Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Is responding to spam against the rules?
  • Subject: Is responding to spam against the rules?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Is responding to spam against the rules?

-blam!- Was that actually blammed out? Or did I just type it? You'll never know.

It's not specifically mentioned in the rules as being naughty, but you'll still get a ban for it. So no, it's not explicitly "against the rules," but it's still banworthy.

  • 09.13.2011 1:48 PM PDT

Posted by: Great_Pretender
Case and point: don't worry about it. Girls start getting boobies pretty soon, and then you'll have plenty of other things to think about. Being an Inheritor is not a life goal.
-TGP-

Posted by: dahuterschuter
It's not specifically mentioned in the rules as being naughty, but you'll still get a ban for it. So no, it's not explicitly "against the rules," but it's still banworthy.

I'm with Scooter.
;)

[Edited on 09.13.2011 1:49 PM PDT]

  • 09.13.2011 1:49 PM PDT

Dianna Agron is the epitome of perfection.

Quinntology.

Yes. Although it's hardly enforced.

  • 09.13.2011 2:35 PM PDT

There seems to be some amount of disagreement on the matter... Perhaps this should be clarified in the rules.

If repliying to spam is considered spam (which could easily be argued), perhaps it could be added to the list of examples in "What counts as spam?"

  • 09.14.2011 5:21 AM PDT

"We live in a special time; the only time where we can observationally verify that we live in a very special time" - Lawrence Krauss.

I was a finalist :P

I have always thought that responding to obvious spam only, would warrant a ban and even then it is in mere circumstances (this is from what I have seen). I guess it also depends on the moderators view and the thread itself.

[Edited on 09.14.2011 5:34 AM PDT]

  • 09.14.2011 5:30 AM PDT

Posted by: FALSE R3ALITYx
Bricypoo's custom user title = Ultra Lame Thread Maker


Posted by: True Underdog
Only after we ban Bricypoo.

I don't remember which forum ninja said it but they said something like this.

"Responding to spam, is spam. When you respond to spam you are just adding to it and bumping it to the top of the page."

  • 09.14.2011 5:50 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

And the Shadow fell upon the Land, and the World was riven stone from stone. The oceans fled, and the mountains were swallowed up, and the nations were scattered to the eight corners of the World. The moon was blood, and the sun was as ashes. The seas boiled, and the living envied the dead. All was shattered, and all but memory lost, and one memory above all others, of him who brought the Shadow and the Breaking of the World. And him they named Dragon.

Not if you're an Exalted Mythic Member.

[Edited on 09.14.2011 5:54 AM PDT]

  • 09.14.2011 5:54 AM PDT


Posted by: Qbix89
Not if you're an Exalted Mythic Member.
Or a Forum Ninja.

  • 09.14.2011 6:20 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Legendary Member

When the game is over, the king and pawn go into the same box

My one and only warning was received on 7/19/2010, and stated:

Posted by: x Foman123 x.
Do not respond to obvious spam or trolling. This thread was a blatant example of both, and so you have no excuse.


Were the rules changed before or after this date? Regardless, I still think it's frowned upon.

  • 09.14.2011 6:37 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

O-3 US Army Reserves AMEDD APMC
"To conserve the fighting strength!"

Posted by: Jay120171
Bobcast: the only ninja to operate an ER out of his mom's basement

Yes it is.

It isn't enforced as much as it used to be, mainly because of the judicial use of blanket bans. Back when blanket bans were the norm, the "replying to spam" rule was typically the rule invoked to crush all of the responders in a thread that was being carpet bombed.

Now that blanket bans are used sparingly the rule isn't used as much. The standard now is to just lock the spam thread and warn/ban the OP. However, there are some threads were the spam is so blatantly obvious it is warranted. For example, a CENA thread or threads like this.

  • 09.14.2011 6:41 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Legendary Member

When the game is over, the king and pawn go into the same box


Posted by: bobcast
Yes it is.

It isn't enforced as much as it used to be, mainly because of the judicial use of blanket bans. Back when blanket bans were the norm, the "replying to spam" rule was typically the rule invoked to crush all of the responders in a thread that was being carpet bombed.

Now that blanket bans are used sparingly the rule isn't used as much. The standard now is to just lock the spam thread and warn/ban the OP. However, there are some threads were the spam is so blatantly obvious it is warranted. For example, a CENA thread or threads like this.


With the standard approach to blanket bans now changed, can those that received bans or warnings previously for these infractions get their ban or warning re-evaluated? Or is it not a retroactive policy change (pro-active)?

I probably already know the answer, but it never hurts to ask. :)

  • 09.14.2011 6:52 AM PDT

i c u thar c' ing my signiture

Yours in _Kai_

It is, just like replying to parody threads are against the rules because that's considered spam.

  • 09.14.2011 6:55 AM PDT

Posted by: FALSE R3ALITYx
Bricypoo's custom user title = Ultra Lame Thread Maker


Posted by: True Underdog
Only after we ban Bricypoo.

It is impossible to remove old bans from your record. (If I am correct) That is why Burritosenior lost his title even though it was a misunderstanding.

Posted by: Coux73

Posted by: bobcast
Yes it is.

It isn't enforced as much as it used to be, mainly because of the judicial use of blanket bans. Back when blanket bans were the norm, the "replying to spam" rule was typically the rule invoked to crush all of the responders in a thread that was being carpet bombed.

Now that blanket bans are used sparingly the rule isn't used as much. The standard now is to just lock the spam thread and warn/ban the OP. However, there are some threads were the spam is so blatantly obvious it is warranted. For example, a CENA thread or threads like this.


With the standard approach to blanket bans now changed, can those that received bans or warnings previously for these infractions get their ban or warning re-evaluated? Or is it not a retroactive policy change (pro-active)?

I probably already know the answer, but it never hurts to ask. :)

  • 09.14.2011 7:31 AM PDT

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten

Yes but it is rarel inforced becuase "spam" varies moderator to mpderator, also what if someone posts a rational point not knowing the thread was troll bait/spam.

  • 09.14.2011 7:33 AM PDT

δόξει τις ἀμαθεῖ σοφὰ λέγων οὐκ εὖ φρονεῖν.

Euripides, Bacchae. 480.

Is this question synonymous with "Is responding to spartain ken 15's posts against the rules?"?

  • 09.14.2011 7:36 AM PDT

SB-117

Posted by: ZYTHON
People saying yes, mind pointing it out in the rules?
I can't seem to find it myself but I might not be looking hard enough.
"Do not post off-topic in any forum or thread." "Use common sense." "Keep your posts on-topic."

tl;dr: It's impossible to do this in a spam thread, therefore you've broken that guideline. Pretty simple.

Longwinded example and explanation: So say someone posts a spam thread about puppies in the Halo Reach forum. You reply, detailing your affection for puppies. That may be on-topic for the thread, but it's spam, and off-topic for the forum. Alternatively, you may try to turn it into a Halo dicussion. That may be on-topic for the forum, but it's off-topic for the spam thread.

So in order to avoid breaking the on-topic guideline, you're better off not replying to spam.

Also, when all else fails: "Keep in mind that this list is not complete and the Bungie.net Moderators have the authority to determine whether a post violates the "no spam" rule or not."

[Edited on 09.14.2011 8:52 AM PDT]

  • 09.14.2011 8:31 AM PDT

Clutchin' is a habit! 7th Column fo' lyfe

I just came off of a ban for that and i didnt even know it was spam...

  • 09.14.2011 8:48 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2