10 chars= Just as bad as Spam-a-lamming?

Dipstikk · #1 03-17-2005, 06:06 AM

What's with this? I see one-word posts with the phrase "10 chars" under the word in parentheses. Is that allowed? I mean, does it automatically make an otherwise short message okay when someone quickly types "10 chars" under it? That's just as bad as spamming.
What do you think? Personally, I'm outraged.

Oh yes. So outraged, it's almost like I'm not. So I guess I'm not.
But still.

T-nex · #2 03-17-2005, 06:43 AM

i really don't care about that. Sometimes it's used to lengthen the post when you spam, other times not. Like in the forum-games, where you post a short answer, which is under 10 characters. So, it's hard to judge....

Hobo · #3 03-17-2005, 07:03 AM

No it's not spam. It ruins posts because the 10 character limit sucks.

Smell · #4 03-17-2005, 09:51 AM

But is it classed as spam when people put one word answers followed by a list of ten names? I've seen it happen before.

Eg:

Ok

Bill Bob Cindy Jeff George Harry Lilly Neil Will James.

***Alcar*** · #5 03-17-2005, 09:02 PM

If the post contains '10 chars max' to beat the 10 characters max filter, it does not necessarily make it spam. The majority of the time it will be though, as you're hardly contributing to a thread with anything less than 10 characters.

If it is spam, just notify one of the staff members and we'll sort it out

Alcar...

Rich · #6 03-18-2005, 09:58 AM

:

But is it classed as spam when people put one word answers followed by a list of ten names? I've seen it happen before.

Hey! I started that. Fuzzle Guy and co. stole it off me!

It's an ok rule, but very easy to avoid. (Hence 10 chars)

Esus · #7 03-18-2005, 10:12 AM

:

as you're hardly contributing to a thread with anything less than 10 characters.

The problem is that it's so easy to feasibly contribute sufficiently to a thread with udner ten characters. I find myself doing it often (perhaps this just means I'm not a good contributer) but then, rather than writing ten characters, I waffle around what I want to see with worthless sentancing and things like 'which I think is really good'.

Smell · #8 03-19-2005, 03:07 AM

:

Hey! I started that. Fuzzle Guy and co. stole it off me!

It's an ok rule, but very easy to avoid. (Hence 10 chars)

I know you did

, at first it was funny, but now I think it gets a bit annoying.

Rich · #9 03-20-2005, 03:24 AM

:

but now I think it gets a bit annoying.

Thats what I thought. It was only a one-off joke and now everyone is doing it!

Fuzzleman54321 · #10 04-02-2005, 01:44 AM

IT really does not bother me. It is just so you can descripe what you mean more. Insted of whatever, (8 char) cool,(4 char) and so on.

***Nate*** · #11 04-03-2005, 08:46 PM

If you really must use less than 10 characters, try adding a smilie or two. Last I checked, they counted as text.

stingbee · #12 05-02-2005, 10:46 AM

:

No it's not spam. It ruins posts because the 10 character limit sucks.

they should have a one word limit

T-nex · #13 05-02-2005, 12:00 PM

Why? So that you'll have to experience the "please lengthen you message"-note? Cuz i'm sure you would if we'd have a one-word rule.
Besides, this topic is old

Facsimile · #14 05-03-2005, 02:08 AM

This has annoyed me for a while:
"Spam-a-lamming" is probably the shittest word...thing I have heard.
Was it really neccessary?

Dipstikk · #15 05-03-2005, 03:17 AM

Yes, the word was necessary. And sexy.
Don't knock the word!

Leto · #16 05-04-2005, 10:33 PM

:

they should have a one word limit

No they really fucking shouldn't! Especially with you around!

Ten characters= amusing at first, just a post lengthening excuse now.

Dino · #17 05-06-2005, 09:40 AM

I for one think that this shouldn't be allowed. Too many users here use the ten characters trick to post a worthless one word response without adding anything at all to the thread in terms of actual content.

I fully believe in quality over quantity, but you've got to draw a line somewhere. No matter how funny it is, if you allow it to happen, then for every funny one-word post, there will be 100 worthless ones where people are just spamming.

Rich · #18 05-06-2005, 01:14 PM

Generally though, we don't have a spam problem here. Give me list of spammers other than stingbee and I'll believe you.

Facsimile · #19 05-07-2005, 01:48 AM

Yeah, because sometimes questions are asked in a thread that only require a yes or no answer. And it looks really stupid when you have to elaborate it because of the 10 character thing.

Dino · #20 05-08-2005, 05:04 PM

:

Yeah, because sometimes questions are asked in a thread that only require a yes or no answer. And it looks really stupid when you have to elaborate it because of the 10 character thing.

You want the spammer other than stingbee, then here's your man, Rich.

Facs regularly uses the 10 char trick to make posts that are niether informative, nor funny, nor useful. It's just used as another way of responding.

The problem is that Facs is normally totally fine, therefore he can't be construed as a spammer. He's just one of the many people who misuse/overuse it, and those are the people that I'm getting at. I'm not necessarily referring to serial spammers - you don't have to be a spammer to spam. I'm just referring to people who misuse and overuse it.

Remeber Facs; ten chars is a privelidge, not a right.

Generally my stance on making a one word comment is the same regardless of the situation though; if you aren't articulate to be more verbose, descriptive and interesting, then you aren't doing the forums any good. No offense to Fax, I like most of his posts, I just disagree with the ten characters posts. It's getting really boring and lame reading a thread with plenty of well thought out, well written responses, only to find that some smartass (again no offense fax) has discovered that he can defeat the ten character limit and is posting single word responses to everything.

