Changes to Spam Policy

• MareneCorp wrote on 2013-04-27 02:29

  Quote from Ashikoki;1076751:

  Where the hell were you guys when the discussion was going on last week.
  
  Now we need to have the discussion all over again.

  
  
  I was in your closet, I'm not sure about the rest of these guys. Maybe they were afraid of getting the spamhammer, after all, it's not Bean Rua :(
  
  @Milk It's hard to properly define spam I guess
• Ithiliel wrote on 2013-04-28 07:43

  Quote from Ashikoki;1076751:

  Where the hell were you guys when the discussion was going on last week.
  
  Now we need to have the discussion all over again.

  
  
  They were in the, "We don't see that thread" land :< it seems to often happen to staff members.
• M wrote on 2013-04-28 15:08
  The first three definitely seem a little too strict for a forum. The first and second one are ways people converse their opinions. If a picture explains it they shouldn't be required to post words along with it. And if someone has the exact same opinion as someone else, but still wants to voice it, I can understand a ^ or this. It does contribute by showing that someone else has that opinion.
  
  And the third one is on the fence for me, I can see how if a staff member tells you to do something and you don't do it, you are punished. However offtopicness is part of conversation. It's natural like you stated. Yeah a thread shouldn't be permanently derailed, but there's no harm in asking a couple somewhat unrelated questions or bringing up something else somewhat unrelated. Now if you're talking about apples in the thread and I bring up french super models, I can understand how that doesn't contribute. But if it's somewhat related, I see no harm.
  
  I mean I don't neccisarily do these things or think they aren't annoying sometimes, but I see how they are justified. Afterall a forum is used for conversation, why limit the amount of conversations we can have. That's just how I see those three rules, as limit to speech in a place that is meant to contain pretty much nothing but open speech.
  
  Just my opinion.
  
  Also now that you mention having the conversation again, I'd like to go back to the third change. Making a new thread doesn't always work, for instance I don't post a Whole lot unless it's something that directly effects me, which most of these do not. As a result, if you made a new thread to discuss (so as not to "derail" this thread) and ignored previous posts in this thread as contribution to the rule change, I wouldn't post in it because I wouldn't feel the need to repost my already posted opinions.
• Ashikoki wrote on 2013-04-28 15:47
  Okay first of all, I'd like to tell the mods to not act on these changes, because they're not final and are still up for discussion.
  
  

  Quote from ╔╦╗╒╕║╒╕;1077768:

  The first three definitely seem a little too strict for a forum. The first and second one are ways people converse their opinions. If a picture explains it they shouldn't be required to post words along with it. And if someone has the exact same opinion as someone else, but still wants to voice it, I can understand a ^ or this. It does contribute by showing that someone else has that opinion.
  
  And the third one is on the fence for me, I can see how if a staff member tells you to do something and you don't do it, you are punished. However offtopicness is part of conversation. It's natural like you stated. Yeah a thread shouldn't be permanently derailed, but there's no harm in asking a couple somewhat unrelated questions or bringing up something else somewhat unrelated. Now if you're talking about apples in the thread and I bring up french super models, I can understand how that doesn't contribute. But if it's somewhat related, I see no harm.
  
  I mean I don't neccisarily do these things or think they aren't annoying sometimes, but I see how they are justified. Afterall a forum is used for conversation, why limit the amount of conversations we can have. That's just how I see those three rules, as limit to speech in a place that is meant to contain pretty much nothing but open speech.
  
  Just my opinion.
  
  Also now that you mention having the conversation again, I'd like to go back to the third change. Making a new thread doesn't always work, for instance I don't post a Whole lot unless it's something that directly effects me, which most of these do not. As a result, if you made a new thread to discuss (so as not to "derail" this thread) and ignored previous posts in this thread as contribution to the rule change, I wouldn't post in it because I wouldn't feel the need to repost my already posted opinions.

  
  
  I agree 100% with everything you said.
  
  But up until just now, I was under the impression that I was a very small minority. We had a thread to discuss this a week ago and these are the changes everyone unanimously wanted then. Have a look. http://mabination.com/threads/69691-Spam-Discussion-Some-Announcements
  
  I don't know what to do other than have those parties involved discuss it, but no one seems to want to.
  
  I could ease off on the rules, but that makes what constitutes spam really foggy. Every time we get a report on spam, and its like "oh we decided that's only kinda spammy, but not really", people get really really upset about it. I'm actually not sure what their problem is. I don't care in the slightest when I see things like that.
  
  There could be ten pointless threads with no content posted by the same person on the first page of bean rua and I really won't care.
• M wrote on 2013-04-28 15:59
  Seems like really the only thing that I ever see constituting spam is Splat-spam lol Not that everything he says is spam, but he posts in the wrong places a lot and posts rediculous things a lot.
  
  I also agree with the 4th point you said. Posting tons of topics within x amount of time seems spammy. I guess if ALL you ever posted on nation was ^'s and pictures, I guess you could be considered spam, but the average joe posts other real posts too.
  
  Also posting a topic that is pretty much related to another already-active topic could be considered spam. Those are all straight forward. I mean the easiest way for you guys I guess would be to take it situationally and do something about any supposed spam when multiple people complain about it or if it seems harmful/hateful to someone or the topic/forum.
• Hanna wrote on 2013-04-28 19:39
  People are too uptight about everything
  people don't like Thomas' threads but they refuse to block him, they don't like him asking questions that can be found on google even when 90% of the time the question is in the title, but SOME HOW they manage to weasel into the thread and yell "USE JEWGLE"
  
  A shit ton of threads at one time is a bit much, but at one time people were like attacking him in any and every thread he made.
  
