I Luv Spam

[Jedi Knight]

Spamming my posts seems to be the new "thing" by leftists on the forum. Not a problem. I can spam too.

JK

[Crossbow]

I see that you can.

I have reported your actions accordingly.

[Q-Source]

***Spamming is against the rules of the JREF Forum. ***

I am also going to report Jedi's action to the Mods.

This has nothing to do with your political opinions and you know that.

[Jon_in_london]

No JK-I-am,
I do not like green eggs
and spam!


:D

[Jedi Knight]

Report me. I already talked to Denise about it. She told me that you spam me, I can spam back.

Enjoy the spam, leftists. You can't be idiotic enough to think that you are going to spam my posts and get away with it, are you?

JK

[Q-Source]

And who is Denise?

You are breaking one of the rules of the JREF

------------------------------
JREF Forum Rules

The JREF is not responsible for the content, opinions, beliefs, or other matters contained in posts on this forum. The opinions expressed are strictly those of the individuals involved, and the JREF assumes no liability for such opinions. While civility should be the norm, strong opinions and energetic debate are regular components of the forum. For those likely to be offended, the JREF urges you to remember that this is just a computer forum, that you enter at your own risk, and that there are many, many things in life more important than this

The default position of the JREF Forum is that any post is allowed as long as it does not violate one of the conditions below:


The post is potentially criminal
-(e.g., kiddie porn, links to viruses, etc.). Such posts will be referred to proper legal channels.

The post is obscene
-Like the Supreme Court, we can't define it, but we know it when we see it. We want this to be a work-friendly website. We will allow links to sites but with a warning that the site could contain material considered objectionable. We do not want to be banned from libraries or schools because of sexual or violent content. At the same time, we do not want to censor discussion and dialogue. We also do not want to cause potential grantors to deny funding based on obscene or objectionable material.

The post contains commercial advertisements or spam.
-Note: this does not mean that people cannot reference commercial ideas, but merely that one may not use the Forum as a literal market place to sell for-profit items.
Spamming is the multiple posting of items just to annoy or attract attention. It is not the same as cross posting to a relevant thread. The forum administration reserves the right to make a final determination as to the legitimacy of a ‘commercial’ post.

The post contains copyright-protected material without proper permissions.
-Note: while we accept the "fair use" doctrine, we also understand that copyright extends to the internet
-Examples of unacceptable (illegal) posts could include: a Dilbert cartoon, the entire text of a magazine article, etc.
-See http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copynet.htm and http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht for a law firm specializing in web copyright issues for more information.
-Links to copyrighted material are ok, but do not quote the reference in full.
-All quoted material should be credited to the original author and a link given (when available) to the original work. It is not possible to declare precisely how much material may be quoted, as it will vary from article to article. A good rule of thumb is a paragraph. Nevertheless, forum administration reserves the right to modify quotes if such quotes are judged too complete.

Posts that demonstrate a clear and present danger to the welfare of another person may be edited or deleted.
-This is clearly tricky, but examples might include specific and credible threats of violence to ones self or others. This does not mean that a poster will always be immune from insults or challenges to his/her postings. As noted above, the nature of the forum inevitably involves occasional strong emotions and opinions. While the JREF believes the most powerful arguments are based on logic, evidence, and reason, it also does not guarantee that every one of the thousands of members of this forum feel the same way. Thus, we strongly urge basic civility be the norm, but warn users that tempers can wear thin from time to time.
-Moderators will use extreme caution in this area, and will immediately notify Forum Administrator(s) of any action taken.
-Generally, no editing/deleting of posts is allowed simply because of the content of the post if it does not violate the other conditions listed here.
-Moderators should notify posters of requests to delete posts within a specified period before deleting them themselves, unless said posts are clearly illegal or are significant violations of this policy, in the opinion of the forum management.

Posts that may not quite be criminal/commercial/etc., but in the view of the Administrator have the potential to undercut the viability of the JREF (see examples)
- Clearly, this is a difficult rule to define, and presents the potential for abuse. Posts that may fall into this category may not be removed by a moderator or a super moderator, but only by the Administrator. This rule is NOT designed to stifle discussion. Rather, it is simply to clearly and publicly state that there may be situations that arise that do not fall into any other category above, but, in the opinion of the forum Administrator/JREF, represent a significant problem.
-For example, should a poster begin a thread on the most effective way to mix and build a homemade explosive or set up a meth lab, such threads could be judged incompatible with the goals of the JREF. As the JREF relies on outside donations to survive, and as it seeks to be an important educational resource in schools, libraries, and other such organizations, it must set limits in order to protect itself.
Such threads will not be deleted, but rather moved to a private area so that they can be restored if the Administrator is overruled by Linda or Mr. Randi.

