Spam Rule Discussion

[viscousmemories]

Inspired by comments in this thread, let's talk about spam; what it is, why it sucks, and how best to prevent it here.

When we started a poll about whether to have a "No Spam" rule last year (loosely defined as "commercial advertising") the clear opinion of the membership here was that we should. But although we (and a lot of people) thought the word applied only to commercial posts and/or e-mails, if you look at the history of the word you'll see that originally it actually reflected any kind of 'flooded' content--commercial or otherwise--that disrupted the normal flow of an Internet discussion.

So my proposed new definition of 'spam', related to our no-spam rule, is any self-serving content that disrupts or ignores the discursive nature of this forum. Whether it's a single post endorsing a commercial product or multiple posts consisting solely of personal attacks.*

To be clear I am not trying to spin this recent situation to justify latinijral's banning under the no-spam rule. As I said before, we banned him solely at our own discretion, not for breaking an existing rule. However it does occur to me that by broadening and clarifying the definition of 'spam' (as I propose above) we perhaps can justify banning people who behave similarly in the future without having to circumvent the written rules again.

This is intended to be an exploratory thread, not an official proclamation. We want to hear as many different opinions as possible, so please speak freely.



* I absolutely do not think that frivolous banter qualifies as 'spam'. It seems obvious to me that while not everyone is interested in such threads or posts, there are enough people who are that make it a perfectly valid and reasonable variety of social interaction.

[viscousmemories]

In case I wasn't clear, the general idea is that we would consolidate our already existing rules against flooding and spam (previously loosely defined as "commercial advertising") into "any self-serving content that disrupts or ignores the discursive nature of this forum". Thus giving us more room to restrict content that is effectively spam regardless of whether it fits any of the commonly used technical definitions of the word.

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

In case I wasn't clear, the general idea is that we would consolidate our already existing rules against flooding and spam (previously loosely defined as "commercial advertising") into "any self-serving content that disrupts or ignores the discursive nature of this forum". Thus giving us more room to restrict content that is effectively spam regardless of whether it fits any of the commonly used technical definitions of the word.

The 'flooding' definition is a good one imho. It's a better description of what latinj did than spamming. There's generally some sort of goal to spamming, but flooding is just pointless...flooding of useless content.

[ceptimus]

Since spam and jerky are both meat-based foods with low nutritional value, why not simply have a "Don't be a jerky" rule?

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Since spam and jerky are both meat-based foods with low nutritional value, why not simply have a "Don't be a jerky" rule?

That's pretty much license to ban anyone you think is a jerk, and since I arguably fall under that, I'd like a more specific rule

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Corona688

The 'flooding' definition is a good one imho. It's a better description of what latinj did than spamming. There's generally some sort of goal to spamming, but flooding is just pointless...flooding of useless content.

It's not just that his comments were useless, though. I really don't have any problem with people posting 'useless' content given the extremely subjective nature of the term. But if we look at why we have proscriptions against flooding and spamming in place, the rationale for both is the same as for all our other rules: We want to limit the ability of people with a purely selfish agenda--unrelated to any of the principles this forum was founded on--to disrupt the normal interactions here. And it just seems to me that codifying that underlying intent in the written rules might be worth consideration.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Corona688

That's pretty much license to ban anyone you think is a jerk, [...]

If I'm not mistaken that's exactly what he was insinuating we're doing here.

[viscousmemories]

And are we suggesting the equivalent of a "don't be a jerk" rule? Maybe, but I'm not sure. It seems to me that ultimately all our rules (against illegal content, privacy violations, viruses and spam) derive from our desire to get rid of posters who are disruptive jerks, we're just trying to articulate that intention such that we don't have to anticipate and articulate every possible way someone might be a jerk in our written rules.

Because really, there is nothing inherently wrong with flooding or spam--for example--all they are is advertisements and repetitious messages. The problem with them is the adverse impact they have on the social functioning of the forum. And if we would ban someone almost instantly for flooding or spamming, why would we not ban someone for day after day of contentless heckling and insulting other members?

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

It's not just that his comments were useless, though.

Isn't it? If he were urbane and/or on-topic, would he have been banned?

I really don't have any problem with people posting 'useless' content given the extremely subjective nature of the term.

Then let's make it less subjective. High-volume flooding of off-topic posts in many threads and fora leading to disruption of said threads and fora.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Corona688

Then let's make it less subjective. High-volume flooding of off-topic posts in many threads and fora leading to disruption of said threads and fora.

/me packs her bags.

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

* Ensign Steve packs her bags.

Not often I find a use for poetry, but here it is...

Once in a stately passion
I cried with desperate grief,
"O Lord, my heart is black with guile,
Of sinners I am chief!"

Then stooped my guardian angel
And whispered from behind,
"Vanity, my little man,
You're nothing of the kind."

--James Thomson(1832-1882)

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Corona688

Isn't it? If he were urbane and/or on-topic, would he have been banned?

