Spam Solving and Tolerance

used:) · #1 02-06-2006, 03:12 PM

Through my time ehre I have noticed (as many of you have) what I like to call the "spam effect." It consists of the cause and effect of when "spam" is posted and the usual flaming or request to stop. Now I have been growing tired of certain peoples' repetitive (hee I like that word) actions to try and "fix" this mess. It goes like this, in a few different scenarios:

-spam, nice forumer decided to make a request for the person to stop spamming, person is offended by the defense of "it was convewrsation" and valls forumer stupid thus starts aflamewar, unless you're LoboDiabloLoneWolf who really knows how to dull down these things through problem solving posts.

-spam, bastard forumer (or BF) flames relentlessly causing flamewar. Thread ends up being closed after 90 some posts of stupid flaming.

-spam, everyone ignores it, end of story.

Anyone notice this too?

But the point is that (ooo, got to change media player music) should we really have to look to however we like to "fix" the problem? most spam I have seen has been just run of the mill fun nnot needing a flame nor a warn. So can we just try a look at it thorugh the "spammers'" point of view and try and solve it like that?

Another scenario is when the so called spam becoems aserious discussion possibly ignited by aflame of some crude ember, a good example is the bit we went of in the HJackign Off thread when fax decided to be a capital dickhead to OANST (we all love you). But from what I have seen I believe those were noble and intelligent posts worth keeping, making it excusable.

So yeah, just puttin that out thar. Please tell me what you think and report back at midnight for crumpets and escargo. Ta ta! (oooo, all jewels are green!)

Dino · #2 02-06-2006, 08:36 PM

For this I refer to my "need to stop people going offtopic?" flow-diagram.

Spam seems to sort itself out if nobody says anything about it.

Ambi will testify that 99% of the time I don't take my own advice, as she's shut me up in the past by throwing my own rulebook at me. I tend to just verbally firebomb everyone when they spam in my own threads. But still... I know for a fact that I wouldn't go on a spamming spree... I just occasionally feel the need to add a little of what we would traditionally consider "spam". Once I've done it I don't carry on, it usually always ends there and is therefore not worth making a big deal out of. I'm sure most people are the same here.

I think part of the problem here is our definition of spam, and I think that this is exacerbated by the type of community we have here. We're a small community and we all take on the responsibility of stopping spammers... also we all accept that we use our own judgement to work out what is spam and what is not, and have reached an unspoken consensus on what constitutes spam. This means that people we don't like end up committing more spam-crimes, simply because we see spam where we want to see it, and people we love can get away with a lot worse because we're prepared to accept their contribution as enjoyable content.

We would cut this problem at the neck if we set a definition of spam, and made it the job of the moderators only to sort out spam. We perhaps all need to take on the responsibility of making it clearer to everyone that they are not the ones who sort out problems... because that's where the problems start, like Used said. People see spam and decide to take the law into their own hands, but end up causing arguments.

As for the definition of spam, traditionally it's something with no content or point... if it's intended to make people laugh for instance, then it's not spam, because it's a joke, and that has an honest point. It counts as content, and content is what a forum is all about. If it's the opposite of content, in that it's really short and doesn't serve any purpose, or tries to but doesn't succeed, then it's spam.

Our definition of spam, is just a loose umbrella term for anything we dislike. Not really a good idea if we've got a community of people who take the law into their own hands.

T-nex · #3 02-07-2006, 09:32 PM

Well, I have this called soft spam and hard spam. Soft spam is just a joke that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, and has the purpose of making people laugh(although it sometimes doesn't). This should not be worth a warning, it's just a joke. Loosen up peeps

.
Also i don't think pointless messages with really no content to it should be warned either, unless it goes on.
But hard spam is when people really annoyingly post something stupid in capital and acts like a jerks. This should be warned.
But i honestly don't think a little spam ever hurt anyone.

Dino · #4 02-10-2006, 01:22 PM

:

Well, I have this called soft spam and hard spam. Soft spam is just a joke that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic, and has the purpose of making people laugh(although it sometimes doesn't). This should not be worth a warning, it's just a joke. Loosen up peeps

.
Also i don't think pointless messages with really no content to it should be warned either, unless it goes on.
But hard spam is when people really annoyingly post something stupid in capital and acts like a jerks. This should be warned.
But i honestly don't think a little spam ever hurt anyone.

