Why is there...

[lawrawrrr]

Another example of somebody finding reasons to dismiss people's votes based on personal assumptions.

Can I ask how you reached this conclusion and even if true, why is it any of your business as to why people voted a certain way. A question was asked of the forum users, the users considered all the arguments (and personal preferences as well) and then made individual choices.

That is usually how a poll works.

I can, by the fact that people who enjoy posting in these threads (not me, probably not you either) are therefore more likely to stay on the forum for a longer period of time and thus post more. Indeed this is especially true of younger forum members (whom are rarer these days) as I know from my own experience i'd often try and reach certain milestones in the post count.

Because the poll was purely to ask if these threads should have their own sub forum - it gave the impression that post count would be lost, which is what (the people I talked to anyway) were concerned about. If it's none of my business then why the hell is it any of yours? As a moderator I'm expected to interact with the community to find out what's best in the forum for them. The poll didn't give the full question, which was wrong. I think the majority of people in that thread that voted 'no' to the sub-forum were either worried about losing their current post count, or worried about losing future post count as they'd no longer be able to abuse it.

And by the way, that's not a way they promote discussion, that's a way to promote members using those threads. Which isn't discussion.

[Grig]

Quality always overrides quantity.

The amount of times I see poorly worded responses or people posting crap that barely contributes to the discussion on hand is uncanny. I personally have a lower post count than some, but I like to respond thoroughly and not say "I love it" on every topic created.

Those threads contributed to the "I love it" kind of responses, which is why they very sensibly got moved to a new sub-forum. I base reputation of a person based on the quality of their posts, not when they sit there all day making pointless contributions. It doesn't take away from the fun or anything. Sure, some may be less inclined to post; but those who truly use the forum will continue nonetheless.

[GommeInc]

Things that have been claimed:
*The majority of people who voted against nerfing the threads had over 100 posts in those threads

And these people are? To make a claim you must provide actual evidence rather than make a half-baked claim. If the people who voted for keeping the threads have large post counts then who are they? The Members List seems to suggest that those with large post counts are active throughout the forum - Recursion, you, me, Undertaker, to name a few. The people who have over 100 posts in those threads have no worth in the forum at all. Also, are you seriously basing your claims on 100 posts? Those 100 posts are worthless in the grand scheme of the post count system... Add one zero and you're half way to an actual problem.

What value people put on posts is up to them entirely, but whatever your stance on that might be "posts don't even matter!!!!" is not a valid argument for suggesting that pointless threads require a post count. As for ignoring the majority, yes in a place that isn't a democracy (ie: right here) that is entirely ok to do, especially if the majority opinion is unfounded and overridden by actual reasoning.
Nothing has been removed except for the post count in a few threads - which you claim to not care about. With that logic, I can't actually see what your point is.

The Post System turns the value of posts from something subjective e.g. what people think is the value, to what is the actual value e.g. objective. Posts counts are useless and there is a clear lack of reasoning from the 2 members who wanted change versus the few providing actual evidence. What are the arguments for putting the effort into changing the system when there are no arguments for removing post count? To remove post count suggests that posts are worth something... when we've established they are worthless, especially for "100" posts (a clearly laughable and ridiculous argument).

My point is that it's laughable that change for the sake of change is happening again. Why does Habbox Forum again feel the need to make mediocre changes because two members have nothing better to do than moan about valueless posts? Since when were forums strictly about making all posts having a strict point? If you don't like those threads, don't use them - they were not causing any problems (as 100 posts is a small, pathetic amount of posts).

Also, I am yet to see these threads actually spammed in. One argument from matt was that they have the potential to be abused and spammed. Potential is the keyword - it's purely speculative.

Quality always overrides quantity.

The amount of times I see poorly worded responses or people posting crap that barely contributes to the discussion on hand is uncanny. I personally have a lower post count than some, but I like to respond thoroughly and not say "I love it" on every topic created.

Those threads contributed to the "I love it" kind of responses, which is why they very sensibly got moved to a new sub-forum. I base reputation of a person based on the quality of their posts, not when they sit there all day making pointless contributions. It doesn't take away from the fun or anything. Sure, some may be less inclined to post; but those who truly use the forum will continue nonetheless.

