Forum Rule 2.3

[Chrissy]

Hello all,

I want to bring to your attention the rule about 'unnecessary posting'.

There isn't much clarification on what unnecessary posting is, for example I would not consider the post below (on the police computer update thread) to be particularly unnecessary.

So, do you think the rule needs to change? Or does 'unnecessary posting' need to be better defined.


inb4 warned for 2.3

 

[Minilarro]

It should be rather clear in my opinion, and if the provided post would be considered to not fall under 2.3, I would class it as an infringement of rule 2.2.

Spoiler: 2.2 Replying/Commenting.

Users are expected to use the appropriate function when posting on a thread. If what you are posting is nothing constructive to the thread or just something very small, use the comment function. However if what you are posting is something constructive and/or to big to be put into the comments then creating a reply is fine.

 

[Saltguy]

How in the world is that post not unnecessary? There was definitely no degree of need for that to be posted, the post didn't contribute to the thread in any form what so ever and the post is also a definitive case of replying when the comment function should have been used. To me, this post is the embodiment of an unnecessary post.

 

[Allen Kennedy]

2.3 User was warned for this post.

good idae

------------

Nah, but in all seriousness, I agree with what you have to say here, as often people, especially newbies, are warned for breaches of 2.3, 2.4, and more. The issue you'd end up having would be identifying a threshold of what makes a reply unnecessary or not, for example, you could say my entire reply right here is unnecessary, as it only brings to light what anyone who puts their mind to the situation can figure out for themselves. Is it unnecessary? Probably.

Although the example you mentioned might have been perceived as sarcasm, and thus warned accordingly.

 

[Chrissy]

How in the world is that post not unnecessary? There was definitely no degree of need for that to be posted, the post didn't contribute to the thread in any form what so ever and the post is also a definitive case of replying when the comment function should have been used. To me, this post is the embodiment of an unnecessary post.

Firstly, the thread that it was posted in was about the Police Computer update. What's wrong with saying that you're excited about it? It's a forum, meant for discussion and the expression of ideas. It is not a tick marked essay where everything you say needs to have a purpose. The comment function also has its issues, but that's another thread for another day.

Finally, this is a discussion post in a discussion area of the forum; how is it unecessary?

Thanks for your input though.

 

[Saltguy]

Your claim of the post not being particularly unnecessary is, in my opinion, false. It seems as if you argue that the post isn't unnecessary at all and that it is, in the current confines of the rules, a completely valid post, this is also false. Moreover, I do not see how the post in question contributes to discussion, it doesn't pose any questions, it doesn't make any remotely meaningful statements and it doesn't express any type of idea. In any case, the post does undeniably break 2.2.

If you're arguing for the (more or less) abolishment of rule 3.4 and that administration should increase their tolerance for these types of (arguably) unnecessary posts, that's completely fine. The PERPHeads forum has set a standard for the content in a post, this standard is very high compared to other forums, and within the confines of this standard the aforementioned post breaks the rules. Again, arguing for the lowering of these standards is absolutely fine, and is something which I am to a certain extent for. A more lax approach to socializing might be beneficial.

 

[Chrissy]

it doesn't pose any questions, it doesn't make any remotely meaningful statements and it doesn't express any type of idea.

So, do you think the rule needs to change? Or does 'unnecessary posting' need to be better defined.

If you're arguing for the (more or less) abolishment of rule 3.4 and that administration should increase their tolerance for these types of (arguably) unnecessary posts, that's completely fine.

There isn't much clarification on what unnecessary posting is, for example I would not consider the post below (on the police computer update thread) to be particularly unnecessary.

I think all of your questions are answered when you actually read the post

 

[John Daymon]

Honestly if this is 2.3 then tagging someone, doing a short reply is so aswell. This is a weird warning on the forums imo.

