Can we let mods decide what is and what isn't spam?

SUCK UP ALARM! SUCK UP ALARM!
WEEEEOOOOOWEEEEEOOOOWEEEEOOOO

 

If I actually knew MW it would be sucking up, but since I don't, it's testing the waters...

 

Speaking of defining spam... I would think the following string of posts by LMM certainly qualifies:

Click me and read till the end of the thread to see how ridiculous and out-of-line a representative of TF.N is behaving.

AYBABTU?

 

Given that thread, my answer would have to be no, we obviously can't let the mods decide what is and what isn't spam. I think we do a much better job of policing our own.

 

Sometimes you have to break on through
to the other spam.
[image=http://pionet.net/~mpsvideo/jimsp.jpg]


LMM?

 

Obviously, we do a much better job of policing our own than the mods do of policing their own.

AYBABTU?

 

The mods discussed the issue of defining spam. As a start these three rules were decided on.


1. Posting the same message over and over, either in the same thread, different threads, or multiple forums.

2. Contributing absolutely nothing to the conversation that it is in, or posting outside the "spirit" of the thread in an attempt to derail other's fun.

3. Posting only to advertise your site or sell something.


From TOS

User agrees and acknowledges that any posts, nicknames or other material deemed offensive, harassing, baiting or otherwise inappropriate may be removed at the sole discretion of the administration.


I understand this, does no one else?

 

That's why it's pointless making a whole handbook of rules and policies and whatever else. In the end, decisions have to be made on an individual basis. A lot of the time we get it right, a lot of the time we get it wrong -- but that's going to happen when individuals are working together.

 

And most mods are reasonable and will listen to your argument if it's questionable as to whether it's spam or not

 

Defining spam exactly, a good topic...
I guess that is were let's say you have a great game you want to start on different forums, that is spamming? I am serious here it is the repeating of the same message on different boards?

 

The mods discussed the issue of defining spam. As a start these three rules were decided on.

1. Posting the same message over and over, either in the same thread, different threads, or multiple forums.


Yep.

 

Can you define over and over again...more than once, twice? Also if there is an announcement for a midwest meeting for example but it is posted on each individual midwest board, that would be spam? I guess the message should be put only once in the midwest general discussion forum.

 

If you have a message that you think needs to be placed in more than one forum the best bet is to PM a mod and if they think it's necessary they can create the thread for you or let the reps in each forum know what's going on. That way no one can complain. Either way it's just not good form to post the same message in every forum and has been that way on every other message board I've been on.

 

There seems to be a distinct mix-up of the terms 'spam' and 'trolling' in this statement:

1. Posting the same message over and over, either in the same thread, different threads, or multiple forums.

2. Contributing absolutely nothing to the conversation that it is in, or posting outside the "spirit" of the thread in an attempt to derail other's fun.

3. Posting only to advertise your site or sell something.

No.1 & 3 are what I have always considered spam.

No.2, although in a one-off attempt is spam, is generally considered trolling. There is several unique examples in this thread of trolling; taking the conversation off course on purpose without adding anything to the original conversation.

The JC has taken little or no measures against this in the last year or so. GriffZ was one of the worst with his smilie in every thread, then came the horrible +1. Little or no action was taken by the mods in PSA and it became somewhat acceptable. Now those who started it are mods and seem to deem it okay.

I must make a point that spamming is NOT disagreeing with a poster's thought. I had an unfortunate incident in PSA where the thread was closed simply becuase the mod did not agree with it. It was labeled as spam. Under no circumstance would the thread have ever fallen under that title. It was linked directly to the forum and raised a thought about a possibility for EpIII.

Even though the mod reopened it after a series of PM's, I find that the lack of distinction on spam is scary.

 

Thank you QueenDorme, I feel I understand now 100%. It really isn't that simple of an issue, and you cleared it up! Hey and I leraned a new definition..trolling!
Have a great day everybody!