So imposing your views makes it better? Nothing is stopping you from making useful, quality posts. It seems the argument people are forming is that they spend too much time caring about posts, becoming somewhat dull and boring in their approach to using a forum. Besides, these "useless" posts will continue to be made, they just don't contribute to what has been established as the useless post system. When they allowed for posts counts, they were already hidden away and were not being abused, as FlyingJesus has already provided evidence that some people have only made over 100 posts, which really isn't that much and nothing to care about.

Also, what makes a useless post? Do people enter a large, topical thread and literally read every posts? Who here has taken the time to read the 60 posts in this thread for instance? Anyone?

[FlyingJesus]

And these people are? To make a claim you must provide actual evidence rather than make a half-baked claim. If the people who voted for keeping the threads have large post counts then who are they? The Members List seems to suggest that those with large post counts are active throughout the forum - Recursion, you, me, Undertaker, to name a few. The people who have over 100 posts in those threads have no worth in the forum at all. Also, are you seriously basing your claims on 100 posts? Those 100 posts are worthless in the grand scheme of the post count system... Add one zero and you're half way to an actual problem.

Why are you insisting on not reading my posts as I've actually written them? The members list has nothing to do with this as no-one has ever suggested that the people who wanted the threads to stay where they were had large post counts. Read the actual words that I'm saying: the majority of people who voted against the change had a large number of posts IN THOSE THREADS. That's what I've been saying all along, I hope you noticed the important bit this time around. As a clue, look for the big red lettering. As for evidence and names, in the original poll thread I posted the list along with what threads I've checked to find the numbers - using the "who has posted in this thread" figures, not the members list because (say it with me now!) my argument is not at all concerned with total post count.

The Post System turns the value of posts from something subjective e.g. what people think is the value, to what is the actual value e.g. objective. Posts counts are useless and there is a clear lack of reasoning from the 2 members who wanted change versus the few providing actual evidence. What are the arguments for putting the effort into changing the system when there are no arguments for removing post count? To remove post count suggests that posts are worth something... when we've established they are worthless, especially for "100" posts (a clearly laughable and ridiculous argument).

Once again, that is your opinion on the value of posts, and does not equal fact. I appreciate the fact that you personally don't care about post count, but if everyone agreed with that then this wouldn't be an issue, so the very fact that it came up at all proves that to some at least it is of some importance, however little. As for "2 members who wanted change", I suggest looking at the extremely close poll that you keep praising. If opinions don't count unless they're vocalised and reasoned continually then those for the change actually far outnumber those voiceless people who wanted to block it without saying anything whatsoever about their opinion. You're attempting to tell people that only a handful cared about changing things around, but even fewer (read: you and Dan) are being obstinate about going back on the decision.

My point is that it's laughable that change for the sake of change is happening again. Why does Habbox Forum again feel the need to make mediocre changes because two members have nothing better to do than moan about valueless posts? Since when were forums strictly about making all posts having a strict point? If you don't like those threads, don't use them - they were not causing any problems (as 100 posts is a small, pathetic amount of posts).

It wasn't change for the change of change, it was change for the sake of allowing people to continue posting as they wished without implicitly promoting rule-breaking. You keep telling us that 100 posts means nothing, but this was an at least situation not capped at 100 exactly, and even so the totals add up to an obscene amount of totally pointless posts that don't add anything to discussion and in many cases actively stifle it. Previously the rule was that these threads were not to be allowed at all outside of spam, and the change gave these threads a place to thrive where they might otherwise be drowned out, at the expense of no-one.

Also, I am yet to see these threads actually spammed in. One argument from matt was that they have the potential to be abused and spammed. Potential is the keyword - it's purely speculative.

They aren't spammed in because they weren't moved to Spam as was at one point suggested - rather they were given their own area with defined rules that keep the threads exactly as they were supposed to flow without the risk of derailing. I don't know if you're totally incapable of getting your head around the idea of "pointless posts", but the forum definition is that posts which do not contribute to active discussion are deemed pointless. Simple flat statement answers fit this definition, which is what the threads in question are entirely comprised of, and so these threads were/are essentially pointless through and through. Giving them an area in which to operate meant that anyone who did enjoy these threads could continue to do so rather than dumping them in Spam to die.

