Potential Rule Change

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by MattLarson

I think people are misunderstanding the proposal.

Let us say that a new poser, Garfield, really enjoys lasagna.

So over the course of a week, he starts 10 new threads:

• I Love Lasagna
• Lasagna is the perfect food
• Lasagna is the ultimate food
• Lasagna is the greatest food
• I really love lasagna
• I really, really love lasagna
• Next to lasagna, all other food is crap
• Lasagna is better than pizza
• Lasagna is better than spaghetti
• Lasagna is better than ravioli

This is pretty much spam, isn't it?

Note that this is not the same as someone who posts a thread on an individual incident in an ongoing topic, but rather the a bunch of nebulous platitudes on a given narrow topic.

There are a very few posters here who rise (sink?) to this level. It isn't something 99.9% of the membership would ever have to worry about.

Matt

Glancing back through the thread, I think Matt sums the idea up best above.

[iamwhatiseem]

I believe this was discussed primarily due to about 3-4 posters some time back who were turning US Politics online to their own agenda.
Anyone who has been here more than 6 months probably know who these guys were without mentioning their names, and surely can remember their pet subject almost consumed the entire forum.
Which is why the 3 threads a day limit was set a few months back and has so far sufficed to control the problem.

[JHC]

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Hi all,

I want to emphasize from the beginning that this is *NOT* a change to the rules, nor is it one that is inevitably going to be enacted. In another thread, it was suggested to give the moderating staff the power to vote to determine, subjectively, whether or not a user is SPAMing the forum, even if he or she is technically adhering to the rules of the site (a bit of commentary with an article, for instance).

That is, if it is determined that a poster is basically advertising for a candidate or cause, doing nothing to further (and possibly stifling) discussion, such a poster might be given a "general SPAMing" warning, and a continuation of the behavior would result in points. The decision would be made by a near-unanimous or unanimous decision of the mod staff (exact details would be hashed out) to avoid any impression of favoritism or squelching an unpopular or partisan point of view. That is, a substantial cross-section of the moderator staff with its diverse political opinions would basically all have to agree that a poster was a SPAMer.

This is the general idea, and certainly if it were sufficiently well received, there would be discussion among the moderators and the board members at large as to what the particulars were, etc. The purpose of this poll is to get a general consensus as to whether or not the board membership would find such a policy favorable and/or trust the mod staff to implement it.

So, the question is, would you be amenable to such a policy?

The problem isn't spamming, the problem is being able to attract quality posters/posts. At this point, eliminate the spam and you pretty much have nothing.

There are trees obscuring the view.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by DammitBoy!

Imho, mods are a weak crutch. I post on several boards with no moderators whatsoever and nothing horrific happens at those forums.

I disagree; I've left an unmoderated board because every discussion quickly degenerated into vulgarity and name calling. There was no space for an actual dialogue to even start before it was buried in vitrol.

[JHC]

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Glancing back through the thread, I think Matt sums the idea up best above.

Maybe. But I wouldn't trust Matt or anyone else to be objective - it's really, really hard to do. And, as has already been demonstrated, the concrete rules are hard to pin down leaving a participant at this website at the complete mercy of a single mod. What is crazy?, what is pornography?, what is normal? This is all subjective. Better make sure your subjectivity is either balanced or in complete agreement.

AND, if you had better offerings, no one would even notice the spam. You'd just handle big shit. Makes me wonder about who is complaining and the validity of the complaint.

What is the current number of regular participants?
Do you want more?
Are the regulars actually bothered with spam? - for instance, does Slarti really give a rats ass how many "I love Obama" threads there are? Or is he happy in the international discussions etc...? (only using my friend as an example because I know he is Austrian).

It is not clear to me what your goal is and I'm beginning to wonder if you know yourself?
Are your goals in sync with Marc's?

This old argument between quality and quantity has been going on an awfully long time.

Summary:
What is the goal?
Who is pushing for the rule and is it in sync with the goal?

[iamwhatiseem]

Originally Posted by JHC

The problem isn't spamming, the problem is being able to attract quality posters/posts. At this point, eliminate the spam and you pretty much have nothing.

There are trees obscuring the view.

