Exibit A:
:
This is a good exaple of mild spam. Just another post mentioning a fact that isn't really relevant. By the way, don't feel like an accessory, sligslinger. You're not. Now, one, like this, isn't too bad. But the levels we're getting are not satisfactory. The're not the worst, but could, and should, be better. No-one wants to go through pages and pages of this to get to a relevant post. General conversation is fine, like in ClaireBear's thread, whatsitsname. But it is only fine in a thread made for general conversation. You may ask what's so bad about spam. You might as well ask what's so bad about vomit. It's only half-digested food mixed with stomach acid, isn't it? But when you look at it, you don't think that. You think, eww, that's gross! Spam isn't as bad as that, but that's the general idea. Phew! I'm done. |
Sorry if what I posted appears as spam, I'm only expressing how I feel. What SeaRex posted was SPAM too, he even acknowledged it. Why pick on me!? So I gathered that most of this test was coincidental. Does that mean that mods weren't in on it aswell, doesn't that make them part of the test?
|
The Moderators were not informed, but should they have spammed, they would be included. I guess it was another coincidence that the Moderators didn't spam. Or maybe we just chose the right people for the job.
It was certainly a period where I could see who could contain themselves. Alcar... |
:
|
:
|
Hmm... Maybe a bit late, but here's my opinion about CB saying OT is meant for spam.
Take a look at the two largest sub-fora: General Discussion and Off Topic. GD explains itself; GD is meant for discussion of Oddworld related topics. As for OT, it is meant for topics which don't fit in GD, SF, OWH, FS&H, FC and OWRPG. Got it? Now for the meaning of Spam: From www.dicionary.com : _________________________________ spam 1. "Spam" song) To post irrelevant or inappropriate messages to one or more Usenet newsgroups, mailing lists, or other messaging system in deliberate or accidental violation of netiquette. It is possible to spam a newsgroup with one well- (or ill-) planned message, e.g. asking "What do you think of abortion?" on soc.women. This can be done by cross-posting, e.g. any message which is crossposted to alt.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost inevitably spam both groups. (Compare troll and flame bait). Posting a message to a significant proportion of all newsgroups is a sure way to spam Usenet and become an object of almost universal hatred. Canter and Siegel spammed the net with their Green card post. If you see an article which you think is a deliberate spam, DO NOT post a follow-up - doing so will only contribute to the general annoyance. Send a polite message to the poster by private e-mail and CC it to "postmaster" at the same address. Bear in mind that the posting's origin might have been forged or the apparent sender's account might have been used by someone else without his permission. _________________________________ Spam isn't just any off topic message. It's an unwanted, unrelated, illogical message/topic, which is always a pain in the arse of most forumpeeps. Spammers should be killed. Okay, the last thing was a joke. |
*applaudes Alcar*
Yep, for a couple of reasons, I, along with other mods, have been kept away from the Forums a fair amount. I didn't know anything about this experiment. Not even while chatting to Alcar did he bring it up (and hence I wasn't aware even of this new insta-deletion policy). I have noticed that spam in GD has decreased quite a bit, hopefully a (delayed) reaction to my announcement there, but the odd example still pops up, and possibly will more so when there's anything substantial to talk about. Posts with humorous asides are perfectly legitimate in General Discussion, as long as that's all they are: asides. A post used solely for the purpose of a joke merely using the situation counts as spam. There's enough opportunity for this frolicing in Off-Topic. *unloads spam situation onto Majic and DI* |
:
... Who is this moron? |
:
So far I have one, nay two, valid reasons for cutting down on "spam" from the whole of this thread.. 1) Teal suggested that it is difficult to have to trawl through it all when you're interested in a particular topic. I agree... 2) No wait! Just the one eh! And Mac my dear... I ain't agressive... if you actually think that my style of post is such then... you ain't never experienced hurt/pain/anger! My can of whup-ass is very much unopened! Its just a shame you feel the need to simply quote my "agression" out of context to prove a half arsed point and score some imaginary points off me as you obviously can't come back at me in any other way... thats sad mate.... join a debating society you'll soon be hitting me with all cylinders... and then I may actually be bothered and/or impressed! My opinion on spam still stands no matter how many definition links people trawl up from the mists of cyber time... Natural deviation and progression and the odd funny.... YES! Random weirdness, excessive quotations to "prove a point," comment with out backing up statement with reasoning... NO! Hang on! Mac! Fascimile! What a shame you guys are spammers... tsk-tsk-tsk! :rolleyes: |
She's starting to sound a bit like Death, in his worst times...