Also moved to the correct section

 

[Saltguy]

@Chrissy
The basis of my post is that I disagreed with you, that's it. I argue for that the post is unnecessary, you argue against that, and I have yet to see anyone bring up any compelling arguments that support your case. Also, I don't see how your post answers all my ''things'', your post is just an invitation to discussion and a claim that a certain post isn't a certain thing, I go against that claim. A bit sad that me attempting to create discussion is seen as being salty (the worst thing is that i got slightly salty because you called me salty fuck fuck fuck)

 

[M]

It doesn't need any clarification, it just needs enforcing more practically (i.e. tending towards responses not being relevant or contributive, rather than being short or worthy of use of the comment function (within reason)). After all, this is a discussion forum.

 

[Chrissy]

@Chrissy
The basis of my post is that I disagreed with you, that's it. I argue for that the post is unnecessary, you argue against that, and I have yet to see anyone bring up any compelling arguments that support your case. Also, I don't see how your post answers all my ''things'', your post is just an invitation to discussion and a claim that a certain post isn't a certain thing, I go against that claim. A bit sad that me attempting to create discussion is seen as being salty (the worst thing is that i got slightly salty because you called me salty fuck fuck fuck)

1. It's a gaming forum, no post here is ever 'important'.
2. I've provided you with evidence that answer the points you raised in post #6
3. How is any discussion ever unecessary? You've got to be on the level of @Chrissy.
4. Cry more.

 

[Walker]

@Saltguy using your logic about all of the posts, including one from @Youseff, on the v3 thread need to be warned.

Dank.

Beautiful

Noice This is gonna be awesome. Thx for the hard work bois. @Fredy @Xquality @StephenPuffs , @Bolli?

NO OMG IM AWAY TIL TOMOROW!!

Where have you been all my life.

yes, this is my Christmas present now.

Fuck yeah!

The guy didn't deserve a warning either and he should dispute it.

 

[Saltguy]

@Saltguy using your logic about all of the posts, including one from @Youseff, on the v3 thread need to be warned.

Not by my logic, by the current rules' logic they should be warned. And yes, if they weren't warned the other guy shouldn't be warned either.
By my logic, all of those posts are unnecessary, yes. But that doesn't mean that I believe it should be against the rules, something I hoped I had made clear eariler.

1. It's a gaming forum, no post here is ever 'important'.

Sure, nothing here is really important to the world as a whole, but within the context of this forum and this community, there are some things which could be considered important. Like discussing what is important or not, discussing rules and discussing laws.

3. How is any discussion ever unecessary? You've got to be on the level of @Chrissy.

Discussions can definitely be unnecessary, as in not required, in the ultimate sense no discussion is required, but within the context of an online forum some things can be necessary or at least immensely beneficial to the forum in question, like discussing a bad rule. An unnecessary discussion in the context of this forum would be something like:

''Ay mate you like crabs?''
''Nah mate, they're dumb.''

4. Cry more.

Don't be passive-agressive please, no one benefits from it.

For the record, yes, unnecessary posting does need to be better defined, and yes, maybe the rule needs some alterations.

 

[rogue]

Well I think that a post that actually relates to the topic such as being excited for something is necessary. Anyone is allowed to express their opinions so why not post your feelings there?

Of course if you're making something short then use the comment function but I don't think that people should be penalised for expressing their inner thoughts.

 

[DilanTheSkrub]

2.1 User was warned for this post ⚠

​

allen kennedy told me 2 bump pls no warning

But seriously, so many people have been warned for this, even though what they've said is perfectly valid. It's the same with Bumping, people post something on an old thread just because they find it interesting and then get blamed for bumping the thread, which is ridiculous.
It's arguable, though. Most posts where you do something like share your opinion or simply say something in a reply that doesn't exactly benefit either sides of an argument (if there is one) is, technically, unnecessary, but there's also a thing called freedom of speech which makes it necessary to share everything going through your head even though nobody cares
We do need a better explanation of the rule so people know EXACTLY what TO do and NOT to do.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Regards
DilanTheSkrub
PRAF Captain
PLPD Dispatcher
Civillian
Person who wears clothes
Person who has hands
@Appricey make-fun-of enthusiast

 

[MoronPipllyd]

In my opinion the example you provided was a rule being miss-enforced, the user should have been warned for 2.2 instead. As far as your suggestion goes I will do my best to elaborate on the rule and maybe add an example to clear things up. Thank you for your suggestion.