Well no, but the emphasis in my comment should've been on 'just'. Not only were his comments substanceless, they were also hostile and relatively repetitious and frequent. So it wasn't just that his comments were useless.

Then let's make it less subjective. High-volume flooding of off-topic posts in many threads and fora leading to disruption of said threads and fora.

I don't think that makes it signficantly less subjective. 'High-volume', 'flooding', 'off-topic' and 'many threads and fora' are all somewhat subjective terms too. In fact relative to several members here latinijral didn't really post much at all, not to mention in many different threads and fora.

But in any case when we mentioned flooding as an example of interfering with the functioning of the Freethought Forum (part of Rule #1), we were thinking of the standard definition of flooding: Multiple identical posts or new threads submitted systematically across multiple threads or fora over a short period of time. And by that definition latinijral was not guilty of flooding.

If we expand the definition of 'flooding' to encompass what latin did, then it seems to me we will have strayed far enough from the standard usage of the word that we're back to needing a new name for it.

[godfry n. glad]

It seems to me that you are going to have to determine some standard of jerkiness, beyond which is grounds for exile. It also seems that you'll have to decide who has that power and make it clear to those present members and future members, as a condition of their continued participation.

Is this not correct?

Will there be accusations, interrogations, evidential findings, meetings of the Star Chamber?

[livius drusus]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, godfry. The issue we're trying to examine here is why are spamming and flooding against the rules. The tentative answer we came up with for the sake of discussion is that such posts are nothing but self-serving content which disrupt or ignore the discursive nature of the forum.

Do you disagree that with that answer or think it wouldn't apply to someone who posts nothing but random attacks?

[viscousmemories]

In case I introduced any confusion we're not actually contemplating a "don't be a jerk" rule. I was just speculating that preventing jerkish behavior is the essential basis of all our rules and so wondering why posts that poison multiple discussions with nothing more than substanceless, insulting comments shouldn't be ruled out according to the same standard.

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

It seems to me that you are going to have to determine some standard of jerkiness, beyond which is grounds for exile.

I don't think "jerkiness" is what we need to look for. There have been people more offensive than latinj here, yet they weren't as disruptive. We need to describe precisely what made latinj so disruptive before we can make a rule against it.

It also seems that you'll have to decide who has that power and make it clear to those present members and future members, as a condition of their continued participation.

Is this not correct?

You make it sound so odious. It's called "having rules".

Will there be accusations, interrogations, evidential findings, meetings of the Star Chamber?

No, godfry. You can stop hyperventilating now.

[Gurdur]

An over-reliance upon and overweening faith in strictly construed and vastly expanded rules is doomed to failure, destined for otioseness in discussion, usually misses the point, and often later misses the originally intended target in favour of unintended collateral damage.
Cheers.
Sayings Of Gurdur The Gray

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

An over-reliance upon and overweening faith in strictly construed and vastly expanded rules is doomed to failure, destined for otioseness in discussion, usually misses the point, and often later misses the originally intended target in favour of unintended collateral damage.
Cheers.
Sayings Of Gurdur The Gray

On the other hand, we could ban people for no infraction at all. Would that be better?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Corona688

We need to describe precisely what made latinj so disruptive before we can make a rule against it.

That's not actually what I had in mind when I started this thread. On the contrary, we would very strongly prefer not to create any additional rules, and at this juncture we really aren't planning to. What we're trying to do here is take a step back and look at the big picture. By considering the foundational principles we had in mind when we started and then looking at how effective the existing policies, rules and practices are in defending and bolstering those principles.

As I said above:

Originally Posted by vm

[...] the general idea is that we would consolidate our already existing rules against flooding and spam (previously loosely defined as "commercial advertising") into "any self-serving content that disrupts or ignores the discursive nature of this forum". Thus giving us more room to restrict content that is effectively spam regardless of whether it fits any of the commonly used technical definitions of the word.

But as I said in the OP we want to hear as many opinions as possible and really explore this issue from different angles. This thread is just one of several we'll likely have on this general topic in the coming days/weeks.

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by Corona688

On the other hand, we could ban people for no infraction at all. Would that be better?

Yes. Otherwise you risk rules being invented every time someone comes up with a new and exciting way to become pests without breaking existing rules. There's flexible and then there's ridiculous.

I still don't know why "admins can ban anyone at their discretion" isn't enough here. We know the admins, we're pretty sure they won't turn into evil despots. But even without that confidence, it's an illusion that we forum visitors have anymore say than they're willing to give us.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Corona688

On the other hand, we could ban people for no infraction at all. Would that be better?

Do it randomly, like every poster with a membership no. which is a prime number. Or toss a coin.

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

Yes. Otherwise you risk rules being invented every time someone comes up with a new and exciting way to become pests without breaking existing rules. There's flexible and then there's ridiculous.

Thanks for the straight answer. Yes, people will continue to abuse the rules, and yes, if the admins let the rules grow too much they'll become burdensome rather than helpful.

