Why is this ever an issue? Post count isn't ever supposed to be a metric of quality. It's a measure of quantity. For some reason, forums tend to show some indicator of rank based on post count. It's meaningless. No one really cares if you're a Metapod or a Butterfree or whatever (past versions of this forum had other ranks, such as Charizard and Flygon, but we don't care if you're one of those either).
Don't speak for other people. You don't care. Others do. (For the record, I don't care either. But I know I'm subtly influenced by it and I'm also speaking up for those who do care because I know they'll be bashed by those who don't.)
It gives some impression of seniority because that's really the only way to express experience (not importance or rank) on a forum. Forums exist to be posted on, so the more you post on a forum, the more well known you are and the more you experience that forum. The ones with the most posts are, therefore, the ones who are the most active, because that is what that particular metric is meant to gauge. It says nothing about quality of those posts, only that those posts exist.
Your opinion. Others' differ.
There is a forum feature called "reputation" or "karma" that's supposed to be a metric of post quality (sort of like upvotes on reddit, if you're familiar with reddit), but it's not enabled on this forum for various reasons I don't care to research right now.
No idea what that is, and doesn't sound like it's worth the effort.
Well, sorry for inciting another "Forum Games" incident. =/
Yes, post counts can influence people, and they are something of an indicator of how active the person is or has been on the forums (whereas join dates tell you only how long it's been since they joined, with no indication of how much they've contributed). However, post count is so inherently unable to measure the worth of a member's contributions that excluding forum games would be a really futile effort. It's kind of like putting a saddle on a wild lion: even if the saddle technically improves your chances of being able to ride it, the fact it's a lion still makes that impossible, so why don't you just let it be a lion and not bother with the saddle? Post count will always be unable to distinguish between a member who makes long, thought-out posts in Serious Business and a member who posts a one-liner answer to a bunch of polls in Miscellaneous Discussion or General Pokémon Discussion, so why go to lengths to let it discriminate against people who just play a bunch of forum games?
For the part about post counts not being a good measure; I agree with you, others don't. Again, it's an opinion.
For the other part; I am assuming the discrimination against Forum Games players is that people think they are trying to earn posts to earn fame/respect/whatever. Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, if that's the case, you can't just magically remove the discrimination; you can try and weaken it, because the people who judge Forum Game posters will feel less hostile towards the Forum Game posters if Forum Games has its posts discounted from the post count since the Forum Games poster's perceived goal (from the discriminators) isn't reached.
Did I make sense there?
We used to have post count off in forum games, actually, several years ago. Then people made threads going "LOL BUTTERFREE IS THE SILLIEST ADMIN, DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT POST COUNT IS FOR COUNTING POSTS? ALSO REMOVE FORUM GAMES BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE IT AND ALSO I LOVE STOMPING ON CHILDREN'S SANDCASTLES." And I turned post count back on in forum games because I don't actually give a damn whether posts count in forum games and just wanted them to stop complaining. But the reasoning for that side of the matter is ultimately what I described above.
I personally believe that it is the best to take the correct course of action rather than the action that stops people complaining. But you do have a lot on your hands, so I guess it's an acceptable measure. Still, it is obvious the people are complaining aren't subject to reasoning if they
actually spoke about sandcastles and stuff.
As for post count counting posts; well, isn't the signature a "signature"? Why don't we ban links to other sites! That's not part of a signature at all!
Point is, things don't have to follow their name in order to be effective and have a purpose.
Also, you can make analogies involving genitalia even when they're not strictly necessary because they're often more amusing than their cleaner counterparts. I enjoy Music Dragon's strange analogies; from my previous impressions, many other members do too. One person not liking to hear about penises doesn't really counteract that, I think.
Well, I don't enjoy it, so I request to not to analogies involving genitalia. He doesn't have to comply to my request, but I'd appreciate it more if he did.
And some whining here; I don't really have the time for amusements when I'm trying to answer a question I deem absurd.
I don't get it, why are you so intent on encouraging weird pointless judgements?? You're even calling it 'judging'!
Ugh, the "judging" is not as bad as you make it out to be. And as to why I'm arguing for something I don't support, read my first response.
Okay, for starters: who actually judges people based on post count? Can you point to some sort of vague evidence that this is the case?
Secondly: even if there were loads of people who judge based on post count, the proper way to handle that should be to attempt to change their minds, not adapt to their prejudices, as I explained earlier.
Polymetric Sesquialtera's early post clearly demonstrates that the post count is of some, if not a lot of, positive value. Other people have responded as well.
Go ahead and attempt to change their minds then. I don't think you will succeed. If you do, I won't mind having posts in Forum Games counting. But chances are you won't. The problem is the phrase "adapting to prejudices" is just too negative; judging people based on post count is not a big deal.
From an objective point of view, there is no such thing as purpose. Purpose is subjective. Purpose is arbitrary. Why are you discussing this with me? Why are you on these forums? Why do these forums even exist? What purpose does any of this serve? Why have fun? What is the purpose of fun?
