Get rid of post your... junk threads

[FlyingJesus]

Discuss Anything

Also... asks for one word, asks for a yes/no answer, asks for a single date, asks specifically for just an episode title, asks specifically for just a nail polish, and yet there is more discussion in them other than the Habbo names one than in What Are You Listening To ie: some. Either they should have been shut down from the start because of their wording or yet again the rule is not needed

[GommeInc]

Discuss Anything

Also... asks for one word, asks for a yes/no answer, asks for a single date, asks specifically for just an episode title, asks specifically for just a nail polish, and yet there is more discussion in them other than the Habbo names one than in What Are You Listening To ie: some. Either they should have been shut down from the start because of their wording or yet again the rule is not needed

Discuss Anything is a forum and isn't in the rules as members can't make forums.

"What's your Habbo name?" serves a purpose in Habbo in General (which was my point earlier, if it has a certain quality such as to help some for college), so it is fine. How else would you do it? Not everyone will put it on their profile or know to do so - plus you can see what someone's name was before they changed it. Plus it won't be abused and nothing is stopping you from asking why someone chose that name.

"When do you break up for the summer?" doesn't ask for a single date. The fact people have said more than that below debunks this...

"Wrestlemania 30 - TONIGHT" doesn't ask for yes/no replies, the fact people are saying more debunks this.

"What's your favourite Doctor Who episode?" isn't asking specifically for a title - where is it saying "just post the title of the episode"? Again, the fact the thread has left it open to people to discuss suggests it is promoting it (and it is, people are posting and discussing it).

Again, you seem to be not grasping the definition of promote and understanding the rule. I've told you countless times what "promote" means. It is to "support or encourage", "establish". Also, you still don't seem to understand that just because something doesn't say you should just do something, means you can't do something else. Are you going to answer my question?

"If you were to go to a park and there is no sign on the grass or anywhere else in the park saying you can or cannot walk on the grass, would you still not walk on the grass?"

You are still allowed to - nothing is telling you not to. Since these threads are not stopping you from posting why you like an episode or to reply to someone else, they are promoting discussion, as discussion is clearly supported until it specifically says "only short, one or two word answers" or "off-topic posts, please" (which sounds like a forum game and probably is one).

[FlyingJesus]

Discuss Anything is a forum and isn't in the rules as members can't make forums.

What :S I was saying that threads which don't fit elsewhere can go in Discuss Anything, in response to you saying "the thread wouldn't fit in a forum"

"What's your Habbo name?" serves a purpose in Habbo in General (which was my point earlier, if it has a certain quality such as to help some for college), so it is fine. How else would you do it? Not everyone will put it on their profile or know to do so - plus you can see what someone's name was before they changed it. Plus it won't be abused and nothing is stopping you from asking why someone chose that name.

I'm not claiming that it's not being used right, I'm stating that it asks people specifically to post short answers

"When do you break up for the summer?" doesn't ask for a single date. The fact people have said more than that below debunks this...

"Wrestlemania 30 - TONIGHT" doesn't ask for yes/no replies, the fact people are saying more debunks this.

"What's your favourite Doctor Who episode?" isn't asking specifically for a title - where is it saying "just post the title of the episode"? Again, the fact the thread has left it open to people to discuss suggests it is promoting it (and it is, people are posting and discussing it).

People saying more than the thread asks is exactly my point - if that can happen despite a yes/no question like "Any watching it?" then literally no thread at all will fall foul of the rule by your logic and therefore that part of it is pointles. Thanks for agreeing

Again, you seem to be not grasping the definition of promote and understanding the rule. I've told you countless times what "promote" means. It is to "support or encourage", "establish". Also, you still don't seem to understand that just because something doesn't say you should just do something, means you can't do something else.

Grasping that pretty well considering that's the exact approach I'm talking about putting into practice

Are you going to answer my question?

