Get rid of post your... junk threads

[FlyingJesus]

Promoting discussions isn't necessary

Could end the thread here since you're now trying to argue against the specific wording of the rule

Yet you're yet to prove this. I gave you the definition of promote. Prove it wrong.

Your definition was literally claiming that doing nothing counts as promotion because you twisted the words in it. You keep telling me to prove the opposite to things that you haven't actually proven at all

As above.
Until you post any evidence other than saying no all the time :rolleyes:

Well I have to say no a lot because you keep making assumptions about me that are wrong

How? Again, no evidence to support yourself. They do as they have done. Do you even read these threads? The worst offender had a discussion right at the beginning. They're supported and promoted.

The only promotion of discussion comes from a tiny minority of posts, not the thread itself. You're getting muddled

No you don't. I've given definitions of words - you just post "no they don't". That's not proof, that's denying the facts.

That's clearly not all I've done - or clear at least to anyone who reads my posts properly - you just post "no you haven't". That's not proof, that's denying the facts.

So you're denying the facts, the definitions of what promote means? Again, I gave you a definition - where's your counter definition?

There's no need for one since your analysis of the definition was flawed to begin with - you're claiming that doing nothing is "support"

Again, rarely threads do this. Saying no isn't a counter-argument - provide proof.

Great news but I didn't suggest that all threads progress with discussions since that's totally beside the point

Yet discussions can happen and do happen, which is all that matters. This is known as denial - they allow for discussions and discussions have happened. Honestly, you have no argument.

Denial is something you're obviously well versed in, since you're still pretending that how a thread might possibly evolve has some bearing on its starting point. I do have an argument, and your attempt at a counter is a retrospective look at a tiny number of posts which has nothing to do with any of my claims

Yes it is, you can't deny this.They do promote discussion - I gave you an operating and practical definition of promote:

Yawn. You gave me a definition which you twisted beyond its meaning

No they're not. Give me an answer to "WELL????" You can't. Well what? With "Post what you're listening to?" it's asking you to post music/songs. "WELL????" is asking me... nothing. Completely different. How are they the same? It's self-explanatory.

Wow. You actually cannot read. I was being obtuse when I've said it before but this really proves it. WELL??? as an example was not as a thread title, but an opening post; it would still have the title. It is essentially what these threads mostly do in that they pose a question in the title and then do not expand upon them in any way.

The opening is fine. If a thread asks what I am listening to, it is blatantly asking me what song I am listening to and to share the title of it with people. As these threads promote it, by support, facilitating, aid and helping me to share, it is blatantly obvious they promote it - or are you denying thesauruses and dictionaries are wrong and your definition is absolute? :rolleyes:

A thesaurus almost never gives words that mean 100% the same thing as you ought to know, and you skewed the dictionary definition to include something that these threads don't even do. There is no promotion or support of discussion in the opening post of them

No you didn't. It's fact - moderator discretion does exist. It's in the rule. I picked you out on it and you refuse to accept it exists. If you do not want to read a rule or even the T&Cs that's your problem.

Yes I did. I showed how it did not refer to the point I was discussing and you got stroppy.

Saying "no" isn't a logical argument. You're yet to post definitions of words and apply them to the rule - I've done that constantly. The Forum Manager hasn't even said he agrees with you - he said a rule change may work, and I've explained why the rule doesn't need to change by even supporting my argument. All you've done is post your opinion, I've posted facts such as the rule itself, the T&Cs, logical arguments and definitions. All you've done is deny, which isn't an argument.

That is not all I've done and you'd know that if you read my posts. Seriously, the amount of straw men you're shooting down the F in HxF might as well stand for Farm. You're the one denying my involvement

And your suggestion was? You didn't post it, you just said a rule change to support those threads should be fine, yet it is now evident that they already are under the very definition of promote: to support, encourage or further progress.