  Also, I don't believe ^ or "this" is spam, when you want to know someone's opinion on something, but someone already said it better than you have, I don't see a problem with someone saying that they agree to the post. They are contributing to the thread by saying that they agree with this person.
  
  And why would it piss someone off? "OH GOD SOMEONE POSTED ^ AND IT TOOK UP A FEW INCHES ON MY SCREEN WHAT EVER SHALL I DO"
  
  Some people are so bitchy, like holy shit.
• Milk wrote on 2013-04-29 01:29

  Quote from ╔╦╗╒╕║╒╕;1077784:

  Seems like really the only thing that I ever see constituting spam is Splat-spam lol Not that everything he says is spam, but he posts in the wrong places a lot and posts rediculous things a lot.
  
  I also agree with the 4th point you said. Posting tons of topics within x amount of time seems spammy. I guess if ALL you ever posted on nation was ^'s and pictures, I guess you could be considered spam, but the average joe posts other real posts too.
  
  Also posting a topic that is pretty much related to another already-active topic could be considered spam. Those are all straight forward. I mean the easiest way for you guys I guess would be to take it situationally and do something about any supposed spam when multiple people complain about it or if it seems harmful/hateful to someone or the topic/forum.

  
  
  To be honest splat spam isnt as bad as when he first joined the forums. Either I've grown accustomed to the spam or something but yeah you pretty much said what I wanted to say on the matter.
• Lyrveil wrote on 2013-04-29 16:04
  Image only response are a weird subject. If you post a meme picture in a thread to reply to something then yes I think it should count as spam unless you add your own opinion or anything more than just the meme picture. If you post a picture like the example Hanna posted on page 2 (I think) it should be fine because the picture basically describe the person opinion in many words and it's the same as a quote. Even if you were to add text to that picture it'd basically result in "^" or "That" which bring me to my next point.
  
  I don't see anything wrong with "that" or "^" as long as it's not every post a member made in a thread. Like Hanna and the other explained a "^" can be used to express agreement with the opinion of someone else that worded it with better words. So one of those in a thread isn't exactly spam in my opinion.
  
  Also let's be honest on the thread limit. I used to think it would be a good idea but then I realized I only thought so, so that I would stop seeing the community bitch about one member. If anyone else made 5+ thread in a hour I'm pretty sure no one would give a single fuck about it (or at the very least way less people would). So no I don't think a thread limit is necessary.
• Leopher wrote on 2013-05-02 23:36
  In any community that is governed in a remotely democratic way, the laws will tend to naturally progress from freedom to greater restriction over time as problems arise (take, for example, the current form of the US Constitution with all it's amendments in comparison to its original form). For a long time the simple and relatively unrestrictive rule "Don't spam anywhere except for Bean Rua" was enough and discussions like these didn't need to happen. However, as is inevitably the case, people (such as Splat) come along that use this freedom in ways or to degrees which make other members of the community uncomfortable, and the community will seek to reform the rules in order to fix the problem. This process will continue no matter how many times the rules are adjusted and it's outlandish to suppose that we can craft a perfect set of rules that will permanently satisfy everyone. Hence, after a great number of reforms, Mabination's "law" (assuming it lives to see the day) will eventually reach a point of immense and unpleasant restriction, technicality, and legality that will cause its members to disperse and form/join new communities to their own liking.
  
  All that to say: our best option is to appease those that are unpleased with the Mabination's current climate or rules while preserving as much freedom as possible in order to prolong the life and quality of the community. I suggest we err on the side of freedom for now while expecting and being prepared to adjust the rules once more whenever the next equivalent of Splat arrives (I'm only using him as an example, not to suggest he's the sole source of the issue, but rather a more obvious catalyst). So yeah, I agree that these rules are a great start but still a little too strict.
• Ashikoki wrote on 2013-05-03 14:33

  Quote from Leopher;1081103:

  In any community that is governed in a remotely democratic way, the laws will tend to naturally progress from freedom to greater restriction over time as problems arise (take, for example, the current form of the US Constitution with all it's amendments in comparison to its original form). For a long time the simple and relatively unrestrictive rule "Don't spam anywhere except for Bean Rua" was enough and discussions like these didn't need to happen. However, as is inevitably the case, people (such as Splat) come along that use this freedom in ways or to degrees which make other members of the community uncomfortable, and the community will seek to reform the rules in order to fix the problem. This process will continue no matter how many times the rules are adjusted and it's outlandish to suppose that we can craft a perfect set of rules that will permanently satisfy everyone. Hence, after a great number of reforms, Mabination's "law" (assuming it lives to see the day) will eventually reach a point of immense and unpleasant restriction, technicality, and legality that will cause its members to disperse and form/join new communities to their own liking.
  
  All that to say: our best option is to appease those that are unpleased with the Mabination's current climate or rules while preserving as much freedom as possible in order to prolong the life and quality of the community. I suggest we err on the side of freedom for now while expecting and being prepared to adjust the rules once more whenever the next equivalent of Splat arrives (I'm only using him as an example, not to suggest he's the sole source of the issue, but rather a more obvious catalyst). So yeah, I agree that these rules are a great start but still a little too strict.

  
  
  This is something I always try to keep in mind. I never liked the changes I suggested in this thread either. I'm going to make a new topic about it.