Juliann gets her wish (be careful of porn spam)
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:18 am
Bryan Inks wrote:A. Define spam. What? Your definition differs from mine? How do we then justify deleting my comments but not yours?
People posting useless information that has no involvement with a debate or no useful content to the general users. This would've course be open to "Admin/Mod descretion. People thatpost nothing but links to porn/pill sites or post gapping assholes are spammers automatically.
Bryan Inks wrote:B. Define "troll". I want all of Plutarch's posts deleted for trolling. Wait, doesn't Wade think the same about mine? Hmmm. What are we to do?
They post intentional flame bait, porn post out of context, or otherwise engage in posting usless posts that serve only to be a "Hey, look at me" or a "Click this link for free drugs/porn".
Bryan Inks wrote:Personally, I think it works just fine as it is.
Explain the recent rash of porn/pill spammers and Coat trolls then, Bright One....
On Mathematics: I divided by zero! Oh SHI....
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 324
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:03 pm
Mr. Coffee wrote:Bryan Inks wrote:A. Define spam. What? Your definition differs from mine? How do we then justify deleting my comments but not yours?
People posting useless information that has no involvement with a debate or no useful content to the general users. This would've course be open to "Admin/Mod descretion. People thatpost nothing but links to porn/pill sites or post gapping assholes are spammers automatically.
So just about everything posted by Plu, Wade and BCSPace? Let me clarify, from your response, it is clear that you misinterpreted what I was saying.
Your definition of spam/troll may differ from my definition of spam/troll. Who then decides which definition is right? The Admin? And then what do you do when his definition is similar to mine? What do I do when his definition is similar to yours?
The porn/pill spam bots are obvious. And if you don't like it, I'm sorry, but that's just the way of life on the internet. I've seen them happen on some of the most heavily-moderated forums online.
As it is right now, Shades, Liz and Keene don't have to worry about offending someone's trite sensibilities with their moderation tactics because everyone is given the same freedom and responsibility. You post what you post. They might move it if it is an obvious breach of the forum it is posted in, but other than that, everything stays pretty much put.
That was the point of my post, was to draw attention to that.
Your definition and mine may not match and if we rely on someone else to control the events, we both lose.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4627
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am
Re: Juliann gets her wish (be careful of porn spam)
Runtu wrote:Hey, now there is actual porn here, so we are guilty as charged, apparently.
Did I miss the porn? Dang.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07