Get rid of post your... junk threads

[FlyingJesus]

"do not promote active discussion"

jfc

[Kardan]

Indeed they could, but threads which literally are only asking for short, one or two word replies. The rule clearly states threads that only want short, one or two word replies. It's a very specific type of thread. This could be "Name a boyband" or something that specific - literally post a boyband. There doesn't have to be any actual activity involved and no discussion. The fact these threads (e.g. What are you listening to? #2 since 2009) have had discussions within them means they do not violate this rule, and you could argue that the members posting are actually listening to a song while posting or have actually watched a programme or film they're posting with, so there is some effort being put into the reply. It's not "Post a song" it's "post a song you are currently listening to", it's got an extra quality to it.

Plus any thread could have a discussion in, it's down to the members and whether or not they want to actively participate. You could also argue the "Money, Money, Money" competition is a violation of the misinterpreted version of the rule. It would be silly to change the rule purely because it would contradict current practice when it is perfectly fine, it's just some people can't read it as it does state "only" which is the key word.

But a 'Name the boyband' thread could have discussion in it. So essentially the rule isn't doing anything?

[GommeInc]

"do not promote active discussion"

jfc

And you're yet to answer how this works in practice. The threads clearly have had discussions in them, so they do promote it. Members are just not feeling compelled to - that's a problem with the members, not the thread.

But a 'Name the boyband' thread could have discussion in it. So essentially the rule isn't doing anything?

Indeed it could, but it's just naming a boyband. At least people who are posting what they are listening to are probably listening to the music at the time, and it would be relevant as some new songs are going to be the subject of a discussion. However if members don't want to discuss their song choices you can't make them. Again, it's a problem with members not wanting to actively discuss - it happens elsewhere in the forum where members just post a statement and leave. You can't force them and there's no harm in it, as at least it shows there is some forum activity.

Also, if people do start abusing them, moderators have discretion under the rule to determine what is abuse and pointless. So the rule covers itself with reiterating discretion from the T&Cs. As @Phil even acknowledges, there threads are not being abuse - ergo they are not violating the rule.

[FlyingJesus]

So if I made a thread called iuopebguebnsiud and a discussion arose in it that thread would have actively promoted the discussion in your eyes as opposed to just facilitating it.

Threads that promote discussion ask discussive questions, not "copy and paste from your itunes or whatever"

[Kardan]

And you're yet to answer how this works in practice. The threads clearly have had discussions in them, so they do promote it. Members are just not feeling compelled to - that's a problem with the members, not the thread.


Indeed it could, but it's just naming a boyband. At least people who are posting what they are listening to are probably listening to the music at the time, and it would be relevant as some new songs are going to be the subject of a discussion. However if members don't want to discuss their song choices you can't make them. Again, it's a problem with members not wanting to actively discuss - it happens elsewhere in the forum where members just post a statement and leave. You can't force them and there's no harm in it, as at least it shows there is some forum activity.

So the rule that starts with 'Do not post threads...' actually has nothing to do with the thread starter and is all down to the people that post in it?

The rule needs rewriting then.

[GommeInc]

So if I made a thread called iuopebguebnsiud and a discussion arose in it that thread would have actively promoted the discussion in your eyes as opposed to just facilitating it.

Threads that promote discussion ask discussive questions, not "copy and paste from your itunes or whatever"

No because you've clearly not read the rule:

Forum Rules
A7. Do not post pointlessly ~ ~ Do not post off-topic ~ An off-topic post has no relevance to the topic or any previous post that is relevant, or does little to positively contribute to the discussion.
~ Do not spam/make pointless posts. It is not allowed to post random, meaningless, posts or threads on the forum. Examples of this are (ROFLCOPTER!!!!!!); (BYRDSB +HKK; ) (I am a plane)
~ 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.
~ You may not make posts that contain plain images only. Images that includes text are allowed so long as they are relevant to the threads discussion. This rule does not apply to the forum games or spam forums.

So posting "iuopebguebnsiud" violates the rule as it's random and meaningless.

Also, threads that promote discussion do not always ask discussive questions. Look at current affairs, many a time have people just plopped a link in the post with the headline in the thread title and left it there. It's not asking for a discussion.

So you're wrong with both points you just made, one for not knowing the rule covers saying "iuopebguebnsiud" as a thread and another for thinking all threads ask for discussion. In fact, Current Affairs asks for a reaction which isn't a discussion, it's a reaction.

So the rule that starts with 'Do not post threads...' actually has nothing to do with the thread starter and is all down to the people that post in it?

The rule needs rewriting then.

