So you are suggesting that nearly all threads are against the rule? Nearly all the threads I see under your strange definition of "discuss" that suggests there must be more than one post in reply to someone is a discussion when this rarely happens.

As you keep saying, one cannot force members to continue a conversation they don't want to get involved in. The issue is (as it has been throughout) the opening, not the follow-up

You haven't countered many if any points - particularly moderator/forum department discretion, as it's written in black and white it is fact. Saying you disagree with it isn't fact, it's opinion.

Kinda have actually, and especially that one. If you want to forget all about it then fair enough but don't accuse me of not having done something where I have (or vice versa as you do quite a lot)

I am using fact to support my claims - saying "no it doesn't" isn't evidence, which is what you've done the whole time. I've posted definitions of words for you because you're too lazy to look up the definition, I've even cited the rule highlighting areas you clearly do not understand.

And yet every time I've countered with logical arguments which throw your nonsense right out of the water because you're more focused on trying to get a one-up than actually following the thread. Telling me I don't understand things when I've not been shown to be wrong (even in the eyes of the Forum Manager) doesn't mean you're on top

Pointing out where I ask "is this correct? (or simply "correct?") isn't a counter argument and having a bratty tantrum when you can't think of a response is also not a counter argument. I asked in that comment what you want to see the rule changed to (your point revolves around the rule being wrong when it isn't, you just disagree with it but do not suggest anything).

You didn't ask that at all, you asked why I'd want it changed and I answered you. I think the one having a bratty tantrum is the one who's constantly ignoring parts he doesn't like and making up conversations that haven't happened.

So you've changed your point? You said:

So you want the rule changed to allow for them, but now you're saying you do not want the threads to remain as they are?

Either or, I thought that would be obvious. That's not changing my point, that's stating that one or the other has to change for logic and consistancy's sake

Again, I've posted proof that you keep changing your point yet you're yet to - you just say I have and then leave.

This is proof that you haven't been reading my posts at all! Several times I've shown quotes where you say one thing and then another later on that contradicts the former, and you either just ignore it or change the subject

The fact they do promote discussion is beyond you - they support discussion and there's no quality in the threads saying you can't discuss nor to discuss, but as it says neither you must surely be able to do it. When you go for a walk in the park and there's no sign at all on the grass saying you can walk on it, do you keep to the path? Of course not, as you can deduce that if there is no warning then it is fine.

The rule, again, does not need to be re-written. The rule allows for them as the rule is specifically written to not ask for threads to actively promote discussion as that would mean every thread would have to ask members to strictly discuss a point. It is there to stop threads with literally no way of a discussion from face value being posted suggest as "WHAT????" or "Are you male/female?" as they do not exactly allow for actively discussion to exist.

A discussion could arise in any thread, even those that you've used as examples (and especially the second), in which case if we adopt your ridiculous idea that potential is the same as promotion then the rule is totally unnecessary.

Yet he doesn't say this so making up his mind for him is irrelevant. Phil has acknowledged cold hard fact that they are not being abused and there are not many posts in these threads anyway.

Ok fab but that isn't what we're discussing here since I haven't said that billions upon billions of posts are made there

[buttons]

@scottish; dare u to close this sick of seein it pop up

[GommeInc]

Members have discussions, threads start them. If not then by definition the discussions that arise are off-topic. I do not believe that threads should be closed until a discussion happens, I have never said anything along those lines and you're yet again shooting at straw men.

And there's no evidence that these threads are against them. So if you don't want threads closed until a discussion happens then there's no reasonable action that can be taken - seeing as these threads have discussions and allow for them, there is no issue. Promoting discussions isn't necessary if discussions happen anyway.

No, and I don't know how you'd get that from me continually saying that the threads are breaking the rule

Yet you're yet to prove this. I gave you the definition of promote. Prove it wrong.

Allowing for =/= promotion of
No, again congratulating yourself is not actually the same as being right

As above.
Until you post any evidence other than saying no all the time :rolleyes:

You posted a definition which goes exactly against what you're trying to claim here.

How? Again, no evidence to support yourself. They do as they have done. Do you even read these threads? The worst offender had a discussion right at the beginning. They're supported and promoted.

Well I do as you'd know if you read my posts, but often I don't need to as you provide hilarious counterarguments to your own prior posts for me

No you don't. I've given definitions of words - you just post "no they don't". That's not proof, that's denying the facts.

What :S no I don't, 4real try debating with what I actually post not what you wish I'd written

Facilitating is not the same as supporting or encouraging, and even if it were all you're doing here is telling me that the rule is pointless

So you're denying the facts, the definitions of what promote means? Again, I gave you a definition - where's your counter definition?

No, not in a discussive manner

Again, rarely threads do this. Saying no isn't a counter-argument - provide proof.

No, they just allow for it if it happens by chance

Yet discussions can happen and do happen, which is all that matters. This is known as denial - they allow for discussions and discussions have happened. Honestly, you have no argument.

Cool story but proof of a discussion happening isn't the point, it's about whether a thread actively promotes it. You have been told this many times before

Yes it is, you can't deny this.They do promote discussion - I gave you an operating and practical definition of promote:

support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.

