This was an issue with a mod, so I'll try to keep it unspecific.
There was an argument in a helpdesk about an infraction, where a member was infracted because the mod wasn't able to see the invisitext. The mod then refused to revoke the infraction when this invisitext was pointed out.
This started a bit of an argument; several argued that, with the invisitext, the post was relevant and not spam, and the infraction was underserved with it. Therefore, upon learning of the invisitext, the mod should have taken the infraction away.
The mods responded with "invisitext doesn't matter." It doesn't? It certainly doesn't seem logical that a post can deserve a spam infraction because the mod didn't check the invisitext in the post. Say I wrote most of this post in invisitext. Would that part of the post "not matter"?
Fact is you use invistext to hide words. If the un hidden words are spamish then you'll get nailed for it. When do we have to DIG through every nook and crany.
You have a point to prove DON'T HIDE IT.
Why should we have to wonder if your using invistext? We rule on what we "SEE" Not what we don't see.
Point of the matter is this... WHY ARE YOU USING INVISTEXT?
You have a point make it. Don't hide with invistext.
I mean, if I posted a one-word reply to something in a forum, then posted three paragraphs in invisitext beneath it, then I was warned for spam, I'd be a little concerned you'd missed three paragraphs of invisitext, but I'd understand. But if you then, once I had brought it up with you, genuinely continued to believe that my that three paragraph response is genuine spam, then I'd probly disagree.
Here is the EASIEST solution..... Don't use invistext... I know this is a hard aspect to some of ya but the fact is why hide info or your opinion. You hide it cause you:
-) Are scared
-) Smart ass
-) Trying to cause drama
If you didn't want an infraction ya could of NOT used the inistext to look like a one word post.
No, see saph you're wrong here. Yes, invisitext can lead to problems like this, but at the same time, if the mod is made aware that invisitext is there, he should remove the infraction.
This situation is completely unfair for this reason and one other reason:
The day of the post, Nai was handing out infractions as an April Fools Joke in the mafia subforum. In response, Puzzle made the "Bah" post with the invisitext. The bah part was a joke to Nai's earlier treatment of bah posts, and thus was relevant to the discussion (a joke on Nai's modding when nai was messing with the forum for april fool's) EVEN WITHOUT the damn invistext.
Context matters, and this matter is unfair at the least
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
The basis of the warning should be on the POST, not just what you can SEE.
Mod ---> Lost
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from JayC »
Now I had no job, and the truth was, I didn't want one. Unemployment took care of my Taco Bell and Cloves needs - and mom paid the rent and filled the refridgerator despite her nagging - so why get a job? The computer was all I really needed.
For reference, I and others saw Urzassedatives's invisitext, which disproves the underlined part, the base of your reasoning.
As for my record, you mentioned that mods check them before giving further infractions : that's why I want to keep it clean. Plus, I like to think myself a very respectable person and fight injustice.
Anyway, I'd suggest :
- putting all that into the rules.
- removing access to invisitext from users.
- considering the fact that this rule didn't exist at the time of the infraction to revise it in consequence.
As one-word posts are not necessarily spam (cf Nan), why is my post even infracted ? Even without the invisitext, it's a joke referring to Nan's April's Fools joke (joking disrespect of the rules by me vs. joking stupid rules by Nan).
Seriously, why is my post spam and Nan's April's Fools announcement not ?
If we are not supposed to answer jokingly to mod jokes, then that should also figure in the rules.
Somebody quote this please, Nan is on a post-deleting spree and I'd like my suggestions to be heard. [/joke, like in humor, etc]
Quoted.
No seriously, ,this bothers me also. Why is nan deleting posts of users arguing against the mods? I hadn't contributed to nan's mod cave before, and when i do its deleted instantly. Not very supportive of the users indeed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
Does invisi-text add anything to a thread? No, because it's invisible. Whoever reads that post will only see the visible text, and this is what matters. If that is spam, then the whole post is spam.
That's how we mods will handle similiar situations, and there's really no need to complain any longer - especially if you have never received such an infraction before.
Do baseless April fool jokes add anything to the forum other than piss people off? The reason we are debating this all falls back to that, Nai's Crap rules he added to the forum. The post is also not spam, it conveys a message and a point in 1 word in mod text. It shows that Puzze is not in agreeance with these "New" rules that were obviously fake. @Any mod who is going to post in this, please get the proper back story. Saph the reason he put invisitext in his post was because it makes his joke less funny.
