"Trivia thread" deleted by Karmabaijan
New Fubaria
02-02-2005, 07:03
Can I ask why this thread was singled out as "spam"? It was an ongoing thread with people posting and talking about trivia facts...
Honestly, have a look around general some time - 80% of the threads are more "spammish" than that thread. Very disappointed with such a harsh and sudden decision.
Also, why deleted, and not simply locked?
As a moderator (on another board) myself, this moderation decision seems harsh and inconsistent.
Katganistan
03-02-2005, 04:20
Since this thread clearly requires a response from Karmabajian, and no one else can answer this question, please refrain from posting until New Fubaria gets an answer.
New Fubaria, you may bump this thread if it hasn't been answered to remind us about it.
Karmabaijan
03-02-2005, 06:59
It was closed because it was spam...the thread wasn't discussion or anything like it, just random info posted without a topic.
New Fubaria
03-02-2005, 07:17
On those grounds half of the threads in general could be deleted.
It doesn't make for a friendly atmosphere in which to post when your threads are deemed delete worthy on the whim of one moderator. This thread in particular had been growing and participated in for some time.
Even if it was deemed "spam", wouldn't it have simply been better to lock the thread with a message declaring it spam rather than deleting all the info which people had contributed? (The thread had been running for quite some time - if it was spam why wait until now for action?)
I realise as a moderator your decision is final, but this seems like a very arbitrary and "grinch like" decision to me - it seems like a decision based much more on the personal taste in threads of one moderator than adherance to any forum rule.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. All I can say is I am quite dissapointed, and I wish to reister a formal grievance with this decision.
Karmabaijan
03-02-2005, 08:51
Just for reference, the dicision was made after consulting another mod. It was not a "whim of one moderator." If you really want to read it, thread will be undeleted and locked.
The Most Glorious Hack
03-02-2005, 09:27
It doesn't make for a friendly atmosphere in which to post when your threads are deemed delete worthy on the whim of one moderator.
Well, someone has to make such a decision, no? Otherwise it'd be Moderation By Commitee, which would make any decision take forever-and-a-day.
Even if it was deemed "spam", wouldn't it have simply been better to lock the thread with a message declaring it spam rather than deleting all the info which people had contributed?
Either option is acceptable.
(The thread had been running for quite some time - if it was spam why wait until now for action?)
Contrary to popular believe, we don't have a direct neural interface that alerts us to every post as its made. Sometimes it takes awhile to notice something, especially if it isn't reported.
All I can say is I am quite dissapointed, and I wish to reister a formal grievance with this decision.
Knock youself out. salusa@nationstates.net
Neo-Anarchists
03-02-2005, 16:35
Contrary to popular believe, we don't have a direct neural interface that alerts us to every post as its made.
:(
Darn, you mods are supposed to be superhuman!
:D
Sdaeriji
03-02-2005, 17:20
Well, someone has to make such a decision, no? Otherwise it'd be Moderation By Commitee, which would make any decision take forever-and-a-day.
Oh come on. Like we don't all know that you're all just Max posting with a bunch of different names. Don't give us this "we're actually real people" stuff. We're not stupid. We're on to you.
Pencil Suckers
04-02-2005, 04:53
Oh come on. Like we don't all know that you're all just Max posting with a bunch of different names. Don't give us this "we're actually real people" stuff. We're not stupid. We're on to you.
Hehehe ;) ;)
Well, someone has to make such a decision, no? Otherwise it'd be Moderation By Commitee, which would make any decision take forever-and-a-day.
Moderation by Commitee is not necessary, but it would be nice to have Moderation by Three. It's just like how you're supposed to have two witnesses when you're signing important documents.
Either option is acceptable.
It shouldn't be. Deleting should only be reserved for extremely offensive posts or extreme flaming. Even then, mods should try to only remove the offending posts, rather than the whole thread, unless the thread topic itself is offensive or flaming.
Contrary to popular believe, we don't have a direct neural interface that alerts us to every post as its made. Sometimes it takes awhile to notice something, especially if it isn't reported.
Hmm...perhaps if it's not reported, then no one has a problem with it, and mods don't need to do anything?
On those grounds half of the threads in general could be deleted.
It doesn't make for a friendly atmosphere in which to post when your threads are deemed delete worthy on the whim of one moderator. This thread in particular had been growing and participated in for some time.
Even if it was deemed "spam", wouldn't it have simply been better to lock the thread with a message declaring it spam rather than deleting all the info which people had contributed? (The thread had been running for quite some time - if it was spam why wait until now for action?)
