The topic of providing a clearer and less controversial standard for spam has been brought up in several threads, by several sources, but we have yet to see a thread devoted entirely to that topic, or a dialogue with the site administration upon the subject.
For some time, posters have been criticizing the current rules as too vague, and this has led to some degree of rancor as posters complain that the rules are enforced arbitrarily or subjectively.
I suggest that we revise the current definition in order to put those complaints to rest, so that posters who violate the rules of the forums can plainly see that their post does fit the community's standards for spam, and so they can have a crystal clear idea of what style of posting they ought to avoid in the future.
Hopefully, taking this step will reinforce a more standardized, transparent application of the rule, and increase the community's trust that its moderating staff is operating fairly and under clear and consistent guidelines.
The current definition is as follows:
A spam post is a generally short post with no content which does not contribute to the topic.
One of the proposed clarifications of the rule is this:
Spam-A post which fails both of the following tests:
1. Contributes content to the discussion in a decipherable manner.
2. Has redeeming (such as intellectual, or humorous) value.
Or displays one or more of the following characteristics:
1. Burdens the thread of conversation.
2. Is a non sequitur to the relevant topic.
3. Represents a willful attempt to act as a general nuisance to the community as a whole.
Since the clarification of this rule would directly effect every moderator on the site, it is absolutely essential that the higher echelons of the site's management weigh in upon this debate, and explain how they believe it might serve or complicate from the operations of MTGsalvation, or how the definition could be further revised to serve the community.
I think the concpet of redeeming value would have to be narrowed by quite a bit to make that workable. By the definition you apply, any post that was funny couldn't be considered spam.
Also, relative quantity is important. You could theoretically contribute something to the discussion and then still go on to post I'm Henry the Eighth, I am fifty-two thousand times (thus burdening and interrupting the thread of conversation), and it would definitely be spam by any rational definition, but not by yours.
The mods' judgment should be dependant on the rules of the system, and not their own opinion, I agree, but ultimately, we have to recognize that any definition of spam is going to come down to the mods' judgment. I absolutely agree that there should be a quantifiable definition of spam, but it isn't going to be anything like as simple as the one you suggest without letting a whole lot of loopholes through, and it isn't going to be based on purely quantifiable factors.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
In short, I agree with the tests. I disagree with the characteristics. A post can be spam without any of those - but the presence of those characteristics determine the degree of punishment. For instance, if someone is willfully attempting to be a pain in the ass, I'm not going to give them a warning and say, "Try not to do this in the future."
I think the concpet of redeeming value would have to be narrowed by quite a bit to make that workable. By the definition you apply, any post that was funny couldn't be considered spam.
Also, relative quantity is important. You could theoretically contribute something to the discussion and then still go on to post I'm Henry the Eighth, I am fifty-two thousand times (thus burdening and interrupting the thread of conversation), and it would definitely be spam by any rational definition, but not by yours.
The mods' judgment should be dependant on the rules of the system, and not their own opinion, I agree, but ultimately, we have to recognize that any definition of spam is going to come down to the mods' judgment. I absolutely agree that there should be a quantifiable definition of spam, but it isn't going to be anything like as simple as the one you suggest without letting a whole lot of loopholes through, and it isn't going to be based on purely quantifiable factors.
So perhaps we could change "and displays" to "or displays"?
Well, that solves the second problem, but not the first. Also, you'll need to come up with definitions for the terms you use here, like Redeeming Value, Decipherable, Burdens, and Nuisance. Each of those words has meaning that changes from topic to topic, and even from person to person, so using them in this situation, where you're trying to prevent loopholes, means that you have to be extremely specific about what they mean.
You wonder why legalese sounds so awful most of the time? This is the reason. There is no redundancy of language available.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Well, that solves the second problem, but not the first. Also, you'll need to come up with definitions for the terms you use here, like Redeeming Value, Decipherable, Burdens, and Nuisance. Each of those words has meaning that changes from topic to topic, and even from person to person, so using them in this situation, where you're trying to prevent loopholes, means that you have to be extremely specific about what they mean.
You wonder why legalese sounds so awful most of the time? This is the reason. There is no redundancy of language available.
*nods* I'm aware of the leeway that "redeeming value", "decipherable", and "burdens" would provide. I am, however, a little hesitant to define them further in the actual statute, lest salvation's forum rules become as littered by complexity as supreme court law. As you mentioned, at some point we must rely upon the judgment of the moderators to interpret and enforce the rules, and I think that if the standards become over-specific and complex they are unlikely to be workable.