I would also like to say that deleting posts in a helpdesk is not going to solve anything. Nan, I dont care if it turns out im wrong in our argueing, but I want all of my questions answered from people who actually saw the thing happen in real time, not just anybody who feels that thier oppinion is somehow the best without knowing what actually happened, and thats why this debate should not be in SYM.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from hotshizzle »
<hotshizle> WINE IN FRONT OF MEAL
<hotshizle> i think
Does invisi-text add anything to a thread? No, because it's invisible. Whoever reads that post will only see the visible text, and this is what matters. If that is spam, then the whole post is spam.
That's how we mods will handle similiar situations, and there's really no need to complain any longer - especially if you have never received such an infraction before.
Actually, I'd like to point out something blatantly obvious here.
If you type in invisitext for the default layout, every person using a non-default skin can see it clear as day. And read it. (Well, for the Light crowd it's a little like seeing yellow on white, but still there.)
See this lovely screenshot.
Now in regards to the fact the infraction was issued at all: no one's debating that the infraction was at first legitimate. It is in fact understandable that it was infracted to begin with. However, upon having the invisi text pointed out, Nai should clearly have simply said "I'm sorry, I was mistaken. I'll reverse that infraction now."
Basing the continued existence of an infraction upon an assumed lack of content regardless for the actual matter of the content's existence, especially once such existence has been properly documented, is flawed at best.
lol.
Invisitext really shouldn't be warnable if it's obvious that it's there. Like in this post, you'd know from the gap underneath the visible post. Or if you're using the dark skin, as BB pointed out. Or if you're just going to use your common sense. People are going to make comments with partially-visible posts if it's in the right kind of context, like in this post. Just because the part of a post is partially hidden, it's perfectly visible and it still exists.
Also, to the person who got infracted: I know how you feel, I got an infraction for a perfectly joking post with invisitext because a certain mod was too dumb to read it. -frowns-
Please do not make posts like this, no matter how obvious the invisitext is. I have removed the color code and made the text visible.
Also, we are currently discussing what to do about invisible text.
-Krashbot
"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
When the invisitext AND the visible text are both on the same line, you can't tell there's invisitext there. And that's where the problem lies with many posts.
When the invisitext AND the visible text are both on the same line, you can't tell there's invisitext there. And that's where the problem lies with many posts.
Right.
But, as I pointed out, the issue here is not the original infraction itself, but the handling of it once it was pointed out to you that there was, in fact, "invisible" text there.
Why is spam not allowed to begin with?
No, it has nothing to do with post count. If we turned that off, spam would still be against the rules - just pursued with less fervor.
Spam is against the rules because it clutters up threads with meaningless posts and makes conversation much more difficult. It often derails threads, and (at a minimum) requires each reader to dig through replies for actual relevant talk. Spam is not allowed because it hampers discussion, which is the life blood of a forum.
A post that is essentially a spam post but has relevancy within it's invisitext is along the same lines of an off topic post. It has no worth to the vast majority of the people within it. Only a few random people will actually deem the post having value. You can't argue that more then a few will catch invisitext since the exact purpose of invisitext is for it to only be caught by a few. To that vast majority of users, it is exactly a spam post because they don't see the invisitext. All they see is the spam.
Remember, we're not talking about banning/allowing invisitext. Invisitext itself is allowed. We're talking about spam posts who only have relevant content if you read the invisitext.
If a post only has relevant content when you read the invisitext, and the vast majority of users won't catch the invisitext, then the logic is fairly simple to follow. Since that content won't reach 99% of the users, it has no bearing on whether the post added to the discussion or not.
It goes back to the root of why spam is against the rules: to the vast majority of readers, the post was spam - and thus it is hampering discussion. We don't warn/infract posts because they disturb US, we do so because they disturb the majority of the users. The posts in question do exactly that.
Should not the true judge in regards to spam be based on the post's content in a vacuum outside of what is merely perceived at first?
The average user only has what he perceives.
Sure: after pointing out the invisitext, the moderator now knows there was hidden relevant content within the post. But that vast majority of the people still will not see it. They will still see a spam post. Their "at first" will also be their "at last" while it matters.
As I stated, spam posts aren't warned because they are "short posts and we don't like short posts". They are warned because they get in the way of real discussion. We warn because the offend/disturb/distract/etc the average user.
After the mod's informed, the normal users are still distracted/etc by it. It is still spammy.
I also don't like "vacuum" within it, because it should be judged within relevance to the discussion. I would more go with:
"The true judge in regards to spam should be based on the post's perceptible, relevant content within the discussion."