Get a thesaurus out:

Facilitate | Support | Promote | Help | Aid | Forward | Make Easy | Ease

Fantastic, although what I meant by threads starting with WELL???? is exactly what these threads are doing; posing a question in the title and then nothing further in the opening post ie "What are you listening to?" as the title and a complete absence of any sort of continuation in the post

No they're not. Give me an answer to "WELL????" You can't. Well what? With "Post what you're listening to?" it's asking you to post music/songs. "WELL????" is asking me... nothing. Completely different. How are they the same? It's self-explanatory.

As you keep saying, one cannot force members to continue a conversation they don't want to get involved in. The issue is (as it has been throughout) the opening, not the follow-up

The opening is fine. If a thread asks what I am listening to, it is blatantly asking me what song I am listening to and to share the title of it with people. As these threads promote it, by support, facilitating, aid and helping me to share, it is blatantly obvious they promote it - or are you denying thesauruses and dictionaries are wrong and your definition is absolute? :rolleyes:

Kinda have actually, and especially that one. If you want to forget all about it then fair enough but don't accuse me of not having done something where I have (or vice versa as you do quite a lot)

No you didn't. It's fact - moderator discretion does exist. It's in the rule. I picked you out on it and you refuse to accept it exists. If you do not want to read a rule or even the T&Cs that's your problem.

And yet every time I've countered with logical arguments which throw your nonsense right out of the water because you're more focused on trying to get a one-up than actually following the thread. Telling me I don't understand things when I've not been shown to be wrong (even in the eyes of the Forum Manager) doesn't mean you're on top

Saying "no" isn't a logical argument. You're yet to post definitions of words and apply them to the rule - I've done that constantly. The Forum Manager hasn't even said he agrees with you - he said a rule change may work, and I've explained why the rule doesn't need to change by even supporting my argument. All you've done is post your opinion, I've posted facts such as the rule itself, the T&Cs, logical arguments and definitions. All you've done is deny, which isn't an argument.

You didn't ask that at all, you asked why I'd want it changed and I answered you. I think the one having a bratty tantrum is the one who's constantly ignoring parts he doesn't like and making up conversations that haven't happened.

And your suggestion was? You didn't post it, you just said a rule change to support those threads should be fine, yet it is now evident that they already are under the very definition of promote: to support, encourage or further progress.

Either or, I thought that would be obvious. That's not changing my point, that's stating that one or the other has to change for logic and consistancy's sake

No it is not obvious. You stated it in two different posts. Clearly you're now denying your argument. So which is it, you want the threads removed or you want them to stay? If you want them to stay, the rule doesn't need to be changed as they are already promoting discussion under the definition of promote - you're yet to argue why the definition of promote is wrong with any logical argument other than "no it doesn't mean that" which is denying the facts - promote means that, if you don't accept that then there's no helping you if you deny fact.

This is proof that you haven't been reading my posts at all! Several times I've shown quotes where you say one thing and then another later on that contradicts the former, and you either just ignore it or change the subject

Which I've rebutted. You for some reason quoted me quoting the definition of reaction and posting a reaction isn't a discussion. A discussion is talking to a person or people - sharing an idea with someone. A reaction isn't.

A discussion could arise in any thread, even those that you've used as examples (and especially the second), in which case if we adopt your ridiculous idea that potential is the same as promotion then the rule is totally unnecessary.

If a discussion could arise in any thread, then they are promoted. You can't deny what the definition of promote means. It means: "support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of." These threads support discussion, there's nothing stopping people from having a discussion unless they specifically ask not to. Are you really denying the definition of a word for your own definition? Because that's not fact, it's an opinion.

Ok fab but that isn't what we're discussing here since I haven't said that billions upon billions of posts are made there

So why mention what Phil apparently believes when that's all he's stated? Again I post proof that counters your argument that Phil apparently thinks these threads do not promote discussion, yet all he's actually accepted so far is that these threads are not being abused.


Honestly, I'm posting evidence countering your argument - evidence suggested as definitions of words. Saying "no" to fact isn't a counter-argument, it's denial.

So do you accept that these threads promote discussion? Remember, you must read this:

prəˈməʊt
verb
1.
support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of.
"some regulation is still required to promote competition"
synonyms: encourage, further, advance, assist, aid, help, contribute to, foster, nurture, develop, boost, stimulate, forward; More
antonyms: obstruct, impede
give publicity to (a product, organization, or venture) so as to increase sales or public awareness.
"they are using famous personalities to promote the library nationally"
synonyms: advertise, publicize, give publicity to, beat/bang the drum for, popularize, sell, market, merchandise; More
attempt to ensure the passing of (a private Act of Parliament).
"the government of the day would not be promoting the bill"
2.
raise (someone) to a higher position or rank.
"she was promoted to General Manager"
synonyms: advance, upgrade, give promotion to, give a higher position to, elevate, move up, raise, improve the position/status of, aggrandize

Obstruct and impede are the opposite of promote. If these threads are not obstructing they must be... guess what? Promoting them.

[Phil]

Hey sorry everyone I've been out all day! Guys I have no idea what you're even arguing anymore, I literally could see anything I could answer any more than I already have. If you have a question or thought you want answering can you mention and ask me.

phil when u read this is it possible to ban users from individual threads

It's not possible to ban people from threads but it is possible to ban them from certain forums for a period of time. There's probably a plugin out there for that though.

[Kyle]

@scottish; dare u to close this sick of seein it pop up

seconded. it has run its course and it just 2 users arguing technicalities in a circular fashion. phil needs to come to decision based on these facts he has been presented with.