Members of the Forum may be Suspended and/or Banned
-The default position of the JREF is that, within the guidelines noted above, no opinion and/or judgment is unacceptable. That is to say, the content of a post is presumed allowed, a priori.
-There are, as noted, exceptions. Similarly, no poster will be suspended or banned from the forum just because of the particular set of views he/she holds. However, the Administrator may suspend posters for violations of the rules. He will endeavor to give proper warnings, but may choose to suspend/ban without warning if the situation, in his judgment, requires it. For example, a person posting a virus, or a dozen commercial spam messages might find their access limited. Banning is, of course, the ultimate sanction on a forum.
-The policy of the JREF is to resist banning whenever possible, and to never ban simply for the point of view a poster may hold. Banning, when implemented, will be only in response to repeated and willful violations of forum rules or decorum. Except in the most extraordinary situations, no one will be banned without at least two warnings. Only the Administrators may ban a member.
-On Trolls and Trolling: In multiple conversations with Mr. Randi, Linda, Jeff, Hal, and Andrew, it was decided that trolls whose only purpose is to troll are counterproductive to a successful educational forum. It is the JREF’s desire that the forum exist as a venue for the sharing of ideas and concepts, not as caldron of incivility. We certainly recognize that the forum, in addition to being of educational value, it is also an online community that welcomes pure fun and entertainment as well. It is the stance of the JREF that trolling enhances neither. Therefore, trolling is not permitted. Trolling is a difficult concept to define, and therefore and only in the most egregious cases, will suspension or banning be considered as the sanction. Only forum administrators have the power to suspend or ban, and only after consultation with one another.

The JREF is a privately owned and operated organization.
-As a result, it must manage the forum for the greater benefit of the JREF. Any and all decisions made by the forum Administrator may be appealed first to Linda and then (if desired) to Mr. Randi. In all cases, they shall have the final and complete say on any forum management issue.

The JREF reserves the right to create new rules and make decisions as the situation dictates.
-We are unable to foresee every situation that will arise and need our attention. Therefore, this guideline is needed. In addition, if the forum administration feels it necessary, such new situations may result in rule modification, rule additions, or rule deletions. Whenever practical, such changes will be mentioned on the forum and opinions asked for, though the final decision will rest with the forum administration, Linda, and Mr. Randi. Please recognize that the world is not always black and white, and that the Administrators will make what they feel are the best decisions for all concerned that are consistent with the ideals and principles of the JREF.


__________________
Hal Bidlack

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
No JK-I-am,
I do not like green eggs
and spam!


:D

You think it is funny, huh leftist. You will never have another functioning thread on this forum again if you ever spam one of mine again.

JK

[Tricky]

Jedi, I have asked Jon_in_London to remove his spam from your thread. I kindly ask you to do the same. Personally, I would hate to have you suspended or banned from the forums. As a foil, you are unparalleled.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I see that you can.

I have reported your actions accordingly.

Report me, moron! You spam my threads more than anyone, jackass. Jedi is not going anywhere.

JK

[Denise]

Originally posted by Q-Source
And who is Denise?

You are breaking one of the rules of the JREF

------------------------------
JREF Forum Rules

The JREF is not responsible for the content, opinions, beliefs, or other matters contained in posts on this forum. The opinions expressed are strictly those of the individuals involved, and the JREF assumes no liability for such opinions. While civility should be the norm, strong opinions and energetic debate are regular components of the forum. For those likely to be offended, the JREF urges you to remember that this is just a computer forum, that you enter at your own risk, and that there are many, many things in life more important than this

The default position of the JREF Forum is that any post is allowed as long as it does not violate one of the conditions below:


The post is potentially criminal
-(e.g., kiddie porn, links to viruses, etc.). Such posts will be referred to proper legal channels.

The post is obscene
-Like the Supreme Court, we can't define it, but we know it when we see it. We want this to be a work-friendly website. We will allow links to sites but with a warning that the site could contain material considered objectionable. We do not want to be banned from libraries or schools because of sexual or violent content. At the same time, we do not want to censor discussion and dialogue. We also do not want to cause potential grantors to deny funding based on obscene or objectionable material.

The post contains commercial advertisements or spam.
-Note: this does not mean that people cannot reference commercial ideas, but merely that one may not use the Forum as a literal market place to sell for-profit items.
Spamming is the multiple posting of items just to annoy or attract attention. It is not the same as cross posting to a relevant thread. The forum administration reserves the right to make a final determination as to the legitimacy of a ‘commercial’ post.

The post contains copyright-protected material without proper permissions.
-Note: while we accept the "fair use" doctrine, we also understand that copyright extends to the internet
-Examples of unacceptable (illegal) posts could include: a Dilbert cartoon, the entire text of a magazine article, etc.
-See http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copynet.htm and http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht for a law firm specializing in web copyright issues for more information.
-Links to copyrighted material are ok, but do not quote the reference in full.
-All quoted material should be credited to the original author and a link given (when available) to the original work. It is not possible to declare precisely how much material may be quoted, as it will vary from article to article. A good rule of thumb is a paragraph. Nevertheless, forum administration reserves the right to modify quotes if such quotes are judged too complete.

Posts that demonstrate a clear and present danger to the welfare of another person may be edited or deleted.
-This is clearly tricky, but examples might include specific and credible threats of violence to ones self or others. This does not mean that a poster will always be immune from insults or challenges to his/her postings. As noted above, the nature of the forum inevitably involves occasional strong emotions and opinions. While the JREF believes the most powerful arguments are based on logic, evidence, and reason, it also does not guarantee that every one of the thousands of members of this forum feel the same way. Thus, we strongly urge basic civility be the norm, but warn users that tempers can wear thin from time to time.
-Moderators will use extreme caution in this area, and will immediately notify Forum Administrator(s) of any action taken.
-Generally, no editing/deleting of posts is allowed simply because of the content of the post if it does not violate the other conditions listed here.
-Moderators should notify posters of requests to delete posts within a specified period before deleting them themselves, unless said posts are clearly illegal or are significant violations of this policy, in the opinion of the forum management.

