Get rid of post your... junk threads

[GommeInc]

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

Why can't it be both? Nothing is black and white, context is key and every situation is different. Every thread has potential, but not every thread wants a discussion. I was quite clear... It can be brought into effect and I posted examples - threads which clearly do not promote active discussion by specifically stating they do not want it or making it obvious there is no topic for discussion. The thread "just a note" is a good example. It's just someone making a note... of a name.

[FlyingJesus]

It can't be both because either threads promote discussion simply by existing or they don't and "just a note" doesn't say "don't reply to this" in the same way that none of the ones I posted do, but you said those still promote discussion even when they literally asked for yes or no answers. In this case it absolutely is black or white because you're making a statement of supposed fact

[GommeInc]

It can't be both because either threads promote discussion simply by existing or they don't and "just a note" doesn't say "don't reply to this" in the same way that none of the ones I posted do, but you said those still promote discussion even when they literally asked for yes or no answers. In this case it absolutely is black or white because you're making a statement of supposed fact

Yes and if they don't promote discussion they're against the rule. Unless a thread actively goes out of its way to not want a discussion e.g. a note on someone's name, it is within the rule.. Again, you're failing to read the rule. A thread that actively discourages discussion is against the rules. If all else fails read the rule in the opposite and you have what's not wanted. Also it's clear that just a note isn't wanting a discussion seeing as the OP says "just a note". Just is the very important word here

Also, they do not ask for one word answers - you keep refusing to post where they say "only" or "just". I don't think literally means what you think it means in this context. Wrestlemania did not ask "just say yes or no", it asked are you watching it - nothing indicating "just" in any part of the thread. Thus, the thread promotes discussion (since we established that just because something isn't saying we can or can't does not mean we can't). Also the fact its in its relevant forum and is relevant to forum members. A note about someone's name isn't exactly useful to members. In fact, it's meaningless under the rule.

Threads do have potential, but the rule is clearly concerned not with just potential but threads that do not promote discussion which is how it is working at the moment. Just a note is an example of this, where the thread is "just" a note of someone's name. I have no idea where that thread was posted but none of the forums seem relevant other than for Habbo In General, and as the creator of it doesn't seem to want to discuss anything and the posts in reply to it would only be meaningless or off-topic, it's kind of obvious why it's in Spam

[FlyingJesus]

Unless a thread actively goes out of its way to not want a discussion e.g. a note on someone's name, it is within the rule.. Again, you're failing to read the rule. A thread that actively discourages discussion is against the rules. If all else fails read the rule in the opposite and you have what's not wanted.

What no now you're telling me that what isn't written in the rules is what the rule is about. There's no part of it that says "asking people not to discuss things is against the rules", it just says "threads that do not promote active discussion"; and by your interpretation of the definition all threads do regardless of what they actually ask for

but the rule is clearly concerned not with just potential but threads that do not promote discussion

Which has been my point all along, and again your claims are that potential is promotion

[GommeInc]

What no now you're telling me that what isn't written in the rules is what the rule is about. There's no part of it that says "asking people not to discuss things is against the rules", it just says "threads that do not promote active discussion"; and by your interpretation of the definition all threads do regardless of what they actually ask for

Read it again... The rule is against threads that specifically do not want discussion or do not allow it. It's why it wants threads which promote it - therefore, threads which do not allow it (or "promote" it) are against the rules. You're diverging from the point again... Also, you seem to think potential is important - the rule isn't concerned with just potential, but threads which have a topic and are not against discussion - seeing as the remainder of the rule suggests that moderators are looking for abuse and "pointless" replies. Potential is part of a much bigger picture. The bigger picture takes into account "abuse", what's defined as "pointless" (off-topic, meaningless, random), relevance and repetition. You're doing what you did the Sexual Offences legislation by not reading the rule in its entirety by picking on individual provisions, when all individual provisions shape the rule that's broken. A thread needs to be "meaningful" (i.e. not be random), have a topic and not only allow for short replies and must not prevent discussion (to use the opposite of promote). Since threads rarely do this it's rarely used, but in case members do e.g. "just a note", the rule can be used. It seems to just focus on main board forums, and moves them to Spam because they have potential, but as they lack relevance/meaning they're unwanted in the forum they were originally posted in as the threads will be off-topic anyway (since just a note lacks an actual topic and seems to be for the poster's benefit rather than the benefit of the members - why he/she couldn't write it down or save it on their computer is beyond me).

