GameBanshee Forums

The following has been said by others, lastly by LA (if I did understand your post at least somewhat right), but I will say it again, since it is after all quite important thing to keep in mind when talking about spamming:
If there were no spam threads, all the spamming would be happening in threads where they do not belong at all.

Surely, in that case may not be as much spamming as now, but it would be hundreds, maybe even thousands times more irritating. How many can deny that the spamming on serious threads (and this doesn't only go for SYM, but other subforums as well) and on threads where it doesn't belong is quite minimal here in GB? I can't. And the spam is not even close to as irritating or annoying when it has been concentrated to few threads. And IMO it should stay that way. Those few threads takes out the pressure to spam from other threads, and thus leaving those free for the discussion which is or will be on topic.

I will take an example: One forum (I do not say it's name here or give any links since it's not important) where I'm registered does not have any kind of spamming thread. Now, since there is no way to simply change few words with others from that forum about general things like how are things going and etc, all those small chats are made in "serious" threads, in threads where those do not belong at all. And that has became quite a problem. It's rare in that forum that there is thread where mods doesn't have deleted posts or posted warning about spamming and staying in topic. If there were at least one topic for general chatting, I believe that such problem wouldn't exist.

And about long threads, I would also like to add to my last post that what difference does it make that there are limits? The only difference would be that the number of threads would increase slightly when new thread would be needed to create for spamming. The quality and style of discussion porbably wouldn't change.

@LA
IMO there is no reason you to hide or defend yourself. But there is a point there, it has grown a problem lately. I know, I did that myself in this thread just two post earlier when I replied to DW. But what could we do to get rid of it?

I am the most apologetic person here, by popular concensus. I am not happy about it but it seems to be the way I am made. So I feel qualified to speak on this topic. It is absolutely true that it is ridiculous for such a defensive atmosphere to exist here. In my experience there are no malicious people here, and no-one gets their kicks by putting other people down. For the most part people engage honestly and they respect each other. There is little flaming and it is not tolerated.

On the other hand we are a mixed bunch and we have little to convey subtlety (only the smilies). It seems to be very easy to upset folk or at least so I fear. I am not very sure about other cultures and different conventions of debate, and Darzog's post shows that it is hard for someone to feel welcome if they consider they are in a small minority of views (though I am not sure you right about that, Darzog: I feel in quite a minority too and we are almost certainly not on the same end of the spectrum )

My point is that we have no reason in the world to assume anyone is trying to offend us when they post, and we should not do so. If it feels that way then asking for clarification on the assumption that you have misunderstood might be more reasonable. Would it be possible to just decide we are probably not being attacked and to stop messing about like this? I'll try even harder if you will too

I was actually going to come on and post a new thread on something similar, but it looks like DW's got the balls D) rolling, so I might as well just build off what is said here.

DW wrote:And... they rarely (if ever) begin their own threads.

With the exception of Fiona, Lestat, and DW, I've seen few threads coming out of any members recently, which I mentioned to her on PM when I last took a view of SYM. The same threads are almost always at the top of the forum, which is a little distressing. It's not just one thread either... it's several.

DW wrote: It's not as though SYM is a place where really hostile flaming is condoned. It's not as though most of the inhabitants of the SS are new anymore. Thus the insecurity and clannish behaviour make little sense.

It's what a lot of newer posters learned in the last few months, that posting in these humungous spam threads is fine. It's a hard habit to kick, but I seriously lost interest in spam threads before the SF reach 10,000... after which I had made most of my posts I was going to make in Spam Threads there. The habit is hard to kick.

Further, I would dearly love to see the old thread length limits that SYM used to have restored.

I agree with this for sure. It's a spam thread, but if it's closed, it doesn't mean it's lost. You make a new pub thread, with the typical how you do's with the handing out of drinks and comments by DW and BS and you move on, until that one was closed. I thought it was effective when I lurked here four years ago, and it should be now.

Kipi wrote: but still I have a feeling that they do post other threads and make threads themselves. Again, I'm not sure of the new people posting there, for the reason I mentioned above. BUT, my feeling may be wrong/old one.

Kipi, some people here are close to being outmatched with excellent thread openings by people who rarely ever enter SYM, if at all. Alcina has opened several threads now with comprehensive and varied topics in the KotOR II forum, almost all of them raking in activity. As you can see, there seems to be a small group who actually makes the threads, and another group who rarely does. There are many in the middle, but who could tell what would happen if OS actually made threads on Queen addiction. Not that it matters, since all threads have it now, and that's what she enjoys doing D), but she might have ended up making a place to torture us all with Queen lyrics and the like with Chu. I made what some people commented on being a boudoir thread... when really, anyone of us could have made it to torment her.