"If you were to go to a park and there is no sign on the grass or anywhere else in the park saying you can or cannot walk on the grass, would you still not walk on the grass?"

Prob unless it was wet or something.

You are still allowed to - nothing is telling you not to. Since these threads are not stopping you from posting why you like an episode or to reply to someone else, they are promoting discussion, as discussion is clearly supported until it specifically says "only short, one or two word answers" or "off-topic posts, please" (which sounds like a forum game and probably is one).

This is where it all falls apart. If literally just being a space where discussion can happen is promotion of discussion, even threads like that would be fine because it's still entirely possible to have discussions in them. In fact just because of peoples' contrary nature I bet they'd spark more discussion than most threads currently do so if we use your interpretation of threads that "promote active discussion" no threads could possible be in contravention of it unless they start off locked

[Phil]

Guys my electricity has been gone and I have a lot of stuff to do so I'll read what you've posted sometime tonight or tomorrow. I have a lot to do

[GommeInc]

What :S I was saying that threads which don't fit elsewhere can go in Discuss Anything, in response to you saying "the thread wouldn't fit in a forum"

Oh I see, well depends on the content. By face value it would go in spam as the title doesn't give anything away and moderators tend to dislike threads which do not give the topic in the thread title.

I'm not claiming that it's not being used right, I'm stating that it asks people specifically to post short answers

No it isn't, if it were it would be specifically asking for short answers e.g. "just your Habbo name". There's nothing in the thread to suggest it only wants Habbo names. Plus as the rule reiterates forum department discretion moderators can interpret the rule to allow this sort of thread as it is being used correctly and relevant in that forum.

People saying more than the thread asks is exactly my point - if that can happen despite a yes/no question like "Any watching it?" then literally no thread at all will fall foul of the rule by your logic and therefore that part of it is pointles. Thanks for agreeing

But I disagree and obviously will as those threads are not against the rules. But threads can fall foul of the rule hence why that bit exists, I've posted examples already. If a thread literally asks for no discussion or is asking for just one word answers then the rule is being violated.

Grasping that pretty well considering that's the exact approach I'm talking about putting into practice

So you agree the rule doesn't need changing now? You were happy to disagree with the definition of promote only a page ago. Seeing as you seem to accept what it means these threads clearly allow for discussion (or to "promote" discussion by not stating you cannot or should not discuss). If the threads said not to discuss and actively went out of their way by telling members not to discuss it would fall foul of the rule. As it doesn't and it supports discussion as per the definition of promote, they are therefore within the rule.

[quote=FlyingJesusProb unless it was wet or something.[/quote]
Still not stopping you from walking on the grass. It's like not touching a thread because it is of no interest to you.

This is where it all falls apart. If literally just being a space where discussion can happen is promotion of discussion, even threads like that would be fine because it's still entirely possible to have discussions in them. In fact just because of peoples' contrary nature I bet they'd spark more discussion than most threads currently do so if we use your interpretation of threads that "promote active discussion" no threads could possible be in contravention of it unless they start off locked

Since that is what "promote" and "promotion" can and does mean then yes, provided there is a possibility of discussion and nothing saying not to then it is promotion. As I have stated - threads against this part of the rule are ones that go out of their way to not want discussion or specifically state it only wants one word or "pointless" threads, or lack any "serious" discussion which seems to be the impression I'm getting after reading the spam forum threads. Threads like "WELLL???" with no quality other than that as the thread title and no post that can easily allow you to understand what the point of the thread is may be against the rule (if the thread doesn't appear to evolve or later on the OP makes it obvious it hasn't got a point). Moderators can leave it for members to argue what the OP means: "I am well thank you", WELL??? what? " etc. If the OP says "Just bored and making a thread" then the thread is clearly in violation of the rule and if I recall correctly moderators just move this sort of thread into spam to die or to allow to carry on as a random discussion thread with no actual topic. It's a "do as you please" thread, rather than a "do as long as it has a topic" thread. This thread looks like one example where it was posted somewhere else and as it served no purpose in the forum it was posted in, it was moved to spam.

