NationStates Jolt Archive

Allow me to strongly disagree. Would you walk into the middle of a business meeting, lecture, or church, and immediately start having an unrelated conversation that EVERYONE else was forced to listen to? For most people, the answer would be "no". If you answer "yes", then you are far ruder than 99% of the people I know.

Actually, you'll find that most people walk into a business meeting, lecture, and even church and spot someone they know and say hello and often a "How ya doin'?" and then things resume to the topic at hand. Church itself is one giant social gathering to a vast majority of individuals. Perhaps it's a Texan thing, perhaps a Southern thing, I don't know. However, socialization is of primary importance to the human condition. In an "Ask a Jew" thread, you're dealing with a bunch of Jews, myself included, who happen to be some of the most social people you'll ever meet.

Forum topics are "on-topic" for a reason. When you and the other social spammers interrupt that for your private chat sessions, it is disruptive. That is why I consider it spam, and against the rules of the NationStates forum.

I've yet to see any topic in my time on these forums stay on topic for any more than a page or two. Even the "Ask A Jew" thread, from which your quotes come, degenerated nicely into racial superiority without any deletion of said messages being "off topic" - even though they clearly are as none asked a question pertaining to Judaism or being Jewish - yet, as stated above, Jewish people being a very social culture, a two post sode conversation was removed. I see no logic in this.

Out of the thousands of active NS nations who participate in the Forums, you and perhaps a dozen others are the primary instigators of this ‘social spam’. You personally have responded to me twice, indicating that you didn’t feel my interpretation to be correct or appropriate. I’m interpreting this to mean that you have chosen to ignore a moderation ruling, and have every intention of continuing this practice. I’m going to give you this one opportunity to reconsider your choice.

Forgive me for trying to make NS General more than a seething cauldron of hatred, bickering, and denegration based on political ideaology or cultural difference. I wasn't aware that's what "General" meant. If I am wrong, correct me.

From now on, such social spam, when inserted into the middle of unrelated topics, will be not just be deleted on sight but will also be considered a warning offense. This will also be mentioned in an upcoming revision of the General rules. Consider this a polite notification of said intent.

I've never made any bones about accepting anyone's authority in any capacity. I will post as I choose and if it gets me warned, then I shall accept that. If, however, you choose to add "social spam" in the list of warnable offenses, I suggest you make it very clear that all threads are made in order to establish some form of social interraction and, thus, all threads should be considered "spam".

This is all I have to say on this matter.

Hey. I was just reading Ask a Jew, when I got stuck on this "Social Spam" wicket. I wanted to ask a few questions, but didn't want to clog up the on-topic thread with the discussion and risk a warning. Here was the quote I wanted to ask about:

Allow me to strongly disagree. Would you walk into the middle of a business meeting, lecture, or church, and immediately start having an unrelated conversation that EVERYONE else was forced to listen to? For most people, the answer would be "no". If you answer "yes", then you are far ruder than 99% of the people I know.

Forum topics are "on-topic" for a reason. When you and the other social spammers interrupt that for your private chat sessions, it is disruptive. That is why I consider it spam, and against the rules of the NationStates forum.

It struck me that this is pretty draconian. I think that the atmosphere of general is not that of a business meeting, lecture, or church, but rather like a university quad or some other environment where a lot of stuff is going on. If the "social spam" consists of a single shout-out or a "hey, how's it going?" I don't get why this should be a warnable offense. I mean should the NSer start another thread titled, "Hey, so-and-so"?

I'm not trying to pick a fight or cause trouble, but it just seems that this punishes community. General is already the kick-back part of the forum, so it's not like RP or any game-related stuff is being disrupted. Hell, my making jokes about the IJBC in the thread seems much more disruptive than a "Hello."

Keruvalia has a complaint lodged already in the Moderation forum.
A strong objection: Socialization is not Spam. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405711)

Some threads have the atmosphere of a business meeting or a church. Others of a coffee shop in the local mall. What is spamming, and rude, has to depend upon the nature of the thread.

Ask A Jew, is a serious thread, where people are asking serious questions.
Union Office Party; All Welcome! is more a social thread, the university quad, the coffee shop.

That both of these can exist here in General is one of the attractions of General. It would be wrong though to try and convert a serious thread into a social one or vice versa.

Ask A Jew, is a serious thread, where people are asking serious questions.
Union Office Party; All Welcome! is more a social thread, the university quad, the coffee shop.

That both of these can exist here in General is one of the attractions of General. It would be wrong though to try and convert a serious thread into a social one or vice versa.

Really? Go read Ask a Jew. It is as mixed a bag as any other thread in General. There's some serious, some funny, some hot air. But who makes the call that "this one's serious, this one ain't"?

Some threads have the atmosphere of a business meeting or a church. Others of a coffee shop in the local mall. What is spamming, and rude, has to depend upon the nature of the thread.

Ask A Jew, is a serious thread, where people are asking serious questions.
Union Office Party; All Welcome! is more a social thread, the university quad, the coffee shop.

