Stupid Spam Rules

[NSL]

Am I the only one that thinks it de-values the forums?

It's impossible to hold a serious discussion when someone just posts a line or two, and most of the points that are attempted in that line or two, seem like utter nonsense...

 

[klunderbunker]

the good posts come through in the end. The spam does get old quick though.

 

[NSL]

the good posts come through in the end. The spam does get old quick though.

I signed on, saw I missed a bunch of posts, and there wasn't one that I could reply to, or any that made a decent argument

 

[klunderbunker]

Which is a big argument going on as you know. The question is should we lower the spam rules or not.

 

[NSL]

I vote no.

If you lower the spam rules, there's no point in having a seperate spam section...

 

[klunderbunker]

We got over with these rules. No one else can?

 

[Rusty]

Agreed.

 

[klunderbunker]

It's in the admins hands now. They're deliberating on it.

 

[Lee]

24-48 hours, allegedly

 

[Slyfox696]

If you can't find good discussion over the last couple of days, then that's your fault, not theirs. Because this place has had better discussion over the last couple of days than it had for the last year.

 

[NSL]

If you can't find good discussion over the last couple of days, then that's your fault, not theirs. Because this place has had better discussion over the last couple of days than it had for the last year.

I've seen a lot of people posting, but I'd hardly call it discussion. Besides the relaxed spam rules, there's an increasing number of people posting to threads, without actually reading any of the discussion before them. There's no debate, or discussion, when this happens.

 

[Slyfox696]

I've seen a lot of people posting, but I'd hardly call it discussion. Besides the relaxed spam rules, there's an increasing number of people posting to threads, without actually reading any of the discussion before them. There's no debate, or discussion, when this happens.

I disagree completely. I've seen some good discussion, as well as posts leading to rebuttal posts.

 

[NSL]

I disagree completely. I've seen some good discussion, as well as posts leading to rebuttal posts.

I've seen that as well. From people the post regularly already, and from posts that would've been fine under the original rules.

There's a lot of post that are just 3 or 4 sentences, and aren't expanded on at all. How hard can it be, to explain why they feel how they feel, about whatever they're posting? An extra sentence or two, for a little clarification, would be fine.

 

[Slyfox696]

I've seen that as well. From people the post regularly already, and from posts that would've been fine under the original rules.

This right here would be considered spam, the way you want it. But, I see plenty there to discuss and you make a good point.

Why should that be spam?

 

[klunderbunker]

It should be because that's the established rule, as well as it wouldn't kill them to do a line or two more.

 

[Slyfox696]

It should be because that's the established rule, as well as it wouldn't kill them to do a line or two more.

We've discussed this before. "Do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten".

It's time to improve, and improvement we have...even you agreed the forums have been busier.

 

[Sparky]

 

[NSL]

This right here would be considered spam, the way you want it. But, I see plenty there to discuss and you make a good point.

Why should that be spam?

If they add a sentence or two, and it's just 5 or 6 simple sentences that don't add anything to the discussion, then yes, I agree that it is spam. But, it's also not impossible to post 5 or 6 quality sentences, explain their point, and spark discussion.

I will say that not all of these posts that have been made are horrible, and add nothing. It's just harder to get interested in a discussion that is mostly:

"I didn't read any posts, so someone might have said this. John Cena rules, and Jeff Hardy sucks. That's because Cena won more titles, and Hardy wrestled in TNA." (Note: This is not an exact post, just an example...)

 

[Slyfox696]

"I didn't read any posts, so someone might have said this. John Cena rules, and Jeff Hardy sucks. That's because Cena won more titles, and Hardy wrestled in TNA." (Note: This is not an exact post, just an example...)

And that post would be spam, and has been treated as such.

But, according to you, the following should also be spam:

I don't he should be in, cus of what the bastard did... I lost all respect for Benoit for that incident... Also, I think Bret and Malenko also surpassed him in ring abilities..

But, it gives his position and explains why, and it created discussion because Sparktista replied to it.

Why should that be spam?

 

[klunderbunker]

Because it could be elaborated on further and isn't supportive enough.

 

[Slyfox696]

Because it could be elaborated on further and isn't supportive enough.

Why waste time with irrelevant elaborating, just for the sake of elaborating? That's silly.

He made a post, gave his opinion, and supported his position. It's stupid to say that's an unacceptable post, simply because he didn't meet some arbitrary word count.

 

[Sparky]

I don't think that post was Spam, I knew where he was coming from.

 

[klunderbunker]

To generate more discussion.

Hart could work a crowd far better than Benoit ever could as it seemed like Benoit was a machine instead of a person. Malenko had a much better arsenal of moves to chose from than Benoit and could win a match in more than just two ways.

That's irrelevant elaborting?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

So, when is the LD and Spam Zone going to be changed to the LD and Newz Zone?

 

[klunderbunker]

According the my schedule, Tuesday.