Posts that may not quite be criminal/commercial/etc., but in the view of the Administrator have the potential to undercut the viability of the JREF (see examples)
- Clearly, this is a difficult rule to define, and presents the potential for abuse. Posts that may fall into this category may not be removed by a moderator or a super moderator, but only by the Administrator. This rule is NOT designed to stifle discussion. Rather, it is simply to clearly and publicly state that there may be situations that arise that do not fall into any other category above, but, in the opinion of the forum Administrator/JREF, represent a significant problem.
-For example, should a poster begin a thread on the most effective way to mix and build a homemade explosive or set up a meth lab, such threads could be judged incompatible with the goals of the JREF. As the JREF relies on outside donations to survive, and as it seeks to be an important educational resource in schools, libraries, and other such organizations, it must set limits in order to protect itself.
Such threads will not be deleted, but rather moved to a private area so that they can be restored if the Administrator is overruled by Linda or Mr. Randi.

Members of the Forum may be Suspended and/or Banned
-The default position of the JREF is that, within the guidelines noted above, no opinion and/or judgment is unacceptable. That is to say, the content of a post is presumed allowed, a priori.
-There are, as noted, exceptions. Similarly, no poster will be suspended or banned from the forum just because of the particular set of views he/she holds. However, the Administrator may suspend posters for violations of the rules. He will endeavor to give proper warnings, but may choose to suspend/ban without warning if the situation, in his judgment, requires it. For example, a person posting a virus, or a dozen commercial spam messages might find their access limited. Banning is, of course, the ultimate sanction on a forum.
-The policy of the JREF is to resist banning whenever possible, and to never ban simply for the point of view a poster may hold. Banning, when implemented, will be only in response to repeated and willful violations of forum rules or decorum. Except in the most extraordinary situations, no one will be banned without at least two warnings. Only the Administrators may ban a member.
-On Trolls and Trolling: In multiple conversations with Mr. Randi, Linda, Jeff, Hal, and Andrew, it was decided that trolls whose only purpose is to troll are counterproductive to a successful educational forum. It is the JREF’s desire that the forum exist as a venue for the sharing of ideas and concepts, not as caldron of incivility. We certainly recognize that the forum, in addition to being of educational value, it is also an online community that welcomes pure fun and entertainment as well. It is the stance of the JREF that trolling enhances neither. Therefore, trolling is not permitted. Trolling is a difficult concept to define, and therefore and only in the most egregious cases, will suspension or banning be considered as the sanction. Only forum administrators have the power to suspend or ban, and only after consultation with one another.

The JREF is a privately owned and operated organization.
-As a result, it must manage the forum for the greater benefit of the JREF. Any and all decisions made by the forum Administrator may be appealed first to Linda and then (if desired) to Mr. Randi. In all cases, they shall have the final and complete say on any forum management issue.

The JREF reserves the right to create new rules and make decisions as the situation dictates.
-We are unable to foresee every situation that will arise and need our attention. Therefore, this guideline is needed. In addition, if the forum administration feels it necessary, such new situations may result in rule modification, rule additions, or rule deletions. Whenever practical, such changes will be mentioned on the forum and opinions asked for, though the final decision will rest with the forum administration, Linda, and Mr. Randi. Please recognize that the world is not always black and white, and that the Administrators will make what they feel are the best decisions for all concerned that are consistent with the ideals and principles of the JREF.


__________________
Hal Bidlack

If people are going to post nonsense to Jedi's threads, then he is allowed to post nonsense on theirs. I find it somewhat humerous that people only complained when Jedi posted the same thing that Jon posted to his thread. No one complained when Jon posted his original. Why is that?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You think it is funny, huh leftist. You will never have another functioning thread on this forum again if you ever spam one of mine again.

JK

LOL

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tricky
Jedi, I have asked Jon_in_London to remove his spam from your thread. I kindly ask you to do the same. Personally, I would hate to have you suspended or banned from the forums. As a foil, you are unparalleled.

I am not going to be banned from this forum. You can't have leftists spam my threads then when I counter-attack the same leftists "report" me lol. Jesus, you have got to be kidding me.

Ban me and watch what happens.

JK

[jimlintott]

Oh let's all run and tell.

My PageDown button deals with the spam quite effectively.

When one of my kids would come running to me to 'tell' on the other it would usually go like this.

"Daddy, blah blah blah"
"Is ther any blood?"
"No."
"Then you kids will have to work it out on your own."

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by WooBot


Wanna bet, Nazi-boy?

Sure, loser. Bring it on.

JK

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Denise


If people are going to post nonsense to Jedi's threads, then he is allowed to post nonsense on theirs. I find it somewhat humerous that people only complained when Jedi posted the same thing that Jon posted to his thread. No one complained when Jon posted his original. Why is that?

I'm with you, Denise.

Except that I don't find it funny. I think that rather than allowing both sides to spam, you should consider banning both sides.

MattJ

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Denise


If people are going to post nonsense to Jedi's threads, then he is allowed to post nonsense on theirs. I find it somewhat humerous that people only complained when Jedi posted the same thing that Jon posted to his thread. No one complained when Jon posted his original. Why is that?

You are not a moderator, are you?

You must be joking.

Spam =/= nonsense

If you are a moderator, you should know by now that spam is prohibited.

Anyway, let's wait that Diezel or Hal take some rational action against Jedi's behaviour.