That both of these can exist here in General is one of the attractions of General. It would be wrong though to try and convert a serious thread into a social one or vice versa.
Elegantly stated, AB. ;)

Some threads have the atmosphere of a business meeting or a church. Others of a coffee shop in the local mall. What is spamming, and rude, has to depend upon the nature of the thread.

Ask A Jew, is a serious thread, where people are asking serious questions.
Union Office Party; All Welcome! is more a social thread, the university quad, the coffee shop.

That both of these can exist here in General is one of the attractions of General. It would be wrong though to try and convert a serious thread into a social one or vice versa.
So "What do you guys do with all of that christian baby's blood around Passover?" is a serious question now?

Really? Go read Ask a Jew. It is as mixed a bag as any other thread in General. There's some serious, some funny, some hot air. But who makes the call that "this one's serious, this one ain't"?

Generally that call is made by the OP.
I read Ask A jew soon after it started (12 posts or something like that), and it started off pretty serious. If it has changed then I retract my comment about it specifically. However there are serious threads and there are light hearted threads, and it does seem reasonable to me to respect the mood of the thread to date.
Threads do evolve, one direction or another, however an abrupt change reads very strangely.

I really have to say something about this whole thing. I probably regret it but I'm not going to stop myself. I read the rules. Perhaps I did not read them clearly but it seems to me there is no standard definition of spam given nonetheless social spam. What you did find is a list of examples of what is spam and social spam. I did read through them and I would have to consider those threads spam as well. However, I was angered when a mod called people who defied her ruling rude, and who compared greeting people to a business meeting. There is an RP forum, an NS forum, an International Incidents forum, but not a 'how you doing?' forum. Perhaps that is General? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's what general was for; 'anything and everything'. So I decided to try to define spam for myself and ended up finding flaws. Here are the definitions I got: 'Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail'.

This definition cannot apply to general as it is a forum all messages are open to all posters therefore the word unsolicited cannot be used. Correct me if I'm wrong, but General is not a business meeting or for commercial uses. You cannot compare General to a business meeting, they are of completey different natures. Business meetings are quite orthodox. 'Anything and everything' is the exact opposite of orthodox. So would like to know what spam is. If this is meant to be a debate forum, please tell me if you will.

I guess what I'm saying is that a simple hello is something totally different from carrying on a long conversation that's unrelated to the topic of the thread. But the thing is that we've already got the word threadjack for the latter.

I'm not supporting threadjacking, but even in the most serious of threads--those that might fit the church or boardroom analogy (though I don't think there are any that do: there's no business being transacted here, just words being traded)--I don't see the problem with spending a post to say "Haven't seen you in a while" or something similar.

That's a very different thing that disrupting a thread with "What's up with you?" "Nuthin'. What's up with you?" "I'm going to skateboard down at the mall." "Righteous." "Yep." Etc. Etc. This is a threadjack and should be prevented.

But it just seemed that the thrust of the mod post in Ask a Jew was that a single hello would henceforth become a warnable offense. That's what struck me as draconian.

iMerge.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

iMerge.

Wow. That just blew my mind. I hit reply and it was like I went over the rainbow into Modland. I didn't know where I was at first.

90% of the spam problems would be solved if they would make a thread in General, sticky it and call it "Chit Chat" or something like that. Then people who dont care to debate on religion, politics or homosexuality could go in there and hang out, talk about various topics and change the subject from time to time without having to worry about breaking the rules. I dont see why this would be a bad idea. It would let the hard core debaters have their threads without interruption and allow the other memebers to enjoy the company of fellow members as well.

Mods, would you discuss that possibility and perhaps consider it?

Spam/SPAM: Off-topic, irrelevant and multi-posts that clog the server. This includes posting lots of smilies which is known as Smilie Spam. Also akin to spamming is Post-whoring which is when a player posts anything just to increase the postcount. Going in and out of a region and hence filling up the regional events board with departing and arriving messages is known as Events Log Spamming and is not allowed. Spamming to the point where you get deleted is known as Klamathing. Spamming in the forums should be reported through the Moderation forum, and In-game, through the Getting Help Page.

I think we're looking at the off-topic clause here.

I've yet to see any topic in my time on these forums stay on topic for any more than a page or two. Even the "Ask A Jew" thread, from which your quotes come, degenerated nicely into racial superiority without any deletion of said messages being "off topic" - even though they clearly are as none asked a question pertaining to Judaism or being Jewish - yet, as stated above, Jewish people being a very social culture, a two post sode conversation was removed. I see no logic in this.

I've seen a couple of threads that stayed on-topic longer than that. Probably before your time, though I haven't spent as much time in General lately so I may have missed a few. Still, you are essentially correct in pointing out that almost every thread goes off-topic in short order. I don't see how the fact that almost every thread goes off topic really makes a diference here, though. If every post was spam would it be any less against the rules to spam? I doubt it.

