NationStates Jolt Archive

Since I don't expect an answer to my question in general, and since my thread isn't being moved here, I'll just repost my question:

When was the decision made to remove "spam" from the General forum? Just to be clear, when I say "spam" in quotes I mean it in the sense that the mods use it, to refer to threads which are percieved as jamming the forums and to push "real" threads off the front pages (this includes word games, which are fun, and pose no threat to the stability of the forum and which can be taken seriously as threads, as much so or more than any of the "I hate XXXX" threads, casual role playing threads, and chat threads of all kinds). When I use spam without quotes I mean it in the sense that I use it, to refer to threads whose express purpose is to jam the forums and push other threads off the front pages (this includes pornographic spam, people posting many threads in a short period of time, and other such actually damaging material).

So because that was a bit convoluted, I ask again, when was the decision made to remove "spam" from the General forum, rather than just true spam?

It was put in place initially to bail out the server, and kept in place after the move because Jolt has a forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=29) specifically for spam.

It was put in place initially to bail out the server, and kept in place after the move because Jolt has a forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=29) specifically for spam.

Ok. So we agree that there is no reason to prevent people from posting as they choose since we don't have server problems? If we can agree on that then our only issue is the definition of spam. It is my contention that word games, causal chat/rp threads, and my tag idea, do not fit the definition of true spam.

Even before the old NS server had problems there were rules to prevent spam. People couldn't post messages too quickly, and they couldn't post messages with hundreds of pictures and no meaning, and they couldn't post inappropriate pictures. On top of that, there were further restrictions on what people could post in the designated RP forums, for instance, OOC comments had to be labeled as such, and "General" disucssion was reserved for the General Forum, not for Nation States or International Incidents. After the server problems, the definitions of spam in both the General and RP forums was widened in an attempt to prevent further problems. At the time some people complained, but the restrictions then were a reasonable attempt to protect the integrity of the forums.

Now that the server problems have been solved by the move to Jolt the functional defintion of spam with regards to moderation should revert to the original definition, rather than staying as it is and shunting loyal NSers into the Jolt "Spam" forum which destroys the NS community and which is a very different environment than many NS "spammers" are interested in.

In other words, the fact that Jolt has a dedicated spam forum, is not a logical reason to keep the NS internal definition of spam in it's modified state.

It is important that everyone remember that causal rp and word games, and other similar threads were not originally considered spam, and should not be considered spam now since the only reason they were ever disallowed was to protect the server.

My point is that a number of threads are being misclassified as spam and being locked when they are harmless and benifit the NS community as a whole.

If you look at the General Forum, you will see that chat / social RP threads remain. You only have to look at the Paradise Club and smaller scale variations to see that. I have no idea where people got the idea that Mods hate it when people socialise.

Regarding word games, they were overlooked by the Moderation staff until they became a serious problem - ie dealing with the problem was left too late. It took us time, trouble, and pissing off a whole bunch of people* to close that particular Pandora's Box, and we would not like to see it reopened.

Regarding your word game in particular, it does not appear to protect the wishes of thread owners. Players can opt in to be quoted, I see, but if one of my threads suffered a rampage of people posting Tag! I would be incredibly annoyed, and I know many other people who generally like their threads serious would be too.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

* Some of whom still do not speak to me :(

There's a subtle distinction that isn't being recognized between a thread like "Keep this thread at the top" and "Temple to the Mods". The former lacks content, and clogs forums because the posts are short and are there for the purpose of merely existing. There is no way to continue off of each post until somebody decides to strike an off topic conversation. The former requires posts longer than just "+1" and, unlike a thread such as "Keep this thread at the top", it requires some sort of content.

Out of curiosity, is it possible for the NS mods to make new forums?

Out of curiosity, is it possible for the NS mods to make new forums?

Nope. Only Jolt admins can do that.

No, it is not. We would have to cap in hand to Jolt.

"Hey guys, how's the bandwidth going, my my, look at us soaking half of it up! Here's this month's rent. And erm...uh...we were kinda wondering you see...whether you could make us a new forum. For, you know...just random stuff...sort of thing..."

I would imagine the case would have to be very persuasive.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

I appreciate that casual RP threads like the Paradise Club are allowed to continue, and I think that most of the damage was done in the time that similar threads were disallowed, which is no fault of the mod team because they were acting reasonably to prevent server crashes and slowness.

I wasn't aware of any particular problem with word games, but if there was a problem that is unfortunate, because forums like this are a good place for such games if it isn't abused.