Do people enter a large, topical thread and literally read every posts?

Yes

[GommeInc]

Why are you insisting on not reading my posts as I've actually written them? The members list has nothing to do with this as no-one has ever suggested that the people who wanted the threads to stay where they were had large post counts. Read the actual words that I'm saying: the majority of people who voted against the change had a large number of posts IN THOSE THREADS. That's what I've been saying all along, I hope you noticed the important bit this time around. As a clue, look for the big red lettering. As for evidence and names, in the original poll thread I posted the list along with what threads I've checked to find the numbers - using the "who has posted in this thread" figures, not the members list because (say it with me now!) my argument is not at all concerned with total post count.

Why are you insisting on not reading mine? I don't care about the people who post in those threads and neither should you. As I said: The people who have over 100 posts in those threads have no worth in the forum at all. The people who we should be caring about are those actually in the Members List as actually having high post count but no evidence of getting those high post counts from using those threads. I was pointing out how incredibly lame your argument was, how narrow-minded it is to only care about those threads rather than looking at the bigger picture :rolleyes:

Once again, that is your opinion on the value of posts, and does not equal fact. I appreciate the fact that you personally don't care about post count, but if everyone agreed with that then this wouldn't be an issue, so the very fact that it came up at all proves that to some at least it is of some importance, however little. As for "2 members who wanted change", I suggest looking at the extremely close poll that you keep praising. If opinions don't count unless they're vocalised and reasoned continually then those for the change actually far outnumber those voiceless people who wanted to block it without saying anything whatsoever about their opinion. You're attempting to tell people that only a handful cared about changing things around, but even fewer (read: you and Dan) are being obstinate about going back on the decision.

Look at the Rank System. it's not opinion, it is FACT. Posts are useless, you need loads to climb the ranking system. It's still shocking you think 100 posts is a lot and spam, when 100 posts gets you no where in the post system. I strongly suggest you look at the requirements in the rank system, rather than complaining about threads which really do not abuse the system. You're still yet to answer where this idea that posts mean a lot comes from, but I suspect you realise this and that's why you disregard factual information and continue your needless attack for pointless change on threads which really aren't as outrageous as you'd think.

It wasn't change for the change of change, it was change for the sake of allowing people to continue posting as they wished without implicitly promoting rule-breaking. You keep telling us that 100 posts means nothing, but this was an at least situation not capped at 100 exactly, and even so the totals add up to an obscene amount of totally pointless posts that don't add anything to discussion and in many cases actively stifle it. Previously the rule was that these threads were not to be allowed at all outside of spam, and the change gave these threads a place to thrive where they might otherwise be drowned out, at the expense of no-one.

What rule is this? Pointless posting? Hardly damaging. 100 posts means nothing, add a zero to the end and there should be concern, yet there's no proof that people are quite literally spamming those threads. It all seems to be speculation and very little observation.

As I said, I think it's laughable that people really care that much about post counts without really diving into any research. Just screaming "pointless" without ever really thinking. When I did some calculations, I totalled an average of 935 posts per person in the "What are you listening to?" thread. This in itself isn't all that alarming when put next to the Rank System. It gets even worse when that total could be considerably less when you calculate the age of the thread and that the number was based on the number of people who had viewed that thread - a function only recently installed so the number of average posts could be considerably less.

They aren't spammed in because they weren't moved to Spam as was at one point suggested - rather they were given their own area with defined rules that keep the threads exactly as they were supposed to flow without the risk of derailing.

So you admit they aren't and weren't a problem, that people weren't spamming in them? I honestly don't understand where your argument is going. So they aren't abused and that people aren't making as many posts in them... This change for the sake of change is getting all the worse.

I don't know if you're totally incapable of getting your head around the idea of "pointless posts", but the forum definition is that posts which do not contribute to active discussion are deemed pointless. Simple flat statement answers fit this definition, which is what the threads in question are entirely comprised of, and so these threads were/are essentially pointless through and through.