I realise as a moderator your decision is final, but this seems like a very arbitrary and "grinch like" decision to me - it seems like a decision based much more on the personal taste in threads of one moderator than adherance to any forum rule.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. All I can say is I am quite dissapointed, and I wish to reister a formal grievance with this decision.
NS should strive to be as friendly as possible.
Dread Lady Nathicana
04-02-2005, 19:47
It shouldn't be. Deleting should only be reserved for extremely offensive posts or extreme flaming. Even then, mods should try to only remove the offending posts, rather than the whole thread, unless the thread topic itself is offensive or flaming.
When you are able to moderate by those standards on your own boards without being told to by service moderators, then perhaps we can better swallow your advice concerning that here. In any case, if you take issue with how any particular case is handled, you have avenues to address your concerns - use them. In the meantime, the moderators will, I would imagine, continue to do the best they can within whatever guidelines they have been given to take care of problems as they see fit.
Arguments for or against deleting things termed as 'spam' I suppose come in various forms. You could say that if it's spam, there's no need to keep it - why waste space doing so? Locking it allows folks to view and play off it in a new thread possibly perpetuating the problem. Granted, folks can start a new one after deletion as well, but a simple lock just offers more ammo for it.
The mods have said either is an acceptable solution given the methods and means they use. *shrugs* Not being one, I couldn't really say.
As for friendly, I don't think that overall NationStates or the moderators strive to be UNfriendly, so ... whatever. Granted, we all ought to make an effort to not go around flaming and being abusive, but that doesn't seem to stop people. Another thing to note is that 'friendly' is not the same as 'professional'. I would rather the moderators perform their duties professionally rather than worry more about being all huggy-fuzzy about everything, myself.
It doesn't matter WHAT they do, or HOW they do it, they are going to get criticized and bitched at because there is NO way they can possibly keep everyone happy and still carry out their moderator duties. Professionalism however, I can live with - even if it sometimes means a short response. I think this has been covered elsewhere at least several times here in Moderation in other threads.
--Nathi's Player
Katganistan
05-02-2005, 00:18
Moderation by Commitee is not necessary, but it would be nice to have Moderation by Three. It's just like how you're supposed to have two witnesses when you're signing important documents.
It shouldn't be. Deleting should only be reserved for extremely offensive posts or extreme flaming. Even then, mods should try to only remove the offending posts, rather than the whole thread, unless the thread topic itself is offensive or flaming.
Hmm...perhaps if it's not reported, then no one has a problem with it, and mods don't need to do anything?
Look to the beam in thine own eye...
The Most Glorious Hack
05-02-2005, 06:32
Moderation by Commitee is not necessary, but it would be nice to have Moderation by Three. It's just like how you're supposed to have two witnesses when you're signing important documents.You're equating moderating a forum with signing an important document?
Not only that, your anology doesn't hold up. I needed no witness when assuming $16000 is debt by buying a new car; nor when I assumed substanial debt to buy an engagement ring; nor when I assumed perpetual debt signing the lease for my apartment; nor when I signed the contract for my employment; nor when I signed the contract to join my union.
In fact, I haven't need a witness, let alone two, for any contract I've signed in my life, and I wager that at least some of the ones I've mentioned count as "important". In fact, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that mandates witnesses is a wedding.
It shouldn't be. Deleting should only be reserved for extremely offensive posts or extreme flaming. Care to define "extreme"? Furthermore, spam adds nothing to the forum, therefore leaving it on the forum accomplishes nothing. Deleting it also sends a stronger message than simply locking, and is more likely to dissuade would-be spammers.
Even then, mods should try to only remove the offending posts, rather than the whole thread, unless the thread topic itself is offensive or flaming.We often do.
Hmm...perhaps if it's not reported, then no one has a problem with it, and mods don't need to do anything?You're joking, right? If I took one of my nations in a feeder and changed it's motto to "SandPit Should Be Lynched!" and nobody reported it, you'd argue that we don't need to do anything?
How can you possibly argue that just because it isn't reported it isn't violating the rules?
So I definitely posted in this thread...in fact, I'm pretty sure I was the first person to post in it, and the only person to post in it for several hours. So, uh, where's my post?
Erastide
06-02-2005, 03:58
Your post got split out. It went:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394542
You're equating moderating a forum with signing an important document?
