Pointless posting

[FlyingJesus]

Ok so I wasn't going to go all feedback warrior about this but it's getting ridiculous. I got a pointless post warning for pointing out a mistake in the title of a thread while in that very same thread Phil denied that his post was pointless despite being off-topic entirely and closed the case himself. Phil has also TWICE refused to take action on this post where not only has a one word answer been used but it's also not even a real answer. The fact that he's friends with Cassie has no bearing on this I'm sure.

So yeah let's clarify what a pointless post is: it's one that doesn't add to any discussion according to the current rules. By that definition simply answering a question with no response to anyone elses posts is "pointless" (since there's no discussion taking place), which seems somewhat excessive and certainly isn't being enforced. Is it then, in the case of these question-and-answer threads, one that doesn't respond to the thread title? If so, my post wasn't pointless and Phil's was, and again the rules aren't being enforced properly. Seems that certain people are picking a little from column A and a little from column B and ignoring anything they don't want to act upon, when for a long long time now we've needed a properly written set of forum rules that actually cover what is and isn't allowed rather than this "at the mod's discretion" tactic that doesn't seem to be working - especially when not all mods have the same ideas and some of them are working on their own reports which I'm sure was never allowed before.

With any luck this is just a personal thing that a certain mod has against me (the same chap seems really adamant on spreading disgusting rumours about me despite not knowing me at all and literally being nothing more than a name to me) as I'd hate for it to be the norm across the forum. Either way, the rules need writing properly with the ambiguous "and do not promote active discussion" sorted out once and for all as currently you can get slammed with a mod notice for doing the exact same thing as everyone else in the thread.

[Samantha]

That's odd, that dinner post I also reported as in earlier years I didn't post a song in the what you're listening to as apparently you can't listen to the tv. I got warned for it, I didn't know it had changed.

The rule has been amended recently, but I think it may need explaining more.

[Phil]

Ok so I wasn't going to go all feedback warrior about this but it's getting ridiculous. I got a pointless post warning for pointing out a mistake in the title of a thread while in that very same thread Phil denied that his post was pointless despite being off-topic entirely and closed the case himself. Phil has also TWICE refused to take action on this post where not only has a one word answer been used but it's also not even a real answer. The fact that he's friends with Cassie has no bearing on this I'm sure.

Hey Tom, I think I know the thread you're talking about here but before I answer on it, would you mind linking me to that thread just so I don't look like a complete lunatic? Marking that report (N/A) had nothing to do with my relationship with Cassie. Cassie is not a friend of my, just an acquaintance which is how I see most of the people on this forum. I treat my friends exactly how I treat anyone else on the forum and don't believe I'm bias when judging the posts.

So yeah let's clarify what a pointless post is: it's one that doesn't add to any discussion according to the current rules. By that definition simply answering a question with no response to anyone elses posts is "pointless" (since there's no discussion taking place), which seems somewhat excessive and certainly isn't being enforced. Is it then, in the case of these question-and-answer threads, one that doesn't respond to the thread title? If so, my post wasn't pointless and Phil's was, and again the rules aren't being enforced properly. Seems that certain people are picking a little from column A and a little from column B and ignoring anything they don't want to act upon, when for a long long time now we've needed a properly written set of forum rules that actually cover what is and isn't allowed rather than this "at the mod's discretion" tactic that doesn't seem to be working - especially when not all mods have the same ideas and some of them are working on their own reports which I'm sure was never allowed before.

I think you would see over the past few days the rule has been enforced more and people replying things like "nope" in reply to question threads have had their posts edited with a pointless posting modwarn. Again, I'm not exactly sure what thread/post you're talking about here so I won't answer on that one just yet.

The A7 Pointless Posting rule was always the hardest rule to moderate at Habbox and I'm sure that's not going to change any time soon. What one user might find pointless, another user might not so in the instace of a Moderator being 'on the fence' about a pointless post, they would normally ask one of their colleagues before acting, if of course that's a possibility at the time.

With any luck this is just a personal thing that a certain mod has against me (the same chap seems really adamant on spreading disgusting rumours about me despite not knowing me at all and literally being nothing more than a name to me) as I'd hate for it to be the norm across the forum. Either way, the rules need writing properly with the ambiguous "and do not promote active discussion" sorted out once and for all as currently you can get slammed with a mod notice for doing the exact same thing as everyone else in the thread.

I actually don't have anything against you and I'm certainly not spreading rumours about you and this certainly isn't the place to be discussing that theory. I like to think I treat the forum members the same when reading through the threads and responding to rep

[Aiden]

So can you post 1 word replies?

Matt posted 1 word and an image. If I did that, I'd get a PM about it.

Please Calum keeps sending me PMs about my posts from the 18th... before the rule was put forward.

You lot are terrible.

[FlyingJesus]

You spent like half an hour after the awards yesterday telling people I had a more than platonic relationship with Gina, I would count that as spreading disgusting rumours.

This is the post where by one or the other definition of "pointless posting" you may have broken the rule; either you didn't and responding to anything about the post is fine in which case my post wasn't pointless or you did break it and closed the case wrongly. Interesting also that "2011" and "never" were deemed to be fine but only I get told off after reporting you

[xxMATTGxx]

So can you post 1 word replies?

Matt posted 1 word and an image. If I did that, I'd get a PM about it.

Please Calum keeps sending me PMs about my posts from the 18th... before the rule was put forward.

You lot are terrible.

I think it would depend on the thread surely. As what I posted is actually related and anyone who knows or likes Formula 1 would know what my post is about. As each team are launching their new cars for the 2014 season over the next coming days.

The post is this, if anyone is interested:

Sauber

If you posted what I posted in that thread and it was actually related then you wouldn't be warned for it. (Or shouldn't be)

[Chris]

Hi Tom, I've dropped you a PM so take a look and get back to me.

You spent like half an hour after the awards yesterday telling people I had a more than platonic relationship with Gina, I would count that as spreading disgusting rumours.

This is the post where by one or the other definition of "pointless posting" you may have broken the rule; either you didn't and responding to anything about the post is fine in which case my post wasn't pointless or you did break it and closed the case wrongly. Interesting also that "2011" and "never" were deemed to be fine but only I get told off after reporting you

Phils post here is fine. You are allowed to respond to posts like that. Could you direct me to your post that you feel was wrongly dealt with?

[Aiden]

What other people post is 'related'... just because it's not 10802 word doesn't mean it's not related..

---

this post is related to the thread
it answers the question

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...75#post8093675

--

silly mods
fire them matt

[Phil]

So can you post 1 word replies?

Matt posted 1 word and an image. If I did that, I'd get a PM about it.

Please Calum keeps sending me PMs about my posts from the 18th... before the rule was put forward.

You lot are terrible.

Just to refer you to this part of the A& Pointless Posting rule:

Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion. Repeatably posting short replies such as "Yes" or "Nope" is also forbidden. What is classed as pointless or abuse is entirely down to the discretion of the Forum Department.

Posting short replies is forbidden, especially if it's happening on repeated occasion as it can be assumed that the user is just trying to get their post count up. Although many of the threads that are in Discuss Anything can be answered with just one word, they are left because we want people to discuss their answers rather than just posting one word and then leave the thread and never return.

The post you're talking about, I assume is the one you reported that was posted in the formula One thread. The picture was of a Formula One car as they are discussing the teams new cars. This post is not pointless.

[Aiden]

I reported 4 post with 1 word answers but they was fine?

Shouldn't you people try and keep your members?
Warning them every time they post isn't the way I'd go.