joshtimonen talks

[Tero]

Forget Josh, he had his 15 minutes fame. Dawkins we still need to deal with.

[JimC]

Tigger has been banned for an hour.

The civil war amongst the mods has started...

I haven't picked a side yet, I think I'll wait and watch before hopping on the winning side...

[Tigger]

Tigger has been banned for an hour.

The civil war amongst the mods has started...

I haven't picked a side yet, I think I'll wait and watch before hopping on the winning side...

We're always civil, though.
TBH, I think we're all on the winning side at Ratz.

[Svartalf]

Forget Josh, he had his 15 minutes fame. Dawkins we still need to deal with.

we have to deal with dawk? what parts of act of his? how? why? I don't deal with nuthin'... douchebag closed his forum, hes water under the bridge 20 miles downriver.

[Tero]

I still have one of his books to finish, it was good so far, Ancestors tale.

[klr]

A new member joins for the sole purpose of promoting their personal blog and then makes no commentary and no follow up posts ?

That's a spammer in my book.

I concur ...

[Pappa]

A new member joins for the sole purpose of promoting their personal blog and then makes no commentary and no follow up posts ?

That's a spammer in my book.

I concur ...

Our rules aren't entirely clear on it in this context. It's definitely a borderline case. It would be interesting to know what the membership feel about it. Here's the appropriate rule:

Spammers will be banned on sight. Forum members are however free to tout, promote and discuss their own products, creations and achievements in threads they start about them or threads in which they feel their input is relevant. They should not feel discouraged from doing so. However, forum members who persist in spamming their book/website/birthday party purely for reasons of advertising, will be politely asked to stop, 'reminded of the rules', then issued with a warning and potentially temporarily suspended if they continue.

[Tigger]

A new member joins for the sole purpose of promoting their personal blog and then makes no commentary and no follow up posts ?

That's a spammer in my book.

I concur ...

Our rules aren't entirely clear on it in this context. It's definitely a borderline case. It would be interesting to know what the membership feel about it. Here's the appropriate rule:

Spammers will be banned on sight. Forum members are however free to tout, promote and discuss their own products, creations and achievements in threads they start about them or threads in which they feel their input is relevant. They should not feel discouraged from doing so. However, forum members who persist in spamming their book/website/birthday party purely for reasons of advertising, will be politely asked to stop, 'reminded of the rules', then issued with a warning and potentially temporarily suspended if they continue.

I feel quite strongly about it. Can we have a poll? I'll do it with approval of the questions from:
a) moderators* - if Rum and Cunt inter alia aren't looking
b) members - if they can be arsed.


*If they can be arsed as well.

[Pappa]

I feel quite strongly about it. Can we have a poll? I'll do it with approval of the questions from:
a) moderators* - if Rum and Cunt inter alia aren't looking
b) members - if they can be arsed.


*If they can be arsed as well.

Perhaps start a discussion thread in Tech first about whether hit and run posters should be considered spammers. A poll can be added after the discussion has had chance to unfold. We've tried to make this standard practice because otherwise people vote without discussing the matter or ever reading the discussion. It can seriously skew the results at times.

[Tigger]

I feel quite strongly about it. Can we have a poll? I'll do it with approval of the questions from:
a) moderators* - if Rum and Cunt inter alia aren't looking
b) members - if they can be arsed.


*If they can be arsed as well.

Perhaps start a discussion thread in Tech first about whether hit and run posters should be considered spammers. A poll can be added after the discussion has had chance to unfold. We've tried to make this standard practice because otherwise people vote without discussing the matter or ever reading the discussion. It can seriously skew the results at times.

Good plan.

[Ronja]

Perhaps start a discussion thread in Tech first about whether hit and run posters should be considered spammers. A poll can be added after the discussion has had chance to unfold. We've tried to make this standard practice because otherwise people vote without discussing the matter or ever reading the discussion. It can seriously skew the results at times.

Good plan.

Well?

[Tigger]

Perhaps start a discussion thread in Tech first about whether hit and run posters should be considered spammers. A poll can be added after the discussion has had chance to unfold. We've tried to make this standard practice because otherwise people vote without discussing the matter or ever reading the discussion. It can seriously skew the results at times.

Good plan.

Well?

It's there already!

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 41&start=0

[Robert_S]

I suppose we ought to give him a heads up so he can make his case. Someone should PM him non-abusively. I don't trust myself.

[Tigger]

I suppose we ought to give him a heads up so he can make his case. Someone should PM him non-abusively. I don't trust myself.

I'm not giving him head, even if he paid me, and I'm... look, a butterfly.

[Ronja]

Perhaps start a discussion thread in Tech first about whether hit and run posters should be considered spammers. A poll can be added after the discussion has had chance to unfold. We've tried to make this standard practice because otherwise people vote without discussing the matter or ever reading the discussion. It can seriously skew the results at times.

Good plan.

Well?

It's there already! http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 41&start=0

Oh, it was in "In depth...", not on the main level of Tech. I did not dig deep enough - what, me impatient?