What’s the reasoning behind that? How is it hurting the message board or the community?
Maybe that poster wasn’t googling the first sentence of other people’s posts. That might have freed up a lot of their time.
Ha! I wondered if anyone else was noticing that.
Thanks for clarifying that. I don’t know how it has worked in the past, but I’m curious to know why posting at multiple places is now disallowed.
It is not. Unless someone who has been here a while decides to suddenly become a spammer.
Someone who signs up specifically to post the same post here as they have on dozens of other platforms have always been treated like a spammer or troll or spamming troll depending on the context.
It does not happen very often. Mostly you won’t see it. Often it is some easy to spot glurge. I won’t give my opinion as to what I think their motivation might be. In the original thread it’s quite obvious her motivation was not to get actual advice since she insisted that the thread be closed. I don’t think she was bashful after posting the same information all over the Internet.
This is a strange hill to die on since this can not possibly effect any poster here.
Don’t worry, I’ve had your move the Barn House forum quashed.
Did the serial pity-sock play a role in the reaction? (By pity-sock I mean whoever it is that keeps creating account after account and posting incredibly glurgy stories in MPSIMS and whatnot to tweak the Usual Gang of Sympathisers.)
Speaking for myself, I think it’s largely dependent on a few things, like how long someone’s been a member and how often they do it.
If a poster who just registered makes their very first post something they’ve posted on 3-10 other message boards, then sorry, that person is pretty much a spammer (in my opinion).
Long-time members who post the same topics on the boards they post regularly on, I would argue, are obviously not intending to spam. They have many other posts on each board and the sole purpose was not just a one-time, drive by copy and paste…but doing it as your first post on many forums (each where you also did it as your first post)? Spam that should be deleted and the poster banned.
It’s kind of related to linking to things such as youtube channels and personal websites. If a long time member does it, I’m liable to edit out the link and/or tell them not to do that without permission first (or to just set it as their homepage). These posters obviously are not here JUST to share their page, whereas posters who do it as their first post only intention is to drive up views or traffic and probably has no interest in posting any other time.
It’s a bit related to this issue, I feel. I don’t have a problem with members who have more than, say, 100 posts doing it (on boards that they all have over 100 posts on), but when you’re doing it with one post, it seems to me the intention of that poster is just “get it out to as many websites as possible”.
I’m dying on a hill because I was curious about the reasoning for a particular mod action? I thought it was painful enough that I agreed with Fenris on this issue, but now I’m dying on a hill too?
I have lauded the SDMB mods multiple times in the past because I have almost always felt that their actions were fair and that the reasoning behind their actions was sound. In my experience in ATMB, almost all of the decisions were explained thoughtfully and patiently.
That might be the case in this instance as well, but I’m not seeing it, so I was curious to see what the reasoning was. So far the only reasoning I’m seeing for this action was that it was done in the past. That’s not a rationale. Why was it done in the past?
I’m hoping that this rule has a reason that I’m not seeing. I’m willing to admit I might not have all the information about this, but I did read this thread and that one.
You’re using the term spammer differently than I’ve seen it used before. Most commonly, it’s used to describe commercial posts, but I’ve also seen it used to describe posters who are flooding the board with multiple threads. In this case, neither applies. So when you say that a poster who has been here a while suddenly decides to become a spammer, what does that mean? It has been noted that several long-time posters post at multiple message boards, so you can’t be meaning that. But that’s the usage of the term in the mod action under discussion.
I’m also not agreeing with your conclusion that the poster didn’t want advice because they asked that their thread be closed. They may have wanted advice but felt they weren’t getting it, so they wanted their thread closed. They might have been new here, so they didn’t know that it’s not done that way on this message board.
From reading the thread, the poster was also very interactive and engaging with the posts of others to give additional information when requested, so they seemed like they were interested in other people’s opinions.
The poster also explained why they were posting at multiple message boards when confronted. It looked plausible to me that a poster might want to get a variety of opinions quickly from various sources so they posted at multiple places.
Could you help me understand the rationale for the rule that new posters are seen as spamming if they have posted their thread on other message boards? Also, if they’re specifically here to discuss their thread that they have posted on other message boards why that’s a bad thing for the community?
ETA: This was cross-posted with Idle Thoughts’ post. I haven’t really read it fully yet, so it’s not incorporated in this post.
Now that that’s settled, can I go to France?
In the linked thread note the stylistic changes between the OP and subsequent posts, particularly #44 where they are being called on their shit. Their OP is them playing a part. The part of a dumbass clueless run-on sentence stream of consciousness young adult. Then later the style suddenly matures. Because they are being what they actually are: an older person who is attention whoring.
Then you are using it wrong. Spam is content-independent, originating on Usenet where people posted identical messages to every newsgroup, triggering comparisons to the Monty Python skit where you could get a variety of meals, but every single one had spam in it–no matter which newsgroup you went to you got that particular post in it.
The concept quickly spread to email. Again, the content of the message is irrelevant, what matters is that they send unsolicited emails to thousands of people.
It just so happens that most of the big-time use of spam is for commercial advertisements, scams and the like.
And so posting the same identical message to every single message board you can find very much does fall into the definition of spam.
I’ve reconsidered. It is *possible *that the strangely shaped man in the trenchcoat isn’t just the same three bratty kids that show up every day standing on each other’s shoulders and wearing a fake mustache, who are infamous for pulling the same con in every other bar in town, every day for years. Like Charlie Brown with the football, we should never give up hope.
Exactly my thoughts on the matter. Of course it takes someone else to say in clearer. That is consistent with every other similar occurance I remember.
