[COMM/JCC] 'Spam' vs. 'Fluff' - A Critical Distinction

It seems that every so often, the question of "what is spam" comes up here. I'd like to take a stab at resolving this issue. I feel that this question arises simply because the Administration is seeing what I would call "fluff" threads, and classifying them as "spam" threads, and then locking them. In this post, I'd like to do two things: outline how the JC has historically defined 'spam', and how I think that definition needs to be 'modernized'.

Let's first look at how the JC has historically defined 'spam'.

If you're looking for a working definition of what 'spam' is here on the Jedi Council forums, you're likely to come across about 5 or 6 different ones, which may leave you even more confused than when you started. I'll attempt to consolidate all of these definitions and come up with a summary (which is of course up for debate still, but I'm just doing some historical summarizations for the purpose of documentation here). But first, let's go on an adventure and try to find out where "spam" is defined on these boards.

But where to start? Well, how about the "Welcome" forum. Seems logical. In the header, we've got a link to the thread entitled "*** Welcome to the Forums! ***" (Link). Seems like the right place to start, yes? Here's how this author (me!) defined 'spamming':

---

[color=blue]QUESTION: What is "spamming"?

ANSWER: The act of filling the forums with unnecessary or irrelevant posts is considered "spamming". It is also considered spamming to advertise excessively for other websites. Posting unnecessary posts for any reason can be considered spamming and will get you a warning, and after that: banned.[/color][hr][/blockquote] This 'definition' obviously leaves a lot to be desired, as it does not even attempt to qualify the adjectives "unnecessary" or "irrelevant". Unnecessary to whom/what? Irrelevant to whom/what? Although I've heard I can be verbose, I'm afraid I fell very short with this definition. Let's keep looking.

In the same forum, we see the thread entitled, "The JC Glossary - Welcome Edition!" ([link=http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1455870]Link[/link]). In this thread, we see "spamming" defined as: [blockquote][hr][color=blue][b]spamming[/b] Posting many times consecutively, posting simply to up your post count or posting identical threads across several forums. Soliciting (trading, selling or buying) and advertising also fall under spamming.[/color][hr][/blockquote] OK, a good start. This definition indicates that quantity ("many times") of consecutive posts is a determining factor as to whether or not something is "spam". It also hints at posts such as "+1" ("posting simply to up your post count"), and posting the same thread across several forums. This is a fairly descriptive definition... unfortunately, this definition isn't very similar to the definition we just looked at. They seem fairly different. Which is right? Are they both right? Let's keep digging and see if we can't figure it out.

Moving on to the JCC forum, where "spamming" is a big issue, If you look in the thread entitled "JCC Need To Know || Forum Purpose, Do's and Don'ts, Thread Index" ([link=http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=9625139&replies=81]Link[/link]), you'll see that the issue of "spamming" is briefly touched upon... the first item listed in the "Don't" section states: [blockquote][hr][color=blue]Spam: [i]filling the forums with unnecessary or irrelevant posts[/i].[/color][hr][/blockquote] This 'definition' obviously falls back on the definition from the "Welcome to the Forums" thread, and, like that definition, falls short and fails to qualify itself. However, as with the defintion this was drawn from, it does actually hint at the idea of 'quantity' ("filling") playing a part in determining whether or not something is spam. Moving on...

Let's have a look at the "Informational Threads" forum. Certainly there's some good info there, right? If you look in the thread e

 

My thoughts? I think the Gatherer is owed an apology.

 

Thoughts?

I think you're a freakin' genius. This is probably the most sensible post yet made in this entire forum. I hope people really do consider your words, and see that these "fluff" posst are nothing more than harmless fun and silliness. Spam is egregious and malicious. There is a distinction.

Thank you very much for showing everyone this distinction, Vertical.

You = good people

AYBABTU?

 

He really should be made a mod, that Vertical character. Actually, he posted this in MS prior to this and so I'm familiar with it. I agree that there is a distinction and it's good to have it written down. Seems to me the main difference with spam is intent.

Of course, moderating towards these definitions basically sets the stage for an 'any thread goes' sort of policy. And that's almost how it is anyway. But this will help with those gray areas. When we're not sure, we need to pause and look at the author's intent. If it was anything but harmful, then it should probably be allowed to stay.

