What are the rules against posting low-effort threads?

So, I’m asking for some clarity on the specific rule used to delete meaningless threads—you know, the ones that get wiped while the offensive or "spring fever" posts just sit there being ignored... Also, I'd like to know the exact criteria for when a thread is deemed "meaningless" enough to warrant a hundred-point penalty.

With this kind of approach, you're running into two major issues—and I’m talking directly to the administration and the supermods over at PZ... just so we're clear who I'm addressing here:
It feels like you’re just trying to shut people down—like you’re using those kinds of expressions just to silence someone else...
You’re breaking the rules by trying to enforce regulations that don't actually exist—and honestly, this isn't even the first time you've done this...

Take Splendid, for instance. You ended up leaving two completely pointless threads behind—all because you decided to delete the original one just because you personally thought it was nonsense...

Besides, since when did you all become the official benchmark for what makes sense...?
Just take a look at the first two pages of the PZ... honestly, don't be surprised when a bunch of weirdos and bizarre characters start pointing fingers at you for absolutely nothing—because actions like these are exactly what invite that kind of behavior in the first place...

stormyraven14 said:So, could someone please point me toward the specific rule used for deleting SENSELESS threads?

Look, here’s how thread creation works around here. If a topic doesn't meet our requirements, it can be locked, deleted, or archived... it all just depends on the specific situation and our judgment calls.

rustydrifter10 said:Guidelines for starting a thread:

• Make sure your titles clearly state who you are complaining about and why [file name - moderator username - issue]. Doing this makes complaints much easier for the right people to spot, which means you'll get an answer way faster. In your opening post, please provide a specific reason with some actual context and include links to the posts in question.

• Vague threads where the actual problem isn't clear won't be addressed and are subject to being locked.

• We aren't going to look at complaints that are offensive or vulgar. Please remember to stay polite when communicating; being rude or provocative in a complaint can actually result in sanctions or the thread being shut down entirely.

• Spam, off-topic chatter, and random "water cooler" style chat aren't allowed either.

stormyraven14 said:Besides, since when did you guys become the official arbiters of what counts as "meaningful"?

The moderators handle the final call based on their assessment. If you honestly feel certain threads should be taken down, just report them and we'll take a look to see if action is needed.

These aren't "meaningless" topics; they simply run counter to the rules. This implies that deleting or locking a thread under the guise of it being "meaningless" isn't actually supported by the rulebook... it’s just an arbitrary expansion of existing regulations. And what follows is the realization that being part of the administration—specifically you, in this instance—allows one to impose their own personal value systems as if they were universal norms. I won't accept that...

edit
Just out of curiosity, how many threads have been locked or users penalized with 100 points simply because, for example, they failed to specify which moderator to address or which PDF they were contesting?

• Threads that lack clarity regarding the core issue cannot be resolved and remain subject to being locked.

Locking should be the exception, even though you told me on a different thread that most threads end up getting locked anyway. If we look at the closed threads—just take the first page or even just the first two pages—how many of them truly fall under the category of being "unclear or vague"?

I honestly can't believe we're still debating this, but here we go again! I was just sitting here thinking about how much everyone seems to have such wildly different takes on this situation, and it really makes me wonder if we're even talking about the same thing. It’s funny, actually—it reminds me of those heated debates you see over at a local diner in a small town in Ohio where everyone thinks they're an expert on politics or football, even when they haven't watched a game in years! Anyway, I've been following what stormyraven14 has been saying about this, and while I love their energy, I think they might be missing a crucial piece of the puzzle. And don't get me started on what rustydrifter10 mentioned earlier; I totally hear where you're coming from, but isn't that a bit of a stretch? It feels like we're looking at the symptoms instead of the actual cause. I really want us to dig a little deeper here because I feel like there's something much more significant happening under the surface than any of us are giving it credit for. Let's try to look at the big picture for once! kaže:
The way I see it, if deleting or locking a thread isn't explicitly written down in the rulebook, then calling it "senseless" is a bit of a stretch. It feels like the mods aren't actually following the established guidelines, but rather just making up their own rules on the fly and expanding them whenever they feel like it.

I honestly feel like "nonsense" is just a polite way of saying someone’s breaking the rules—it’s just more specifically defined that way. At the end of the day, if a post or a whole thread isn't fleshed out enough to actually hold weight, it shouldn't be staying up. It's pretty simple: if there's no substance there, it doesn't belong.

I honestly can't stop thinking about what Melissa Walker86 mentioned earlier—it really hit a nerve. There’s just something about how these situations unfold that feels so incredibly heavy, you know? I was sitting here sipping my coffee, staring out at the skyline, and I kept circling back to those points. It’s like we all want to believe things will just smooth themselves out, but sometimes you have to face the messy reality of it all. I truly feel like if we don't address these underlying issues now, we're just setting ourselves up for another headache down the road. What do you guys think? Am I being too dramatic, or does anyone else feel that same sense of unease? kaže:
Does anyone happen to know how many threads have been locked so far, or how many people have been hit with that 100-point penalty? You know, those cases where they forgot to specify which moderator took action or which PDF they’re actually appealing?

