- Kickimanjaro
- |
- Intrepid Mythic Member
“Oh, it’s a little bit of everything, it’s the mountains, it’s the fog, it’s the news at six o’clock, it’s the death of my first dog, it’s the angels up above me, it’s the song that they don’t sing, It’s a little bit of everything.”
- Dawes, A little bit of everything
Posted by: ZYTHON
Posted by: Kickimanjaro
I, too, can find no mention of it in the rules or in the HFCS FAQ.
I believe that it could either count as "bumping" the spam thread up, or as "spam" itself, but no where (that I can find) does it explicitly state this.
Though, bumping was defined as replying with the SOLE intention of bringing it to the top. A blissfully ignorant response to whatever spam topic there was wouldn't fall under this definition.
I understand that, I was simply saying that either the "spam" rule or the "bumping" rule could have something added to include this. For example, if we were to add a line to the rule against "bumping" it could be this:
Replying to a thread that is already defined as "spam" (as per the rule on "spam") is considered bumping as it makes the spam thread feature more prominently on the forum.
Or if we were to add a line to the rule against "spam" it could be this:
Note that replying to a thread that already fits the description of spam will, itself, be considered spam.
EDIT: To add to this, what the others above have already mentioned "replying to spam is spam" is something I believe however it does not state this in the rules. Now, this could be a good thing because the new rules are designed to give moderators more room to interpret them (that's how I understand the new rules at least).
So take this example, a foreigner posts on the forums in a language other than English. I would assume that because they've navigated all the way through making an account and posting a thread that they would understand English, and I would be lead to reply stating that threads should be in English only. I may also reply in the language the poster used to explain this, and then chuckle at my own hypocrisy.
The counter argument to my example would be that we are in no position to tell the user that, and that a moderator should instead lock the thread and PM an explanation (or, issue a warning and explain there).
/ramblings
[Edited on 09.13.2011 1:16 PM PDT]