Haha. Where did you get that idea?

Then show where it was implied.
Not really, rambled it off the top of my head, but if you take the time to understand it, it's valid.
I agree, but the same factors should be used within like cases. THis should be used the same way because it is just about the same type of thing. The supreme court does things like this all the time (Finds 10 cases that are basically the same, then judges them all the same), so why shouldn't we (other than because you say so)
Why shouldn't it? Similar cases should have similar results, or we basically have hypocrites for mods.
Anyone. basically, other than the mod, since they'd benefit from not having to close a thread, which only takes about 2 seconds (obviously I don't think that's a good benefit)
You implied it, by attempting to give an example.
You always claim that no support is given if you aren't convinced, which never happens. Ok, one positive reason: Less clutter within the forums, since just about anythign after the topic proves its purpose is spam (yes i believe our argument won't really help anyone)

I did, later in the post.

Because that's a ridiculously stupid approach. It assumes that the precedential cases were handled in a sensible fashion, which often isn't the case here.

No, we have fools for mods. People like Moon Goddess who close threads on a whim, without any logical justification. Meanwhile, there exist a few that moderate sensibly, and they shouldn't be shackled to the idiotic standards of the rest.

Then it's clear that there are potential benefits in any thread, simply because somebody might enjoy posting there.

I 'implied' a term that is specific to you? A term that I don't use, a term that I reject on the basis that it is ambiguous and useless? Don't be ridiculous. I made a statement about posting within threads, and I had no intention of tying it to your semantic inventions.

I claim that no support is given if no support is given. You always claim that people claim that no support is given if they aren't convinced if you haven't convinced them. Now, instead of telling each other about each other, could we continue discussing the matters that matter?

Clutter? Define the term and show how it is a bad thing.

Is this the definition of spam that encompasses anything and everything that you don't like, or the one that actually has presence within the English language?

Kind of bad to contradict yourself don't you think?

GO tell that to the Supreme court :whatever:

Well the few good mods would have closed this thread already :\

I am talking benefits that atcually are good for something, not just the joy of putting up a post.
Yes, you did, you gave an example, a bad one, showing how piggybacking topics would help, and you did it wrong.

For one who criticizes proper english usage on a regular basis, this really isn't a good statement.

CLutter is extra junk that does nothing but take up space. Obviously if no good comes out of the space taken up, then it is a negative thing, and therefore ridding of it would be a positive thing.

Spam is more of a slang term than a normal word in the enbglish langauge, so don't give me that crap. No slang term has presence within the english langauge, just in the minds of those who use it.

It seems that you have lost track of the debate. I have made no such contradiction.

Certainly. As soon as you show that the methods of forum moderating can and should be the same as those of the American justice system.

Do you have anything to offer besides repeated proclamations of your opinion? What you think is insignificant if you cannot back it up.

The happiness of the users is not a factor in your vision of perfect moderation?

Please, stop and listen to yourself. I gave an example of how continued posting could be useful. At no point did I refer to this as 'piggybacking', nor did I imply that I associated it with the term.

You should learn to identify a parody :)

How much space? A few kilobytes? Is this likely to make a significant difference? Enough to outweigh the users' desire to post?

And should mods delete all posts that they deem unworthy? Would that be a good way to make the users happier?

So therefore you're allowed to use it to mean whatever you want it to mean?

You said you didn't early in the post, than said you did later in it, I haven't lost track of the database.

Moderators are basically the justice of the forums. It's more of a metaphor, and since the American Justice system works so well anyway (supposedly) we should try and base ourselves on it.
Do you have anything to offer besides "prove that it needs to be closed"? You idea of what needs proof is insignifigant if you cannot back it up.

The individual is not as important as the whole. I am saying 1 theoretical user that wants to spam up a forum shouldn't matter if most people say it should be closed.

Well it sure seemed like you did based on how you phrased it, and how you didn't say what you were giving an example of, making it look like it'd be an example of what you're responding to.

:whatever:

I am not talkign harddrive space, I am talking letter space, that could mess up searcg results or other things, and have nothing to offer. And yes, that's enough to outweigh the spammer's want to post
Not that they deem, what the overall majority of the users deem. That would be a good way to make users happier.

Slang terms mean whatever most people think it means. Since they aren't really words int he english langauge, if i made up a slang term called bobikning, if everyone used it meaning to eat, it would mean to eat. That's how slang works.

Yes, you clearly have lost track. My statement "I did, later in the post" was in reference to your challenge to demonstrate an implication. Since this challenge did not even exist prior to that post, I have difficulty seeing how I could have contradicted an earlier statement.

Do all justice systems operate in that fashion? If not, how are we to decide which to emulate? Many GPs have banned people from servers out of stupidity or corruption. Should all others follow their example?

You are the one making a positive claim, arguing that something should be done. You should be the one to justify it. If you cannot, it is logical to fall back on the default: inaction.

I am saying that a few selfish, misguided individuals that want to limit other people's posting rights shouldn't matter if a majority may still want to post.

Stop strawmanning. I am not defending the right to spam, and there has never been a single instance where "most" forum users asked for a thread closure.

To you, perhaps. But we have previously covered your linguil inadequacies and I'd rather not drag them up all over again.

Incorrect.

"Give me an example of an instace where it's BETTER (Not equal to, or almost) to post a new topic on an existing thread"
"For example, proposing alternatives to using server options"

Wha? "Letter space"? What is this intended to mean, and how could it feasibly "mess up" search results?

So, what, make a poll every time somebody posts? How do you propose that the majority is identified? And if there were an exceedingly unpopular person, would the mods be justified in banning him/her despite that they haven't broken any rules?

Roughly speaking, yes. However, that does not mean you can independently assign to them any meaning that suits you. Otherwise I would be quite within my limits to define 'spam' as 'any post made by that falco guy'.

In addition to the bounds placed on words by common usage, the forum rules actually sport an objective definition of the term. Within this context, when deciding on matters of moderation, it should be taken as the standard.

I give up. I can't think of anyway to "prove" that this should be closed that would suit Kai, and I don't wish to argue more and have him firther insult my english comprehension. I would gladly continue the argument if Kai argued in a more mature, less stubborn manner, but I see that is not plausible. I do not inted for this post to be responded to, for i will not respond to anymore of your "nuh uh"s.

That's especially amusing when it comes from a person who relies on endless ungrounded assertions, refusing to back them up and intentionally misrepresenting his opponent's arguments.

this thread should be closed and deleted.... its not helpful its a perfect display of immaturity when this forum is supposed to be a helpful guide to new scripters

Oh look, another one.