Unless you think Cawk fits the criteria for a person that would keep spamming even after his episode?
I believe Cawk is purposely testing our limits to see what he can get away with. He's not a compulsive spammer like Dex or a never-ending stream of consciousness like blanc but I do think he'll keep spamming to get his point across (and to get attention).
On top of that, none of this opposes the notion of condensing him into single topics. He's not even censored that way.
I otherwise, like I've done with the others, tried to go about this with conversation. I too like his posts, and find him "useful" in the way you'd (Meta) use the word about him, but granting special privileges to people just because we happen to like them more undermines the process. Being "liked" shouldn't grant a spamming license.
For instance, I like Jim, a lot. Like, a lot a lot. Does this mean however that I ought to do less in relation to his antics if he started attacking the place?
Hahaha! This is amazing. I am genuinely curious if TC (and Inq) back down after this crap.Since I'm pretty sure the community at large agree we do need some kind of spam/flood control I'm going to continue handling it like I always have. Cawk is trying to paint himself a martyr, unjustly abused by mods who only target him because of personal reasons, but (just like Turq mentioned) he's not the only one that has had their posts/topics deleted or condensed. Both TC and I have acted according to established praxis.
My line is usually when someone pushes all or most of the front page to the second page in a relatively short period of time. If the actual content isn't repetitive and simple in nature I tend to be somewhat more lenient. The history of the spammer also matters.
I agree with this approach
...how is this different from what I was saying?
You really dont get it.
Jokes aside, you said that if its spam and reaches the 2nd page then its removed.
I didn't get an impression that you take into account who it is or what the point of the spam is.
Unless you think Cawk fits the criteria for a person that would keep spamming even after his episode?
I believe Cawk is purposely testing our limits to see what he can get away with. He's not a compulsive spammer like Dex or a never-ending stream of consciousness like blanc but I do think he'll keep spamming to get his point across (and to get attention).
If you did not delete his initial spam, he might of spammed less then?
My point is that Cawk didn't spam enough for mod action and I don't think that he would of continued to spam, so there was no need to put him down in advance.
If I was wrong and he did continue to spam, when you didn't moderate his topics, then I might have a different opinion on moderation.
Also if he spammed like once every 3 days, I'd even give him a week and a half before considering it spam, to give him some time to work out his manic episode, 1 page every 3 days is not that much of a deal(unless a lot of people are doing it, then the situation is different).
On top of that, none of this opposes the notion of condensing him into single topics. He's not even censored that way.
I otherwise, like I've done with the others, tried to go about this with conversation. I too like his posts, and find him "useful" in the way you'd (Meta) use the word about him, but granting special privileges to people just because we happen to like them more undermines the process. Being "liked" shouldn't grant a spamming license.
For instance, I like Jim, a lot. Like, a lot a lot. Does this mean however that I ought to do less in relation to his antics if he started attacking the place?
Its not special privileges based on liking them, its based on their behavior in relation to spamming: what motivates them and will they keep doing it.
Ofc if they spam too much its irrelevant. But one page is not a lot and it almost does not matter which number we pick, if the spam is intentional to taunt the spam rule, then it will. How many pages matters when thats not the point of the spam. And when thats not the point of the spam, in my opinion, 2 pages is better. I'd even go with 3, but it feels too much. Of course I am not sure how other people feel about it and I have a feeling they wont say anything. In these situations a test is best, see if they complain at 2 pages. If you agree to 2 pages that is, im just speculating.
When the point of the spam is to break the rule, the moderation is very context based on how the entire situation arose.
I know you don't like ambiguously defined rules TC, because people give you flak over it, but these are my 2 cents.
And special privileges based on behavior is what moderation is all about, punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior.
Jokes aside, you said that if its spam and reaches the 2nd page then its removed.
I still say we shouldn't be granting people special privileges just because we like them. All need to be held equally accountable, and once you start giving some more room to fool around than others you muddy the entire process.
Inquirer also said the same thing: "My line is usually when someone pushes all or most of the front page to the second page in a relatively short period of time".
I didn't get an impression that you take into account who it is or what the point of the spam is.
You haven't been paying attention then...
I've been having pages of discussion with the guy, treating him otherwise as a peer as opposed to some detached power game like Jim's trying to make it out as. I give chances and leniency to users when they are a fresh offender, and even after the spam continues I still try to talk and reason with them for why I feel like I have to handle it that way.
I've always had an interest in spammers, but leaving them to their own devices does too much damage. As such I have my discussions with them as me and handle the protocol as if it were automatic, as then anyone can expect the same treatment on an even playing field.
If Misscomm or Tryp or Spatial began spamming the website for instance, you can bet I'd be going through all the same steps I would for the more "infamous" cases, as no one should be flooding the place, good rep or not.
For instance, I like Jim, a lot. Like, a lot a lot.
CS told me before that she'd like to see me with a femboy tbh
Unless you think Cawk fits the criteria for a person that would keep spamming even after his episode?
I believe Cawk is purposely testing our limits to see what he can get away with. He's not a compulsive spammer like Dex or a never-ending stream of consciousness like blanc but I do think he'll keep spamming to get his point across (and to get attention).
If you did not delete his initial spam, he might of spammed less then?
My point is that Cawk didn't spam enough for mod action and I don't think that he would of continued to spam, so there was no need to put him down in advance.
If I was wrong and he did continue to spam, when you didn't moderate his topics, then I might have a different opinion on moderation.
