Pointlessness - in the eye of the beholder?

ExOffender

I posted a poll in AH that got locked.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=250582
Apparently the only reason it got locked was that someone reported it as pointless - and yet, by Trojan's own admission, there are no posted criteria for 'pointlessness'. So, in theory then, can I report a poll I simply don't like, or MTTP, one started by a poster I don't like, as 'pointless'?
So far as they go, every poll posted on these boards fits my criteria for 'pointlessness' insofar as they serve no purpose other than the reportage of opinion. But, then, that's not just polls, it's... everything on boards.ie.
So what I want to know is, could we get some kind of clarification on what polls can and can't be considered 'pointless', or are we going to continue Stalinist-style, equating accusation with guilt? As I (thought I) understood it, the anti-pointlessness rule was to prevent people posting 'what's your favourite colour' - type nonsense every two days. I thought my poll well above this standard. Still do. I know it's not of much intrinsic significance, but I'm really quite hacked off about this - I really wanted to know!
Appreciate your consideration, and hope this is the right place :rolleyes:

flogen

I certainly wouldn't say that everything on boards is pointless, there's a lot of crap IMO, but one mans crap etc. etc.
Also some polls are worth reading and adding to, the census polls being the perfect and most recent example.
However, I see your point. If the thread was locked because someone thought it was pointless (and for no other reason), then I do wonder why half the stuff on AH doesn't go the same way, and of course who defines it as pointless?
On the flipside, your poll was a different brand of pointlessness, not just a general "what is everyone doing?" kind of pointless banter but the kind of pointlessness that raises the question, where are you going with this? It was a stupid thread but from what I've seen on AH, most stupid and pointless threads don't really need locking, they just drift quietly into the night (off the front page).
Maybe the mods felt that your topic was just waiting to spark a flamefest. I dunno...

ExOffender

Well tbh where I was going with the thread was to get a conversation going about flaming in general, why people do it, why they stopped, etc. I can see why mods would worry about it, but it's the kind of thing that's easily nipped in the bud if it starts to get out of hand. I guess it's their decision if they want to err that far on the side of safety :rolleyes: . I was a mod on Mobius Infinity (RIP) for some time and I only ever locked one thread, and tbh I regretted it.

flogen

ExOffender wrote:

Well tbh where I was going with the thread was to get a conversation going about flaming in general, why people do it, why they stopped, etc.

It may have helped if you made that clear from the get-go. All the poll did was get people to say if the have/have not do or dont. If anything it was more of a bragging match than a discussion ("I was once a nasty piece of work who went by the name of Zero Trace on WizardWorld*, but I eventually quit because, basically, I was so good at it I started to feel bad.")

I mean, from the post you made where was the thread going? It certainly didn't seem like a discussion on the thought process of your everyday flamer.

Bard

It was a stupid and fairly pointless thread that was going nowhere.

As for you being 'hacked off' about it being closed... calm down, it's only ones and zeros.

seamus

ExOffender wrote:

So what I want to know is, could we get some kind of clarification on what polls can and can't be considered 'pointless'

How long is a piece of string FFS?

There's a very good reason why there's no specific definition of "pointless" in the charter.

The Sweeper

seamus wrote:

How long is a piece of string FFS?

There's a very good reason why there's no specific definition of "pointless" in the charter.

...coz it'd be pointless?

Lump

Why lock it.... If people don't like the content, they won't reply. If they start flaming, there's a reason to lock it.

John

Lump

Look at this Tat.... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=250319

Lock and ban in my opinion. If someone's poll is locked well I think the above post should be binned and the poster banned. Or are we not allowed ban other mods.

WHAT A LOAD OF BALLS!

John

Third_Echelon

Yeah I agree Lump. The posters in that thread seem to be this new breed on boards.ie of pointless bloody posters, and I think we all know the new folks that we are talking about...

Lump

However the origianl poster is mod of broadband....

John

StupidLikeAFox

Bard wrote:

It was a stupid and fairly pointless thread that was going nowhere.

As for you being 'hacked off' about it being closed... calm down, it's only ones and zeros.

haha, well said!

I reckon if the poll is pointless, the thread will die quickly. They dont really bother me tbh

ExOffender

seamus wrote:

There's a very good reason why there's no specific definition of "pointless" in the charter.

Care to elaborate?
Tbh I'm far less interested in debating the thread itself than the principle behind its being locked, etc. More for future reference than anything else.

seamus

First off, if we try to define what constitutes a pointless thread, then we're limiting ourselves. When a pointless thread appears that we hadn't covered, then the muppets will be up in arms, trying to castigate us with our own rules when we lock the thread.

