The Nature of Spam

[vesuvanprincess]

Want to know what isn't spam? Well, I hate to toot my own horn, but look at any post I have ever made. I always follow thread rules and try to post more than the 10 character limit.

Arumen, please forgive me for using you as an example- I mean no offense:

To me this post is spam. There is no real discussion or explanation of the nature of spam- which is the topic of this particular thread. It does not actually advance our discussion on the topic any further and leaves us open for the thread to derail when the next poster wants to argue his assertion that his posts are prime examples or to argue that their own posts are better... To me it's really a means for Arumen to brag about his past posts and suggest that his are the epitome of what good posts should be. A quick sampling of his posts shows me that many of them could be seen as spam were you to be looking to identify it by a specific set of rules... but then, I see nothing wrong with his post. I don't mind it being here, I found it relatively interesting to read and I'd say that it causes no harm.

Is this perhaps the best definition to spam that we can all arrive at? That the post causes no harm to another poster or to the thread in general? If this is the case, and I suspect it is given that I witness EVERYONE (myself certainly included) spaming at least a little, then why is it so important for people to worry about the "good ol' days" or to attack people and threads as spam by means of new spam? I was always taught that two wrongs don't make a right- So this begs the question, do two spams make no spam?

A case in point: A while back someone new started a thread about what music we were currently listening to. A few people responded and it looked to be a thread that would gain interest and momentum. But several people had to continuously interject in the middle of everyone's posts that it was a repeat thread and that it was therefore spam. When they were ignored and more people continued to answer this thread the posts became more insistent that it shouldn't be there. The thread was derailed and to my knowledge the original poster never took a permanent place here in the OT community. Her topic was fair, others were interested and responding- why was it so important that we all put an end to it? Further, if this new person who didn't even realize it was a repeat post had actually found the original and posted there- could she not then have been accused of "necroing" it?

This whole affair further muddles in my mind what all of us, as the OT community are looking for. We want a place of lax rules to facilitate conversation style posting and yet we all want to cry about rules infringement any time a newb steps out of line? Perhaps when I ask, what is spam? I really mean to ask, What does the OT community expect form all of us newbs so that we can return to their precious "golden age?"

[Lord Arumen]

Arumen, please forgive me for using you as an example- I mean no offense:

To me this post is spam. There is no real discussion or explanation of the nature of spam- which is the topic of this particular thread. It does not actually advance our discussion on the topic any further and leaves us open for the thread to derail when the next poster wants to argue his assertion that his posts are prime examples or to argue that their own posts are better... To me it's really a means for Arumen to brag about his past posts and suggest that his are the epitome of what good posts should be. A quick sampling of his posts shows me that many of them could be seen as spam were you to be looking to identify it by a specific set of rules... but then, I see nothing wrong with his post. I don't mind it being here, I found it relatively interesting to read and I'd say that it causes no harm.

Is this perhaps the best definition to spam that we can all arrive at? That the post causes no harm to another poster or to the thread in general? If this is the case, and I suspect it is given that I witness EVERYONE (myself certainly included) spaming at least a little, then why is it so important for people to worry about the "good ol' days" or to attack people and threads as spam by means of new spam? I was always taught that two wrongs don't make a right- So this begs the question, do two spams make no spam?

A case in point: A while back someone new started a thread about what music we were currently listening to. A few people responded and it looked to be a thread that would gain interest and momentum. But several people had to continuously interject in the middle of everyone's posts that it was a repeat thread and that it was therefore spam. When they were ignored and more people continued to answer this thread the posts became more insistent that it shouldn't be there. The thread was derailed and to my knowledge the original poster never took a permanent place here in the OT community. Her topic was fair, others were interested and responding- why was it so important that we all put an end to it? Further, if this new person who didn't even realize it was a repeat post had actually found the original and posted there- could she not then have been accused of "necroing" it?

This whole affair further muddles in my mind what all of us, as the OT community are looking for. We want a place of lax rules to facilitate conversation style posting and yet we all want to cry about rules infringement any time a newb steps out of line? Perhaps when I ask, what is spam? I really mean to ask, What does the OT community expect form all of us newbs so that we can return to their precious "golden age?"

Offense? I take none.

Technically Spam is only something that wishes to sell you something. My post didn't do that. But aside from that, the post put out an effort to help give an example to that of which you happened to be seeking. If I had posted it in another thread it would have been spam. In this thread (in which one hopes to decide the nature of spam) a post quantifying what one should seek is not spam.

[Wildor]

Offense? I take none.

Technically Spam is only something that wishes to sell you something. My post didn't do that. But aside from that, the post put out an effort to help give an example to that of which you happened to be seeking. If I had posted it in another thread it would have been spam. In this thread (in which one hopes to decide the nature of spam) a post quantifying what one should seek is not spam.

I concur.


Further, Spam is now defined beyond the literal to include any posting that is not "worthwhile".


The problem, of course, is who decides?

[Darkbrady]

The problem, of course, is who decides?

I think that's the millon pound answer.
There is no final definition of forum spam; it's pretty much jus' in the eye of the beholder.
One persno might see spam as repeat threads.
Someone else might see trolls as spam.
Someone else might see pointless posts as spam
Another might see derails as spam.
Another might see all of the above.
The last guy might jus' not give a damn and start talkin' about his cat.

Which is one reason why I think self-policed OT fails. Other forums might work, but with less restriction here, it gets out of hand. Everyone's view is different on the subject.

Have three mods all agree on one universal standard of what will get you punished and whether people agree on it or not, that's the rules. Then it's up to people to do the self-policin' and follow what the set standard is.

Foxy has given her opinion on it, but one person here, who also happens to mod every other forum and considerin' the number of posts here, it's not likely to get enforced on a fully regular basis so people do it and get awya with it.

On other forums it's not as bad simply because there is a solid point.
"Where do I get Honour Medals?" That has a clear cut topic and any spam by most people's definition can be identified as such.
Here, where tangents and strayed conversations can easily take over an evolving debate without actually spammin' it, it's not so clear cut and thusly spam becomes harder to indentify and deal with.