Really dont get this rule.

[Nemo]

and if its a thread, then just prevent excessive spamming.

Ah but let's remember our rules are subjective and open to interpretation & moderator discretion. To be fair, if the rules were stuck to rigidly we'd need a moderation department of a similar style to the Gestapo.

What Rosie said was true about the numerous threads thing - it really is for threads, there's nothing more annoying than when some idiot in spam posts 20 or so threads (especially if you browse via new posts), so that rule is to cover that and we have had a lot of problems with people doing that in the past.

Kind of already answered that point

This rule is useful for two reasons that I can think of:

1) Posts like that can only really prompt a response of "aiuhiugbeiub" in return or "oh how interesting, tell me more" neither of which are amusing
2) New people often post things like that in spam because they think it'll be hilarious, then they get warned for it and leave spam forever, thus ridding us of the type of people who DO think that's funny

However you guys might as well get Tom to answer for you, those points make sense to me. ta.

That is all.





No wait that is not all! Stephen did make a point also, that rule is damn dumb.

[Hecktix]

Spam is not exempt from forum rules other than pointless & double posting. Leave moderating to the moderators is a fine and necessary rules, you can't be going round telling people they've broken the rules, we hire people to do that

[Nemo]

Spam is not exempt from forum rules other than pointless & double posting. Leave moderating to the moderators is a fine and necessary rules, you can't be going round telling people they've broken the rules, we hire people to do that

No, you hire people to punish those who break the rules, and sometimes tell. Surely cant hurt for someone to say "oh btw you avoided the filter" and then that person edits their post and takes out the swear word, saving a mod their job. Just does not compute

[Stephen]

But if I said

"you have broken the rules" then yeah im breaking that rule

but when I put it in a jokey sort of pisstake way "YOU BROKE THE RULES OOOOOHHHH" in MY thread in SPAM it just seems errr dunno what word to use

stupid
dumb
******ed
silly
maybe a lil bit gay too

[Hecktix]

But if I said

"you have broken the rules" then yeah im breaking that rule

but when I put it in a jokey sort of pisstake way "YOU BROKE THE RULES OOOOOHHHH" in MY thread in SPAM it just seems errr dunno what word to use

stupid
dumb
******ed
silly
maybe a lil bit gay too

Wouldn't say that's against the rules personally - if you have been contacted for that you should PM Nicki or Scott

[Catzsy]

Kind of already answered that point

However you guys might as well get Tom to answer for you, those points make sense to me. ta.

That is all.





No wait that is not all! Stephen did make a point also, that rule is damn dumb.

Why is that different to what we said? In any event I remember what it was like before this rule was introduced and the forum was spammed with hundreds of 'ROFLCOPTERs', and such like and other worthless stuff. I am sure you would have been the first to complain about it Niamh.

[Nemo]

Why is that different to what we said? In any event I remember what it was like before this rule was introduced and the forum was spammed with hundreds of 'ROFLCOPTERs', and such like and other worthless stuff. I am sure you would have been the first to complain about it Niamh.

DAMN STRAIGHT! But as said i am fine with the rule.

[GommeInc]

Depends how you go about telling someone they've broken the rules. If you're polite and informative, then it's fine but when you come off as someone who has the power to jurisdict the rules to someone you will get in trouble. It also falls under this rule about pointless posting anyway, as telling someone they have broken the rules isn't useful at all and doesn't contribute to discussion

Besides, it's better just to tell moderators how to do their jobs, like when they make pointless edits to posts which are relevant to the thread. For example, someone posting an image which sums up the sentiments of the thread in the exact same way as someone typing it - moderators still make these edits

EDIT: In fact, I'm fairly certain I've told someone they will get in trouble for their actions before and not been in trouble, but that may have been by PM :/

[Richie]

Remove the spam forum from the new post section if that's the main reason why the rule was implemented. I think this is a perfect time to use the phrase:




I never realised there was a rule against spamming threads in spam, I always do it. If that means I have broken the rules, feel free to punish me. Spam has always been pretty laid back and just because the odd *** likes to ruin the forum doesn't mean you should punish us all. Spam is a bit of fun banter, I say ignore it unless it's breaking the obvious forum rules like avoiding the filter or bullying etc.. Just when I thought the forum was finally at a stage that was laid back and suited us all.

Send the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet

Which would strike out that rule. Spam is pointless messages that people usually ignore. If you got a spam email would you consider it pointless?


One thing I hate about this forum is moderators can use their discretion, one user could be constantly targeted by moderators whilst other users can do as they please. I'm not saying they do, it's just an example of what could be the outcome. All users should be treated equally and posts should only be removed if they break the forum rules, not if the moderators feel like they have or not. It's common sense.

[Hecktix]

Remove the spam forum from the new post section if that's the main reason why the rule was implemented. I think this is a perfect time to use the phrase:




I never realised there was a rule against spamming threads in spam, I always do it. If that means I have broken the rules, feel free to punish me. Spam has always been pretty laid back and just because the odd *** likes to ruin the forum doesn't mean you should punish us all. Spam is a bit of fun banter, I say ignore it unless it's breaking the obvious forum rules like avoiding the filter or bullying etc.. Just when I thought the forum was finally at a stage that was laid back and suited us all.



Which would strike out that rule. Spam is pointless messages that people usually ignore. If you got a spam email would you consider it pointless?


One thing I hate about this forum is moderators can use their discretion, one user could be constantly targeted by moderators whilst other users can do as they please. I'm not saying they do, it's just an example of what could be the outcome. All users should be treated equally and posts should only be removed if they break the forum rules, not if the moderators feel like they have or not. It's common sense.

Richie it is very rare that someone would be contacted for "spamming in spam", if I went and posted 30 threads in there in the space of 2 mins would you not suggest it's right to have that against the rules? I don't think removing spam from new posts is an option, a lot of users browse HxF using new posts so this would mean they don't get to see content in the spam forum?

Moderator discretion is a good thing, of course it CAN lead to bad things but if that was to happen the moderator would be punished/removed, moderator discretion allows for leniance - if we stuck to the rules rigidly, like I said we'd need a moderation team in a similar style to that of the Gestapo.

---------- Post added 24-05-2011 at 01:54 PM ----------

Depends how you go about telling someone they've broken the rules. If you're polite and informative, then it's fine but when you come off as someone who has the power to jurisdict the rules to someone you will get in trouble. It also falls under this rule about pointless posting anyway, as telling someone they have broken the rules isn't useful at all and doesn't contribute to discussion

Besides, it's better just to tell moderators how to do their jobs, like when they make pointless edits to posts which are relevant to the thread. For example, someone posting an image which sums up the sentiments of the thread in the exact same way as someone typing it - moderators still make these edits

EDIT: In fact, I'm fairly certain I've told someone they will get in trouble for their actions before and not been in trouble, but that may have been by PM :/

"You will probably get an infraction for that" is different to "Learn the forum rules" or "stop breaking rules or get out" - these are things I've seen edited by mods in the past under that particular rule.