Ah yes, the forum definition. Say no more, this forum acts so differently that it becomes self-destructive. Also, most threads have posts which meet those requirements, again another flaw with the change - unless you like seeing mod warnings about pointless posting, even though they are on-topic? It's typical HxF - confusing the word "off-topic" and "pointless". Also, you've completely ruined your argument with this:

Giving them an area in which to operate meant that anyone who did enjoy these threads could continue to do so rather than dumping them in Spam to die.

If people were enjoying them, surely they have a point? :rolleyes:

EDIT: 158 posts in that thread since the 19th September... My God there's some spamming going on.

[FlyingJesus]

Why are you insisting on not reading mine? I don't care about the people who post in those threads and neither should you. As I said: The people who have over 100 posts in those threads have no worth in the forum at all. The people who we should be caring about are those actually in the Members List as actually having high post count but no evidence of getting those high post counts from using those threads. I was pointing out how incredibly lame your argument was, how narrow-minded it is to only care about those threads rather than looking at the bigger picture :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting that people having high post counts without using those threads means that those threads can't possibly be problematic in any way? Still not sure what the members list has to do with this argument, and I don't see how you can say "I don't care about the people who post in those threads and neither should you" when those threads are the only topic of conversation here.

Look at the Rank System. it's not opinion, it is FACT. Posts are useless, you need loads to climb the ranking system. It's still shocking you think 100 posts is a lot and spam, when 100 posts gets you no where in the post system. I strongly suggest you look at the requirements in the rank system, rather than complaining about threads which really do not abuse the system. You're still yet to answer where this idea that posts mean a lot comes from, but I suspect you realise this and that's why you disregard factual information and continue your needless attack for pointless change on threads which really aren't as outrageous as you'd think.

AGAIN, 100 posts minimum. For us, not a lot, for new members a huge deal. As for post count meaning something or not, I've already stated that it's down to the individual to work out whether or not they think there's an inherent value in big numbers - you think not because the ranking system has large requirements for progression, someone else might think they are important simply for something as intangible as bragging rights. Whatever anyone's reasoning, it's all opinion on that point.

What rule is this? Pointless posting? Hardly damaging. 100 posts means nothing, add a zero to the end and there should be concern, yet there's no proof that people are quite literally spamming those threads. It all seems to be speculation and very little observation.

Yes, the pointless posting rule. If it wasn't a rule then you'd have a point, but it is. I can name several rules on the forum and in life that I don't believe the breaking of would cause any real damage, but they're rules nonetheless. And again (I feel I have to repeat myself a lot to you because you keep arguing against things I'm not actually saying) I haven't said that the threads are spammed. This "speculation" you're on about doesn't exist.

As I said, I think it's laughable that people really care that much about post counts without really diving into any research. Just screaming "pointless" without ever really thinking. When I did some calculations, I totalled an average of 935 posts per person in the "What are you listening to?" thread. This in itself isn't all that alarming when put next to the Rank System. It gets even worse when that total could be considerably less when you calculate the age of the thread and that the number was based on the number of people who had viewed that thread - a function only recently installed so the number of average posts could be considerably less.

I think it's laughable that people really care that much about category changes without really having a valid opinion. Just screaming "pointless" without ever really thinking.

ONCE AGAIN (seriously) if you don't care about post counts then this should not be an issue for you. You keep going on about skipping over something you don't like, that's a lot easier to do with one subforum than a multitude of threads - by your own creed you should be overjoyed that not seeing things you don't want to see has been made easier for you.

So you admit they aren't and weren't a problem, that people weren't spamming in them? I honestly don't understand where your argument is going. So they aren't abused and that people aren't making as many posts in them... This change for the sake of change is getting all the worse.

*+*I NEVER SAID THEY WERE SPAMMED*+* In fact, as you later pick up, I said the opposite. Please, please, please, stop shooting at straw men. The threads broke the forum rules, that and nothing more is literally the entire point.

Ah yes, the forum definition. Say no more, this forum acts so differently that it becomes self-destructive. Also, most threads have posts which meet those requirements, again another flaw with the change - unless you like seeing mod warnings about pointless posting, even though they are on-topic? It's typical HxF - confusing the word "off-topic" and "pointless".