 

Agreed. It may take some time, and may take some fighting, but the right way will always win out in the end.

Fluff is not spam. It never was.

 

Another point I meant to make:

I think spamming necessarily requires multiple posts by the same author. A single post/thread on its own should never be considered "spam". This goes against the single common theme through all of the various definitions provided - multiple posts/threads ("Filling the forums", "many times", "consecutively").

Vertical

 

I completely agree with you, Vert. I find it funny that the words used 'irrelevant' and 'unnecessary'. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, isn't it all unnecessary and irrelevant.

Is B'ommar's discussion of how he burned himself making Hot Pockets really necessary? No. Is it really relevant? No. Is it funny as hell? Yes.

Allow the community to get silly. This doesn't mean that all intellectual or serious topics will be forgotten. Let the community decide what they think is funny and what they think isn't. Once people stop actually saying anything in these threads (ie. +1, "hi", blah, blah, blah) then start taking action.

I once had a thread closed on a really slow day because a moderator considered it spam. It was called "I'm bored, make me laugh". Seriously, what is the worst thing that could have happened in that thread? Maybe people could have actually laughed, had fun, and enjoyed themselves.

But anyway, acting on the basis of spam should concentrate more on the "filling" part as Vert suggested. If one particular thread doesn't have a real direction, then allow the Community to decide the direction it should take. I can guarantee the results will be positive as long as the posters observe the rules of the forum.

 

Also, pretend that I just said everything that DOTtie said, only in a deep, booming voice.

He also has the right idea.

AYBABTU?

 

To reiterate what I said in Mod Squad --

While "fluff" may be okay, we should probably lock and ban anyone posting about "fluffers"...

 

I understand everything that Vertical said, and I agree with it.

I just hope that more comes out of this than everything that used to be locked for being "spam" is now locked for being "fluff". I don't have a problem with "fluff" in the JCC.

 

"While "fluff" may be okay, we should probably lock and ban anyone posting about "fluffers"... "

So as you did jsut psot about fluffers, you should be banned? Or does the winky face make it okay?

 

"I just hope that more comes out of this than everything that used to be locked for being "spam" is now locked for being "fluff". I don't have a problem with "fluff" in the JCC."

I agree. But I just want to take one step at a time right now. I'd first like to make sure everyone (or at least most folks) can see the distinction. Once that's established, we can work on debating whether or not "fluff" should be allowed in the JCC.

Vertical

 

IMO, This isn't just JCC-specific...

Or at least is shouldn't be.

Relevent, on-topic (with respect to the forum) fluff topics can be found for pretty much every forum here.

 

True, it doesn't necessarily only pertain to the JCC, but since that forum is the one which often generates the most 'spam-related' issues, it was the 'inspiration' behind this thread.

Vertical

 

I have to agree that I think the standard definition of "spam" should simply refer to the concept of 'excessive posting'... I think 'spamming' is more closely associated with "flooding" a forum (posting several threads/uninterrupted replies to the same thread) than it is with posting 'unnecessary' things.

I totally agree. The YJCC is made up of fluff for the most part and I think that's fine. Spamming, on the other hand, can be a problem and should be moderated.

Excellent post Vert.

 

I think this is one of the best threads I've ever read in Comms; it's just a shame it didn't happen a year ago.

 

Once again, I agree with Vert et. al.

Absolutly true.

 

My thoughts? I think the Gatherer is owed an apology.

No? He posted links to "hacking" websites, as well as a site that contains grotesque images, as well as hardcore pornography. Hell, I accidentally linked to pornography once, and got a week ban. He got off pretty lightly, since he knowingly did more than that.

 

Xie,
None of that has any relevency to what I wrote.

 

If this is retroactive, then a lot of people deserve apologies.

 

I'll read up on this (as I just saw this thread), but what would you consider posting a large number of topics in a short period of time (in a single forum)? Is that spam, or something else?

 

Xie,
None of that has any relevency to what I wrote.

You mean the "fluff" posts he was accused of spreading throughout the JCC, and the temporary demod? Well then, yes.

 

Vert, I'm not sure if I'm going to disagree oevr a point, but I am going to ask for clarification.

We can't let everybody agree with you, an ex mod has to be bitter.

