Spam Discussion 3

• Ashikoki wrote on 2013-05-05 22:25
  You guys are all jerks.
  
  Changes made:
  
  

  
  
  • Image only responses -> Now only spam if it is not relevant to the topic.
    
  • Agreement posts "^" or "this" -> It isn't hard to add to a quote or at least echo it in your own words, if you're into circlejerking that hard.
    
  • The off-topic statement -> Stays the same. Some people argued that it is impossible to not derail to an extent, and I agree. But this rule does not apply until a moderator has come in to say that the derail must stop, and the topic move to a new thread, assuming the current thread's discussion is still going. Its just unpractical to hold two discussions at once in a single thread. This isn't a spam issue, its just keeping things less confusing. It falls under the classification of spamming because there is no other category that I find it fitting to throw it in to.
    
  • Posting too many threads in a given span of time -> There is no longer a set number of threads, though we're going to keep 5 in mind as a reasonable number. It could potentially be more or less. We'll evaluate the nature of the posts and its frequency of appearance. If you post 5 threads in a single hour, you're probably flooding the front page, and we're going to have to ask you to stop. But you could have done so while promoting really good discussions, so it might be excusable. We're gonna blur the line a little by throwing this in to "staff discretion", but make sure that this particular type of spamming is fully discussed with the other staff before coming to a decision. This is really mostly for a go-to guideline in case such a thing happens. In the 2 months I've been admin on nation, it hasn't happened, so I don't really even see it being enforced outside of blatant intentional spamming (which means we won't even need to bother with these guidelines).
    

  
  
  This will scale back from the previously listed policies made here while still keeping a written guideline. Remember that these policies (except for the last one) do not apply in bean rua. I'm also excluding Amusement Park and Forest of Souls from these policies, since we really like to play around in those sections.
  
  These policies are still not final. Typically I would roll with changes if its about 70% in favor or higher, but the last changes I've made met with a lot of opposition (with my own opinion being against the change as well). We'll see how you guys like this one, and then I'll be finalizing these policies with the feedback I get here.
• Sepia wrote on 2013-05-05 22:39

  Quote from Ashikoki;1082702:

  You guys are all jerks.

  
  
  My feels........
  
  OT:
  This all sounds good to me.
• MareneCorp wrote on 2013-05-05 22:57
  Okay with me. I will not be an ass any more :)
• Splatulated wrote on 2013-05-05 23:21
  so only rule i need to worry about is posting 25 threads in 30 seconds ?
  
  
  edit: wheres spam discussion 2 ?
• Ashikoki wrote on 2013-05-05 23:27

  Quote from Splatulated;1082740:

  so only rule i need to worry about is posting 25 threads in 30 seconds ?

  
  
  5 threads in a few hours. You tend to get really close, so you have to be especially careful, okay?
  
  

  edit: wheres spam discussion 2 ?

  
  
  Discussion 1: http://mabination.com/threads/69691-Spam-Discussion-Some-Announcements
  Discussion 2: http://mabination.com/threads/70136-Changes-to-Spam-Policy
• Natural Harmonia Gropius wrote on 2013-05-05 23:33

  Quote from Ashikoki;1082702:

  You guys are all jerks.

  
  
  Not me, I am perfect in every way. I have never done anything wrong. Just, uh...Don't look at my infraction history, cause it's empty.
• Splatulated wrote on 2013-05-06 00:14

  Quote from Ashikoki;1082745:

  5 threads in a few hours. You tend to get really close, so you have to be especially careful, okay?
  
  
  
  Discussion 1: http://mabination.com/threads/69691-Spam-Discussion-Some-Announcements
  Discussion 2: http://mabination.com/threads/70136-Changes-to-Spam-Policy

  
  
  does 5 threads mean like 5 threads period or 5 threads per section ?
  
  like what if i theoretically were to post 5 threads in mabinogi talk would that mean I couldn't post 4 more threads into bean rua general discussion or the food section ?
• Claudia wrote on 2013-05-06 00:29
  I mean, it's not a hard limit, but if you're just posting tons of threads regardless of section in a short amount of time we're all going to get pissed off very quickly.
  
  You know, like...more than some of us do already.
• Lewd wrote on 2013-05-06 00:39
  zzz
  I think this is making more spam than its cleaning up
• Milk wrote on 2013-05-06 02:31
  I like this.
• Aubog007 wrote on 2013-05-06 05:48
  I am glad you didn't Jerk my chain with these proposed rule changes!
  