I personally don't have a problem with the so-called "social spam", but I'm not the one making the rules, so that doesn't matter much. The best we can do is try to get the rule changed, which it seems is what you are trying to do. :) Good luck, pardner.

In a related observation...In my experience, the Mods have allowed discussions that are off-topic in the strict sense to continue because they were related or pertinent to or digressed in a reasonable way from the original topic. So even if you were chatting somewhat idly, as long as you were discussing something somehow related or pertinent to the original topic, you should (in my experience) be okay. Is that the sense others have? Mods?

Just to reprise the entire conversation, this is what began all this. I have undeleted the spam posts in question so they can be seen in context, and cross-posted them here as well. Bear in mind that virtually all other posts in "Ask a Jew" had something to do with Jews or the inevitiable racism diversion (which I also put a stop to, by the way).Mistress Kimberly (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8459484&postcount=216)]
Keruvy! I am back! Did ya miss me??? :fluffle:Keruvalia (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8459490&postcount=218)
HOORAY!!

How's the new job goin'?Mistress Kimberly (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8459535&postcount=221)
Its good. I just bought a new laptop tonight and have managed to latch on to someone elses wireless connection in my building lol.Frisbeeteria (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8459602&postcount=228)
Would you two have your conversations somewhere else, please? Like in the Spam forum or something? Can we not have a single topic without social spam in it?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator TeamKeruvalia (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8463095&postcount=236)
Humans are social creatures, Fris. Hence, socialization is not spam. It is the standard norm. :)Frisbeeteria (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8463624&postcount=240)
Allow me to strongly disagree. Would you walk into the middle of a business meeting, lecture, or church, and immediately start having an unrelated conversation that EVERYONE else was forced to listen to? For most people, the answer would be "no". If you answer "yes", then you are far ruder than 99% of the people I know.

Forum topics are "on-topic" for a reason. When you and the other social spammers interrupt that for your private chat sessions, it is disruptive. That is why I consider it spam, and against the rules of the NationStates forum.

Out of the thousands of active NS nations who participate in the Forums, you and perhaps a dozen others are the primary instigators of this ‘social spam’. You personally have responded to me twice, indicating that you didn’t feel my interpretation to be correct or appropriate. I’m interpreting this to mean that you have chosen to ignore a moderation ruling, and have every intention of continuing this practice. I’m going to give you this one opportunity to reconsider your choice.

From now on, such social spam, when inserted into the middle of unrelated topics, will be not just be deleted on sight but will also be considered a warning offense. This will also be mentioned in an upcoming revision of the General rules. Consider this a polite notification of said intent.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator



Apologies for interrupting "Ask a Jew". Nothing further to see here. Move along. Move along.
I think it should be obvious that this was in no way "discussing something somehow related or pertinent to the original topic". By my conclusions, this is so far off-topic as to be considered intrusive spamming. It's no better than a post full of sniper smilies. In fact, I could make a better case for sniper smilies being "on-topic" than this.

I'll address the questions raised here in greater detail later tonight, but for now I wanted to get this portion of it on record.

One thing that I wanted to add into this is that a select few Generalites have been continuously pushing the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable. The push for social spam to become 'legal' is confusing in the very least, seeing as there are other places that are more appropriate for "Hi, how are ya?" discussions. Download AIM, Yahoo, MSN, IRC, or any other program that exists out there.

Frisbeeteria: Would you like me to add this new ruling to the General Forum sticky? Or is a whole new General Ruling coming soon?

I think it should be obvious that this was in no way "discussing something somehow related or pertinent to the original topic".

I have to agree, given the posts you've shown. It was way off-topic. I don't have a problem with "social spam," but your interpretation of the rules in this case seems fair.

By my conclusions, this is so far off-topic as to be considered intrusive spamming. It's no better than a post full of sniper smilies. In fact, I could make a better case for sniper smilies being "on-topic" than this.

I don't know about that. Maybe if it was in a post asking, "How do y'all Jews feel about people always trying to kill you?" then a sniper smiley might be appropriate. Maybe.

Or it could just be that I don't much like the sniper smiley. :D

One thing that I wanted to add into this is that a select few Generalites have been continuously pushing the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable. The push for social spam to become 'legal' is confusing in the very least, seeing as there are other places that are more appropriate for "Hi, how are ya?" discussions. Download AIM, Yahoo, MSN, IRC, or any other program that exists out there.

I understand why people would want to push for "social spam" to become legal, given the description of the General Forum, "a place to discuss and debate anything." Idle chat would certainly constitute discussion of something, which would fall under the umbrella "anything".

I also understand that it can be annoying when people use your thread for discussing things totally unrelated in any way to the topic. So...meh.

Does this mean that under the upcoming revision of General forum rules that threads such as the Paradise Club will no longer be allowed?

I understand why people would want to push for "social spam" to become legal, given the description of the General Forum, "a place to discuss and debate anything." Idle chat would certainly constitute discussion of something, which would fall under the umbrella "anything".