What actually do you mean by "insecurity and clannish behaviour"? Have I missed something happened lately? Or is it just a way you think of the SS?

SF and SS were a little clannish and still are, and this is coming from the one who was there when you started your spamming raid. It also seems like these threads is where everyone charges in willy nilly to... in the HC they forced you into making threads and proving yourself. I remember dancing naked for BS. Damn you Luis.

Okay, so do you prefer seeing even more different spam threads than now? Since that would be where the limits would lead, because when one thread gets to it's limit, new one would be created.

Precisely. Read through the archives where SYM was growing like crazy, and you'll find this limit was still there. One thread as a central point gives the image of SYM being sparsely populated, where once there was tons of activity, and it attracted more members. In fact, the dozens of active threads in SYM is what attracted me to post here.

Spam is spam. It won't be deleted in here as far as I know and will be around for ever. If you feel the need to link the last one to the new one, then please do so. I just feel it might be better for the community.

I have experiences with spam thread with length limits, and personally it didn't work.

If you are speaking of Siberys' board, no offense, but the total population of members is eighteen, and most are barely active, like me. From my own experience with General Discussions in game forums and the like on other boards, which were eventually deleted (spam means very little on most other boards I belong to) when the reach thirty pages, this form of posting has lead to some success in many different situations.

And what makes you feel that way about long spam threads? It would be easier to me to understand you opinions, since I do not personally see such threads as a problem.

When most threads are dead and the SS is still on the rise, it is not a good thing, IMO. If there was still some other members posting in other threads, I'd be fine, but look at it now. Almost all the frequenters of SYM right now post in the SS. Luis, Ik and DW are some of the few ones left that rarely or never visit the SS.

"rambling of a member of a SS"

Even jokingly, this term scares me. Your no longer an SYM-er, you're an SS-er, in a way... I know, it's overboard, but you've even seen a clear distinction between those that do and don't post in the SS. Most of the older threads still had a huge amount of different people posting in them, from Loner_72/Scully1 to Dragon Wench to Brink to many others. Threads were far more open then, simply because there was nothing more than saying that you sometimes post in Pub threads.

Fiona wrote:I would be very sorry if it became a one thread forum and I am not sure it would hold me in the same way it does now.

It wouldn't hold me. When the SS began dominating I got really tired of 100s of posts a day in one thread, and in fact stopped reading back some time ago...

Darzog wrote:1. I'm looking for light, easy chatter. I don't always know how long I have to lurk so I just want so quick easy "conversation" and I get that in SS.

If it's what you want, the Pub threads served exactly the same function. The name might be different and it might be a different thread, but in the end the thread users and point of it is identical to what the threads before it would be.

Lestat wrote:First of all, since the Spam Factory and Succeeder Stronghold somehow contain the spam and idle chit-chat, there is less of it in other threads that don't need it and some other shorter less intensely visited threads stay longer on the front.

This still lowers the amount of overall activity in the forum. Even the SS has slowed of late. Different threads which hilarious names and the randomnity of SYM is what made the charm for me, and a lot of that is currently draining from the forum.

Luis Antonio wrote:If we're to become an interesting forum once more, we'll need to accept mild spam.

I agree... but when most of the posts are going through one thread recently, it's not exactly going to show a huge improvement, now is it?

On the insulting thing, I could quite care less if it insults someone, like Gog was insulted (not to pick on you, but it's an example and I'm taking it), or any others, if I read correctly, at the top of the thread. It was not against the rules in any way, and I would not apologize for it either. It's an honest opinion, as I believe Fiona said, and should be given proper responses to show the good points of your position.

If there were no spam threads, all the spamming would be happening in threads where they do not belong at all.

I still don't see how Pub threads or other shorter versions are not viable alternatives here. Spam is good, take place here, keep other threads clean... that's not exactly what is always needed. Threads on post count landmarks (look for one for Dottie by CE as a good example), birthdays and other humourous threads with no 'No Spam' titles have always been spammed, since 'Spam' is really posting for the entertainment of ourselves and others. Most threads were obviously made for it, so restricting it to one thread really isn't doing any good, IMO...

How many can deny that the spamming on serious threads (and this doesn't only go for SYM, but other subforums as well) and on threads where it doesn't belong is quite minimal here in GB? I can't. And the spam is not even close to as irritating or annoying when it has been concentrated to few threads.