However, my own interpretation of the language, if ever anyone wished to know the original intent behind its crafting, would be as follows:
Content-A complete thought which somehow pertains to the legitimate discussion taking place in the thread, as recognized by the participants.
Redeeming value-Any quality which, in the judgment of a clear majority of the participants, as evidenced through tacit approval or overt appreciation, mitigates any possible elements of disruptiveness within the post. When the majority opinion is conflicted or unclear, the moderators' judgment prevails. (Under circumstances in which the burden, non sequitur, or general nuisance test is violated, considerations of redeeming value may be ignored.)
Burden-A post which hinders the ability of the conversation to fulfill the purpose of the topic.
However, I don't particularly feel that it's necessary to become too caught up in splitting hairs over the semantic interpretations of these single words. I think if the rules are clarified to this point, that allowing the staff a degree of flexibility on how to interpret "redeeming value" or "burden" within the context of whatever subforum they happen to oversee will allow things to run tolerably smoothly.
If something is funny, it should not be spam. The joke should at least be on topic, but an on topic joke, or on topic sarcastic comment should never be spam in my eyes.
Perhaps you mean, "if something is attempting to be funny"?
or on topic sarcastic comment
I think that depends highly on the way the sarcasm is being used. Sarcasm itself does not give a post redeeming value.
Anyway, in general, I agree with Azrael's guidelines, as that seems to cover spam pretty well. There's no need to give legalese definitions to the terms being used, since we shouldn't be running a forum in the same way as a court of law.
Yeah, I think that works better than what I said. Infractions shouldn't be made for a poor sense of humor. If someone is clearly trying to make a joke, that is on topic, even if it isn't remarkably funny, then it really shouldn't be spam.
The only implimentation problems I can see with how sarcasm is used would deal with it being used to as a tool to flame another poster, and that is not something which should fall under the spam guidelines at all. If a post is sarcastically flaming another user, by all means, infract it for flaming, but it isn't spam if it is on topic.
If you can think of another implimentation problem with sarcasm, let me know. This is really the only one I can think of.
Yeah, I think that works better than what I said. Infractions shouldn't be made for a poor sense of humor. If someone is clearly trying to make a joke, that is on topic, even if it isn't remarkably funny, then it really shouldn't be spam.
I rather disagree. Suppose you're reading a thread that's a serious discussion of Bridge-Dredge. You come across a post that contains nothing but "y'all should play plague wind in that deck. lol." That's clearly a joke. It's even on topic. However it's also 100% spam.
Granted you can use sarcasm to make a point. If the post before was reccomending dredge play Haunting Hymn... then a sarcastic comment about Plague Wind and the manabase is fine. Humor is sometimes acceptable, however I'd wager that most posts which do nothing but make a joke are ones I'd consider to be spam.
I was told today that this kid on my team called 911 twice this morning and hung up both times. They called back and his dad answered. The reason the kid called 911? He got an erection and didn't know what to do. I wish I was making this up.
I rather disagree. Suppose you're reading a thread that's a serious discussion of Bridge-Dredge. You come across a post that contains nothing but "y'all should play plague wind in that deck. lol." That's clearly a joke. It's even on topic. However it's also 100% spam.
Granted you can use sarcasm to make a point. If the post before was reccomending dredge play Haunting Hymn... then a sarcastic comment about Plague Wind and the manabase is fine. Humor is sometimes acceptable, however I'd wager that most posts which do nothing but make a joke are ones I'd consider to be spam.
It's not on topic if there is no lead in. The topic is a discussion of a certain deck, and how to make it better/how it performs, etc. Talking about cards which are actually not good in the deck will never be on topic. And you are right in saying that it is 100% spam.
Context is 95% of what determines if a joke is spam or not.
this is spam. it contributes to the thread nothing, nor does it make sense. Going into a deck forum and like saying "OMG USE <CARD>" when <CARD> is blue and the decks like Mono Red...yea, that spam.
@Petroleumjelly. I really agree with your points. Jokes, or sarcasm, are not inherently spam, as long as they are on topic. I, for one, will rarely label something as spam, unless it is completely out of left-field, has no noticeable grounds for being said, and if the participants of the thread either say, "what?", or completely ignore the user out-right. I have also learned from the "/ininininin" debacle, and have learned to ask members of the thread about a post. There's been very few times when it comes off as pure spam.
