About Spamming
OK it seems that a batch of you don't get that freedom of speech can be abused. This site has the privilege of being able to put up photos. It is there for added expression and not to disrespect one another. It is being abused. Anyone caught spamming after 1:20 pm today will have a 2 day vacation.
I hope I have made that clear.
In the future, if any of you don't like something posted on your article, get a mod. We will remove it.
I hope that is clear, too!
Tags
Who is online
223 visitors
Please define "spamming".
More seriously, Perrie...
I hope you understand that it is quite possible to wreck a seed/article while staying within the narrow interpretation of the CoC that you apply. Images that concern "climate" are on-topic for articles on that subject. Gobbledygook Replies are conform to the CoC, as long as they have one or two magic words.
If you cannot obtain from Dean and... others... that they behave then I will make the extra effort to be impeccably within the CoC. And I will wreck their stuff all the same.
This isn't a question of "rules". It's a question of common good manners. And it's up to them...
Spamming = posting useless crap on forums over and over
First of all, I know the difference of spamming and so do you. Second, I spoke to all involved and they are not going to bother you. Third, you don't get to singularly decide the rules here. We have a democracy and the group does. Forth, practice what you preach... good manners also apply to the moderator who has to clean up this mess. So you better not spam anymore.
I need some clarification Perrie. Is your 1:20pm deadline, eastern, central, mountain, pacific or INDIAN TIME?
jwc,
While I do agree with your point here:
I have seen it from both sides of the political spectrum and it is annoying. Still, it isn't blatant garbage for the sake ofblatant garbage.
Hence this article.
Indian time of course. But really this is no laughing matter today.
jwc
I agree - that is the definition provided by the Urban dictionary for general reference
I appreciate that you are taking this juvenile nonsense seriously Perrie.
Mike we have an issue and it needs to be handled head on. I wish I didn't have to do it.
There are two possibilities here, Dean.
First, you really do not understand why this post is off-topic. In that case, I strongly recommend that you simply stay away from my seeds / articles.
Second possibility, you understand perfectly. And we shall dance.
It's up to you.
I am tempted to post a picture of a can of a ham product... as a demonstration of "on-topic disruption", but I guess everyone understands without the picture...
Bob,
You do realize that you are talking to Sean and not Dean, right?
I agree and that is why when we were discussing whether a meme was OK in a comment, the overwhelming answer was Yes. But a picture that has nothing to do with the topic (as we have seen demonstrated here in the last couple of days) can be spamming/off topic. Also, one must know one's customers. I don't mind jokes on my articles. I also don't mind going off topic. But that is me. Which leads me to this:
Exactly. Which is my advice to anyone who wants certain limitations. Call it the local zoning board.
bf,
That should be "your buddy", and the personal pronoun "I" should always be capitalized.
I hope you have learned your lesson.
But it doesn't seem likely.
It was done already and I removed it. I normally have a good sense of humor... but I've lost it over the last 24 hours.
OY!
Understandable.
That's why I refrained.
I wouldn't want to overdo it...
That is true. My post was based on the ambiguity of "on-topic". If anything dealing with the word "spam" is on-topic, then that ham product is on-topic. If we restrict "on-topic" to posting garbage, the ham product is off-topic.
Vandals use this ambiguity to derail .
Not a good time to be funny Robert.
Wrong. No cursing on my articles. Standing practice.
Both have been removed Gene.
Before you press a button be sure you know what the reaction is likely to be!
Did bf request your intervention?
If not, why did you intervene?
If you intervened on your own initiative, what are your criteria for doing so?
Bf's article is about a woman with guns. The conversation has been meandering, to say the least. I posted a picture of America's most famous woman with a gun, Annie Oakley.
That's spam?
You know what, Robert? That's exactly right.
Still waiting for you to apologize for spamming my seeds for no reason.
OK explain it to me please, Robert, because I am not getting it.
I have nothing to say, since I said nothing.
Oh sorry Robert. I thought there was more than that to it.
Mia culpa
An off topic post definitely justifies you effectively shutting the site down for 24 hours. What options does a mature adult have when faced with something they find distasteful? What else could you do but spend 24 hours obsessively spamming the site?
You and bob sure came out the winners with reputations completely unscathed. Demonstrating less restraint than a four year old is a real trophy for your mantle. Be proud.
Oh please... almost everyone here is guilty of spamming or trolling at some time. Time to get real.
I have explained why several times already.. but I will do it again. BF was goofing. Bob didn't want goofing. Some people don't mind goofing, so I don't jump to the purple pen. Bob had an option to use the RBR's but Bob didn't. Bob had the option to get me to remove it. He didn't. I would have done so in a heart beat. All this drama could have been avoided.
Yes.
It is when it doesn't provide information. They were nothing more than women holding guns.
LOL!