There's offtopic posting, and then there's spam, but we seem to've merged the two. I'm always noticing this around the forums... I think we should be a bit clearer on the definitions and the severity of the punishments for each.

CheeseOfGlory · #5 02-10-2006, 09:08 PM

is it just me, or are there more threads about spam than there are real threads?

Dino · #6 02-11-2006, 07:12 PM

:

is it just me, or are there more threads about spam than there are real threads?

Is it just me, or do you rarely make a post worth any more than the kilowatt hours of electricity that it rode in on?

Why don't you try to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem for once?

used:) · #7 02-11-2006, 07:17 PM

:

Is it just me, or do you rarely make a post worth any more than the kilowatt hours of electricity that it rode in on?

Why don't you try to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem for once?

I was thinking the exact same thing when I read his post. I just wasn't in the mood.

Adder · #8 02-12-2006, 03:18 AM

used

and Dino:

While I like your idea of tackeling spam not quite at the source but at the spread, you've now posted 2 posts that say "This post wasn't worth posting here" about CheeseOfGlory's post.

Spam is against the rules. I like the idea of having rules. If I see spam, I would like to think that I'd tend to report it... but I don't. Spam tends to be "I think this is spam... but others don't"
If I see flaming, I DO report it. It's in the rules, I don't like insults aimed at people for no legitamate reason, I report rule breaches.

My point?

Don't respond to spam (which both of you have stated is a good idea, but {IMHO} have failed to act upon in this thread). Don't point out spam in a topic by posting in that topic UNLESS you're making a point about that topic and not just the spam.

As for the "You report posts? You NAZI!" argument... read the damn rules. Over zealous rule enforcement is not a bad thing unless the rules are stupidly worded (so that everything is wrong) or the rules are stupidly thought out (so that posting with the word "t3h" in it means an instant 3-day ban)

***Wil*** · #9 02-12-2006, 04:08 AM

I'm glad this discussion arose. I think the Forums do need a clear and easily-viewable definition of spam, off-topic, flaming, abuse, etc. Spam is not so much a problem in GD, but I have to delete arguments every week. I think commenting on the style in which other people post is clearly, inappropriately off-topic.

But I think we've said we should set definitions before.

used:) · #10 02-12-2006, 06:36 AM

:

used

and Dino:

While I like your idea of tackeling spam not quite at the source but at the spread, you've now posted 2 posts that say "This post wasn't worth posting here" about CheeseOfGlory's post.

Spam is against the rules. I like the idea of having rules. If I see spam, I would like to think that I'd tend to report it... but I don't. Spam tends to be "I think this is spam... but others don't"
If I see flaming, I DO report it. It's in the rules, I don't like insults aimed at people for no legitamate reason, I report rule breaches.

My point?

Don't respond to spam (which both of you have stated is a good idea, but {IMHO} have failed to act upon in this thread). Don't point out spam in a topic by posting in that topic UNLESS you're making a point about that topic and not just the spam.

As for the "You report posts? You NAZI!" argument... read the damn rules. Over zealous rule enforcement is not a bad thing unless the rules are stupidly worded (so that everything is wrong) or the rules are stupidly thought out (so that posting with the word "t3h" in it means an instant 3-day ban)

Now hold on a sec.

In this case, couldn't you classify one liners in other topics like "I agree with everything so and so said"? It doesn't appear that those kind of posts contribute much to the group discussion either. And I wouldn't say that we would instantly go Nazi Germany on those kinds of people who are text happy. For one, they are probably new here, and don't know the do's and don't's, or they are like Icarus and in which case, well I don't want to get into that.

Adder · #11 02-12-2006, 01:27 PM

:

Originally Posted by CheeseOfGlory
is it just me, or are there more threads about spam than there are real threads?

Is it just me, or do you rarely make a post worth any more than the kilowatt hours of electricity that it rode in on?

Why don't you try to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem for once?

Okay, how did CheeseOfGlory contribute to this thread? S/he didn't.

Now, how did Dino contribute to this thread in that post? S/he didn't. Pointing out "you're making it worse" doesn't extend the topic, it breaks it (IMHO at least).

:

used

I was thinking the exact same thing when I read his post. I just wasn't in the mood.

How does that aid the thread? Well, it extends Dino's post... which would be fine if Dino's post was on-topic.

