LackAttack I have a letter for you.......Spamalot Crisis

Aegnor · Post by **Aegnor** » Wed May 16, 2007 4:55 am

Syzygy wrote:Bring back spamalot.

The majority of the spam was centralized in one spot, giving spammers a chance to spam as much as they like, freely and without persecution, and those who hated spam never ever needed to go there.

It was a win-win situation.

QFT

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Wed May 16, 2007 6:40 am

Syzygy wrote:Bring back spamalot.

The majority of the spam was centralized in one spot, giving spammers a chance to spam as much as they like, freely and without persecution, and those who hated spam never ever needed to go there.

It was a win-win situation.

I agree, I was never in spamalot and I didn't go there either. btw, personally I think all those sports threads you never recognize if you're not interested in that particular sport are far more annoying than the occasional spam post in a seriously meant topic.
But if there's ONE thread where people can spam all they want, be it random or as a coherent discussion it's good for everyone. It's not as if the title didn't warn you, the first word was "Spamalot" after all. One has to be a real blockhead to miss a hint like that. If you like to post a lot, that was the place to go. And judging from the rate at which the thread was growing people went there, too. If you didn't like random posts or a lot of threads (sports threads or otherwise) it was also ideal, because people went to this other thread.

That being said, the fact that AK didn't follow the proper procedure (or any procedure at all, as things have been described, and not just by those directly affected), and his behaviour in this clearly tagged thread that non-spammers could easily avoid as described by the KsoS (Knights of Spamalot) lead me to believe that he really was on a power-trip and was looking for easy prey or having a score to settle with someone.
Spammers have an inherently bad name, can't be changed, spam is and will probably for ever be negatively connotated, so it's not absurd to suppose that they simply were the easiest target.

john1099 · Post by **john1099** » Wed May 16, 2007 6:43 am

What is the sole purpose you joined this site?
To play risk.
So, if your "thread/posts" got deleted, does that not mean that you should do what you intended to do, when you signed up for this web-site? Play Risk?

Go back to playing your games, and don't worry about the thread, I consider the thread a luxury, when I am done my games, I come here, simple as that!

I am not saying that AK should have deleted it, I am just saying that you should be excepting of it.

+ If anyone really cared, they could have just opened another one :roll:

dcowboys055 · Post by **dcowboys055** » Wed May 16, 2007 6:46 am

It's an internet thread, get over it!

I support AK!(in this instance)

Kugelblitz22 · Post by **Kugelblitz22** » Wed May 16, 2007 6:54 am

Dancing Mustard wrote: deleting it won't ease the problem of spam in the future.

Great, so your saying is that you've learned nothing? :roll:

fluffybunnykins · Post by **fluffybunnykins** » Wed May 16, 2007 6:55 am

no way should AK have done what he did... and I don't even like the spamalot thing... like others have said, I just never visit that thread, or any other with 'spam' or 'join this...' io the title.
When the spam spills into other threads, it can be annoying, but occasionally it's funny (occasionally) so we can put up with it, can't we???

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Wed May 16, 2007 7:24 am

Kugelblitz22 wrote:
Dancing Mustard wrote: deleting it won't ease the problem of spam in the future.

Great, so your saying is that you've learned nothing?

Great, so you're saying that you missed the point of everything else I (and other members of Spamalot) previously posted. Clap clap, well done.

Get it into your obstinate head that the point of the deletion was not to prevent spamming in the forums. Furthermore, accept that AK wasn't trying to 'teach any lessons', but was in fact just being spiteful. There is nothing to learn, because nothing was being taught; this was a capricious abuse of authority and was in no way designed to reduce the levels of spam in the social lounge. Finally, realise the truth of the proposition: "Deleting the centralised gathering spot for spammers is likely to force them to go spam other threads more"; deleting spam posts in other threads is likely to 'teach a lesson', arbitrarily deleting a thread that caused no detriment to anybody else isn't.

So well done. You just said a stupid one-liner that demonstrated your failure to read and comprehend the thread; and showed your inability to formulate a more complex exposition of your ideas. How ironic that you were trying to criticise spammers when you did it....
Next time try to engage your brain before you post eh?

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:08 am

Fircoal wrote:The only top 10 poster in Spamalot is Hecter.

Yeah NOW. I happened to look at it recently and saw most of the top ten were spamalotters. I personally wouldn't mind seeing the post count done away with. Then perhaps people would stop pushing for such high numbers.

Aegnor · Post by **Aegnor** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:18 am

wicked wrote:
Fircoal wrote:The only top 10 poster in Spamalot is Hecter.

Yeah NOW. I happened to look at it recently and saw most of the top ten were spamalotters. I personally wouldn't mind seeing the post count done away with. Then perhaps people would stop pushing for such high numbers.

