[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem with the googletard rule is that I'm not sure what evil we're saving 2p2 from with it. I don't think you need a specific rule to nuke bad lazy posts if that rule then means that other less bad posts get nuked too.

[/ QUOTE ]

you've kind of hit on it right here. in some ways having a hard and fast rule is quite cumbersome, it can be hard to articulate all the ins and outs of a decision to make a thread or not in a rule that people will still read. the problem is that if i don't make a relatively specific rule, people REALLY don't get it, and they complain about the uncertainty.

what i've basically done is write a rule where no thread i lock will not meet at least one or two of those criteria, so i can always point to it. but it doesn't mean i lock every thread that fits at least one of those definitions, because that would suck.

there is no way to enforce an absolute letter of the law on this rule and not have the forum be essentially dead, but chesspain's thread was out of order in about three or four different ways, so in that case it's really not close.

i don't believe in simply saying 'it's right because it's the rule,' in this case it's right because i've listed a bunch of reasons why someone should NOT make that post, and they each individually and as a whole contribute to making OOT more readable.