NationStates Jolt Archive

clicky (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420675)
This thread was created for fun... no RP... So serious discussion/debate, just a fluff/spam thread. Cog posted that everyone who participated could've been warned or banned.


My question tho is if you don't want to debate/Seriously discuss and not RPing. is there a place on NS forums where you can just mindlessly spam and have fun? a thread, Like Seinfeild, is about nothing in general?

perhaps an offical (thus only one) Spam thread where, While Flamebaiting/trolling are still illegal, Spam and mindless ramblings are not?

Granted, it is not the NS side of the tracks, but the following link should fill your need nicely...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=29

If you want, try to put an "NS only please" in the topic, though people dont need to listen

Granted, it is not the NS side of the tracks, but the following link should fill your need nicely...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=29

If you want, try to put an "NS only please" in the topic, though people dont need to listenBut at the same time, all of the other serious discussions/debates can also go here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1038)

However, the point is to use the NS Forums and General is... well General, open for any and all topics. That is why an Official Spam thread (automatically limiting it to One thread.) might help aliviate those who just wanna chat and shoot the breeze and not talk about anything serious.

Idle chatter might, at most, get moved over to the Jolt spam forum. I don't have a problem with just "shooting the breeze". This, however, wasn't idle chatter. I quote the opening post of the linked topic verbatim:So here's the plan. What we do is get this thread so off topic that the mods will move it to the spam bin or something. But the trick is not to ask them to move it, or offend anyone to the point of getting banned. Got it? Go!Here, he explicitly states that the idea is to provoke a certain kind of Moderator action.

First, this is wasting Moderator time as any time a Moderator has to take action, he or she has to analyze the topic and figure out what to do with it. Deliberately creating cases that we have to deal with is not appreciated.

Second, people who like to cause trouble try to push the limits as far as they can without getting punished. This is also not appreciated.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

Idle chatter might, at most, get moved over to the Jolt spam forum. I don't have a problem with just "shooting the breeze". This, however, wasn't idle chatter. I quote the opening post of the linked topic verbatim:Here, he explicitly states that the idea is to provoke a certain kind of Moderator action.

First, this is wasting Moderator time as any time a Moderator has to take action, he or she has to analyze the topic and figure out what to do with it. Deliberately creating cases that we have to deal with is not appreciated.

Second, people who like to cause trouble try to push the limits as far as they can without getting punished. This is also not appreciated.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."Now, since he also stated we wern't suppose to use Flame(baiting) or trolling, wounldn't that just leave the post count? that would tell me, that unless someone posted a complaint about Flaming/trolling or innappropriate postings, it's pretty much free for all and thus can be "mod ignored"

not trying to defend him, just seeing what is allowed by way of Thread topics.

if he had not posted that intent... let's say, he posted "this thread is just to chat.... have fun no real topics here. but please keep it civil and proper." would that be ok?

This is from the "One Stop Rules Shop" sticky at the top of the forum.
Chat threads: If you want to have a private conversation with one or two other people, this isn't the place to do it. One of the instant message clients (AIM, MSN) or an IRC /query is best. If you must chat on forums, use Jolt's Chat forum.


Now, since he also stated we wern't suppose to use Flame(baiting) or trolling, wounldn't that just leave the post count? that would tell me, that unless someone posted a complaint about Flaming/trolling or innappropriate postings, it's pretty much free for all and thus can be "mod ignored"

Just because someone doesn't post in moderation about a supposed flame/troll/flamebait, doesn't mean that it's ok, and can be ignored by a moderator. Any sort of violation of the rules upheld by the moderators (reported or not) is punishable. If a moderator finds any sort of post that breaks the rules, whether it offends someone or not, they probably will act upon it.

Oh... ok... thanks for the clarification.

Just because someone doesn't post in moderation about a supposed flame/troll/flamebait, doesn't mean that it's ok, and can be ignored by a moderator. Any sort of violation of the rules upheld by the moderators (reported or not) is punishable. If a moderator finds any sort of post that breaks the rules, whether it offends someone or not, they probably will act upon it.

Sorry, can't resist asking the question: If it doesn't offend anyone, should it be against the rules?

Sorry, can't resist asking the question: If it doesn't offend anyone, should it be against the rules?

Here's a hypothetical situation.
I state in a thread that I want to kill the leader of Norway, and I describe how I want to do it. It may not offend anyone here, but it is still against the terms of service. I'm threatening the life of someone; therefore, I really don't have to offend someone within the NS forums. The fact that I said it is still 'malicious' and 'threatening'.

Here's a hypothetical situation.
I state in a thread that I want to kill the leader of Norway, and I describe how I want to do it. It may not offend anyone here, but it is still against the terms of service. I'm threatening the life of someone; therefore, I really don't have to offend someone within the NS forums. The fact that I said it is still 'malicious' and 'threatening'.

Ah, but that might get you into legal trouble. I'm talking about stuff like word games.

