VL used to comment on several threads all in a row, which was a form of spam in hijacking the forum with that many comments in a short span of time.
INFORMING myself on protocol....because when I come"back" to the forums I want to be correct in my
responses. I generally am on the board in early morning and "comment" on the previous nites posts
(all in a row)....I also attempt to quote the entire post for context and then bold the part I wish to ???(to me
,that eliminates any confusion,BUT I do not use a smart/cell phone so I am remiss in understanding
the difficulty that imposes.)
It is "spamming" to reply on multiple threads (in a row)?
Homeagain, you are contributing in earnest, trying to have conversations and share your viewpoints. VL did it to drown others out, was rude and insulting, ignored requests to not do so and flaunted breaking the rules, and did what he did simply to make people angry. He had no desire to be a positive contributing member here or have open, thoughtful discussions, and it's the intention behind that that made him a spammer. You do not have those intentions, so, no, you are not spamming.
Heartless, I have no problem with people responding to multiple threads so long as your intention is to have discussions with others. Do you remember on Pinecam that they actually implemented a rule that members weren't allowed to post a link without any comment whatsoever? I'm sure Blazer Bob does, because I remember him commenting about his posts being deleted for that reason. At the time, I thought it was dumb over-reach by admins dictating to members how they had to post. I get it now that they may have been trying to avoid this very issue back then, and didn't see it as a problem from my viewpoint as a member of the Forum and not an admin. I don't want to implement that rule, but I am asking, emphatically, to not post video after video without your own thoughts on what was presented in each.
The Forums are for discussion, not using as a platform for anyone to inundate others with your (collectively speaking) beliefs. That is in our terms of service and has been for years, because it's what spammers do.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Does anyone and I mean ANYONE really get offended by what is posted here? I mean other than affected faux offence?
That would surprise me. Still I support everyone's right to be offended as long as it does not interfere with my ability to be offensive.
This is like the SC trying to define obscenity. " "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it,".
www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS75...6wAEB&sclient=psy-ab
This reminds me of the ridiculous caveats people had to add after Sara Palin was attacked for "targeting congress people for defeat.
ScienceChic wrote: Here's where I see the difference, telling someone they suffer from a "derangement syndrome" is different than asking someone if their name is some public figure without qualifying what traits about that public figure the OP meant. We can assume what was inferred, but try not to moderate based on assumptions, and the person to whom it was directed did not report the post themselves so it's possible they took no offense.
It's another one of those fine lines, this time between an absolute insult and an implied one. Again, we encourage people to report these kinds of posts, particularly the member to whom it was directed if they are upset by it, so we can review it more closely. If you want us to get more stringent on moderating, we can certainly do that, but keep that in mind when posts like this one accusing us of "censoring" come up yet again. Every time we've had these discussions on moderating, it usually ends that members prefer more hands off, but as I've always repeated, we take under strong consideration how our members would like this to be run as well and will modify our policy accordingly.
Edit: directed at HA.
Ditto. Further I do not think I have meant to be offensive, only snarky.
Heatless, the beginners guide, or a simple intro or something else along those lines. it was abt 15 min long.
LOL, I cant describe it but I would know it when I see it.
ScienceChic wrote: Here's where I see the difference, telling someone they suffer from a "derangement syndrome" is different than asking someone if their name is some public figure without qualifying what traits about that public figure the OP meant. We can assume what was inferred, but try not to moderate based on assumptions, and the person to whom it was directed did not report the post themselves so it's possible they took no offense.
It's another one of those fine lines, this time between an absolute insult and an implied one. Again, we encourage people to report these kinds of posts, particularly the member to whom it was directed if they are upset by it, so we can review it more closely. If you want us to get more stringent on moderating, we can certainly do that, but keep that in mind when posts like this one accusing us of "censoring" come up yet again. Every time we've had these discussions on moderating, it usually ends that members prefer more hands off, but as I've always repeated, we take under strong consideration how our members would like this to be run as well and will modify our policy accordingly.
Got it... I think. I don’t care where you draw the line, but would appreciate equal lines. It can be all too easy to justify heavier moderation for opinions you disagree with using fine lines...
PS....I guess I don't understand your objection.....IF U want to continue and the forum is inappropriate for
the exchange....it just slides over to the ring....the conversation content is NOT interrupted or deleted.
The person U R conversing with continues....BUT OTHER posters can not observe unless they are signed
in on the site.
I,personally, find that method more preferable than being told I am on warning or probation or banned
because I hold strong position on a topic.
Last edit: 20 Aug 2020 17:16 by homeagain. Reason: add info