If you look at the locked threads—just sticking to the first page or maybe even just the first couple of pages—how many of them actually fall under that "vague and undefined" category?

We don't really bother keeping track of the stats.

rustydrifter10 said:Here’s how thread opening works. Any posts that don't meet the requirements can be locked, deleted, or moved to the archives... depending on the specific situation and the moderator's judgment.

The site moderators make the call. If you feel certain threads should be removed entirely, just report them—we'll take a look and see if action is actually needed.

The community guidelines specifically mention "sanctioned and locked" or simply "locked."
You're basically twisting a clearly stated rule that doesn't say anything about deleting senseless threads.

Locking things keeps them visible but contained—just like archiving does—but deleting them under a rule that doesn't exist... well, that just creates doubt.

Just don't act surprised when people start accusing you of overstepping your authority—you're really just asking for it at this point...

rustydrifter10 said:Meaninglessness is just another way of saying someone broke the rules—it’s just phrased a bit more specifically. Basically, if a post or a thread isn't well-developed enough, it doesn't belong here.

We don't keep track of stats.

I really shouldn't start dropping links to all those locked threads that were left up despite being "meaningless"...

And let's not get ahead of ourselves with the attitude—the guy asked a perfectly valid question and didn't do anything to deserve being shut down like that...

stormyraven14 said:The rules explicitly state "sanctioned and locked" or just "locked."
You’re basically twisting the rules to fit your own narrative, even though they don't say a single thing about deleting senseless threads.

Look, I didn't realize there wasn't a specific clause on how things can be deleted, but honestly, I just assumed that was common sense. I'll go ahead and add that one word to clarify.

stormyraven14 said:Don't make me start sending you links to all those "senseless" threads that stay open even after being locked.

And hey, let's drop the attitude—the guy asked a perfectly legitimate question and didn't do anything to deserve getting snapped at like that.

He was asking for the count of locked versus banned posts and which PDFs were involved... Honestly, I have no idea, I don't sit around taking notes on this stuff, and I certainly don't need those numbers for my own records; I'm not running a statistics bureau here! He can just scroll through the forums himself if he wants to see how many threads are locked or what kind of strikes are on them. As for the deleted ones, there's really no point in arguing about it.

rustydrifter10 said:I didn't notice it wasn't mentioned how things can be deleted, but I just assumed that went without saying. I'll add that one detail.

He asked how many threads are locked, archived, or just plain pointless... Honestly, I don't know—I don't track any of that, I don't keep stats, and I really don't need those numbers. He can just scroll through the boards if he wants to see how many locked topics there are or what the archives look like. As for deleted posts, there's really no point in debating that...

Deleting stuff that isn't illegal or completely offensive/disrespectful has never been an "assumed" rule on any forum—not here, either. Maybe, before declaring ad hoc rules under the guise of "well, it should be obvious," you ought to consult with some of the more seasoned veterans around here.

At the end of the day, you're a forum user, and as such, you should probably understand which behaviors trigger a backlash. I think it’s time for some self-reflection... maybe stop dragging everyone else into your mess by jumping around when things get heated, then staying silent until you're forced to speak up—only to then claim "it goes without saying" and pivot the rules to fit your sudden change of heart.

No, it doesn't go without saying. You have enough experience to know better than that.

I actually asked you who gave you the authority to decide what's "pointless"? To the point where you'd label things as meaningless enough to be deleted—even things that are clearly just insults or hate speech? For everyone else besides you, it's pretty clear what gets deleted and what "goes without saying."

Edit — there are much kinder, more professional ways to tell someone to just scroll back through the history themselves. There's also the context in which the question was originally asked, a context in which your response comes across as rude and unnecessarily blunt. And please, don't pretend the context isn't clear... it's perfectly clear. Even to you.

stormyraven14 said:Deleting stuff that isn't actually illegal or just straight-up tacky and offensive has never been the rule on any forum, including this one.

Look, when I go in and delete something because it’s insulting or just plain gross, it’s not just because I personally think it's nonsense.

stormyraven14 said:As a regular forum user, you should intuitively understand which kinds of behaviors are going to spark a total revolt.

I’m certainly not deleting anything that’s polite and makes sense, but if someone drops a comment just to be rude or poke at someone else without adding a single constructive thought to the conversation, I’m pulling the plug. I just don't want to deal with the fallout where people start attacking me or dragging me into a massive blowout elsewhere.

rustydrifter10 said:When I go through and delete stuff that's offensive or just plain tasteless—I'm not doing it because it's a personal vendetta or anything... it’s just that, to me, it feels pointless to leave it up...

I’m not going to go around deleting posts just because they’re decent or actually make sense—that’s not my style. But, if someone decides to drop something unnecessarily offensive or starts picking at people without offering any actual value... yeah, I’ll be clearing that out. I really don't want to deal with the fallout or have people getting into heated, pointless arguments in my comments section...

