NationStates Jolt Archive

I wish for a clarification to the rules.

I have recently been attacked in several threads (for example http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=493597) for reporting behaviour to the Moderators. These attacks seem to focus mainly on the reporting of 'chat threads', or spam, on the basis that they 'do no harm'.

I have always reported these threads on the basis of the OSRS, which states that spam clogs up the servers. Given the fact that Jolt is so temperamental at the best of times I can well believe this to be the case. Having said this, you do have to wonder how Jolt can get confused by people talking about their pet goldfish but doesn't mind the finer points of Middle Eastern democracy.

As such, I would like to know if there is any harm in allowing chat threads when so many people do seem to enjoy them. While I don't intend to defend people who are deliberately breaking rules that are there for a reason, I also have no intention of becoming one of the most hated figures on General simply for trying to help. There are always chat threads that do not get moved unless they are reported; if it is a policy of turning a blind eye unless forced to do otherwise, I would like to know. If the spam/chat rule is out of date, please say so.

I also have no intention of becoming one of the most hated figures on General simply for trying to help.

You lost me there. ;)

And, I don't really understand - you want the mods' "permission" not to report things? That's... odd...

You lost me there. ;)

And, I don't really understand - you want the mods' "permission" not to report things? That's... odd...
No, I'm asking if they want me to continue reporting things. If these threads are doing no harm and a blind eye is turned to them, then all I am doing by reporting them is forcing the Mods to intervene (as when something is highlighted they must act to follow the rules) and annoying everyone by having their thread locked.

No, I'm asking if they want me to continue reporting things. If these threads are doing no harm and a blind eye is turned to them, then all I am doing by reporting them is forcing the Mods to intervene (as when something is highlighted they must act to follow the rules) and annoying everyone by having their thread locked.

The thing is, when you get down to it, every report to moderation has that consequence, and, really, you can always ask yourself "what harm is there in letting this and that go on?". Really, what harm is there?

You report the things you think need reporting - for me it's most often nowadays repeated spam and more of the nastier bits ("hate speech, threats and the like"), but once upon a time I used to report for instance long sigs because they really made threads unreadable. Then I just turned sig display off, and that was that. They weren't things that made my "foruming" a less enjoyable experience from then on, and so I paid them no attention.

What I'm trying to say is, you report the rule infractions you mind. If you don't mind some of them any more, then there is no point in you reporting them, is there? I doubt you need the mods to tell you that.

The thing is, when you get down to it, every report to moderation has that consequence, and, really, you can always ask yourself "what harm is there in letting this and that go on?". Really, what harm is there?

You report the things you think need reporting - for me it's most often nowadays repeated spam and more of the nastier bits ("hate speech, threats and the like"), but once upon a time I used to report for instance long sigs because they really made threads unreadable. Then I just turned sig display off, and that was that. They weren't things that made my "foruming" a less enjoyable experience from then on, and so I paid them no attention.

What I'm trying to say is, you report the rule infractions you mind. If you don't mind some of them any more, then there is no point in you reporting them, is there? I doubt you need the mods to tell you that.
But this is exactly the problem I have - I don't mind the threads where people are talking; I can just ignore them. Having said that, what I do mind is the way Jolt plays up; the times you can't log on, or the pages don't load for five minutes, or everything is so slow it's impossible to use.

So I suppose what I'm really asking is whether or not these threads do contribute to the instability of the forums. If they do, I will continue reporting them.

But this is exactly the problem I have - I don't mind the threads where people are talking; I can just ignore them. Having said that, what I do mind is the way Jolt plays up; the times you can't log on, or the pages don't load for five minutes, or everything is so slow it's impossible to use.

So I suppose what I'm really asking is whether or not these threads do contribute to the instability of the forums. If they do, I will continue reporting them.

Probably not, seeing as the threads are not deleted, but most often moved to Spam and Chat, where they can go on to contain 50000+ posts. It doesn't matter if they're in the NS part of the forums or not, if they caused "problems" for the servers, they would do so wherever they are.

So, if you're looking for a technological excuse for reporting things, you're probably going to come up dry. The threads are moved to keep the NS part of the forums "clean" so that proper threads can be found and don't sink like rocks because spam threads keep pushing them off the front pages. Jolt has Chat and Spam forums dedicated for those who wish to postcount++ and that leaves very little reason for those threads to be in the NS fora at all.

If that's not enough for you and you care about being popular in General (hah!), then don't report them.