Why don't you get rid of it then? Many respected message boards have done that and got rid of a significant amount of spam.

flashleg8 · Post by **flashleg8** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:19 am

wicked wrote: I personally wouldn't mind seeing the post count done away with. Then perhaps people would stop pushing for such high numbers.

This is an excellent idea wicked. I hope you could get it implemented. It really would stop a lot of the daft post just to get peoples counts up.
I personally don't mind if the Spamalot folk post away in their own thread, I just hate it when they pop up in other threads just to get their post count up to 200 of whatever it is to be initiated into their gang.
Hide the post count and you wouldn't get this at all.
If people post a lot everyone knows who they are anyway, there's really no need for the numbers.

Cynthia · Post by **Cynthia** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:21 am

I am in shock right now. It was stupid an unprofessional to delete spamalot just because he didn't like us.

And seriously, I really don't care about my post count. We stuck to the thread because it felt like a home to us. We experienced everything that happened together. And it will not be the same to just make a new thread. All our memories of Spamalot is in that thread. Maybe not all of you care, but we do.

:cry:

RIP Spamalot

Vincent M · Post by **Vincent M** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:22 am

wicked wrote:
Fircoal wrote:The only top 10 poster in Spamalot is Hecter.

Yeah NOW. I happened to look at it recently and saw most of the top ten were spamalotters. I personally wouldn't mind seeing the post count done away with. Then perhaps people would stop pushing for such high numbers.

I Agree with wicked post counts are lame and are unimportant. I never posted or replied for the soul purpose of getting higher count, I did it because I had something to say I regeards to the convesation going in Spamalot

Quick note to wicked (does lack know about this issue yet because i dont think he got my pm s they never got in my sentbox they were in my outbox but never moved over)

jnd94 · Post by **jnd94** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:25 am

wicked, I would like you to delete a few more of my posts.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:37 am

The fact that there was a post count requirement to be a part of the "gang" was very detrimental to the forums. See a recent forum example: "can I get to 200 in one night" and posts within spamalot that literally just read "spam". Some examples have been deleted, like a thread started that just said "fork". Even recently when I asked a serious question in the social lounge, in less than 5 minutes there were 5 spam posts. So saying you guys were "keeping it to one thread" is BS. I can't count how many times I was told "but the Social Lounge is the Spam Lounge". That is entirely incorrect.

Vincent, I know Lack read my PM to him on it, but I also know he's extremely busy since he got back from vacation. And Andy who oversees the forums is obviously aware, as he already posted here.

alex_white101 · Post by **alex_white101** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:43 am

wicked wrote:The fact that there was a post count requirement to be a part of the "gang" was very detrimental to the forums. See a recent forum example: "can I get to 200 in one night" and posts within spamalot that literally just read "spam". Some examples have been deleted, like a thread started that just said "fork". Even recently when I asked a serious question in the social lounge, in less than 5 minutes there were 5 spam posts. So saying you guys were "keeping it to one thread" is BS. I can't count how many times I was told "but the Social Lounge is the Spam Lounge". That is entirely incorrect.

Vincent, I know Lack read my PM to him on it, but I also know he's extremely busy since he got back from vacation. And Andy who oversees the forums is obviously aware, as he already posted here.

i agree with what is stated above. spamming was NOT limited to spamalot and i was thourughly annoyed with the people who posted ''need to make 200 posts'' in several threads.

Vincent M · Post by **Vincent M** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:47 am

wicked wrote: So saying you guys were "keeping it to one thread" is BS.

Look I remeber those times and all I can say is that those were new people that did't at the time know exactly what spamalot is all about I understand why this looks bad. Once me or DDS or hecter set them straight they never did it again.

wicked wrote:Vincent, I know Lack read my PM to him on it, but I also know he's extremely busy since he got back from vacation. And Andy who oversees the forums is obviously aware, as he already posted here.

Thank you for the confirmation I was just concerned because my inbox was messing up. I understand he is busy.

Vincent M · Post by **Vincent M** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:48 am

alex_white101 wrote:
wicked wrote:The fact that there was a post count requirement to be a part of the "gang" was very detrimental to the forums. See a recent forum example: "can I get to 200 in one night" and posts within spamalot that literally just read "spam". Some examples have been deleted, like a thread started that just said "fork". Even recently when I asked a serious question in the social lounge, in less than 5 minutes there were 5 spam posts. So saying you guys were "keeping it to one thread" is BS. I can't count how many times I was told "but the Social Lounge is the Spam Lounge". That is entirely incorrect.

Vincent, I know Lack read my PM to him on it, but I also know he's extremely busy since he got back from vacation. And Andy who oversees the forums is obviously aware, as he already posted here.

i agree with what is stated above. spamming was NOT limited to spamalot and i was thourughly annoyed with the people who posted ''need to make 200 posts'' in several threads.