I don't necessarily agree with the way the forum defines certain things or with all of the rules that have been implemented, but that is not the point at all. The point is that those rules and definitions do exist, and ought to be followed.

Also, you've completely ruined your argument with this:

Giving them an area in which to operate meant that anyone who did enjoy these threads could continue to do so rather than dumping them in Spam to die.

If people were enjoying them, surely they have a point? :rolleyes:

In the same way that forum games threads have - or had - a point
In the same way that spam threads have a point
In the same way that posting porn might have a point

To repeat myself once more, I am talking about the forum rules definition of pointless, which those threads by their very nature come under because not only do users refrain from making any actual conversation in them, but due to the fact that people didn't want them derailed/spammed it is actually punishable to try. Quite obviously the forum rules are not perfect and are sometimes downright daft and I certainly would never suggest that they're the absolute Word, but if they're not changing (would hate to advocate for change!) then I'd rather see them actually upheld as they stand than ignored in various random instances just for moderation's ease, as that sort of thing leads to ---MAD----like systems where every post you make could get you banned or promoted on the whim of whoever sees it first.

[GommeInc]

Still not sure what the members list has to do with this argument, and I don't see how you can say "I don't care about the people who post in those threads and neither should you" when those threads are the only topic of conversation here.

Well seeing as your entire argument seems to rest on certain members having 100 posts at least in those threads and thinking that's bad when actually the people high up in the member list post rank are all old users, so these threads can't be problematic. Also, I've bolded the parts of the quote you don't seem to understand. The problem here are people spamming and making pointless posts, not the threads (as you talk about bragging, pointless posting etc which is what users do, threads lack personalities and ability to make posts).

AGAIN, 100 posts minimum. For us, not a lot, for new members a huge deal. As for post count meaning something or not, I've already stated that it's down to the individual to work out whether or not they think there's an inherent value in big numbers - you think not because the ranking system has large requirements for progression, someone else might think they are important simply for something as intangible as bragging rights. Whatever anyone's reasoning, it's all opinion on that point.

AGAIN, I refer you to the ranking system requirements. For new members, they will have to make over 1,000/2,000 posts to actually be a big deal :rolleyes: Also, no one brags about their posts... What are we, 6? Also, to brag assumes there's power. Again, I refer you to the rank system and the requirements to gain anything really to brag about... Also, I am yet to see someone brag about their posts. So that argument seems unjust.

Yes, the pointless posting rule. If it wasn't a rule then you'd have a point, but it is. I can name several rules on the forum and in life that I don't believe the breaking of would cause any real damage, but they're rules nonetheless. And again (I feel I have to repeat myself a lot to you because you keep arguing against things I'm not actually saying) I haven't said that the threads are spammed. This "speculation" you're on about doesn't exist.

Oh dear, you're on those people who demand rules be religiously followed, when these posts all have a point within their respective threads. Please don't tell me I have to explain why posting about the music you're listening to has a point in the "What are you Listening to?" thread, when it is in the correct forum about music...

ONCE AGAIN (seriously) if you don't care about post counts then this should not be an issue for you. You keep going on about skipping over something you don't like, that's a lot easier to do with one subforum than a multitude of threads - by your own creed you should be overjoyed that not seeing things you don't want to see has been made easier for you.

It's the principle of changing things for the sake of change, without any real discussion. There's no benefits of moving the threads at all, it literally was for the sake of change. Also, I am one of those things called a human, which can skim over something uninteresting. I'm slightly concerned about your mental well-being if these threads seem to offend you.

*+*I NEVER SAID THEY WERE SPAMMED*+* In fact, as you later pick up, I said the opposite. Please, please, please, stop shooting at straw men. The threads broke the forum rules, that and nothing more is literally the entire point.

Depends if you follow tedious details. Technically they do not break forum rules, as they are not pointless. Seeing as the posts are made in threads which are in the correct forums, they actually do serve a point: "To post what you're listening to". I'm shocked you over-look this. Just because you over-value your opinions with blind rage over what are harmless posts in harmless threads. I'll give you a test. What is the point of the "Post your vehicle thread"? And you say the majority who said NO lacked reason, when the minority seem to lack reason too.

