For reference, “Vote for my Corrected Proposal to Correct my Proposal Voting Correction Proposal” clocks in at around 635 words.

because of the “should”. It‘s only a recommendation.

@Keba: Yes, but it’s in the Fair Play rule, so we can ban someone from the game for it - it’s worse than binding.

per the 1000 word limit. There have been a few very long posts that were perfectly acceptable and non-spammy.

@Iepnw - I was going to vote the same way for the same reason, but the “should” makes it a recommendation rather than a hard cap, and thus allows for exceptions based on merit.

[Darth] We can ban someone from the game for it by making a CfJ that a quorum of players agree with. It wouldn’t automatically trigger and ban them.

You can’t put a specific definition on spamming. I mean, what if we get a player that just posts links to naughty sites, but never more than 1000 words or more than once a day? Leave it as somthing to be judged on a case-by-case basis. 

Idle AGAINST in favor of an even vaguer but generally less restrictive rule.

  I don’t believe that any of the measures taken will be incredibly effective against spammers.  Preventative action is what is needed, not this.

[Wakukee] The top end can be judged case-by-case, but I think it’s important to think about the low end - if I’m working on a scam and I realise that I can win the game if I just make six 700-word blog posts, it seems useful for the ruleset to explicitly tell me whether or not that would be okay. (Otherwise we’ll have some cases where someone thinks it’s okay and actually annoys everyone, or where someone politely decides against spamming, only for another player to post the same spam and take the win.)

[Jumblin] In case it’s not clear, the Fair Play rule is to define whether or not players can post “spam” type content to the BlogNomic blog, not whether actual spammers can sign up and post Viagra ads.

I often post many comments at a time, because there is a backlog of proposals that I need to vote on.

@Tiberias: “In a row” means on the same post…

@darth: Where does it say that?  That sort of ambiguity shouldn’t be in the core ruleset.

It doesn’t say that, but that’s the standard English definition.

Lol DC that is not a standard English definition, I don’t even think it is implied.

And sometimes, you might need to exceed these limits depending on a situation. Better to leave it subjective.

The standard English definition is something like “consecutively, without interruption”.  That could mean on a single post, or on the blog as a whole in this context.

CoV because this would not do anything anymore, because the phrase Voter has been replaced.

@kevan Whoops. I must’ve gotten the earlier post about stopping spammers confused with this one.  Despite this, the rule still limits players on what they could do if they weren’t actually spamming.  If they were spamming, it’d be easy to judge on a case by case basis.  A brightline just isn’t all that helpful here.

[Jumblin] Oh, it’s still case-by-case (I don’t think we’d CfJ to ban the Emperor if a rule required him to post seven blog posts in the same day) I thought it seemed useful to tell players that “if you have a clever victory scam that only involves posting three blog entries, and they’re each only 600 words in length, then other players definitely won’t be justified in rejecting your DoV for being spammy”, rather than the current vagueness which would scare some people out of making any minor spam-based scams because they don’t know how strict the consensus is.