I also understand that it can be annoying when people use your thread for discussing things totally unrelated in any way to the topic. So...meh.


Interpretation of "A Place to Discuss and Debate Anything" could be taken in many different ways. Personally, I believe that idle chat doesn't belong anywhere in the General forum because you aren't discussing or debating anything. Sure, you may be discussing what happened that day, or you got a new job, or something along those lines, but like I said before, that's where the instant messengers come into play. That's why they were created. If you can't download one of those, then create a forum (Invision Free is good for that) just for socialite spam, or go to the Spam Forum.

On behalf of the NSRP/NSLocal 8976, I would like to say that we should allow Socialization in General ("Social Spam")

Why? One simple reason. It encourages Generalites to be friendlier to one another, which is not only nice in itself, it also reduces conflicts. Certainly a bit of "social spam" is a small price to pay for less incidents of flaming?

Does this mean that under the upcoming revision of General forum rules that threads such as the Paradise Club will no longer be allowed?
In my interpretation, we are still discussing what would and wouldn't be appropriate in General. I have every intention of making an attempt to be as inclusive as possible. With that in mind, and given the general context of General, I think it would be appropriate to have threads like Paradise Club remaining in place, and possibly even supplemented. Conversation threads have their place, as do silly threads, news threads, even parody threads.

What I don't want to see, and based on opinons I've seen and heard reflected around the forums and IRC, is a place where every thread can be spammed with impunity. Sticky topic relating to game rules or player profiles should be entirely devoted to those topics. They should not be filled with fluffle discussions or general chatter. We've got tons of room for that, and I just can't understand why Keruvalia and others can't find a more appropriate venue for that kind of talk. Telegrams, IRC, instant messenger, and chat forums would be my choice, but if you insist on using a forum based chat, why not use the Jolt Chat forum, an Invision board, or something like the Paradise Club?

There are many opinions that I haven't had a chance to address yet, nor have we had a chance to discuss it among the mods. Consequently, I'd have to say I'm far from done here. I will say that nothing I have seen in a quick scan of this topic makes me inclined to change my original ruling.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

Interpretation of "A Place to Discuss and Debate Anything" could be taken in many different ways.

Not if we both understand the concept of "anything".

Personally, I believe that idle chat doesn't belong anywhere in the General forum because you aren't discussing or debating anything. Sure, you may be discussing what happened that day, or you got a new job, or something along those lines, but like I said before, that's where the instant messengers come into play. That's why they were created. If you can't download one of those, then create a forum (Invision Free is good for that) just for socialite spam, or go to the Spam Forum.

Many players do just what you have suggested. Others prefer not to, and may have valid reasons for doing so.

Not if we both understand the concept of "anything".


"A Place to Discuss and Debate Anything"
My interpretation of the "Anything" in the description is anything that is discussion-worthy, having to do with debate, as well as recent news occurring in real life, not what somebody did last night.

But who makes the call that "this one's serious, this one ain't"?So "What do you guys do with all of that christian baby's blood around Passover?" is a serious question now?This isn't a question of serious versus non-serious. It's on-topic versus off-topic. While the baby's blood question is tasteless and rude, it's technically "on-topic". If somebody wanted to start a topic comparing tattoos, and MKULTRA dropped a huge democracynow.org post in the middle of it, he'd be the one spamming.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's what general was for; 'anything and everything'.
Anything and everything means that you can start topics on 'anything and everything' that isn't covered by the other forums and isn't illegal. It doesn't necessarily mean that every topic can be answered in any way. We still ask that people stay on topic, and we give an enormous amount of lattitude in that.

My objection, and my ruling, is based on the fact that the three posts in question had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Had those same comments also included a question for Klonor ("How hard is it to convert to Judiasm? PS: Hey Keruvalia! Did ya miss me? Meet me in Chat (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=373)!"), I'd have never even blinked. There's nothing wrong with meet-and-greet as long as the post is primarily on topic. Had Keruvalia continued such a conversation in the Chat forum as requested, it would have been wonderful. No different than stepping out on the balcony to have a private chat while letting the people inside keep talking about the main subject. Had he posted in response, with no content related to the thread title, the hammer would most likely have come down.
But it just seemed that the thrust of the mod post in Ask a Jew was that a single hello would henceforth become a warnable offense. That's what struck me as draconian.I hope that my posting of the entire conversation and my reaction to it has disabused you of that notion.
90% of the spam problems would be solved if they would make a thread in General, sticky it and call it "Chit Chat" or something like that.
An ongoing problem with any forum this side is the formation of cliques. This whole topic concept of "NS Forum Royalty" is all about that. Given that this will happen no matter how stringent the moderation, I don't see a reason to force everyone into a tiny room for their chatter. In the same sense that there are different restaurants, clubs, and bars for people of different tastes, I don't see anything wrong with having several threads devoted to chat in much the same way that Paradise Club does. Each would have a theme or topic, and there would be an expectation for them to stay somewhat on topic.

