The Lesson of that Joke

[Aemilianus]

And a thought, really. I was sitting here at my computer looking at threads about "spammy civitates" and I realized a lot of it comes from general life itself. Civitates, for the most part, know how the forum works, know a lot of the posters on the forum, and generally have done this before.

In my opinion, "spammy civitates" is an offshoot of that. Topics in the Symposium, and even in the Curia, I've noticed, leave a lot of leeway for spam. Where we'll see a thread about a country, or a battle in the Vestigia, here we'll see something along the lines of "cross examining" or "new civs post here". There isn't much of a guideline in those- it's designed for people to just talk, which in "liberal moderation" is great for a forum like this one.

The Crandar joke on April Fools made me think about that. This is an online forum, in my opinion a place that encourages free exchange of ideas and discussion. Crandar, at least the way I was made to understand him, was/is against every measure of that kind of freedom you can think of. I for one am glad that joke wasn't real. I don't foresee myself breaking forum rules to a degree meriting problems, but I am at least glad free discussion exists.

An example I'm going to put forward is the World War III thread, which I have posted in many times. I believe only one of those posts actually stated what I thought a World War III situation was going to be. The rest of them involve things like the merits of current British power, among other sort-of semi relevant topics and tangents. It is there in my opinion that the debate and discussion I talk about so frequently is put to best use. In that, we see how directed "spam" can help a community grow and flourish.

I also believe that the Civitates on this forum see that. Most Civitates I have talked with are discussors. They do not put their two cents in and just leave it, they elaborate, they argue, they answer. Sometimes that may go off the main topic (in which case it can be put back on by moderators) but in many cases it contributes well to the atmosphere of the forum and promotes free exchange of ideas.

Thus, I am writing in order to put forth my views on the subject. I am in full agreement that spam can be a problem in some cases, but I also look at some of it and see a community. Open to discussion and opinions- the way it should always be here.

[Jesus The Inane]

Constructive Spam is what Civitates generate. In other words, I agree with you. As a side note, I like your name, and it got me thinking; imagine if all of us used Roman names, like Publius and Gaius, wouldn't that be a sight?

[Belisarius]

And a thought, really. I was sitting here at my computer looking at threads about "spammy civitates" and I realized a lot of it comes from general life itself. Civitates, for the most part, know how the forum works, know a lot of the posters on the forum, and generally have done this before.

In my opinion, "spammy civitates" is an offshoot of that. Topics in the Symposium, and even in the Curia, I've noticed, leave a lot of leeway for spam. Where we'll see a thread about a country, or a battle in the Vestigia, here we'll see something along the lines of "cross examining" or "new civs post here". There isn't much of a guideline in those- it's designed for people to just talk, which in "liberal moderation" is great for a forum like this one.

The Crandar joke on April Fools made me think about that. This is an online forum, in my opinion a place that encourages free exchange of ideas and discussion. Crandar, at least the way I was made to understand him, was/is against every measure of that kind of freedom you can think of. I for one am glad that joke wasn't real. I don't foresee myself breaking forum rules to a degree meriting problems, but I am at least glad free discussion exists.

An example I'm going to put forward is the World War III thread, which I have posted in many times. I believe only one of those posts actually stated what I thought a World War III situation was going to be. The rest of them involve things like the merits of current British power, among other sort-of semi relevant topics and tangents. It is there in my opinion that the debate and discussion I talk about so frequently is put to best use. In that, we see how directed "spam" can help a community grow and flourish.

I also believe that the Civitates on this forum see that. Most Civitates I have talked with are discussors. They do not put their two cents in and just leave it, they elaborate, they argue, they answer. Sometimes that may go off the main topic (in which case it can be put back on by moderators) but in many cases it contributes well to the atmosphere of the forum and promotes free exchange of ideas.

Thus, I am writing in order to put forth my views on the subject. I am in full agreement that spam can be a problem in some cases, but I also look at some of it and see a community. Open to discussion and opinions- the way it should always be here.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Perikles]

I agree Constructive Spamming is a virtue......
Do you think that a spam forum would be a good idea, like on the RTR forums. When you post in the General Discussion area there it does not add to your post count. This would be good at TWC because it would keep intelligent areas that way and let all the spammers spam away....

[Tom Paine]

No, I disagree with that idea jp.... though I am all in favour of constructive spam. How can I not be?

[Perikles]

No, I disagree with that idea jp.... though I am all in favour of constructive spam. How can I not be?

It was just an idea, which could work very well, if watched very closely....
I am also loving my new ideal of 'Constructive Spamming'.....

[Aemilianus]

I think that's a good idea, but then it would also open the main forums to the idea of Crandarism. All a moderator would have to say would be "go to the spam forum" and toe the line on whatever topic was being discussed. When I talked about discussion in that context, I was meaning tangents off of a constructed topic that just naturally occur, enabling the members who post in it to have a running conversation.

The beauty of an online forum such as this is that, even if there is some minor spammage going on, a new poster can come in and put his two cents at the bottom on the topic, or choose to enter the "tangential" conversation. I've done both in one post many times before, and I think it really helps with the community type thing.

