what constitutes spam Options

[sadolakced acid]

we should note that that usually applies to purpose driven message boards, not community driven messageboards. However, even purpose driven message boards have sections for nonrelated subjects.


for instance, posting in an ipod message board about how your last date went is perfectly fine, as long as it's in the designated "off topic" or "lounge" area. Posting abotu it in a thread about trying to fix someone's ipod, however, is not tolerated.

similarily, posts in the design section, which is the purpose part of this site, generally cannot be nearly as offtopic as in the community portion.

the community driven forums are comparablly very open to what would be view as spam in the design section. frequently threads can veer off of the designated topic, and this is quite beneficial to the development of the community.

as the community portion of cB is about community, it would seem that spam should be a bit... more tolerated in those forums. some forums of community should be less open to it, however. namely the interests forums.

which leads us to the question: mayhaps we should define "spam" in our bylaws?

[*mona lisa*]

Good idea, Justin. And please consider this in there as well.

as the community portion of cB is about community, it would seem that spam should be a bit... more tolerated in those forums.

What do you mean by that?

[racoons > you]

because it is the community, it is about people... therefore there is less strict regulation about how far 'off topic' you drift

[Retrogressive]

I've seen people write:

"HAHAHA, yeah." or "LOL"

I would think that was the biggest form of spam. But James is right, it depends on how far off topic it gets.

[demolished]

And ... is it possible to make useless spam posts invisible to prevent further influences. Btw, i do support you. Of course, it does matter how far the spam drift.

[Retrogressive]

And ... is it possible to make useless spam posts invisible to prevent further influences. Btw, i do support you. Of course, it does matter how far the spam drift.

What do you mean invisible.


And- It's hard for mods to draw the line between friendships at CB and what constitutes as spam. I'm sure everyone has noticed this. It only seems to bother people who aren't "in the loop" of the actualy spam conversation. So what are you guys going to do about that? When a mod won't call out their own spam when a regular member does? Will it just be another little rip on CB's fiber? I think CB needs to crack down on somethings that have been happening long enough.

[demolished]

I mean, change the public posts to private posts. It won’t remove any evidences.

edit
I mean ... only the mod can do that.

[Retrogressive]

So only who would be able to see them? Sorry, that confused me.

[ClaudelGFX]

uhm Why dont you use the "Word Censors" option from Admin CP, and put at every and each word you think its the most common used as spam with an emoticon, like with a little S in the middle, and they wont see it while they are posting the reply/message ,only after they posted the message, and knowing that's a spam they will edit their post so they wont get punished for that spam, plus the others wont see what he typed only the emoticon.
IMO its more easy and more simple like that, and there wont be needed any other Moderator to yell at him, hey you, thats a spam, got`it?:)

[racoons > you]

well that's silly.

what if you use a word that is designated as spam in a perfectly legitimate context?

[gelionie]

^ I can hardly imagine that to come in effect.
A post in a topic would be completely sensible but if it's in other topic then it can be spam.
You just can't say it's spam in the first topic.
I hope you get what I mean.

[ClaudelGFX]

Got the pictures,thanx

[Rachel]

^Well that was spam right there my friend.


Anyways, I do agree that we need to draw the line somewhere but really, the forum is more community based. I don't think there needs to be a huge, strict rule about spam. Getting off topic is normal human nature, as long as the whole topic doesn't turn into it, it is fine. Example: cB crush thread hehe, that got out of hand but hell, it was fun!

Anyways, my point is that spam does need to be taken care of, but it really isn't a terrible thing to get off topic.

[*disco infiltrator*]

I'm usually pretty lenient about spam conversations. When it gets out of hand (taking up the whole page or so), people are usually asked to take it off the forums. I'm not going to freak out if people have 1 or 2 posts directed at eachother in a small conversation, though. I like when people get to know eachother and integrate with others in the community, and push that. I see no problem with little conversations, but don't take it too long, and simply go "do you have aim?" or something, to take it off the forums.

[Retrogressive]

Sammi's right, it shouldn't be like spam nazi's at CB because it's an awesome way to make friends. There should be a balance, and I think CB has a good balance. Of course there will be mistakes.

[*mzkandi*]

I'm usually pretty lenient as well, but like Sammi says when spam convo is this main thing taking over the topic or the topic is hard to follow because of a bunch of spam convos thats when I have to step in. I've seen some members that have had little spam convos but they will stop themselves and redirect their convo over to the conversation topic in forum games , I mean, that is where a bulk of the convos you cant have in normal threads should taken place anyway .

[*Guest*]

i think that as we have the conversation topic in forum games, we can afford to be less lenient in other threads

[Mulder]

^yea. there are already at least 2 spam topics, besides the 1337 one, which is just spamming in 1337.

although i do think that spamming should be more tolerated in the community forums. not that im saying to go and spam all the time.

[sadolakced acid]

i think if in thread conversing goes over 1 page, verbal warnings are in order.

[*mzkandi*]

^ No, one page is too long and interupts the topic....if they want have that long of a spam convo then they need to head over the conversation topic. THAT IS WHAT ITS THERE FOR.