Psssssst changing the question after being proved wrong doesn't actually mean I've done something wrong, just thought you'd like to know

No it is not obvious. You stated it in two different posts. Clearly you're now denying your argument. So which is it, you want the threads removed or you want them to stay? If you want them to stay, the rule doesn't need to be changed as they are already promoting discussion under the definition of promote - you're yet to argue why the definition of promote is wrong with any logical argument other than "no it doesn't mean that" which is denying the facts - promote means that, if you don't accept that then there's no helping you if you deny fact.

Obvious to anyone who can put more than one post together without confusing themselves then. I'm not denying my argument at all, I'm explaining to you that one or the other needs to be changed - because the rule does not cover them currently, despite your insistence that you can't possibly be wrong at all no matter how many times it's shown to you. I haven't said that the definition is wrong, only your application. I wonder if there's a single post in this thread where you haven't made up something I haven't said?

Which I've rebutted. You for some reason quoted me quoting the definition of reaction and posting a reaction isn't a discussion. A discussion is talking to a person or people - sharing an idea with someone. A reaction isn't.

Yes and along with it I quoted you attempting to claim that a single reply to someone (a reaction) is a discussion right away. You seem to believe that a discussion requires no involvement from a further party.

If a discussion could arise in any thread, then they are promoted.

Then all threads are valid and the rule needs changing, fab. You agree.

You can't deny what the definition of promote means. It means: "support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of." These threads support discussion, there's nothing stopping people from having a discussion unless they specifically ask not to. Are you really denying the definition of a word for your own definition? Because that's not fact, it's an opinion.

I'm (again) not denying the definition, only your application of it. The threads do not support discussion because they are asking purely for a flat answer

So why mention what Phil apparently believes when that's all he's stated? Again I post proof that counters your argument that Phil apparently thinks these threads do not promote discussion, yet all he's actually accepted so far is that these threads are not being abused.

Because that isn't all that he's stated :S he also spoke about changes to the rule and how it currently doesn't work in relation to the threads in question

Honestly, I'm posting evidence countering your argument - evidence suggested as definitions of words. Saying "no" to fact isn't a counter-argument, it's denial.

All I'm denying is things that you're pretending I've said which I haven't, which ironically you've just done again

So do you accept that these threads promote discussion? Remember, you must read this:


Obstruct and impede are the opposite of promote. If these threads are not obstructing they must be... guess what? Promoting them.

Wow guess I must be promoting slavery and genocide. Come on, you know that opposites are not the only options, right?

Guys I have no idea what you're even arguing anymore

Mostly just Ryan claiming I've said things that I haven't said tbh

[scottish]

seconded. it has run its course and it just 2 users arguing technicalities in a circular fashion. phil needs to come to decision based on these facts he has been presented with.

It's entertaining watching them quote each other sentence by sentence commenting on it though

@Phil; what is your decision

[Yawn]

i havent been reading for a couple of days but i know that gommeinc is wrong -.-

[GommeInc]

Hidden all the rubbish

Show Hide

Could end the thread here since you're now trying to argue against the specific wording of the rule
Your definition was literally claiming that doing nothing counts as promotion because you twisted the words in it. You keep telling me to prove the opposite to things that you haven't actually proven at all

Go on prove the opposite, you've done it again here - twisted the words? How? I clearly posted evidence and as I can interpret it that way so can the forum department. I've proven the definition of promote countless times. Denying the meaning isn't a counter-argument, but shows you're in denial for not accepting fact...

Well I have to say no a lot because you keep making assumptions about me that are wrong.
The only promotion of discussion comes from a tiny minority of posts, not the thread itself. You're getting muddled

Yet the threads are promoting discussion as I keep saying. Even if it is a minority (which only ever happens anyway - Discuss Anything is proof yet again), the threads are still promoting discussion.

[quote=FlyingJesusThat's clearly not all I've done - or clear at least to anyone who reads my posts properly - you just post "no you haven't". That's not proof, that's denying the facts.[/quote]
I don't care, I want proof in a counter-argument. Saying you disagree is not a counter-argument. Go on, post proof for once rather than post an opinion. You keep denying facts - I've posted the definition of words because you fail to understand just how wrong you are.