We're human. We have emotions. We are subjective. Our methods should be subjective. If you are so keen on being objective, why don't you just do nothing since nothing has purposes? And you're wrong, because even objectively things have purpose. For instance, humans eat food, and the purpose of eating food is to stay alive. That's an objective sentence that demonstrates the purpose of something.
What is the purpose of these questions?
I don't know. You asked them. Why did you ask them? Please tell me.
We didn't put it there, it was here when we arrived and we just didn't bother getting rid of it. And anyway, I'm still not buying your "everything must have a reason" argument.
If a "thing" doesn't have a reason, why have it? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm expecting an answer.
Post count has the express purpose of counting posts. And anyway, what is the purpose of portraying personality, linking to other websites and conducting social experiments?
...What do you think? This is getting ridiculous. Fine, linking to websites like DragCave will ensure the users' dragons survive (or something, I'm not familiar with the site) and therefore they can derive mental satisfaction.
I'm seriously considering ignoring your posts altogether. I really don't mean any offense, but these questions seem absurd to me.
This is probably the best argument you've made so far. Nevertheless, I highly doubt post count will ever be a meaningful indicator of anything other than post count; trying to turn it into one is futile as far as I'm concerned. Your proposed change would still not make post count a valid way to judge a person's merit as a poster.
It's not futile; there are people who agree with me.
And it would not to you; it would to some people. Otherwise they wouldn't use it. Yes, other people matter.
I enjoy discussing male genitals with strangers. It's what I do during spare hours, when I'm not using my vacuum cleaner to -
Okay, I just don't like it. I request that you do not use such analogies when discussing anything with me, unless it is directly related. Thank you.
Murder is worse than violating copyright laws, but is that a justification for breaking copyright laws? If I commit a crime, can I just say "well it could have been a worse crime" and somehow use that as an excuse? Obviously not. In the same way, judging a person based on their post count is not a good thing, regardless of how it compares to sexism or manslaughter.
Judging someone based on post count is far less serious than violating copyright laws. There will not be a rule of any sort that restricts judging people based on post count (well, from my deduction that the forum owners are competent enough to avoid such things).
Judging someone based on post count is not as bad as you make it out to be. And since you cannot remove the behaviour, you might as well adapt to it.
I really needed to emphasise that.
I used sexism as an example to illustrate my point; it wasn't an inherent part of the argument. I could just as easily have used an example involving male genitals and vacuum cleaners, but I decided against it because I thought it would upset you. My actual argument is simply this: in the face of prejudice, the proper reaction is not to accept that prejudice as set in stone and then try to adapt reality to it, but rather to combat it.
It still was a part of the argument and if you are to use it I should be able to too. It is very unfair if you are allowed to point out sexism when I am not.
Blah, we're repeating ourselves. Combat it. If unsuccessful, adapt to it, since it's not remotely a serious issue.
In any case, your counter-argument still isn't valid for reasons explained above; sexism is bad, but that doesn't make other things good. How sexism compares to the issue at hand is completely irrelevant. I could just as easily say that first-world sexism is a minor issue compared to human rights violations in Syria, but does that somehow make sexism acceptable?
No. This is entirely of a different magnitude. Is judging people based on post count causing any problems? Repeating myself again. Ugh.
Give me an example of something that has a meaningful purpose, then.
Look at my response which involves eating food.
And while "counting posts is for counting posts" is
true, it makes a terrible argument because anyone with basic grasp of the English language can infer that.
Some people enjoy being able to count the number of posts they've made. That's good enough. What is it with you and points, anyway? What kind of higher purpose is it that you believe in? There is no point in having fun or loving other people or being alive or posting on the internet, but we do it anyway because screw points, and screw vacuum cleaners.
Everything has a point. You just said that my best argument was about utilising things that aren't utilised properly. That was to make them have a point.
What is with
you and your insistence on pointless things? I don't get why you want pointless things. What benefit do you get? Why have things when they don't have a point?
It's already there, some people enjoy it, and it causes no harm.
We could make it cause more good than it is currently.
What is the purpose of logical arguments?
... This is just so frustrating because you think things that have no points should be kept, even if they have no points. And... why are you asking what is the purpose of logical arguments? Will you have a problem if I start presenting you with illogical arguments? Because I will do that exclusively to you from now on in this thread if you don't think logical arguments have a purpose.
I like debating, though. So that kind of balances the frustration out.
The last time I remember one of these threads cropping up, I think I was still in the "Forum Games should go" squad, but I've pretty much settled down from my angry-at-everything hipster-nerd phase, and, hey, turns out Butterfree's making a lot of sense. Sure, I think Forum Games is a bunch of noise, personally, but some people are having fun, and I remember having lots of fun there when I was thirteen–fourteen, so I can just hide it and move on.
I do agree Butterfree's post makes sense (and most others), but I still think my posts make more sense. (Otherwise I wouldn't be using up two hours to make this post in favour of removing Forum Games' post count, duh.) Music Dragon's views make no sense to me, however. Just me being me.