I'm not sure that a solution to the problem of contradicting the wishes of thread starters exists, but would you at least consider allowing an experimental tag game to exist if the problem could be avoided? And of course we can just ignore the fact that almost no thread stays exactly on topic, or exactly fits the wishes of the originator.

As to the argument about the difference between content based, and post based threads I say this: Tag is not conent based, per se, but nor is it merely post based. The intent is not to give people an opportunity to expand their post counts, but to observe and demonstrate a system of swarming. Using a simple system like tag with some motivation for users to participate a swarm can easily be created. Think of it like a pick-up game but with the objective being to create the most interaction possible among an ever growing collection of entities.

Whether I'm allowed to run my experiment here or not I've gotten interested now, I think I'm going to look into this elsewhere, maybe making a version for e-mail or one of the many instant messenger programs. If anyone else is interested and has any programming experience send me a telegram or an e-mail at ajprax@yahoo.com

I wasn't aware of any particular problem with word games, but if there was a problem that is unfortunate, because forums like this are a good place for such games if it isn't abused.

It isn't necessarily a problem with words games in of themselves, but that once one appears, the General forum posters have a tendency to copy cat to the point of extremes. This is the normal General forum trends.

I'm not sure that a solution to the problem of contradicting the wishes of thread starters exists, but would you at least consider allowing an experimental tag game to exist if the problem could be avoided? And of course we can just ignore the fact that almost no thread stays exactly on topic, or exactly fits the wishes of the originator.

But it's still unwelcome and off-topic posts in otherwise serious threads.

The intent is . . . to observe and demonstrate a system of swarming. Using a simple system like tag with some motivation for users to participate a swarm can easily be created . . . the objective being to create the most interaction possible among an ever growing collection of entities.
:eek:

http://www.cinemusic.net/reviews/cd6/swarm_lrg.jpg

It isn't necessarily a problem with words games in of themselves, but that once one appears, the General forum posters have a tendency to copy cat to the point of extremes. This is the normal General forum trends.

That's true, the General posters love to take any popular thread, or any thread at all really, and make another with only one word changed in the title and the concept identical but refering to a different nation, or ethnic group, or other social group. Personally I see this as inevitable and don't know why anyone would rather there were a ton of "I hate XXXX" threads than a ton of "let's play the XXXX game" threads.

But it's still unwelcome and off-topic posts in otherwise serious threads.

My point is that it's impossible for a thread with any reasonable length life to go without any unwelcome and off-topic posts, especially in serious threads. However, I think that the fact that people are prone to rudeness and to disregarding the wishes of thread creators is not a good reason to punish otherwise innocent posters simply because their thread resembles those of malicious spammers.

:eek:

http://www.cinemusic.net/reviews/cd6/swarm_lrg.jpg


Oh no! You discovered my plot to turn the internet into a giant 50s style horror movie.

My point is that it's impossible for a thread with any reasonable length life to go without any unwelcome and off-topic posts, especially in serious threads. However, I think that the fact that people are prone to rudeness and to disregarding the wishes of thread creators is not a good reason to punish otherwise innocent posters simply because their thread resembles those of malicious spammers.

But there's a difference between, say, a thread on adoption ending up being about abortion, or a serious thread ending up having three or four sub-conversations in it after 60 pages, and an otherwise serious thread with 'tag!' posts all through it... it would be jarring and annoying to read, make the threads longer much quicker (meaning that instead of having 2 or 3 1300 post threads on a topic, you could end up with 5 or 6), put serious topics at risk of being moved to Jolts spam forum after they hit the post-cap... a whole bunch of effects that would annoy a large number of the posters not playing the game.

Perhaps it would work if you could find a way to limit it to non-serious threads, perhaps by contacting original postersand getting permission and then posting up a list of threads where players were allowed to tag each other... or something.

But then, I only just woke up, and might not be making any sense.

Reminder: it is unnecessary to use "tag" to keep track of threads -- subscribe to them.

Reminder: it is unnecessary to use "tag" to keep track of threads -- subscribe to them.
Unfortunately, the whole point of what he is proposing is actually posting tag in unsuspecting threads, to "investigate swarm behaviour". Sounds spammy to me. Put it this way, if I wasn't a Mod and this game was played through my threads, I'd be complaining in this forum.

Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

Don't worry about it, I'm going to put together an e-mail and IM based version so if it has any effect on the forums it will only be people with a line or two in their sig telling people their tag info instead of posts in threads.