Spammy Posts

[Cormac]

Just a note on spammy posts:

I don't want to do anything to discourage discussion in the Ecclesia, but posts that are clearly designed to increase post count and serve no other productive purpose will be considered off-topic spam. Those who engage in this behavior in the future will be verbally warned and if there are repeat offenses I will ask for an increase to the poster's forum warning level. It's the Citizen-Initiator's responsibility to moderate debate in the Ecclesia, and part of that is ensuring that debate remains debate and does not degenerate into spam games.

Obviously, this requires some degree of subjectivity, hence the verbal warnings before asking for a forum warning increase. I'll try to be fair and lenient with this and, again, the last thing I want to do is curtail real discussion so please, by all means, contribute.

Since arriving in Taijitu, I've found a civil community that is in many ways a lot more mature than other NationStates communities. A community that doesn't take itself sooper srs, but does behave maturely and respects other members of the community. That is more rare than anyone who hasn't ventured beyond Taijitu in a while, or ever, realizes. Let's keep upholding that standard, please.

[Delfos]

the Reign of Terror has began.

While I agree people should not be able to reach my post count by all means necessary, I don't think the Initiator was designed for this kind of policing. I think it should be up to the Liason to suggest to bring spam down a notch if that's what we all agree with.

[Cormac]

the Reign of Terror has began.

While I agree people should not be able to reach my post count by all means necessary, I don't think the Initiator was designed for this kind of policing. I think it should be up to the Liason to suggest to bring spam down a notch if that's what we all agree with.

I would hardly call moderating debate a reign of terror. 

The Ecclesia opted to give the Citizen-Initiator the responsibility to moderate debate in the Ecclesia, but obviously if the Ecclesia doesn't want that provision interpreted this way I'm happy to respond to input or to abide by clarifying legislation. That's what democracy is all about. I've addressed this issue because several other citizens were irritated by the spammy and frankly disrespectful behavior of a particular individual, Bustos, in the Ecclesia yesterday. I'm happy to have a discussion about it but until the discussion concludes and a consensus is reached either by simple discussion or by legislation, I'm interpreting the Citizen-Initiator's responsibility to moderate debate as a responsibility to take action against spammy posting in the Ecclesia.

I'm not at all sure what role Citizen-Liaisons would play in this as they are primarily cultural positions appointed by the Citizen-Delegate. They don't have any legal responsibilities in the Ecclesia. It would seem much better to have debate in the Ecclesia moderated by the elected office responsible for that than by appointed positions that are responsible for something else.

[Delfos]

The Ecclesia opted to give the Citizen-Initiator the responsibility to moderate debate in the Ecclesia, but obviously if the Ecclesia doesn't want that provision interpreted this way I'm happy to respond to input or to abide by clarifying legislation. That's what democracy is all about. I've addressed this issue because several other citizens were irritated by the spammy and frankly disrespectful behavior of a particular individual, Bustos, in the Ecclesia yesterday. I'm happy to have a discussion about it but until the discussion concludes and a consensus is reached either by simple discussion or by legislation, I'm interpreting the Citizen-Initiator's responsibility to moderate debate as a responsibility to take action against spammy posting in the Ecclesia.

I'm not at all sure what role Citizen-Liaisons would play in this as they are primarily cultural positions appointed by the Citizen-Delegate. They don't have any legal responsibilities in the Ecclesia. It would seem much better to have debate in the Ecclesia moderated by the elected office responsible for that than by appointed positions that are responsible for something else.

In Ecclesia you might be correct, that is how we've had the Initiator, substituting the traditional Speaker, I'd still rather a more "Diplomatic" role to interact with the community to avoid conflict. I don't think the Initiator should be exposed to such conflicts since the role usually has a lot of work to do, plus I think the Liason was designed to kinda positively influence the community in being active, or shutting the spam holes, erm I mean, transforming the spam into productive posts to Ecclesia.

Maybe a Spamming Addiction Rehabilitation Center? For "cold brute punitive-leaning warnings" there is the Citizen-Mediator role which this is one of the reasons I thought it should be an active role.

