[Discussion] Rules on spam

[Connor MacLeod]

Sorry about the title. My mind had a complete blank on that. If anyone thinks of a better one tell me

Anyways, I'm reposting this from Mike's "re-write" of the board vote.

[quote="Connor MacLeod in rules rewrite thread""]I voted yes.

I do wonder if we should add some further clarification with regards to "spammy" zero-content posts or "dogpiling" (I think they could be of the same category)because I can see the possibility in the future someone clashing with the staff over a decision of what qualifies as "zero content" (in the appropriate forums)

I'd say: Me tooing or "+1" posts (eg "I agree"), one liner comments that have no relevance to the discussion or contribute anything meaningful to the debate (IE "stupid fundies" or "stupid conservatives" or the aformentioned "This game is retardeD" type comments in G&C), mindless parroting of other people's arguments (espeically pages later), chiming in on a thread just to flame a person even though you yourself have made no argument (tht would be dogpiling. I've long believed that only the people who actually involve themselves in an argument earn the right to flame someone who is being obtuse, dishonest, or just plain retarded. We do get people who lurk around simply to leap on some new chew toy and yell at them.)

Broadly I just think we should make it clear that 1.) we generally expect posts from users to contain SOMETHING worthwhile or of value, even if minimally (at least in the relevant forums). It doesn't have to be some stirring pages long dissertation on the argument, it just has to be something more than "hur hur morons". 2.) we expect people to exhibit a modicum of self control in what they post and where. Some "rampant flaming" may be expected occasionally - people get stressed or upset or snap unpredicatlby for no good reason, and occasionally a bit of spammyness isn't too bad. The point is that it should nto become a pattern with anyone, and the signal-to-noise ratio should remain more "signal" and less "noise".

We might also add the addition of that "wall of shame" for spammy posts and stuff as a warning.[/quote]

Browsing the Senate, I then saw this thread by Surlethe and then I figured that maybe its better to expand/clarify the SLAM guidelines on spam to the board in general since it covers most of my concerns already.

I still think formulating a list of examples of what might or might not qualify spam (what we can expand on in the future) probably would be a good idea too, as I can envision nitpicking ove rwhat is/isn't spam might come up at some future point.

Just want some thoughts or feedback on the issue.

[Lagmonster]

We do have a wall of shame now in the HoS, known for now as the Bottom of the Barrel thread. If it looks disjointed to anyone, that's because we've been unceremoniously stripping out and dumping spammy posts, necros, hijacks, chat, and one-liners into that thread from all over the board, as we find them. It hopefully will serve as both an indication of what the mods consider poor posts, as well as a nice tally of the users who provide it.

[Edi]

An indication of just how worthless many of the posts in that thread are is that you can read long sections of the thread and they seem consistent even though most of the posts came from different threads.

[Thanas]

If I split a comment in the HoS, I'd rather it not be stuck in that large wall of shame, as a) I do not have the power to move it in there and b) I like editorializing why it is a bad comment.

[Lagmonster]

If I split a comment in the HoS, I'd rather it not be stuck in that large wall of shame, as a) I do not have the power to move it in there and b) I like editorializing why it is a bad comment.

You can always edit the comment to say where it came from and why. As to the rest, other mods simply put [JUNK] in front of the posts they split and dump into the HoS and supers/admins can do the rest as we pass by.

[Mr Bean]

The Bottom of the Barrel thread is for posts that add nothing. They are either pure spam. Pure me two. Or utterly worthless. Vanishing them from the thread in question should demonstrate the very fact they added nothing to the discussion because no one other than the original poster notices them gone.

To the mini-mods and others who have the ability to move posts but not to edit them putting [JUNK] in front of the new topic name will get it joined to the BoB thread as Lagmonster has said.