So, was Splenda really that offensive—like, zero constructive value kind of offensive? Was it actually enough to justify deleting the whole post instead of just locking the thread...

So, could you please walk me through how my post from two weeks ago on ejsin's thread actually differed from what was happening over on Splend's thread?

stormyraven14 said:So, if you're going to insist, please tell me exactly how my post over on ejsin's thread from two weeks ago was any different from Splend's thread?

Which one? In the first one, where you linked it, you were just explaining your stance on your own warnings. In the second, you were being pretty unpleasant—though I’ll admit it took me a second to catch the bit about Springfield, so I actually hesitated on whether to issue a warning or not. Generally speaking, I'm not really one for retroactive warnings, and since the debate had basically wrapped up and you hadn't continued being rude, I just let it slide. It's the same way I didn't go after Splend immediately either; I waited until somewhere around her fourth thread. So, the difference is that hers was an entire thread that ended up getting wiped because there was nowhere left to take the discussion, whereas yours was just a single post. I didn't jump on you right away, and I didn't jump on her right away either. I didn't warn her the second time, nor the third, so I really wouldn't say I was being any harsher with her than I was with you.

rustydrifter10 said:Which one? In the first link you shared, you were just explaining your reasoning behind your moderation calls. In the second one, you were being pretty unpleasant—though I have to admit I didn't catch the part about Springfield until later, which made me hesitate on whether to issue a ban or not. Generally, I'm not one for retroactive bans, and since the discussion had basically reached its end and you hadn't continued being rude, I just let it go. It’s similar to how I didn't ban Splend immediately either, but waited until somewhere around the fourth thread. The difference is that her entire thread was deleted because there was nothing left to discuss, whereas yours was just a single post. I didn't ban you right away, and I didn't ban her right away either. I didn't ban her the second time, or the third... so I wouldn't say I was any stricter with her than I was with you.

On ejsin's thread from two weeks ago—the one where I didn't issue any bans at all. It was completely pointless to everyone except maybe me and her. Being rude is easy to flag, sure, that gets a ban. But it was just nonsense, and it went practically unnoticed by both Supermod and you. Based on your own lenient rules, it really should have been deleted...

Edit — here, this one

even if maybe, learning from your example, I should have just said "just scroll back, everything from today is posted and linked, I don't keep a spreadsheet of everyone I've called out"...

stormyraven14 said:If we’re going strictly by your logic of "understanding," then sure, it should have been deleted.

Look, I was only popping onto the forum those few days to put out some fires because my schedule was absolutely slammed and I was dealing with a sick kid at home. In that moment, I figured it could just stay up, but hey, if one of the mods had decided to archive or delete it, I wouldn't have thought twice about it—I would've totally understood. I was just explaining why I didn't step in myself right then. The post was a mess, the part about Springfield got left out, and honestly, making a retroactive decision once the whole debate had already fizzled out felt unnecessary. I really don't see the point in dragging this out any further, especially not by splitting the argument across two different threads.

rustydrifter10 said:I only hopped onto the forum during those days to try and put out some fires because my schedule was slammed and I had a sick kid at home... in that moment, I figured it could just stay up, but if someone else in charge decided to archive it or delete it, I wouldn't have seen that as wrong. I already explained why I didn't step in when I did. My post was messy, the part about Springfield got missed, and the retroactive decision to release it only happened once the discussion was basically over anyway. I don't see any point in dragging this out further—especially not across two different threads.

Bringing up your private life and sick kids is tacky and inappropriate, but since you’re the one who brought it up—first of all, who cares? If that's the case, then don't jump in; just take a sick day and look after your children. And secondly, you seem to have an "overloaded schedule" incredibly often whenever it suits your selective answering, selective deleting, and selective everything else.

As for your take on what's purposeful or meaningful, we've already made our positions clear on two separate threads.

Don't try to make me look like a fool here... I went through this with Saš, and I'll go through it with you too. Just because you're picking on someone else instead of me—and doing it so politely—doesn't mean you aren't being biased or blunt while performing a paid job. I'm used to getting banned for trolling, and nobody's going to shed much sympathy when I get kicked out and end up taking another hit... so maybe it's best if I just say this:

Either learn the rules and how they actually apply (to everyone, by the way—hint: everyone!), or just retire.

stormyraven14 said:Don't try to play me for a fool here. I've been through this exact same thing with Saša, and I'll go through it with you too. The mere fact that you're sleeping with someone else instead of me—and doing it so blatantly—doesn't make you any different, less biased, or any less arrogant when it comes to getting your paycheck.

Look, I’m not doing this for the reasons you're accusing me of. I really am trying my best to stay fair and unbiased; whenever I have even a tiny doubt about a decision I've made, I actually reach out to my colleagues for a second opinion. But honestly? I don't see any point in us continuing to go back and forth like this.