The count to 100 thread

No, were looking for banter, not just page after page of spam.

 

So not rants either then ??.

 

Fair enough

 

Who have said that anybody care about postcount? The problem with threads designed to boost postcount isn't the fact that the postcount is boosted, it's that the forums gets cluttered with useless posts/threads.

 

Read the thread, it's mentioned three or four times in the first page.

 

I just re-read the first page again. Nobody said the increased postcount was the problem, although quite a few said that the actual spam was annoying.

Postcount was mentioned in regards to the test-forum.
In ye oldie days there was a test-forum that wasn't included in the counting of posts. It was sort of like a playground, and that was fine as it didn't clutter other sections of the forums. (Back then there was no tags. Each subforum were separate)

 

Fine:

^^ from the very post you quoted.

That would be four I believe.

Edit: not that this has any real relevance but I won't be told I'm wrong when the evidence is right there.

 

We don't need a sandpit. There's nothing to test, experiment with or waste time with. You have the 'preview post' button to try out drafts of posts and threads, to experiment with tags and so on.

This need to flood inane nonsense into the forum for the 'randomness' or 'fun' of it smacks of a circle of people spoilt by facebook, twitter and the like.
Once again, Nicholas Lezard on Twitter:

People need to get used to the idea of only putting stuff out there that they've thought about and proof-read a bit in their heads first. Meaningful stuff. The spam threads may just be 'a bit of fun' in themselves but they encourage very bad practice - unthinking, knee-jerk posting bloated with stream-of-consciousness triviality. Bad practice that spills over into all the other threads and forums.

 

All of them taken out of their context, which was about the test forums.

Anyway,

Personally I don't care about the postcount as long as the spam threads are removed from GD. If they are given a dedicated section, fine. Then they won't clutter as much.

Edit:

Wait, what?

 

Sadly, you're still wrong. None of what you quoted specifically states that it is the numerical count of the posts the specific users have that matters, but the fact that the threads themselves are so meaningless that the only real reason for them to exist seems to be the increasing of a users post-count. You're simply reasoning from the wrong end of the stick.

I'll put this as bluntly as I can, seeing as I started the Test forum controversy: in no way do I enjoy these pointless threads, nor do I want to see a single one left open, but instead of outright condemning them, I offered a simple solution so as to keep the garbage threads well away from anything meaningful or tasteful, while still having an outlet for the utter tripe people seem to be extruding from their bottom onto the forum these days. The alleviation of post-count woes is to remove any reason for a moderator to warn a particular person for posting too much, and to deny those fresh to the forums the ability to easily spam their way up the post-count ladder (for whatever benefits that may have - if any). This is to keep the section more open and free to play with however you want, making whatever useless, pointless garbage open to the masses.

To answer your other question: I don't feel that anybody wishes to restrict the forums entirely to the discussion of technology and the ilk; rather I think most would agree that it would be of detriment to the forum to do such a thing! General and Serious Discussion are two of the most exciting parts of the forum, and a good chunk of the community would be lost without them, making this site rather bland and tasteless. As Mankz has already put it: ...banter, not just page after page of spam. (which is here defined as non-contributory in any way beyond serving itself - or of such low value, even while in-line with the threads' intentions, so as to be an affront to the reader)

As an aside for the moderators: whatever happened to the forum not allowing a post with less than a specified number of words, anyway? I remember that being in place for a couple of years, but has this been removed? Or am I mistaken?

 

Until someone has answered my question as to whether I should or should not still be on this forum until I've decided on my next project, I am here and want to ask the following question, or series of questions, using just one simple example:

What is the definition of banter?

What is the definition of acceptable banter to Mankz?

Is it merely that which interests Mankz?

Is it a discussion and comment forum on the market price of titanium?

Is Mankz's definition that which should be applied to all?

************************

Get my point? As unfortunate as Mankz recent mishap was it is an example of what interests him and what he feels other people would, could or even should (for all I know) be interested in.

To each the definition of acceptable is different. To each the definition of interest is different. To each the definition of amusement, mental/other stimulation, stress relief (no titters children) and enjoyment is different. Even the definition of community or dare I say it forum.

Surely as long as everything is not inflicted on all, and each can choose to be included or excluded, compromise can be achieved without turning to purist (or should that read purists') draconian measures and condescension? Or am I just too thick to get it?

(note to self: must stop being sarcastic )

 

We seem to be forgetting the context in which this thread was closed. The count to 100 thread was one of three similar threads started by same forum member in a short space of time. Looking at his post history and the rapid opening of new threads I think the mods made the correct decision.

 

That's what this thread started with.

I'm not questioning the appropriateness of closing the Count to 100 thread or the mods decision, they have every right to do so, but as seems to be the way with lots of threads this one has spread to a wider principle.

 

So in summery; There are two issues here, spam threads and their bumping down of interesting threads.

With a lot of the current spam threads locked and sinking, General now (largely) has more interesting threads at the top which promote discussion, discovery and the exchange of ideas. Music, videos, purchases, requests for opinions, television shows, comparisons et al..

If people can't think of anything to post in General that isn't spam or a 4chan game, maybe they should hold off from posting?

 

But rightly or wrongly, and I make no judgement, your post implies:

1) YOU personally are now dictating the definition of interesting or worthwhile to everyone else on the forum

2) YOU are dictating what people should or should not post

(Can you get i/net in Egypt? - rhetorical question)

 

No, I am posting an observation and a suggestion.

 

Ahh the joys of PMT.

wat.

 

Yes I can tell you suffer with it greatly I didn't know bad manners was part of it though.

 

Eloquence abounds in the mighty debating arena I see, or was it just banter?

(bl**dy irony, where did that come from? )

 

Who do you think should make those distinctions, then?

Obviously the mods must decide what should stay, and who should be closed. The feedback section is out place to tell the mods whether or not they make the right decisions. It's pretty much how a democracy works, and as in a democracy someone will always disagree.