[renata]

Originally posted by Denise


If people are going to post nonsense to Jedi's threads, then he is allowed to post nonsense on theirs. I find it somewhat humerous that people only complained when Jedi posted the same thing that Jon posted to his thread. No one complained when Jon posted his original. Why is that?

I do not think this is an appropriate standard. What Jon_in_London did was wrong. However, it appears he spammed one thread. JK went on a rampage of spamming, to, I think at least 5 threads. The degree is important here. However, both are incorrect. It is inappropriate to condone JK's action just because he is retaliating.


However, this brings up another issue. A lot of people post junk on threads of posters they consider "trolls". Paul Bethke's threads are treasure troves of recipes. Would you condone Paul Bethke if the started posting recipes in everyone else's thread? This whole way of dealing with posters people do not like is silly. if you don't agree with them, ignore them. Why is that so difficult? Some posters thrive on attention and controversy. I believe when they reach that stage the best thing is to ignore them entirely.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by renata

However, this brings up another issue. A lot of people post junk on threads of posters they consider "trolls". Paul Bethke's threads are treasure troves of recipes. Would you condone Paul Bethke if the started posting recipes in everyone else's thread? This whole way of dealing with posters people do not like is silly. if you don't agree with them, ignore them. Why is that so difficult? Some posters thrive on attention and controversy. I believe when they reach that stage the best thing is to ignore them entirely.

People do this to Jedi Knight's threads all the time, and this is what he's complaining about. I put him on 'ignore' months ago, and thus now very rarely read anything he writes. The spam responses are childish.

MattJ

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Q-Source


You are not a moderator, aren't you?

You must be joking.

Spam =/= nonsense

If you are a moderator, you should know by now that spam is prohibited.

Anyway, let's wait that Diezel or Hal take some rational action against Jedi's behaviour.

Crossbow was the originator of that spam. If Jedi is to be reported it must not be overlooked that he did not start this little brawl. Crossbow has been doing this for ages on every thread that he deems troll-like. The real question should be what gives Crossbow the right to decide what is a worthy thread and what is not. He is a pompous self important poster. Judge and jury. Just what does he think gives him this right? That is the real question to ask.

As for Jedi,...he's being petulant,...he's been wronged and sees no other recourse I guess.... :rolleyes: I just wish everyone would get over this and stop acting like kids.

-z

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


People do this to Jedi Knight's threads all the time, and this is what he's complaining about. I put him on 'ignore' months ago, and thus now very rarely read anything he writes. The spam responses are childish.

MattJ Agreed.

The rules must be the same for all posters - one man's troll is another man's guru.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Crossbow was the originator of that spam. If Jedi is to be reported it must not be overlooked that he did not start this little brawl. Crossbow has been doing this for ages on every thread that he deems troll-like. The real question should be what gives Crossbow the right to decide what is a worthy thread and what is not. He is a pompous self important poster. Judge and jury. Just what does he think gives him this right? That is the real question to ask.

As for Jedi,...he's being petulant,...he's been wronged and sees no other recourse I guess.... :rolleyes: I just wish everyone would get over this and stop acting like kids.

-z

Well, I did not know that Crossbow does it all the time.

If they have a personal vendetta between them, they should not use the forum to ventilate it.

It just bothers me the endorsement of this behaviour from someone who is supposed to be a moderator :rolleyes:

[renata]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


People do this to Jedi Knight's threads all the time, and this is what he's complaining about. I put him on 'ignore' months ago, and thus now very rarely read anything he writes. The spam responses are childish.

MattJ


That is absolutely correct. I do not have him on ignore, but I try to no longer rise to the bait.

However, JK is no blushing violet. He started quite a bit of fights himself, and I do not know how far back this conflict goes. He is not above personal attacks just because someone disagrees with him.

Edited to add: just realized who JK reminds me of! He posts just like bigfig!

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by renata



That is absolutely correct. I do not have him on ignore, but I try to no longer rise to the bait.

However, JK is no blushing violet. He started quite a bit of fights himself, and I do not know how far back this conflict goes. He is not above personal attacks just because someone disagrees with him.

Edited to add: just realized who JK reminds me of! He posts just like bigfig!

Hey, you don't have to like me. Just don't spam my threads.

JK

[gnome]

Originally posted by Denise
If people are going to post nonsense to Jedi's threads, then he is allowed to post nonsense on theirs. I find it somewhat humerous that people only complained when Jedi posted the same thing that Jon posted to his thread. No one complained when Jon posted his original. Why is that?

Actually I think you'll find that a few people did complain on the original thread.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by renata
Edited to add: just realized who JK reminds me of! He posts just like bigfig!
More likely Bigfig's common law husband. That would also explain why he hates women so much.:D

[Denise]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Well, I did not know that Crossbow does it all the time.

If they have a personal vendetta between them, they should not use the forum to ventilate it.

It just bothers me the endorsement of this behaviour from someone who is supposed to be a moderator :rolleyes:



:rolleyes: yourself. If it is allowed for people to do that to Jedi Knight's thread, than he can do it to theirs. It's that simple. We are not allowed to edit threads per Hal's instructions unless they are apparent gross violations. If JK does what people have done to his threads for ages, then maybe the people who spam his threads will see how silly it all is.

[Denise]

Originally posted by gnome


Actually I think you'll find that a few people did complain on the original thread.

No one reported it was my point.

[DavidJames]

"If people are going to post nonsense to Jedi's threads, then he is allowed to post nonsense on theirs"

nay nay - Are we in grade school? Is that the rules of the forum, it's wrong unless someone does it to you first?

