|
1577. Indiana Jones - 4/19/2002 4:38:31 AM (though it's bad form to talk about somebody who's suspended) 1578. wonkers2 - 4/19/2002 4:45:37 AM BTW, who are the governors? And how did they become governors? By some democratic process I assume? 1579. Ms. No - 4/19/2002 4:57:00 AM Absensia has been using the word governors. It came out of somebody else's analogy. She means the Moderators. 1580. wabbit - 4/19/2002 5:17:26 AM Betty,
Of course it's subjective, much like defining pornography. But let's start with the original internet meaning of the term spam.
Selected from the Webopedia:
Electronic junk mail or junk newsgroup postings. Some people define spam even more generally as any unsolicited e-mail. However, if a long-lost brother finds your e-mail address and sends you a message, this could hardly be called spam, even though it's unsolicited. Real spam is generally e-mail advertising for some product sent to a mailing list or newsgroup.
...the generally accepted version is that it comes from the Monty Python song, "Spam spam spam spam, spam spam spam spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam…" Like the song, spam is an endless repetition of worthless text. Another school of thought maintains that it comes from the computer group lab at the University of Southern California who gave it the name because it has many of the same characteristics as the lunchmeat Spam:
• Nobody wants it or ever asks for it.
• No one ever eats it; it is the first item to be pushed to the side when eating the entree.
• Sometimes it is actually tasty, like 1% of junk mail that is really useful to some people.
1581. wabbit - 4/19/2002 5:18:01 AM As I have already stated, when Jexster posts something on topic, even if it is just a one sentence blurb or link, I (stress on "I") don't consider that spam. Obviously many people here disagree with me and want Jexster to alter his style of posting. Cal isn't the only one. Still, I doubt it would be possible to write or enforce any kind of rule regarding the accepted style one may use for posting here. Individual thread hosts have that discretion, if they have the time and patience to enforce it.
Now take a look at the Inferno, starting with, say, post 12169. I see this in the Fighting Global Terrorism thread and I think spam without batting an eyelash. I'd like to hear why these posts are not spam. Furthermore, Jexster promises to continue posting this way until he gets to post any way he wants to in any thread he chooses. Sorry, that isn't the way things work here and he knows that.
You want a separate US Foreign Policy thread because "International is getting all clogged up with Posts that are relating to US foreign policy again...some of us want Swiss brand nuetrality explained to us." Here again, I don't see why US foreign policy doesn't belong in the International thread, or even in the American Politics thread, but if enough people think it warrants a thread, we can create one for you to host. Just remember that the reason the Fighting Global Terrorism thread was started was because enough people thought Jexster was clogging up discussion.
And by the way, what you "expect...to be enforced" won't bully me into doing your will any more than the same tactic has worked for anyone else. Ask Cal. 1582. wabbit - 4/19/2002 5:19:05 AM So, do we really need to include a definition of spam in the RoE? What might that be? Posting the same thing more than twice in a row? Three times? Ten times? Even if the post is on topic? And who decides that? What if there are three paragraphs of crap about someone and one sentence that is relevant to the discussion, should that post stand as contributing to the thread? Is the thread host wrong for moving such a post to the Inferno?
"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."
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If we are all adults, why can't we be expected to observe and learn? If your moral compass is radically different from mine, what rule is going to satisfy us both? Sometimes people have to be adult enough to agree to disagree and not behave like spoiled brats when they don't get their way. Sometimes being an adult means you have to suck it up and not bulldoze your way along. But that's just my vague idea.
1583. wabbit - 4/19/2002 5:20:41 AM
btw, I'll leave this thread on the front page for now, since we haven't finished with this yet. 1584. concerned - 4/19/2002 5:21:26 AM Hey, wabbit: did you see the picture of you I posted a while back? Xtra cute! 1585. wabbit - 4/19/2002 5:25:50 AM
I should add that I'm not against adding to the RoE, I just don't think we can ever satisfy everyone, so some amount of subjectivity is going to be present regardless.
concerned, I'm still trying to catch up after a long absence, was I baring my teeth and being ferocious? 1586. betty - 4/19/2002 5:42:50 AM wabbit,
as I've said, Jex's last posts were indeed totally over the line...I think even by his standards. Of course those last posts were "spam". I agree with Ducky that they were abusive. And I'm not trying to bully anyone, what I am saying is that there needs to be some mention of spam in the RoE, even if it is "No Spam", letting each individual host decide the definition of spam on hir thread.
All i'm saying is, if SPAM is the offense, then we need to make sure "no SPAM" is a rule. 1587. wabbit - 4/19/2002 5:53:34 AM "...there needs to be some mention of spam in the RoE, even if it is "No Spam", letting each individual host decide the definition of spam on hir thread."
I am happy to get behind this.