The above post has relevant, intelligent content that can further the discussion. It supports this content with reasoning. However, 99% of the readers will not get this content. The content is not perceptible, so it is spam.
The same is true with invisitext.
They both have content, both hide the content, and both are only discovered by a select few.
I think invisitext should be allowed. I mean, what harm does it do?
What this debate comes down to, as a whole, is the ages-old argument of whether perception is reality. For many years, philosophers and other people interested in the subject have argued over whether reality is something that can be objectively described, or whether reality is just something that exists in our own psyche, and is changed as we perceive it. For example, if invisitext is in a post, and no one knows it's there at all (set aside for a moment the actual person that made the post), does it matter? Does something completely imperceivable with no impact on anything else in the world even exist at all? Ralph Barton Perry, a New Realist philosopher, coined the term of the "egocentric predicament," which is the problem of not being able to look at reality outside of our own perceptions. If something is completely invisible to us, it may as well not exist at all as it relates to how it is perceived. Now, it may seem obvious to say that if it is in a post, then it must exist; however, setting aside philosophical and existential issues for a second, it might as well not exist if no one can read it. The issue with invisitext is a unique one: once we know it is there, it appears plain as day. However, this raises the question: how do we know it is there in the first place? Do we assume every post has invisitext, thus altering our perception of reality (in this case, the perceived reality of an internet Magic: the Gathering discussion board)? We must first analyze the long-term impact of altering perception of our environment, in terms of reversibility and magnitude. As I have shown, there are many issues that must be resolved and in-depth debates that must occur before we can resolve this pressing issue of our time.
I have removed the color tags and made the text completely visible.
Stop making posts with invisitext in them (especially on this thread).
-Krashbot
The interesting bit here, kingcobweb, is that for some more enlightened users, the invisi-text exists without someone making specifically clear its presence.
It seemed to me that the entire point of his post was an ironic comment about invisitext within invisitext. That, in addition to the fact that it was a joking response to a joke mark it as not spam as Feyd describes spam. It was clearly on topic, even without reading the invistext. The point was clear: I know you're just being a joking bastard, and I am going to be a joking bastard right back.
Furthermore, I don't buy the idea that spam should be anything that is not immediately perceptable to every user. That brings everyone down to the same level, which has plenty of harms towards innovation and anything of the like. It's just bad stuff.
First of all Nai, the post was a damn joke. Come on... you seriously think we DONT know that you are infracting those? Also, if your gonna "JOKE" infract it, and not even see if its worth it, then it better not be a real infraction. But the fact that you just dont seem to care is what is pissing me off here. You dont need to check all posts for invisitextm but if you are INFRACTING one, wouldnt it help to check? O what is that a extra 10 seconds out of your precious life?.
Joke posts are spam unless they're in a thread dedicated to jokes. They do not contribute to discussion, and, in fact, disrupt it.
Chances are, if said thread is not in Humor or the Gutter, it isn't a joke thread.
Also, I would appreciate it if the general populace would give the staff some respect. I'm not saying that you have to agree with their decisions, but a little bit of respect for authority would go a long way.
As for my record, you mentioned that mods check them before giving further infractions : that's why I want to keep it clean. Plus, I like to think myself a very respectable person and fight injustice.
I don't want to sound like a douchebag, or to disrespect you in any way, but, humility is the virtue of the few. :/
Also, I would appreciate it if the general populace would give the staff some respect. I'm not saying that you have to agree with their decisions, but a little bit of respect for authority would go a long way.
This is completely false. Blind respect for authority has brought nothing but pain and suffering onto the human race, and since this is the case in history, it must also be true of Magic: the Gathering discussion forums on the internet. If you blindly respect and obey a figure that has a position of authority, all that is going to happen is another Holocaust, supported by the people who don't question the authorities and instead blindly respect them.
Chances are, if said thread is not in Humor or the Gutter, it isn't a joke thread.
I really don't understand this though. I think there are plenty of appropriate places on the forums to make jokes. We shouldn't all be sitting around as though we represent all things serious. Surely a forum mostly frequented by teens should be laid back, even if it's just slightly.
I really don't understand this though. I think there are plenty of appropriate places on the forums to make jokes. We shouldn't all be sitting around as though we represent all things serious. Surely a forum mostly frequented by teens should be laid back, even if it's just slightly.
There was an argument in a helpdesk about an infraction, where a member was infracted because the mod wasn't able to see the invisitext. The mod then refused to revoke the infraction when this invisitext was pointed out.