Seems to me it's either ok or not, but then I'm not a mod.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Denise


yourself. If it is allowed for people to do that to Jedi Knight's thread, than he can do it to theirs. It's that simple. We are not allowed to edit threads per Hal's instructions unless they are apparent gross violations. If JK does what people have done to his threads for ages, then maybe the people who spam his threads will see how silly it all is.

Whatever :rolleyes:

Let's wait for a real moderator's opinion.

Where are Diezel and Hal?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Denise


:rolleyes: yourself. If it is allowed for people to do that to Jedi Knight's thread, than he can do it to theirs. It's that simple. We are not allowed to edit threads per Hal's instructions unless they are apparent gross violations. If JK does what people have done to his threads for ages, then maybe the people who spam his threads will see how silly it all is. Agreed, agreed.

But now, when the points have been made and taken, why not stop it, whoever it comes from?

Do you think it should be accepted as a general rule? :confused:

[Denise]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Whatever :rolleyes:

Let's wait for a real moderator's opinion.

Where are Diezel and Hal?

Oh good! I can't wait! I already pm'd Hal about this situation.

Can you tell me why you don't think I am a "real" moderator?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Whatever :rolleyes:

Let's wait for a real moderator's opinion.

Where are Diezel and Hal?

You are in on it too, Q? You are only good for starting chick-trouble, a vulture.

Haw! Haw! spread those wings and circle, vulture.

JK

[Denise]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Agreed, agreed.

But now, when the points have been made and taken, why not stop it, whoever it comes from?

Do you think it should be accepted as a general rule? :confused:

Looks like it has stopped and Jedi made his point. Would it be allowed to go on and on- probably not.

[Reginald]

JK calm down!

You are starting to lose the plot big time!

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Denise

Can you tell me why you don't think I am a "real" moderator?

Silly! You're a girl! :D

Girls can't be really real moderators!

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Denise


Looks like it has stopped and Jedi made his point. Would it be allowed to go on and on- probably not. Hopefully not! :)

[Jedi Knight]

For the record, the reason I responded the way I did is I spent a full hour typing an articulate response to a question posed to me by GEM in the Editorial Thread and then crossbow, joninlondon and others spammed it.

No one complained about that spam so don't complain about the counter-spam, hypocrites.

JK

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Whatever :rolleyes:

Let's wait for a real moderator's opinion.

Where are Diezel and Hal?

Denise is a real moderator.

I have every sympathy with her in this situation - it's hard for a mod to keep track of the board so they rely on other people to report rules being infringed. That said - if we (collectively) are only going to report the trolls and let the guys we like get away with it - then what does that say about us as critical thinkers?

And SPAM is the same message reposted is it not? Merely disrupting someone else's thread is more troll behaviour? That's a genuine question because I'm not sure :)

Sou

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Denise

Oh good! I can't wait! I already pm'd Hal about this situation.
Can you tell me why you don't think I am a "real" moderator?

Let me give you the definition of "Moderator":


moderator noun [C]
1 (US USUALLY mediator) FORMAL someone who tries to help other people come to an agreement:
An independent moderator should be appointed to oversee the negotiations.

2 US someone who makes certain that a formal discussion happens without problems and follows the rules:
He challenged the president to a series of TV debates. Just the two of them, with no moderator.

Cambridge Dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=51368&dict=CALD)


It seems that you DO NOT know:

1. What a moderator is and

2. Spam is against the JREF Forum Rules

You are endorsing a childish behaviour and you think it is funny and fair. It is clear that you have no idea what your role should be as a moderator.

If both Crossrow and Jedi are breaking the rules, then some action should be taken.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Denise
No one reported it was my point.

Maybe JK should have, being the aggrieved party here...

[Denise]

Originally posted by Soubrette


Denise is a real moderator.

I have every sympathy with her in this situation - it's hard for a mod to keep track of the board so they rely on other people to report rules being infringed. That said - if we (collectively) are only going to report the trolls and let the guys we like get away with it - then what does that say about us as critical thinkers?

And SPAM is the same message reposted is it not? Merely disrupting someone else's thread is more troll behaviour? That's a genuine question because I'm not sure :)

Sou

I have asked Jedi knight to remove his spam. Yes, if someone is posting the same exact thing over and over it is spam. If someone is posting different things such as recipes it is not clear that it is spam, but in my opinion, it is spam. But I would not remove them because it is not a clear violation of the rules. That is something that Hal will deal with.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

No one complained about that spam so don't complain about the counter-spam, hypocrites.

JK

Tricky complained about it, Jedi.

But you're right...if I invest time in responding on a thread, to the tune of nearly or even more than an hour (and it does happen) of typing time, I would be livid to see my work spammed.

Look, if you don't like Jedi's threads, why do you bother to post anything at all? Why not just go to a thread you like, and post there? What is the point of this childish spamming?

[Denise]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Let me give you the definition of "Moderator":




It seems that you DO NOT know:

1. What a moderator is and

2. Spam is against the JREF Forum Rules

You are endorsing a childish behaviour and you think it is funny and fair. It is clear that you have no idea what your role should be as a moderator.

If both Crossrow and Jedi are breaking the rules, then some action should be taken.

