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

[DirtyDishSoap]

i think the whole story should of been posted in the first page , so people actually do know what they are actually voting for on the polls
not the I hate/love Spamalot crap

[Vincent M]

OK vince. That cleared something up for me. I didn't know that iliad was acting on his own when he made the poll. The fact still remains though that you can't say everyone who voted yes did so without justification. I, for one, looked at the all, if not most of, the facts in an unbaised manner and voted based on my personal opinion. If I am an example for even half the people who voted yes then you have yourself about a 50/50 on opinions.

edit:ok not exactly 50/50 but the numbers are close enough.

First People voted too quickly.

Second you voted because you truly understand what you think (and you did your homework by reading)

Unfortunately everyone who voted yes did read what AK said and what he did . He is clever to have erased all of that ( he knew exactly what he was doing).

Like I said over and over again he bullied Spamalot from start to finish and toyed with all of us along the way.

[Soloman]

Hey Ak could you please delete this obnoxious and pointless thread also since it seems the only purpose of it is to instigate and undermine your authority...

[Vincent M]

Hey Ak could you please delete this obnoxious and pointless thread also since it seems the only purpose of it is to instigate and undermine your authority...

He has no authority. If he deletes this thread it will only help Spamalot's cause. He is stuck

[kwanton]

Hey Ak could you please delete this obnoxious and pointless thread also since it seems the only purpose of it is to instigate and undermine your authority...

Quiet you! heh. Let the downtrodden people have a voice.

Anyway you Spamalot guys have some very good points. If your Spam is as intelligent as your arguments then it may not be Spam at all.

But, it seems like I'm the only person proposing a valid argument for the "Yes" choice besides "OMG teh spam is bad".

Where is everyone who supports yes? cmon help me out people. And where is AK? Shouldn't he be defending himself?


o well....

[Vincent M]

Anyway you Spamalot guys have some very good points. If your Spam is as intelligent as your arguments then it may not be Spam at all.

Thank you for noticing that

And where is AK? Shouldn't he be defending himself?

He sees everything and I know he feels he made a mistake.

[Soloman]

Hey Ak could you please delete this obnoxious and pointless thread also since it seems the only purpose of it is to instigate and undermine your authority...

He has no authority. If he deletes this thread it will only help Spamalot's cause. He is stuck

Then Wicked or Fireside please someone this seems like a waste of space I have no problem with spamalot they are entertaining and actually good at times to bring life back to forgotten posts but overall the argument is pointless

[wicked]

Then don't read it Soloman. It won't be deleted. I agree rehashing the same argument over and over is pointless. I'd hope the same people would stop posting the same thing, and we'd hear from some new people.

[Vincent M]

I am here to answer questions and that is all I said my piece.

And the people who were there should answer questions too

[podge]

Ok here's my 2c

AK: Yes I think he let his emotions get the better of his common sense; but come on he's only human and we all make mistakes, give the guy a break.

Spamalot: I'm not a lover of spam so your name straight away puts me off you. I would imagine this is the same for a lot of people who voted yes in your poll.

Spam in general: Is disliked (I would imagine ) by at least 75% of the CC comunity. Is it any wonder that your group can find little support, with the title it carries.

In any community when a member has been done an injustice the natural order of things ifs for the community to rise as one against the injustice. The fact that you have so little support means either: A) the community finds no evidence of an injustice. B) your just not liked.

[hecter]

UPDATE

I have just talked for over an hour with the monkey, and he will know go and discuss the matter with the mods.

[wcaclimbing]

UPDATE

I have just talked for over an hour with the monkey, and he will know go and discuss the matter with the mods.

awesome!!!
Maybe they will fix this all by tonight!

[tahitiwahini]

I voted no.

AK and the other mods have never done anything that negatively affected me and in general I support their laissez-faire attitude although in certain cases I wish they would have been more aggressive in removing players who I believe caused a great deal of harm to the site (dugcarr1 and simtom come to mind).

I guess where I have my problem with what happened is in the deletion of the thread. To my mind that's a little like book burning. There were many things that could have been done that would have been more justified. Locking the thread, banning certain members who engaged in spamming from the forums for a certain period of time, are two things that come immediately to mind.

If there's a need on the part of some people to spam (and as mystifying as it is to me I guess there is) then it seems the spamalot thread was the least onerous way for the site to satisfy this "need." If there's a space problem or an undue burden placed on the server by this activity, then I for one am willing to endure a crackdown on spam. But that should happen as a result of a policy decision by the site rather than what looks like a capricious (if perhaps not unprovoked) reaction by one of the moderators.

There was a previous incident in which I believe some other member's thread was deleted (I seem to remember it was AAFitz). I just don't believe that sort of thing is justified and does injury not only to the author but also to the community at large. I can see where it would be necessary to delete something that was patently obscene or offensive, but my understanding is that the spamalot thread did not meet that definition. I think deleting the thread was a mistake and shouldn't be repeated in the future. I would suggest that it be allowed for a new spamalot thread to be created. I guess I should also say I have no intention of ever visiting such a thread.

That's all I have to say. I'm not motivated by a great deal of sympathy for the spammers, but the thread deletion and some of the actions surrounding that did leave a bad taste in my mouth.

[AndyDufresne]

awesome!!!
Maybe they will fix this all by tonight!

As much as I'd like to get this solved in a day, I don't think solving it in a day does it justice, you know?

