02 Jul 09
Originally posted by HandyAndyCFT, had a thread up one day back some months ago "these 12 steps", if I recall correctly. I ended up with a ban in the discussion that followed, but I think that the ideas from whoever made it up was really good.
I think the confusion arises because the TOS equates "spam" with unsolicited or unauthorized advertising or promotional materials, and as such it is prohibited. The TOS does not extend the definition of "spam" to objectionable or disagreeable messages. There are prohibitions against posts that are threatening, abusive or harassing, and so forth, but those ...[text shortened]... lling them another form of "spam," we need to update the dictionary as well as the TOS.
More could be added to it in my opinion, and I think with discussion and people putting some of their own ideas forward to add to it, it would certainly be an improvement for the forums, although some may not agree.
Would certainly make for some lively conversation, and who knows, people might actually agree.
02 Jul 09
Originally posted by pawnhandlerOkay, but I think you'll agree that the limiting language in the RHP Terms of Service is what should be governing the moderators, at least until the TOS is amended. Citing "spam" as a catchall offense related to objectionable posts only fuels the confusion.
Dictionary.com provides a couple of different references in which spam is not limited to commercial content or emails, and includes forum postings. http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=spam&search=search aka http://tinyurl.com/lcagc7
02 Jul 09
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbyyou're welcome, not that i posted in the slightest expectation that you can stop what you do. having said that, perhaps this thread might help you understand why it is that you piss people off so. i've tried one approach, and maybe this approach will work better. i have my doubts, but let's see. your willingness to engage on this topic is encouraging i think, and much healthier than your earlier retreat into bizarre fantasy. as always, i wish you all the best in your quest for mental health.
Thank you, Dr.B., for being on duty.
02 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by BlackampSTUFF IT, You sit and have a crap the same as the rest of us.
you're welcome, not that i posted in the slightest expectation that you can stop what you do. having said that, perhaps this thread might help you understand why it is that you piss people off so. i've tried one approach, and maybe this approach will work better. i have my doubts, but let's see. your willingness to engage on this topic is encouraging i thin ...[text shortened]... eat into bizarre fantasy. as always, i wish you all the best in your quest for mental health.
You are really starting to look like a bully. Perhaps your eyes will become open to that FACT!!!
02 Jul 09
Originally posted by HandyAndyRec'd. Thanks, Andy, for your tenacity in delineating the policy issue.
Okay, but I think you'll agree that the limiting language in the RHP Terms of Service is what should be governing the moderators, at least until the TOS is amended. Citing "spam" as a catchall offense related to objectionable posts only fuels the confusion.
02 Jul 09
Originally posted by Very Rustypoor Rusty, you're too dumb to realise the old feller has you on a leash and is using you to be his barking dog. what did he do, PM you with a few kind words when everyone else was ignoring you? roll over, Rusty, good boy! who's a goood boy?
STUFF IT, You sit and have a crap the same as the rest of us.
You are really starting to look like a bully. Perhaps your eyes will become open to that FACT!!!
ok, now play dead.
02 Jul 09
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedI agree that pawnhandler's offering was a nugget, an eloquent description of disruptive and self-serving posts. But it doesn't fully answer GB's question: What is spam with respect to RHP's Terms of Service "as applied and administered to its public forums"?
The TOS equates spam with unsolicited junk mail, and nothing more. A disruptive post can be removed, not because it's spam but because it's a disruptive post. We need to be more explicit about what spam is, as applied to the RHP forums.
If you believe that the definition of spam has been extended to include disruptive and self-serving posts, then the TOS needs to say that. Users punished for posting spam need a clear description of their crime.
02 Jul 09
Originally posted by HandyAndyThanks, Andy, for anticipating my follow up question.
I agree that pawnhandler's offering was a nugget, an eloquent description of disruptive and self-serving posts. But it doesn't fully answer GB's question: What is spam with respect to RHP's Terms of Service "as applied and administered to its public forums"?
The TOS equates spam with unsolicited junk mail, and nothing more. A disruptive post can be rem ...[text shortened]... ds to say that. Users punished for posting spam need a clear description of their crime.
02 Jul 09
Originally posted by BlackampDo you call the few childish clowns who were ignoring me "EVERYONE"?
poor Rusty, you're too dumb to realise the old feller has you on a leash and is using you to be his barking dog. what did he do, PM you with a few kind words when everyone else was ignoring you? roll over, Rusty, good boy! who's a goood boy?
ok, now play dead.
They are not, although your brain someone how sees them as such.
You don't know me very well New follower, only lap dog I see here is you right now. I guess some are followers like yourself, others like myself, can stand up on our own two feet, without having a little clique patting us on the back every step of the way.
Try growing a pair BOY!
02 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHey Boss Hog!! I was wondering when you were going to put in your 2cents worth!
Quibbling over definitions of spam is a good way to avoid discussing why certain forum behaviour patterns annoy some people to the point of apoplexy. There must be a name for this cunning trick.
I am very disappointed, I expected more and better from you!