It looks like the situation has been solved. Why don't you pm your concerns about me to Hal? I think telling JK to do the same thing that others have done to him has been successful and other posters have seen how silly it is to do that to other's threads.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Denise


I have asked Jedi knight to remove his spam. Yes, if someone is posting the same exact thing over and over it is spam. If someone is posting different things such as recipes it is not clear that it is spam, but in my opinion, it is spam. But I would not remove them because it is not a clear violation of the rules. That is something that Hal will deal with.

And I have asked Jon to remove his spam (although I'm not a moderator).

However, I differ with Denise as to what is spam. Though posting recipies or jokes or whatever is very much off-topic, it is at least readable and may even be interesting to some. Posting of a list of words is not remotely interesting to even such a logophile as myself.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Tricky


And I have asked Jon to remove his spam (although I'm not a moderator).

However, I differ with Denise as to what is spam. Though posting recipies or jokes or whatever is very much off-topic, it is at least readable and may even be interesting to some. Posting of a list of words is not remotely interesting to even such a logophile as myself.

Yes, but remember the masturbation spam? That might have been interesting to some.

[DavidJames]

The level of noise in this forum has gotten out of control. As your average, dumping ground for political opinions it's, well, average. As a political forum on a skeptic site, well, that's a cherished memory. The beginning of the end can be traced back to May 2002.

There are a lot of intelligent, creative and articulate posters, some I agree with and many I don't, but I have learned from all of them. There is something to learn from the others as well, that logic, reason and civility are all to rare and, apparently, not so highly valued.

[aerocontrols]

What is spam? (http://help.yahoo.com/help/in/mb/mb-20.html)

Spam refers to messages that are posted repeatedly or are unrelated to the topic of discussion. These messages sometimes solicit services or contain commercial or advertising content.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Tricky


However, I differ with Denise as to what is spam. Though posting recipies or jokes or whatever is very much off-topic, it is at least readable and may even be interesting to some. Posting of a list of words is not remotely interesting to even such a logophile as myself.

People post things like that typically because they believe someone who is known as a troll is trolling yet again. Be that as it may, Jedi was not trolling in the attacked thread. He was expressing some political views - which admittedly tend to be very firm and somewhat forceful. But they weren't trolling, so the decision to post that nonsense spam was utter stupidity in action.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You think it is funny, huh leftist. You will never have another functioning thread on this forum again if you ever spam one of mine again.

JK

Son, I have about 3 functioning threads right now, and we're not spamming you, us moderate rightwingers are disagreeing with your blathering nonsense.

[Jon_in_london]

FYI

I removed the incredibly long list of junk from JKs thread (well most anyway) ;)

[Denise]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
FYI

I removed the incredibly long list of junk from JKs thread (well most anyway) ;)

Thank you very much. I will edit JK's spam as he is no longer online.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Tricky


And I have asked Jon to remove his spam (although I'm not a moderator).

However, I differ with Denise as to what is spam. Though posting recipies or jokes or whatever is very much off-topic, it is at least readable and may even be interesting to some. Posting of a list of words is not remotely interesting to even such a logophile as myself.

Everything reminds me of food. :)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by gnome


Maybe JK should have, being the aggrieved party here...

I did.

JK

[Checkmite]

Please tell me you people (the "spammers") aren't trying to justify your immaturity by saying "It's not spam, because it didn't have any commercial advertisements."

[Mike B.]

Geez,
Anybody who is a moderator should be given a medal for trying to figure this all out.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Please tell me you people (the "spammers") aren't trying to justify your immaturity by saying "It's not spam, because it didn't have any commercial advertisements."

Well It didnt!!!!

***start did too!/didnot!*** posts here

;)

[Crossbow]

Denise: thank you for reconsidering your decision regarding the JK spam.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Denise: thank you for reconsidering your decision regarding the JK spam.

It was clearly spam because it was the exact same thing posted over and over, so it wasn't a hard decision. Please don't think I agree with Jedi Knight on most of the issues. On this one, however, I understood where he was coming from.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Denise: thank you for reconsidering your decision regarding the JK spam.

No, thank you for recognizing how it feels when someone spams one's thread!

[hal bidlack]

I've just been informed of the spam problems of this morning. For some reason, Vbull is not sending me reported posts. Denise was kind enough to forward a couple to me. I'll fix that problem with Vbull. If you think I have not responded quickly enough, certainly PM me.

You don't get to spam. It's not acceptable from either side in a dispute, and can result in warnings, suspensions, and possibly banning. Let's not walk down that road. It looks from this thread that things have calmed down, I'll now go back and try to understand what happened.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
You don't get to spam. It's not acceptable from either side in a dispute, and can result in warnings, suspensions, and possibly banning. Let's not walk down that road. It looks from this thread that things have calmed down, I'll now go back and try to understand what happened.

It is great to see you here, Hal.

You folks should stop by the new forum section. We have all sorts of wacky shenanigans going on over there, and although much of it (well, okay, all of it) is immature drivel, ... uhm, I forget what my point was.

Oh yah, come on over, bring some beverages.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky

....Posting of a list of words is not remotely interesting to even such a logophile as myself.

Know everything there is to know, do you?

No chance of a word appearing you haven't seen and know the meaning of? Damn, you're a fart-smeller -- er I mean smart-feller.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise


If people are going to post nonsense to Jedi's threads, then he is allowed to post nonsense on theirs. I find it somewhat humerous that people only complained when Jedi posted the same thing that Jon posted to his thread. No one complained when Jon posted his original. Why is that?