It has been said this is not funny. So lets have a recap of events.
the article said "Anyone caught spamming after 1:20 pm today will have a 2 day vacation.
I hope I have made that clear." this was just put to the test about one hour ago.
Gunny posted a comment 1 hour ago saying "Not totally Robert, Bob is spamming BF's article now and JR just told him here to F U so neither has any remorse for being childish."
"Reply by Perrie Halpern 1 hour ago
Both have been removed Gene." well after the 1:20 dead line as put to us in the article. So it begs to be asked who is laughing at who?
I have addressed this several times... I can't help it that you don't like the answer.
RW, if it is 2:31 now PST one hour ago the big hand would be on pointing down just past the 6 on the clock. at 1:20 PST the big hand would be pointing at the 2 on the clock so dear sweet RW it is was past the 1:20 PM dead line by 11 minutes, ...
And you are definitely not an adult.
WOW, there are a lot of anally retentive people on this board, ON BOTH SIDES.
You all aught to thank your lucky stars that I'm not the board op.
Perrie does a WONDERFUL job with what amounts to a kindergarten class of supposed adults.
Some of which could use a little bit of correction.
What bob, is a moderator supposed to be monitoring all content just so you can get things deleted without asking? that is what seems to be your demanding.
And it is impossible to do and you know it.
So one must ask what was the point of this exercise in juvenality?
He didn't express any dissatisfaction in the conversation. Shouldn't that come before a deletion?
I wanna see who's gonna get the two day vacation.
" LR, Since you are a proven liar you should probably stay out of this .", ...says the person who just went on a 24 hour spamming spree because he couldn't get to have his way...
you really should be PROUD of yourself....
Nope. I'm asking people not to be assholes.
And, yes. I demonstrated the princple.
I think most of the people I wanted to reach understand what I was doing. I also think that a couple of them will continue to crap on my seeds / articles, just to prove that they can.
So there will probably be a second episode.
Sorry but I am not confident that either of you know exactly what the difference is between spamming & merely expressing a difference of opinion . Off the top of my head I would say that spamming might have something to do with throwing out an irrelevant distraction , but that's just a guess . Would someone care to clarify ?
Me thinks the testosterone is getting way too deep. No one is willing to back down. Same thing use to happen on NV. Now its starting here. I would think each of you should realize how its seen by the new members and some of us older members.
Three year old's at least know better.
OK.
I apologize.
We know better, too. We have a purpose. Mine was (maybe will be) to underscore the ease with which a Vandal can screw up a significant portion of a forum, in the hope that people will recognize and condemn the kind of post that was at the origin of this episode. I can't show it to you, because I promised Perrie that I wouldn't post it anymore.
Although I, too, would like to see a definition for "spamming" as it is considered to be on NT, I just looked at Bob Nelson's article for which he argued that the photo linked by him was spamming and I absolutely disagree. To me a picture is worth a thousand words. The article is about a police officer over-reacting and acting like a special forces monster, an "Inglourious Basterd" himself, pulling a gun on an innocent person, forcing him onto the ground - you cannot convince me that the photos that were posted were off topic, in fact they WERE the topic (although I think Dean's caption may not have been).
So, Bob, since that is my opinion, must I as well stay away from your seeds/articles?
What I thought spamming was would be my getting a message from someone I don't know and never before heard about through NT email to contact him for a private personal discussion - which inevitably is going to be one of those African "just inherited 10 million dollars and need your help to receive it" garbage letters. Of course I ignored it and reported it to Perrie who immediately banned that person from NT.
But I get the idea from what I read here that "spamming" includes "derailing". Am I right? Sometimes I like to post a little humour to cool the heat from some of the discussions, but I guess that would be considered spamming. Too bad, cause after all we can't have a little fun sometimes, right? As for that garbage photo of the freaks walking that's being posted, in my opinion it's one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen, even worse than the fat pigs at Walmart, but of course America is the bastion of free speech so I guess you like to push it as far as you can.
The Urban Dictionary definition was: "posting useless crap on forums over and over"
Why does it have to be "over and over" to be spamming? If it's only once, does that mean it's not spamming, but merely derailing?
Excellent definition.
Although it's now 9:00 a.m. where I am, and I was supposed to already have taken a shower, I have been distracted by this Article and its comments. At first I thought it was caused by Perrie's anger with the methods used by some NT members but then I got involved and had to read the whole damned 12 pages (oops - I just swore and I think I read that Perrie won't stand for that). What I got out of it all was that I'm still not sure what is to be allowed and what isn't but then I know it's up to whoever's article it is to make that decision. So much for this entertaining time - now I'm going to take my shower and forget entirely about this whole article.
Now that could be considered what? Spamming? Derailing? or just wasting my time, and yours (most probable).
And, IF he follows through with his implied threat that there will be a 2nd edition in a theatre near you, I hope he gets canned - not banned.
