Ever wonder to yourself what is truly useless?
Technically, nothing is truly useless, it always has a benefit to something, or someone, somewhere, no matter the circumstances.

The definition of Useless is " Not fulfilling or not expected to achieve the intended purpose or desired outcome."

This is why I've always had the evil eye when something is deduced "useless", such as a post or a question asked, even if it really is a rather unorthodox question or comment, it will aid other people in some way and will actually serve its purpose.
Immediately or other-wise, something is affected.

Say, I had a question deemed useless, and it was left un-answered. How would that benefit anyone? What is the desired purpose or true outcome? Nothing. Calling something useless would be the same as abandoning a trash can. You might not want it, but there's someone out there that will need it. Plus, the person asking the aforementioned question will never be enlightened with an answer. Which is the same as leaving the trash can to gather dust while someone is actually in need of it.

Nothing is accomplished, therefore nothing is gained, and because of someone else's negligence to a comment or post, or trash can, it has to be abandoned because someone cannot find an immediate use for what is being proposed. When in reality, that post, or trash can, etc. actually does have a use.

And if you believe that your own opinion comes before anyone else, that, my friend, is an indirect form of Communism. And we all know how great that is and how it obviously benefits everyone. /sarcasm

So tell me, are things truly useless? Give an example, a story, anything. Try to prove me, or yourself, wrong.
I find this topic intriguing .

I believe you've answered your own question within your post.

Assuming we're including lack of action or an idea, not answering a question would be useless.

Other than that, if one seeks purpose, it can be found anywhere, however, an urn that cracks while being made is then broken and deemed useless. It could be reused as something else, but it's usefulness as a vase or a holder-of-something is now diminished or gone altogether (depending where it has cracked and broken)

Essentially, once something is no longer being used for it's original purpose (too old, broken, or otherwise indisposed) it requires a new purpose to be found for it otherwise, in that time, it is useless.

We have standards. if a post does not meet those standards, it does not acheve the intended purpose or desired outcome.
The intended purpose and disired outcome are defined by those setting the rules.

To expand on this, finding a useless post is easy, first off original posts can't be useless posts, that would be something more like 'not fitting to this board', however once a thread is valid in a board, and someone posts in it, they have to:
A) Conform to the topic.
B) Add new content that doesn't violate any other rules (I.E. insulting other members).

Simple no?
There are a few exceptions, such as moderator messages that are them selves comments on the thread in question, for instance "Deleted a whole ton of useless posts, please do not make useless posts and read the rules before posting, if your post was deleted do not repost it.". Interestingly that would apply to this thread which now has 17 deleted posts.

So your saying that any post that is fortunately governed by these set of rules, and not removed or posted with a mod's warning, is then a useful post.
Posts that are waiting to be governed, or that a mod post, can be a useless, or useful post.
When the post is governed, the post can be thought of as useful, or useless, based on a set of rules.
Makes sense, much actua-

What would happen if the post was useless, and useful, because by being useless, it was useful! Works backwards too, because this is useless and useful stuff is based on people's personal situations and thoughts at the least. The backwards one may work out like a double post or Mr. Obvious. Though the set of rules may rule one side, the person (or people) also dictate whether or not it is useful.
To get out of this sticky contradiction, just think of this as food for thought, and just imagine me being shot in the head.

Yes Major, an un-reviewed post is said to be in super-position, it is simultaneously useless and useful.

In addition, a 'useful' post is still useful and useless, as it can late be re-reviewed by a different moderator.


Although Vox likes to be ironic by posting "do not post useless posts" - thus engaging in meta-discussion and being offtopic - these are technically useless too.

Also, a post must have a certain amount of words before being allowed, generally any post that has a single point, or is less than 2 lines, will be deemed useless, even if it is filled with insight and wisdom.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
Posts are useful or useless depending on the criterion I just explained, moderators just enforce those criterion.
You don't need quantum mechanics to explain moderation.

How can a useless post be useful by being useless, this is why we delete them, they have no use, I think you are confused.
To clarify, don't say not having a use is a use, that's quite obviously self contradictory, anticipate the points I'm going to make before posting.


Yes, different moderators can enforce the rules differently, this is inherent in subjective systems, but no objective definition of useful has be provided that satisfies the need for moderation without going overboard.

I understand the irony, but that's not why I tell users their posts were deleted, just read my previous post where I anticipated this, or if you can't here is a summation:
Moderators are an exception to that rule, as they need to comment on the thread it's self in order to provide warnings and moderators insight, this doesn't mean we can post any prattle we want, in fact I've infracted my fair share of moderators as well as regular users. Moderators moderate each other, almost every staff member has another staff member they like and one they dislike, if not more, this means the moderator is averagely quite fair.

There is no minimum word limit to a post, but we would like it if your post was longer than your signature, just as a guideline. Most posts shorter than a paragraph tend not to contain insight and wisdom, but on the rare occasion they do, we don't delete them as useless posts.

I hope you now understand the system a little better, before you respond take a moment to consider any counter points you would make, because so far this is just stuff I hear on a day to day basis from a group of people who would be better suited to 4chan than here.

[EDIT] This is straying off topic, but I'm still interested, if you want we could make a thread for discussing forms of moderation on various forums.

'I refuted everything you posted, mods do what they want, go back to 4chan' ~ Vox

Yeah, I think I am done with this thread. Stop treating threads like competitions.



(is this useful, or am I too meta for ya?)

First thing I thought of was a run down car. It's useless because it doesn't meet the subject standards...BUT.

It has the possibility to be useful (getting fitted with new parts/shell/whatever).
For broken, material objects that are said to have a use, I believe there is no useless. There's the possibility to be useful or the object is in perfect condition, and therefore rendered useful.

Dutch ovens, thorns on roses, flies, crystal meth, ...Ill continue this later.