Probably not, seeing as the threads are not deleted, but most often moved to Spam and Chat, where they can go on to contain 50000+ posts. It doesn't matter if they're in the NS part of the forums or not, if they caused "problems" for the servers, they would do so wherever they are.

So, if you're looking for a technological excuse for reporting things, you're probably going to come up dry. The threads are moved to keep the NS part of the forums "clean" so that proper threads can be found and don't sink like rocks because spam threads keep pushing them off the front pages. Jolt has Chat and Spam forums dedicated for those who wish to postcount++ and that leaves very little reason for those threads to be in the NS fora at all.
I do think this is probably true; however, the OSRS does specifically say it 'clogs up the servers', hence the question. Having said this, you are right about keeping the page clean for people who are trying to post proper threads; this, however, is the reply I got when bringing this up in another thread. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=492160&

If that's not enough for you and you care about being popular in General (hah!), then don't report them.
It's not a question of being popular; I just don't like being disliked for no particular reason, if you see the difference. If people want to hate me for something I say or do then I couldn't really give a monkeys; if I'm making myself a figure of hate for unnecessarily spoiling their fun, then I am more concerned.

I'm trying to help by following the rules, not be a killjoy.

You aren't required to report threads to us. Obviously, we couldn't enforce such a requirement anyway.

The only time we even come close to making such a statement is when (inevitably) someone plays the "But he did it toooooooooooooooo" tactic, and claim we're evil and biased because we locked/deleted/banned thread/poster A, while doing nothing about B, C, D, E, and F. However, that's a matter of us refusing to be blamed for not noticing something.

Make sense?

The spam and chat clogging up the server (as Rep says in the OSRS) is still form the old server, Jolt can handle it (most of the times).:p

You aren't required to report threads to us. Obviously, we couldn't enforce such a requirement anyway.

The only time we even come close to making such a statement is when (inevitably) someone plays the "But he did it toooooooooooooooo" tactic, and claim we're evil and biased because we locked/deleted/banned thread/poster A, while doing nothing about B, C, D, E, and F. However, that's a matter of us refusing to be blamed for not noticing something.

Make sense?
Yeah, I do realise that reporting is not an obligation, but I also know that you can't be everywhere at once and sometimes need people to let you know about things.

Forgive me if I'm not being particularly clear; I suppose being attacked bothered me more than I expected. I'm not, however, going to be bullied into stopping reporting things by people who want to abuse the forum, hence why I asked for this clarification in the first place. If these chat threads do no harm then I am not going to worry about them, but if there is a genuine reason why they are banned then I am.

Suppose it depends on your definition of "harm".

If you consider dozens of spam threads to be "harmful" to a atmosphere of worthwhile debate (or even just conversation), then report away. If you're willing to overlook that because it's not causing physical harm (ie: clogging the server), then don't report.

Suppose it depends on your definition of "harm".

If you consider dozens of spam threads to be "harmful" to a atmosphere of worthwhile debate (or even just conversation), then report away. If you're willing to overlook that because it's not causing physical harm (ie: clogging the server), then don't report.
ok, thanks. It's certainly something to think about; I suppose I'll go back to reporting those things that I think are causing a problem. I probably ought to take Baguetten's advice about growing a thicker skin as well.

As an admitted spam thread junkie I can see where killing off the MOST of the spam in general might be a good idea because it does push other topics down.

However I think that turning a blind eye towards one or two spammalanche threads actually keeps General "cleaner" than if all exspamaganza threads were nuked. My reasoning is that if there werent ANY spam threads then die-hard spammers would just make a boatload of semi spam threads to spew forth our drivel in anyway. This would not be intentional so much as it would be instinctual or at least involuntary on a conscious level. Im not saying that this is right or proper or defensible Im just saying that it's probably true.

Anyway Im sure this phenomen....phenoma.......thing has already been noted by NS mods and higher and probably explains the continued existence of a few threads.

-snip-
This is pretty much what I meant by the 'turn a blind eye' comment; let one or two threads spam up as much as they like to stop it spilling out elsewhere. It does make some sense. But...that's what the Paradise Beach Club is for. At least, that's what I always thought.

I can think of half a dozen posters of the top of my head who do nothing but spam in chat threads; thousands and thousands of posts, none of it political discussion. You have to ask why they don't just go and talk on MSN.

