Pointlessness - in the eye of the beholder?

WhiteWashMan

but surely after hours is the only forum on boards.ie that was designed for pointless threads?

and im also curious, what criteria are there really for closing down such a thread.
on a forum full of pointless threads, what makes one stand out from the others?

i mean, after hours really is the place where there is no such thing as being off topic, having an irrelevant thread or anything else.

perhaps the moderators should update the charter to tell people what the forum is about, and then, they can lock threads they feel are pointless, stupid or whatever.
as it stands, as far as i can see, anything can be posted in AH, and theres no reason to lock any of them, other than personal insults, racism etc.

Bard

Well ... I dunno ... Monty took a disliking to pointless poll threads a while back (and he wasn't the only one) - and I don't blame him.

I mean... who wants to see a genuinely interesting and entertaining forum filled with the likes of "What colour is your hair?", "When was the last time you farted?", "Whats your favourite smell?", "Daddy or Chips?", "Do you eat in McDonalds or Pizza Hut?" and other pathetic excuses for threads that do nothing but serve to increase the post counts of various muppets?

Nobody. That's who.

WhiteWashMan

but why should ones persons dislike for such things ruin it for those people who take part?

ok, i cant see the point of them myself, but is it really up to you or me or monty to say that on a forum where this stuff is supposed to be, that you cant do it?

who cares if it increases post count?

who cares what the outcome is?

i mean, what exactly is the problem?

your point bard is that you feel these are pointless.

my point is that yes, i think they are pointless, but someone else put them up.

hey, the admins have put up a census. if that was put up by a 5 post newbie, would it be locked in AH. possibly. because someone else thinks its pointless?

its not an after hours forum, its an 'only what i decide is good enough to post' forum really. isnt it?
i mean, it is someone deciding what they feel is good enough or not to post, on a forum that was designed to take all the rubbish that wouldnt go anywhere else.

WhiteWashMan

ecksor

Gordon

Trojan wrote:

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.

We probably need a paper bag forum so that these threads will suffocate. Sure, you can be mod.

BuffyBot

who cares if it increases post count?

The people trying to increase their post count most likely. An interesting experiment would be to make AH like the Cuckoo's Nest so posts don't count towards the post count and see what (if anything) happens.

Trojan

Getting away from generalities, and to the specifics of the situation:

1) The post was reported, hence my enforcement of the rule in this specific case as part of my remit as an AH mod. A lot of similar threads are simply not reported and thus unnoticed by AH mods.

2) I didn't make this rule, but I do enforce it as a pre-existing part of the AH charter devised by Monty.

3) I make no claim that it is a good rule, hence my suggestion to the OP that if he felt it was wrong he should discuss it here. Which is why we're now discussing it.

4) Locking it may have been the wrong option - I might have been better moving it to TCN or Bin (as I did earlier).

WhiteWashMan

jesus al, you and i must be the most bored people on this site today

i think i will start doing some work before im sacked.

Trojan

I'm just trying to up my post count.

ExOffender

seamus wrote:

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.

Yeah, the mods of AH, clearly, since it's AH we're discussing. As I've already told you, all I want is clarity. It's up to you and the other AH mods to provide it, or not, as you fancy.

You're only posting because you're pissed off your thread was locked

Why else would I be posting here? Don't state the obvious like it's some kind of point.

and are looking to back someone into a corner so you can point out, "HA! LOOK! My thread wasn't pointless according to you!".

Yup. Doing well, ain't I? But seriously, as I've said, I'm less interested in the thread itself than the principles behind its being locked.

But by your own definition, your thread was pointless:
Clearly your thread was questionable to Trojan, ergo, by your rules, it was pointless.

Nope. It was reported as pointless, hence this thread's existence. It wasn't (so far as I know) objectionable to Trojan, apart from maybe boring him slightly.

So off the poll goes to CN, eh? Where unloved threads go to die... (wipes tear from eye).
I suppose I've said pretty much all I can say on the topic. Up to yourselves now, lads.

Bard

It has to be up to somebody to cull the chaff from the wheat, so to speak, on a forum, and decide what threads are pointless and what threads are not. That somebody is (obviously) the moderator of the forum in question and that decision about what threads are pointless or not is obviously down to their own personal opinion. Like I said, it's a subjective thing. If you disagree with their opinion, you are free to discuss it on the feedback forum (as you are doing here) on a case by case basis.

It's up to the moderator to moderate the board - in other words - keep mountains of crap from appearing on it. ... and yes, it's up to them to decide what constitutes 'crap'. That's part of their job and they're doing a grand job of it so far. There's no need to change it by implementing one overall rule defining what is and isn't 'pointless' as such a rule is nigh-on impossible to write in any specific and conclusive way and would find itself being constantly redefined, creating more work and effort than it's worth for the moderator.

ExOffender

Once again... I've already acknowledged most of this. Except the bit about it being too much hassle - it's up to the mods themselves whether or not to revise the definition.

Trojan

ExO: you said "pointless" is not a definition but a word. That's not true - it is both a definition AND a word - it's a single word definition.

Again I will state: had you made more effort in the first post of the polling thread to explain what or why the poll was posted then it's more likely that it would not have been considered pointless - there would have been a point to it. To paraphrase your post (orginal linked here (to refute accusations of inaccurate reporting))

/paraphrased/ ExOffender wrote:

How many people are or have been flamers? I was but stopped because I was too good.

Nothing more offered. I see this as pretty pointless. Can you point out the point? You haven't requested any sort of discussion, excepting the fact that you give people a perfect opportunity to flame your egotistic positioning.

ExOffender wrote:

it's up to the mods themselves whether or not to revise the definition

I don't think that the definition of "pointless" needs any more revision at this time.

I find it ironic to be discussing a "point of law" with a self-confessed flamer, and most likely troller.

The General

boards is getting worse by the day

Trojan

It's unfortunate that when an organisation grows, it must formalise seemingly obvious things.

uberwolf

I was reading this thinking - hey, if only there was some forum for all this 'pointless' crap to go.

There is. Just send it there.
AH has the capacity to have some really interesting threads. Allowing it fill with spam would be a shame as Seamus has already pointed out.

But honestly is someone wants to talk about trolling, why not let them at it in TCN? People can spam all they like - but they may find that without the 'incentive' of a postcount that they don't care.

Trojan

So the point is postcount?

uberwolf

that'd be subjective tbh.

kaimera

why not move it to the 'cuckoo's nest'??

would that fora not suit the OP?

ExOffender

Trojan wrote:

I find it ironic to be discussing a "point of law" with a self-confessed flamer, and most likely troller.

I find it ironic that you answered 'yes' to the poll, but can still summon some piety here. And I'm not a troll.