StarGateWars Forums

Back to this subject again.

I would like Mods definitions of what is and is not considered spam when it comes to Double Posting?

We all know what spam is (well most of us do).

Now take a war or vendetta thread for example.

If someone posts an update to a war, then a little bit later posts another message on-topic of the war but it is a double post... is it automatically spam?

Is there a "time" thing that defines double posting as spam?

Is the fact someone doesn't use the "edit" button considered spam?

Please don't just say they should use the "edit" button, because that is NOT answering my question.

I know some Mods have said that they would NEVER warn someone for double posting, unless it was ACTUALLY spam. If that was the case then the warning would be for spam and not double posting because spam is what's in the rules.

So, what do you define as spam when it comes to double posting?

This is a serious question, not a dig or attempt to flaim.

Personally if someone double posts and less than a day has gone by then they should have used the edit. On some wars there are some really slow forum days after all. I probably wouldn't give an official warning though unless it was becoming a pandemic in the thread - some of them seem particularly bad for that sort of thing but usually a post reminding people not to double post is sufficient.

Indeed. A good question, there.

Duplicate posts are generally a failure of the system, and as such I personally don't warn for them.
Repeated (i.e. after being warned specifically NOT to doublepost) intentional double posts, often within minutes, are spam imo and will be warned for.
The occasional doublepost in a war thread, with about a day or so between the previous post and the 'double' post I personally overlook.


So by my book, while doubleposting is usually not warned for, it is something that you can be told not to do, and if after such a remark, you do continue, you can receive a warning for.

just a reminder.
if the posts are all on-topic, and none of them are spam by themselves, double posting in itself is not warnable.
not only that, spam in itself is warnable only if it's a repeated offense.
any mods feel differently?
try and get the rules ammended.
as it stands now, double posting in itself does not constitute spamming, and one of-topic post does not consitute a warning.

it all depends on situation and context...

not practical to have rules beyond common sense... no way all situations can be covered...

Hitchkok wrote:just a reminder.

*grin* Right. If the rules were amended, then the rules would have been changed. In case you forgot, there are three admins. Had they amended the rules, the rule thread would have been updated to reflect those changes.
As it stands, these are the rules, and no, there have -obviously- not been any changes to them recently (you can tell from the way it looks just like it did months ago). [spoiler]Section 4: Spam
a. Topics.
Topics will be considered spam if they fit into one of three categories.
i) They appear in the wrong section of the board.
ii) The poster has made more topics than is reasonable for one user within the day. (For a rough guide most users won’t start more than two topics in a single forum within a day however if they are all of interest and relevant to the forum then there is some flexibility to this rule.)
iii) The topic has already been locked by a moderator and the user has reposted the topic.

Consequence:
Topics in the wrong section will generally be moved to the correct section. Users who post too many topics or repost locked topics will be given one warning point.

b. Replies
Replies will be considered spam if they do not contribute to the discussion of the topic. This may include off topic posting or an excessive number of posts that contain nothing more than emoticons or small words such as ‘lol’. While it is appropriate to indicate something is amusing, drowning out a whole thread with such posts makes it hard to follow for all users.

Consequence:
A polite note from a moderator will be issued requesting the user cut down the amount of irrelevant posts. Repeat offenders will be given one warning point.

c. Locking threads.
There are some occasions where a thread or topic breaches the spamming guidelines however not in a serious enough way to give a warning to the users. In the following cases a moderator may lock and/or move a thread.

i) Irrelevance of the topic in the section it was posted (the topic will then be moved/deleted as appropriate with an explanatory note by the mod (if moved) or the original author notified via pm (if deleted)).

ii) In cases of over spamming/large amount of off-topic posts in a reasonably short amount of time that would otherwise involve more than reasonable amounts of moderating. (The topic will be locked with an explanatory note by the mod, and a fresh topic with the same title (Part II, III, etc) created).

iii) In cases where the general discussion of the conversation has changed from it's original intent. (The topic will be locked/split with an explanatory note by the mod).

In each case of locking or moving topics, then the original author, as the topic 'owner' is the only one who should contact the mod(s) or Ombudsperson if they have an issue with the decision or to request re-opening or re-moving.
d. Image size.
Images larger than 600 pixels wide need to be posted inside of a ‘spoiler box’.

Consequence:
A mod will place your image inside a spoiler box. Repeat offenders will be given one warning point.[/spoiler] If you feel different, ask the Administration to act on their interpretation of the rules, and amend them. I believe you informed us that was what we should do, if we felt they no longer sufficed?

Hitchkok wrote:any mods feel differently?
try and get the rules ammended.

You must be my helper. Making my points for me, and all.
Just one little correction. "any mods" should read "anyone".

Hitchkok wrote:one of-topic post does not consitute a warning.

Oh, sweet. Finally we learn how to read the rules. Must be amazing to have such an interpretative authority.
Tell me, please. Where do we have an official post from the administration saying one off-topic post does constitute a warning? I must have missed that post, please link me as that would change things.