Not really. Spam where it is unwanted has always been minimal on GB, and some spam irriates people because some people just find it irritating. Just like some people now find the SS irritating. It's pretty much a constant.

Those few threads takes out the pressure to spam from other threads, and thus leaving those free for the discussion which is or will be on topic.

The topic of what? Fiona being Scottish, Lestat coming back to Belgium and something about Sad Inc or otherwise? These topics basically are spam. If it says No Spam in the title, then it isn't. If it's got a topic and you see discussion going, then it's more than likely you can figure out that short replies are not really what the thread needs.

I will take an example: One forum (I do not say it's name here or give any links since it's not important) where I'm registered does not have any kind of spamming thread.

As DW knows, I belong to an similar one. This really means nothing, as many know, as every single forum is different as it was shaped by the first members who joined and what was originally allowed in the forums.

Now, since there is no way to simply change few words with others from that forum about general things like how are things going and etc, all those small chats are made in "serious" threads, in threads where those do not belong at all. And that has became quite a problem. It's rare in that forum that there is thread where mods doesn't have deleted posts or posted warning about spamming and staying in topic. If there were at least one topic for general chatting, I believe that such problem wouldn't exist.

You convince me of nothing. The other forum has general discussions, and if they were off topic when they made it to thirty pages we delete them. Since many threads in SYM have the capacity for it, then this sort of idle chat or spam is quite capable of finding a new home when need be. Activity accross threads is what attracts members, not what is close to an IRC forum chatroom, as many members really don't want to post under those conditions, and simple spam that is less chat like is harder and harder to come by.

And about long threads, I would also like to add to my last post that what difference does it make that there are limits? The only difference would be that the number of threads would increase slightly when new thread would be needed to create for spamming. The quality and style of discussion porbably wouldn't change.

The style would probably stat the same, sure. The point is that all these insider discussions and such would be more difficult to maintain if the thread can't get over 1,500 posts, and it might be the length that is making the SS that much more tempting than other threads to post in.

IMO there is no reason you to hide or defend yourself. But there is a point there, it has grown a problem lately. I know, I did that myself in this thread just two post earlier when I replied to DW. But what could we do to get rid of it?

Flaming without flaming and playful teasing have been around for a long time. It's obvious if you meant no disrespect if it upsets someone, unless your posting something along the lines of 'All Catholics must die!!11!!' in which case you'd better either explain yourself quickly (which you will most likely fail at) or run quickly (right before you get dragged back and beaten).

Stop rampant apologizing, and if you meant no offense, then you meant none. If someone finds it insulting, goody for them, explain why you disagree and why. Frankly, if someone says what I said was insulting without really explaining the reason, I'd more than likely ignore them and move on.

In short, get out there, tease other SYMer's, grope DW and Juni! It's all in good humour.

Just to clarify your point about the SS vs. the Pubs...

When I see an active Pub thread I will post in that as well. In fact what usually happens when someone bumps a Pub is that most if not all of the people currently active in SS will move over to the Pub for the night and chat in there (or both if both threads are active). I don't think that a distinction needs to be made between the SS thread and the couple of Pub threads that have floated in and out because they all serve the same "chat" service but they also contain the same membership.

Having the pubs doesn't really solve the problem that you raised because you still end up with Chu, Ravager, Magrus, Lestat, OS, Slade, Juni, DW (even though she doesn't grace us as often lately), Greg, GoG and a couple others chatting back and forth. The only difference is which thread pops back to the top of the page every 5 minutes.

I do like having the "different" spam threads (Fiona's Scottish thread, Lestat's return thread, etc) because they each seem to have a general theme and a slightly different air about them. But SS and Pubs all feel identical to me (or at least after the requisit 2 pages of handing out drinks) in that they have no direction and can accept chatting of any topic.

That's slightly more rambling than I had intended it to be, but what do you expect at 5:45 on a Friday afternoon? (and work is NOT the right answer)

Just to let people know I haven't opened up Pandora's Box and then run off to hide, I have been reading the reactions since I posted. Though Hill has pretty much stated much that I would have, I'll likely reply more indepth to individual responses later on tonight.

I want to say this to Darzog though

Firstly I'm floored that you think I'm "erudite." That is something I would attribute to Fable or CE, not myself. I'm flattered, I think

On a serious note,
I can't speak for the other pinko commies here D) but personally... I never judge people by their political views. Unless they are skinhead Nazi thugs, or similar, in which case I have no tolerance for them.
Both in RL and OL my friends run the gamut of the political spectrum. We'll debate and disagree about politics while remaining respectful of one anothers views, and then head off for a beer (virtual or otherwise).