[FlyingJesus]

Oh I see, well depends on the content. By face value it would go in spam as the title doesn't give anything away and moderators tend to dislike threads which do not give the topic in the thread title.

What people tend to dislike has no influence on the Anything in "Discuss Anything"

No it isn't, if it were it would be specifically asking for short answers e.g. "just your Habbo name". There's nothing in the thread to suggest it only wants Habbo names. Plus as the rule reiterates forum department discretion moderators can interpret the rule to allow this sort of thread as it is being used correctly and relevant in that forum.

But some (such as the WWE thread) do specifically ask for a yes/no since the literal wording in it is just "are you going to watch it?". The whole thing about the potential for more works further than the words on the screen obviously and once again going by your logic nothing at all could go against the "promotion" of discussion since even asking for one word answers could prompt a reply of "but why? What reason do you have for only wanting short answers?" which is again more discussion than many current threads have, and with your interpretation of the wording would be absolutely fine.

But I disagree and obviously will as those threads are not against the rules. But threads can fall foul of the rule hence why that bit exists, I've posted examples already. If a thread literally asks for no discussion or is asking for just one word answers then the rule is being violated.

Examples which don't hold up to scrutiny if your reasoning is stuck to properly

So you agree the rule doesn't need changing now? You were happy to disagree with the definition of promote only a page ago. Seeing as you seem to accept what it means these threads clearly allow for discussion (or to "promote" discussion by not stating you cannot or should not discuss). If the threads said not to discuss and actively went out of their way by telling members not to discuss it would fall foul of the rule. As it doesn't and it supports discussion as per the definition of promote, they are therefore within the rule.

No because if we accept your interpretation of the definitions then nothing at all can break the rules since even attempting to can spark a conversation, and according to your own words simply allowing for it (which is the case unless a thread is closed as soon as it's made) is some sort of promotion of active discussion, and that renders the rule unnecessary.

Since that is what "promote" and "promotion" can and does mean then yes, provided there is a possibility of discussion and nothing saying not to then it is promotion. As I have stated - threads against this part of the rule are ones that go out of their way to not want discussion or specifically state it only wants one word or "pointless" threads, or lack any "serious" discussion which seems to be the impression I'm getting after reading the spam forum threads. Threads like "WELLL???" with no quality other than that as the thread title and no post that can easily allow you to understand what the point of the thread is may be against the rule (if the thread doesn't appear to evolve or later on the OP makes it obvious it hasn't got a point). Moderators can leave it for members to argue what the OP means: "I am well thank you", WELL??? what? " etc. If the OP says "Just bored and making a thread" then the thread is clearly in violation of the rule and if I recall correctly moderators just move this sort of thread into spam to die or to allow to carry on as a random discussion thread with no actual topic. It's a "do as you please" thread, rather than a "do as long as it has a topic" thread. This thread looks like one example where it was posted somewhere else and as it served no purpose in the forum it was posted in, it was moved to spam.

Again if we fully accept your idea of potential = promotion then in a community that isn't restricted by the will of a thread creator all threads that are made and not immediately closed "promote" discussion simply by existing. There is no thread at all that can forcefully restrict conversation without intervention, and such intervention wouldn't be necessary if the current rules were enforced to the letter. There is literally no way at all to have an open thread that cannot potentially have a conversation held in it

[Sian]

ok, so, as much as this is going in a circle and it's even between who likes these threads and who hates them. What if I float around the idea of those who do abuse it, to get thread bans for a day or so?

Opinions?
@Phil;

[GommeInc]

What people tend to dislike has no influence on the Anything in "Discuss Anything"

Moderators, not people If moderators think a thread is against the rule (does not support, allow etc) they can exert their discretion.