  
  /there, took a bit.
• Leopher wrote on 2013-05-06 21:30
  Thanks Ashi!
  After stating in the 2nd thread that I thought the rules were a bit restrictive, I figured coming back later to suggest improvements would be the most considerate thing to do, but the thread was locked before I could. These changes are very similar to what I would've liked to see though. The new spam rules seem to enable the staff to remove the problems when they arise without obligating them to punish those who make posts that are harmless or even constructive but don't quite fit the recommended mold.
  
  My only concern is that some of the community has tended to express mistrust towards the "staff discretion" in the past (because "favoritism"), but all the rule enforcing is ultimately at their discretion anyways regardless of whether that's explicitly stated in a given rule or not (unless we opt to make the rules as precise and legalistic as possible, which no one will enjoy). I'm optimistic about the efficacy of these new rules though. We'll see how it goes.
• Lyrveil wrote on 2013-05-06 21:53

  Image only responses -> Now only spam if it is not relevant to the topic.

  
  
  I'm perfectly fine with this.
  
  

  Agreement posts "^" or "this" -> It isn't hard to add to a quote or at least echo it in your own words, if you're into circlejerking that hard.

  
  
  I don't think having to put anything else between a ^ or "This" should be required but I don't mind if it stays like that. In my opinion one or two "^" out of a person's every posts isn't so bad.
  
  

  
  The off-topic statement -> Stays the same. Some people argued that it is impossible to not derail to an extent, and I agree. But this rule does not apply until a moderator has come in to say that the derail must stop, and the topic move to a new thread, assuming the current thread's discussion is still going. Its just unpractical to hold two discussions at once in a single thread. This isn't a spam issue, its just keeping things less confusing. It falls under the classification of spamming because there is no other category that I find it fitting to throw it in to.
  

  
  
  Fair enough since there are point where a thread derail completely change the subject, and the main one gets ignored.
  
  

  Posting too many threads in a given span of time -> There is no longer a set number of threads, though we're going to keep 5 in mind as a reasonable number. It could potentially be more or less. We'll evaluate the nature of the posts and its frequency of appearance. If you post 5 threads in a single hour, you're probably flooding the front page, and we're going to have to ask you to stop. But you could have done so while promoting really good discussions, so it might be excusable. We're gonna blur the line a little by throwing this in to "staff discretion", but make sure that this particular type of spamming is fully discussed with the other staff before coming to a decision. This is really mostly for a go-to guideline in case such a thing happens. In the 2 months I've been admin on nation, it hasn't happened, so I don't really even see it being enforced outside of blatant intentional spamming (which means we won't even need to bother with these guidelines).

  
  
  I agree with this one but I think it should be excluded from bean rua too. Let's all be honest about it, the only reason it became an issues in the first place was because people got butthurt about a specific user. I don't recall anyone complaining about the others who did the same thing because they were generally more "loved" in the community but that's my opinion and I'm sure many would disagree. I do recall mods saying no one ever complained about anyone but that user about this issues though (or maybe I'm remembering wrong).
  
  So yeah in general I'm okay with all the new changes.
• Ashikoki wrote on 2013-05-07 18:45

  Quote from Lyrveil;1083347:

  I agree with this one but I think it should be excluded from bean rua too. Let's all be honest about it, the only reason it became an issues in the first place was because people got butthurt about a specific user. I don't recall anyone complaining about the others who did the same thing because they were generally more "loved" in the community but that's my opinion and I'm sure many would disagree. I do recall mods saying no one ever complained about anyone but that user about this issues though (or maybe I'm remembering wrong).
  
  So yeah in general I'm okay with all the new changes.

  
  
  Regardless of where it happens, flooding is flooding.
  
  There will most likely not be a problem with this, but if one strange day we all log on to find that ten threads on the first page on bean rua were all made by one person, we just need something to refer to rather than saying "we have no rules against this, so we'll just have to let this go". Community reception to this would be horrible.
• Lyrveil wrote on 2013-05-09 03:18
  Fair enough. But I think the rule should be accompanied by examples of what would be excusable and what wouldn't. Just so the users won't revolt about mods being "biased". As in what would make good discussion versus what wouldn't. Because even a term like "Good discussion" is a little bit too subjective.
  
  For example making 5-6 threads in "nexon news" if for whatever reason nexon released over 6 events justifiable as a good discussion? (Implying no one other than a single person bothered reporting them).