Why is there...

[GommeInc]

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

/thread.

Not /thread at all as again no thought has gone into it

Management are fine, Chris and Matt both did not want to make changes to the thread and post policy. They just felt they had to for some strange reason or other.

Changing "and" to "or" won't solve anything. The rules talk about posts that should in some way promote discussion, it doesn't mention threads and there's a very good reason for it. Threads all promote discussion upon creation, it's up to the users to carry on discussion with their posts. Afterall, there must be a point to make a thread and the point behind some of these threads is to find out what someone is doing or thinks.

Take the "What are you listening to?" thread, it clearly is promoting discussion by asking "What is...", as by asking "What" is a form of opening to a discussion. This thread is opening discussions by asking "Why is..."

In short, don't touch anything without having a damn good think, and repeal this rather pointless change to the forum which won't change how dull and empty the forum has been in recent months.

[Kardan]

Not /thread at all as again no thought has gone into it

Management are fine, Chris and Matt both did not want to make changes to the thread and post policy. They just felt they had to for some strange reason or other.

Changing "and" to "or" won't solve anything. The rules talk about posts that should in some way promote discussion, it doesn't mention threads and there's a very good reason for it. Threads all promote discussion upon creation, it's up to the users to carry on discussion with their posts. Afterall, there must be a point to make a thread and the point behind some of these threads is to find out what someone is doing or thinks.

Take the "What are you listening to?" thread, it clearly is promoting discussion by asking "What is...", as by asking "What" is a form of opening to a discussion. This thread is opening discussions by asking "Why is..."

In short, don't touch anything without having a damn good think, and repeal this rather pointless change to the forum which won't change how dull and empty the forum has been in recent months.

You have very good points Gomme, but so does Tom, and basically you two just have different interpretations on what the rule means/says.

I agree with Tom that the threads don't promote discussion and are mainly there for post count, but you are right Gomme that technically they don't break the rules because how they are written, changing and to or would solve some aspects, but the 'promote discussion' probably needs to be expanded more in the rules.

I think me and Tom see 'promote discussion' as people actually talking about the music they are listening to, rather than stating it as it simply encourages post count, where as you are equally as right saying that all the posts are esentially doing what the thread title asks them.

How though, would reversing the change make it any better? Of course it all dependson people's opinions on post count. Many members don't give a damn about post count and fair enough, and others do, so it's never going to be possible to please everyone, so management are right to try and find something that pleases the majority, and in this case, I think it does.

Now, I don't mean the majority (55/60%) that voted against the change, I mean the majority of people (~90%) that benefit from this, the people that didn't want post count to be abused get the new forum, and people that want the threads for actually posting in them, and not abusing post count, gets them. So the management have took the right decision in pleasing ~90% than the ~60% in not having the forum.

Essentially I'm sure this debate could last absolutely forever, and hey, these are the threads that promote discussion - we should have more threads like these than 'T-Shirt and Jeans' over and over again

I think this is less a debate on the new forum (which has been discussed endlessly) but more on post count and what it means to the forum. As I've said before, I don't care either way - you either make it worthless to everyone and enable it everywhere to all past, current and future threads - or you make it mean something and limit it in certain areas (Spam, Forum Games, Misc etc).

[GommeInc]

You have very good points Gomme, but so does Tom, and basically you two just have different interpretations on what the rule means/says.

I agree with Tom that the threads don't promote discussion and are mainly there for post count, but you are right Gomme that technically they don't break the rules because how they are written, changing and to or would solve some aspects, but the 'promote discussion' probably needs to be expanded more in the rules.

I think me and Tom see 'promote discussion' as people actually talking about the music they are listening to, rather than stating it as it simply encourages post count, where as you are equally as right saying that all the posts are esentially doing what the thread title asks them.

How though, would reversing the change make it any better? Of course it all dependson people's opinions on post count. Many members don't give a damn about post count and fair enough, and others do, so it's never going to be possible to please everyone, so management are right to try and find something that pleases the majority, and in this case, I think it does.

Now, I don't mean the majority (55/60%) that voted against the change, I mean the majority of people (~90%) that benefit from this, the people that didn't want post count to be abused get the new forum, and people that want the threads for actually posting in them, and not abusing post count, gets them. So the management have took the right decision in pleasing ~90% than the ~60% in not having the forum.

