|
1548. concerned - 4/18/2002 5:52:19 AM Re. 1546 -
Please, whatever you do regarding ads, no popups! Have mercy! 1549. Ms. No - 4/18/2002 5:55:58 AM Concerned,
That's just my point, nobody wanted any ads at all on our site. I'm fine not having our link on other sites if having them means putting up other people's ads. I don't think we're so hard up for posters that we need to do that.
I like your idea for a logo, though. I recently went back and looked at Pike's front page logo submission and laughed my ass off----in a good way. It was great the way he pulled quotes from all over theMote. Very funny. 1550. betty - 4/18/2002 11:28:32 PM since my Message # 1523 was ignored and as the ROE as linked on the butter bar of this thread make no mention of Spam I would like to formally object to Jexster's suspension.
The slew of posts at the very end were awful, out of line and gross, though i've seen MUCH worse around here. However, Jex's more abusive posts appeared predictably. Everytime Cal moved an on-topic post, Jex would attempt to make an issue of it(see Message # 1531). while Cal is entitled to run her thread however she damn well likes, i think that her stated goal, of "avoiding spam" was less than genuine. Further, Wabbit's Message # 1532 states You'll either learn to differentiate between an on-topic post and spam, or..., I argue that Jexster has little difficulty differentiating between the two...rather Cal has this problem as demonstrated by her selection of posts to move from her thread to The Inferno (12098, 12100, 12150, 12162 and 12149)
Given that there is no stated "spam rule" (and that Spam has not been formally defined),
the justification of "Spam" as the reason for suspension (as stated by Wabbit in above linked post) is invalid, though I do think his final posts where abusive.
However, suspension for abusive posts would open up suspension for Cal and her numerous personal and unsubstatiated attacks on several members of the community. I agree with Jexster, and many other here that enforcement has been selective.
Thus ends my formal complaint. 1551. wabbit - 4/19/2002 12:33:19 AM Well, Betty, I suppose this is my own fault. From the beginning days of this forum I have objected to having to define every little nitpicking term and have a set of rules that a Constitutional scholar couldn't be bothered to wade through. It always seemed to me that we should all be responsible for our own behavior and act like the adults we purport to be. This has proven to be more difficult for some than for others.
Can Cal be abusive? Sure. But I haven't seen her make an abusive post and then repost it ten or more times in a row just to try to piss someone off. That is a temper tantrum and this isn't kindergarten. Nobody here is paid to follow anyone around just to wipe their ass when they decide to shit all over a thread. So Jexster has a few days off. He isn't the first. Probably, unfortunately, won't be the last. You disagree with me. Oh well. 1552. wabbit - 4/19/2002 12:39:43 AM As far as Jexster's general style of posting, it has never bothered me, as he knows. I don't see why he posts one link, then two minutes later another, and so on, but I can't say that it would be an issue with me so long as the posts are on topic. Some thread hosts don't care how he posts, others do. That's the nature of this place. He has been asked by various thread hosts to not post that way, and in the past has complied, most obviously in Jay's thread. His suspension had nothing to do with that. 1553. Absensia - 4/19/2002 1:55:33 AM Wabbit.
When Ms. No set this thread up as a separate post a couple of weeks ago, it was, at t hat time, done to set out my response to Pelle, about the concerns I had about things, as far as changes that, imo, would avert the type of things that have been going on. The posts were moved here. See post #1496, infra. I was n ot talking about Jex. I noticed that there were posts from last august addressing the same issues as I raised.
Yesterday there was mention of moving this thread and putting it back into Suggestions. RD seemed to think the "issue" was over. He meant, I think, what he saw as the Jex issue.
However, I have never gotten a response to the issues I raised. Nor have either I or betty gotten any response to our requests for a US foreign policy thread. It is not a frivolous request and wasn't to lessen cal's thread...us foreign policy has many issues, not just terror, and also to discuss in only in the International thread only clogs up the thread.
You and others may not agree, but it is very frustrating to have "some" posters suggestions ignored while others arew not. 1554. betty - 4/19/2002 3:13:09 AM Wabbit,
I don't disagree that we should all act like adults, but that's a subjective, and in the case of a community, useless term. I'm not saying that we need to spell out every little detail of Mote participation, rather I am saying that if Spamming is such an easily recognizable and flagrant disregard of the kind of discourse we are shooting for in these parts then we do need to, at the vey least, say something about it in the RoE. and more than that, we need to define it.