Those 200 post were ment for the new comer to talk about himself and that we coud get to know him and decide if he is worth accepting in our group. That was the meaning behind that

Cynthia · Post by **Cynthia** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:49 am

I agree to that some threads, including the 200 post thing was stupid. But we set the requirement of 200 posts because we felt we wanted to "know" the people we let into spamalot. The purpose of the 200 post was to see what they were like. When new people we had never seen before came and asked to be a part of our group we told them they had to have 200 posts first. We didn't really want them to spam them all in one night though. And also, once they had 200 posts, it wasn't everyone we let in either. Once we felt like we "knew" them, we desided if we wanted them in or not. Plus, the people we really liked was allowed to be an apprentice before they got 200.

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:52 am

Tis true. The 200 posts wasn't supposed to be a proof of spamming ability. It was just to stop people joining CC, joining Spamalot, then acting like Ranck and claiming to do it in our name.

But you're right; the "Posting to get 200" thing was well annoying. The fact that we wanted established forum members, as oppossed to mindless drones was something we ought to have tried to make a little bit clearer to initiates.

alex_white101 · Post by **alex_white101** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:52 am

am i missing something here? but what did u let them do that they cudnt do before you said to them ''you are in spamalot'' ? im just not sure why people were so desperate to get in. also im guessing you didnt state clearly enough the point of the 200 posts, as there were several people who made hundreds of pointless posts all in one night in order to reach the requirement.

Cynthia · Post by **Cynthia** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:55 am

alex_white101 wrote:am i missing something here? but what did u let them do that they cudnt do before you said to them ''you are in spamalot'' ? im just not sure why people were so desperate to get in. also im guessing you didnt state clearly enough the point of the 200 posts, as there were several people who made hundreds of pointless posts all in one night in order to reach the requirement.

Because you weren't really a part of the team before Vincent put your name on the first page. We were proud of our group and I guess others wanted to be a part of that.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:57 am

wicked wrote:The fact that there was a post count requirement to be a part of the "gang" was very detrimental to the forums. See a recent forum example: "can I get to 200 in one night" and posts within spamalot that literally just read "spam". Some examples have been deleted, like a thread started that just said "fork". Even recently when I asked a serious question in the social lounge, in less than 5 minutes there were 5 spam posts. So saying you guys were "keeping it to one thread" is BS. I can't count how many times I was told "but the Social Lounge is the Spam Lounge". That is entirely incorrect.

Vincent, I know Lack read my PM to him on it, but I also know he's extremely busy since he got back from vacation. And Andy who oversees the forums is obviously aware, as he already posted here.

I enjoy many threads in the social lounge a great deal, whether they be serious debates or more humorous threads, but the whole spamalot thing does need dealing with. It does have a major effect on CC, like it or not, in that when I come to the Social lounge I have to look through numerous spam posts to even find the ones I want to reply to (which used to be the majority). People new to CC are just gonna look at the forums, which used to involve everyone, and see 'spam spam spam' and click straight on to another page rather than getting involved in the community.

I do, however, think a lot of this will be solved with sub-forums, and I really do think this is perhaps the most needed update at the moment. Mafia games have also overtaken the forum and they need a sub-forum just as spam does.

Vincent M · Post by **Vincent M** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:57 am

We as a group clearly stated DO NOT SPAM CRAP.

Talk and COMMUNICATE with your future clansmen

Nephilim · Post by **Nephilim** » Wed May 16, 2007 8:59 am

alex_white101 wrote:
wicked wrote:The fact that there was a post count requirement to be a part of the "gang" was very detrimental to the forums. See a recent forum example: "can I get to 200 in one night" and posts within spamalot that literally just read "spam". Some examples have been deleted, like a thread started that just said "fork". Even recently when I asked a serious question in the social lounge, in less than 5 minutes there were 5 spam posts. So saying you guys were "keeping it to one thread" is BS. I can't count how many times I was told "but the Social Lounge is the Spam Lounge". That is entirely incorrect.

Vincent, I know Lack read my PM to him on it, but I also know he's extremely busy since he got back from vacation. And Andy who oversees the forums is obviously aware, as he already posted here.

i agree with what is stated above. spamming was NOT limited to spamalot and i was thourughly annoyed with the people who posted ''need to make 200 posts'' in several threads.

hallelujah, someone saw the light

Nephilim · Post by **Nephilim** » Wed May 16, 2007 9:00 am

Vincent M wrote:
wicked wrote: So saying you guys were "keeping it to one thread" is BS.
Look I remeber those times and all I can say is that those were new people that did't at the time know exactly what spamalot is all about I understand why this looks bad. Once me or DDS or hecter set them straight they never did it again.

Vincent M wrote:We as a group clearly stated DO NOT SPAM CRAP.

bald-faced lies