This started a bit of an argument; several argued that, with the invisitext, the post was relevant and not spam, and the infraction was underserved with it. Therefore, upon learning of the invisitext, the mod should have taken the infraction away.
The mods responded with "invisitext doesn't matter." It doesn't? It certainly doesn't seem logical that a post can deserve a spam infraction because the mod didn't check the invisitext in the post. Say I wrote most of this post in invisitext. Would that part of the post "not matter"?
You have a point to prove DON'T HIDE IT.
Why should we have to wonder if your using invistext? We rule on what we "SEE" Not what we don't see.
I'm only like 20% paying attention and am also pretty drunk but that's what I thought.
You have a point make it. Don't hide with invistext.
Here is the EASIEST solution..... Don't use invistext... I know this is a hard aspect to some of ya but the fact is why hide info or your opinion. You hide it cause you:
-) Are scared
-) Smart ass
-) Trying to cause drama
If you didn't want an infraction ya could of NOT used the inistext to look like a one word post.
This situation is completely unfair for this reason and one other reason:
The day of the post, Nai was handing out infractions as an April Fools Joke in the mafia subforum. In response, Puzzle made the "Bah" post with the invisitext. The bah part was a joke to Nai's earlier treatment of bah posts, and thus was relevant to the discussion (a joke on Nai's modding when nai was messing with the forum for april fool's) EVEN WITHOUT the damn invistext.
Context matters, and this matter is unfair at the least
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
The basis of the warning should be on the POST, not just what you can SEE.
Mod ---> Lost
on a scale of 1 to you want to monitor my musical tastes, you want to monitor my musical tastes.
Quoted.
No seriously, ,this bothers me also. Why is nan deleting posts of users arguing against the mods? I hadn't contributed to nan's mod cave before, and when i do its deleted instantly. Not very supportive of the users indeed.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
I would also like to say that deleting posts in a helpdesk is not going to solve anything. Nan, I dont care if it turns out im wrong in our argueing, but I want all of my questions answered from people who actually saw the thing happen in real time, not just anybody who feels that thier oppinion is somehow the best without knowing what actually happened, and thats why this debate should not be in SYM.
Actually, I'd like to point out something blatantly obvious here.
If you type in invisitext for the default layout, every person using a non-default skin can see it clear as day. And read it. (Well, for the Light crowd it's a little like seeing yellow on white, but still there.)
See this lovely screenshot.
Now in regards to the fact the infraction was issued at all: no one's debating that the infraction was at first legitimate. It is in fact understandable that it was infracted to begin with. However, upon having the invisi text pointed out, Nai should clearly have simply said "I'm sorry, I was mistaken. I'll reverse that infraction now."
Basing the continued existence of an infraction upon an assumed lack of content regardless for the actual matter of the content's existence, especially once such existence has been properly documented, is flawed at best.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
Invisitext really shouldn't be warnable if it's obvious that it's there. Like in this post, you'd know from the gap underneath the visible post. Or if you're using the dark skin, as BB pointed out. Or if you're just going to use your common sense. People are going to make comments with partially-visible posts if it's in the right kind of context, like in this post. Just because the part of a post is partially hidden, it's perfectly visible and it still exists.
Also, to the person who got infracted: I know how you feel, I got an infraction for a perfectly joking post with invisitext because a certain mod was too dumb to read it. -frowns-
Please do not make posts like this, no matter how obvious the invisitext is. I have removed the color code and made the text visible.
Also, we are currently discussing what to do about invisible text.
-Krashbot
spanglegluppet dot com
"Hello! I've come to serenade you. I can't play guitar. I can't play this accordion either, but I thought it'd be less obvious."
Dylan Moran, Black Books
My helpdesk should you need me.
Right.
But, as I pointed out, the issue here is not the original infraction itself, but the handling of it once it was pointed out to you that there was, in fact, "invisible" text there.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
No, it has nothing to do with post count. If we turned that off, spam would still be against the rules - just pursued with less fervor.
Spam is against the rules because it clutters up threads with meaningless posts and makes conversation much more difficult. It often derails threads, and (at a minimum) requires each reader to dig through replies for actual relevant talk. Spam is not allowed because it hampers discussion, which is the life blood of a forum.
A post that is essentially a spam post but has relevancy within it's invisitext is along the same lines of an off topic post. It has no worth to the vast majority of the people within it. Only a few random people will actually deem the post having value. You can't argue that more then a few will catch invisitext since the exact purpose of invisitext is for it to only be caught by a few. To that vast majority of users, it is exactly a spam post because they don't see the invisitext. All they see is the spam.
