Anti-Spam

[AjaxPress]

Recently I discovered that there has been an individual who has started 68 threads about essentially the same topic. I propose that the "anti-spam" rules in place be modified somewhat. At another forum that I frequent a rule was adopted so that an individual who is blatantly spamming isn't allowed to circumnavigate the rules.

The moderators decided that if they all voted unanimously that an individual is spamming then violations would be issued. They decided that the standard should be fairly high (hence the unanimous rule) but ultimately fair.

It's seems like something like this should be implemented on this site.

[Imperator]

thank you for the suggestion Ajax, the site admin’s will I am sure look at it.

[Captain Trips]

The problem IS what exactly IS "spam" ?

Is spam a topic that you dislike ?

I've seem all KINDS of things called "spam."

I'VE been called spam. I've been called a spammer.

Rather than use the ignore function, and just ignore a mod or two, I could go around claiming that anything THEY said that I disagreed with was "spam" TOO.

You get any particular band of knuckleheads together, give them power, they'll find a way to abuse it.

"Lets call what member ZXT says "spam" and ban him. I'm sick of reading that assholes bullshit."

"Yeah, no shit. Lets get rid of that prick."

If "spam" has no clear definition it can be anything.

Anything the local club of knuckleheads doesn't like.

[pramjockey]

Persecution delusions aside, it's pretty clear that if you start 10 threads, and they go as follows:

Why homosexuality is bad.
Damn those gays.
Queers are nothing but trouble.
Fags ruining the country!
Do you like to cook?
How homosexuals' agenda is destroying America.
Why homosexuality is harmful.
Homosexuality and you.
Gays killed Christ, but I'm not Christian.
America: worse off because of gays?

It's pretty clear that you're spamming.

[Imperator]

The question/suggestion on spam became spam , for god sakes........if you have a point to make , make it please, it’s a suggestion thread not a debate forum.

[AjaxPress]

UPDATE!

Dear mods, please consider this idea ASAP.

[Captain Trips]

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

UPDATE!

Dear mods, please consider this idea ASAP.

Good idea.

And please, for those that like to use the term "spam" on anyone who is saying something they don't like, can we get a clear definition ?

Maybe one that clearly states that "Just because it's a topic, a subject or a member that you dislike doesn't make it "spam."

[AwareAndiCare]

I think the point was made that changing the title to keep debating a subject is ridiculous, post on the thread you created if it applies.

[Captain Trips]

Originally Posted by AwareAndiCare

I think the point was made that changing the title to keep debating a subject is ridiculous, post on the thread you created if it applies.

If that's the case, then we're ALL guilty of "spamming" this forum.

If one truly looks, EVERY single thread topic posted over the last two or three years (with a few exceptions), has already HAD a thread that it would have fit into.

Which brings us right back to what I was saying earlier doesn't it ?

Lets have a clear, well defined definition of what is going to be considered "spam."

There are posters that I don't care for that start threads. Threads that I don't go into and accuse the poster of starting "spam." If I DO go into those threads, I might point out what is wrong with what the person is SAYING. To jump into a thread and start blathering that it is "spam," only makes ME look like a desperate ass.

Which is why I don't do it.

[drgoodtrips]

I think that for a thread to be considered SPAM, it has to have little to no original content of any substance and posted with the intention of spreading a message as opposed to starting a discussion. The same could probably be said of posts, but I'd say the criteria apply more rigidly to thread creations, since they will set the bar for the conversation, if any, to ensue.

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

The moderators decided that if they all voted unanimously that an individual is spamming then violations would be issued. They decided that the standard should be fairly high (hence the unanimous rule) but ultimately fair.

It's seems like something like this should be implemented on this site.

That's an interesting proposal. It might clear up some of the SPAM that is missed by the "post some thoughts on the linked article" rule, which was originally designed to stop SPAM-type threads. It succeeded to a degree, but obviously, SPAMers have figured out ways to circumvent it and still be within the rules.

Of course, the flip side of that is it gives the moderators a more subjective degree of power and will do nothing to quell the common theme of "you're just trying to silence my uber-important message and censor me because you're all biased moderators". And it also could serve, in practice to scuttle unpopular points of view though I, personally, would do my best to enforce the standard objectively, whether or not I liked the message of the SPAM for consideration notwithstanding.

[AjaxPress]

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

That's an interesting proposal. It might clear up some of the SPAM that is missed by the "post some thoughts on the linked article" rule, which was originally designed to stop SPAM-type threads. It succeeded to a degree, but obviously, SPAMers have figured out ways to circumvent it and still be within the rules.

Of course, the flip side of that is it gives the moderators a more subjective degree of power and will do nothing to quell the common theme of "you're just trying to silence my uber-important message and censor me because you're all biased moderators". And it also could serve, in practice to scuttle unpopular points of view though I, personally, would do my best to enforce the standard objectively, whether or not I liked the message of the SPAM for consideration notwithstanding.

It's a sacrafice I'm willing to make. There's a difference between being passionate about something and blathering on about a topic while dodging serious questions when confronted.

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

It's a sacrafice I'm willing to make. There's a difference between being passionate about something and blathering on about a topic while dodging serious questions when confronted.

We can start a thread on this in the mod forum. Perhaps it's something worth putting to a vote as I'm not sure whether or not you'd be in the minority of wanting to grant mods some subjective power, as such. I'd be curious to see.

[drgoodtrips]

Another consideration here is that getting unanimity from the moderator staff is difficult, since one or more moderators are often on posting hiatuses or vacations or the like. I don't know if a complete unanimous decision would be possible in timely fashion, so what you're proposing might have to be some number X of the moderators, pending the objection of any moderator later returning (thus overturning the ruling of penalizing posters for SPAM). Of course, we're not talking about any kind of banning here, it sounds like, but a points tag for "You're a SPAMer - shape up or keep getting points"

[iamwhatiseem]

I haven't seen it mentioned but SPAM is also a post which is "over the top" off topic...this can also be large photos which are not on topic or not necessary to get the message across.

In my book - SPAM is one of those things that are not necessarily cast in stone, a moderator has to use his/her judgment as to whether it is - or isn't....it also depends on what forum it is in...

I second the dr's interest in including numerous threads on the same subject and the OP doesn't answer questions put forth by others...this is an idea that merits mod discussion....consequently it was just that - that lead to the number of threads made in a day limit..