I feel like we must act like a good jury in trial. We must look at the facts and understand them, and come to a conclusion after much careful thought and time. I don't think rushing anything out to the judge will solve anything. But we are discussing it. So, as I say...

Be happy, eat a banana, smile a lot, and give us some time.


--Andy

[hecter]

Be happy, eat a banana, smile a lot, and give us some time.


--Andy

It's hard when we have our favourite thread gone.

[Chalupacabra]

I voted yes based on the spam-heavy response with no content from the Spamalot members. Forum posts are a privilege, not a right. No one cares about your post count except you.

[Dancing Mustard]

I didn't read the thread or understand the issue; but I skimmed the first page or two and then made a knee-jerk vote, based on the responses of one or two speed-posters.

Yeah, good for you....
How about you practice what you preach instead of making sanctimonious proclamations without actually reading the thread,. How about you take ten minutes to understand who Spamalot are, or what this issue is about?
Did you get to any of the posts VincentM made here? Or any of the posts I've made here? Or did you just flick your eyes across the first couple of posts on the first two pages then vote without thinking any more? I think the answer's painfully obvious to anybody who's spent any time at all reading here.

I don't mind you voting yes; and I don't mind you preaching about 'forum privileges'; but it's a tad irritating when your post is flagrantly hypocritical; and when it's quite clear that you're ignorant of the issue you're trying to pontificate about.

Although thanks for adding evidence to support Vincent's proposition that a significant proportion of 'yes' votes were made by uninformed posters...

You've been just great.

[tahitiwahini]

I didn't read the thread or understand the issue; but I skimmed the first page or two and then made a knee-jerk vote, based on the responses of one or two speed-posters.

Yeah, good for you....

Very poor form to pretend to quote someone when he said no such thing. That's fraudulent and does your side in the argument a great disservice. That's unfortunate for spamalot, but my guess is that they won't tolerate that kind of abuse even in defense of their own position. I'll be interested to hear what other members of spamalot have to say about this.

[cleveridea]

Maybe they will fix this all by tonight!

Fix what?

[hecter]

I didn't read the thread or understand the issue; but I skimmed the first page or two and then made a knee-jerk vote, based on the responses of one or two speed-posters.

Yeah, good for you....

Very poor form to pretend to quote someone when he said no such thing. That's fraudulent and does your side in the argument a great disservice. That's unfortunate for spamalot, but my guess is that they won't tolerate that kind of abuse even in defense of their own position. I'll be interested to hear what other members of spamalot have to say about this.

That isn't quite what DM was doing. He was trying to be witty, in instead of saying those things directly to him, he made it look like he said it himself. It's done quite often actually.

[cleveridea]

He was trying to be witty, in instead of saying those things directly to him, he made it look like he said it himself. It's done quite often actually.

I don't think so...maybe chalupacabra edited his remarks after Mustard quoted him. Possible? Mustard is verbose to a fault, but I've never seen him misrepresent others blatantly.

[reverend_kyle]

He was trying to be witty, in instead of saying those things directly to him, he made it look like he said it himself. It's done quite often actually.

I don't think so...maybe chalupacabra edited his remarks after Mustard quoted him. Possible? Mustard is verbose to a fault, but I've never seen him misrepresent others blatantly.

No. I think hecter is right.

[tahitiwahini]

Hector,

It is possible to be humorous without passing off your own words as someone else's. If it's done often then apparently there are more people who don't understand this than I thought.

It's obvious to me that no one would say what he was purported to have said, but I still think it's a cheap tactic and makes me for one less likely to attach any seriousness to the argument made. If a person is willing to fraudulently pass off his words as someone else's what else are they willing to do?

I'm sorry that this strikes you as acceptable discourse.

[ABSOLUTE_MASTER]

awesome!!!
Maybe they will fix this all by tonight!

As much as I'd like to get this solved in a day, I don't think solving it in a day does it justice, you know?

I feel like we must act like a good jury in trial. We must look at the facts and understand them, and come to a conclusion after much careful thought and time. I don't think rushing anything out to the judge will solve anything. But we are discussing it. So, as I say...

Be happy, eat a banana, smile a lot, and give us some time.
--Andy

If I was the zoo keeper.. I'd probably say I am reviewing the situation the first two days.... then I'd probably say we are looking at the facts for the next couple of days....then I'd say the whole squad is trying to solve the situation without rushing it... then, I'd just hope everyone will forget about the whole thing and drop the subject....

But, that's just me

Oh wait, doesn't it look like that's what they are doing?

[helmut]

Hector,

It is possible to be humorous without passing off your own words as someone else's. If it's done often then apparently there are more people who don't understand this than I thought.

It's obvious to me that no one would say what he was purported to have said, but I still think it's a cheap tactic and makes me for one less likely to attach any seriousness to the argument made. If a person is willing to fraudulently pass off his words as someone else's what else are they willing to do?

I'm sorry that this strikes you as acceptable discourse.

Although you have made some good points, you seem to have one major fault: you lack any vestiges of a sense of humor. The comedic device Dancing Mustard employed is known as satire. It is a well-known and oft-used method for making fun of somebody. Another excellent technique is the one which I am employing. It involves imitating the target's typing style. I have emulated your style by immersing my post in a solution of byzantine words, then saturating it with a sauce made from superfluous, redundant, and unnecessary adjectives, and, finally, sprinkling a touch of condescension to complete the recipe. I hope you like it.