 

It is my understanding that SPAM is in fact the repetitive posting of something.
+1 has been around for ages at the OMG and to be honest, its pretty annoying. People do it to annoy the hell out of people. But its not really Spam.
Spam has become a catchphrase used by the adminstration when something they don't like comes up... be it a valid dislike, or just a personal distaste. Really, if an admin has a grievance with something, maybe they shouldn't misnomer it.
And then of course there is the recent spate of spamming supplied by our fearless leader, LMM. He has willfully and deliberately 'spammed' for his own entertaiment. He has acted childishly, with the knowledge that his privilage position will hold him from retaliation. I have seen bannings for much worse, but more often that not, much, much less. His approach has been that he is above reproach. That his 'colours' act as a get out of jail free card. he has insulted other posters (Darth AYBATU comes to mind) and shown a condescending attitude towards other posters. His holier than thou attitude and posting would therefore fall under the catchment of the Admind 'SPAM'. Not only should spam be defined. its punishment should be defined. And meted out equally to ALL posters, not just those who admins don't like. Maybe LMM has been here since 1999, but so have many others, and they can get banned at the drop off a hat. Please explain to me the logic in this?

 

This is the OMG! there is no logic

 

This is just my opinion, and I probably will differ from some of the other people.

I think, if a Moderator beleives a certain post or a group of posts is Spam, they should lock the thread, or do something about it.

The only reason I think they should be aloud to decide what is Spam, and what isn't is because they are Moderators, and thats why they were choosen.

Now sometimes it might get by them, or they might think its Spam, but it wasn't ment to be.

Now, most of us know or should know what Spam is to, and if we don't want it around the JC, we should be able to, and probably are aloud to say it is to, and send a Private Message to a Moderator, so they would be able to do something about it.

Lets just say, Spam is Spam.

 

But Spam, to this day still, is not being labelled properly. Off topic posting is off topic posting, not spam. Hell, working by this crazy logic, I could decree any post spam, because I don't like the look of it.

 

"Lets just say, Spam is Spam."

But that doesn't explain anything to someone who doesn't have any concept of what spam is. If I was trying to explain a hot dog to someone who has never seen a hot dog, and I merely said "A hot dog is a hot dog," they still won't have any idea what I'm talking about.

Amazing.

 

A very good point B. If I was said person and you said "A hot dog is a hot dog" I could eat a mars bar thinking it was a hot dog.

 

It is my understanding that SPAM is in fact the repetitive posting of something.

No, that is trolling.

The moderators use to be the ones who kept the conversations on-topic, and if someone started to go off-topic, the moderator would warn them and the conversation would return.

+1 has been around for ages at the OMG and to be honest, its pretty annoying.

If someone posted this all the time, it would considered trolling. They are trolling the thread.

Spam has become a catchphrase used by the adminstration when something they don't like comes up... be it a valid dislike, or just a personal distaste.

Spam has NEVER been used by the JC to close threads that mods don't agree with, but is becoming all too common now. Every poster at the JC has a right to post whatever they want as long as;

a) It is in the appropriate forum,

b) Has suffiecent argument to back up a thought

c) does not break any of the rules set out upon joining (no porn, alcohol, swearing etc).

A moderator never closes a thread because they disagree with the thought.

 

The problem is not the definition of spam. What Lady_Lucas did was spam under any definition you'd like, whether I agree with what was posted or not (which I do).

The problem is what epic stated earlier.

I quote:
That's why it's pointless making a whole handbook of rules and policies and whatever else. In the end, decisions have to be made on an individual basis.

I disagree that it's pointless. If anything, the rules need to be more plainly stated. You have a message board or 80,000-some-odd users (albeit 40,000 are probably socks) and a TOS of less than a page that is terribly vague. Fact of the matter is, if you set up rules and go by those rules, the DRAMA! that the administration so despises would have no place. Somebody breaks a rule, they're punished -- end of story.


EDIT:
It is my understanding that SPAM is in fact the repetitive posting of something.

No, that is trolling.

Nope, that's SPAM and has been since the old BitNET days and when the term came into popular use after AOL allowed they're members to post on USENET groups in the early 90's.

 

Isn't trolling more along the lines of trying to goad someone into giving you attention?

 

A moderator never closes a thread because they disagree with the thought.

No offence, but you haven't been here long, have you?