|
|
| Author |
Message |
mthwgrn
none
Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 28
|
 Posted: Dec 12, 2007 6:22pm Post subject: PingBad comment |
 |
|
I was wondering if you could remove the comment PingBad (I think he's a mod) made on my network announcement. The topic is Chat-Way (no irc address) and the announcement wasn't a help wanted but a user request. I did not violate any rules and don't appreciate him putting this is a spammy message under my post. It's a disgrace to my network as we DO NOT spam what so ever.
How am I supose to abide by a rule that isn't even there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jobe
Idler
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 374
Location: Lurking in the shadows of some random channel!
|
| Posted: Dec 13, 2007 12:01pm Post subject: Re: PingBad comment |
|
|
| mthwgrn wrote: | I was wondering if you could remove the comment PingBad (I think he's a mod) made on my network announcement. The topic is Chat-Way (no irc address) and the announcement wasn't a help wanted but a user request. I did not violate any rules and don't appreciate him putting this is a spammy message under my post. It's a disgrace to my network as we DO NOT spam what so ever.
How am I supose to abide by a rule that isn't even there? |
Posting 3 announcements in 2 days is pretty much spam. Looking at your other posts around the forum, you seem to attack anyone with an opinion that you dislike.
Please remember spam is in the eye of the beholder NOT the person spamming. What one persons definition of spam is may be entirly different from anothers. Some consider spam to be unsolicited, others consider repetition of the same thing to be spam.
http://searchirc.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=6287
http://searchirc.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=6286
Both same content, the only difference being the Title. And then one of them was only 10 minutes after the other in the SAME board too.
Then followed by http://searchirc.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=6298 doesnt exactly help your case.
Bearing in mind, in the first 2 cases you broke the same rule "No spamming in the subject line" ( http://searchirc.com/forum-rules.php ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PingBad
Guru
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 2064
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Dec 13, 2007 7:32pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes, I construed 3 network announcements to be spam, and as I replied to the OP via PM, one network announcement per month should be sufficent. I felt that the most recent announcement was an update upon the older 2 announcements and therefore moved the elder 2 to the hidden deleted posts forum.
That being said, I have honored the OP's request for me to remove my comment and have thus removed my comment (I did not intend to insult you personally or your network - and I do wish you good luck with the success of your network.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefano
Eleet
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 528
Location: Beirut
|
| Posted: Dec 14, 2007 10:44am Post subject: |
|
|
| thats wise |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1114
|
| Posted: Dec 14, 2007 3:03pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I disagree with Jobe's definition of spam. I must agree with how it applies in this instance.
Spam has a unified definition and even if you don't agree with it's definition, most users and governments do agree with it and laws are passed based upon it as well as spammers imprisoned based upon it. Which will make that unified definition far more "official" than any single persons definition.
By Jobe's example, it's the recipients definition that counts. If that was the case I can scream "spammer!" anytime someone says "hi". That's no where near an accurate or workable definition.
A more official and wider accepted definition* is:
spam (n.) Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.
spam (v.) To send unsolicited e-mail to.
* American Heritage Dictionary.
I believe that the afore mentioned thread DO violate the forum rules simply because the subject contains the network name, which if i remember correctly can only appear in the subject on the Network Announcements forum.
My biggest problem with the threads is they are in the wrong forum, rule violating subject and then the poster felt the need to quote rules to those that tried to help him/her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PingBad
Guru
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 2064
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Dec 17, 2007 12:03am Post subject: |
|
|
| the thing is, the threads in question were indeed in the Network Announcements forum (thus network name in the thread title is allowable) - it's the quantity of it in the short space of time that led me to go down the "spam" route. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lord_Diablo
Newbie
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 80
Location: Fairfield,CA
|
| Posted: Dec 17, 2007 2:47am Post subject: |
|
|
HaHa! Sausage fest! Sounds like a anti male cult. Meh... Should probally shut up now =) LOVE YOU GUYS!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1114
|
| Posted: Dec 17, 2007 3:58am Post subject: |
|
|
| PingBad wrote: | | the thing is, the threads in question were indeed in the Network Announcements forum (thus network name in the thread title is allowable) - it's the quantity of it in the short space of time that led me to go down the "spam" route. |
the 2 threads I refered to were not and still are not in Net Announcements nor are they even on topic for the forums they are in.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PingBad
Guru
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 2064
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Dec 17, 2007 5:01am Post subject: |
|
|
| katsklaw wrote: | | PingBad wrote: | | the thing is, the threads in question were indeed in the Network Announcements forum (thus network name in the thread title is allowable) - it's the quantity of it in the short space of time that led me to go down the "spam" route. |
the 2 threads I refered to were not and still are not in Net Announcements nor are they even on topic for the forums they are in. |
Well then, I stand horribly corrected |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Register
Log in