Hang on, I have never 'spammed' JKs threads. I have posted the odd tart comment or two, but he is posting in mountains of c**p. There is a difference. Not to mention waste of disk space.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Whatever :rolleyes:

Let's wait for a real moderator's opinion.

Where are Diezel and Hal?

I don't agree with much of what Denise posts, but I don't attack the umpire either. She does her job, and should not be rubbished for it.

One thing worse than having moderators is not having them. Without them, I believe Randi would just shut the place down.

[Denise]

Originally posted by a_unique_person



Hang on, I have never 'spammed' JKs threads. I have posted the odd tart comment or two, but he is posting in mountains of c**p. There is a difference. Not to mention waste of disk space.

AUP, I never accused you!

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Geez,
Anybody who is a moderator should be given a medal for trying to figure this all out.

Medals ordered, ceremony scheduled.

Hal and Denise need to be informed so that they can be presented with the medals.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey, you don't have to like me. Just don't spam my threads.

JK


You are right JK. Like it or lump it people(in reference to JK's posts).

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Crossbow was the originator of that spam. If Jedi is to be reported it must not be overlooked that he did not start this little brawl. Crossbow has been doing this for ages on every thread that he deems troll-like. The real question should be what gives Crossbow the right to decide what is a worthy thread and what is not. He is a pompous self important poster. Judge and jury. Just what does he think gives him this right? That is the real question to ask.

As for Jedi,...he's being petulant,...he's been wronged and sees no other recourse I guess.... :rolleyes: I just wish everyone would get over this and stop acting like kids.

-z

Perhaps I am not needed and sticking my nose into business where it does not belong:

but the spamming affects us all as we read threads.

Crossbow, you have been accused anything to say in your defense?

Crossbow, any apologies forth-coming?
If not

At least consider a ceasefire, regarding the spamming of any threads.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise


AUP, I never accused you!

I was referring to JK spamming one of my threads.

[Girl 6]

You know what? I'm just appalled.

We have rules about spamming. I frankly don't care who is generating it. And, this whole attitude of it's okay to do it to someone else if they do it to me is not acceptable.

That's all I'm going to say about this.

{sigh}

G6

[jj]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Please tell me you people (the "spammers") aren't trying to justify your immaturity by saying "It's not spam, because it didn't have any commercial advertisements."


Who's doing that? Are you starting to burn your straw men again?

[Denise]

Originally posted by Girl 6
You know what? I'm just appalled.

We have rules about spamming. I frankly don't care who is generating it. And, this whole attitude of it's okay to do it to someone else if they do it to me is not acceptable.

That's all I'm going to say about this.

{sigh}

G6

G6, I want to know when you have pm'd someone who posts a recipe to someone's thread to ask them to stop spamming?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Whatever :rolleyes:

Let's wait for a real moderator's opinion.

Where are Diezel and Hal?

What makes you think Hal or Diezel will have a different opinion on this then Denise?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Baker
Your whining is starting to make JK look good.

I am a Jedi. I always look good.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am a Jedi. I always look good.

JK .... but your avatars are getting uglier and uglier! What happened to the nice, well-dressed one? :p

[Baker]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am a Jedi. I always look good.

JK

Well no offence to you JK I just knew Q-Source would
take it as an insult.

[peptoabysmal]

HAH!

I'd like to submit this thread as an entry for funniest flame thread of the year.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Report me, moron! You spam my threads more than anyone, jackass. Jedi is not going anywhere.

JK

Attention whore keep your promises, threats:

"I will drop in from time to time but will no longer contribute to the forum. I am off to pursue a forum where there is less hate and hopefully more people who share my views and beliefs.

Jedi "There is a God" Knight 11-12-02"

Its a shame you've been put up with.

"I'm just new here but I'm stricken by the fact that certain people....you know who they are, and so do they.....have, in effect, hijacked this forum. They don't share any of the values expressed by the sponsoring organization. Its one thing to debate, but its another to babble, start with a conclusion and try to make all the facts fit to support it.
Read Randi's notice at the top of each topic, wherein he cautions against debating with unreasonable people as being a waste of time.
Much of what is posted by these people reminds me of a great item by Scott Adams of "Dilbert" fame:
"You are Wrong Because:
For, your convenience, I have checked the brain malfunction(s) that most closely resemble(s) the one(s) that you recently exhibited on the topic of: (fill in the blank)....."
He then goes on to list a number of them: "Amazingly Bad Analogy", "Faulty Cause and Effect", "Total Logical Disconnect", and give examples of each.
I am awaiting Scott's permission to share the whole of it with you...it is from his book "The Joy of Work."
Trying to follow the logic of the insane will drive you insane, and, dissipate your energy in the meantime, as Randi notes.
Once you identify someone with one of these brain disorders, it is best to ignore them and have a real discussion of the facts (note Randi's refusal to continue with "S&S" in another section.)
"Thinking is the hardest work of all, that's why so few of us engage in it."---Emerson
"A conclusion is the place where we got tired of thinking."---Arthur Block
"We see and hear what we expect to see and hear."----Thoreau
Oh, another Scott Adam's point from "You are wrong" that is particularly relevant here:
"Circular reasoning---example: I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct."

By the way "I love everybody, especially you."---Lyle Lovett

But I'll never forgive you for putting up with me---apologies to Mose "
--Me, October, 2002.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius


Attention whore keep your promises, threats:

"I will drop in from time to time but will no longer contribute to the forum. I am off to pursue a forum where there is less hate and hopefully more people who share my views and beliefs.