Buzz , I suggest you read my attempt at understanding the tradeoffs involved in the spam controversy . IMO it deals with many of the complexities :
If Perrie doesn't like this comment I suggest deleting the link to my article ... although in her current hair trigger mood I may have the entire comment deleted . If that is that case , let me know Perrie & I will delete it myself ...
He was not banned before.
Hey! I didn't say a f-ing thing!
You were under no obligation to look at that picture, and call a Mod.
I know that you do that for badfish, but you are under no obligation to have the same standards for all NTers. You have the right to play favorites if you wish.
As of a few seconds ago, there were 153 comments on spamming.
Damn people, enough already with the spam.
This is a photo of an exploding can of spam. One more frickin comment on spamming and it is set to go off.
Funniest thing you've said in...well...ever.
Aisle 13 is a goner.
No. After a few further posts, it turns out that the article is missing a vital bit of information: the author and the son are Black. If I had furnished only a link, readers would have seen Blow's picture. Alternatively, I could / should have supplied that information. But I know who Charles M Blow is... It just didn't occur to me to say "Charles M Blow is Black".
Without that information, a reader assumes that Yale=White. The story is just another dumb cop.
That's grounds for deletion, now? It offends Gunny?
Wow.
Please forgive me for not knowing who Charles Blow is... It was not my intention to de-rail, or to minimize the significance of race.
I didn't think Yale = white, I was relying more on my own experiences in college, where there just weren't that many black people at the college, and people who were stopped, had a gun pointed at them, no matter what their race...... My apologies, again. It honestly didn't occur to me...
ANGELfish indeed. A SAINT, this man! A true and veritable SAINT.
I don't know when I have seen such a self-serving, hypocritical pack of claptrap.
Let's take it back a step.
Anyone can report and I or any other mod will go and look. If it is a CoC violation or a RBR violation, it will be deleted. It isn't because Gene wanted it. It was because Gene called for a Mod, and it was a violation.
Perrie, A 2 day vacation? That's meaningless. A month would be more appropriate to show that you are serious. You are talking serious, but 2 days ain't serious.
May I know what violation was observed?
Spamming.
Mr. Anglefish,
Bob made a mistake by not getting me and then going on a spamming binge but you made the first mistake by not getting me and then posting that photo.
Pot calling kettle black?
I think that it's time to drop it.
Thank you.
Tyler didn't even do that. He did it in increments.
And I have found that most folks don't even like having their comments removed enough that if you do it consistently, they reform.
Remember beating a dog doesn't make it more obedient... it makes a scared unpredictable animal.
Sorry Perrie I agree this obviously has become a hot-button issue, but when I read the last line of your comment, I couldn't help but thinking of this saying:
So, the perps did something to make you irritated enough to write this "serious" article and get all cranky. I can't imagine that they give a rats ass about that, do you? They probably don't. Their behavior diminished News Talkers enough to warrant this article, but no action was taken against them, right? Crapping all over someone's article isn't a CoH violation? That's just dandy.
Are you suggesting that your perps are dogs?
I agree with Angelfish, badfish, or whoever the hell he is today in that comment, both as it applies to Perrie, and as it applies to our having a sense of community here.
Well spoken, ___fish.
If you are referring to what Dana did, she did it behind my back when I was away and tried to have another another member cover for her, since she did it wrongfully. That member is still here.
So no, he was not banned by the current version of NT.
Nigel,
At some point, I have found, that most members will cross the line. The reason for my non action, is that I gave it some thought... something that people should do more often instead of acting out in their anger.
And no I was not calling anyone a dog. I would never be insulting. And I think you know that I wasn't calling them dogs, too. You are way to cleaver to not recognize an analogy when you see one.
And there are people who also feel that we shouldn't have moderators. It doesn't mean it would work.
Mike,
Best laugh I have had all day! Thanks!
And I think that the meme says it so well! Just perfect!
I am relieved that you liked it. I debated posting it, afraid you might think I was making light of the difficult position you have been put in over this spam-bombing situation.
I suggest you read read my thread on this topic Bob :
Forgive my intrusion, but one can remain quiet while witnessing a Romper Room'esque train wreck like this for only so long.
BF, just because your court-jester buffoonery is generally tolerated on this forum, that doesn't give you leave to skip through this current mess wearing your high and mighty blameless victim-hood as a hat. Instead of being humbled by the support you have received from other community members, which happens to include me, you've adopted a 'mama's favorite child' attitude which has succeeded in adding the fuel to keep this fire going. Translation: Your 'apology' might have meant more had you behaved accordingly after making it.
John, why you chose to belly-flop into this particular abyss, is completely befuddling to me. Whether others recognize it or not, you add value to this forum with your abrasive style. But adding this fight to your resume', especially when you have previously tolerated the shenanigans of BF, doesn't make sense. And PS: My comment referring to your 'clean-up on aisle 13' post, was a compliment to your seldom used comedic skills. I'm sorry you didn't interpret it that way.
