What is spam (in the off-topic forum)?

[Snorri1234]

Well, you actually bring up an interesting point, here. Are one-word bumps always spam? What if the post implies more than it says (in this case, "look, still no response by the mods" was very clearly part of the meaning of hecter's posts). Does implied meaning count when evaluating a post's "spamminess," or only face-value words?

Exactly Dito. Frop seems to think that my "bump" posts were clear examples of spam. But there was meaning behind the words, as you clearly pointed out.

Knowing Frop, he was just being hilarious for the sake of being hilarious. And I giggled. He made a very well put point on what spam would be. If it wasn't this discussion you would surely see that whatever the perceived image of spam (through a haze of illegal substances) is according to the mods, those post would be considered as such.

[Frop]

Well, you actually bring up an interesting point, here. Are one-word bumps always spam? What if the post implies more than it says (in this case, "look, still no response by the mods" was very clearly part of the meaning of hecter's posts). Does implied meaning count when evaluating a post's "spamminess," or only face-value words?

Exactly Dito. Frop seems to think that my "bump" posts were clear examples of spam. But there was meaning behind the words, as you clearly pointed out.

To be honest I don't care that there was 'a meaning behind the words'. It's spam if you can't be arsed to put that meaning into a constructive sentence instead of a single word. Guessing what lazy people meant with their inane posts isn't one of my favourite pastimes.

[hecter]

That's what you believe, but not what I believe. What the mods think, I don't know, which is exactly why we need them to define this already. It's not a very difficult concept to grasp. Everybody has different definitions of spam and there's no need to be disrespectful just because we have different views on it.

[Night Strike]

I think this should cover the general idea of spam:

Spam comes in many forms. Things such as posting for the sole intention of being annoying (i.e. triple posting, quoting with no additional comment, etc.), posting nothing but smilies, posting completely off the current topic of the thread, and other similar activities are all constituted as spam.

[hecter]

I think this should cover the general idea of spam:

Spam comes in many forms. Things such as posting for the sole intention of being annoying (i.e. triple posting, quoting with no additional comment, etc.), posting nothing but smilies, posting completely off the current topic of the thread, and other similar activities are all constituted as spam.

Alright, well that's something, at least... But what about Frops comments? He said that my bump posts were spam, even though when looked at more closely than simply at face value, it becomes apparent that they have more meaning. And what about attempts at humour? I see many threads and posts that have the intention to be humorous locked or warned due to being considered spam.

[b.k. barunt]

I think this should cover the general idea of spam:

Spam comes in many forms. Things such as posting for the sole intention of being annoying (i.e. triple posting, quoting with no additional comment, etc.), posting nothing but smilies, posting completely off the current topic of the thread, and other similar activities are all constituted as spam.

Alright, well that's something, at least... But what about Frops comments? He said that my bump posts were spam, even though when looked at more closely than simply at face value, it becomes apparent that they have more meaning. And what about attempts at humour? I see many threads and posts that have the intention to be humorous locked or warned due to being considered spam.

Exactly. "Night Strike"s lockings do not follow his own definition of said spam. "Night Strike"s lockings are frivolous and inconsistent as the peevish tantrums of a pampered child. He loves having authority on these forums, and loves to excercise it. If there is nothing worthwhile to lock, he'll lock something anyway, just because he can.

Be that as it may, his definition was actually well put - if only he'd follow those guidelines. A good case in point would be how whump/assprowler turned Flame Wars into a spam sargasso sea. "Posting for the sole intention of being annoying", "triple posting", sound familiar? Not to mention whump's posting on assprowler's account - never can quite tell which one of them is assprowler at any given time. Hell the combined posts in flame wars toward the end came out to probably at least 40% whump/assprowler material, and at least half of those were "f*ck you", sometimes double and triple posted. But did "Night Strike" or other mods step in and actually fulfill their supposed purpose? Don't bother - rhetorical question.

So what we have now is a definition of spam, but i see this spoiled brat still flaunting his mod powers by capricious, sporadic locking of threads that are harmless, humourous and entertaining. This accomplishes what? Indulging an already overindulged child? Give us a fucking break.


Honibaz

[jonesthecurl]

Perhaps the missing item in the definition (which goes along with the whole "is this necessary" thing) is simply this:
is this amusing?

Maybe that's all that's missing in the definition of "spam".
Repetetive abuse or sense-free nonsense is obviously spam - unless it's funny, sometimes side-splittingly so.
I for one really enjoyed the way that a ton of people picked up the "SHUT UP" thread and ran with it. It was totally effin pointless, and by any definition that doesn't include humour (or even "humor", though I think that's a type of ice-cream) was obviously spam.
But it ran until it lost its steam cos it was funny. And (perhaps this is a slightly different thing from "flaming") was not mailcious.