That is the kind of thing I see as spam. Again, this is why I wouldn't report spam (unless it's blatantly pointless) since those 2 or 3 posts can be seen as "not spam"... just not by me.

used:) · #12 02-12-2006, 01:42 PM

Which is exactly what I am trying to clarify to you in my previous post!

Christ on a stick, did you even read my last post entirely?

SeaRex · #13 02-13-2006, 04:29 PM

Well, if anyone is curious, I define spam as something with no tangible connection to the original topic (excluding threads where the topic has evolved past the original intent) and doesn't make me giggle on the inside. Or if someone is just being a vindictive, mean little bastard. That too.

Well anywho, that's what I look for when I'm deciding if a post is "worthy" or not. And what makes my judgment better than yours? Well, nothing... I guess. Tough cheese.

Dino · #14 02-14-2006, 02:06 PM

:

used

and Dino:

While I like your idea of tackeling spam not quite at the source but at the spread, you've now posted 2 posts that say "This post wasn't worth posting here" about CheeseOfGlory's post.

Spam is against the rules. I like the idea of having rules. If I see spam, I would like to think that I'd tend to report it... but I don't. Spam tends to be "I think this is spam... but others don't"
If I see flaming, I DO report it. It's in the rules, I don't like insults aimed at people for no legitamate reason, I report rule breaches.

My point?

Don't respond to spam (which both of you have stated is a good idea, but {IMHO} have failed to act upon in this thread). Don't point out spam in a topic by posting in that topic UNLESS you're making a point about that topic and not just the spam.

As for the "You report posts? You NAZI!" argument... read the damn rules. Over zealous rule enforcement is not a bad thing unless the rules are stupidly worded (so that everything is wrong) or the rules are stupidly thought out (so that posting with the word "t3h" in it means an instant 3-day ban)

I was asking Cheese if he would do the impossible by giving some useful suggestions for once. I wasn't saying "hey! That's spam! you are now under citizens arrest". I don't see any problem with people giving someone a nudge to behave when they're tired of that someone's annoying behaviour.

AquaticAmbi · #15 02-14-2006, 04:28 PM

But didn't you say the best thing to do is to just not reply to bad behavior? You know... the fun little "don't post" chart you use every once in a while.

used:) · #16 02-14-2006, 04:53 PM

Ambi, I am asking you to please stop bringing up that chart thing as a repetive attack agianst Dino, that was months ago, find something else to parade around. Dino annoys me off with his hypocrasy as much as you, but don't you think it's just as rotten of you constantly stick something that was a joke right in a person's face every time they flame? This is about spam solving, not increasing. Thankyou.

Now can we please resume discussion?

AquaticAmbi · #17 02-14-2006, 06:06 PM

Nay, foul naive. I was honestly asking--though with a snarky attitude--him to clear up the inconsistency. I've brought it up only once or twice and never received a remark addressing it from Dino. Are we supposed to not post or tell the person to stop? Which is it, my home fry?

So, let the man answer for himself.

***Nate*** · #18 02-14-2006, 10:26 PM

Well, in my opinion (for what it's worth) I think it's okay for someone to reply and tell someone off for spam/inappropriate posting. What is not okay is when more people post after that to repeatedly bash the person.

Which is why when I tell someone off, I often write an explicit point that the discussion has ended and no-one else need add their two cents.

Adder · #19 02-15-2006, 11:21 AM

nate_dog_woof, the only problem with that is your technicaly saying "I posted this identicaly themed post, but it was against the rules". While it makes sence to stop at one, it would be better to use Vimes' theory ("One drink is one too many")

***Nate*** · #20 02-15-2006, 11:37 AM

... two is not enough.

I work on the theory that any 'crowd control' posts are always, by definition, on-topic as they have the purpose of rerouting the conversation back to the topic.

used:) · #21 02-15-2006, 11:50 AM

:

Nay, foul naive. I was honestly asking--though with a snarky attitude--him to clear up the inconsistency. I've brought it up only once or twice and never received a remark addressing it from Dino. Are we supposed to not post or tell the person to stop? Which is it, my home fry?

So, let the man answer for himself.

Wasn't that chart a joke? And once or twice doesn't sound like the actual number to me. And that didn't soudn like an honest question with a "snarky attitiude" to me. It sounded like just another way to rhing back old arguements which are considerably off topic.

Dino · #22 02-15-2006, 01:09 PM

:

But didn't you say the best thing to do is to just not reply to bad behavior? You know... the fun little "don't post" chart you use every once in a while.

