Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
You've definitely shown me the futility of dedicating any more time to bringing this to a resolution.
Maybe with a little more effort you'll find someone else who will take a significant portion of his holiday Sunday to have a detailed discussion with you while, apparently, at the same time not caring at all about what you have to say.
The "resolution" was already predetermined before the discussion began.
I thank you for your time, even though I don't agree with your unwillingness to change.
Your definition of content is subjective and it's completely unfair to enforce what YOU believe to be worthwhile over the will of your users. You would have gotten that if you had finished reading what I typed. There are many things that you yourself will find no value in that does not make them spam anymore than my lack of caring about baseball makes the threads about it on here spam to me.
This is completely incorrect, and after the amount of time we've shared on this forum I can only describe your assessment as disappointing.
I am forced to question the depth of your gratitude considering the extremely low opinion you have of whether I bothered to invest anything in the discussion.
I am equally disappointed, but I did not say "ditto" this time because I was afraid that would trivialize the matter. I was trying to share a lesson I learned over the course of 13 trial-and-error years with regard to allowing "zero-content" discussion.
At last! THIS is the underlying issue. The fact is that the decision to quarantine a thread versus deleting posts is based on annoyance rather than an objective rule set. The cheese thread was a good example of this.
I still am not trying to rebel. My last goat picture was posted to see if YMT had successfully changed your (Prof Underwood) mind.
You see them as a symbol of forum rebellion, I see them as a funny little inside joke on the forums.
It seems more and more that if a mod finds it funny, it's not spam, but if a mod finds it annoying or not amusing then it's spam.
That was an intentional attempt to bring this issue to the forefront, akin to standing in front of a tank holding a flower or blocking a pathway while security armed with mace approachs. I knew it would put me in the line of fire, but I felt the time had come to take a stand.
You all have been granted great power and with that comes the responsibility to use it to maintain a welcoming environment and keep abuse out. That does not include deleting anything you do not find of value.
Define "spam" please. You don't like us saying it's just whatever you decide it is, but then you refuse to give a stated definition. That's suspicious.
Not everything in life has to be constructive.
The definition of spam is, and has been for six years strong now, content specifically intended to be zero-content.
Yeah, sorry, I missed it in skimming a back-and-forth between you and YMT.
It's not a semantics game.
The cheese thread was productive... Those both sound pretty dang constructive and content to me, but the whole thing was deleted as spam anyway.
Yes, you gave us a concrete definition for spam, but that definition was itself just another open-ended and arbitrary buzz-word. What is the definition of zero-content?
Why are goats considers spam?