Posting to up your post count, in my view isn't something that happens much amoung the more established members anymore. I remember epic and CA and Servo all posting as fast as they could, sometimes with messages little more then the posts number, to get to 5k first(5k? Yes Virginia there was such a time). I think since then we've all seen some newer members not get the hint and do somethig similar, but for the most part it isn't something you can point to as an obvious attempt to raise their total.

Actually, if you look for it, most acts of 'upping their post count' have some sort of bizzare logic to them.
But that doesn't make your job as a moderator any easier. I'm reminded of the Green Apple thread, oh so long ago. Member after member would just post "Green Apples!"(or something to that effect).

Is it harmful? Not really, but as a mod or a member, how do I explain the difference between that and spamming to some newbie I pulled over for consecutive posting?

Going by your definitions, as I understand them, it would have been classified as fluff, yet if it showed up today I would hope it would be locked.

What do you think?

 

It's a sad state of affairs when a thread has to be posted stating, at length, the difference between the two types of threads. You'd think that by now, most of the people who have been here for a while, would be able to determine this on their own.

 

I totally agree with the original distiction, and it's a point I've been trying to make for quite some time.

As for defining spam in the JCC (aside from the traditional definition of unsolicited advertising), I did try once. Let's see what you think...

Spammy Threads

I'll stand by my claim that these really don't exist. As was said before, in this instance the term "spam" is entirely subjective... one man's spam is another man's treasure, etc. Very rarely, a thread will pop up that serves absolutely no purpose, but in this case one of two things will happen, it will either go away or the membership will take it and run with it, turning it into something that indeed does have a purpose, so I think that even these threads should be allowed to stay. After all, they hurt no one.

The following are the only types of threads that should be locked:

1. Anything that violates the TOS
2. Redundant threads
3. Threads that would be better suited to another, more specific forum

I also see no problem with limiting the number of specific types of threads when they get out of hand, like social threads or RPGs, as long as these rules are clear-cut and the same for everyone. I do wish that RPGs with a unique and fun angle would be allowed to an extent, as I have never noticed an overabundance of these.

Well, that was easy. Now on to a much more complicated issue...

Spammy Replies

As opposed to spammy threads, spammy replies definitely do exist, they're happening all the time, and they are a very real problem. Often a spammy reply is just a minor nuisance, they can be easily ignored and they have little or no effect on the thread in question. But at it's worst, the spammy reply can totally derail or even kill someone's innocent thread. Strangely, while the spammy thread seems to be often punished needlessly, the spammy reply rarely seems to be punished at all.

Now, I have identified five different types of spammy replies. Perhaps you can add more, but for now I would briefly like to go over these one by one.

1. Mindless chit chat - This is probably the most obvious category of spammy replies... it's the "hi" "bye" "lol" sort of thing that goes on mostly in social threads. For the most part it's relatively harmless and occassionaly all that you feel like adding to a thread is a or a , but if someone is posting like this all the time perhaps a moderator should contact them and suggest that they add more substance to their posts.

2. The "spam" labellers - One of the worst kinds of spammy reply. Ex: "+1", "This is spam LOCK IT!" etc. This kind of reply adds absolutely nothing to our community, and it often spells certain doom for a thread that might actually have some potential. If spam is such a subjective thing, then why do some members feel the need to label it for all of us? In my opinion the first time a moderator spots someone doing this they should be given a stiff warning and told to never do it again.

3. Lost in their own little world - this sort of spammy reply is only posted by a very small minority of our members. It's the guy/gal who seems to think that every thread is directed specifically at them so they post replies like "I dunno" or "never heard of 'em", that sort of thing. Again, this isn't really a big deal, just a minor nuisance and a pet peeve for some of us, but if someone is doing this all the time, then I think it would be nice if a mod had a talk with them.

4. The derailers - as bad, maybe even worse than the spam labellers, these are the replies that seem almost bent on destroying a thread. These can sometimes be sinister, just people being jerks, but often they're quite innocent. For instance, someone posts a thread about Prince, someone then replies "Ooh I love Prince, hearing him always reminds me of high school. What songs remind you of high school?" No no no, start your own thread. As with the spam labeller, the derailers, whenever spotted by the moderating team, should be given a stern talking to, epse