Every forum I have ever been to has had a "spam" problem - as in flooding the forum with 1200 reasons why something sucks..in different threads of course.
Then you have your prolific "one-subject" poster who attempts to turn every thread into his/her favorite subject to whine about...these guys are actually dealt with a lot more than you guys think...I can tell you as every mod can - if we did not remove/merge/delete threads and post for a variety of reasons - this forum would be absolute trash.
When I became a mod and could see the mod forum - I was floored by the shear volume of crap that is removed on a daily basis.

[JHC]

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Every forum I have ever been to has had a "spam" problem - as in flooding the forum with 1200 reasons why something sucks..in different threads of course.
Then you have your prolific "one-subject" poster who attempts to turn every thread into his/her favorite subject to whine about...these guys are actually dealt with a lot more than you guys think...I can tell you as every mod can - if we did not remove/merge/delete threads and post for a variety of reasons - this forum would be absolute trash.
When I became a mod and could see the mod forum - I was floored by the shear volume of crap that is removed on a daily basis.

So you are talking about a volume of crap as it relates to a volume of quality? Or are you simply saying that you spend a lot of time trying to eliminate all crap?

That is my point.

You know I've been gone for a while and am rarely active anymore. I can't decide if the the times were simply more interesting, the people were more interesting, or this site was better but no doubt about it, this website is just not what it used to be. (not in a good way)

[JHC]

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Every forum I have ever been to has had a "spam" problem - as in flooding the forum with 1200 reasons why something sucks..in different threads of course.
Then you have your prolific "one-subject" poster who attempts to turn every thread into his/her favorite subject to whine about...these guys are actually dealt with a lot more than you guys think...I can tell you as every mod can - if we did not remove/merge/delete threads and post for a variety of reasons - this forum would be absolute trash.
When I became a mod and could see the mod forum - I was floored by the shear volume of crap that is removed on a daily basis.

In how many of those forums were you a mod?
If ALL the forums had spam problems, did their spam rules not work?
Were their moderators not up to snuff?
Is this rule suggestion actually something different than all those other sites you've experienced?

[iamwhatiseem]

Originally Posted by JHC

So you are talking about a volume of crap as it relates to a volume of quality? Or are you simply saying that you spend a lot of time trying to eliminate all crap?

That is my point.

You know I've been gone for a while and am rarely active anymore. I can't decide if the the times were simply more interesting, the people were more interesting, or this site was better but no doubt about it, this website is just not what it used to be. (not in a good way)

You have been around long enough to remember that the forum "ebbs and flows" with different members coming and going. There have been times when the forum was much worse, about 6-7 months ago I was ready to hang the hat.
It is better now, however you gotta remember this is a Presidential election year - so you get the posters who feel it is their duty to make multiple threads daily about how the opposite candidate eats his cereal, at what pressure his tires are set and how this will cause America to collapse.

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by JHC

Maybe. But I wouldn't trust Matt or anyone else to be objective - it's really, really hard to do. And, as has already been demonstrated, the concrete rules are hard to pin down leaving a participant at this website at the complete mercy of a single mod. What is crazy?, what is pornography?, what is normal? This is all subjective. Better make sure your subjectivity is either balanced or in complete agreement.

AND, if you had better offerings, no one would even notice the spam. You'd just handle big shit. Makes me wonder about who is complaining and the validity of the complaint.

What is the current number of regular participants?
Do you want more?
Are the regulars actually bothered with spam? - for instance, does Slarti really give a rats ass how many "I love Obama" threads there are? Or is he happy in the international discussions etc...? (only using my friend as an example because I know he is Austrian).

It is not clear to me what your goal is and I'm beginning to wonder if you know yourself?
Are your goals in sync with Marc's?

This old argument between quality and quantity has been going on an awfully long time.

Summary:
What is the goal?
Who is pushing for the rule and is it in sync with the goal?