I know there have been past rulings on Paradise Club and other similar threads, and these comments in no way overrule any of them. At this point, I'm free-associating ideas and suggestions, and I'd welcome input from other players and Mods. Euroslavia, don't add this topic to your sticky, as we're in no way done with it. Let's get the air cleared fully before closing this down and locking it into place.

~ Fris ~

90% of the spam problems would be solved if they would make a thread in General, sticky it and call it "Chit Chat" or something like that. Then people who dont care to debate on religion, politics or homosexuality could go in there and hang out, talk about various topics and change the subject from time to time without having to worry about breaking the rules. I dont see why this would be a bad idea. It would let the hard core debaters have their threads without interruption and allow the other memebers to enjoy the company of fellow members as well.

Mods, would you discuss that possibility and perhaps consider it?

Or we could sepearate the general forum in to social and ploitical forums like I've suggested before.

This isn't a question of serious versus non-serious. It's on-topic versus off-topic. While the baby's blood question is tasteless and rude, it's technically "on-topic". If somebody wanted to start a topic comparing tattoos, and MKULTRA dropped a huge democracynow.org post in the middle of it, he'd be the one spamming.

Anything and everything means that you can start topics on 'anything and everything' that isn't covered by the other forums and isn't illegal. It doesn't necessarily mean that every topic can be answered in any way. We still ask that people stay on topic, and we give an enormous amount of lattitude in that.

My objection, and my ruling, is based on the fact that the three posts in question had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Had those same comments also included a question for Klonor ("How hard is it to convert to Judiasm? PS: Hey Keruvalia! Did ya miss me? Meet me in Chat (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=373)!"), I'd have never even blinked. There's nothing wrong with meet-and-greet as long as the post is primarily on topic. Had Keruvalia continued such a conversation in the Chat forum as requested, it would have been wonderful. No different than stepping out on the balcony to have a private chat while letting the people inside keep talking about the main subject. Had he posted in response, with no content related to the thread title, the hammer would most likely have come down.
I hope that my posting of the entire conversation and my reaction to it has disabused you of that notion.

An ongoing problem with any forum this side is the formation of cliques. This whole topic concept of "NS Forum Royalty" is all about that. Given that this will happen no matter how stringent the moderation, I don't see a reason to force everyone into a tiny room for their chatter. In the same sense that there are different restaurants, clubs, and bars for people of different tastes, I don't see anything wrong with having several threads devoted to chat in much the same way that Paradise Club does. Each would have a theme or topic, and there would be an expectation for them to stay somewhat on topic.
I know there have been past rulings on Paradise Club and other similar threads, and these comments in no way overrule any of them. At this point, I'm free-associating ideas and suggestions, and I'd welcome input from other players and Mods. Euroslavia, don't add this topic to your sticky, as we're in no way done with it. Let's get the air cleared fully before closing this down and locking it into place.

~ Fris ~

All great points Fris....I guess I was confused and thought this meant we couldnt chitter chatter at all. We have a thread similar to PC and I thought that might be omited due to the topic of spam. We arent spamming, we're talking and having fun with each other in a similar way that PC does. Thanks for being open to such threads.

And am I a complete ditz or what, but would someone tell me where the spam forum and chat forum are? I think I'm crappy at navigating my way around NS....thats why I stay in general. I'm afraid I wont find my way back!

I have every intention of making an attempt to be as inclusive as possible.

Good, I can't wait to see what everyone pools together and comes up with as the new policies. General has degraded so far since even I joined, and seriously, sometimes when I post there I ask myself: What am I doing? I feel as if there's nothing there, because of the hijacking, trolling and spamming. It's like a minefield of spam.

Or we could sepearate the general forum in to social and ploitical forums like I've suggested before.

First of all, ye old "not a mod" disclaimer

Anyway, I think that's a good idea.

but I also think that that's too radical, and probably "not gonna happen". The reason would probably be "too much work for mods".

Good, I can't wait to see what everyone pools together and comes up with as the new policies. General has degraded so far since even I joined, and seriously, sometimes when I post there I ask myself: What am I doing? I feel as if there's nothing there, because of the hijacking, trolling and spamming. It's like a minefield of spam.

Yes, I also hope to improve the quality of General.

First of all, ye old "not a mod" disclaimer

Anyway, I think that's a good idea.

but I also think that that's too radical, and probably "not gonna happen". The reason would probably be "too much work for mods".


then like Fris said, they dont have a problem with social threads like PC. Thats not extra work for them. But having a chit chat sticky is a good idea, I think

Yes, I also hope to improve the quality of General.

There are only two ways I see the overall quality of General improving. It will take a largescale improvement over a short period of time, because for the most part, General is far from salvagable in my eyes. It used to be much, much better. Even before my time.