Secondly, the meaning of pointless itself - as MAJD points out. "Lacking meaning; senseless." It's one of those word that describes itself (can't remember the actual word for this). To define pointless, would be in fact, pointless.

ExOffender

seamus wrote:

First off, if we try to define what constitutes a pointless thread, then we're limiting ourselves. When a pointless thread appears that we hadn't covered, then the muppets will be up in arms, trying to castigate us with our own rules when we lock the thread.

It is possible for an open definition to exist, one that can be revised and amended where necessary. This is no problem. It also seems clear that 'the muppets' are of no major obstacle either... there is little they can do beyond what I'm doing.

Secondly, the meaning of pointless itself - as MAJD points out. "Lacking meaning; senseless." It's one of those word that describes itself (can't remember the actual word for this). To define pointless, would be in fact, pointless.

So rephrase. Why glue yourself to a word you don't feel able to define? If you state clearly what it is about a thread that makes it 'pointless' in the lockable sense, again there is at least something concrete that can be referred to. I don't like the vagueness of this 'pointless' thing as it stands.

seamus

Pointless is an open definition.

You want a concrete, non-vague definition, that's wide open and freely revisable? Seriously, I'm trying to figure out now exactly what you want. Are you taking the piss?

The very fact that pointless cannot be defined is the beauty of the word.

simu

Clichéd response: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pointless

ExOffender

seamus wrote:

Pointless is an open definition.

'Pointless' is not a definition. It's a word. Are you taking the piss?

You want a concrete, non-vague definition, that's wide open and freely revisable?

When I said 'open' I meant 'open to revision'. It really doesn't seem like that much of a 'thinker' to me.

Seriously, I'm trying to figure out now exactly what you want.

CLARITY

The very fact that pointless cannot be defined is the beauty of the word.

Well, that's just lovely but in truth not very helpful. I've said clearly exactly what my problem is... over to you. Tbh I doubt you're engaging with this seriously, I'm hearing a lot of white noise from your end. The ball (such as it is) is in your court.

Bard

"Pointless" to me would clearly mean something that is perceived as being a waste of time and having very little or no point or reason to exist.

It is a subjective term.

This thread is fairly pointless, for example.

So is Poland.

So is the Catholic Church.

So are you.

You see? Subjective.

Lump

Píssing in the wind is pointless, why not just pee in a glass and throw it on yourself?

Benefits - You're not outside in the public eye.
Downside - You're still covered in píss


John

ExOffender

Bard wrote:

"Pointless" to me would clearly mean something that is perceived as being a waste of time and having very little or no point or reason to exist.
It is a subjective term.
This thread is fairly pointless, for example.
So is Poland.
So is the Catholic Church.
So are you.
You see? Subjective.

ExOffender wrote:

So far as they go, every poll posted on these boards fits my criteria for 'pointlessness' insofar as they serve no purpose other than the reportage of opinion. But, then, that's not just polls, it's... everything on boards.ie.

Said and said. Understood. It's in the title of my thread. That a term is 'subjective' does not mean an 'intersubjective' (yes, it's a word) definition cannot be hammered out. Take, for example, the US Constitution. It's very clear-cut in parts, very precise, very definite. It uses 'subjective' terminology, is concrete and definite so far as it goes... and has been amended twenty-seven times. That's most of a continent. This is an internet message board. I think it could be managed. An 'intersubjective' definition of what is surely a subjective term is not that much to ask for, I reckon.

And, Lump, I'll try to bear that in mind the next time I'm taking a piss.

seamus

ExOffender wrote:

The ball (such as it is) is in your court.

I disagree.
You've made a critique, but failed to provide any solutions.

Give me an example of what you would consider to be a good intersubjective definition of pointless, and we can work from there.

I'm happy with the way it is, but I'm always happy to be corrected or inspired. don't just make a comment and expect me to come up with the ideas. Clearly you have some notion of what you think is appropriate.

Hobart

ExOffender wrote:

...... Take, for example, the US Constitution. It's very clear-cut in parts, very precise, very definite. It uses 'subjective' terminology, is concrete and definite so far as it goes... and has been amended twenty-seven times. That's most of a continent. This is an internet message board.

So it's clear-cut in parts, and yet it's subjective? It's concrete and definite? But in only in so far as it goes? What about the much debated constitutional right "to bear arms?" And it's many definitions? You've answered your own question there tbh.

Big John wrote:

Píssing in the wind is pointless, why not just pee in a glass and throw it on yourself?

Benefits - You're not outside in the public eye.
Downside - You're still covered in píss

Surely if one pissed in the wind, one would expect to be covered in piss? Why would your example quote the fact that one was covered in piss as a downside, bearing in mind the context of the original act? Would it not also be deemed a benefit?