Essentially I'm sure this debate could last absolutely forever, and hey, these are the threads that promote discussion - we should have more threads like these than 'T-Shirt and Jeans' over and over again

I think this is less a debate on the new forum (which has been discussed endlessly) but more on post count and what it means to the forum. As I've said before, I don't care either way - you either make it worthless to everyone and enable it everywhere to all past, current and future threads - or you make it mean something and limit it in certain areas (Spam, Forum Games, Misc etc).

There's no interpretation necessary, the rule is clear Tom's original interpretation was that the rule says pointless posting is where there is no discussion at all, when in actual fact the pointless posting rule says pointless posting is when posts only contain 2 words. It's purely factual that the threads are well within the rules, making the change seem unnecessary and unjust.

Also, there's no evidence the threads are there for post count. As Tom said, some (not all) users make at least 100 posts in those threads, which means absolutely nothing. To assume it was there for post count suggests that the post/rank system is actually worth something, when in actual fact posts are worthless. So these few people who care so much about posts have a rather invalid opinion.

Then there was the claim that users brag about their post counts, another claim that was debunked because of lack of proof. The only claim that hasn't been voided is that people are looking too much into the threads and posts when they're easy to ignore, not spammed in and hardly make a dent in the total forum count, including the actual Members List where the top forum posters are active throughout the forum. The evidence that this was a clever idea seem to be thinning with each new claim, making the change seem incredibly pointless. Again, HxF is the only forum I know of that has a vendetta against normal forum behaviour, making for a over-bearing forum experience.

Also, what are the benefits of moving the threads? The only benefits seem to be for the few who care too much about post count (yet you state you don't care, so Matt/Chris seem to of made this decision on behalf of no one it seems). The move has made the forum seem untidy. The threads were all on-topic in their respective threads, now they're in an untidy forum with a dreadful forum description created on a whim to please what seems to be no one now, originally it was a handful of people who have clouded their judgment over the false impression that posts are worth something.

[Kardan]

There's no interpretation necessary, the rule is clear Tom's original interpretation was that the rule says pointless posting is where there is no discussion at all, when in actual fact the pointless posting rule says pointless posting is when posts only contain 2 words. It's purely factual that the threads are well within the rules, making the change seem unnecessary and unjust.

Also, there's no evidence the threads are there for post count. As Tom said, some (not all) users make at least 100 posts in those threads, which means absolutely nothing. To assume it was there for post count suggests that the post/rank system is actually worth something, when in actual fact posts are worthless. So these few people who care so much about posts have a rather invalid opinion.

Then there was the claim that users brag about their post counts, another claim that was debunked because of lack of proof. The only claim that hasn't been voided is that people are looking too much into the threads and posts when they're easy to ignore, not spammed in and hardly make a dent in the total forum count, including the actual Members List where the top forum posters are active throughout the forum. The evidence that this was a clever idea seem to be thinning with each new claim, making the change seem incredibly pointless. Again, HxF is the only forum I know of that has a vendetta against normal forum behaviour, making for a over-bearing forum experience.

Also, what are the benefits of moving the threads? The only benefits seem to be for the few who care too much about post count (yet you state you don't care, so Matt/Chris seem to of made this decision on behalf of no one it seems). The move has made the forum seem untidy. The threads were all on-topic in their respective threads, now they're in an untidy forum with a dreadful forum description created on a whim to please what seems to be no one now, originally it was a handful of people who have clouded their judgment over the false impression that posts are worth something.

Then surely instead of arguing over this sub-forum you should be arguing for post count to be made redundant

And you are obviously misinterpreting the pointless posting rule, because 'blue ketchup cats' for example, is obviously a pointless post - even though it has three words. Also you can't use the top forum posters of all time as a measure for the spamming in those threads - if you looked at the top forum posters for the day/week/month last month and before, you will see they were heavily dominated by users posting in those particular threads - but of course, none of this matters if post count has no meaning

[GommeInc]

Then surely instead of arguing over this sub-forum you should be arguing for post count to be made redundant

And you are obviously misinterpreting the pointless posting rule, because 'blue ketchup cats' for example, is obviously a pointless post - even though it has three words. Also you can't use the top forum posters of all time as a measure for the spamming in those threads - if you looked at the top forum posters for the day/week/month last month and before, you will see they were heavily dominated by users posting in those particular threads - but of course, none of this matters if post count has no meaning

I don't want to make post counts redundant at all as that would be completely against normal forum behaviour My argument is purely with these false ideas people have over these threads and the posts within them, and the lack of explanation over the change when the people who wanted change aren't aware of the rules and don't seem to have many (if any) valid claims.