No as there is nothing wrong with the rule, as it's been acknowledged there is no harm being done to the forum. The rule seems to want threads which are only asking for short replies to not be posted and not promote active discussion. This is very specific and depends on the language used in the thread. If the thread asks "Post a boyband" it's not asking or promoting discussion as it just wants a boyband and doesn't rely on any added quality such as a boyband you like at the moment or are listening to at the moment. Post what you are listening to is different in that it has a quality to it - you have to be listening to a band. As there is nothing in the title or even the opening thread to suggest it only wants this then discussion must surely be allowed as there's nothing stopping you from reply to someone saying "Oh I like that song too!" which has happened before. There are no restraints. If there were, it would be against the rule.

[FlyingJesus]

You're missing the point of the example. I'm not suggesting that an actual thread should be called that, it was an illustration on how you seem to believe that every thread somehow promotes discussion magically unless it says ONLY POST YES OR NO in the title. Once again, promotion not potential.

Reactions tend to be discussive; a discussion in fact generally happens to be two or more people reacting to each other's words. That is what a discussion is. We're back to you not knowing what a discussion is apparently, oh dear.

[Kardan]

No because you've clearly not read the rule:

So posting "iuopebguebnsiud" violates the rule as it's random and meaningless.

Also, threads that promote discussion do not always ask discussive questions. Look at current affairs, many a time have people just plopped a link in the post with the headline in the thread title and left it there. It's not asking for a discussion.

So you're wrong with both points you just made, one for not knowing the rule covers saying "iuopebguebnsiud" as a thread and another for thinking all threads ask for discussion. In fact, Current Affairs asks for a reaction which isn't a discussion, it's a reaction.


No as there is nothing wrong with the rule, as it's been acknowledged there is no harm being done to the forum. The rule seems to want threads which are only asking for short replies to not be posted and not promote active discussion. This is very specific and depends on the language used in the thread. If the thread asks "Post a boyband" it's not asking or promoting discussion as it just wants a boyband and doesn't rely on any added quality such as a boyband you like at the moment or are listening to at the moment. Post what you are listening to is different in that it has a quality to it - you have to be listening to a band. As there is nothing in the title or even the opening thread to suggest it only wants this then discussion must surely be allowed as there's nothing stopping you from reply to someone saying "Oh I like that song too!" which has happened before. There are no restraints. If there were, it would be against the rule.

So 'Post a word' would fall foul of that rule, but 'Post the word you last said' wouldn't?

[GommeInc]

You're missing the point of the example. I'm not suggesting that an actual thread should be called that, it was an illustration on how you seem to believe that every thread somehow promotes discussion magically unless it says ONLY POST YES OR NO in the title. Once again, promotion not potential.

Reactions tend to be discussive; a discussion in fact generally happens to be two or more people reacting to each other's words. That is what a discussion is. We're back to you not knowing what a discussion is apparently, oh dear.

No I'm not as it clearly is in the rule. So you're saying posting that isn't against the rules despite it clearly saying it is? So you're saying these threads have not had discussions in them? They clearly have. Therefore they're not against the rules. Not all threads promote (actively encourage) discussion - "Where are you going this summer?" doesn't but if discussion happens then this is good. Where does "What are you listening to?" state it only wants short, one or two word replies and where does it actively not want discussion? There's nothing in the thread saying it doesn't want discussions to take place and as acknowledged they have done. To promote something you have to actively encourage, and threads rarely ask this. If anything, Undertaker's threads all actively promote discussion as he asks at the end of each of his posts "Discuss?" or "What are your thoughts?"

Reactions are not de facto discussions, the fact you put "tend" in there suggests you acknowledge this. A reaction is "something done, felt, or thought in response to a situation or event." The reactions to the knife attacks in the US school are a prime example. Many are just posting reactions e.g. "scary", "hope everyone makes a full recovery". This is not a discussion. A discussion by definition is "the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas." Exchanging an idea is not a discussion, it's one way - it needs to be ideas with an "s". It requires a response. To discuss is to "talk about (something) with a person or people." These posts are exchanging ideas with the thread in the same way posting a song in response is an exchange with the thread "What are you listening to?"

So 'Post a word' would fall foul of that rule, but 'Post the word you last said' wouldn't?

Not necessarily, as an extra quality is attached to it. It's the same for "Last gig you went to?" A problem only arises if these threads are abused or have pointless posts - therefore the part of the rule which reiterates the T&Cs that the forum department has discretion. As acknowledged, these threads lack any abuse happening and there is no pointless posting (reply with a song to a thread about songs is both on-topic and has a point - to post in reply to a thread about a song with a song).

[FlyingJesus]

So you're saying posting that isn't against the rules despite it clearly saying it is?

No

So you're saying these threads have not had discussions in them?

No

where does it actively not want discussion?

Irrelevant since saying DO NOT DISCUSS THIS is not the only way not to promote discussion

To promote something you have to actively encourage

Thanks for repeating my point

A discussion by definition is "the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas." Exchanging an idea is not a discussion, it's one way

Absolutely pissing that you're saying this despite trying to refute that exact point for like 5 pages when I was saying it to you