Not only that, your anology doesn't hold up. I needed no witness when assuming $16000 is debt by buying a new car; nor when I assumed substanial debt to buy an engagement ring; nor when I assumed perpetual debt signing the lease for my apartment; nor when I signed the contract for my employment; nor when I signed the contract to join my union.
In fact, I haven't need a witness, let alone two, for any contract I've signed in my life, and I wager that at least some of the ones I've mentioned count as "important". In fact, the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that mandates witnesses is a wedding.
I said "it would be nice", meaning that "you should strive for it". Nothing would be mandated.
And I believe that you are also requried to have witnesses when signing a will, but you and I are probably too young for that right now.
Care to define "extreme"? Furthermore, spam adds nothing to the forum, therefore leaving it on the forum accomplishes nothing. Deleting it also sends a stronger message than simply locking, and is more likely to dissuade would-be spammers.
Whether something is "extreme" will be reflected in the complaints. Plus, spam is harmless, unless you are trying to conserve server space.
We often do.
That's wonderful. Thank you.
You're joking, right? If I took one of my nations in a feeder and changed it's motto to "SandPit Should Be Lynched!" and nobody reported it, you'd argue that we don't need to do anything?
How can you possibly argue that just because it isn't reported it isn't violating the rules?
No, I''m not arguing that. I'm just using this as an opportunity to reflect on "What is the Purpose of Rules on the NS forum?" For example, if everyone here either likes spam or doesn't care about spam (seeing how it's not reported), then why ban spam?
Katganistan
06-02-2005, 07:21
...if everyone here either likes spam or doesn't care about spam (seeing how it's not reported), then why ban spam?
I would say that the sheer number of threads in moderation alerting us to spam, asking us to lock spam threads, and asking that spam be split out of topics would be ample evidence that NOT EVERYONE enjoys spam. For example:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=395191&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=393539&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=393199&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392915&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392815&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392795&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392257&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392293&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=391489&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=391332&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=391138&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=391196&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=390551&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=390572&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389935&highlight=spam
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388971&highlight=spam
Oh, heck there are 99 threads in moderation alone about spam!
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=229281
The Most Glorious Hack
06-02-2005, 09:52
I said "it would be nice", meaning that "you should strive for it". Nothing would be mandated.
And "it would be nice" if I was paid for this, but you don't see me going after Max for a paycheck.
Plus, spam is harmless, unless you are trying to conserve server space.
Spam is not "harmless", which is why it's against forum rules. NationStates is not a spamming game, and if people want to spam, there is an entire forum dedicated to it. It's called, oddly enough, "Spam". I have never seen a reason to allow spam in General, especially not now, when we have a forum dedicated to it.
No, I''m not arguing that. I'm just using this as an opportunity to reflect on "What is the Purpose of Rules on the NS forum?" For example, if everyone here either likes spam or doesn't care about spam (seeing how it's not reported), then why ban spam?
The purpose of the rules is so that we can have a smoothly running website and forum without unnecessary clutter getting in the way. As my colleague Kat has mentioned, there are numerous complaints about spam in this forum.
And, finally, why is spam banned? Well, let's take a look at the FAQ:
What can't I post?
Any content that is:
obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam
Your post got split out. It went:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394542
Ah, well then...Someone should let people know about these things...I'm confused enough as it is...
So why was that thread locked? :confused:
Jjuulliiaann
06-02-2005, 19:25
Why don't we just have a sticky where you can report spam. We could also have another sticky where you could report flaming. It would really reduce the clutter here.
Dread Lady Nathicana
06-02-2005, 19:38
Probably because too many would run the risk of getting lost in all the clutter within the thread. This way, each topic is a separate issue, and can be dealt with separately - and locked if necessary. Stickies won't make anything easier that way, in my opinion.
Scolopendra
06-02-2005, 19:50
getting lost in all the clutter within the thread
Especially from the Monday-night armchair quarterbacks.
So why was that thread locked? :confused:
^
The Most Glorious Hack
08-02-2005, 06:11
Karma explained why in the 3rd or 4th post.
New Fubaria
08-02-2005, 14:03
Contrary to popular believe, we don't have a direct neural interface that alerts us to every post as its made. Sometimes it takes awhile to notice something, especially if it isn't reported.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to post sarcastic quips as a reply to my post, but anyway...for the record, the thread had been running for a couple of MONTHS - I hardly think that requires a "direct neural interface"...
Karma explained why in the 3rd or 4th post.
I mean the split topic.