General needs a new type of poster; a poster more concerned with staying on topic than spamming. This will be hard to find, because we all have our moments, but if we can remember to keep spam elsewhere - like the Jolt spam forum, IMs or off-site forums, General will be all the safer from junk and debris and post count whores.
General needs to be modded more efficiently. Not that the moderator's aren't swamped already but if change must occur, it must occur with a swift fist of justice. No exceptions. It just has to be done this way or else most posters won't get the picture.

Just my two cents, for what it's worth, take it that way. :p

I'll address the questions raised here in greater detail later tonight, but for now I wanted to get this portion of it on record.

Actually, what you've put on the record is that MK came into the "Ask a Jew" thread and asked a Jew a question. :p :D

I am reminded of something here ...

Did the creator of the thread lodge a complaint? I mean ... could this not be a case of intervention where it wasn't asked for? Are we children who cannot tend to our created thread - asking for moderator intervention when needed - without the "father knows best" mod approach? I'm 32 years old. I think I'm beyond the need for unasked for intervention.

Since we're going with a church or lecture or business meeting metaphor, then this almost smacks of a policeman kicking in the door of the business meeting to see if anything he doesn't like is going on. Since there is no "official" rule on this matter, then it is just the whim of a policeman.

However ...

Being one of the posters on the thread at hand who has answered just about every question that came down the pike - including the silly ones about baby's blood and blowjobs - with authority and knowledge, I would have to say that I would be one of the "lecturers" in this particular business meeting and, thus, I think I reserve the right to greet someone who's just walked into the room.

Maybe that's just me, though.

Did the creator of the thread lodge a complaint? I mean ... could this not be a case of intervention where it wasn't asked for?
There is no need or obligation for the creator of a thread to request intervention. Any forum reader can point out any questionable issue and request moderator input, and we will respond. Under certain circumstances, thread creators are given "extra" rights (in NS or II they may request lock or deletion), but other than that, every post is fair game for any member.

I'm a member. I was reading "Ask a Jew", and had I not been a Mod I would have reported those posts. Since I *am* a mod, I responded to my own request and dealt with it.

As for the rest of your post, you're grasping at straws. The implication of the topic is clearly "Ask a Jew about Jewish topics", not "Ask a Jew irrelevant questions". It's a specious argument.

I also wanted to point out that I do not participate in the Paradise Clubs. I don't role play and I don't do the cyber thing - even if it is craftily disguised.

I am, however, willing to compromise if the decision is ultimately handed down that "social spam" is to include greeting someone who just walked into the thread.

I am willing to simply start my own "No Role Play Chit Chat Club #X" threads and go with that without any sort of fight. I am opposed to the idea that a thread must remain on topic with every post lest the poster be officially warned because I find that draconic power-mongering, but if those are the rules, those are the rules.

There is no need or obligation for the creator of a thread to request intervention. Any forum reader can point out any questionable issue and request moderator input, and we will respond. Under certain circumstances, thread creators are given "extra" rights (in NS or II they may request lock or deletion), but other than that, every post is fair game for any member.

Fair enough. Conceded.

As for the rest of your post, you're grasping at straws. The implication of the topic is clearly "Ask a Jew about Jewish topics", not "Ask a Jew irrelevant questions". It's a specious argument.

So what about the baby's blood question, which was admitted to being a not serious question? There are a lot of questions in that thread which can be construed as "irrelevant". Who makes that distinction?

Here's a thought,

Instead of a seperate post to say "Hi, how's the weather, etc", include the greeting in an on topic post.

Like so:
"Oh hi Bob.

Anyways, blah blah blah coporation blah blah blah blah blah blah purple and whatever else the topic is about."

If the censorship becomes so drastic and ridgid, eventually people will get tired and move on and possibly have negative things to say abou NS(publicity). Now since Max created this for an advertisement for his books, I cant see how he would approve of having such strict censorship rules. He is an author after all and most literary professionals are against censorship. Its one thing to spam up a thread and another to casually chat within a group. We've made friends through Nation States, and asking people to strictly debate and never socialize is not realistic. Its to the point where people are afraid to post because they feel they may be warned for something another person doesnt like. It is impossible to please everyone. So cant there be a middle ground? I like NS, I like the people, I am thinking of buying Max's books. But lets be real here. The kinds of things that get reported sometimes are just silly. "Bob and Jill are fluffling in my thread". And? Under the big Nation States logo, it says "Because sometimes even national leaders want to just hang out." Hanging out consists of casual chatter and social conversations. Doesnt it? So can everyone relax a little bit?

There are only two ways I see the overall quality of General improving. It will take a largescale improvement over a short period of time, because for the most part, General is far from salvagable in my eyes. It used to be much, much better. Even before my time.

General needs a new type of poster; a poster more concerned with staying on topic than spamming. This will be hard to find, because we all have our moments, but if we can remember to keep spam elsewhere - like the Jolt spam forum, IMs or off-site forums, General will be all the safer from junk and debris and post count whores.
General needs to be modded more efficiently. Not that the moderator's aren't swamped already but if change must occur, it must occur with a swift fist of justice. No exceptions. It just has to be done this way or else most posters won't get the picture.