This is pretty much what I meant by the 'turn a blind eye' comment; let one or two threads spam up as much as they like to stop it spilling out elsewhere. It does make some sense. But...that's what the *refuses to help "accidently" point out a thread out of mean spiritedness* is for. At least, that's what I always thought.

.
Sigh...
So youve just felt the need to name and shame and have another thread deleted have you? No that thread you mention is actually more accurately described as Roleplay meets General than spam.

Sigh...
So youve just felt the need to name and shame and have another thread deleted have you? No that thread you mention is actually more accurately described as Roleplay meets General than spam.
:rolleyes: So you just felt the need to come in Moderation and gloat about your rule breaking, did you?

As you said, it is better to have spam threads kept to a minimum. I pointed out that there was a chat thread for this purpose...and this is 'mean spiritness'? (Incidentaly, I didn't 'reveal' a thread to anyone at all. Any Mod who wasn't aware that the Paradise Beach Club existed is either dead or dying; it is the one thread of its kind that is permitted in General).

Look at General right now. There are at least six of these chat threads going on, most of which are involving the same people. Six! Why do you need to talk in six different places at the same time?

If you think anyone concerned about spamming is 'mean spirited', then I think you're not in the 'spirit' of this game or this forum. It is not about chat; it is about political debate. If you want some 'good spirit' to do with chat, then perhaps you ought to find yourself a new forum.

All right.

Moderation is not the place to have an argument with each other.

Paradise Beach Club is the compromise spam/chat thread in General. Look at how many posts are there -- could we possibly NOT see it?

We don't want six billion spam threads. If there is something egregiously pointless and stupid, let us know. (smiley spam, for instance).

We do go through and move things to spam anyway, but there are many fewer mods than posters, and not all of us frequent general. If the social fluff is pushing political discussion off the first page and this bugs you, let us know.

All right.

Moderation is not the place to have an argument with each other.
Sorry.

Perhaps a solution would be to have a single chat thread stickied at the top of General? Then people who wanted to talk could do so there, without getting in the way of everything else going on. There would be no excuse to chat in the rest of the forum then, thus removing the uncertainty over what is and isn't spam.

Perhaps a solution would be to have a single chat thread stickied at the top of General?
And then a sticky thread for people who want to gay-bash? And another for people who want to run down religion? How about a War-of-the-Moment sticky, or a Republicans-versus-Democrats sticky? I could easily come up with 25 more, totally overtaking the entire front page.

Short answer: no.

And then a sticky thread for people who want to gay-bash? And another for people who want to run down religion? How about a War-of-the-Moment sticky, or a Republicans-versus-Democrats sticky? I could easily come up with 25 more, totally overtaking the entire front page.

Short answer: no.
Somehow, I knew you'd say that.

Alright, I don't think it's possible to claim this point hasn't been answered thoroughly now; I'm done with my whining self pity if you want to lock the thread. :)

Alright, I don't think it's possible to claim this point hasn't been answered thoroughly now; I'm done with my whining self pity if you want to lock the thread. :)
I wouldn't call it whining self pity. there have been alot of reporting of things that, IMHO, can be ignored. (not indicating anyone in particular) my rule of Thumb is to step back, and let some time pass, perhaps they ment their post in another way that one is taking wrong in the heat of the moment. then I look at my post to see if they misunderstood what I posted. then I ask myself...

"Is this really worth bothering the mods for?"

usually the answer is no...

I feel there is the need for "Chatty" and Nonsensical threads, it helps break the monotony of the debates and it offers an opportunity to cool down before real flaming begins.

the fact that opposing posters can meet in a chatty thread and talk about unimportant things can diffuse alot of flaming and even harsh feelings among the many posters in NSG.

While I do see the ruling behind Word Games, I also hold to the belief that such threads may also help prevent any harsh feelings and animostiy from forming between posters. (this is not another plea to allow word games... ok, maybe it is. :p )

the freedom of NSG allows many people to get together and chat, get to know each other and debate opposing views. if you find a thread too Chatty, ignore it. if you find a thread you like, bookmark it. and if you like reporting things and people to the mods, then take the consiquences.

*You is a general You, not pointing to anyone in particular.

Note that "the consequences" had best not be rulebreaking like flaming or harassing a poster.

Note that "the consequences" had best not be rulebreaking like flaming or harassing a poster.
oh but of course!

after all, anyone who chooses to break the rules, must also face the consiquences. ;)

I was just referring to any bad feelings people will... err... have towards the reporter. that's all... Really. :D