Definition Of Spam

[Dookie]

I am confused.

I've been accused by some unnamed poster as a spammer, and so my name was attacked in the Off Topic Forum for being a spammer. However, at least three people came to my defence saying that while most on that list were spammers, I certainly was not.

Now if there is going to be this kind of disagreement over what is spamming, a banning for such spamming is going to cause massive consternation amongst posters in the off-topic...something that has happened before ("Black Saturday" - Ming's "don't post here" thread) when the rules weren't made clear or were idiotic. And we don't want that do we.

So give us a definition of spam and we'll know what to avoid doing. Until then, ban people for spamming at your peril!
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Dookie (edited August 06, 2000).]</font>

[Lazarus and the Gimp]

Of particular concern is the crucial difference between supposed "spam" and a post made purely for comedy value. If the latter is considered spam, then as far as spamming is concerned I am a repeat offender. A few whispers from the comedically-challenged and I could find myself facing a ban.

[Mao]

I don't think there are really definite definitions of these things. The feeling of the forums has always been more or less relaxed and the rules have been lax sometimes in favor of humor or whatnot. To define it in such a definite manner would destroy that relaxed feeling, and make it seem more official, and perhaps make people grow tenser. It would also open up a whole other debate about interpreting the new definitions...something most of us don't want to deal with.

[Hasdrubal]

A definition of spam?
'Spam / n. propr. a tinned meat product made mainly from ham {spiced ham}.'

------------------
Hasdrubal's Home.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam.

[Ming]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Dookie on 08-06-2000 08:46 AM</font>
So give us a definition of spam and we'll know what to avoid doing. Until then, ban people for spamming at your peril!
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Dookie (edited August 06, 2000).]</font>
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Dookie, is this a threat? I would say it is just the opposite. Spam at your own peril

There is no way a "perfect" definition of spam can ever be written.
The best I can come up with is...

The post has absolutely nothing to do with what has already been posted in the thread!

Or, the post has been made with the sole intent of disrupting the current thread!

Or, multiple posts are made by the same person in a row with the intent to add to the post count.

Or, a super long post or other "thing" has been done that has as it's intent to disrupt the thread.

Now, these obviously don't cover everything that might be considered spam. Plus, there is no way one can anticipate new versions of spam that haven't been used before. And also, maybe I have forgotten something that would be considered spam, and won't remember it until I see it done again.

The biggest problem lately has been threadjacking. Now, threads can change subjects in a natural fashion. Usually, I look to see if it is a natural flow, or is it abrupt, with intent to threadjack.

"Intent" is important when it comes to defining spam, and that is a matter of opinion of the mod/admin.

So as you can see, there can never be perfect list of what is, or what isn't spam.

If you use common sense and moderation in your posts, there shouldn't be a problem.




------------------
Ming
CivII & Off-Topic Forum Moderator
Ming@Apolyton.net

[Dookie]

For example, in a politics threads about what would happen if one of Bush or Gore and his VP died, Lincoln stated it would be "an Act of God". We thus deviated in that thread onto religion. Now that's obviously threadjacking, and I did it with the intent to change direction of the thread. I would have created myself a new thread to debate. But I couldn't because of the 8-hour rule.

Is that spamming?

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>"Intent" is important when it comes to defining spam, and that is a matter of opinion of the mod/admin.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Why then do you need to wait until you receive complaining e-mails about it..?

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>So give us a definition of spam and we'll know what to avoid doing. Until then, ban people for spamming at your peril! <center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Dookie, is this a threat? I would say it is just the opposite. Spam at your own peril
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Not a threat, but just a reminder of when opinions are divided it would more likely dominate the forum (as Black Saturday repercussions did) than any spam might.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>There is no way a "perfect" definition of spam can ever be written.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

If there is always a fault in the definition of spam, as you admit, there always has to be a fault in declaring someone a spammer.

[Mao]

I personally don't get everyone's need to define things so solidly. Why must we all close ourselves in boxes of rules like this?

And am I the only one that thinks that this asking about rules is reminiscient about another certain poster?

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Not a threat, but just a reminder of when opinions are divided it would more likely dominate the forum (as Black Saturday repercussions did) than any spam might.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

But, let's be honest, our opinions don't matter, only the ones of the mods do right? Especially in matters like these.

[Ming]

Dookie
"If there is always a fault in the definition of spam, as you admit, there always has to
be a fault in declaring someone a spammer."

Not fault... opinion. And, many people wrote to me that in their opinion, you are a spammer, and that you disrupt the site.
Yes, others have written to say that they don't consider you one... but only a few
As I said, it comes down to opinion. And the opinion of the Admin/Mods is what matters when it comes to spam

"Why then do you need to wait until you receive complaining e-mails about it..?

We don't... It's just a sign that it was indeed getting out of hand. It's a simple fact of life... when a lot of people complain, you try to do something about it!

"Not a threat, but just a reminder of when opinions are divided it would more likely
dominate the forum (as Black Saturday repercussions did) than any spam might."

It still sounds like a threat. But then again, the opinions are no where near as divided as the previous example you mention.
Most people have agreed that it was the right thing to do. Now granted, I can only base this on the feedback I get

"For example, in a politics threads about what would happen if one of Bush or Gore and
his VP died, Lincoln stated it would be "an Act of God". We thus deviated in that thread onto religion. Now that's obviously threadjacking, and I did it with the intent to change direction of the thread. I would have created myself a new thread to debate.
But I couldn't because of the 8-hour rule."

