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.

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.