Ah, but that might get you into legal trouble. I'm talking about stuff like word games.Ah yes. Word games. Fun little bits of nonsense that add nothing to anyone's experience on the forums, but do such a wonderful job of eating up the bandwidth that Jolt thought they could handle.

No, no one is likely to be offended by word games. They're harmless enough, except for the cumulative effect they have on the servers. However, so long as any behaviour (be it offensive or otherwise) is against the terms of service, it means any moderator who notices it must make a judgment call on what to do about it. That then creates work for them, and they may take a less than lenient attitude toward people who insist on creating/maintaining them.

You of all people should, by now, appreciate the fact that moderating a forum is not so cut-and-dried as you would like to claim. If you want word games in your forum, by all means encourage word games in your forum. The moderators have said no word games in any NS forums. That should be enough.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not a Moderator. Any phrase suggesting that I might speak with the authority of or on the behalf of any Moderator living or dead is unintentional and purely coincidental.

Ah yes. Word games. Fun little bits of nonsense that add nothing to anyone's experience on the forums, but do such a wonderful job of eating up the bandwidth that Jolt thought they could handle.

No, no one is likely to be offended by word games. They're harmless enough, except for the cumulative effect they have on the servers. However, so long as any behaviour (be it offensive or otherwise) is against the terms of service, it means any moderator who notices it must make a judgment call on what to do about it. That then creates work for them, and they may take a less than lenient attitude toward people who insist on creating/maintaining them.

You of all people should, by now, appreciate the fact that moderating a forum is not so cut-and-dried as you would like to claim. If you want word games in your forum, by all means encourage word games in your forum. The moderators have said no word games in any NS forums. That should be enough.

Standard Disclaimer: I am not a Moderator. Any phrase suggesting that I might speak with the authority of or on the behalf of any Moderator living or dead is unintentional and purely coincidental.

Ah, so it IS about the bandwidth. :)

Anyway, that was just an hypothetical example, but it can be used to show an example of consensus.

Suppose 70% of players either support or do not feel strongly about word games. Max opposes, because he feels that they are pointless and waste bandwidth. He does not want ANY word games on NS. The mods are willing to go with whatever he says.

Now it would be nice if the Max and the players could talk agree that there should be one "official" word games thread, and everyone walks away (at least somewhat) happy. Supporting players are happy that they have a word games thread. The mods are happy, as it does not add significantly to the workload (it would be similar to the (former?) paradise club thread). Max is happy about his bandwith and the "spam" content on his site, and the 30% opposing platers can be convinced that this new policy will not affect them negatively.

Once again, this is just an EXAMPLE.

As a non-moderator for NationStates, here's my hypothetical answer:

"Just one thread" almost invariably turns into multiple threads, sometimes with each thread's initiator claiming to be the creator of the "one true thread". Yuck. Plus, these forums exist to facilitate the playing of a game called "NationStates". While it is certainly nice of the admins to make a "General" forum, it certainly isn't essential to the functioning of the game, now is it? Adding word games, fluffle spam, and the like to the mix burdens the system (servers, moderators, and posters who have to wade through all of it).

The hypothetical majority argument doesn't hold much water either. If 70% of posters were either indifferent to or in favor of abolishing the General forum outright, would that be sufficient impetus to eliminate it? At which point do we sit back and let the site creator dictate policy (here's a hint: always). Besides, the Internet's a pretty big place, and there are plenty of spots where word games can be played to one's heart's content.

Now it would be nice if the Max and the players could talk agree that there should be one "official" word games thread, and everyone walks away (at least somewhat) happy.

But the thread would fill up too quickly, and nobody would be able to keep track of it. It would rapidly become a bloated monstrosity that nobody wanted to post in at all. They would demand TWO word game threads. And so on.

But wait, we already have an entire forum on the site for word games and other spam, don't we? If they don't want to use it that's really not our problem. They can find another site that does allow word games and play them there.

Again, Sandpit, going by consensus for a technical process is equivalent to Boeing halving the wing surface area of the 747 just because a public poll said 'that's what people wanted' and listening to them was 'the nice thing to do.'

Further, it is not enough to demonstrate that a lot of people want something to happen somewhere for it to be done in a specific place. For example, a lot of people want to have sex, but that doesn't mean we should put places for people to have sex in all public libraries when they already have bedrooms.

Max is happy about his bandwith and the "spam" content on his site, and the 30% opposing platers can be convinced that this new policy will not affect them negatively.

Again with this ridiculous 'consensus' argument? It would be 'nice' of you to actually pay attention to people's responses rather than ducking out of threads mumbling about 'putting your ideas into action' and returning a month or so later spouting the exact same arguments again.

And thus ends another episode of Wasting Time With the Sandpit General.

http://homepage.mac.com/jubei1/mamselles/faye10.jpg
Faye Valentine
Local Spoiled "Rich" Girl