On postcount counting posts, I do like having that statistic (plus the average posts per day) and it's not just for the pure thrill of numbers or anything. I like seeing how often someone... posts. Uh. How often someone, like, actually takes part in the forums, I guess, how active they are, how frequent a thing it is in their lives. Separate from what they actually tend to post, especially since that's way more complicated.
Hmm... wouldn't it be a more accurate measure of how much someone posts when the type of posts is restricted to a more narrow range?
What's your opinion on palm reading?
This is the problem I have with your posts. You're clearly intelligent enough to know that Zero Moment meant he judges people based on post count, but for whatever reason, you ignore it.
It seems to me you're not really judging the expected quality of anyone's posts by their post count.
Does it matter? It's still judging people, even if it's not their quality of post but what type of people they are (forum-wise).
Unless I'm missing something crucial, being able to decide what you see in someone's postcount sounds like a decent solution to the problem. The actual postcount would remain the default option (as in the exact number of posts that you actually have, you know), but the other people who really hate forum games/the coughing cupboard/ASB/whatever could just turn off that forum from postcount. Meanwhile, the people who don't care about postcount/just want it to be an accurate measurement of posts could keep it as it is.
I'd imagine it would work similarly to hiding a forum (if hiding a forum already does that... sorry, I don't hide any of the boards here).
If this is impossible or doesn't make sense or something, sorry again; I just figured it would be a way to end all the threads that have come up about forum games.
Hey, that is actually quite a good idea. That ways we can suit everyone's taste. I think there might be technical problems with it, though...
wait, what? Why is it a stupid argument? That's what postcount actually does. It's a number that counts how many posts you've made. That's why it's called 'postcount'. Just because you seem to attach significance to counting posts, it doesn't mean other people do.
Hm, just wondering, why don't you capitalise the first letter of paragraphs?
And yes, I don't deny that that is what it actually does. My point is that it's so blatantly obvious it doesn't need stating. And even though it does answer my question I'm sure he is intelligent enough to know I wasn't looking for that. (That or our values are way too different to have a proper argument.)
but you've said before that you don't really agree with this mindset. ??? I don't really get how your justification for postcount is that other people judge members based on it when you personally don't think that's a very good thing to do. Besides, I'm pretty sure members are more likely to be judged by their signatures/avatars/usertitles etc., if not their posts.
You're right; I don't agree with judging people based on post count. However, I subconsciously do it, and I believe many people subconsciously do it without meaning to. Read my first reply as to why I'm trying to argue for a side I'm not fully on.
Well, as Zero Moment says, post count is quite important in his "judging system", and I'm sure it would be in others. It is true that a picture or even words would mean more than a number, but the number still has quite a significant impact on people's minds.
and yet, mysteriously you're still asking what postcount means and what the purpose is of counting posts without really giving your opinion. mostly people are saying that it doesn't inherently mean anything, but you seem to disagree. What do you think it means? and don't start off with 'well other people ...'; I am asking you what significance postcount has to you, because you seem to be dodging this question.
I apologise for not giving my opinion earlier. I believe I have clarified it in my post.
Well other people... *slapped* Okay, what post count means to me as an individual. I can judge how much the person posts, and coupled with other factors I can decide how active he/she is. But with Forum Games' posts counting it becomes much more inaccurate a users with 2000 posts could either be a person who posts in Forum Games a lot, or a consistent participant in discussions. And I also subtly think that people with more posts are more mature, but I don't want to. It's reflexive, though, so I don't really have a choice.
I didn't want to dodge the question; just seems like I never got around to physically answering it.
I'm sensing you're one of the people I might get frustrated with as well, but I'm not really certain. Different values again -.- (because if I saw someone criticising someone else for saying "x is x" I'd be on their side, at least most of the time).
postcount counts posts. it is a post-count, get it? counting posts is what it's for.
And you're on the people-I-might-get-frustrated-at list as well. I just don't agree with the mentality that something should be there if t doesn't serve a purpose.
it's not a notinforumgamespostcount. it's not a meaningfulpostcount. it's a postcount. it counts posts. that is, it is what it is. it is not, notably, something it isn't.
I've said why names aren't everything. Here, I'm copying from my own post:
As for post count counting posts; well, isn't the signature a "signature"? Why don't we ban links to other sites! That's not part of a signature at all!
Point is, things don't have to follow their name in order to be effective and have a purpose.
thing a is thing a is logically tautological, perhaps. if thing a were allowed to be thing a, it would not be particularly notable, since thing a is expected to be thing a. but if one means thing b when one says thing a, where thing b is not necessarily thing a, then that is at least slightly annoying.
I checked the dictionary for tautological, and I'm pretty sure of what it means. But still, it just seems like a stupid argument which was used since he had no other explanation to give. Well, it seems like that to me.
"Counting posts is for counting posts" means that counting posts is intended to count posts.
That statement is correct. That does not mean that statement makes a good argument.
