Do you think AK did the right thing when he deleted spamalot

[Kugelblitz22]

I know Spamalot feels slighted. But I hope they are looking at this poll, and reading the entire community's reaction, with open minds. It should become clear to them that mindless spam and hijacking threads is not as liked as they once believed.

Hopefully that is the net outcome of all this back and forth!

[wicked]

Vincent, keep an open mind. You have people explicitly telling you they don't like spammers hijacking threads. The fact the people who voted are even on the forum means they support the forums. How many hours a day you spend on the forum has nothing to do it. I'm sure there are even some who've given up on the forums and might come back if spam was more under control. There's no way to tell actual numbers.

[Dancing Mustard]

Meh, it's 50/50 so far. It's not like the community has swung either way particularly strongly.

I can understand that a lot of people do get upset by the hijacking of threads. Indeed, I'll concede that sometimes worthy threads have been swamped by deluges of spam that choked useful discussion. That's unfortunate, it was something that needed a reprimand. I can't condone it or defend it.
However, the problem wasn't one that was soley caused by Spamalot, and it isn't one that deleting the thread in question will serve to remedy.

However, there are often ocassions where pompous or ignorant OP's deserved to have their threads hijacked. There's no harm whatsoever in swamping threads like 'ASA' or 'Wombat Revolution', they were spam, and they invited spam; that's beyond dispute. In fact I imagine that almost everybody posting here has, on occassion, laughed at a thread jacking done in a humorous fashion on a deserving thread. Be honest with yourselves.

So:
Did everybody love Spamalot? No.
Was Spamalot responsible for some detrimental conduct? Yes
But was it the sole cause of the conduct people here are decrying? Absolutely not.

But perhaps more importantly; is this really what this debate is about? Isn't it actually about the fact that a moderator acted capriciously, and used his moderating powers to further a personal vendetta? Regardless of what you thought of Spamalot and its members, it's impossible to ignore the fact that Spamalot was not deleted to remedy the problems you are currently discussing.
It was deleted because one man got upset that his attempts to bully and to self-agrandise were frustrated by a group of people who were (their defects aside) entitled to expect a degree of respect, impartiality and professionalism from their moderators.

Please do not judge the legitimacy of AK's actions on your personal opinions of its victims. This isn't about how much you liked/disliked Spamalot; it's about whether you think Mods ought to be able to use their powers in order to further personal agendas; regardless of who they exercise them against.

I hope that people understand that. This isn't about your opinions on spammers or Spamalot. It's about the lack of proper motive behind AK's action in deleting the thread. His power to do so isn't at issue; it's whether he acted for reasons which he was permitted to.

If you look beyond your personal opinions of the members involved, and actually look at the facts of the matter, I think you'll have to agree that AK acted in a fashion that does this site (and its staff) an enormous discredit.

Thank you for your time.

[Colossus]

I'm sure there are even some who've given up on the forums and might come back if spam was more under control. There's no way to tell actual numbers.

That's just about where I'm at. I left on vacation and the spamming was starting to get ridiculous. I came back early this week, and now one has to sift through mountains of nonsense to find interesting discourse. I'm frustrated with all the spam for sure. After reading all the threads on the deletion of spamalot, I'm almost positive that the way that AK went about it was probably wrong. But, I am all for something serious being done to crack down on the number of useless, off-topic, thread-hijacking comments in the forums. Much more of things as they are right now, and I'll just play the game and ignore the forums all together. I'm sure that my contributions aren't so monumental that such a statement worries anyone, but I would be very disappointed to leave this forum behind because I've had a lot of really terrific conversations with many members of CC (including some kaniggits of Spamalot like hecter and GuiltyBicuit).

[Steel Panzer]

Vincent, keep an open mind. You have people explicitly telling you they don't like spammers hijacking threads. The fact the people who voted are even on the forum means they support the forums. How many hours a day you spend on the forum has nothing to do it. I'm sure there are even some who've given up on the forums and might come back if spam was more under control. There's no way to tell actual numbers.

at this time:

yes - 54% - 48 votes
no - 46% - 40 votes

spam isn't very liked around here, the king of the hill still is getting spammed with answers like "i spam: my hill". thought you should know

[wicked]

DM, if a group hijacked your thread, you wouldn't have felt the same way. I saw what one uninvited person posting in there did, and heard the cries from you all asking me to get rid of him.

I think some of the spammers thought the poll would be more one-sided in their favor based on a couple reactions I've read.