And Bob, you have got to get a hold of yourself. While it is clear (at least to me) that you prefer the serious side of social commentary, you immediately alienated half of the membership with Red Box rules so severe, that no one could comment on your seeds and articles without receiving warnings, public embarrassment, and for all I know, banishment from your personal kingdom. Keep in mind that I only know you in the context of the contributions you have made since your most recent beginning membership date, so I can't speak to or judge any previous behavior on this site under your current screen name. But I get the feeling that others are aware of your history, and it would seem that some sort of volatile scenario is repeating itself. I gave you some advice regarding BF's posting of that ridiculous image. I said essentially, forget it and move on. While the posted image was annoying, it wasn't posted with malice. Considering that it was the response he was after, your subsequent actions twirled BF's tail-fin right up over his gills. In case you don't get what I'm saying, you contributed to this mess with your return fire and should therefore accept part of the blame for the collateral damage.
Again, let me apologize for my intrusion. One of my New Year's resolutions was to actively avoid becoming involved in meta slap fights. But this has become so ridiculous, that remaining quiet was next to impossible.
Shutting up, I am
You should open more often, WELL SAID!
I was being ornery and you know that, too. hee hee.
Collateral damage John. Like ripples in a lake caused by one stone.
If you truly believe that, then I might suggest that you are twice as much of something than I thought you originally were.
I was speaking only to Bob's comment history since his December join date. If there were pre-December circumstances that would shed light on his off-the-chain reaction to BF's traditionalbuffoonery, that might shed a bit of a different light.
Are you visually impaired in a way that I haven't noticed? If not, you might want to take your computer in for its own clean-up on aisle 13. There were 4 or 5 spam articles on the front page at any given time yesterday. Everyone was affected.
Are you high? I was speaking to his original sin, which was indeed disruptive, but not ina suicide bombercontext.
John, your first commentfollowing Bob's response to the imagesuggested that very thing. But at some point, you saw value in a much heavier plan of attack. Why? (Keep in mind that rhetorical questions do not require an answer.)
I see down below that our clown-fish wants to get past all of this. Personally, I don't believe that for one instant. I think he would give up food to see this carry on for another day (or 3). I'm going toheed hisrequest, no matter how little he means it.
You have no need at all to apologize. A critical bit of information was missing.
This episode does provoke some useful thoughts about stereotypes, I think. I am reminded of a piece by Bob Herbert (then with the Times) a number of years ago. Herbert is a liberal's liberal. He regretted to say that he sometimes crossed the street to avoid a bunch of young Black males. Herbert is Black.
Then you are recognizing that you have a very limited imagination. I was perfectly aware of the very unpleasant situation in which I put Perrie. But I was sick and tired of asshole, Vandal behavior by bf and his ilk. I wanted to show what their behavior really means.
Yes, that put Perrie in a very uncomfortable situation. She got through it with her usual talent.
You should avoid presuming to know what others are thinking or feeling.
I'll drop the subject at this point, but I hope you have in mind the pertinence of the last round of posts you deleted... and will automatically apply the same rigor to other people's posts to any and all of my articles and seeds in the future, without needing any specific request from me. Please consider this to be a permanent request for that same level of exigence.
Thank you.
Throw the blame John - always shift it to someone else 'cause you don't have the cajones to be a man and admit your mistakes.
Neither does Bob.
You both need to quit claiming to be men and adults because you don't fit either category.
I did read it, Petey. I think you are starting from a false premise: that over-the-line posts are unintentional errors. I don't think so. Some NTers want to destroy.
One highly favored method is the "shift to meta". If the author says "That post was off-topic", the Vandal is very happy to argue that the post was on-topic... and thus the original conversation is lost in meta.
If you assume that the Vandals are systematically acting in bad faith, you will better understand their behavior.
I think it was. I think bf is a Vandal, who enjoys disrupting far more than contributing. I invite you, and everyone, to observe his posts in that light. It doesn't take much to prevent a conversation from developing.
This is an interesting post. You know the TRUTH and John and I must kneel to your TRUTH.
Even more interesting... we aren't men if we don't kneel to your TRUTH.
What reaction are you hoping to get from this approach? Acquiescence? Really?
Or are you just throwing your own tantrum?
I think we have discussed yesterdays activity to death and it's time to move on. I am closing this article, since at this point, all it provides is a way of stirring up more trouble.
Thanks to all who participated. Even if we didn't agree, I respect everyone's opinion.
Bob, I don't disagree. I would also suggest getting me or any other mod as quickly as possible, either by chat or by email.
Nipping it in the bud is always the best way to handle these situations.
Let's look forward to better communication.