And I also agree, sarcasm can be a wonderful thing, when used right, but when it's abused, and is meant to troll, or flame another user, then it deserves to be handled accordingly.
I think it would be helpful if we got some admin input on this idea.
Spam, of course, has the problem that some will define it as 'I know it when I see it'.
In practice, this sort of philosophy does not work.
If a post is something that doesn't have to be read, because it adds nothing to the discussion, or makes a point that has been beaten into the ground already (think rumor mill), or is just blatantly misinformed (telling you to put 9th edition cards in your TSP block deck), then it is spam.
If someone quotes someone's post after asking a direct question and getting it answered saying 'thank you', it is not spam.
The thing is, the more we define and pidgeonhole rules, the more opportunities for problems might turn up. A guideline for spam, possibly along the lines of what is suggested in the first post, is preferable to a hard and fast about what IS and ISN'T spam.
The great majority of what falls under the definition of spam deserves either no moderator action or just a simple deletion of the post. It isn't really the crux of the problems the staff is here to help prevent. Naturally, times when infractions or warnings are deserved do indeed come up, but most spam posts are not a big issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
As you mentioned, at some point we must rely upon the judgment of the moderators to interpret and enforce the rules, and I think that if the standards become over-specific and complex they are unlikely to be workable.
I think this is the problem, right here. In half the posts I've seen concerning spam (and most of those are pointed at me), the user is complaining that the current rules are interpreted by the moderator, and each moderator is different. But, as you can plainly see by the discussion in this thread, there's no good way to write the rules that won't involve some sort of interpretation.
Any word you use that is subjective in any way, such as 'content' or 'relevant', will bring about some need for interpretation on the part of the moderator. And people will continue arguing, saying that their post had content, was relevant. Without delving into legalese, it's probably going to be nigh impossible to write a definition that everyone agrees with (or just impossible there) that won't involve moderator interpretation.
And, as it has already been said, you can't really put a blanket rule on the site that says "This is spam". Every area of the site has different definitions of spam. That's one of the reasons people got annoyed at me. What is spam in, say, the Colosseum, isn't spam in the Mafia subforum. Post /in or "Bah", with nothing else, in any other section of the site, and you get a spam warning. There, however, it's okay. So you get a bit of a problem trying to write rules that work everywhere. That's also where moderator interpretation comes in.
so basically users have to be extra careful and not only remember the sites rule, but rules that apply to the different sections and subsections? that sounds awfully memory intensive for just being able to post on the forums in peace...
No, users just have to remember one thing, post constructively in the context of the thread your posting in, I can't see how that's a problem
Yes each area is different with different standards but posting in an area usually means that the poster should know the area they are posting in and know what is and isn't acceptable
that would first require an ample amount of knowledge of the different areas, something new users don't always have?
not to mention as some other mods have said as well, sometimes certain things are hard to judge such as attempted humor and sarcasm.
I would love to have a concrete definition of the spam rules as then I wouldn't have to rack my brains and conscience on whether something is or isn't spam, but it is so subjective as to be nigh on impossible to define
that's just it, i'm sure many mods/admins on here DON'T rack their brains and conscience when infracting, i mean hell why bother wasting that much time and effort when hitting someone w/an infraction will maybe get the message across. i do applaud your efforts though (NO sarcasm involved there).
Well, let's put it this way. There's a way that even the most strict portions of this site wants you to post. I'm not sure which forum would be the most strict, but I think the Colo ranks up there, with its need for high quality posting. If you post to that quality everywhere, you're groovy. Then you can learn the special rules while you post and be a little less strict with yourself.
Well, let's put it this way. There's a way that even the most strict portions of this site wants you to post. I'm not sure which forum would be the most strict, but I think the Colo ranks up there, with its need for high quality posting. If you post to that quality everywhere, you're groovy. Then you can learn the special rules while you post and be a little less strict with yourself.
my statement about newer users not knowing which areas are more strict stands. i have been here for about a month now, been posting and reading consistently and i have absolutely no idea what "Colo" is...
The Colosseum is an RPing forum, but it's more of a specific forum than most of the others, so you wouldn't know about it unless you were a roleplayer.
As for new posters, this rule change only really applies to posters who don't inherently know what's a good post and what isn't. Many posters either figure they should act as they would in real life in a professional setting, or they've been to a forum before and know the general attitude they should show. If they DON'T know, they'll get a warning or infraction, read the message provided, and learn what's not wanted here.
As it has been said before, warnings are simply that, warnings, and infractions aren't the end of the world. One or two is no big deal. And then you know what's wrong.