Loach already had told you that it was not a rule that you couldn’t bring up the same question on multiple boards. You decided to once again characterize the anti-spam rule in the same negative way. That is not fairly characterized as “being curious” or “just asking questions.” It is, however, fairly characterized as “dying on a hill,” fighting the same argument that had already been indicated as being false.
And if you want an answer, it’s probably not best to impugn the character of the mods.
But, anyways, to answer your question to me: because we don’t want to be a message board full of spam comments. Spam is easy, and if spam is accepted, it shows the mods aren’t vigilant and encourages more. Spam lowers the quality of the board.
Multiple copy-pasted comments are never sincere. How can they be? They have no reason to expect that there would be a different answer here, as they don’t post here. And, even if they did want an answer no person can manage that many comments from various message boards. And they take a certain form that indicates they aren’t sincere, hitting on certain trolly topics designed to fuel outrage.
A question for you is: what advantage is there in allowing spam? Does it make the board better to allow these low quality messages in, ones not really looking for answers, ones that show we are easily duped into responding to trolly messages?
And what harm is there is disallowing them? A question that they don’t really want an answer to won’t get answered? They can’t post to a board they didn’t care enough about to learn about it ? A post gauging reactions to controversial topics can’t be used by a troll?
This is patently false. I’m not asking about the issue of whether long-time posters can post questions on multiple boards and conflating that with this issue.
Yes, Loach noted that long-time posters can post the same question on multiple message boards. That’s not this issue. I’m not fighting any argument. I’m looking for the reason that the person described in the OP (and others in similar circumstances) was banned.
I am not impugning the character of any of the mods at the SDMB in any way. I resent your implication that I’m doing so.
In fact, I just posted that I almost always agree with the SDMB mods and their decisions.
You’ve made a LOT of assumptions about someone posting their first post to many boards.
First is that the posts are of low quality. I don’t agree. A post doesn’t necessarily become low-quality just by virtue of having been posted to multiple message boards. A very high quality message can be posted to multiple message boards. The quality of a person’s message doesn’t necessarily change because it’s their first message or their thousandth.
Second is that it’s not sincere because no one could expect a different answer at this message board. That doesn’t follow. A poster could be expecting the same general answer at this message board and still be sincere. They could be gauging the reception they get at different message boards.
Third is that no one can manage the comments about a single topic on multiple message boards. Why not? If they post 10 threads on 10 message boards, that’s only 10 threads they need to manage. I’m sure people can easily read 10 threads a day.
Fourth is that these messages take certain forms to fuel outrage. Did the banned poster in this case do that? From what I can tell, they were asking about a relationship issue. How does that fuel outrage? If a poster is trying to fuel outrage, they’re usually seen as trolling. It doesn’t matter if they’re doing it at other message boards, so spamming is not the issue there.
I don’t agree with or share your assumptions. But if these are the assumptions made about anyone who posts their first thread on multiple message boards, then that may be the reason for the rule.
The disadvantage of banning a poster who has posted multiple posts on multiple message boards for their first post is that there’s one less poster who may have wanted to get involved in the community. Your assumption is that it was not their intention to do so. There’s not a way to test that if they’re banned.
I find this remark, from a mod, profoundly disturbing. This is a barely veiled threat: Ask the wrong questions, defend the wrong poster who this mod decided was trolling, and I might ban you for trolling next.
This is a barefaced intimidation tactic. Mod, is this a habit you’re bringing to this board from your IRL profession? Will I be next, for saying that?
[Pauses on preview to consider if I really should post this.]
Yeah, I’m posting this.
Yeah… I kinda wondered if maybe it was just me but then I saw Senegoid’s post…
Gotta agree I’m not keen on the impression that your post makes, Loach.
Try incorporating Rhythmdvl’s post. Number 24. Also Vinyl Turnip, post 30.
I don’t know definitely the nature of the person linked in the OP. But she does match a certain behavioral pattern. Requesting that the thread be closed after her multi-forum posting was discovered is something we’ve seen before. Admittedly last time they wanted the entire thread removed from the internet.
I think this is a flawed assumption. Let’s say I have a topic I’d like to get multiple opinions on. Why wouldn’t I draft a post and then copy & paste to, let’s say, my three favorite message boards? Why re-type from from fresh pixels? Other than minor tweaks (maybe converting English unit to metric, let’s say) they might well be near-identical. Whether or not the OP’s are identical or nearly so is just one factor, just as whether or not the question is “reasonable”, whether it’s be asked 14,352 times over the past year on other boards, and whether or not the thread is the poster’s sole contribution or just a small part of their participation in a forum.
I really don’t get the folks who want to take human judgement out of the loop - they seem to want hard and fast rules applied without any consideration to context. I can’t fathom why they want automated moderation. Unless, of course, they’re absolutely convinced the mods have it in for them, but then I have to ask why they think that?
So have I.
But note that in all of those cases that is not the SOLE contribution of the person to that forum, it’s two or three boards not dozens, and so forth. During the time you, Tukerfan, Una, and I have done the occasional crosspost, though, we’ve seen posters that show up, JUST crosspost an OP across many boards, and make few to no contributions otherwise, ever. Sometimes they don’t even bother to come back to the thread they started. You really don’t see a distinction between those two sorts of crossposting activity?
Maybe the mod-note could have been worded better - which is why we have these threads and discussions, correct? It would hardly be the first time a mod declaration was later modified or clarified.
^ This.
Bingo. She said that she had posted it on other boards and didn’t get any answers, so she posted it here to see what answers she could get. Once it was pointed out that she had actually gotten answers on the other boards, what she did here was trolling.
So if the now-banned OP “wanted to get a variety of opinions quickly from various sources”, why were some of the threads created a month ago on other boards? That hardly seems quick.
I don’t feel the same way but I do get it: some people want it all spelled out, they aren’t comfortable with anything else.