Granted it doesn't happen too often, but in my opinion any amount of preventable stupidity is too much.

It is possible to defeat the ten character limit without typing "ten chars" in the post... you can add invisible html characters, which will be counted as characters but won't be visible to readers. But at the end of the day what is the point in having a 10 character limit if people can so simply defeat it? It's like censoring fuck when everyone has figured out that if you italicise one of the letters you defeat the censoring... you might as well have no censoring at all. I agree that it stops people typing out fuck fuck fuckity fuck as instantly... it slows people down, but it still didn't stop me from typing it.

My position remains the same. We should either disallow this "ten chars" thing or just remove the limit.

EDIT: Also it is my opinion that posts which only require a yes or no answer are stupid and should be ignored anyway.

***Alcar*** · #21 05-08-2005, 10:28 PM

I can't say I've seen Fax abuse that, then again, I am sleeping with him, so I could be biased.

:

We should either disallow this "ten chars" thing or just remove the limit.

Doesn't that mean the same thing?

Alcar...

Facsimile · #22 05-09-2005, 02:07 AM

:

You want the spammer other than stingbee, then here's your man, Rich.

Facs regularly uses the 10 char trick to make posts that are niether informative, nor funny, nor useful. It's just used as another way of responding.

The problem is that Facs is normally totally fine, therefore he can't be construed as a spammer. He's just one of the many people who misuse/overuse it, and those are the people that I'm getting at. I'm not necessarily referring to serial spammers - you don't have to be a spammer to spam. I'm just referring to people who misuse and overuse it.

Remeber Facs; ten chars is a privelidge, not a right.

Generally my stance on making a one word comment is the same regardless of the situation though; if you aren't articulate to be more verbose, descriptive and interesting, then you aren't doing the forums any good. No offense to Fax, I like most of his posts, I just disagree with the ten characters posts. It's getting really boring and lame reading a thread with plenty of well thought out, well written responses, only to find that some smartass (again no offense fax) has discovered that he can defeat the ten character limit and is posting single word responses to everything.

Granted it doesn't happen too often, but in my opinion any amount of preventable stupidity is too much.

It is possible to defeat the ten character limit without typing "ten chars" in the post... you can add invisible html characters, which will be counted as characters but won't be visible to readers. But at the end of the day what is the point in having a 10 character limit if people can so simply defeat it? It's like censoring fuck when everyone has figured out that if you italicise one of the letters you defeat the censoring... you might as well have no censoring at all. I agree that it stops people typing out fuck fuck fuckity fuck as instantly... it slows people down, but it still didn't stop me from typing it.

My position remains the same. We should either disallow this "ten chars" thing or just remove the limit.

EDIT: Also it is my opinion that posts which only require a yes or no answer are stupid and should be ignored anyway.

Hey ****face, I'm not even going to bother to read your post because I think I've used the ten character thing once maybe twice.

Get your facts straight, Reece.

Dino · #23 05-09-2005, 05:40 AM

:

Doesn't that mean the same thing?

Alcar...

No. Keeping the limit but allowing people to defeat it is pointless Alcar, you might as well have no limit at all.

What I'm saying is that you should either keep the limit but make defeating it against the rules, or get rid of the limit completely.

:

Hey ****face, I'm not even going to bother to read your post because I think I've used the ten character thing once maybe twice.

Get your facts straight, Reece.

I'm not Reece, asshole.

And how can you tell me to get my facts straight when you openly admit to not bothering to read my post before commenting on it? If you don't read my whole post then you've got no right or reasonable basis on which to flame me.

Statikk HDM · #24 05-11-2005, 02:14 PM

I've seen more criticism over long posts(guilty) than short posts.
10 chars.

Statikk HDM · #25 05-11-2005, 02:15 PM

Long posts are almost as bad.
Scott Charles Frank Joey John Rob Dan
Double posted on accident, not to be ironic.

Facsimile · #26 05-13-2005, 12:51 AM

:

And how can you tell me to get my facts straight when you openly admit to not bothering to read my post before commenting on it?

Because I skimmed it, and I could tell what you said was opinion, and what I said was fact.

*Short moment later*
There, I read it, and I stand by what I just said.
Don't use me as an example if I'm not the problem.

Rich · #27 05-13-2005, 08:53 AM

Yeah man...

In defence of Fax, I haven't seen him abusing the rule, at least not as Dino portrays it. I've done it a few times myself though, all in good humor I hope.

Esus · #28 05-13-2005, 11:15 AM

Personally, I've frequently abused the rule - because sometimes less than ten characters is enough substance. No one seems to care though, so abuse of it doesn't matter.

Dino · #29 05-13-2005, 05:13 PM

:

Because I skimmed it, and I could tell what you said was opinion, and what I said was fact.

*Short moment later*
There, I read it, and I stand by what I just said.
Don't use me as an example if I'm not the problem.

I've seen you use it plenty of times. You can deny it all you want but you're not going to change the fact that you are someone who has used it and has no qualms about using it in the future.

And if you've got a problem with me using you as an example of the problem because you think that you're not the problem, then don't blame me for thinking that you're the problem after I've seen you being the problem, even though you're not the sole cause of the problem and I generally have no problem with you.

I'm a little too high to be doing this forum shit, I'll come back later.

Facsimile · #30 05-14-2005, 01:29 AM

Guh, I'm not going to even bother continuing an argument about what has and hasn't happened with a stoner.