That's not pointless at all, it needs context. If it was said in a thread about cars it would be off-topic and violate the part of the pointless posting rule about on-topic/off-topic posts. "Off-topic" and "pointless" are two completely different words. Also, as I said, those posters aren't doing damage, there's this strange idea they are when actually the ranking system seems to be withstanding the use of these threads (or was until someone made the changes without proper discussion).

[Kardan]

I don't want to make post counts redundant at all as that would be completely against normal forum behaviour My argument is purely with these false ideas people have over these threads and the posts within them, and the lack of explanation over the change when the people who wanted change aren't aware of the rules and don't seem to have many (if any) valid claims.

That's not pointless at all, it needs context. If it was said in a thread about cars it would be off-topic and violate the part of the pointless posting rule about on-topic/off-topic posts. "Off-topic" and "pointless" are two completely different words. Also, as I said, those posters aren't doing damage, there's this strange idea they are when actually the ranking system seems to be withstanding the use of these threads (or was until someone made the changes without proper discussion).

I think the main claim that people have against the threads is that they are not worthy of post count because quite frankly there's no real discussion value from the post at all.

[GommeInc]

I think the main claim that people have against the threads is that they are not worthy of post count because quite frankly there's no real discussion value from the post at all.

That's a problem with the people using them, than the actual threads. The threads all promote discussion given the first post of each thread asking a question in return for an answer. Besides, if they do not promote real discussion, why not completely remove them? As is evident, post count isn't an issue because 1) The ranking system requires a lot of posts, with which these threads do not provide a lot of and 2) No-one brags about post count. If anything, people brag about the years they're registered these days.

[Kardan]

That's a problem with the people using them, than the actual threads. The threads all promote discussion given the first post of each thread asking a question in return for an answer. Besides, if they do not promote real discussion, why not completely remove them? As is evident, post count isn't an issue because 1) The ranking system requires a lot of posts, with which these threads do not provide a lot of and 2) No-one brags about post count. If anything, people brag about the years they're registered these days.

I agree that nobody brags about post count, but people did abuse it. One user has 5,000 posts having being registered a year, which is clearly a very high post/time ratio, and another user would post in the music thread, and post again two minutes later before the first song could even finish... Yes, it's an issue with the people that theywant to abuse it in the first place, but it's these threads that they were abusing it in, so one way to combat it is putting the threads in there current position - if management restored the threads and just warned users for excessive posting then fair enough, but I'm sure another feedback thread will open on what counts as 'excessive posting' And as far as I'm aware, threads rarely ever get removed, just closed or moved.

As I've said before, people take the 'promote discussion' rule differently, management should clarify (for about the 904th time...)

[GommeInc]

I agree that nobody brags about post count, but people did abuse it. One user has 5,000 posts having being registered a year, which is clearly a very high post/time ratio, and another user would post in the music thread, and post again two minutes later before the first song could even finish... Yes, it's an issue with the people that theywant to abuse it in the first place, but it's these threads that they were abusing it in, so one way to combat it is putting the threads in there current position - if management resroted the threads and just warned users for excessive posting then fair enough, but I'm sure another feedback thread will open on what counts as 'excessive posting' And as far as I'm aware, threads rarely ever get removed, just closed or moved.

As I've said before, people take the 'promote discussion' rule differently, management should clarify (for about the 904th time...)

Again, context needs to be inserted. Did that user make all of his posts using just those threads and actually abuse the threads? Intent is important. 5,000 is a lot, but most of these threads don't really have as many posts in as you would think. Given the age of some of them, most of the users have either moved on or been banned

Applying 5,000 posts to the Ranking System doesn't give them any real benefits of the system, and it would be wrong to speculate that they were posting in those threads purposely to raise their post count to get any decent features without real evidence. If they're so interested in those threads, then they must serve a purpose - giving them a point in the real definition of the word. Also, if they've been on for one year, then those threads have helped keep a user interested in the forum - which is far more important than post counts