- I Naku I
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
#2 Supporter Halocharts, #11 other account.
"Ordinary love is selfish, deeply rooted in desires and satisfactions. Divine love is without condition, without boundary, without change."
You are all loved beyond measure.
I, like you, am a light-sound-vibration complex that resonates with others. I have hopes and dreams and ambitions, just like you! I AM, and so are you! Yes, we are one and the same, you and I.
Posted by: Rainman89
Posted by: I Naku I
On the main subject: I think it would be judicious to allow the first or second post in a spam topic to warn others not to reply with their own unnecessary nonsense, as long as the topic's already at the top. Issuing such advice in a thread that had gotten halfway down the page, though, certainly should be considered spam.
How could the moderators know the thread was on the top when replied to? Who says that person has a right to tell everyone else what is and is not spam? Lastly, who would listen?
On the contrary, I thought it was a much more realistic suggestion.
A) Timestamps and inference.
B) They don't necessarily have a right to do this. But, if they do, the mods would be exercising their own discretion not to blacklist the user for what is indeed a minor infraction of the rules.
C) People who post in threads ought to at least read the first few posts. If they brazenly ignore any warning that might have been offered by another member, they fully deserve what's coming. They have no excuses for not listening, no excuses about forgetting the rule which should now be fresh. Many who might have slipped would listen -- you'd certainly see replies, but those would be from miscreants who mods should have no misgivings about blacklisting.
If you want to talk unrealistic, continue believing that everyone will suddenly be inspired to observe for themselves the most often transgressed of forum rules. People, especially newer members, will continue to forget that replying to spam is unacceptable, as they see it so often without the punishment being exacted on the guilty.
That is, users who reply and are banned are not seen. Most spam threads are locked with replies and users intact, and if everyone has been banned it'll be assumed that the thread was locked immediately. People get the idea that it's a dead rule. The only time it's reinforced is when a mod posts in the thread reminding users not to feed spammers. Which is more work, of course, and they shouldn't feel obligated to remind users of the rules that they should have already read.
Mods can either immediately crack down on these relatively minor offenses and ban the whole lot while reminding users to read the rules, or they can give some leeway for those who do the latter for them while a campaign is instituted to raise awareness of the rules, at the end of which everyone will be fully expected to ignore all spam. Halo-related forums in general, to be blunt, do not attract the same caliber of members that the Septagon does. I think the first method is likely to cause criticism and deliberate malfeasance, especially from those who don't open locked threads to read the warnings, while the second would be a bit more understanding of the current state of things and that some transition is necessary.
And sometimes it's just fun, you know. There was a thread a few days ago asking when the beta would start. It was spam, of course, but even agdTinMan posted a witty reply in it. Should everyone else in the thread have been blacklisted?
[Edited on 07.29.2007 1:27 PM PDT]