I'm slightly offended that you'd assume that, once I explicitly said I would only stop spam, I would use my hypothetical authority to stop non-spam.
I've watched you dive into T_P and go into immediate meltdown mode over this issue. I don't think you're lying when you say you'd intend only to focus on spam, but I also don't think you're even-keeled enough to sustain that promise.
Of course we're offering [arguments.]
Yeah, okay. Let's see:
Spam sucks.
Evaluative judgment, granted for sake of argument.
Spam should never be displayed longer than is strictly necessary.
Normative assertion made in conclusory fashion. Why "never" and "strictly necessary"? All that the initial judgment seems to imply is that less spam is better than more spam.
It's a criminal failure of LJ that members can't report spam in communities.
Do you believe that exaggerations like "criminal failures" constitutes an "argument?" And what does this have to do with our approach to spam, absent an LJ-sponsored feature?
Communities with spam are unpleasant.
Just re-stating the initial judgment here.
Politicartoons allows spam to stand for days because there are no moderators.
That's true. So far, then, we know that: Spam sucks, and it's been allowed to stand "for days," which is generally worse than having that spam be removed more expediently.
Therefore, the community requries more active moderators, for the purpose of eliminating spam and spammers.
Unfortunately, this only follows if we grant that "spam should never be displayed longer than strictly necessary," which - besides being an unsupported assertion - is puzzlingly vague.
My only interest, with respect to spam, is that it be managed in a way that minimizes its disruption of the community, in the same way we might want to moderate the use of hate speech, flamewars, and off-topic posts and comments. My argument is just that it should be controlled (like any other content should be controlled) to the extent necessary to ensure that everyone (apart from those with an irrational aversion to spam) feels comfortable and enjoys participating in the community; and as I've noted, it doesn't seem like that spam post's being up for a couple of days seriously impeded this community's operations.
Your "argument," such as it is, seems to be that we should moderate spam even beyond the point at which it no longer meaningfully impedes this community's activities, just because it "should never be displayed longer than strictly necessary," whatever that's supposed to mean. That doesn't follow from anything, and it's not self-evident. So...?
no subject
I've watched you dive into T_P and go into immediate meltdown mode over this issue. I don't think you're lying when you say you'd intend only to focus on spam, but I also don't think you're even-keeled enough to sustain that promise.
Of course we're offering [arguments.]
Yeah, okay. Let's see:
Spam sucks.
Evaluative judgment, granted for sake of argument.
Spam should never be displayed longer than is strictly necessary.
Normative assertion made in conclusory fashion. Why "never" and "strictly necessary"? All that the initial judgment seems to imply is that less spam is better than more spam.
It's a criminal failure of LJ that members can't report spam in communities.
Do you believe that exaggerations like "criminal failures" constitutes an "argument?" And what does this have to do with our approach to spam, absent an LJ-sponsored feature?
Communities with spam are unpleasant.
Just re-stating the initial judgment here.
Politicartoons allows spam to stand for days because there are no moderators.
That's true. So far, then, we know that: Spam sucks, and it's been allowed to stand "for days," which is generally worse than having that spam be removed more expediently.
Therefore, the community requries more active moderators, for the purpose of eliminating spam and spammers.
Unfortunately, this only follows if we grant that "spam should never be displayed longer than strictly necessary," which - besides being an unsupported assertion - is puzzlingly vague.
My only interest, with respect to spam, is that it be managed in a way that minimizes its disruption of the community, in the same way we might want to moderate the use of hate speech, flamewars, and off-topic posts and comments. My argument is just that it should be controlled (like any other content should be controlled) to the extent necessary to ensure that everyone (apart from those with an irrational aversion to spam) feels comfortable and enjoys participating in the community; and as I've noted, it doesn't seem like that spam post's being up for a couple of days seriously impeded this community's operations.
Your "argument," such as it is, seems to be that we should moderate spam even beyond the point at which it no longer meaningfully impedes this community's activities, just because it "should never be displayed longer than strictly necessary," whatever that's supposed to mean. That doesn't follow from anything, and it's not self-evident. So...?