Originally Posted by Corenabh

I think that is a great question. The judgement on cross-posting has to do with the intent to gain exposure:

If the link is relevant to the conversation, and is not for the purpose of becoming popular or increasing "exposure". Then I would probably determine that the link is a constructive part of the conversation.

In short: No, what you describe is most likely not cross posting.

Thank you.

I have a few questions about this:

Originally Posted by webmaster

[*]Flooding a thread with multiple posts so as to make it inactive is spam and the user will be banned

Could you clarify how a thread becomes "inactive" in this case? I've been posting here for a long time, and I've never seen a thread become inactive unless it has been locked by an administrator, or if it just stops on its own because people have gotten tired of the subject.

[*]Deleting and re-posting the same or similar posts is considered a spamming activity.

If the concern is about the flow and coherence of a conversation, I could understand why this might be considered. I do think people need the ability to edit or delete posts if they have second thoughts. But maybe this should be limited. Is it possible to change the forum settings to prevent deletion by the user after a certain amount of time has passed?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I have a few questions about this:

[*]Flooding a thread with multiple posts so as to make it inactive is spam and the user will be banned

Could you clarify how a thread becomes "inactive" in this case? I've been posting here for a long time, and I've never seen a thread become inactive unless it has been locked by an administrator, or if it just stops on its own because people have gotten tired of the subject.

[*]Deleting and re-posting the same or similar posts is considered a spamming activity.

If the concern is about the flow and coherence of a conversation, I could understand why this might be considered. I do think people need the ability to edit or delete posts if they have second thoughts. But maybe this should be limited. Is it possible to change the forum settings to prevent deletion by the user after a certain amount of time has passed?

"Inactive" in this case means that the thread/conversation naturally stops because regular posts get lost between a repeating post, and no one wants to read a repeated message 500 times to find that little kernel of solid conversation. It is not the official state, but the effective state of the thread. To clarify this we could change the word "multiple" to "repeating".

I agree that having the ability to edit and make adjustments is important. We can look into the idea of limiting the delete option and see if that is possible.

Perhaps the deleting and re-posting addendum should be contingent on the purpose of "moving the post" and not establishing new content? Meaning that new content is fine, and encouraged, if you want to change or modify something. But just moving a post is not allowed.

Given this concern about re-posting, a general question to be asked of the forum community is:

Should re-posting be not allowed?

Some of what has also been brought up is re-posting an in-depth (4 or 5 level) conversation as a quote, and adding a comment. Recently a lot of claims have been made that this is also disruptive to the conversation. Should there be a limit to the amount of conversation one can re-post as a quote?

Originally Posted by Corenabh

Given this concern about re-posting, a general question to be asked of the forum community is:

Should re-posting be not allowed?

Some of what has also been brought up is re-posting an in-depth (4 or 5 level) conversation as a quote, and adding a comment. Recently a lot of claims have been made that this is also disruptive to the conversation. Should there be a limit to the amount of conversation one can re-post as a quote?

It's possible that we're thinking and talking about several different things.

The behavior that I reported wasn't a matter of editing, deleting, or even quoting a post. It was the deletion and re-posting of the same exact post so that it would end up on top of the stack of posts over a period of time. The user that I reported did this at least three times over the course of a single day, so that it would appear at the top of the stack four times (including the original post).

The poster engaging in that behavior knows how message forums work and knows that someone who checks the thread and sees the same exact post on the top of the stack in the afternoon that he or she saw that morning will come to the conclusion that nothing new has been added to the thread and move on. The goal is to reduce participation and kill the thread.

This isn't something that other posters seem to have much of an interest in doing. I've been kicking around this forum for the better part of seven years, and I've only seen a single poster engage in it. Given that, restricting everybody's ability to perform basic forum functions is basically a solution in search of a problem. The problem isn't that some generalized class of posters are using those functions in that way, it's that one specific poster has hit upon the idea of using those functions in a way that violates the spirit of existing policies (don't be disruptive) without violating their letter.