Furthermore, there is no rules of conduct for the Ecclesia (or otherwise) besides this:
http://wiki.taijitu.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Taijitu
it doesn't necessarily imply there is or there is no rules, a method/procedure guide may make your work easier and limit the way we function. I don't think it's necessary, common sense and friendly pat on backs should do the trick for the Cabal.

[Cormac]

If people would prefer it, I would be glad to refer repeat spamming to the Citizen-Mediator through a formal complaint, rather than referring it to the administrative team. Spam seems like an out-of-character matter to me, which was why I was going to refer it to the admin team for an increase in forum warning level.

To be honest, I'm hoping that just addressing the spam issue will put a stop to it. We shouldn't need either judicial mediation or administrative warning to not spam the Ecclesia. So I'm hoping this just serves as a general reminder to be more respectful of other citizens and none of this will actually be needed.

[Myroria]

I agree with Delfos in that this should probably be handled "internally", so to speak. I think having the Liaison encourage good posting from everyone while referring really serious cases to the Citizen-Mediator would be a good way to go about it. However, I don't think this is really something that has to be legislated; keeping it informal would probably be best, unless we start drafting a whole list of procedures for the Ecclesia.

[Bustos]

I knew I was going to ruffle some feathers but had no idea someone would go this far.

Obviously, this requires some degree of subjectivity, hence the verbal warnings before asking for a forum warning increase. I'll try to be fair and lenient with this and, again, the last thing I want to do is curtail real discussion so please, by all means, contribute.

This.  It is subjective.  While our posts were purposely spam (the ones that prompt this proposal) by the manner in which they were created.  The following posts were not.  Are we going to get warnings for these posts?

http://forum.taijitu.org/proposals-and-discussions/on-noble-houses/msg152174/#msg152174

http://forum.taijitu.org/proposals-and-discussions/on-noble-houses/msg152184/#msg152184

http://forum.taijitu.org/proposals-and-discussions/on-noble-houses/msg152264/#msg152264

All spam worthy and contributed nothing of real value to the discussion.  And this is just within one thread.  I can only imagine the long list of examples I could cite if I were to go through the rest of the threads as spam worthy.

Then how about whole threads?  I am sure you remember this one.

http://forum.taijitu.org/proposals-and-discussions/formal-ostracization-or-condemnation-of-cormac/

To be honest, I'm hoping that just addressing the spam issue will put a stop to it. We shouldn't need either judicial mediation or administrative warning to not spam the Ecclesia. So I'm hoping this just serves as a general reminder to be more respectful of other citizens and none of this will actually be needed.

It wont.  Because as the 3 examples I cited, can be considered spam, it will continue to happen.  Again, the real difference being that we purposely identified our posts as spam.

I conclude with support for the statements made by Delfos and Myroria.

[Musitant]

I have to admit I'm partly to blame for people (not just Bustos) increasing their off-topic posts to the Ecclesia in the past day. Although Bustos is right in that people have never stayed laser-focused on the topic at hand in the Ecclesia, I think we can all agree that it has increased significantly over the past hours. This is due to people wishing to disprove the ranking system or as a protest of the entire idea of a ranking system. It may also be due to people wishing to increase where they stand in the ranking system.

I would suggest we let this topic blow over, continue encouraging people to limit spam, then take things as they come from there. If things continue as they have over the past twenty-four hours, (that is to say if things don't get any better) I would agree that we need to find some amount of space for somebody in an official role to limit others' spammy posts.

[Khem]

GUYS! DON'T SPAM! BE COOL!

[Gulliver]

The Citizen-Initiator Act explicitly provides that the Citizen-Initiator will moderate debate in the Ecclesia. Identifying what they believe to be disruptive spam and taking steps to mitigate absolutely falls under that purview, and I'm glad Cormac is taking his new position so seriously. It may make sense for an issue if it arises to be dealt with by a Citizen-Mediator, but I don't think it's appropriate ground for the Citizen Liaison.

As for what qualifies as spam, I don't think there's anyway we'll be able to write that into a formal policy. It's a judgement call which I trust Cormac and future Citizen-Initiators will be able to make on a case to case basis and should be kept informal. If they make a call people disagree with, the Ecclesia in its supremacy can always override them or replace them if they're stubborn about it.