It's never just an off-topic post that's warned for.

to keep things not on a personal level:

the rules wrote:Replies will be considered spam if they do not contribute to the discussion of the topic. This may include off topic posting or an excessive number of posts that contain nothing more than emoticons or small words such as ‘lol’. While it is appropriate to indicate something is amusing, drowning out a whole thread with such posts makes it hard to follow for all users.

where does it say double post?
and don't point me to the "excessive", because it clearly says "posts that contain nothing more than emoticons or small words such as 'lol'"

and let's look at the consequences of spam

the rules wrote:A polite note from a moderator will be issued requesting the user cut down the amount of irrelevant posts. Repeat offenders will be given one warning point.

sooooo...........................
even if a double post is spam (which is not), one double post is not warnable.

Tekki wrote:Personally if someone double posts and less than a day has gone by then they should have used the edit. On some wars there are some really slow forum days after all. I probably wouldn't give an official warning though unless it was becoming a pandemic in the thread - some of them seem particularly bad for that sort of thing but usually a post reminding people not to double post is sufficient.

But double posting is not against the rules, so why should you tell or advise people not to double post?

You are not warning about double posting are you, you are warning about spam. So you should warn them not to spam. Whether double post is autmoatically spam is another thing.

SuperSaiyan wrote:there has been an increase due to horrid lag lately, so I split em when I see em if thats the case...

Silly Green One!!! Those sort of double posts are not what i'm referring to and if any mod warned officially or verbally for that then they need a good hiding.

SuperSaiyan wrote:if its two consecutive posts each pertaining to something different or in reply to something else (ie not exactly the same) then I consider it spam and split em accordingly, also inform the user and if they continue to do it... well then I gots to slap em on the wrist

I can understand maybe getting a warning if you keep ignoring the Mod, however you are giving the indication that you consider all double posts as spam.

SuperSaiyan wrote:like the market for example is 90% bumps

Let me tell you this.... when I use Market and i am bumping my own thread and the last reply was my own post.... i don't make another post, i delete the last one and make a new post, therefore bumping the post without double posting. If double posting is considered spam elsewhere then it should be in market, purely because you can delete your own post and make a new one in like a second.



I have another question for the Mods.............

What is wrong with reading my post............

.........and then reading my next post immediately after?

Please give an honest answer as to what exactly is wrong with people reading it? Don't say because it's spam because it's not. i want to know what is so wring with it?

Earendil wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:and let's look at the consequences of spam

the rules wrote:A polite note from a moderator will be issued requesting the user cut down the amount of irrelevant posts. Repeat offenders will be given one warning point.

sooooo...........................
even if a double post is spam (which is not), one double post is not warnable.

I believe it says there that you can be warned for double posting if you have been told not to

Indeed. I believe that is the interpretation that is commonplace among the Team, as well?


The fact that the North Pole isn't mentioned in a map of Zimbabwe doesn't mean the North Pole doesn't exist.



People keep referring to "one doublepost". So far, no one said "one doublepost" would be warned for, so what seems to be the problem that requires that much attention?

SuperSaiyan wrote:like this pop up all over the place

I think you are over-exaggerating the situation there and automatically assuming everyone will double post.

SuperSaiyan wrote:far more efficient and easier to tell people to use the damn edit button instead of posting 40 replies to a thread consecutively...

Again, over-exaggeration.

Can we apply this to the market section?
Surely people can be told there that if they want to bump their thread they can do one of three things...

1) post reply if the last post is not theirs.
2) use the official bump option if available.
3) if last post is theirs, copy text, delete post, create new post, paste text, submit.

You say why can't people elsewhere you the "edit" function, so why don't you enforce this in market?

SuperSaiyan wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

SuperSaiyan wrote:far more efficient and easier to tell people to use the damn edit button instead of posting 40 replies to a thread consecutively...

Again, over-exaggeration.

Can we apply this to the market section?
Surely people can be told there that if they want to bump their thread they can do one of three things...

1) post reply if the last post is not theirs.
2) use the official bump option if available.
3) if last post is theirs, copy text, delete post, create new post, paste text, submit.

You say why can't people elsewhere you the "edit" function, so why don't you enforce this in market?

who said it can't be enforced in the market?
I only brought up the market, because it is the most obvious and lenient there

Then can it be enforced?

Offensive Bias wrote:

Eärendil wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:and let's look at the consequences of spam

the rules wrote:A polite note from a moderator will be issued requesting the user cut down the amount of irrelevant posts. Repeat offenders will be given one warning point.

sooooo...........................
even if a double post is spam (which is not), one double post is not warnable.

I believe it says there that you can be warned for double posting if you have been told not to

Indeed. I believe that is the interpretation that is commonplace among the Team, as well?


The fact that the North Pole isn't mentioned in a map of Zimbabwe doesn't mean the North Pole doesn't exist.



People keep referring to "one doublepost". So far, no one said "one doublepost" would be warned for, so what seems to be the problem that requires that much attention?

the fact it is the intrpretation commonplace does not mean it is coherent with the rules. as i said, if you feel the rules are in-sufficient, change them. if you don't change them, follow them.
the fact double posting isn't mentioned in the rules doesn't mean it isn't wrong, it just means it doesn't constitute a warning.

that depends on the situation...

usually, its not warnable... but at times, it can be... especially if used in excess...

there are tools usable for occasions where it clutters things up...