There's no need for one since your analysis of the definition was flawed to begin with - you're claiming that doing nothing is "support"

It is, it's blatantly obvious to anyone with more than an E in English. Support is "to carrybear all or part of the weight of; hold up" and is further defined as: "to be capable of bearing; withstand". Since these threads carry discussions, no matter how small, they support discussion. They are also capable of discussions, since discussions have existed. Can you really not think of a counter-argument without just saying "no"?

Great news but I didn't suggest that all threads progress with discussions since that's totally beside the point

So you admit you're wrong? As they are clearly supported by these threads, they are therefore promoted by the threads themselves. You do not need an active word to promote a discussion since it's rare for threads to do so.

Denial is something you're obviously well versed in, since you're still pretending that how a thread might possibly evolve has some bearing on its starting point. I do have an argument, and your attempt at a counter is a retrospective look at a tiny number of posts which has nothing to do with any of my claims

This is another pointless remark that doesn't need replying to. Your argument is and has always been flawed and you fail to post a counter-argument.

Yawn. You gave me a definition which you twisted beyond its meaning

No I didn't but as you again haven't posted evidence I shall accept this as you being wrong. Excellent.

Wow. You actually cannot read. I was being obtuse when I've said it before but this really proves it. WELL??? as an example was not as a thread title, but an opening post; it would still have the title. It is essentially what these threads mostly do in that they pose a question in the title and then do not expand upon them in any way.

I've given up quoting your posts as it's a waste of time as you fail to post any counter-argument and just post an opinion saying "no" and then go on a hypocritical ad hominem attack without any grounding.

So I'll post directly to Phil who seems to have more than two brain cells to rub together and clearly has some rational thought.

@Phil:

The word promote means:

"support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.); further the progress of."

The rule doesn't need changing. To support something, is to "bear all or part of the weight of; hold up." It also further means "to be capable of bearing; withstand"

As these threads are capable of bearing a discussion they are not against the rule so you don't have to edit the rule based on one person's poor ability to read a dictionary. As promote means to "support or actively encourage", and these threads support active discussion, they are well within the rules.

So what do you think? As I've contributed to the discussion by highlighted that these threads are not abused, and that the threads clearly promote discussion (as above), the rule isn't being broken. The only real action is to deal with members who may abuse these threads. BUT, as the threads are not being abused, is it really wise to try to stop members using these threads if it provides them with some mild form of entertainment? If they are using these threads and gaining post count, they are contributing to overall forum activity and surely this should be rewarded since active membership is a problem?

seconded. it has run its course and it just 2 users arguing technicalities in a circular fashion. phil needs to come to decision based on these facts he has been presented with.

Well that shouldn't be difficult, since I'm the only one pointing out the facts here It's only one member who seems to not understand the rules - you can't change a rule because someone either denies what it means or fails to read it properly.

Hey sorry everyone I've been out all day! Guys I have no idea what you're even arguing anymore, I literally could see anything I could answer any more than I already have. If you have a question or thought you want answering can you mention and ask me.

I'm just picking out how he doesn't seem to post any evidence of why the threads are against the rule. Since I've posted evidence that these threads are not abused (it was something low like 6 posts a day in the middle of the week) it seems absurd to change the rule, especially when the rule is perfectly fine. Promote literally means to support or encourage active discussion, and as support means to be capable (and these threads have had discussions in them therefore they are capable, nothing is stopping you from having a discussion) it would be absurd to change the rule when the write word (promote) has been used. He seems to deny this but refuses to post any evidence to the contrary, and blames my application, when you can't apply the rule any other way since support = bear the weight/be capable of. I post evidence and he denies my evidence, without any explanation or counter-argument. If he can't be bothered to explain or post evidence then why should he be listened to?