I'd also like to say that many people who find themselves getting a lot of infractions probably haven't read the rules yet anyways, so changing the rules probably wouldn't help them much.
I think this is the problem, right here. In half the posts I've seen concerning spam (and most of those are pointed at me), the user is complaining that the current rules are interpreted by the moderator, and each moderator is different. But, as you can plainly see by the discussion in this thread, there's no good way to write the rules that won't involve some sort of interpretation.
Any word you use that is subjective in any way, such as 'content' or 'relevant', will bring about some need for interpretation on the part of the moderator. And people will continue arguing, saying that their post had content, was relevant. Without delving into legalese, it's probably going to be nigh impossible to write a definition that everyone agrees with (or just impossible there) that won't involve moderator interpretation.
And, as it has already been said, you can't really put a blanket rule on the site that says "This is spam". Every area of the site has different definitions of spam. That's one of the reasons people got annoyed at me. What is spam in, say, the Colosseum, isn't spam in the Mafia subforum. Post /in or "Bah", with nothing else, in any other section of the site, and you get a spam warning. There, however, it's okay. So you get a bit of a problem trying to write rules that work everywhere. That's also where moderator interpretation comes in.
Are we actually in agreement, then? I think both of us admit that some degree of moderator flexibility is not only a good thing but also inevitable. What a clarification of the rules would provide is to help show what standards the moderating staff is using, and lessen, by a degree, the problem of subjectivity.
Posters may still disagree whether or not their post truly had content, or whether it was relevant, but they'll at least know the area upon which they were being singled out, so that they can be more careful in the future. We would have a standard by which to judge the appropriateness of the decision. The application of the standard may still be controversial, but we'll have a measuring stick from which to start, something more complex than whether the post was short.
As for new posters, this rule change only really applies to posters who don't inherently know what's a good post and what isn't. Many posters either figure they should act as they would in real life in a professional setting, or they've been to a forum before and know the general attitude they should show. If they DON'T know, they'll get a warning or infraction, read the message provided, and learn what's not wanted here.
As it has been said before, warnings are simply that, warnings, and infractions aren't the end of the world. One or two is no big deal. And then you know what's wrong.
I'd also like to say that many people who find themselves getting a lot of infractions probably haven't read the rules yet anyways, so changing the rules probably wouldn't help them much.
Since the standards for spam vary from forum to forum, I think it's entirely appropriate that we should try to be as open and transparent with our own policy as we possibly can. Although infractions may not have much of an effect upon a poster's day to day operations, they do represent disapproval of a poster's actions, and that can breed resentment when the reason for that disapproval is not made plain, or when the process appears to be dependent on the judgment of a person who is operating without clear guidelines. So if we can provide a general idea, in writing, of some of the behaviors that moderators are watching for, that should increase confidence in the system.
I agree that the rules should be clarified, but I'm not sure how strict you should make the wording. It's like Princess Leia said: "The tighter your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." It applies to rules very well. The more clear you make it, the more loopholes you make.
Personally, I think the big deal about the spam rules right now is that my rulings made several people rather annoyed, as did my saying that I didn't feel there was a need for reversal. I don't recall much of an issue with the spam rules in the past. This might be because there was none, or because no one felt like speaking up.
I think the best thing we can do right now is to make it a bit more clear, defining the BEHAVIOR we don't want, but leave ultimate control up the moderators. If you really start saying exactly what's wrong, you'll leave the moderators powerless to hit problems that crop up that aren't covered in the rules. If they try to stop it, the poster can simply say "It's not in the rules, so you can't punish me!" and start a big stink.
Frankly, that wouldn't be a horrible thing, as long as the caveat involved with it is that the rules will get updated, and they won't get away with it again.
One-time offenses aren't ever going to do much to damage the integrity of the forum.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For some time, posters have been criticizing the current rules as too vague, and this has led to some degree of rancor as posters complain that the rules are enforced arbitrarily or subjectively.
I suggest that we revise the current definition in order to put those complaints to rest, so that posters who violate the rules of the forums can plainly see that their post does fit the community's standards for spam, and so they can have a crystal clear idea of what style of posting they ought to avoid in the future.
Hopefully, taking this step will reinforce a more standardized, transparent application of the rule, and increase the community's trust that its moderating staff is operating fairly and under clear and consistent guidelines.
