"blog spamming"

[iverglas]

Hello again -- thanks for deleting the post my initial query here yesterday was about -- I'd kind of still like an answer to the general question. Since that query got disposed of, let me be more general.

See this thread just below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x4134

A practice has arisen in the Guns forum where at least one poster, usually several posters, will respond to every single OP, and other posts, by a particular poster with the comment:

"unrec for blog spam"

or variations. The poster in question includes links to an article on their personal blog in their posts, but the posts themselves are topical and on issue for the Guns forum.

When I have reported these "unrec for blog spam" posts (which do get much worse than just that) as "disruptive", they have been deleted.

But the thing is, they are disruptive, and reading around them all while going through a thread, let alone alerting on every one, is tiresome.

Some posters have had their posts of this kind deleted over and over and over. Yet they keep posting them -- with apparent impunity.

Can it somehow be made known to these people that it is not a violation of any rule here to post a link to another site, be it one's own blog or other, and be there advertising at that site or not? and that their own posts are violations of the rules, and there will be consequences?

I and others would really like not to have to wade through this pointless and nasty white noise every time we want to read/join a discussion in one of these threads.

Thanks.


edited for bad editing ;)

[Skinner]

1. Here's the best I can do for you.

- It's not against the rules to post links to one's own blog.

- I think in most cases it would be considered a rule violation to dismiss a post as spam, or to dismiss a person as spamming. So keep alerting, and the moderators will keep removing the posts.

[iverglas]

2. okay

But I'm still wondering why it's my job to police that forum. The disruption affects all DU members who may want to read and participate.

Are there no consequences at all for wilful, repeated violation of the same rule?

Thanks.

[Skinner]

3. It's only your job if you choose to accept it.

There are consequences for willful, repeated violations. But you might want to be careful what your wish for, considering that your record isn't squeaky-clean either.

[iverglas]

4. you do know that if I'd wanted to start a discussion of myself

I would have done so. One might even consider your comment to be outside the rules!

I think you will find that my "record" arises from the willingness of moderators in that forum to delete anything that one of the resident gun militants alerts on. I have several times recently re-posted exactly what was deleted, and there has been no further deletion -- plainly because the post of mine that was deleted broke no rule in the first place.

There is a "delete them all and let the gods sort them out" approach in the Guns forum, as anyone familiar with it knows. I assume this is one reason that repeated, wilful violations have no consequences: the deletions themselves are not infrequently whimsical.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that.

My question remains as to why moderators do not delete posts that on their face -- their subject line, in many of these instances -- consist of nothing but disruption (although sometimes accompanied by personal attacks), and why the offending posters are not at least instructed to stop. There are repeated, wilful violations. Does a forum moderator not just occasionally click on a thread in the forum? Certainly in I/P there is a little more active attention paid.

The rules are there to protect users of the forums from that behaviour, surely. Why I would be singled out as "choosing to accept" the job of board police by alerting on repeated, wilful violations of the rules that disrupt discussions, I don't know.

Thank you; I am not actually asking that you spend further time replying.

[iverglas]

5. just a small aside

The complaint is now being framed as relating to the fact that
rather than post the url for the link to the blog, it is
posted as a clickable word or series of words using the 

[link:URL|Text]

format.

It's been some years since I realized that one could hover
one's mouse over a link to see where it would take one, and
I've never since been in the habit of clicking on random links
without doing that first, myself. Heck, I even do it when the
link seems to be a simple url ... we all know how urls can be
obfuscated, and I've never wanted to be a phish, myself.

So the complaint remains invalid, the comment/question
continues to be disruptive ... and it continues to be posted
in discussion threads in the Guns forum by multiple posters.

[iverglas]

6. a supplementary if I may

One of our friendy moderators in the Guns forum has directed posters' attention to this thread and the other one in this forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=453678&mesg_id=453678

I believe the intent was to inform posters that incessant posts alleging "blog flogging" are not advisable.

Sadly, it seems that some of the posters are unable to see this thread.

I wonder whether it would be possible to copy the content of your post #1

Skinner ADMIN
Wed Aug-24-11 01:06 PM
1. Here's the best I can do for you.
- It's not against the rules to post links to one's own blog.
- I think in most cases it would be considered a rule violation to dismiss a post as spam, or to dismiss a person as spamming. So keep alerting, and the moderators will keep removing the posts.

into the other "blog spamming" thread in this forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x4134

to bring it to their attention. This way the point will not elude them.

Thanks.

[Skinner]

7. Looks like aikoaiko posted it. (nt)