[FlyingJesus]

"You keep telling me to prove the opposite to things that you haven't actually proven at all"
"Go on prove the opposite"

lmao

All of your "proof" has been countered with logic and reasoning, and whenever I post something you can't just say "PROVE IT" to you ignore it completely (like when you claimed that only polar opposites exist and no middle grounds) but let's keep this simple. There are basically 3 ways this can go:

1) These threads are breaking the rules because they do not promote discussion, and as such they should be dealt with properly
2) These threads are breaking the rules because they do not promote discussion, and as such the rule should be updated to allow them in certain instances
3) These threads are not breaking the rules, and as such the rule is useless and should be removed since literally all threads can "promote" discussion by doing nothing at all. If this is the case then Spam should be deleted as a forum and all threads within it moved to their appropriate forums.

[GommeInc]

"You keep telling me to prove the opposite to things that you haven't actually proven at all"
"Go on prove the opposite"

lmao

All of your "proof" has been countered with logic and reasoning, and whenever I post something you can't just say "PROVE IT" to you ignore it completely (like when you claimed that only polar opposites exist and no middle grounds) but let's keep this simple. There are basically 3 ways this can go:

1) These threads are breaking the rules because they do not promote discussion, and as such they should be dealt with properly
2) These threads are breaking the rules because they do not promote discussion, and as such the rule should be updated to allow them in certain instances
3) These threads are not breaking the rules, and as such the rule is useless and should be removed since literally all threads can "promote" discussion by doing nothing at all. If this is the case then Spam should be deleted as a forum and all threads within it moved to their appropriate forums.

See, no proof yet again @Phil. The fact I said that polar opposites do not just need to exist is enough, yet apparently here he thinks I did - not that it matters and it is his fault this debate has gone beyond its means because he argues rubbish without, as you have seen, no evidence or proof. I asked him if he was to walk on grass with no sign saying not or a sign not even saying you are allowed to, would he breaking any law/by-law? Clearly not - if nothing is telling you anything you assume you are allowed to. Much like these threads: There have been discussions in them, they do not state they only want one word answers or no discussion... It falls within the rule too seeing as active discussion is promoted, seeing as they support discussions as with the simple definition of promote.

3) Has already been discredited. The rule clearly would not allow a thread with "WHAT????" in the title as it's not asking a question you can answer. At least "What are you listening to?" implies you post music. It's pretty obvious and you refuse to post evidence to the contrary. Also, threads which actively not want discussion by saying "Just say male/female/etc". This would be in violation of the rule.

[FlyingJesus]

You told me that if X doesn't hinder Y it is promoting it. The evidence is in your posts, I shouldn't need to re-quote you again and again for you to be able to see it, especially when you just ignore it anyway. Also going by your idea of "reply = discussion", even a thread that does ask for a simple answer can potentially have a discussion and by your logic still wouldn't be against the rule, so again the rule would not be needed.

[GommeInc]

You told me that if X doesn't hinder Y it is promoting it. The evidence is in your posts, I shouldn't need to re-quote you again and again for you to be able to see it, especially when you just ignore it anyway. Also going by your idea of "reply = discussion", even a thread that does ask for a simple answer can potentially have a discussion and by your logic still wouldn't be against the rule, so again the rule would not be needed.

It is, because nothing is hindering it therefore it can be assumed it is allowed. The fact I asked you if walking on grass that doesn't say you can or cannot is pretty obvious of this - you didn't answer this as above, either. You assume you can walk on grass unless otherwise told not. It's typical human nature. Not bringing law in purposely but in the United Kingdom as citizens laws are there to stop you from acting in a certain way - if there is no law it is permitted unless the police or courts activate their constitutional role of being able to act to stop people from acting in a certain way if it is against public morality, health and policy. Similar to the rules here - the forum department has discretion of what constitutes breaking a rule and as these threads are not they do not need to enforce a rule which doesn't ask for it nor is being abused as Phil has acknowledged. For public authorities and the government, they can only act if a law tells them too. It's why moderators and the forum department get a lot of hassle when they make up a rule to attack a member because how is a member to know not to act if no one will them?

Using the word promote again as you clearly keep denying what it means: "support or actively encourage". If nothing is hindering discussion, there's nothing to say it isn't supported either. Again, proof of this elsewhere which you seem to keep denying is with the Current Affairs forums. Many threads (other than Undertakers) do not ask for discussion, yet you can do and it happens. Same for these threads - nothing is telling you not to discuss these threads. Why? Because they too are promoting discussion. Promote, as I keep having to tell you, means to "support or actively encourage". As these threads are supporting discussions because we know discussions have existed, they fall within the rules.