I'm hard pressed enough to care enough to answer this apparent inquisition and bolded patronizing. A poster suggested something, and I told him I'd pass it along to the mod forum, and we thought it might be a good idea to see how the posters at large felt, rather than making a unilateral decision to implement a new rule or maintain the status quo. I think you're making this a lot more complicated than it need be, with discussions of the nature of objectivity, the politics between administrator/moderator, and the five and ten year plans and financial forecasts of the aforementioned (now defunct) rule change. I might not have fully considered the existential ramifications of the nature of "quantity vs. quality" but I don't think I've done anything to suggest that I'm such a dullard as not to understand the "goal" of my own posts.

[JHC]

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I'm hard pressed enough to care enough to answer this apparent inquisition and bolded patronizing. A poster suggested something, and I told him I'd pass it along to the mod forum, and we thought it might be a good idea to see how the posters at large felt, rather than making a unilateral decision to implement a new rule or maintain the status quo. I think you're making this a lot more complicated than it need be, with discussions of the nature of objectivity, the politics between administrator/moderator, and the five and ten year plans and financial forecasts of the aforementioned (now defunct) rule change. I might not have fully considered the existential ramifications of the nature of "quantity vs. quality" but I don't think I've done anything to suggest that I'm such a dullard as not to understand the "goal" of my own posts.

Financial forecasts? That's pretty funny.

Patronizing?

Do you want to pass on all suggestions or only the ones that make sense? If they make sense, why do they make sense? (rhetorical!) This isn't existential, it's practical!

Iamwhatiseem just finished telling me how much time you spend removing crap. That sounds like a tough job. Sounds like you already have your hands full. My point in asking the questions was to bring up the question of whether or not spam is a/the real problem.

You asked for comments and now you're offended?

Hey, if you don't want to hear any more, close the thread. It is obviously your prerogative.

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by JHC

Financial forecasts? That's pretty funny.

Patronizing?

Do you want to pass on all suggestions or only the ones that make sense? If they make sense, why do they make sense? (rhetorical!) This isn't existential, it's practical!

Iamwhatiseem just finished telling me how much time you spend removing crap. That sounds like a tough job. Sounds like you already have your hands full. My point in asking the questions was to bring up the question of whether or not spam is a/the real problem.

You asked for comments and now you're offended?

Hey, if you don't want to hear any more, close the thread. It is obviously your prerogative.

I don't mind suggestions, and I don't particularly care one way or the other about being patronized, but the latter will bring responses from me in kind. I don't view a statement of opinion that I don't know why I'm making posts as a "suggestion" nor the newest implication that I would be willing to abuse the position of moderator when there are posts that I don't like or value. I wouldn't close the thread whether or not I'm interested in hearing any more.

[Pogo]

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I don't mind suggestions, and I don't particularly care one way or the other about being patronized, but the latter will bring responses from me in kind. I don't view a statement of opinion that I don't know why I'm making posts as a "suggestion" nor the newest implication that I would be willing to abuse the position of moderator when there are posts that I don't like or value. I wouldn't close the thread whether or not I'm interested in hearing any more.

She might not have been aiming that strictly at you.

[JHC]

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

You have been around long enough to remember that the forum "ebbs and flows" with different members coming and going. There have been times when the forum was much worse, about 6-7 months ago I was ready to hang the hat.
It is better now, however you gotta remember this is a Presidential election year - so you get the posters who feel it is their duty to make multiple threads daily about how the opposite candidate eats his cereal, at what pressure his tires are set and how this will cause America to collapse.

Interestingly, six or seven months ago, when the presidential election was not so much an issue and all the other topics were talked out, that's when things got bad.

You have three basic different kinds of participants: one is interested in deep, serious discussion another is intersted in taking out their daily frustrations, and the last are bored and tied to a computer.

When there is nothig to talk about, only one group keeps talking.

So you have someone complaining about spamming now. It all boils down to what you want the site to be. You can't be all to everyone.

You know, if you're bored as a mod (in general staff terms, not you personally), now is the time to clean up and make changes. But it sounds to me like you have your hands full.

It is similar to hate crime laws - the perps would be breaking the law even if it weren't a "hate" crime.

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by JHC

And, as has already been demonstrated, the concrete rules are hard to pin down leaving a participant at this website at the complete mercy of a single mod.

Agreed.

If the concrete rules aren't enforced as written, it's hard to imagine what non-concrete rules would result in.