Jedi "There is a God" Knight 11-12-02"

Its a shame you've been put up with.

"I'm just new here but I'm stricken by the fact that certain people....you know who they are, and so do they.....have, in effect, hijacked this forum. They don't share any of the values expressed by the sponsoring organization. Its one thing to debate, but its another to babble, start with a conclusion and try to make all the facts fit to support it.
Read Randi's notice at the top of each topic, wherein he cautions against debating with unreasonable people as being a waste of time.
Much of what is posted by these people reminds me of a great item by Scott Adams of "Dilbert" fame:
"You are Wrong Because:
For, your convenience, I have checked the brain malfunction(s) that most closely resemble(s) the one(s) that you recently exhibited on the topic of: (fill in the blank)....."
He then goes on to list a number of them: "Amazingly Bad Analogy", "Faulty Cause and Effect", "Total Logical Disconnect", and give examples of each.
I am awaiting Scott's permission to share the whole of it with you...it is from his book "The Joy of Work."
Trying to follow the logic of the insane will drive you insane, and, dissipate your energy in the meantime, as Randi notes.
Once you identify someone with one of these brain disorders, it is best to ignore them and have a real discussion of the facts (note Randi's refusal to continue with "S&S" in another section.)
"Thinking is the hardest work of all, that's why so few of us engage in it."---Emerson
"A conclusion is the place where we got tired of thinking."---Arthur Block
"We see and hear what we expect to see and hear."----Thoreau
Oh, another Scott Adam's point from "You are wrong" that is particularly relevant here:
"Circular reasoning---example: I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct."

By the way "I love everybody, especially you."---Lyle Lovett

But I'll never forgive you for putting up with me---apologies to Mose "
--Me, October, 2002.

Aww, poor baby. You are still spamming that post I made about leaving but continuously forget to include the part where people asked me to come back.

You are just dishonest, sub-man. Completely intellectually dishonest and marginal.

JK

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
For the record, the reason I responded the way I did is I spent a full hour typing an articulate response to a question posed to me by GEM in the Editorial Thread and then crossbow, joninlondon and others spammed it.

No one complained about that spam so don't complain about the counter-spam, hypocrites.

JK

The man has a point, ya know, so why don't everybody go out the door, then come back in and behave like adults?

Hans

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


The man has a point, ya know, so why don't everybody go out the door, then come back in and behave like adults?

Hans Yep. I second that.

Vi demokratiske skandinaver ordner alltid opp ... :p

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Baker

What makes you think Hal or Diezel will have a different opinion on this then Denise?



Look Baker, these were the responses of real moderators:

Originally posted by hal bidlack
I've just been informed of the spam problems of this morning. For some reason, Vbull is not sending me reported posts. Denise was kind enough to forward a couple to me. I'll fix that problem with Vbull. If you think I have not responded quickly enough, certainly PM me.

You don't get to spam. It's not acceptable from either side in a dispute, and can result in warnings, suspensions, and possibly banning. Let's not walk down that road. It looks from this thread that things have calmed down, I'll now go back and try to understand what happened.


Originally posted by Girl 6
You know what? I'm just appalled.

We have rules about spamming. I frankly don't care who is generating it. And, this whole attitude of it's okay to do it to someone else if they do it to me is not acceptable.

That's all I'm going to say about this.

{sigh}

G6

Hal, Diezel and Girl6 are here to Moderate when things go wrong.
Denise just made everything worse.

This could happen again with some other people. Her criterion about how control spamming is quite questionable.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Q-Source



Look Baker, these were the responses of real moderators:






Hal, Diezel and Girl6 are here to Moderate when things go wrong.
Denise just made everything worse.

This could happen again with some other people. Her criterion about how control spamming is quite questionable.

Given the turnover of moderators lately, and the complaints they have made, I think we should be showing some respect, even if we don't agree. All moderators have made mistakes, all are learning what is a delicate art. If you do not agree, raise it as an issue via a PM, and they can take it up amongst themselves. I don't see the point in putting them down.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Denise just made everything worse.


I wouldn't say that. I might have handled it differently, but I think she had some part in calming the situation down.

[Mel]

Frankly, I don't see the value in defining what exactly is spam or who is a troll. The REAL problem that I see is the behavior that these imagined slights generate and the mostly spoiled and childish reaction of people to what they personally do not like. I find it rather arrogant for people to define someone a troll and then expect every other poster in the forum to share their opinion.

In my opinion, EVERY THREAD has a basic theme and while most conversations evolve around LOGICAL tangents, it is BLATANTLY obvious when a troublemaker or wise guy comes along and posts something TOTALLY unrelated just for the sake of being disruptive.

Recipes belong in a recipe thread unless the topic veered into recipes by a natural process.... NOT because somebody felt it was their duty to "hijack" a thread.

Being rude to other people trying to participate in an educational forum is NOT a shining example of Critical Thinking.

[Denise]

Originally posted by gnome


I wouldn't say that. I might have handled it differently, but I think she had some part in calming the situation down.

And look at the conversation we have going on the subject! Hey, I am guilty of asking people not to feed the trolls. But, like Mel says, (and others) what defines a troll. Is it time to stop the nonsense of it being fine to spam a troll's thread but not ok to spam a non troll thread? I think to be fair on all sides we need to look at the issue of why it's ok to post recipes to Paul Bethke's threads, but not to gnome's threads or other respected poster's threads.

[Bruce]

This thread has been RESURRECTED