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

[Neoteny]

What do you mean "ugh." I don't like spam!

[Iliad]

I think what bk is trying to say is that we'd really appreciate an answer.

One of two things must be going on. Either they're taking this question very seriously, and are discussing it in a thread in the Mod forum, in order to develop an answer and add it to the guidelines, not answering here because they can't until they decide on something.

Some up-to-date community guidelines have been worked on (before this thread came about), but they've kind of fallen to the side recently (I don't know why). As has been said by Herakilla, there cannot be a list of things that are or are not spam because I can guarantee you that certain individuals will do all they can to press their luck.

Or, they're just each individually deciding to bypass the question, because they think I'm just looking for trouble and am the sort of person who should be ignored in order to not feed my attention-needing. I can assure you mods that that is not the case. This is something I genuinely feel needs answering. I don't particularly feel angry at the mod team; I have no problems with them. But in a constructive-criticism sort of way, I feel that this definition is something not only helpful, but necessary for the furthering of this site.

And I'm telling you, the reason you won't get much mod response in this thread is because you have it in Off-topics where most mods don't read (and I only occasionally come by). That's why I moved it to GD to help you out.

Let them then. If they're spamming warnings, if they're not fine by them. I do not like the lock-happy mods around here. Some threads may not be serious, but the internet isn't ALWAYS serious bussiness.

And are you saying governments should not tell people what they can do, because then people will press their luck?
I find that argument to be VERY weak

[hecter]

Still no answer...

Also, careful about posting news articles folks!

I won't give you guys the satisfaction of having this moved to flame wars. As this is about a real person, even if he is a sex offender, it is still personal iformation given out about someone in real life. locked.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=63477&start=45

What the hell is that? We were having some really good discussion in there and she locks it because we're giving out personal information about a registered sex offender? That's ridiculous. It *should* have either stayed where it was (as it was, even if loosely, CC related) or moved here (due to it not being CC related enough). But locking it? Very poor choice of actions.

[Ditocoaf]

Still no answer...

Also, careful about posting news articles folks!

I won't give you guys the satisfaction of having this moved to flame wars. As this is about a real person, even if he is a sex offender, it is still personal iformation given out about someone in real life. locked.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=63477&start=45

What the hell is that? We were having some really good discussion in there and she locks it because we're giving out personal information about a registered sex offender? That's ridiculous. It *should* have either stayed where it was (as it was, even if loosely, CC related) or moved here (due to it not being CC related enough). But locking it? Very poor choice of actions.

While that is certainly interesting, they didn't call it "spam", so it's a separate problem... one issue at a time, no offense. I'm just dedicated to fixing this cause, which requires focus.

Recent example, to stay topical and connected to the present: all these parodies of the (real) football thread. They were locked as being "spam". Once again, this implies that "spam" is defined as being trivial or unproductive. This doesn't fit either any normal definition of forum spam that I've heard in any other forum:
1) Posting advertisements, usually by bots.
2) Posting almost empty or c/p posts repeatedly to boost post count.
I would necessarily argue against the locking of these threads; they certainly are a waste of forum space. But instead of calling them "spam", an undefined word, why not lock them "for being pointless"? Give your actual reason for locking it. Either define this unique use of the word "spam" as triviality, or explicitly lock posts for being trivial jokes.

[Neoteny]

While your quest for precision is admirable, I suspect that the intense focus on the topic is not something the powers that be care to address. It's much easier to use individual discretion on their part, and then bask in the mix of approval and ire during the aftermath.

[hecter]

Still no answer...

Also, careful about posting news articles folks!

I won't give you guys the satisfaction of having this moved to flame wars. As this is about a real person, even if he is a sex offender, it is still personal iformation given out about someone in real life. locked.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=63477&start=45

What the hell is that? We were having some really good discussion in there and she locks it because we're giving out personal information about a registered sex offender? That's ridiculous. It *should* have either stayed where it was (as it was, even if loosely, CC related) or moved here (due to it not being CC related enough). But locking it? Very poor choice of actions.

While that is certainly interesting, they didn't call it "spam", so it's a separate problem... one issue at a time, no offense. I'm just dedicated to fixing this cause, which requires focus.