I still don't know why "admins can ban anyone at their discretion" isn't enough here.

Well, if we're going to ban someone, I think it's only fair to know what for. And if we can further refine the rules to gracefully cover these situations without tarnishing their all-important clarity, all the better. Beyond that I trust the admins.

Now, finally, I get back to the topic On further thought, I'm going to change my mind. I can't think of any good reason why latinj's posts don't qualify as spam.

[Seven of Nine]

An example thread: "i resigned as moderator"
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...ead.php?t=2842

Please read latin's posts there one after another:

Post #32
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...9028#post69028
Post #38
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...9534#post69534
Post #41
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...9542#post69542
Post #43
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...9550#post69550
Post #46
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...9621#post69621
Post #48
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...9625#post69625
Post #50
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...9628#post69628
Post #58
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...9778#post69778
Post #61
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...9790#post69790
Post #63
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...9793#post69793
Post #67
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...9864#post69864
Post #69
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...0356#post70356
Post #73
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...0599#post70599
Post #75
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...0629#post70629
Post #79
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...0876#post70876
Post #82
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...1230#post71230

IMO, latin is flooding this thread with posts, and in asserting this, I'm making no attempt whatsoever to "expand of the definition of 'flooding' in order to encompass his behavior.", since his posts are so repetitive as to be essentially identical.
When I tried putting him on Ignore, the result was that the thread was then flooded with identical posts which read, "This message is hidden because latinijral is on your ignore list."

"His posts are nothing but self-serving content which both disrupt or ignore the discursive nature of the forum."
Not only does he refuse to be drawn into any social interaction, he disrupts the flow of social interaction, and I see no indication that it matters to him whether other members ignore him, or not; he keeps right on posting, his posts are disruptive, and their content consists of the sort of infantile bullying reminiscent of primary school recesses.

Any adult male who feels compelled to aggressively accost women in this socially maladaptive and jejune manner in a public establishment in real life can be expect to be ejected by the management in short order for this reason alone: his inappropriate behavior is perceived as so distasteful (or downright creepy) as to drive the establishment's desirable patrons away.

[livius drusus]

Good points, Seven. He has the second highest postcount on that thread (16; the thread starter has the most with 22). Click here to see all his posts on that thread in a single window.

Thank you for putting up all the links.

[Seven of Nine]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Good points, Seven. He has the second highest postcount on that thread (16; the thread starter has the most with 22). Click here to see all his posts on that thread in a single window.

Thank you for putting up all the links.

You're welcome, liv.
I'm finding just logging on a challenge right now, so I was worried that I hadn't presented my argument well.
I ordinarily would have made more posts on that thread, but I stopped because he was flooding the thread, and had planned to drop out of, or never post in, any thread on which he lavished his attentions, yet I'm sometimes the only member of other boards willing to post seriously with folks who are obviously mentally unbalanced, or have weird bees in their bonnets, because they truly want and need someone to converse with, because I find what they have to say of interest, and feel I can learn something of value by assuming their mindset.
However, people like latin are predators who use your own socialization, your ideals, and your kindness as weapons they can turn against you in order to undermine, and even destroy the internet community you and vm have worked with such love and care to build here: every post such people make is spam, and the more rope they're given only results in more such posts until they're flooding contentless posts and abusive posts like crazy.
I feel that this thread is a also a good example because Beth can be observed in it appealing to latin's better nature with no result, and, IMO, anyone who didn't have a heart of stone would have been affected by her pleas. No form of behavior modification we can bring to bear seems to me to be in the least effective, and I feel certain that you and vm closely examined his history at other boards hoping to find a way to reach him so you could retain him as a member, but found the opposite was true, and to such a degree that you saw that warning him that he would be banned had proved counter-productive at other boards.
Anyone reading vm's and your posts on the subject can see how painful this experience has been for you, and I couldn't be more sorry that latin chose us, especially since you both appear to mistakenly feel that you've compromised your strongly held principles. People like latin are out to achieve just that goal, and they can do it, too, precisely because they're unprincipled themselves.
He hurt you both, and I there's little I can say to console you, except possibly to point out that the very fact that you've been so deeply wounded proves that you didn't compromise your ideals at all.
Personally speaking, I have more faith in both of you than ever, even though my faith in you was considerable before, and because I depend on internet message boards to meet real-life needs, my faith in the folks who run them isn't that easily won or kept because there's so much at stake for me.
Latin had begun flooding, and would have escalated that practice if you'd allowed him the opportunity so that every member here was aware of his flagrant violation of this rule and the resulting disruption of every section of the board, but I don't see how it would have benefited us members if you had waited until it was clear to all that he was breaking the letter of FF's rules, when he'd been breaking the spirit of the ideals on which FF is founded all along, and doing us far more harm thereby.

arrr...perhaps I should have waited to make this post until I was feeling better? I'm not certain I've expressed myself at all clearly, just when I wanted most to do so.