Recently, a topic called "The prediction game" has been locked due to a person accidentally posting something inappropriate. But people have complained that locking the thread shouldn't have happened, due to them liking to post on that thread to being with. Then a drama war started to happen on people's statues about the whole thing. But after looking around the rules, past events, and the whole argument in particular, I have realized the problem. That a thread must be Useful in order to be on the website. If it's not useful, then it will be considered spam. But the problem is that a thread's Usefulness, and on if a thread is Spam-like or not, is extremly vague and confusing. So instead of fighting on what should be useful or not, or trying to silence the ones who are agruing, I have decided that we should try to find a compromise on what content is considered useful as a community. So we can have a healthy discussion on the issue instead of ignoring it so it can get worse. So lets start with my view on the concept. (Made it a spoiler so you can tell when it goes into my opinion) Spoiler: My side of the argument So lets start this off by me saying that threads like "The prediction game" shouldn't be banned, because the thread itself didn't harm anyone other then the comment that lead to its ban, but even then the guy who did it should have gotten the blame instead of the whole entire thread. If the thread starts to distract you in anyway, you can simply ignore it by unwatching it or by not looking at it at all. Id also like to ask on if the thread is clogging up the front page, then why did you allow off-topic threads to be on the front page to begin with? Can you just block a group of threads like that on the front page, or set the front page to certain types of threads? So what is considered useful or spam-like? P.S. Here's a website that describes what spam is so you can understand it before calling it blindly: http://www.spamlaws.com/what-is-spam.html Edited: The problem has been solve, it was just me being stupid. . . Sorry. . .