Spam & Tradeoffs
The controversy on NT about spam has a simple solution IMO . An author of a seed/article who declares something to be spam may be be accurate OR he may be merely being dictatorial , refusing to allow any dissent from his opinion .
How does one tell the difference ? Here is my solution :
The author needs to start a dialogue with the commenter . He needs to ask a question about the relevance of the comment to the topic under discussion . If the commenter responds with a possible explanation then the comment was not spam . BUT if the commenter does not respond or comes out with more irrelevant material then it is time for consequences to the commenter .
Notice the tradeoff . The commenter can be labeled as a spammer OR the author can be labeled as a DA [dictatorial asshole ] . I'm not sure what official consequence the latter should have . I'm open to suggestions on that ...
Tags
Who is online
222 visitors
One more thing ... I think it is good practice to give your troublesome commenter the courtesy of a warning that he is spamming before requesting deletion of his comments . It is something I have done & will continue to do ... and I think it makes for a fairer result .
Good suggestions Petey. That way there is no doubt if the person is spamming or not.
As for the DA part(that could stand for Duck's Ass the hair style of the 50's) I don't have any solution for that, except possibly have him/her put on the rack. Verbal rack that is.
Thanks for your response Kavika . Perhaps the application of descriptive terminology which does not violate the CoC [avoiding the use of the term asshole perhaps ?] might be part of the rack you mentioned . However I suspect putting such comments in the article in question would be considered spam or derailing ... even if richly deserved .
Hmmmm, your probably right Petey. We'll have to find another solution for DA's.
Don't we have any creative legal minds on NT to come up with a solution to this dilemma ?
Proof that 2 wrongs do not make a right ...
Sure there are creative legal minds. The fee is $300 per hour.
Not even 100.
I've always wondered how one can know if the attorney one has hired is worth his fee before things get DEEP ...
Buzz, I've got a creative illegal mind and I only charge $250 per hour.
I believe the psychiatric term for this condition is called megalomania .
Can you link to where that threat was posted ? I am not doubting you . I just want to see it for myself ... and maybe respond to it .
Buzz is being undercut by the black market ...
That was to you RW . I strictly adhere to exact indentations ...
Thanks for pointing that out RW . I hope I can get through to Bob by getting him to read my article . But I guess we'll see ...
Not really, Petey. A creative illegal mind is worth less than a creative legal one.
If you need legal defense or contract law settled then I have to agree Buzz ...
Oooh, good opportunity to try out your idea.
John, what is the relevance of your post to the discussion?
Can you give us an explanation, or are you just spamming Petey's article?
Here's one for you John : what do you mean when you say "constantly" ?
Requesting/demanding additional commentary from one whose comment(s) has been made succinctly and thoroughly (and with backup information), can be a ruse by the one making the request/demand. If the demand is made to simply obfuscate, misdirect or, comes under the guise of wanting to debate that which is no longer debatable, or, when discussion is at an impasse, the demand is likely a trap or a reluctance to concede a point.
By all means, disagree with a point and make counter points; but let's not ask what appear to be "questions," when in fact the "questions" are asked not about what was stated, but a distortion or misrepresentation of what was stated.
It's too convenient to call that with which one doesn't agree "spam."
Debates, dialogues and disagreements often end unresolved; when it's obvious that two members at odds will not reach agreement, rather than push for more or threaten consequences, that's the time to call an "impasse" and for the two to stop addressing one another.
After one has responded if there's nothing more of significance for one to add once the point has been made, badgering for more is bad form. A failure to respond to an unwarranted/needless request is not being "unresponsive," it's being conclusive.
That is possible but it's not what I do . Although I've seen your accusations that my questions are strictly rhetorical . How does one counter an accusation of rhetorical ?
Yes . That's why I try to request clarification . I do that by asking questions . Do you have other ways ?