The current definition is as follows:
One of the proposed clarifications of the rule is this:
Since the clarification of this rule would directly effect every moderator on the site, it is absolutely essential that the higher echelons of the site's management weigh in upon this debate, and explain how they believe it might serve or complicate from the operations of MTGsalvation, or how the definition could be further revised to serve the community.
I look forward to a thoughtful and civil debate.
Also, relative quantity is important. You could theoretically contribute something to the discussion and then still go on to post I'm Henry the Eighth, I am fifty-two thousand times (thus burdening and interrupting the thread of conversation), and it would definitely be spam by any rational definition, but not by yours.
The mods' judgment should be dependant on the rules of the system, and not their own opinion, I agree, but ultimately, we have to recognize that any definition of spam is going to come down to the mods' judgment. I absolutely agree that there should be a quantifiable definition of spam, but it isn't going to be anything like as simple as the one you suggest without letting a whole lot of loopholes through, and it isn't going to be based on purely quantifiable factors.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
So perhaps we could change "and displays" to "or displays"?
You wonder why legalese sounds so awful most of the time? This is the reason. There is no redundancy of language available.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
*nods* I'm aware of the leeway that "redeeming value", "decipherable", and "burdens" would provide. I am, however, a little hesitant to define them further in the actual statute, lest salvation's forum rules become as littered by complexity as supreme court law. As you mentioned, at some point we must rely upon the judgment of the moderators to interpret and enforce the rules, and I think that if the standards become over-specific and complex they are unlikely to be workable.
However, my own interpretation of the language, if ever anyone wished to know the original intent behind its crafting, would be as follows:
Content-A complete thought which somehow pertains to the legitimate discussion taking place in the thread, as recognized by the participants.
Redeeming value-Any quality which, in the judgment of a clear majority of the participants, as evidenced through tacit approval or overt appreciation, mitigates any possible elements of disruptiveness within the post. When the majority opinion is conflicted or unclear, the moderators' judgment prevails. (Under circumstances in which the burden, non sequitur, or general nuisance test is violated, considerations of redeeming value may be ignored.)
Burden-A post which hinders the ability of the conversation to fulfill the purpose of the topic.
However, I don't particularly feel that it's necessary to become too caught up in splitting hairs over the semantic interpretations of these single words. I think if the rules are clarified to this point, that allowing the staff a degree of flexibility on how to interpret "redeeming value" or "burden" within the context of whatever subforum they happen to oversee will allow things to run tolerably smoothly.
Perhaps you mean, "if something is attempting to be funny"?
I think that depends highly on the way the sarcasm is being used. Sarcasm itself does not give a post redeeming value.
Anyway, in general, I agree with Azrael's guidelines, as that seems to cover spam pretty well. There's no need to give legalese definitions to the terms being used, since we shouldn't be running a forum in the same way as a court of law.
The only implimentation problems I can see with how sarcasm is used would deal with it being used to as a tool to flame another poster, and that is not something which should fall under the spam guidelines at all. If a post is sarcastically flaming another user, by all means, infract it for flaming, but it isn't spam if it is on topic.
If you can think of another implimentation problem with sarcasm, let me know. This is really the only one I can think of.
I rather disagree. Suppose you're reading a thread that's a serious discussion of Bridge-Dredge. You come across a post that contains nothing but "y'all should play plague wind in that deck. lol." That's clearly a joke. It's even on topic. However it's also 100% spam.
Granted you can use sarcasm to make a point. If the post before was reccomending dredge play Haunting Hymn... then a sarcastic comment about Plague Wind and the manabase is fine. Humor is sometimes acceptable, however I'd wager that most posts which do nothing but make a joke are ones I'd consider to be spam.
Mafia Stats
It's not on topic if there is no lead in. The topic is a discussion of a certain deck, and how to make it better/how it performs, etc. Talking about cards which are actually not good in the deck will never be on topic. And you are right in saying that it is 100% spam.
Context is 95% of what determines if a joke is spam or not.
And I also agree, sarcasm can be a wonderful thing, when used right, but when it's abused, and is meant to troll, or flame another user, then it deserves to be handled accordingly.
Spam, of course, has the problem that some will define it as 'I know it when I see it'.
In practice, this sort of philosophy does not work.
If a post is something that doesn't have to be read, because it adds nothing to the discussion, or makes a point that has been beaten into the ground already (think rumor mill), or is just blatantly misinformed (telling you to put 9th edition cards in your TSP block deck), then it is spam.
If someone quotes someone's post after asking a direct question and getting it answered saying 'thank you', it is not spam.