Well, you said it... It is threadjacking then. You were selfish. Since you had already used your thread, you took it upon yourself to threadjack somebody else's thread. The fact that there is an eight rule doesn't make it right. You are just making an excuse, and not taking responsibility for your actions. You could have waited until you could post again... but no... you decided that you were more important. Real nice!
That is probably a classic example of why people have labeled you a spammer.
------------------
Ming
CivII & Off-Topic Forum Moderator
Ming@Apolyton.net
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Ming (edited August 07, 2000).]</font>

[Dookie]

Ming,

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>And, many people wrote to me that in their opinion, you are a spammer, and that you disrupt the site.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Do posters' opinions count..?

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Yes, others have written to say that they don't consider you one... but only a few
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Well, we have names for the people who have said I am not a spammer...Empress, Lancer and other respected posters...compare this to a few anonymous e-mails which could have been sent from the same person or maybe not even exist at all (though I trust you on this one).

Again, do posters' opinions count..? (only if they agree with you, is the right answer)

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>It's just a sign that it was indeed getting out of hand. It's a simple fact of life... when a lot of people complain, you try to do something about it!
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

If they see a post they don't like, they can ignore it.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>But then again, the opinions are no where near as divided as the previous example you mention.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

They are, you just don't realise it because no-one has been banned yet.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Most people have agreed that it was the right thing to do
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Naming the posters was a bad move. Yes you can cut back on spam by e-mailing the posters, but by saying that certain posters are guilty of spam just from one or two complainants is a bit harsh.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Well, you said it... It is threadjacking then. You were selfish. Since you had already used your thread, you took it upon yourself to threadjack somebody else's thread.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

There were already more than five American Politics threads on Page 1. That is a shared resource and by dominating it, THAT is selfish. Now...what's wrong with fighting fire with fire?

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>That is probably a classic example of why people have labeled you a spammer.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

CHEAP SHOT* So why did you change your profile so everyone can see you are a deity? *CHEAP SHOT

P.S. If I'm a spammer, I would never have considered doing this. When was the last time you saw John Lenin or Comrade Dan in a proper debating thread like this one, or the paedophile thread?

[Ming]

Just because you write solid posts in the serious discusion subjects, doesn't mean that everything you post is serious and not spam

And yes, posters opinions are taken into consideration here. No, it's not a Democracy... but when people complain (and it was a lot, not just one or two) I will take action if I see that it is needed.

And as far as opinions being divided, we will just have to see what happens when somebody breaks the rules and is banned It will not stop me from enforcing the rules just because you raise the threat

And I still have no problem with naming them.
Something had to be done. You don't have to agree with what was done, it wasn't your call to make. If it has made them stop and think before they post, it was more than worth it

Cheap shot... well, yes it was... but you left the door wide open for it

My Deity title... I earned it by posting extensively in the Civ Forums, and I'm proud of it, wouldn't you be

------------------
Ming
CivII & Off-Topic Forum Moderator
Ming@Apolyton.net

[Dookie]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Just because you write solid posts in the serious discusion subjects, doesn't mean that everything you post is serious and not spam
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

The true spammers don't write long posts because it wastes time that might be valuable raising their post counts.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>And yes, posters opinions are taken into consideration here.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

OK, so when you want to ban someone for spamming, which is hardly a serious offence, how about asking people what they think about that one person...because it is only affecting the posters.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>we will just have to see what happens when somebody breaks the rules and is banned
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I don't think you are going to ban anyone, because the spam you're talking about can be just one post in a thread that is pointless. And one post isn't worth banning someone over..

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>It will not stop me from enforcing the rules just because you raise the threat
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I'm not raising a threat...I'm more in-touch with the working class poster because I am one of them.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>You don't have to agree with what was done, it wasn't your call to make
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

You know I agreed with cutting back on spamming. I supported the punishments of John Lenin, Comrade Dan, and Andz. I just think you overstepped the mark by accusing ME. I am definitely not a spammer.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>My Deity title... I earned it by posting extensively in the Civ Forums
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Well, you can hardly blame working class posters for spamming if the people they are controlled by count post counts as achievements to be attained.

[Mao]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Yes I can... spamming isn't allowed. And I don't spam
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I'm sure MarkG can vouch for that

Seriously though: Ming is just a reactionary mod more or less, he takes action when there are enough complaints or when someone blatantly crosses the line right? This is merely the reaction from the action of complaints.

[rah]

Whine Whine Whine, how pathetic, you're the most recognized spammer here. OH please define spam for me.....you've even bragged about it.

This is not to say that you don't post something useful every now and then. Even a blind pig finds acorns every now and then.

You're just using this recent example to hike up your post count a little more.

Get a life and stop whining. You'd be more respected if you took accountability for your actions. (yes, like a man)

RAH
Still a king and proud of it.

[Dookie]

Well I guess I shall shut up then since I wouldn't like to whine any more about those who whine about my so-called spamming.

Ming, please also take 5 posts from me for my spamming in this thread.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Mao on 08-06-2000 08:16 PM</font>
I don't think there are really definite definitions of these things. The feeling of the forums has always been more or less relaxed and the rules have been lax sometimes in favor of humor or whatnot. To define it in such a definite manner would destroy that relaxed feeling, and make it seem more official, and perhaps make people grow tenser. It would also open up a whole other debate about interpreting the new definitions...something most of us don't want to deal with.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

This HAS TO BE Maos longest post to date! This could very easy be 10-15 posts for him. Must be getting close to that next title, hey Mao