We have definitions and rules not because people aren't adults, rather because we are all adults and we must develop civic understanding because we do not all come with the same moral compass.
If the reason Jex is being suspended is because of Spam, as stated, then his suspension is invalid because there is no public agreement on what spam is, there is no rule against it and he never agreed to not spam. I'm sorry if this is a headache and a pain in the ass, but it seems like there would be less headaches if we all had clear expectations of one another. if any attempt to address my concerns had been made I wouldn't be bringing it up again. and if my concerns aren't addressed now, they will continue to be brought up everytime a poster accuses another of "Spamming"...which is an offense that has no meaning here because it has not been defined. It would also make the moderators lives easier because difficult people, like myself, couldn't come in here and say, "there is no policy against spam you're just acting like dictators" (extremist parody of myself).
Jex's posts were abusive, like I said, there are plenty 'round here who can be abusive, and few of them are as funny about it as Jexster, if that's the reason for suspension, fine. I can live with that, though i will site his "abuse and suspension" as precedent when someone crosses the line, and I will expect it to be enforced. 1555. PelleNilsson - 4/19/2002 3:23:15 AM betty
So try your hand at a definition of spam, then. 1556. wonkers2 - 4/19/2002 3:28:33 AM Why's it incumbent on betty to define spam? If you want to sanction it then, define it yourself. If you are going to prohibit something you should be able to tell us what it is. If you can't, forget it and quit wasting our time with your prissy little sanctimonious comments. 1557. Indiana Jones - 4/19/2002 3:32:33 AM My opinion:
1) No need for another international thread.
2) Whether or not spam is expressly prohibited in the RoE, we have at least two precedent cases (CellarDoor and cazart) in which a poster was suspended for it. A host isn't obligated to keep removing the same post or content over and over again.
If the host is doing a bad job, then this is the place to complain, but it's not the prerogative of a participant to inflict everyone else on other threads with the problem. (Moreover, what jexster did also could be considered as falling under the prohibition against threats.) 1558. rubberducky - 4/19/2002 3:36:13 AM not only that, but Jex could have been considered 'abusive' as well. indeed, imo, he was.
posting the same shit and ignoring the host(s) will earn a reward from the powers that be - that's just the way it is folks. 1559. wonkers2 - 4/19/2002 3:36:23 AM Are all these rules published or available somewhere? I don't recall seeing them. Are they provided to new registrants? The answer may well be obvious. I will take a look around the site. I have never seen the rules. If they are there I will find them and read them.d [I am a believer in reasonable rules, fairly and consistently applied.] 1560. PelleNilsson - 4/19/2002 3:39:23 AM My point was, and is, which I'm sure betty, who is a sophisticated lady, will understand, that it is very difficult, I would say impossible, to define spam in objective, measurable terms, just as it is difficult to objectively define "needlessy abusive". 1561. rubberducky - 4/19/2002 3:39:59 AM Wonk:
the Rules of Engagement are clearly posted in the Mote Links section 1562. wonkers2 - 4/19/2002 3:41:46 AM Okay, I just read the "rules of engagement" for the first time after 5 years or so of participating. They seem reasonable enough. But I didn't see any mention of "spam." Until it is defined and included in the rules it shouldn't be sanctioned. 1563. rubberducky - 4/19/2002 3:44:40 AM well, again, wonkers, Jex was 'needlessly abusive' imo, and got what he deserved.
he's only suspended, he'll be back. no real harm done, really.
1564. Indiana Jones - 4/19/2002 3:46:56 AM This place has never really been run by rules, wonkers. From the FAQ:
"Moderators...crack heads when they deem it necessary. necessary."
(The error is in the original.)
This "cracking of heads" is in addition to enforcing the RoE, which is already covered in the previous sentence. 1565. wonkers2 - 4/19/2002 3:48:46 AM Well, I guess that leaves it pretty wide open for the "moderators." Maybe that's not the best term. 1566. rubberducky - 4/19/2002 3:52:08 AM what would you call wabbit/Pelle/Ms No then? 1567. wonkers2 - 4/19/2002 4:01:10 AM Thread Czar? Ayatollah? Tin God? High Pooh Bah? Your Highness?
|
