NationStates Jolt Archive


Url spamming

Amicus curiae
20-08-2004, 00:48
A resident of a feederregion is currently "spamming" the regional HQ many times a day with the Url for the regional offsiteforum. That way he 'clears' the HQ from "outside" recruitmentmessages.

I think posting an advertisement for an offsite forum many times a day by one person is also spam and should have the same maximum as regional recruitment messages.

This was also discussed in:
Locked thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342904&page=1&pp=15)

Is there already a mod answer to that question?
Myrdinn
20-08-2004, 07:13
Yes, I am still awaiting an answer for this as well.
Amicus curiae
21-08-2004, 23:44
bump :rolleyes:
Tuesday Heights
21-08-2004, 23:52
The mod are busy people; be patient.
Myrdinn
23-08-2004, 19:23
Bump
Kryozerkia
23-08-2004, 19:49
You might want to check this sticky... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=338239) because you seem to need help faster than you're getting it.
Myrdinn
23-08-2004, 22:09
The mods supposedly have been talking about the issue already. I don't want to be anymore annoying than just bumping the thread every so often.
Amicus curiae
26-08-2004, 14:34
:cool:

disclaimer: This question has nothing to do with the north pacific (locked thread) but it is now concerning all the pacifics and the RR.

A founder can spam their region's messageboard for the purpose of clearing advertisements. We know pacific delegates are not considered founders.

One minute I put my (one-per-day) recruitment ad on the regional hq of a pacificregion. Next minute another nation (not being a pacifics founder/delegate ;) ) puts ten ads on the HQ with an url to their offsiteforum. I think this is called flooding to clear spam. My recruitment ad is gone, i have to wait another day. :headbang:
1 Infinite Loop
27-08-2004, 09:00
What Pacific is it?
Remember perminant residents of the Pacifics consider your Recruitment posts to be the same as a Telemarketer, and most folk rank telemarketers somewhere between Nazis and people who talk on cell phones while driving.
so you must remember by posting those ads, you are ticking off many many people who dont like you, and will hate you for ever because of that very fact.
Hersfold
27-08-2004, 14:46
I would consider that to be flooding, yes. I remember a thread a while ago where someone had been warned for that, and they were none too happy...
Myrdinn
27-08-2004, 19:15
If citizens get mad enough about it in the Pacific, they tend to start throwing bananas (posting that they are throwing bananas). I guess that should explain how many people feel about them. :sniper: :mp5:

Yet, I'm still curious as to whether it is permitted to place a URL in a post at all. This now has nothing to do with the NP (it really didn't before) because in my own region I post the URL occassionally. I have seen recruiters do this as well in the Pacifics.
Myrdinn
03-09-2004, 23:35
Well, I guess I'll just bump this again. Hopefully we'll hear a decision soon!
Myrdinn
15-09-2004, 20:31
Bump
Pope Hope
15-09-2004, 20:49
To BUMP, I'm pretty sure that posting NS-related offsite URLS is 100% legal. At least, it has been until now.

This is an interesting topic, however. Spam VS Spam...I wonder who will win? :p Now, I don't advocate spam of any kind, but it would seem that if the rules on recruitment are tightening, and the rules do allow for advertisements in the pacifics, then it defeats the purpose when someone needlessly spams an offsite URL to clear the recruitment posts. If that makes any sense (me no sleepy last night).

I have seen the West Pacific do the same many times by simply carrying on a fast-paced conversation on their regional board. I don't thinking spamming an URL to clear recruitment TGs should be allowed.
Kryozerkia
15-09-2004, 21:59
You should file a complaint using the FAQ page.
After all, if you're a player-created region, what this guy is doing is not only spamming, but also recruiment in a non-feeder region which has been explicitly forbidden here.
Pope Hope
15-09-2004, 22:13
I believe the nation in question is doing this in a feeder region, hence the questioning by some of clarity on the rule in this case.