The last group that tried to take over the forums in a negative way was temp-banned. It was the only way to get their attention on the scale it needed to be done at. Constantly trying to plug little leaks everywhere is time-consuming and ineffective when you could just turn off the water at it's source. Whether IC's method was the best way to stop the mass spamming is under debate, but we can't ignore the fact that it worked to get the attention of all the spammers, the MAJORITY of whom were regular spamalot posters, and address a forum problem.

[wicked]

Thanks Colossus. It's good to hear from ALL sides on the matter. What we've mostly heard so far has been one-sided just because those are the people who are on here constantly.

[wicked]

EXAMPLE

[Vincent M]

the MAJORITY of whom were regular spamalot posters, and address a forum problem.

I understand that you are pointing the finger a Spamalot on this but The people who talked there weren't Spammers

Did you know wicked the new recruits come in there everyday just posting random junk. The people who were knights were intelligent and honest people
WHO ACTUALLY NEVER LEFT THE THREAD.

Look at this

hi man....was just wondering what happened and why did they delete spamalot
it was the place to be when i had nothing to do
now i dont have anywhere
Update me plz if there is anything new about spamalot or anything like it

wow man real touching
but u should copy that and send it via pm to lack or ak_iceman will delete it
And i think we should have a poll of ak_iceman being blocked from moderating
i really miss those times in spamalot

This came from a long standing member of CC that we all respect

HE WAS NEVER A MEMBER

and I have more pms

[Dancing Mustard]

Whether IC's method was the best way to stop the mass spamming is under debate, but we can't ignore the fact that it worked to get the attention of all the spammers, the MAJORITY of whom were regular spamalot posters, and address a forum problem.

Can't argue with the fact that it got people's attention.
My real issue with this is the fact that I don't think AK did delete Spamalot to curb spam. His behaivour directly beforehand (indeed his behaivour in the weeks preceding the incident) points in quite the opposite direction. AK deleted Spamalot because he was grinding a personal axe. He didn't do it in a professional and impartial move to curb spam. Please, let's not be under any illusions about that.

He was acting as a tempermental bully, in a private capacity. He was not acting as an impartial mod for the benefit of the CC community.

I don't care if he has the power to do what he did. I don't care if people don't like the group he did it to (indeed there are some things that need to be said about Spamalot that aren't very pleasant to hear).

But I do care greatly if CC's management doesn't recognise that power needs to be exercised for proper motives. Wrongfully using power for a permitted motive is just as bad as rightfully using it in an unauthorised fashion. Don't you agree?

Really, what I'd most like to see, is somebody official to demonstrate to us (in the face of all the evidence to the contrary) that AK was acting for a proper motive; or to tell me what's going to be done about this abuse of process.

I'm not trying to cause a fuss here; I'm just a little concerned that this debate is swiftly drifting off into 'peoples personal opinion about Spamalot', instead of focusing on whether AK was acting in a way that the community is entitled to expect from a Moderator.

Unless you think that's not the issue?

[Vincent M]

EXAMPLE

If you cant have fun and joke in this forum then show me the door

[wicked]

longstanding?

All about chessplaya
Joined: 20 Jan 2007

[wicked]

DM, whether or not IC acted appropriately is not for me to decide. Andy gets that call.

[Dancing Mustard]

EXAMPLE

Not a brilliant one, considering that the worst offenders in that thread are two non-Spamalot members; the most serious poster is one of Spamalot's leading members.

And perhaps most crucially; the 'get to know' threads are some of the best examples of spam threads you can find. A thread dedicated to talking about yourself? What is crap like that doing cluttering up the forum? What's it advancing? The game, reasoned debate, anything? No.
Are we to take it that the new rule is "OP's can spam, but people can't spam the thread after that"?
The 'get to know' threads are the sort of thing that completely deserved spam, because they were themselves spam. If people gave a crap, they'd have PM'd you. What did you expect people to do to a thread dedicated solely to your ego?

Indeed, the kind of conversations they contained, which you're complaining were destroyed; were precisely the kind of conversations that took place inside Spamalot. Which was deleted. Where's the sense in that?

Sorry; there's better examples of spammed threads than that. It does your opinion a diservice to try and back it with such a poor evidence.

[Vincent M]

the MAJORITY of whom were regular spamalot posters, and address a forum problem.

I understand that you are pointing the finger a Spamalot on this but The people who talked there weren't Spammers

Did you know wicked the new recruits come in there everyday just posting random junk. The people who were knights were intelligent and honest people
WHO ACTUALLY NEVER LEFT THE THREAD.