Just my two cents, for what it's worth, take it that way. :p

First of all, to me, improving the quality of General means "making General a friendlier place". Therefore:

1) I am more concerned with increasing goodwill than staying on topic. If there's a debate going on, and someone posts "I love you, so-and-so" and that person posts "I love you too", then so be it. it may be spam, but it increases goodwill.

2) I agree that General needs to be modded more efficiently, and the best way to ensure this would be more moderators. I also agree with being consistent. But what is "justice" is currently under debate (are all the rules fair and sensible?). It's also improtant to remember that true justice is not "the same punishment for the same crime", it's "the same punishment for the same crime with the same circumstances".

If the censorship becomes so drastic and ridgid, eventually people will get tired and move on and possibly have negative things to say abou NS(publicity). Now since Max created this for an advertisement for his books, I cant see how he would approve of having such strict censorship rules. He is an author after all and most literary professionals are against censorship. Its one thing to spam up a thread and another to casually chat within a group. We've made friends through Nation States, and asking people to strictly debate and never socialize is not realistic. Its to the point where people are afraid to post because they feel they may be warned for something another person doesnt like. It is impossible to please everyone. So cant there be a middle ground? I like NS, I like the people, I am thinking of buying Max's books. But lets be real here. The kinds of things that get reported sometimes are just silly. "Bob and Jill are fluffling in my thread". And? Under the big Nation States logo, it says "Because sometimes even national leaders want to just hang out." Hanging out consists of casual chatter and social conversations. Doesnt it? So can everyone relax a little bit?

I agree! Mellow out, everyone! Doing so increases goodwill!

Here's a thought,

Instead of a seperate post to say "Hi, how's the weather, etc", include the greeting in an on topic post.

Like so:
"Oh hi Bob.

Anyways, blah blah blah coporation blah blah blah blah blah blah purple and whatever else the topic is about."

Personally, I think doing so would be a great idea. It only takes a little more effort to keep on topic. It's ok to say hi to someone, but add something relevant to the thread as well.

I am willing to simply start my own "No Role Play Chit Chat Club #X" threads and go with that without any sort of fight. I am opposed to the idea that a thread must remain on topic with every post lest the poster be officially warned because I find that draconic power-mongering, but if those are the rules, those are the rules.

There are different types of 'topic changes'.
1. The topic slowly but surely evolves, due to the adaptation of the subject.
Example: A debate over Christianity develops into a discussion about Creationism.

2. The topic is quickly changed by someone who either has no adherence to the original posters subject.

Obviously, the first one is understandable because many topics in General become as such; however, when the so-called social spam enters into a legitimate debate and says 'hi' to someone else, or 'how are ya?' without paying any respect to the original posters requests, then it becomes a problem. If you can't contribute anything relevant to the thread, then why post in it at all?

1) I am more concerned with increasing goodwill than staying on topic. If there's a debate going on, and someone posts "I love you, so-and-so" and that person posts "I love you too", then so be it. it may be spam, but it increases goodwill.

Goodwill is something that can't be suddenly 'implemented'. There are always going to be people who are closed-minded and rude to others who have different points of views, not to sound pessimistic. I believe that, if stricter rulings on the General forum are put in line (having to do with limiting spam more than now), then hopefully some common sense will be established, and the forum itself may have some hope.

There are different types of 'topic changes'.
1. The topic slowly but surely evolves, due to the adaptation of the subject.

2. The topic is quickly changed by someone who either has no adherence to the original posters subject.
As another mod pointed out to me tonight, these two have names.

1. Topic drift is tolerated, as it usually drifts back in the direction of the original topic or follows a path along the same line.

2. Topic hijacking is the abrupt departure from the topic, sometimes creating a thread-within-a-thread that has no relevance to the original topic.

What I've been referring to as social spam is in fact already illegal when considered under the Topic hijacking rule. As such, I stand behind my original ruling. Given that this topic is now addressing a broader topic of socializing in General, and getting good and valuable input, I believe we can continue to "drift" with it.

Goodwill is something that can't be suddenly 'implemented'. There are always going to be people who are closed-minded and rude to others who have different points of views, not to sound pessimistic. I believe that, if stricter rulings on the General forum are put in line (having to do with limiting spam more than now), then hopefully some common sense will be established, and the forum itself may have some hope.

I know, but it is something that can be 'increased'. Yes, there are people who are closed-minded and rude, but hopefully, if goodwill is increased, then these people will be inspired to change their ways, or leave. It's justlike in the cartoons/children's stories/whatever: evil people can't stand the love.

And no, stricter rulings are not the way to go about with it, because it decreases goodwill. Basically, the way for hope is for everyone to "mellow out". Do whatever you do to relax, then come back.

I know, but it is something that can be 'increased'. Yes, there are people who are closed-minded and rude, but hopefully, if goodwill is increased, then these people will be inspired to change their ways, or leave. It's justlike in the cartoons/children's stories/whatever: evil people can't stand the love.