Crafting a policy to deal with this sort of thing won't work, as that poster will come up with a different way to violate the spirit of the existing policies without violating their letter. This week the method might be deleting and re-posting to force a post to the top of the stack, next week it could be ping-ponging off-topic pictures in a thread, the week after it may be something that none of us have thought of yet. The end result is that people who have no interest in disrupting discussion in that specific way are punished by having their privileges curtailed, and the problem isn't really addressed.

So, no. I don't think that quoting several layers deep (or even re-posting) should be restricted. I think that you should look at a given behavior in context and determine if it's an attempt to violate the spirit of the rules while staying within the rules themselves.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I agree with this completely. The problem is with the poster in question, not with the policies.
And the only way for someone to understand those nuances is to follow entire threads, instead of evaluating each post in isolation.

I hadn't planned on jumping in here, given that the wm's post more or less addressed the question I posed in PM.

But, since the matter of a specific poster has been brought up, I'd like to comment here my disagreement-in-principle with an interpretation of the 'insulting' guideline so broadly as to have calling a poster behaving in a trollish manner a troll run afoul of it. This may again be a matter of context.

Originally Posted by Corenabh

"Inactive" in this case means that the thread/conversation naturally stops because regular posts get lost between a repeating post, and no one wants to read a repeated message 500 times to find that little kernel of solid conversation. It is not the official state, but the effective state of the thread. To clarify this we could change the word "multiple" to "repeating".

I can't speak for everyone here, but if that were to happen, I'd just pick up the conversation where it left off and continue. It seems to me that this is a solution begging for a problem.

IMO, there should be more concern about the most egregious behavior such as personal attacks, obscenity, and spam. Otherwise, you're going to be spending a lot of time arbitrating what could be some pretty frivolous reports. Perhaps people need to do a better job of disciplining themselves, thinking before they post something, and -- yes --discreetly using the "ignore" function if they find that someone else annoys them to a high enough degree. I can tell you that this strategy works well for me.

I would rather not see the forum deteriorate into more of "he said -- she said" disputes. I would much rather talk about ideas.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Just curious to know if anything in this Greatest Hits collection is worth hitting the "report post" function:

As with the "calling people trolls" question, it's a lot easier for people to know where to draw the line if policies are consistently enforced.

-Actually, Playwrong isn't giggling with glee at the thought of others being beaten, raped and killed.

The stuff you just posted is tame.

Originally Posted by The Rani

In fact, this morning there is a new thread entitled "Generation Pain in the Ass."

Darn! Has it been deleted?

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Darn! Has it been deleted?

It should still be up. It's from a poster talking about his own cohorts.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Just curious to know if anything in this Greatest Hits collection is worth hitting the "report post" function:

As with the "calling people trolls" question, it's a lot easier for people to know where to draw the line if policies are consistently enforced.

Well, in my defense.... no, I take that back, it's not an excuse, only a reason -

At the time, I was under the influence of antipsychotics that another poster, with credentials, had recommended. Fortunately, a kinder poster, had suggested taking them with my afternoon tea martini, so I went semi-Michael Jackson and wasn't able to proceed further into the abyss of "nanny-nanny-nah-nah-yo-mamma-wears-army-boots!"

My fortune was not so much due to the risk of being censured-for-life but the complete embarrassment tht would have befallen me for a taunt that absolutely makes no sense in the 21st century (it did back in the early 60s). It's one thing to get points or even banned, but its a whole other ball-of-wax not to look really hip, groovy, if not, even a little kookie....



oh, crap, I'm hallucinating again! And worst, off topic!!!! Where's my martini?!!

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Actually, Playwrong isn't giggling with glee at the thought of others being beaten, raped and killed.

The stuff you just posted is tame.

Thanks, JDG! And for the tip regarding the mix with martini. It saved me!

Now if somebody could do something with all these technicolor bats flying around my head.

Originally Posted by millennialX

It should still be up. It's from a poster talking about his own cohorts.

I'm enjoying that thread. Besides, Uzi's post was great.