I don't necessarily agree with the way the forum defines certain things or with all of the rules that have been implemented, but that is not the point at all. The point is that those rules and definitions do exist, and ought to be followed.

Even when they're harmless? People who think like that should never own forums, and they will only be dull and bureaucratic - something Habbox should steer well clear of and used to until this poorly reasoned decision.

In the same way that forum games threads have - or had - a point
In the same way that spam threads have a point
In the same way that posting porn might have a point

To repeat myself once more, I am talking about the forum rules definition of pointless, which those threads by their very nature come under because not only do users refrain from making any actual conversation in them, but due to the fact that people didn't want them derailed/spammed it is actually punishable to try. Quite obviously the forum rules are not perfect and are sometimes downright daft and I certainly would never suggest that they're the absolute Word, but if they're not changing (would hate to advocate for change!) then I'd rather see them actually upheld as they stand than ignored in various random instances just for moderation's ease, as that sort of thing leads to ---MAD----like systems where every post you make could get you banned or promoted on the whim of whoever sees it first.

I've just looked at the rule and if you're so hell-bent on following definitions... You are aware most of these threads have posts with more than 2 word posts?

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

Going to this thread: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=760172

Most posts have 5 words, so therefore do not break the rule/definition of pointless posts. So yeah, you're needless following of the rules for the sake of strictness has collapsed. You could say "Ah, but it also says and do not promote active discussion". However, you can only use that excuse if the post fulfills the "one or two words" criteria, because it clearly says "AND" not "OR". So your argument on technicalities is incredibly flawed.

And you said the majority lacked reason. I dread to think what the minority lack then

[FlyingJesus]

Well seeing as your entire argument seems to rest on certain members having 100 posts at least in those threads and thinking that's bad when actually the people high up in the member list post rank are all old users, so these threads can't be problematic. Also, I've bolded the parts of the quote you don't seem to understand. The problem here are people spamming and making pointless posts, not the threads (as you talk about bragging, pointless posting etc which is what users do, threads lack personalities and ability to make posts).

Nope, the point is STILL that the threads were pointless by forum rule definition. The forum rules may be at fault in the way they're written, but that's certainly not my doing and I'm not to be held accountable for the mess they're in

AGAIN, I refer you to the ranking system requirements. For new members, they will have to make over 1,000/2,000 posts to actually be a big deal :rolleyes: Also, no one brags about their posts... What are we, 6? Also, to brag assumes there's power. Again, I refer you to the rank system and the requirements to gain anything really to brag about... Also, I am yet to see someone brag about their posts. So that argument seems unjust.

You're still just saying "I don't think post count matters, so it doesn't". If tangible rewards were all that anyone cared about why would people make threads about reaching particular milestones that yield no such reward?

Oh dear, you're on those people who demand rules be religiously followed, when these posts all have a point within their respective threads. Please don't tell me I have to explain why posting about the music you're listening to has a point in the "What are you Listening to?" thread, when it is in the correct forum about music...

I'm one of those people who expect that rules be followed for all instances or are repealed, because otherwise they are worthless. ONCE MORE, I'm talking about the forum definition of pointless, not the real-world definition or my personal definition.

It's the principle of changing things for the sake of change, without any real discussion. There's no benefits of moving the threads at all, it literally was for the sake of change. Also, I am one of those things called a human, which can skim over something uninteresting. I'm slightly concerned about your mental well-being if these threads seem to offend you.

There was a lot of discussion, and reasons were given and have continued to be given. You not seeing it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I have never said that the threads offended me but congrats on putting more words into my mouth that I haven't said - I merely noted that since you advocate for skipping past unwanted content, this change should delight you as it's made doing so much easier.

Depends if you follow tedious details. Technically they do not break forum rules, as they are not pointless. Seeing as the posts are made in threads which are in the correct forums, they actually do serve a point: "To post what you're listening to". I'm shocked you over-look this. Just because you over-value your opinions with blind rage over what are harmless posts in harmless threads. I'll give you a test. What is the point of the "Post your vehicle thread"? And you say the majority who said NO lacked reason, when the minority seem to lack reason too.