When I wasn't online and Inq was at the helm, Page 5 had an entire page of his spam untouched. Leaving it up did not stop him once it was pushed further back.
I also tried leaving his spam up at an earlier point, even trying to reply to each topic, but that just made him post more than one page of spam content (hence my "Siiigh" topic).
We literally have two instances now where leaving it where it is didn't change his tactics.
Also if he spammed like once every 3 days, I'd even give him a week and a half before considering it spam, to give him some time to work out his manic episode, 1 page every 3 days is not that much of a deal(unless a lot of people are doing it, then the situation is different).
Why not condense it?
I know you don't like ambiguously defined rules TC, because people give you flak over it, but these are my 2 cents.
Actually like I explained to Cawk, the lack of ambiguity helps me avoid making as many mistakes.
Why I keep the protocols this amount of by the book is because I do not trust one's personal judgments on matters of policy, not even my own. A clearly defined set of ideas for what is and isn't okay being uniformly handled means it's not "up to me".
We've seen what happens when people let themselves make "their best judgement", it leads to Discord servers being deleted and all sorts of administrative bullying, and back on S-C it was a large catalyst for inspiring the spammers to have a real cause in the first place.
People have an easier time opposing one's room for emotional judgement, but correcting a protocol robot isn't the same steps.
And special privileges based on behavior is what moderation is all about, punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior.
I disagree, as that invites too much personal opinion into the mix. What is "bad" and what is "good" really?
Instead of factoring it as an appraisal based morality, I'd rather hold our best and our worst to the same standards, and if the old ways stop working then a majority discussion on the matter can be done for what to change it into and why.
I didn't get an impression that you take into account who it is or what the point of the spam is.
You haven't been paying attention then...
I've been having pages of discussion with the guy, treating him otherwise as a peer as opposed to some detached power game like Jim's trying to make it out as. I give chances and leniency to users when they are a fresh offender, and even after the spam continues I still try to talk and reason with them for why I feel like I have to handle it that way.
I probably didn't pay attention.
I don't believe you are power tripping, i find that idea preposterous. I don't think the way spam is handled or judged is as optimal as practically possible.
I did however notice you have been talking to him lol, but I thought its after the fact.
Unless you think Cawk fits the criteria for a person that would keep spamming even after his episode?
I believe Cawk is purposely testing our limits to see what he can get away with. He's not a compulsive spammer like Dex or a never-ending stream of consciousness like blanc but I do think he'll keep spamming to get his point across (and to get attention).
If you did not delete his initial spam, he might of spammed less then?
My point is that Cawk didn't spam enough for mod action and I don't think that he would of continued to spam, so there was no need to put him down in advance.
If I was wrong and he did continue to spam, when you didn't moderate his topics, then I might have a different opinion on moderation.
When I wasn't online and Inq was at the helm, Page 5 had an entire page of his spam untouched. Leaving it up did not stop him once it was pushed further back.
I also tried leaving his spam up at an earlier point, even trying to reply to each topic, but that just made him post more than one page of spam content (hence my "Siiigh" topic).
We literally have two instances now where leaving it where it is didn't change his tactics.
I've never been on page 5, thats like going on page 3 in the google results.
Well then I see you put effort to reason with Cawk first, I didn't really pay attention to those instances, but I do remember them existing. If Cawk is just spamming to bully mods into submission, then its reasonable to moderate his posts.
Also if he spammed like once every 3 days, I'd even give him a week and a half before considering it spam, to give him some time to work out his manic episode, 1 page every 3 days is not that much of a deal(unless a lot of people are doing it, then the situation is different).
Why not condense it?
I find that as an anti-spam measure thats just better then deleting, but it is an anti-spam measure, so it should be used when you have decided to take action against spam. I am discussing not taking that action in the first place. Otherwise once its established that action needs to be taken, condensing is better then deleting.
I know you don't like ambiguously defined rules TC, because people give you flak over it, but these are my 2 cents.Actually like I explained to Cawk, the lack of ambiguity helps me avoid making as many mistakes.
Why I keep the protocols this amount of by the book is because I do not trust one's personal judgments on matters of policy, not even my own. A clearly defined set of ideas for what is and isn't okay being uniformly handled means it's not "up to me".
We've seen what happens when people let themselves make "their best judgement", it leads to Discord servers being deleted and all sorts of administrative bullying, and back on S-C it was a large catalyst for inspiring the spammers to have a real cause in the first place.
People have an easier time opposing one's room for emotional judgement, but correcting a protocol robot isn't the same steps.
Yes its harder to not follow a strict protocol, but I don't think its impossible. My experience in moderating tells me that the right people doing the right calls makes the entire social community much better then strict protocol. Of course its riskier and mistakes costs more, but like most things in life: risky moves give better positive results when you take the right risk.
Anyway, I dont actually know the rules of this site anymore, apart from those I monitor for myself. Maybe there really should be a thread about them.
And special privileges based on behavior is what moderation is all about, punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior.
I disagree, as that invites too much personal opinion into the mix. What is "bad" and what is "good" really?
Instead of factoring it as an appraisal based morality, I'd rather hold our best and our worst to the same standards, and if the old ways stop working then a majority discussion on the matter can be done for what to change it into and why.
It is not a moral judgement, it is a logical social engineering/psychological type of judgement.
But moderating really is punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior. We are arguing what is "bad" and what is "good" right now.
Isn't this part of the discussion? We can't really make people to join in on it.
I was going to summarize, but I'm too tired, maybe tomorrow.