[Cormac]

To address some of the points so far:

My goal in initially stating that I would issue verbal warnings first, and then refer repeat offenses for forum warning level increases, was so that I wouldn't be the only pair of eyes deciding whether something is or isn't spam. I wanted to include the administrative team so that we would get decisions that are more fair; what looks like deliberate spam to me may not look like deliberate spam to someone else. The Citizen-Mediator is another pair of eyes too and perhaps the more appropriate role to deal with really serious spamming

I think, moving forward from what others have said, I will just issue verbal requests rather than warnings to please not spam in the Ecclesia, and for really egregious and blatant problems -- which I hope we won't have -- I will lodge a formal complaint requiring election of a Citizen-Mediator. Please, let's not get to this level.

I continue to believe there is no role for appointed, unelected Citizen-Liaisons, who are responsible for community and culture, to moderate debate in the Ecclesia. That is the responsibility we've assigned by law to the Citizen-Initiator.

Bustos, in regard to your examples, I think there is a difference between posts that just seem a little spammy and posts that are deliberate spam. While I may not have made this clear, the latter are the type of posts I mean to address. Adding "+1" to your posts to indicate that you're only posting to increase your post count in the Ecclesia is a clear cut case of spam. And just so we're clear that I'm not singling you out, this is another clear cut case that I felt was only escalating the problem and was the reason I decided to address it beyond what Myroria has already posted. It's clear cut cases like these that I want to address, not the gray areas that could leave people feeling that their freedom of speech is being unfairly limited. The examples you posted aren't at all clear, deliberate spam, and I wouldn't want to address them as such.

So, to summarize: I'm going to handle spammy posts by simply requesting that they stop. If they persist in an egregious way, I'll file a complaint that will require election of a Citizen-Mediator. As I've already said, I hope we'll have enough respect for the Ecclesia and our fellow citizens that we won't reach this point.

[Khem]

Well stated. I approve of these intentions and agree that myself and any who holds my title after have no business moderating anything aside from cultural events. Perhaps we should draft a formal policy of conduct within the Ecclesia to definitively rule on the sorts of behavior that our Initiator would moderate? I mean by law we currently have no standing ordinance prohibiting spam within Ecclesia debate.

[Cormac]

Well stated. I approve of these intentions and agree that myself and any who holds my title after have no business moderating anything aside from cultural events. Perhaps we should draft a formal policy of conduct within the Ecclesia to definitively rule on the sorts of behavior that our Initiator would moderate? I mean by law we currently have no standing ordinance prohibiting spam within Ecclesia debate.

I think some basic rules for behavior in the Ecclesia would be a good idea. I'll work on a draft over the next couple of days unless someone else would prefer to.

[Allama]

The Citizen-Initiator Act explicitly provides that the Citizen-Initiator will moderate debate in the Ecclesia. Identifying what they believe to be disruptive spam and taking steps to mitigate absolutely falls under that purview, and I'm glad Cormac is taking his new position so seriously. It may make sense for an issue if it arises to be dealt with by a Citizen-Mediator, but I don't think it's appropriate ground for the Citizen Liaison.

As for what qualifies as spam, I don't think there's anyway we'll be able to write that into a formal policy. It's a judgement call which I trust Cormac and future Citizen-Initiators will be able to make on a case to case basis and should be kept informal. If they make a call people disagree with, the Ecclesia in its supremacy can always override them or replace them if they're stubborn about it.

Completely agreed. Why did we specifically legislate the power to moderate debate if we're opposed to that power being used in cases where debate is being disrupted by repeated, blatant spam posts? That seems like the ideal situation for the Citizen-Initiator to come into play.

This isn't me saying GUILLOTINE GUILLOTINE for spammers, nor do I believe every single potentially-spammy post should result in a reprimand. It does seem reasonable, however, to politely request that someone spamming a lot knock it the fuck off. If they are warned and still don't stop, appointing a Citizen-Mediator seems like a good next step.

[St Oz]

GUYS! DON'T SPAM! BE COOL!

YOU CAN'T, LIKE, TELL US WHAT TO DO (THE) MAN!