Sunday, January 18, 2009

Proposal: Spam, spam, spam

Self kill -SB

Adminned at 19 Jan 2009 04:24:46 UTC

Create a new core rule, titled Spam, with the following text:

Any admin may fail any proposals, CfJs, or DoVs that they consider to be spam.



01-18-2009 22:44:22 UTC

I say only the writer equivalent should be allowed to do this.


01-18-2009 22:48:24 UTC

well, maybe. imperial

Oh, and someone needs to enact Increased Mobility V2.


01-18-2009 22:48:41 UTC

However, the writer equivalent isn’t always an admin.


01-18-2009 22:50:49 UTC

And the writer equivalent can’t veto spam CfJs and DoVs.


01-18-2009 23:14:02 UTC

and I vote we include rules that further clarify how something can be determined to be spam.  Something like:

A post may be considered to be spam if any of the following are true:

The post does not affect the rules or the gamestate of blognomic.
The post contains a repetition of the same word in succession more than two times.
The post contains sentences that do not make sense



01-18-2009 23:24:36 UTC

As with real-world spam, if you tell the spammer how you’re detecting it, they can be careful to work around it. Which would probably be quite a fun Dynasty in itself.

I’m not sure I want to come back into a Dynasty where any admin can veto my DoV on the grounds of an unqualified adjective. (“I fed the HTML into my Bayesian email filter, and it said 93% spam.”)


01-18-2009 23:36:06 UTC

against I think it wise to agree with anyone who has 5 dynasties named after him.


01-18-2009 23:39:34 UTC

Unless it’s all a trap to earn my sixth.


01-18-2009 23:39:54 UTC

“The post contains sentences that do not make sense”

“Hi, I’m from Afghanistan.  That sentence makes no sense to me.”


01-19-2009 00:00:59 UTC

Would be quite a feat for an idle Member of the Staff.


01-19-2009 00:37:46 UTC



01-19-2009 00:39:09 UTC

for  even after reading the debate.


01-19-2009 00:46:26 UTC

I am strongly, strongly AGAINST this because of the sheer potential for abuse.  Especially since we seem to have relaxed our standards for new admins.


01-19-2009 00:52:39 UTC

against COV
I trust Rodlen, but not every admin.


01-19-2009 00:53:53 UTC

I’m trustful.


01-19-2009 01:02:25 UTC

against abuse potential


01-19-2009 01:04:53 UTC

against S/K, I’ll make a better, less abusable version.


01-19-2009 01:08:38 UTC

I have two ideas:

*Rodlen may automatically kill what he considers spam
*If X valid votes include the word “Spam” with them, the CfJ/Proposal may be failed automatically

The latter may be abusable, but not as abusable as this and requires an overall agreement.

The former just requires trustworthiness.


01-19-2009 01:09:50 UTC

Why do you get auto kill powers? Your not a super admin


01-19-2009 01:17:24 UTC

Lets see…the former is Kevan’s original suggestion slightly modified, and the latter is abusable, but not too abusable.

I’ll make my proposal an option between the two, unless there is a clear consensus over here.


01-19-2009 10:40:29 UTC

The former was just my translation of what your current, unwritten rule seemed to be.