9

It seems obvious right?
But it's not. It is a slang term that has no hard definition. It gets used very differently by different people.
I think most people more or less agree on the definition, but there are outliers who need it spelled out for them.

By posting a definition in the TOS or elsewhere, it could shut-down some unintentional spamming, and also makes the trolling a bit harder.
In past I have used this: "Spam being defined as irrelevant posts, chronic reposting, or advertising"
But due to some extreme retardation in past, I would add "Spam can take any form of message. Comments, posts, private messages, phone calls, smoke-signals, or other".

It seems obvious right? But it's not. It is a slang term that has no hard definition. It gets used very differently by different people. I think most people more or less agree on the definition, but there are outliers who need it spelled out for them. By posting a definition in the TOS or elsewhere, it could shut-down some unintentional spamming, and also makes the trolling a bit harder. In past I have used this: "*Spam being defined as irrelevant posts, chronic reposting, or advertising*" But due to some extreme retardation in past, I would add "*Spam can take any form of message. Comments, posts, private messages, phone calls, smoke-signals, or other*".

33 comments

[–] PMYA 6 points (+6|-0)

To be honest I don't the kind of user that submits spam posts is the kind of user that is going to read the TOS.

Having said that, I mostly agree with that definition of spam. Sometimes irrelevant posts are spam, sometimes its just someone not understanding the sub properly. We've actually been talking recently about what to do with off topic posts. We could let mods move them to another sub without the post being deleted, have it automatically move to a catch-all off topic sub or just stick with deleting it and telling users to repost it themselves.

A couple of things in the TOS are vague for a reason though, such as the spam part and the part about removing mods.

Content deemed to be spam will be removed, and continuous posting of such content may result in a ban. Moderators are not a part of site staff, and may be removed at any time, for any reason.

Mainly so nobody can complain about technicalities if they are removed as a mod, for example.

[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

To be honest I don't the kind of user that submits spam posts is the kind of user that is going to read the TOS.

That's true, however they may sometimes argue it after the fact ("How could I know?"), but also there will be people who do read the TOS and then attempt to exploit any weak areas. The motives vary, but the behaviour is similar. By stating the obvious it becomes clear for the slow, the trolls, and the misinformed.

Basically, it doesn't hurt any, and it might help.

let mods move them to another sub without the post being deleted,

I like this idea.

A couple of things in the TOS are vague for a reason though

I figured that, and I agree with the Mod part. But I think when dealing with things that affect the regular users it is best to give clear guidance so they are not surprised by any actions.
That's not always possible, but in the case of spam I think it is.

[–] smallpond 1 points (+1|-0)

We could let mods move them to another sub without the post being deleted,

I also like this idea. If there's an off-topic sub it would be nice to flag where the post came from originally.

[–] jidlaph 3 points (+3|-0)

I don't think it'll help much.

It is a slang term that has no hard definition.

There are plenty of dictionaries that define it, albeit mostly regarding mass-email advertising. But there are a few decent dictionaries—UrbanDictionary or the Jargon File—that cover more colloquial usage nicely.

there are outliers who need it spelled out for them.

Subtle

it could shut-down some unintentional spamming

Frankly, I don't think unintentional spam is a real issue on any but the largest social media sites. Anyone too Down-syndrome to understand that their behavior violates good netiquette never would have found phuks in the first place. Playing dumb is far more likely, and making the TOS more wordy won't really fix that sort of trolling.

There are plenty of dictionaries that define it

It is not a common definition. It tends to be vague, and varies.

I don't think unintentional spam is a real issue

No, but it's not unheard of. This is a simply a clarification that could potentially help in some cases, and isn't going to hurt anything.

[–] jidlaph 2 points (+2|-0)

isn't going to hurt anything.

That's where I disagree; I just see it devolving into rules-lawyerly nitpicking that wastes the time of everyone involved, which is all a troll really wants in the first place.

I'm not suggesting a 'letter of the law' type of legal code.
The wording I suggested is pretty generalized. The point is to convey the idea of what the word means.
A definition of the 'spirit', not codified specifics.

rules-lawyerly nitpicking

I have always opposed that style of rule making. I prefer simple, but clear language that accurately imparts the meaning to a reasonable individual.

[–] DopeOnARope 2 points (+2|-0)

Jesus, the disgusting arrogance is overwhelming on this site. Change the name to Safe Space and get it over with.

[–] PMYA 3 points (+5|-2)
[–] DopeOnARope 2 points (+2|-0)

You inhuman cyborgs will never understand just how unrelatable you are. One human trait to share amongst the lot of you. Smugness.

[–] Lord--Gaben 0 points (+1|-1) Edited

Well, my fine fellow...

Maybe you should tug on that rope a bit to get the bag of cocaine out of your ass.

You should feel better after a day or so.

[–] PhunkyPlatypus 2 points (+2|-0)

I believe any spam of personal form, IE personal messages or excessive commenting on someones post history would fall more under harassment.

[–] smallpond 1 points (+1|-0)

At times it's going to be hard to differentiate between harassment and people who have differences of opinion. Practically, I doubt the admins have the ability to police 'harassment' - apart from letting users block each other there's probably not much that can be done.

The present popularity-based account score means that some people will find themselves being downvoted back to zero once the site grows - and suffering some inconvenience as a result.

[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+1|-0)

How about someone who only posts hooktube/youtube videos? That seems spammy to me. How about the actual paid posts that get voted down but not removed? Hypocrites.

[–] [Deleted] 2 points (+2|-0)
[–] [Deleted] 0 points (+1|-1)

Why would anyone click on stupid links. Use your big boy words.

[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

Yes. You got me. I plead guilty. I spam /s/videos with videos.
Excuse me while I go ban myself.

How about the actual paid posts that get voted down but not removed?

Citation needed.

[–] jidlaph 1 points (+1|-0)

It happens sometimes, depending on whether an admin is online and confident enough that a post is worthy of a unilateral decision or perhaps merits consulting with others.

That's my point. He can't provide an unreasonable example.
By challenging him he either has to concede the point, or expose his ignorance of how it all works.

[–] PMYA 1 points (+2|-1)

People can post those if its on topic for the sub they're posting in. I do remove some of the legit spam posts and banned one from a system sub the other day, can't remember which. Sometimes I leave the posts so the account is downvoted, making it harder for them to meet requirements to start their own spam sub.