No rage, just reading. "Post your vehicle" apparently has discussion about the vehicles posted, I don't frequent it so I'm not aware of what level of discussion it holds, but the threads that were moved had no discussion and didn't even allow discussion to take place which is ridiculous. 4real I have never disputed that these threads can be said to have a point, merely that they don't fit the forum definition. I don't get how that's hard to grasp.

Even when they're harmless? People who think like that should never own forums, and they will only be dull and bureaucratic - something Habbox should steer well clear of and used to until this poorly reasoned decision.

Which Habbox have you been a part of for the past 8 years :S

I've just looked at the rule and if you're so hell-bent on following definitions... You are aware most of these threads have posts with more than 2 word posts?

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

Going to this thread: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=760172

Most posts have 5 words, so therefore do not break the rule/definition of pointless posts. So yeah, you're needless following of the rules for the sake of strictness has collapsed. You could say "Ah, but it also says and do not promote active discussion". However, you can only use that excuse if the post fulfills the "one or two words" criteria, because it clearly says "AND" not "OR". So your argument on technicalities is incredibly flawed.

Going by that logic there's almost never any case for pointless posts/threads as in a "What colour are your socks" thread someone could say "My socks are blue" and that's more than 2 words but still doesn't spark conversation. If the forum wants to adopt that as its code then fair enough but as far as I'm aware they're still making edits under the guise of pointless posting rules for posts that answer thread titles without adding extra information as they have done pretty much since the rule was edited to be written in that way. I've been told many times by Chris that such posts are deemed pointless and that it's an immovable issue, so while I agree with you that it doesn't make a lot of sense it is the current way that things are done. By all means suggest a more inclusive or exclusive rewriting of the rule and I'll probably support it because it is so badly worded at present, but for now it is what it is.

And you said the majority lacked reason. I dread to think what the minority lack then

The ability to make posts stating simple methods and reasoning without being insulted, apparently. Also a social life

[GommeInc]

I've purposely cut out most of your post as it was about following the forum definition of pointless posting, which will now be discussed by the below quote:

Going by that logic there's almost never any case for pointless posts/threads as in a "What colour are your socks" thread someone could say "My socks are blue" and that's more than 2 words but still doesn't spark conversation. If the forum wants to adopt that as its code then fair enough but as far as I'm aware they're still making edits under the guise of pointless posting rules for posts that answer thread titles without adding extra information as they have done pretty much since the rule was edited to be written in that way. I've been told many times by Chris that such posts are deemed pointless and that it's an immovable issue, so while I agree with you that it doesn't make a lot of sense it is the current way that things are done. By all means suggest a more inclusive or exclusive rewriting of the rule and I'll probably support it because it is so badly worded at present, but for now it is what it is.

Don't blame me, the rule clearly states that the definition of pointless posting is:

1. Posts with only one or two words; and
2. Do not promote active discussion

As you've been saying, you demand rules are followed even if you disagree with them (a strange way to live your life but hey-**). Your entire argument was quite literally based on the fact (which is now just an idea as the fact has now be rebuked) that the threads should not be allowed because they fall within the forum definition of pointless. However, as the rules clearly state - posts are only pointless if they only contain between one or two words AND do not promote active discussion. Nearly all of these threads are actually well within the rules, particularly the biggest culprit: What are you listening to?

As you follow the rules by their definitions, it seems you've de facto joined the reasonable and logical forum majority, as you should now agree the threads and indeed the posts are not against the forum rules. Welcome aboard

In all seriousness, I also think rules should be followed, unless there is an obscrurity and a rather obnoxious result. It's similar in the approach to the 4 rules of construction and 3 rules of language which any other law student may know about (statutory interpretation).

The ability to make posts stating simple methods and reasoning without being insulted, apparently. Also a social life

You're the one who said that the majority lacked any reason, which as it goes seems a bit harsh when you don't seem to know the rules either Also, I too have a social life. My activity recently has been rather awful - but I did have a law exam yesterday and spent quite a long time revising for it.

[Kardan]

Basically management need to change and to or, and then everything is fine.

/thread.