[Garbarsardar]

All this concept of "constructive spamming" is very nice in theory and there is no one here that can claim that he has not ben a "spammer' occasionally "constructive" or otherwise.
The downside of it, is that the aristocracy we are or pretend to be reserves for itself this dubious category of intelligent spam.
Posts made by Civitates of the type "I say kill the <insert nation or ethnicity>" are abundant at the moment, and all one liners cannot be elevated to a "constructive" level.
the same type of posts when made by the plebs are faced either with mod intervention, or outcry from any Cives present in the "dialogue".

Of course guys like Aemilianus make me less pessimistic on the quality of dialogue around here. Still the glass is not half full.

[the Black Prince]

however
the reason why, especially in the non civ areas of the site, we try and maintain on topic debates, is to allow people to carry on debating the titled subject

for example, i'm online till maybe midnight GMT i post a load of stuff in a political debate and sign off... over night (for me) the american users sign on in the evening (for them) and carry on the debate, by the time i next sign in, the whole focus of the debate has shifted, and 5 pages have past, 1 page of which was devoted to two members arguing back and forth about bushs competancy (which had nothing to do with the subject)

the result being, i couldn't carry on the debate that was the subject of thre thread, because it had been hijacked and tuned into another bash bush/america thread.

for this reason, debates, all debates, on TV, in forums, anywhere, have moderators, to ensure that answers ands questions stay on topic, and to prevent two or three people hijacking the debate and turning into personal slanging matches.

what you describe above , as "spammy civitates", is effectively civitates having long conversations and discussions, not debates. with fewer civitates, spread over more time zones, and a tendancy to post longer posts, these discussions move at a slower rate, tend to explore all the issues, to a great depth, and then gently move on. going to sleep doesn't mean you miss out on symposium discussions. its not possible to really allow that kind of posting in the main forums though, especially places like the mudpit, because threads will go so far off topic it'll be like travelling through interthread wormholes and no one will know whats going on, and just respond with more one liners to the one liners that have gone before... spam fest.

crandar was overharsh, no questions there. nazi moderator is a term oft used to describe him. but other mods like myself Farnan and Asterix also prefer to take a somewhat harsh approach, which we feel is necessary to preserve and control the actual debates on this site from becoming discussions between small groups of people, and locking out the wider community.

personally, i'd be all for a general chat thread for general chatty posts, much like say cheese, but without the photo fixation, but the substansive threads in the forum must be kept on topic.

garb you find i, in particular look down on civitates who act in the spammy style you describe. one line "spam" comments that i might overlook from a pleb will oft be moderated for a civitate, bevcause i believe that we should enforce, set, hold and maintain a higher standard as an example of what to aspire to here.
civitates that are not being constructive, or spamming are not wqorthy of being called a civitate. garb, feel free to report such incidents as spam, and if any 1 civitate seems to do it constantly, you have the right to propose ostrakon, for this is exactly the behavior it was intended for.

[Garbarsardar]

garb you find i, in particular look down on civitates who act in the spammy style you describe. one line "spam" comments that i might overlook from a pleb will oft be moderated for a civitate, bevcause i believe that we should enforce, set, hold and maintain a higher standard as an example of what to aspire to here.
civitates that are not being constructive, or spamming are not wqorthy of being called a civitate. garb, feel free to report such incidents as spam, and if any 1 civitate seems to do it constantly, you have the right to propose ostrakon, for this is exactly the behavior it was intended for.

I will give a try definitely, but I'm afraid that we are opening a big

[Aemilianus]

In my opinion the definition of "gratuitous spam" can be a fuzzy one. Of course, I agree that utilizing one word answers and useless chatter to raise your post count is definitely spam...but let's say for example-

John Smith is talking about Topic A, which turns into a multidimensional discussion.

Paul Miller posts a response to something about Topic A which is also multidimensional. We'll call this topic AB, because it has characteristics of A and B.

Chris Jones then posts a response about Topic AB, responding to Paul Miller. His response seizes on something about Topic AB that's closer to B. We're swinging away from the original topic.

Michael McMichaelson posts a response to Chris Jones, and it's about B.

Who gets in trouble with the mods here? None of the posters I've mentioned really tried to commit a spam violation, they just responded to an evolving topic before them and responded to the last post. tBP, as an Urbanis Legio, would you say that any one of those posters was in the wrong, or do you think that it's better to just nudge the thread back onto a path with a well-placed post? Michael McMichaelson is talking about something completely different from the original topic, but can we really say it's his fault, or is he joining an already flowing conversation?

I think the scenario tBP describes is more serious than this, though. What he's talking about is people veering the thread off by injecting their own political views into the argument and pushing the thread off topic. What I personally think should happen there is, if the debator used the thread's original purpose...let's say....in a political debate we'll use the Chinese economy. Let's say someone wants to have a discussion on how China's economy will grow or not during the next ten years. Someone could post, saying that they think China's economy will do x, y, and z because Bush's policies toward China are a certain way. That comment will be rebutted by someone, and it's possible it will be rebutted because the rebuttor disagrees with the idea of Bush's policy toward China. That is the "critical point" I believe. The very next poster could then follow with a comment on Bush that has nothing to do with China, and that is the end of the original thread.

I think that thread should be focused back on China somehow, you're right about that, tBP. However, I don't see who you would blame/punish in that situation. A lot of times, threads that turn into "spam" like that occur in the way I described. Who is the "first spammer" in that situation, and who deserves the blame? Just the first poster, or all the subsequent ones? For me at least, I think that can be a thorny question.