Which has been my point all along, and again your claims are that potential is promotion

Then why are we arguing if the rule is fine as it is? All this because of the word promote.

[FlyingJesus]

Read it again... The rule is against threads that specifically do not want discussion or do not allow it. It's why it wants threads which promote it - therefore, threads which do not allow it (or "promote" it) are against the rules. You're diverging from the point again...

Not diverging from the point, that's been the point all along

Also, you seem to think potential is important - the rule isn't concerned with just potential, but threads which have a topic and are not against discussion - seeing as the remainder of the rule suggests that moderators are looking for abuse and "pointless" replies. Potential is part of a much bigger picture. The bigger picture takes into account "abuse", what's defined as "pointless" (off-topic, meaningless, random), relevance and repetition.

You're the one who brought potential into the discussion by claiming that the threads in question can allow for discussion and therefore by your logic promote it. You're literally giving me my own points here

You're doing what you did the Sexual Offences legislation by not reading the rule in its entirety by picking on individual provisions, when all individual provisions shape the rule that's broken. A thread needs to be "meaningful" (i.e. not be random), have a topic and not only allow for short replies and must not prevent discussion (to use the opposite of promote). Since threads rarely do this it's rarely used, but in case members do e.g. "just a note", the rule can be used. It seems to just focus on main board forums, and moves them to Spam because they have potential, but as they lack relevance/meaning they're unwanted in the forum they were originally posted in as the threads will be off-topic anyway (since just a note lacks an actual topic and seems to be for the poster's benefit rather than the benefit of the members - why he/she couldn't write it down or save it on their computer is beyond me).

You seem to be missing the point of what I'm saying - if (as you've postulated time and time again) a thread "promotes" discussion simply by existing then it does so no matter what the content, and therefore the part about not promoting discussion has no place in the rules since it's impossible to break. "Just a note" has a topic (that someone's real name needs to be remembered for some reason), isn't just a jumble of letters, and by your own ruling allows perfectly for long replies and discussion

Then why are we arguing if the rule is fine as it is? All this because of the word promote.

Because you're trying to apply the rules differently to different threads despite them being of the exact same value

[GommeInc]

You're the one who brought potential into the discussion by claiming that the threads in question can allow for discussion and therefore by your logic promote it. You're literally giving me my own points here

Again you're being anal over a small point when I clearly said promote means to support. All threads have potential, but not all threads want a discussion. Not all threads support discussion. Support and potential are not the same thing. Anyone can potentially steal, but the law does not support it. It's threads which do not want a discussion which are against the rules (just a note) as they do not allow for any meaningful discussion . You're again focusing on one small part of the rule and not reading it as a whole. When you read a rule as a whole you get given the context - it's quite obvious seeing as the rule uses meaningless/random/off-topic to describe what is "pointless". This is again diverging from the original point of what promote means. Since it means to support or encourage, and as these threads do support discussion, then clearly the rule is fine as it is. Threads which are random, meaningless and go out of their way to discourage discussion are against the rule - they do not support discussion. They can potentially have discussion, but since those discussions would be meaningless, random and possibly off-topic there is no point allowing them and they may as well be moved to Spam (which they are). This is coupled with the same clause which says "forum department has discretion", which gives moderators the power to determine what is and isn't pointless.

You seem to be missing the point of what I'm saying - if (as you've postulated time and time again) a thread "promotes" discussion simply by existing then it does so no matter what the content, and therefore the part about not promoting discussion has no place in the rules since it's impossible to break. "Just a note" has a topic (that someone's real name needs to be remembered for some reason), isn't just a jumble of letters, and by your own ruling allows perfectly for long replies and discussion

But it is possible to break - a thread which does not want discussion is against the rules. Again, you're not reading the rule as a whole. A thread that does not want a discussion is meaningless. The bit asking for threads to promote discussion supports the bit in the rule that asks for threads to be meaningful and not random. A thread that does not want discussion has potential, but does not want it from the start, so the thread is meaningless as per the rule from the beginning - "just a note" is an example. Also promote does not mean potential - promote means support or encourage. Potential can be hindered or disallowed e.g. theft. Without it, threads like "WHAT????" would not be against the rules and moderators could not enforce their discretion. I keep giving you examples of threads which have fallen foul of the rule e.g. "just a note". A thread may have potential for discussion, but threads which are meaningless and off-topic from the beginning are only going to harvest "off-topic, meaningless and random" posts.