As far as SYM goes, it has always had a left/liberal bent to it for some reason I have never quite fathomed. But, for the most part, debates have been relatively cordial when they've occurred. Definitely heated, but that's okay

So I guess, what I am saying is, don't worry about expressing your opinions. People might disagree with you, but hey, it's what adds spice to discussions.

It's called "Speak Your Mind," for a good reason.

About post limits for threads, I don't think it will do anything to change, look at the smooth transition between SF and SS.

But basically I think everyone needs to loosen up.

- Youngsters and newbies: it's not because some one has a gazillion posts or has been on the board for a million years he's "gifted", "intelligent" or whatever.
- For anyone: unless a moderator, even a super moderator, clearly starts quoting rules and such and clearly "playing" the moderator, he's a sucker like the lot of us.
- For oldies: oh please, please, please avoid things like: "you remember X, he really knew his Y. Ah we don't get Y like we did before . "
- Don't feel insulted, it's not personal
- If it is, there are (super)mods to confirm your paranoia (or not)
- If you think it's worth posting a thread, it is. (if other people think it's not, it will sink to the depths soon enough)
- DARE!
- You don't understand? Bleeding well ASK for an explanation.
- "Nee hebt ge, ja kunt ge krijgen" (You already have "No", you can only get "yes" by asking)
- Don't be intimidated, we're all human.
- And don't forget to do your RAKs!

A thanks to DW for bringing this here so I didn't have to do it myself.

I have noticed as of lately that there has been less crazy topic-steering in non-spam threads: what I mean by this is that no longer do I see the threads devoted to wishing someone a happy birthday turn into a debate about the best type of alcohol or whether or not Kevin Costner is a good actor (he's not). I love spam (just haven't had much time for it recently), but does it have to be confined just to the SS? It's much more fun when it becomes the off-the-cuff madness of Witch King's return in my opinion. I wish there was more of it. It seems part of the fun of SYM has been taken away by throwing all the spam in one corner so as not to disturb the intellectual threads of others: not necessarily impeding spam's actual growth but by keeping it from spreading into other threads. Is that a good thing? I say no, but that's just my opinion. I admit that 'pooping' on other threads with pointless, unwarranted spam is bad but... I pretty much agree with what LA has said so far, except that I don't want my 'postfarming' threads thrown out: I'd just encourage people to expand their spam. I know many do, but I would like to see more.

As for the SS being 'clique'-ish... I don't really see it myself, but maybe that's because I'm part of the problem then. How can it be clique-ish if everyone's fricking invited? Because some people post there more than others and so develop some small kind of bond (or at least familiarity) it's a problem? I'm sorry if its intimidating or annoying to some people, but you'll find if you actually spam there, you fit right in. Stopping by for only once in a blue moon for ten minutes and then calling it clique-ish is just stupid. Deal with it.

PS @ Ik: I'm sorry but when you said this is the most pointless thread here, I had to laugh out loud: the creator calling his work 'pointless' is really funny. :laugh: I mean this respectfully too because you're right of course, it was just really funny.:laugh:

I agree with a lot of what Luis,Tony, Hill and Lestat say. I do think that it is important that there is some fun even in serious threads. I don't think it is impossible for people to recognise the limits of that for themselves, though sometimes they might go over the score with it. But the mods are there if it gets really out of hand. I have very seldom put "no spam" on a thread because I want to have a certain amount of it even in serious areas. Of course if the thread starter specifies no spam we should respect that. I think we mostly do.

@ Tony. I think there is some exclusiveness in the SS, not because anybody want it to be cliquey but just because if people get to "know" each other over time there are inevitably references to shared experience, in jokes and all that kind of thing. That makes it hard for new comers, maybe. Or maybe not. I do remember how hard it was to post when I first came here because everybody seemed to be such friends ( I didn't know they all hated each other then )

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]

As for the SS being 'clique'-ish... I don't really see it myself, but maybe that's because I'm part of the problem then. How can it be clique-ish if everyone's fricking invited? Because some people post there more than others and so develop some small kind of bond (or at least familiarity) it's a problem? I'm sorry if its intimidating or annoying to some people, but you'll find if you actually spam there, you fit right in. Stopping by for only once in a blue moon for ten minutes and then calling it clique-ish is just stupid. Deal with it.

[/QUOTE]

This was exactly my response on several occasions when newer members who shall remain nameless both to protect their own sanity and to keep from makling them sound like they are contradicting themselves would start threads and post complaints about how cliquish SYM was because the older members had already established a level of familiarity with each other and they felt intimidated or threatened because they didn't feel right at home as soon as they spent ten minutes in a thread and weren't made to feel like someones long lost relative.

