|
Post by Teh Donut on Mar 30, 2008 22:59:51 GMT -5
Due to the fact that the rules simply define what is to be included in "teh l33tness" as:
...and that this leaves the rule open to opinion and interpretation, I propose that our resident expert Ninmast incorporate a definition of "spam" within the rules.
All in favour?
|
|
|
Post by TrueBlue© on Mar 31, 2008 10:43:23 GMT -5
Personally, I disagree with the recent locking and archiving of that Spam Whathaveyou game, but I voted no, because spam is spam is spam. We shouldn't have to get all nitpicky and go Dictionary! on people over stuuuupid things.
Those debates get so retarded, so fast.
''He's no Jonathon Swift...''
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Mar 31, 2008 11:00:02 GMT -5
I didn't actually write that rule. It's an older one that could probably use some revision. However, when I once asked long ago, I was told that the difference between "pointless fun that is humorous" and "obvious spam machines" was that the former had a theme, a point to it that, while pointless in the broader sense that it contributes nothing to the board, gives the thread a purpose that sets it apart and requires some degree of creativity in forming a response, such as The Person Above Game and Gravestones. A spam machine, on the other hand, serves no purpose but to rack up posts by typing in a couple words that require zero thought or creativity, such as counting how much spam you've made.
Personally, on the issue of that thread in particular, you came right out and called it spam, and outlined the entire point of the thread as to spam, so I don't see how you can have the impression that it somehow wasn't spam.
Obviously, not all forum games are so clear-cut, but as for the rule, itself, I agree it needs changing and it's always seemed a little weirdly phrased for my tastes. What do you think of:
Does that sound better to you?
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Mar 31, 2008 22:59:47 GMT -5
Actually, yes. It provides a definitive example. As to that singular thread, creative responses can be made. It's all up to how much someone tries, something you never did. Calling it spam? Well, of course! That's what the thread's called. I could have named it "nifty creative point thread", but a rose, by any other name, is still a rose. Remember "Poke the Duck?" If you're going to take care of one offending thread, then take care of all the offenders. If we're going to cut out all the ones that don't take creativity, then we have a lot of purging to do, don't we? Yes, Ninmast, sarcasm does sound much better than a rule with holes. Speaking of which, on an unrelated note, whatever happened to this?
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Apr 1, 2008 11:54:39 GMT -5
I don't know of any other offenders. If there are other nonsensical spam machines like the one you created, by all means, address the issue. You know I don't get into the L337 section enough to patrol it.
The new set of rules? Actually, I'm not too sure. Did you finish them all? I don't remember having any objection to them. Well, one, but you fixed it.
One has to ask, though. If you knew the rule prohibited spam and you knew yours was spam (and I know you're not the type to go around breaking the rules for no reason), did you do it for the sole purpose of initiating this discussion?
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Apr 2, 2008 13:07:18 GMT -5
Hm, that Donut's a wily one, all right...
NO, I didn't do it on purpose. Call it a temporary lapse in sanity; we have a pretty huge point count racked up on another board and pretty crafty ways of making the post. I was somewhat hoping such could happen here, but, Alas! I was mistaken. Should have known better.
Or at least disguised it better...
Anywho...I don't know if I ever defined "spam" or so much as gave an example in the new rules. I'd have to check again to be certain. From the poll count, people won't want it, anyhow, and it's probably for the better; I was trying to keep judgement from being a matter of opinion (which as we've seen in past cases, tends to create heated conflict), but I suppose it's better than a clearly defined rule that someone, somewhere, may eventually try to worm around with looping holes.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Apr 2, 2008 13:26:11 GMT -5
Well, you did address loopholes in the other set of rules.
And I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was just curious. I'm sure it's a fun little game. It's just, rules are rules. If it weren't for that rule, I wouldn't particularly care what pops up in L337, so long as it wasn't a bunch of duplicate threads or games that broke other rules.
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Apr 2, 2008 14:18:04 GMT -5
Heh, yes...so then the question arises, as was brought up somewhere, somewhat, by beanybag, of whether or not a place should be set aside for pointlessly fun spam. Possibly even a sub-section of L33t. Unfortunately, that could become confusing...the only other alternatives being to keep the rule as-is or change it to allow spam in L33t.
The no spam anywhere rule is there for a reason, yet I don't know what it is. I wasn't around at the time of its creation. (like many others)
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Apr 2, 2008 19:12:27 GMT -5
If it were your call, what would you consider spam?
|
|
|
Post by The Silent Orator on Apr 2, 2008 22:34:08 GMT -5
I think we should give a blanket definition. Not necessarily a nit-picky, nitty-gritty, in-depth explanation as to what SPAM is. More like, give a semi-general idea of what it is and trust the good judgment of the members to distinguish it.
Also, I lulzed.
I'd laugh if one of the numbers was off.
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on May 14, 2008 0:32:27 GMT -5
As would I, considering I only allowed one vote.
Anywho, about a definition of spam...I was looking around when I found this jem. I gotta hand it to them:
|
|
|
Post by Beanybag on May 14, 2008 7:52:01 GMT -5
That definition is still pretty subjective =x
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on May 14, 2008 8:00:11 GMT -5
That really is the point...if we make an absolute term, certain people will no doubt try to dance just outside the bounds of the term and use the absolute rule as justification of their incredibly annoying behavior when an admin gets on their case. Subjective terms and rules make it possible for admin judgement calls, without making admins above the rules.
I simply found this definition interesting. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Beanybag on May 14, 2008 12:50:47 GMT -5
I like to spam, but I have two versions of spams. Bad spam - annoying random repetitive non-sense Good Spam - surious conversations of epic ness =D
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on May 14, 2008 16:34:09 GMT -5
"Surious conversations of epic ness?" What is that?
|
|