Because you're trying to apply the rules differently to different threads despite them being of the exact same value

Again I refer to you seeing things in black and white. Different threads have different values. A thread asking "what did you last say" require minimal effort compared to "what are you listening to". Rules can be applied differently, it's the magic of interpretation. Without it you get a systematic, robotic way of dealing with forums which should never exist - ever. The fact the T&Cs support discretion rather than this horrible idea of strict, systematic application of rules should show you the forum is there to be enjoyed. Which goes back to my original point that too much is being made of these threads when clearly members enjoy using them and if it makes them active then they deserve those post counts, since it shows forum activity. Coupled with them not being abused makes it all the more "pointless" to try and take action over them.

[The Don]

Your argument has lost all meaning now. The threads are not being abused, they have been allowed for years which according to precedent, and moderator discretion, means they are not breaking the rules. Each thread is dealt with on an individual basis which is why the 'Post your thread' thread was moved to spam and not the other larger ones. @Phil; @xxMATTGxx; @Wispur; can you please just put this thread to rest now, it shouldn't take 45 pages and over 400 posts to reach a decision. Look at the daily post count in those threads and you will see that they are not being abused, and that this whole issue has been blown way out of proportion.

We've also moved these threads before and they were promptly moved back into place. Why on earth are we discussing such a trivial issue all over again?

[Kardan]

Your argument has lost all meaning now. The threads are not being abused, they have been allowed for years which according to precedent, and moderator discretion, means they are not breaking the rules. Each thread is dealt with on an individual basis which is why the 'Post your thread' thread was moved to spam and not the other larger ones. @Phil; @xxMATTGxx; @Wispur; can you please just put this thread to rest now, it shouldn't take 45 pages and over 400 posts to reach a decision. Look at the daily post count in those threads and you will see that they are not being abused, and that this whole issue has been blown way out of proportion.

We've also moved these threads before and they were promptly moved back into place. Why on earth are we discussing such a trivial issue all over again?

I don't want this thread closing, I find it amusing that they're going around in circles, and I wonder who is going to give up first

[FlyingJesus]

Threads which are random, meaningless and go out of their way to discourage discussion are against the rule - they do not support discussion. They can potentially have discussion, but since those discussions would be meaningless, random and possibly off-topic there is no point allowing them and they may as well be moved to Spam (which they are).

Why would a discussion about names be meaningless, random, or off-topic? And if it is somehow then it falls foul of those clauses, not the one about promoting active discussion, as you were previously claiming that any place that can be posted in can count as support/promotion of discussion even if it doesn't call for it. The fact that you've now changed your mind doesn't support your claims

But it is possible to break - a thread which does not want discussion is against the rules.

No it isn't, a thread which does not promote it is. Your interpretation of promote stated that what the thread starter wants has nothing to do with it

Again, you're not reading the rule as a whole. A thread that does not want a discussion is meaningless. The bit asking for threads to promote discussion supports the bit in the rule that asks for threads to be meaningful and not random.

I didn't mention the rule as a whole because we are discussing one part of it, but if you want to bring up the entirety you may want to note that it asks for posts to be meaningful and not random, not threads. Threads have to "promote active discussion", and the definition you've used for that allows for quite literally anything because a discussion can arise out of anything. The only way for this to ever not be the case is if it breaks one of the other parts of the rule, which still renders the "promote active discussion" part totally unnecessary.

Also promote does not mean potential - promote means support or encourage.

Support is "to carrybear all or part of the weight of; hold up" and is further defined as: "to be capable of bearing; withstand"

Cool

Again I refer to you seeing things in black and white. Different threads have different values. A thread asking "what did you last say" require minimal effort compared to "what are you listening to".

Those are pretty terrible examples since they both only require a simple memory check. In fact, the latter is even easier since it's about current happenings

Rules can be applied differently, it's the magic of interpretation. Without it you get a systematic, robotic way of dealing with forums which should never exist - ever. The fact the T&Cs support discretion rather than this horrible idea of strict, systematic application of rules should show you the forum is there to be enjoyed.

You're right rules should never be clear and the best way to enjoy oneself is to never know whether you can do something or not just in case e5 doesn't like it

- - - Updated - - -

Each thread is dealt with on an individual basis which is why the 'Post your thread' thread was moved to spam and not the other larger ones.

Which anyone with a brain will see is utterly stupid. Punishing people for making threads that are at least as valid if not more so than existing ones makes no sense whatsoever

And yeah keep it open, it's funny to see Ryan change his mind when parts of his arguments don't conclude the way he wants them to