[sadolakced acid]

hmm yes.

about about 6 posts total? that's three per person if it's two way. and the verbal warning should come with a link to the convo thread in forum games.

[*mzkandi*]

^ What if there 3 to 5 people involved? The more involved in the spam convo the quicker it is that I tell them they need to head it over the conversation topic in forum games, because the ones with the most people involved are ones mostly to get out of control. Its hard to regulate that with numbers. I know when I read topic and I am reading everyone elses replies I dont want have to be interupted by someones convo they could easily redirect over to the forum games. I mean little off topic chit chatter is ok, I mean we all have done it at some point, but there is aim, yahoo, email, a chat room and a convo topic and yet we still should be lenient on people who want have convos in threads. I think not. I think a large portion of it takes a mod judgment to regulate whether something has a potential to get out of control.

[Mulder]

that sounds good.

and if the people keep spamming in the topic..then maybe it should be closed after a few pages. because if it keeps going on for too long, then the point of the topic is lost.

[sadolakced acid]

well, the more people involved, the quicker you hit 6 posts, right?

[*mzkandi*]

I'm still not sure about it. I dont want people to take advantage because they think they can just go off and spam convo in a topic because they know have set number they can get away with. That why I was in such support of the convo thread.

[sadolakced acid]

well then, when does conversing become a convo?

i don't think 2 posts would be a convo...

[Mulder]

i dont think there should be a set limit. like keira said, it might encourage spamming. besides, some convos can stay slightly on topic....

i dont know. i definitely think there should be some kind of boundaries, but maybe not a post limit.

[*mzkandi*]

^ Me either...I call that casually chit chatter and usually can go on for a few post more harmlessly depending on the thread. Like I said before usually a mod will able to identify something that is a convo or not and whether it is interupting the course of the thread. None of us are strict on this, I think. I dont see the need to get that basic and breaking down what a convo is, I'm sure most us have seen them around forum and most mods have stepped in when they felt it was getting out of control.

[ClaudelGFX]

uhm, what if they use the main subject in the same context as their convo? like, wanna be my girlfriend? "spam" / lol no, i dont want to be your girlfriend "spam" ... / blablabla "spam" / blablabla "spam", since they are still using the main subject of that topic? is that spam?convo?

[*mzkandi*]

If it relates to the topic, then no.

[coconutter]

They just want their post count up, I mean alot of people just post alot but it's on-topic, and they don't double post, that's the way to get your post count up but it's mush easier on the people to just click add reply and then go

sally had a doughnut

and then get one more post, I think mods should be able to get rid of someones post count if its off-topic.

[*mzkandi*]

I dont support the removal of off topic posts, but I regulate and redirect (to the convo topic if necessary) when they get out of control.

[Just_Dream]

Just a side note, if ANYONE notices spam in which a member used to get their post counts up, PM Mona or me and we can remove some posts, if anyone feels it unjust that a member should get away with so a great number of posts due to so much spam. The actual evidence won't be removed, rather, the amount of spam posts can be deducted from their total post number. Do you get what I mean?

Just thought I'd add that.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Uh..I don't think we need to regulate the number of posts a "spammy conversation" can have. Just..when it gets out of hand, the people will be told to move it off the forums, or you can prevent it yourselves. It's not that hard to do..

[Retrogressive]

Remove the posts? Is that allowed?

I agree with Sammi. Maybe keep an eye out and step in when it gets out of hand.

This post has been edited by Retrogressive: Dec 4 2005, 10:17 PM

[*incoherent*]

Remove the posts?

theyve already ruled that out as not being a possibilty

[Retrogressive]

Just a side note, if ANYONE notices spam in which a member used to get their post counts up, PM Mona or me and we can remove some posts, if anyone feels it unjust that a member should get away with so a great number of posts due to so much spam. The actual evidence won't be removed, rather, the amount of spam posts can be deducted from their total post number. Do you get what I mean?

Just thought I'd add that.

theyve already ruled that out as not being a possibilty

That's what I thought. I was confused. I got it now, but how will you keep track... I mean it would be hard a spammer could have spammed more time without you being notified.

[Mulder]

i just think mods should rely on their judgement, rather than the amount of spam posts, when members are spamming.

which i think is what we've all agreed on.

and on a side note, do you know when you'll decide on who will fill james' spot?

[KissMe2408]

i just think mods should rely on their judgement, rather than the amount of spam posts, when members are spamming.

^I very much agree with that. Each spam case is different. Alot of times it's not just "cool" "you suck" "wow" ....
And the mods do know how to step in when people start to spam. There is rarely a case when spamming goes unnoticed. Even the reg members say in the same thread, "guys stop spamming", and if it goes too far a mod is usually quick to step in.

[sadolakced acid]

i believe she means remove the number of posts from thier post count.

[Retrogressive]

Yeah, I saw that. And I think everyone agrees that it's up to the mod. I don't see any disagreements what-so-ever just people stating it differently.

[Mulder]

Yeah, I saw that. And I think everyone agrees that it's up to the mod. I don't see any disagreements what-so-ever just people stating it differently.

true. lets move on now..