You left off the rest of it:
(bolding mine)Does this full description describe you, Drunky? Also, do you revive long dormant threads with spamming lies? If not, then it’s pretty clear you are in the clear as far as I can see.
It doesn’t become “notspam” just because you want to read it,and he didn’t just present his own work-he lied about it’s authorship and his personal involvement in it.
Well, technically it does IMHO and as for part two: Doesn’t change the fact it was relevant to the discussion. The other aspects of that really don’t bother me, to be honest.
They have been treating people who pull this type of thing(popping in to promote work or services by pretending to be an anonymous bystander instead of the author/service provider)this way for many years now. Are you wanting them to change long-standing board policy?
I’m indifferent to changing that particular rule generally, but realistically: when was the last time a policy got changed around here? I mean, we can’t even get a smegging Politics forum set up.
Horse of a different color. You’re an active participant in the community and you’re not a spammer.
And now I really must be going.
Can we, as a community, decide that a link to a research paper on topic is not by any definition of the word “spam”?
If this cannot be agreed upon you should REALLY drop the “fighting ignorance” thing in favour of “enforcing arcane house rules, their getting more tortured than anybody thought”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is no reasonable definition of spam that encompasses this situation.
This is Wikipedia-level foolery. Wikipedia’ rules essentially prevents experts and other best sources from contributing their knowledge to a relevant article. (For example one is barred from correcting errors in an article about oneself.)
Why do you insist on leaving out the part that makes it spam? Y’now-the part where he revived an ancient thread and pretended that the info came from someone else? It wasn’t the content that made it spam-it was the delivery and purpose of said delivery. It doesn’t become “not-spam” just because you like or approve of the content.
Bull-this had nothing to do with an expert presenting his own work if it is pertinent to the conversation.
This is about lying, for the most part.
Where’s the lie?
Promoting an article, without revealing that you have a very personal investment in its promotion because you wrote it in the first place is definitely a lie of omission, and reviving a long-dead thread to do so makes it doubly suspicious.
[QUOTE=abassac]
While fine gold is softer than alloyed gold, pirates biting coins is almost certainly a Hollywood myth. Research has proven that biting is not precise enough to determine the gold content of a coin (see research paper Why do pirates bite gold coins they are given?).
[/QUOTE]
Not seeing any lies in there.
See my post #72, and various others, by various others, throughout this thread.
The definitions that I have seen of “lie of omission” all entail the idea that the “liar” is “allowing another person to believe something to be true that one believes is false, or allowing them to believe something is false when it is really true.” I’m not seeing that.
In other words, it’s all about intent and we can’t know the poster’s intent with certainty. My take is that he had no intention to be deceitful but some obviously disagree.
This is the most tortured definition of “spam” I’ve ever seen. The info was NOT unsolicited, bumping old threads for new info is NOT against the rules of GQ, the guy did NOT start a new thread about pirates biting gold just to promote his link, there are no rules requiring any sort of revelation of personal information about oneself, and linking to outside papers and works you yourself wrote is NOT forbidden. Lied by omission? Really? We have to meet certain requirement of disclosure around here now or else we get banned or cornfielded?
The guy broke no rules of the board. A drive-by post by a one-time poster is not by default spam. It’s a drive-by post, and if the board wants to forbid those, than that’s fine, but not all drive-bys are “spam.” And to continue calling this spam is obtuse, pedantic and fucking wrong by any normal definition of the word.
And if you’re going to continue calling links to relevant information in GQ threads “spam” just because we don’t like who posted them or how they’re posted, why don’t we cut the fucking charade of “fighting ignorance.”
The person joined, pretended to be other-than-the-author, and posted a link to his/her research paper. According to the Wikipedia definition of spamming (see Newsgroup and forum), the goal is for “Most forum spam consists of links to external sites, with the dual goals of increasing search engine visibility in highly competitive areas such as …, and generating more traffic for these commercial websites.” He/she just wanted more hits for the paper so it looks like it is more relevant and necessary than it would otherwise be. If he/she was proud of the paper then announce authorship. I can’t imagine that getting this far you are too shy to just say you are the author, unless your goal was something else.
Some of you certainly seem to like recreational outrage. It’s like being at a faculty cocktail party, and things have gotten slow, but its raining outside, and you’d get your new shoes wet, and you don’t want grade those mid-terms, so, what can I do to keep from falling asleep until the dean leaves???
To be fair neither Czarcasm nor TubaDiva speak for the powers that be, and the powers that be restored the post and unbanned the poster. By definition he is no longer considered to be a spammer by the SDMB. If they believed it was spam but since people are interested in it they will go ahead and restore the post they still wouldn’t un-ban the poster. Calling active posters of the board in good standing liars or saying “fuck them” is generally against the rules here (I think I can say that in ATMB without junior modding) so they seem to be speaking only for themselves in this matter.
As noted earlier since the mods were able to connect his registration here to the author of the research then he obviously didn’t lie about or omit any information from the only relevant authorities in this question. He made it obvious to them in some way that he was the author of the paper. When linking to it he had already contributed to the thread as a normal poster with his opinion on the subject and then linked to research (maybe some of the only research in the world on this particular arcane subject) which he knew of because he happened to write it. He bumped an ancient thread with his thoughts on the subject because really how many scholarly discussions about pirates biting gold coins are you going to find out there if that is your area of interest?
Research gate isn’t a for profit site and they don’t reward researchers for the numbers of visits to their papers or otherwise encourage driving traffic in any way as far as I know.
All good points, but he didn’t jump through stupid hoops (“ask permission”? To post a freakin’ cite about an obscure topic?) and he doesn’t know who Cecil is* and isn’t part of a community that died around whenever the Idiots-In-Charge decided to kill the community with Pay-To-Post, so clearly he’s a spammer for posting a message that he can’t possibly benefit from. :rolleyes:
*Who stopped writing books around 2000 or so and hasn’t posted here since 2013. He’s a HUGE part of the SDMB. :rolleyes: .