Serious, if you don't like our policy, shut your yap, or leave. Or go find another forum to spam, and only post useful messages here. It's gettin' really annoying, y'know... |
:
Well Pet, that kind of response annoys me more... Please post only sensible, directly related responses to my more than valid points.... if you actually read the content of my posts... you would see that I agree with alot of what's been said in connection with spam... what I don't like is people not projecting valid reasons for their behaviour... I simply required clarification on Alcar's idea of spam and a little more than "Don't spam because the rules say so." I don't agree with the blind following of rules because they are just there... rules are there to be challenged... If you have a problem with that then I sorry but there's nothing I can do about that other than offering you a chill pill! |
While the rules are up for debate, we don't encourage it. The rules are what have worked for quite a number of years, and I don't expect them to change anytime soon.
The fact we give the members a right to voice their opinions (on administrative matters, other than bans) is much more than some forums do. Alcar... |
:
:
In theory your rules work fine... sadly this ain't a theoretical forum... real people with real ideas and beliefs! :
:D |
:
Alcar... |
:
Like, with the spamming... only Teal gave me a valid reason why it should be monitored... wading through it can be annoying! I agree! Everyone else just said... "because its in the rules" not valid in my book.. so I delved for depth! |
Because we've explained it so many times to so many people. It's simpler to say, "It's in the rules". Afterall, the rules were created for the reasons we would state anyway.
Your attitude towards rules is quite childish. Rules are everywhere, and you can challenge them if you want. But I doubt you'll get any government to change their rules because some citizen causes a stir. Sad, but true. Having the general populace against you can be a very depressing. Alcar... |
:
Testing boundaries and rules is how we develop our own morality, through prioratisation we rationalise our beliefs! Its a well known phenominon.... if we didn't test and rationalise we'd all treat a "no spamming" rule on a forum with the same degree of integrity as "thou shalt not kill!" Maybe not a citizen.... but citizens making a stand will make cause for concern... pro-active demonstrations and rallies really can make a difference! Its how a democracy works Peter! |
Your best bet is to just close this thread she isnt going to listen is she.
|
:
Alcar hasn't said anything yet!!!!! We are however, having a very mature and enlightening exchange of views... if you feel threatened by that I apologise but really... its fine! |
Im all up for exchanging views it can enlighten people on subjects but i agree with alcar here.
|
:
What are your views in connection with spam? |
I see that it is a problem and there is no point in taking this into a philosophical debate about spam for gods sake.
|
:
Deep! :D :p |
:
:
Also, I told you before that spam was "poinless drivel," then I later showed you a quote to back my statement up. http://www.oddworldforums.net/showpo...1&postcount=31 Okay, so now we know spam is three things thus far. 1. dual topic 2. argument 3. pointless drivel or offensive crude material Also, one on one conversation in a public thread is somewhat considered spam, because one on one conversations are meant for PM. Now we have four things. 1. dual topic 2. argument 3. pointless drivel or offensive crude material 4. One on one conversation in public thread From here I think you can get the idea of what spam is. Better? -oddguy |
:
2. Please do not call me 'Sweets'. And while I'm at it: 'dear', 'pet' or any other crap like this I also do not wish you to call me. :
3. *Very calmly* Spell my name right. |
This isn't going anywhere. The definition of spam has been explained to you on numerous occasions, convieniently in this thread. I've said and done what has needed to be said and done, therefore I'm closing this thread.
Alcar... |