NationStates Jolt Archive

Closed apart from Mods if possible unless people want to question the Mods reply in my absence.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=535215

How is this Spam? It's a question just posed on CNBC - is it because of the replies so far or because of the nature of the question?

"spam them to death", followed by increasingly silly suggestions would suggest -- Spam.

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.

Where does it fit in here?

If it's on CNBC as a question, surely it's relevant to some degree - what are the weaknesses of the current global system that can be exploited by terrorism.

Perhaps I should write out my full discussion point but I feel the judgment is extremely subjective and I feel there are threads that are far more open to 'moved to spam than this one.

The question was: Is the question itself spam or do the answers define what spam is?

Where does it fit in here?

If it's on CNBC as a question, surely it's relevant to some degree - what are the weaknesses of the current global system that can be exploited by terrorism.

Perhaps I should write out my full discussion point but I feel the judgment is extremely subjective and I feel there are threads that are far more open to 'moved to spam than this one.

The question was: Is the question itself spam or do the answers define what spam is?

Reading through the thread, I think it's the answers.

The question was: Is the question itself spam or do the answers define what spam is?

Why re-ask the question if you haven't bothered to read the answer?

To make it painfully and unnecessarily obvious:

The first post was poorly constructed in that it has little context -- you didn't talk about its being asked on a serious news show, you simply posted a one sentence question, "Given you were a terrorist, and bearing in mind that people have tried - how would you attack to bring down the current world order?"

The majority of answers were:
spam 'em to death
Genetically engineered gorilla army, trained to rape anything that breathes.

Realistically i would start a religious cult and take it from there.

I'd base my strategy on the Rebel Alliance's from Star Wars. Fortunately terrorists aren't allowed to see those movies, so we are safe.

O right! that keeps me up all night... pondering destruction of the world, i mean just how am i going to do it, tossing and turning all night fretting over the issue i am

Become billionaire or hypotise a billionaire. Any local one will do. Then move to control the world's money supply and when the moment is right - send the markets into chaos and bring glorious chaos and revolution! Muwhahaha! What's more it'd all be legal too.

Lunar impact.

And then your answer of "Sorry - for you the question can be - how would you get laid?" really didn't give the impression that this was a serious discussion or even meant to be.

*snip*

Right, except I was answering an irrelevant post with an irrelevant reply - although I also answered an irrelevant-in-aim post with a serious reply here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12953807&postcount=22)

Then there was a satiric answer here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12953833&postcount=23) before the thread was moved to spam, which, admittedly in my opinion, shows the thread has validity as a question.

At this point I'm getting into petty details but, although I understand there is discretion on the decision by a Mod, I feel that this was harshly dealt with in comparison with many other threads and therefore enters the realm of subjectivity as opposed to the alternative.

I'm sure I'm being subjective myself but please don't think I didn't read the reply - I might retort 'answer the question' properly if we're jumping to trite replies.

Still doesn't change the fact -- which apparently others have managed to grasp -- that it became a spamfest immediately.

If you'd like to continue the argument in spite of the explanation, be my guest -- but it would be as pointless as the thread in question became.

Still doesn't change the fact -- which apparently others have managed to grasp -- that it became a spamfest immediately.

If you'd like to continue the argument in spite of the explanation, be my guest -- but it would be as pointless as the thread in question became.

I'm glad to see such consistency in decisions - reassuring.

Several points.
1) the OP didn't mention that it was a serious question on CNBC

2) dunno, if it was re-worded but the idea was the same, and serious answers posted... would it be considered promoting an illegal activity? (how would you attack? as a terrorist?)

Perhaps, in my Non-mod opinion, it would be best not to repost that question.

Now here's the question he should be asking: given that it has potential to be a serious topic, could the thread be reposted if the original post is reworded to include the mentioning of the news agency as well as containing serious discussion within it?

Now here's the question he should be asking: given that it has potential to be a serious topic, could the thread be reposted if the original post is reworded to include the mentioning of the news agency as well as containing serious discussion within it?

In my non mod opinion, no, because it "promotes illegal activity."

That's a rule-breaker.