Yes, lets base our policy on fiction.
BEST
IDEA
EVER

As another mod pointed out to me tonight, these two have names.

1. Topic drift is tolerated, as it usually drifts back in the direction of the original topic or follows a path along the same line.

2. Topic hijacking is the abrupt departure from the topic, sometimes creating a thread-within-a-thread that has no relevance to the original topic.


Ok, but we're talking about a situation where the person (in this case me) in question has already been a major contributer to the topic at hand, takes a brief pause and says "Hey" to someone, and then gets slammed by a Mod (no less) for being one of "the primary instigators of this ‘social spam’".

How is that in any way "hijacking"?

You, Mod, are walking into a church and telling the preacher to get back on topic and you call me rude?

Ok, but we're talking about a situation where the person (in this case me) in question has already been a major contributer to the topic at hand, takes a brief pause and says "Hey" to someone, and then gets slammed by a Mod (no less) for being one of "the primary instigators of this ‘social spam’".

In a way, that is worse than a random person coming in and posting social spam. Given that you've been in that thread for awhile, people will respond to you. When someone random enters a thread, people can ignore it fairly easily if they try. But ignoring the post of someone you've been continuously responding to in a thread would seem kindof rude.

I personally think the idea of including personal conversation alongside your serious comments would be a good idea. Or just having a general chat thread to shove all the spam into. (Which of course leads to directing everyone to the Spam forum on Jolt) But I can understand people's desires to talk to people they know on NS as opposed to random spammers.

(but the constant :fluffle: do get annoying!) :p

Ok, but we're talking about a situation where the person (in this case me) in question has already been a major contributer to the topic at hand, takes a brief pause and says "Hey" to someone, and then gets slammed by a Mod (no less) for being one of "the primary instigators of this ‘social spam’".

How is that in any way "hijacking"?

You, Mod, are walking into a church and telling the preacher to get back on topic and you call me rude?
You need to calm down, sir. Had this been an isolated incident, I seriously doubt I would have pursued it to this level. But since you chose to respond as you did, both here and elsewhere, we find ourselves in a shouting match.

I asked you once before, in the Player Pictures thread, to make some attempt to stay on topic. There were more than 40 sequential posts of total thread hijacking there, with absolutely no mention of pictures. You responded at that time with something like 'being social isn't spam'. I can't link to it, because another mod deleted the entire spammy thread at Erastide's request.

In the "Ask a Jew" thread, you weren't even the principal instigator. That would have been Mistress Kimberly. It is only because you responded to my polite request for moderation, not once but twice, that you find yourself singled out for this discussion.

I have been charged with keeping these forums on track according to the rules and precedents set forth over the history of this game, and that is all I have done here. The heart of your claim seems to be "I have gotten away with thread hijacking for quite a while now without repercussions, so therefore I have the right to continue." Well, no you don't. Thread hijacking is against forum rules, even though it may spottily enforced. When we see an instance of it (either by browsing or having it raised by another player), we act. If you want to consider me rude for doing my job as defined, so be it. It's not going to change my behavior.

I am more concerned with increasing goodwill than staying on topic.

That's your problem... it's a political game, not the lunch time hook-up serious, you want to say hi to someone, instant messege them, keep that out of threads.

As I said before, you and the union don't understand the content of this game nor the purpose, as you don't take part in it... all you take part in is trying to change it.

seeing as i suffered some sort of traumatic overdose of good humor during my otherwise normal birth, i am so guilty of fun light hearted threads, its not even funny. to think that others look down on me because of that is hysterical- seeing as many of them have been extremely successful. (go to my profile and look at my started threads if you want)they have more often than not,led to deeper discussions on other threads, and also result in general posters finding out things about one another that normally would'nt be uncovered, but make a big difference when you are debating someone's views.

if i want to ask about something personal , though, i just post for the friend to meet me on a chat server.

however, there are times when i deserved a mod warning, and didnt get one, yet, there are others that continously seem to be watched. maybe explaining th elogistics behind that would help everyone understand, and not feel so "singled out".

however, there are times when i deserved a mod warning, and didnt get one, yet, there are others that continously seem to be watched. maybe explaining th elogistics behind that would help everyone understand, and not feel so "singled out".
I think the word you're looking for is logic, not logistics. None the less I think this word slip up provides the answer to your question.
Given the size of the moderation staff, it's a logistics nightmare (dare I say impossible) to see every thread and still maintain some semblance of a normal life. (Keep in mind these are volunteers with far more important things to do than spend 24/7 on NS)

I think the word you're looking for is logic, not logistics. None the less I think this word slip up provides the answer to your question.
Given the size of the moderation staff, it's a logistics nightmare (dare I say impossible) to see every thread and still maintain some semblance of a normal life. (Keep in mind these are volunteers with far more important things to do than spend 24/7 on NS)
thankyou. but i thought they were an elite race of androids, created soley for the forum and its people. NOW i get it.