Again, you're failing to grasp my point. Asking "WELLL???" isn't asking anything - it lacks any quality. Well what? How would you answer a thread like this? You can't as, unlike "Post what you are listening to?" which actually is promoting discussion, it isn't asking for a type of response and is open to discussion, which (using the rule against this logic you have) is against the rules as in order for a post to be on-topic as per the rule, it has to be based on the topic of the thread - what is the topic "WELLL???" is asking? There isn't one - it can be argued it is asking for you to post against the rule by making off-topic posts since members can't post on-topic other than to ask "Well what?" which is again against the rules under short/meaningless/one or two word answer replies, unless the first post gives it a quality. Since "Post what you are listening to?" gives the thread a quality just in the title, to post what you are listening to and the answer is obviously music or maybe even the radio, the posts will therefore be on-topic AND as nothing is stopping you from discussing someone else's song choice, it is promoting discussion as discussions are clearly supported. What's not to understand with this?

[FlyingJesus]

So now you've changed it to allowing = promoting

Also you're still missing the point of the WELL thing even though it's been explained: that is basically what these threads are saying in the opening post, it was never said that that was the title at all. That said, even if that was the title one could reply with "yes I am well thank you, how are you?" which is the start of a conversation. As is "I wonder what this thread is about" with someone replying with an idea of what it could be - pretty ridiculous examples but still conversations and still by your logic not a rulebreaking thread.

[GommeInc]

So now you've changed it to allowing = promoting

So I see you've ignored my point again. Evidence to the contrary that if x doesn't hinder y then y is still hindered or y is pointless?
Promote = "support or encourage". If x doesn't hinder y then yes it is allowing it. Why? Because it is supporting it or facilitating it. Allowing and promoting can be used in the same sentence or synonymously (again this is proof I am much better at English than you). If I create a system which supports PHP coding, I am promoting it by allowing it to be supported and therefore allowing it to be used in my system.

The YouTube "Promotion on YouTube" page has another example: Promoting your videos with Fan Finder and AdWords for Video allows you to connect with audiences."

So using my example again: If x doesn't hinder y, then it is assumed it is allowed (because promote means to support - capable of bearing / allow - to let happen)

Also you're still missing the point of the WELL thing even though it's been explained: that is basically what these threads are saying in the opening post, it was never said that that was the title at all. That said, even if that was the title one could reply with "yes I am well thank you, how are you?" which is the start of a conversation. As is "I wonder what this thread is about" with someone replying with an idea of what it could be - pretty ridiculous examples but still conversations and still by your logic not a rulebreaking thread.

You are still missing my point. If a thread asks "WELLL???" and nothing else, it is against the rules as it asking you to post off-topic posts since the topic hasn't been established. The difference here is that "Post what you are listening to?" doesn't need an opening post as the task at hand is in the thread title. It is asking you to post what you are listening to - isn't this really obvious? :S "WELLL???" isn't asking you to do anything although the wonderful thing about the rule is that a moderator could either close it there and then or maybe ask what the purpose of the thread is before taking action - forum department discretion is therefore activated - they may change the thread title to be more specific. Furthermore, the thread wouldn't fit in a forum as it again lacks a quality - further making it "pointless". It would only really work in Spam. It's why the argument for moving these threads to forum games which was one action @Phil was considering wouldn't work because these threads are on-topic in their current forums.

Also, the rule is clearly there for threads asking for you to break other areas of the rule. Again, a thread asking for you not to discuss or to post off-topic posts, or a thread only asking for short, one or two word answers such as "What gender are you?" without any qualitative post to accompany it or simply asking for you to reply with "male/female/both", unless the OP posts later saying it's for something useful like college although why anyone would need data from a tiny forum is beyond me. If this area of the rule didn't exist, threads which are asking you to break the pointless posting rule will be allowed, contradicting the aims of the rule.