In other news, thunderstorms are moving through Boston, so if I disappear it will be only until power returns. 1588. concerned - 4/19/2002 6:03:56 AM Finally found the Wabbit picture: Message # 61888 in thread 28 1589. Absensia - 4/19/2002 9:06:43 AM Indian and Wabbit: I do think a US foreign policy thread is a very relevant potential thread...it's not really politics as in "democrats and republicans," and international doesn't need it's thread filled with things such as "Is US foreign policy to Pakistan, India, et al., fair, well handled, etc...or how much does the US give Canada as far as foreign policy monetary rights, et al. But if you think the topic is relevant to International okay, no problem if it all works out. 1590. Absensia - 4/19/2002 9:28:27 AM Ms. No,
Thanks for responding, I know there have been "other" issues around here. My point re moderators and spam, was to say that if thread hosts abuse power or if the masses yell "off with his/her head" and it's becoming an issue that is quite devisive, then I think a moderator should warn, even if a host has warned, and and if it still continues, then the person is suspended.
Wabbit, I do like your comment about spam...hahaha, I do thing the Rof E should list it, and while I don't want to pose any unnecessary duties on the Moderators, I would like to see clearer Rules of Engagement. That's my opinion only...but this all (not Jex) was an issue last August in this threat raised by several people. Seem to me it's still an issue.
Ms. No...when I said "talk to one another," I was talking about the recent time when Pelle was going to remove certain threads without notice, and you disagreed and reinstated them, as most wanted to be done...and then Pelle announced he was an exmoderator. Such comments are not good to be aired in front of the "children," inter alia. You bother were here at the mote at the same time that day. I don't think all three of you must agree regarding discipline, etc. Maybe someone could set out what things required an agreement by all three of you, what can be done by a majority, and those that can be done by one moderator.
I do understand the work you do and also know what a hassle it can be to do it, inspite of the huge monetary rewards...heh.
I think thread host autonomy sometimes has merits. : ) Of course we can then get into a discussion of what is "abuse." I think mosts hosts have different visions of abuse, whether it be that by a poster or a thread host.
And, I hear no one complains about Indy because he is so cute. ; )
I do appreciate you talking the time to respond, I know it takes a lot of time. 1591. Absensia - 4/19/2002 9:30:30 AM Ms. No,
Thanks for responding, I know there have been "other" issues around here. My point re moderators and spam, was to say that if thread hosts abuse power or if the masses yell "off with his/her head" and it's becoming an issue that is quite devisive, then I think a moderator should warn, even if a host has warned, and and if it still continues, then the person is suspended.
Wabbit, I do like your comment about spam...hahaha, I do thing the Rof E should list it, and while I don't want to pose any unnecessary duties on the Moderators, I would like to see clearer Rules of Engagement. That's my opinion only...but this all (not Jex) was an issue last August in this threat raised by several people. Seem to me it's still an issue.
Ms. No...when I said "talk to one another," I was talking about the recent time when Pelle was going to remove certain threads without notice, and you disagreed and reinstated them, as most wanted to be done...and then Pelle announced he was an exmoderator. Such comments are not good to be aired in front of the "children," inter alia. You bother were here at the mote at the same time that day. I don't think all three of you must agree regarding discipline, etc. Maybe someone could set out what things required an agreement by all three of you, what can be done by a majority, and those that can be done by one moderator.
I do understand the work you do and also know what a hassle it can be to do it, inspite of the huge monetary rewards...heh.
I think thread host autonomy sometimes has merits. : ) Of course we can then get into a discussion of what is "abuse." I think mosts hosts have different visions of abuse, whether it be that by a poster or a thread host.
And, I hear no one complains about Indy because he is so cute. ; )
I do appreciate you talking the time to respond, I know it takes a lot of time. 1592. Absensia - 4/19/2002 9:32:13 AM Oops...sorry for the double post. And, btw Ms No, I am not going to even ask you how it is you know about Georgia's oral sex laws. Hahahahahaha. 1593. CalGal - 4/19/2002 9:46:09 AM Um, because they were the subject of one of the most notorious Supreme Court decisions? 1594. Absensia - 4/19/2002 10:11:23 AM Ummm, I was joking with Ms. No...you know...JOKING. There are still several states with such laws...and I was JOKING, as might be determined by the "Hahahahahah" following my second sentence. 1595. betty - 4/20/2002 9:19:35 AM Oh and Pelle, if you continue to be needlessly abusive (I mean betty, who is a sophisticated lady does cross a line doesn't it?) I will file a formal complaint against you.
I think this is the second time that I have let you know that sophisticated and lady and such silliness are completely inappropriate in reference to me. 1596. zojak quafeth - 4/22/2002 5:59:01 AM ah. So when you said you thought I was one beer away from a COPS episode you were really reaching to try to pick me up eh? shocking.
|