I think we need to clear something up here.

While it's reasonable to ignore "one off" spamming or misbehaviour from someone (because that person doesn't have a track record of consistantly spamming), if it starts to get really repetitive and the mods appear unwilling to do anything about it, then I think we should start encouraging that member to make more of a contribution rather than inflame a situation or provoke a reaction.

It's obvious that what cheese wanted was a reaction, he wanted that reaction to be what he probably expected, a hypocritical "don't spam" attack after I had just suggested that people shouldn't respond to spam, most probably as an inside joke with SeaRex. However my response wasn't "don't spam", my response was to ask him to stop trying to provoke reactions, and to offer some suggestions instead. I think that's a reasonable request to make of someone who's behaviour is tiresomely consistent in it's pointlessness.

Personally I don't think the spam issue is really bad enough to warrant a thread about it, but I think that a revision of the whole spam thing, like Used suggested, would be a good idea for times when the spam gets worse for whatever reason.

As for nate's view, I can see the merit in it. Personally I think that we should not underestimate the ability of a group of veteran members to influence a member to stop behaving a disruptive manner, and not rule this out as a tool to stop problem members. But I still stand by my original suggestion that in most cases we should all just leave spam where it stands. Wait for it to get out of hand before we assume that it's going to get out of hand, and deal with it accordingly.

SeaRex · #23 02-15-2006, 01:12 PM

:

It's obvious that what cheese wanted was a reaction, he wanted that reaction to be what he probably expected, a hypocritical "don't spam" attack after I had just suggested that people shouldn't respond to spam, most probably as an inside joke with SeaRex.

Don't rope me into this because I know the guy. I have practically nothing to do with anything that Cheese says.

Adder · #24 02-16-2006, 04:20 AM

:

It's obvious that what cheese wanted was a reaction, he wanted that reaction to be what he probably expected, a hypocritical "don't spam" attack after I had just suggested that people shouldn't respond to spam...

Personally I think that we should not underestimate the ability of a group of veteran members to influence a member to stop behaving a disruptive manner, and not rule this out as a tool to stop problem members. But I still stand by my original suggestion that in most cases we should all just leave spam where it stands. Wait for it to get out of hand before we assume that it's going to get out of hand, and deal with it accordingly.

RE Cheese: This is not obvious to anyone who doesn't spend huge amounts of time on the forum (like me), so it looks like you're jsut responding to spam.

RE Veterans: I don't like this idea in general. The idea that "I've been here longer, I can boss you around" {which can be derived from your idea, but is not directly what you said} is a very bad one. 1337-ism against n00bs is just wrong. (Again, I know this wasn't what you were thinking, but I often see a fine line between "this is what you should do" and "this is what you do" when people play seniority).

RE "out of hand": While spam does not have to breed spam, it's better to deal with it at the source. Again, "one drink is one too many". (And glad to see someone was able to get the reference)

Fuzzleman54321 · #25 02-16-2006, 08:55 AM

Spam sucks serious butt *beep!*

It just screws about.

Only Noobs Spam.

***Nate*** · #26 02-16-2006, 10:46 AM

:

RE Veterans: I don't like this idea in general. The idea that "I've been here longer, I can boss you around" {which can be derived from your idea, but is not directly what you said} is a very bad one. 1337-ism against n00bs is just wrong.

It's not about seniority. It's just that people who have been here a while are more aware of the rules and what counts as unnecessary posting.

I would have no problem if a relatively new member told me off for doing something wrong.

Rich · #27 02-18-2006, 02:30 AM

Thing is, no-one follows the rules. We're all a mass of hypocrits, including Peter and other mods, myself included. I say we reform the rules, because our behaviour is very liberal while the rules are rather conservative.

Adder · #28 02-18-2006, 03:29 AM

If no one is following the rules, they should either be inforced (which, IMHO, doesn't seem to be happening a lot) or altered (...which might be the best thing).

CheeseOfGlory · #29 02-18-2006, 07:59 PM

Ok, I admit it, this is all a giant conspiracy masterminded by me and various unnamed participants to destroy OWF with our foul and constant spamming.

Does this post count as spamming? I'll check back in a week or so to find out.

***Wil*** · #30 02-19-2006, 10:15 AM

Change the rules themselves or the punishments? As far as I can tell, we all get angry enough when the rules-as-they-are-currently are broken, but the staff are all too nice and reluctant to keep giving out warnings.