Also one "pisssing in the wind" would not necessitate the need to be "outside" as you so eloquently put it. One could easily "piss in the wind" in the comfort and warmth of one's home. Would this fact not negate the so called benefit of not being outside?

I'll rest my cases.

Jon.

ExOffender

seamus wrote:

Give me an example of what you would consider to be a good intersubjective definition of pointless, and we can work from there.

No one person can define something 'intersubjectively' - it refers here specifically to something agreed between people. And that's a decision for yourself, Trojan and all to make. My own definition of 'pointless', or more accurately my understanding of the anti-pointlessness rule itself, was as I said to prevent people posting polls along the lines of 'Which do you prefer - cats or dogs?'. In other words, to prevent people from posting polls which cannot be plausibly said to lead towards more than the poll itself inherently encompasses. So 60% prefer cats, 35% dogs, 5% Atari Jaguar... so freakin' what? If a poll even has the potential to lead to a conversation of interest to someone, and is not innately objectionable to the mods, then it doesn't meet my test for pointlessness. Only if it can be said of the poll that there is no hope of it going anywhere would I lock it. The intersubjectivity question remains for the moderators themselves to answer.

hobart wrote:

So it's clear-cut in parts, and yet it's subjective? It's concrete and definite? But in only in so far as it goes? What about the much debated constitutional right "to bear arms?" And it's many definitions? You've answered your own question there tbh.

The 'right to bear arms' was laid out not in the Constitution, but in the Second Amendment to it: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The controversy exists not over the 'bearing arms' itself, but over the extent to which the 'militias' are to be 'regulated'. Yes, there is controversy over these things... but again, yes, they are concretely defined by an authority everyone must respect, whether or not they agree. I'm not about to start scrapping over American law, it's just an example I grabbed at random. And as an analogy, it applies.

seamus

ExOffender wrote:

No one person can define something 'intersubjectively' - it refers here specifically to something agreed between people. And that's a decision for yourself, Trojan and all to make. My own definition of 'pointless', or more accurately my understanding of the anti-pointlessness rule itself, was as I said to prevent people posting polls along the lines of 'Which do you prefer - cats or dogs?'. In other words, to prevent people from posting polls which cannot be plausibly said to lead towards more than the poll itself inherently encompasses. So 60% prefer cats, 35% dogs, 5% Atari Jaguar... so freakin' what?

So who's going to be part of this group who agree what constitutes "pointless"? You and the mods of After Hours? All mods? All 35,000 users? Or perhaps just the mods of After Hours, as it has been all along.

You're only posting because you're pissed off your thread was locked, and are looking to back someone into a corner so you can point out, "HA! LOOK! My thread wasn't pointless according to you!". But by your own definition, your thread was pointless:

If a poll even has the potential to lead to a conversation of interest to someone, and is not innately objectionable to the mods, then it doesn't meet my test for pointlessness.

Clearly your thread was questionable to Trojan, ergo, by your rules, it was pointless.

Bard

And so is this thread.

Ergo. Ipso Facto. Concordantly. Etc.

ferdi

"....as usual the boards faithful stick together in order to keep the peace in this fair city"

jonski

Some people like to write , others like to read .

A pointless thread in AH ? if it is pointless , it will die out quickly without any help from anyone . If it is offensive , lock it and bin it . If it is "what is your favourite colour" get their address and call around .

As for this thread , while some might find it pointless , I rekon some are debating for the sake of it , cause they like it , and others , like me , are reading . This too will die in its own time.

Let the writers write , let the readers read, and let the offensive be baseballbatted ( not a word , but it should be ) , and yeah , i know , I should stick to reading , it's what i do well .

John

seamus

jonski wrote:

A pointless thread in AH ? if it is pointless , it will die out quickly without any help from anyone.

I agree in principle. However, you'll notice on After Hours, that pointless threads don't just die out without help. Some people have this irresistable urge to add their posts to a thread, no matter how frivilous, how pointless or how useless the thread or their contribution is. Pointless threads will continue to live for days because people allow them to.

These threads are spam magnets, and tend to get more posts, more frequently than genuine threads, pushing the good threads down the bottom, and leaving the front page with a shedload of mind-numbing, spam-filled crap, lowering the esteem of the forum and generally being a pain in the ass.

Thus, we stamp on them.

Trojan

I'm really not sure about this one.

Reopened.

Trojan

Perhaps if you had made more effort in the original post on the thread it would seem less pointless.

seamus's last comment about threads not dying gracefully is the specific reason I'd lock something like that - it's unfortunate that they don't die on their own.