Look at this

hi man....was just wondering what happened and why did they delete spamalot
it was the place to be when i had nothing to do
now i dont have anywhere
Update me plz if there is anything new about spamalot or anything like it

wow man real touching
but u should copy that and send it via pm to lack or ak_iceman will delete it
And i think we should have a poll of ak_iceman being blocked from moderating
i really miss those times in spamalot

This came from a long standing member of CC that we all respect

HE WAS NEVER A MEMBER OF SPAMALOT

and I have more pms

[cleveridea]

I'm surprised a lot of people think he did the right thing..

The old saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Vincent M]

Also I am not willing to start trouble but I have grown to not trust polls in this forums since

The standards of this place are poor

[Dancing Mustard]

DM, whether or not IC acted appropriately is not for me to decide. Andy gets that call.

No, I appreciate that. Thought might I say that you've been remarkably helpful and good natured about this whole affair, and I think you've been a credit to the mod-squad.
I'm just concerned that you don't seem to be channeling the debate towards AK's actions; but seem more keen to discuss people's personal opinions on spam (which are relevant in another debate, but not here).

I appreciate you probably have a close bond with AK, being mods and all; but I just want to make sure people concentrate on the issues surrounding him rather than muddying the waters by bickering about how much they liked his victims.

[wicked]

DM, that was just the most recent example. I don't have time, or see the need, to find more. That was more of an example to warn you guys since Iliad whined he wasn't warned to follow the rules.

My point was that DDS and willis (who both have spamalot in their sigs) hijacked the thread to talk about a game, which could've been handled via PM. Sure it was very minor, but it's just an example to point out what people are telling you they don't like, since you all don't seem to "get it."

[diddle]

you better pay copyright on that avatar iliad

[Dancing Mustard]

My point was that DDS and willis (who both have spamalot in their sigs) hijacked the thread to talk about a game, which could've been handled via PM. Sure it was very minor, but it's just an example to point out what people are telling you they don't like, since you all don't seem to "get it."

Of course we 'get' what people do and don't like. I for one am more than aware of people's differing personal preferences about Spamalot members and their actions. I get that, we get that, it's self-evident.

But what people don't seem to 'get' at the moment (and indeed, I'm concerned that you haven't actually engaged with me on this issue so far) is whether AK acted with a bona fide motive when he did what he did. That's what we want to see addressed. It's irrelevant whether people think we deserved it or not.

It's about whether AK acted with a motive for which he is permitted to exercise mod-powers.
It is essentially an argument about whether CC believes in a primitive notion of the 'rule of law', and whether powers can be vallidly exercised with mala fide motives.

So tell me wicked. Do you 'get it'? Do you understand what it is I'm trying to get people to focus on here? Or would you rather we just descended into muck-slinging and petty aspersions again?

[max is gr8]

There is an off topics forum but as of now and in the past there has never been a forum for spam. Whether other threads are less useless More is learned from get to know a ccer than such quotes as

the failure to understand the lack of thought put into these posts has caused a breakdown of communication and this result.

Whether AK was right to do this action is totally different the question is should we tolerate spam?[/quote]

[Dancing Mustard]

There is an off topics forum but as of now and in the past there has never been a forum for spam. Whether other threads are less useless More is learned from get to know a ccer than such quotes as

So you're saying that threads in which a modicum of information was imparted about the personal lives of the posters were ok? Guess you must be one of Spamalot's biggest fans then..... No? Oh I see, then you're just being immensely irrational; better luck next time.

GTK threads were spam just as much as Spamalot; which had equal an equally valid 'topic' (if less explicit in the title). You can't advocate the banning of a spam thread, in order to protect other spam threads.
Who gives a crap which spam threads you liked more? It's completely irrelevant in a discussion about spam-tolerance; and it's especially irrelevant in a discussion about a moderator's abuse of power.

Seriously Max. If you're going to debate this, then you'll actually have to engage with the facts of the matter. This isn't about deleting a thread made by people you don't like; it's about the motives of the mod in question.
Please come back when you're willing to discuss that.

Whether AK was right to do this action is totally different the question is should we tolerate spam?

Whoop-de-doo! The light is seen.
How about you go discuss 'whether you should tolerate spam' in a thread with that title? This one looks to me like one about the rightfulness (and lack thereof) of AK's actions. You're not just spamming it with off topic BS are you? Because that'd make you a hypocrite...
C'mon, don't destroy your own arguments before you've given me the chance to; that's just impolite

Seriously mate, think before you post.

[Vincent M]

EXAMPLE

If you cant have fun and joke in this forum then show me the door

Also people have nowhere to go that once were in Spamalot this conveniently lead to the lock down

[Vincent M]

I think this poll is Bullshit

ANDY if you are out there and reading this stuff please know what is right please.

The forum wont be the same after this