Stricter rules on spam?

[Mum]

What a lawyer

[OhioLawyer]

What a lawyer

Now that's spam.  I think I'm gonna have to delete the message along with 5 karma.  And if this kind of flagrant spamming continues, this thread will be moved to The All-Seeing Eye.

[Mum]

LOL!

[Turboweasle]

My main focus of this was not smilies.  That was just an example.  Have you seen some of the posts I8 and R Oce make?  Nearly all of their posts are highly irrelevant and completely unnecessary.  I'm not asking for a strict policy.  I'm asking for a stricter policy.  If there is an incredibly lax policy to begin with, how could making it a bit more substantial be considered strict?

I am in agreement that sometimes a single word or a smiley is an appropriate response.  I quote people without adding any of my words because that is the message I wanted to convey.  However, when I see countless posts consisting of nothing more than "Kr3at3r i pwnd u n teh monostary" in multiple threads, I really think something should be done to limit the amount of redundancy on one forum.

I don't mind seeing a simple conversation of one-line posts.  I don't mind seeing the occasional trash-talking.  What irks me is seeing thread after thread after thread hit the 20-page mark because of "lol ill own u so hard", with little or no variation.  I understand that we all need to tolerate some individuals' character and the ways they communicate, but don't you think reading nearly 1,000 of I8's "ill own u" nonesense is enough?

I'm not asking for a totalitarian regime here; I just want to see some of the clutter be treated as such.  It's not that big of a deal now, since this site is still relatively small, but imagaine the (with the advent of The Conduit) possibly near future where this site has 1,500+ members, all posting an average of 5 times a day.  Would you want to sift through a plausible 7,500 posts of random nothingness?  I wouldn't.

Perhaps, if the site gives us the option, we could use a system like YouTube's, where the members can give a message a "Thumbs-up" or a "Thumbs-down", and, at X number of "Thumbs-down", the post is minimized as spam, so that one would have to intentionally click on it to read it.  I understand that we may not have that system available, but something like that would suffice.  I know we can mark messages as spam, but come on- we're not GF, are we?

[Cadillak]

just say what you really want us to do Turbo 

"I want you to ban _____" - Turbo

trust me, if he keeps going around the language filter when mum and the other ladies are around, he's not gonna last much longer.  I've grown tired of it too. I'm just trying to let him settle in. Remember how Warkilla started out around here? aaaaawwhwhooooooo!!111!11

[OhioLawyer]

You completely missed my point.  The point isn't that adding slightly more moderation would make it strict around here.  The point is that the area is too gray to moderate without people feeling suppressed, and also, it is a slippery slope.  Once we make the policy somewhat stricter to satisfy your complaints, then where will it end?  Eventually someone else (or group of people) won't like something else that is done here and will demand more moderation.  Such concessions always lead in a direction FAR FAR from where you started and you end up there without even realizing how you got there. (The U.S. post-depression socialism is a great example).  

And back on the issue of I8 and R Ocelot's posts.  This is the gray area I am talking about.  To you (and even possibly to most people here) those posts are useless spam.  However to some, they may be entertainment or even self-expression.  Who are you or I to play judge and jury in determining what is relevant and what isn't?  

The solution is NOT stricter moderation.  The solution is far more simple than that.  The solution is for the reader to not read a thread where that type of posting is taking place.  Or if such a post is inserted into a thread you are interested in, simply scroll down a few lines and "poof" the offending post is behind you.  How about we combat laziness in forum surfing before we worry about worthless posts?

[Mum]

What a lawyer

[OhioLawyer]

Ok Mum, I warned you.

[Mum]

 

[Cadillak]

 

[OhioLawyer]

Yes, here is the picture of my mighty ban hammer:

[Cadillak]

seriously, i could make that for you in about an hour Lawyer. just send me about $50 and it's yours

[OhioLawyer]

$50!!!!

I better get some sucky sucky with that hammer for $50.

[Mum]

That is great!

shoot, this wasn't meant to follow your last comment lawyer

[Turboweasle]

So you're saying we should heed the wishes of the minority and ignore the majority?

If someone doesn't want to have a stricter guidline, then why don't they vote against it?  If they are apathetic or lazy enough to not voice their opinion in something that concerns them, then why should we not take action against something that is unpleasing to the majority?  Being idle while the majority is unhappy is crazy.

I did not miss your point, and I would appreciate it if we could leave the condescending attitude out of this debate.  The area is gray, I will not argue.  But gray to whom?  To the majority, it's spam.  You're acting like a dictator right now by not listening or even considering the concerns of the majority.  If you're all for freedom, then why not be willing to compromise?

The solution is not simply overlooking the spam.  That's why I and others who voted "Yes" have been doing, yet here we are.  If that was the solution, then we wouldn't be here "complaing", as you put it.  I prefer to see it as expressing a general concern, but you may call it as you wish.  I do not claim to know the solution, but I do know what it is not.

The excuse of the "slippery slope" is just hiding one's own laziness.  Yes, we will need to proceed hesitantly, but that does not mean we shouldn't even begin.  And it's not like I'm asking for radical changes or anything.  All I am asking is that the mods take a slightly more active role against spam.

If you want to go against the majority and say "No", then you are being just as strict as you fear you will become in the future.  Doing so is effectively telling the majority that they are ignorant and don't have a say in what goes on.  You want to talk about a slippery slope?  French Revolution ring a bell?