Funny how opinions change as times pass, isn't it?

On a topic related note, I would love to see a return of thread closing because:

1. Long threads clutter the place up. Granted, that's a personal viewpoint, but the place just looks cleaner with some basic housekeeping

2. Closing an old thread and opening a new one, even for the same general purpose, to me just feels like it breathes fresh air into the place. Long threads just look stagnant to me after a certain point.

3. Because I say so

And I agree with Lestat on his list for the most part, although my post count does in fact reflect my gifted and intelligent status. So there.

[QUOTE=Fiona]@ Tony. I think there is some exclusiveness in the SS, not because anybody want it to be cliquey but just because if people get to "know" each other over time there are inevitably references to shared experience, in jokes and all that kind of thing. That makes it hard for new comers, maybe. Or maybe not. I do remember how hard it was to post when I first came here because everybody seemed to be such friends ( I didn't know they all hated each other then )[/QUOTE]
I agree with you completely: of course there's some exclusivity but what can you do about it? I'd again like to urge people not to be intimidated by this and try posting there. I know there's a certain hump to be overcome, but once you get used to the place you'll realize it isn't done intentionally. You can go back and look at some of my comments posted ages ago about how it's hard to get into SYM at first, but I give you my complete comfortability with the place now as proof that there is a place for everyone here. I was more annoyed at having the clique-ish comment thrown our way by a member who's been here for ages: I believe there to be some clique-ish behavior on the part of those SYM 'oldies' who know everything that's ever gone on here and can all wax poetic about the 'good ol' days' but I know it isn't their fault and don't complain anymore. It isn't their fault: same with the SS. I'd have taken that from someone who's new, but not a vet.

@ BS: I swear I didn't type this after seeing your post, but we're obviously thinking along the same wavelengths at least. I'm not so arrogant as to say I've never been a hypocrite before . You guys had that thrown in your face back then, so is it so terrible to hope you'd know what it feels like and wouldn't feel the need to return the favor? We're all hypocrites here.

Oh I don't know, Tony. I am no historian. But perhaps you get established threads and then new people feel left out and start a new one from time to time? How did the HC start? Maybe it was like the SF?

[QUOTE=Fiona]Oh I don't know, Tony. I am no historian. But perhaps you get established threads and then new people feel left out and start a new one from time to time? How did the HC start? Maybe it was like the SF?[/QUOTE]

Random act of Luis Antonio to combat the gods, Aegis and Fable, at the time, and was then bumped and continually posted in for the past two years. The SF was brewed out of an argument and the SS out of worry for the SF. Short history session complete.

No, you're right Fiona that is exactly how at least the SF got started but I can personally swear to everyone here that, on my word and position as owning the second post ever in the SS (which has to stand for something ... right? ) that there is a place for everyone there. It may very well be clique-ish in reality, I never said it wasn't just that I didn't see that much evidence of it, buteverybody is welcome.

@ Hill. That seems to mean it was a similar process for the HC and the SF, right?

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]

@ BS: I swear I didn't type this after seeing your post, but we're obviously thinking along the same wavelengths at least. I'm not so arrogant as to say I've never been a hypocrite before . You guys had that thrown in your face back then, so is it so terrible to hope you'd know what it feels like and wouldn't feel the need to return the favor? We're all hypocrites here. [/QUOTE]

Yes, it is so terrible. Mostly because I had envisioned at least a twelve post argument, and you're trying to cheat me out of it.

also, do to my nature, I am not sympathetic to anything, On the contrary, I'm quite vindictive. It's part of the gifted thing I was talking about with my last post.

[QUOTE=Bloodstalker]

also, do to my nature, I am not sympathetic to anything, On the contrary, I'm quite vindictive. It's part of the gifted thing I was talking about with my last post.[/QUOTE]

Well make your mind up Is it due to your nature; your post count; or is it a gift? I ask because I wish to set my aspirations in accordance with my possibilities

[QUOTE=Fiona]Well make your mind up Is it due to your nature; your post count; or is it a gift? I ask because I wish to set my aspirations in accordance with my possibilities [/QUOTE]

You don't aim high, do you?

[QUOTE=Bloodstalker]You don't aim high, do you? [/QUOTE]

It is quite a leap from where I am to vindictiveness. Hardly a modest journey, sir

[QUOTE=Bloodstalker]You don't aim high, do you? [/QUOTE]Aim high, the arrow lowers while flying.