Remember, we're not talking about banning/allowing invisitext. Invisitext itself is allowed. We're talking about spam posts who only have relevant content if you read the invisitext.
If a post only has relevant content when you read the invisitext, and the vast majority of users won't catch the invisitext, then the logic is fairly simple to follow. Since that content won't reach 99% of the users, it has no bearing on whether the post added to the discussion or not.
It goes back to the root of why spam is against the rules: to the vast majority of readers, the post was spam - and thus it is hampering discussion. We don't warn/infract posts because they disturb US, we do so because they disturb the majority of the users. The posts in question do exactly that.
Just think about it for a moment.
No longer staff here.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
The average user only has what he perceives.
Sure: after pointing out the invisitext, the moderator now knows there was hidden relevant content within the post. But that vast majority of the people still will not see it. They will still see a spam post. Their "at first" will also be their "at last" while it matters.
As I stated, spam posts aren't warned because they are "short posts and we don't like short posts". They are warned because they get in the way of real discussion. We warn because the offend/disturb/distract/etc the average user.
After the mod's informed, the normal users are still distracted/etc by it. It is still spammy.
I also don't like "vacuum" within it, because it should be judged within relevance to the discussion. I would more go with:
"The true judge in regards to spam should be based on the post's perceptible, relevant content within the discussion."
We are disagreeing on perceptible.
If you allow me a comparison:
The above post has relevant, intelligent content that can further the discussion. It supports this content with reasoning. However, 99% of the readers will not get this content. The content is not perceptible, so it is spam.
The same is true with invisitext.
They both have content, both hide the content, and both are only discovered by a select few.
No longer staff here.
What this debate comes down to, as a whole, is the ages-old argument of whether perception is reality. For many years, philosophers and other people interested in the subject have argued over whether reality is something that can be objectively described, or whether reality is just something that exists in our own psyche, and is changed as we perceive it. For example, if invisitext is in a post, and no one knows it's there at all (set aside for a moment the actual person that made the post), does it matter? Does something completely imperceivable with no impact on anything else in the world even exist at all? Ralph Barton Perry, a New Realist philosopher, coined the term of the "egocentric predicament," which is the problem of not being able to look at reality outside of our own perceptions. If something is completely invisible to us, it may as well not exist at all as it relates to how it is perceived. Now, it may seem obvious to say that if it is in a post, then it must exist; however, setting aside philosophical and existential issues for a second, it might as well not exist if no one can read it. The issue with invisitext is a unique one: once we know it is there, it appears plain as day. However, this raises the question: how do we know it is there in the first place? Do we assume every post has invisitext, thus altering our perception of reality (in this case, the perceived reality of an internet Magic: the Gathering discussion board)? We must first analyze the long-term impact of altering perception of our environment, in terms of reversibility and magnitude. As I have shown, there are many issues that must be resolved and in-depth debates that must occur before we can resolve this pressing issue of our time.
I have removed the color tags and made the text completely visible.
Stop making posts with invisitext in them (especially on this thread).
-Krashbot
eds, invisitext
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
Also, may we please have a list of what colors aren't allowed in autobb?
On the other hand... I don't want to know what's on your other hand you sick bastard.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux
Furthermore, I don't buy the idea that spam should be anything that is not immediately perceptable to every user. That brings everyone down to the same level, which has plenty of harms towards innovation and anything of the like. It's just bad stuff.
Joke posts are spam unless they're in a thread dedicated to jokes. They do not contribute to discussion, and, in fact, disrupt it.
Chances are, if said thread is not in Humor or the Gutter, it isn't a joke thread.
Also, I would appreciate it if the general populace would give the staff some respect. I'm not saying that you have to agree with their decisions, but a little bit of respect for authority would go a long way.
I don't want to sound like a douchebag, or to disrespect you in any way, but, humility is the virtue of the few. :/
This is completely false. Blind respect for authority has brought nothing but pain and suffering onto the human race, and since this is the case in history, it must also be true of Magic: the Gathering discussion forums on the internet. If you blindly respect and obey a figure that has a position of authority, all that is going to happen is another Holocaust, supported by the people who don't question the authorities and instead blindly respect them.
I really don't understand this though. I think there are plenty of appropriate places on the forums to make jokes. We shouldn't all be sitting around as though we represent all things serious. Surely a forum mostly frequented by teens should be laid back, even if it's just slightly.
You've got a point. I joke in a lot of threads.
[KalmWave] [Last.FM]
Ubuntu Linux