Sorry, but I did feel that it was appropriate to post it in here, as it was about mods locking threads. Plus, it served as a decent reason to bump the thread...

[b.k. barunt]

I think we can all see by now that "spam" is a nebulous, arbitrary, esoteric, itmeanswhateverthefuckwewantittomean term that the mods will continually fall back on whenever they want to lock a thread without a good reason.


Still confused.
Honibaz

[MeDeFe]

While your quest for precision is admirable, I suspect that the intense focus on the topic is not something the powers that be care to address. It's much easier to use individual discretion on their part, and then bask in the mix of approval and ire during the aftermath.

But in their failure to address the subject they only make it clear that they don't have a leg to stand on, that they themselves do not know what they are doing. If this dissatisfying state of affairs continues their situation will ultimately become untenable.

[hecter]

You're right, by not actually providing us with an answer, they're showing that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about when it comes to 'spam'. If this continues, they and the guidelines will ultimately lose all credibility they have left.

[Neoteny]

While your quest for precision is admirable, I suspect that the intense focus on the topic is not something the powers that be care to address. It's much easier to use individual discretion on their part, and then bask in the mix of approval and ire during the aftermath.

But in their failure to address the subject they only make it clear that they don't have a leg to stand on, that they themselves do not know what they are doing. If this dissatisfying state of affairs continues their situation will ultimately become untenable.

I disagree. With the talking heads in general agreement on these vague terms, they represent a vocal enough base of support. They don't care since it doesn't influence their points.

[Skittles!]

Still looking for an answer. Twill, our esteemed "community manager" can tell us, can't you Twill?

[hecter]

t-o-m has been banned for something that's currently undefined... Great...

[hecter]

*ahem* Bumpzors...

[Ditocoaf]

Yeah... I still would love an answer to the OP's question. It looks like this thread is being ignored. Thanks, hector, for reminding me... the mod team's inattention to this thread appears to be even an more effective strategy than I expected.

[hecter]

It seems to be so... It *should* be a simple question for them to answer...

[bedub1]

"I'm not quite sure what porn is but I know it when I see it."
What jackass said that?

But seriously. Your examples are probably in the gray area between serious posts and spam, and each person/mod/member see's spam differently. Thus the gray area isn't defined, and can't be defined. Maybe the mods are smart enough to not get into a discussion about what is and isn't spam.

I do think we can all agree that this is spam though.
http://www.spam.com/swf/container.swf

[Ditocoaf]

I don't require them to answer exactly what is and isn't spam. I just want to know what they mean when they say something is "spam." If I told you that your post just now was spam, you'd say of course it isn't. If I asked you why not, you'd probably say there was nothing "spammy" about it. What does this word mean? In the OP, I suggested that it appears to mean "trivial, with little content." Of course, that isn't black-and-white, and I'm not asking for anything black-and-white. I agree that to demand a clear line would be ridiculous, because there's obviously a gray area. But we do need some sort of definition, otherwise it's just a nonsense word.

[jonesthecurl]

If your spam is grey, it's probably gone off.
it should be pink.
As for black-and-white spam, that's just silly.

[hecter]

Let's bump this again...

[mpjh]

Spam is a staple food in Hawaii.

[Frop]

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

A:

*ahem* Bumpzors...

Let's bump this again...

Tadaaaa!

[Ditocoaf]

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

A:

*ahem* Bumpzors...

Let's bump this again...

Tadaaaa!

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?

[pancakemix]

Post count.

Oh, wait...

[hecter]

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.

Post count.

Oh, wait...

Some would agree with that pancake. A post is only spam when it's sole purpose is to increase your post count. However, by that definition, there could be no spam in this forum.

[Ditocoaf]

Exactly... that seems to be the standard definition of spam that this forum's definition has evolved from.

"spam" = "posting for post count" --> "posting for the sake of posting" --> "posting trivially"

"posting trivially"...
Of course, that's just what it appears to mean to me, based on usage and context. I'd like to hear what those who use it when locking threads actually mean by it. Which is why I've got to stop letting this thread fall to page 2.