But some (such as the WWE thread) do specifically ask for a yes/no since the literal wording in it is just "are you going to watch it?". The whole thing about the potential for more works further than the words on the screen obviously and once again going by your logic nothing at all could go against the "promotion" of discussion since even asking for one word answers could prompt a reply of "but why? What reason do you have for only wanting short answers?" which is again more discussion than many current threads have, and with your interpretation of the wording would be absolutely fine.

It isn't asking "just", you can't assume something that isn't there or even hinted, especially when the opening post says contrary to this "Any watching it? I'm gonna attempt" - furthermore you're focusing on the smaller picture and not the bigger picture. The thread is on-topic in that forum, is about a specific event and is open to discussion therefore it promotes it (support, encourages etc). The rule is there to stop threads which ask "just" or "only", and none of these threads are doing that. If a thread is actively wanting to discourage discussion it is against the rule. It's very specific and done so on purpose for the very reason that all threads are capable of discussion unless the creator of the thread goes out of their way to ask for no discussion.

Examples which don't hold up to scrutiny if your reasoning is stuck to properly

What's not to understand? If a thread clearly discourages discussion because the creator says so or makes it clear, it is against the rule. It's what the rule says. Threads which "only allow for ... and do not promote". Threads which are against the rule disallow for ... and discourage active discussion. It rarely happens, but if it does the rule stops it and allows the moderators to act. This is coupled with earlier on in the rule where it states that t is not allowed to post meaningless threads.

No because if we accept your interpretation of the definitions then nothing at all can break the rules since even attempting to can spark a conversation, and according to your own words simply allowing for it (which is the case unless a thread is closed as soon as it's made) is some sort of promotion of active discussion, and that renders the rule unnecessary.

Again you've not understood the rule (it's not my interpretation as it's black and white in the rules). Threads which disallow and discourage discussion are meaningless. You can post "why can't we discuss?" but the intentions of the thread are clear from the beginning. This can be coupled with other areas of the rule such as posting threads which are random.

Again if we fully accept your idea of potential = promotion then in a community that isn't restricted by the will of a thread creator all threads that are made and not immediately closed "promote" discussion simply by existing. There is no thread at all that can forcefully restrict conversation without intervention, and such intervention wouldn't be necessary if the current rules were enforced to the letter. There is literally no way at all to have an open thread that cannot potentially have a conversation held in it

Not entirely, you get other areas of the rule which assist this specific bit of the rule. A thread which discourages discussion from the start is in violation of the rule, and posts thereafter become meaningless if the thread from the very start was meaningless. A thread that has been created by a member who doesn't care about it and just does it for laughs has made a meaningless and random thread with no topic, and if they say "I don't care what you think" at the beginning or afterwards it clearly discourages active discussion conversation - you get a contradiction in terms where people discuss something that lacks an actual topic and is "pointless" (random, off-topic etc) - which usually results in the thread being moved to Spam. The last time this area of the rule was enforced a lot was when that member who made one or two accounts and was trying to be funny by posting threads in loads of forums without really stating a topic and ended up just offending people. Can't remember the names although pleb comes to mind (although that's probably how I described the member when the threads first appeared ). Moderators closed the threads or moved them to Spam as the forums they were in (Current Affairs was one) did not relate to the subject area of the forum.

ok, so, as much as this is going in a circle and it's even between who likes these threads and who hates them. What if I float around the idea of those who do abuse it, to get thread bans for a day or so?

Opinions?
@Phil;

It's been suggested Problem is the threads aren't abused so it's unlikely it will ever be used. Technically it's in the rules and T&Cs that moderators/the forum department can deem posts/threads pointless so they could act on that.

[FlyingJesus]

You keep switching between believing that the potential for discussion is promotion and believing that specific wording matters - if it's one it can't be the other. Even literally saying "do not discuss anything at all in this thread" promotes discussion under your interpretation of the word and therefore won't break that part of the rule even if it tries to in which case of course such a clause cannot be brought into effect ever and should be removed

[mrwoooooooo]

get a life pls guiz