The thing is, the more we define and pidgeonhole rules, the more opportunities for problems might turn up. A guideline for spam, possibly along the lines of what is suggested in the first post, is preferable to a hard and fast about what IS and ISN'T spam.
The great majority of what falls under the definition of spam deserves either no moderator action or just a simple deletion of the post. It isn't really the crux of the problems the staff is here to help prevent. Naturally, times when infractions or warnings are deserved do indeed come up, but most spam posts are not a big issue.
Twitter
I think this is the problem, right here. In half the posts I've seen concerning spam (and most of those are pointed at me), the user is complaining that the current rules are interpreted by the moderator, and each moderator is different. But, as you can plainly see by the discussion in this thread, there's no good way to write the rules that won't involve some sort of interpretation.
Any word you use that is subjective in any way, such as 'content' or 'relevant', will bring about some need for interpretation on the part of the moderator. And people will continue arguing, saying that their post had content, was relevant. Without delving into legalese, it's probably going to be nigh impossible to write a definition that everyone agrees with (or just impossible there) that won't involve moderator interpretation.
And, as it has already been said, you can't really put a blanket rule on the site that says "This is spam". Every area of the site has different definitions of spam. That's one of the reasons people got annoyed at me. What is spam in, say, the Colosseum, isn't spam in the Mafia subforum. Post /in or "Bah", with nothing else, in any other section of the site, and you get a spam warning. There, however, it's okay. So you get a bit of a problem trying to write rules that work everywhere. That's also where moderator interpretation comes in.
My helpdesk should you need me.
that would first require an ample amount of knowledge of the different areas, something new users don't always have?
not to mention as some other mods have said as well, sometimes certain things are hard to judge such as attempted humor and sarcasm.
that's just it, i'm sure many mods/admins on here DON'T rack their brains and conscience when infracting, i mean hell why bother wasting that much time and effort when hitting someone w/an infraction will maybe get the message across. i do applaud your efforts though (NO sarcasm involved there).
My helpdesk should you need me.
my statement about newer users not knowing which areas are more strict stands. i have been here for about a month now, been posting and reading consistently and i have absolutely no idea what "Colo" is...
As for new posters, this rule change only really applies to posters who don't inherently know what's a good post and what isn't. Many posters either figure they should act as they would in real life in a professional setting, or they've been to a forum before and know the general attitude they should show. If they DON'T know, they'll get a warning or infraction, read the message provided, and learn what's not wanted here.
As it has been said before, warnings are simply that, warnings, and infractions aren't the end of the world. One or two is no big deal. And then you know what's wrong.
I'd also like to say that many people who find themselves getting a lot of infractions probably haven't read the rules yet anyways, so changing the rules probably wouldn't help them much.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Are we actually in agreement, then? I think both of us admit that some degree of moderator flexibility is not only a good thing but also inevitable. What a clarification of the rules would provide is to help show what standards the moderating staff is using, and lessen, by a degree, the problem of subjectivity.
Posters may still disagree whether or not their post truly had content, or whether it was relevant, but they'll at least know the area upon which they were being singled out, so that they can be more careful in the future. We would have a standard by which to judge the appropriateness of the decision. The application of the standard may still be controversial, but we'll have a measuring stick from which to start, something more complex than whether the post was short.
Since the standards for spam vary from forum to forum, I think it's entirely appropriate that we should try to be as open and transparent with our own policy as we possibly can. Although infractions may not have much of an effect upon a poster's day to day operations, they do represent disapproval of a poster's actions, and that can breed resentment when the reason for that disapproval is not made plain, or when the process appears to be dependent on the judgment of a person who is operating without clear guidelines. So if we can provide a general idea, in writing, of some of the behaviors that moderators are watching for, that should increase confidence in the system.
Personally, I think the big deal about the spam rules right now is that my rulings made several people rather annoyed, as did my saying that I didn't feel there was a need for reversal. I don't recall much of an issue with the spam rules in the past. This might be because there was none, or because no one felt like speaking up.
I think the best thing we can do right now is to make it a bit more clear, defining the BEHAVIOR we don't want, but leave ultimate control up the moderators. If you really start saying exactly what's wrong, you'll leave the moderators powerless to hit problems that crop up that aren't covered in the rules. If they try to stop it, the poster can simply say "It's not in the rules, so you can't punish me!" and start a big stink.
My helpdesk should you need me.
One-time offenses aren't ever going to do much to damage the integrity of the forum.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia