Live8 Spam

Snow Dog wrote: This vote is not as overwhelming as I thought it would be! Is everyone happy with the situation then?

20 against 0

not an overwelming victorie for social grace against moral decay

Tony R wrote: It's Happy Christmas for the whores.....the war is over.

Am I thick? I don't get it!.......Is it a Lennon referece

"So this is Xmas, and what have you done...."

tuxon:

Your reasons for deleting the threads were:

1. The sellers aren't members, but one post fly bye's
2. Product is questionable
3. two or three attempts within the hour is spam
4. Controversie arrose over the product, some people (valuable members) deemed it inapropriate, and I think most are against it. why protect these spammers and not take notice of the long term members feelings (which in some cases are very strong)

Re #1, I have pointed out that the two dozen or more "members" who joined for the sole purpose of giving Octavarium a 5-star review are also not "members," and are "one post fly-bye's."  Should I delete all of their posts and eject them as well?

Re #2, many posts (and even threads) are "questionable," yet they are allowed to remain because to do otherwise is to enter the very realm of "censorship" that few here would like to see this site devolve into.

Re #3, as far as I can tell, these people posted once each; I do not see multiple attempts.  Once the thread or post was opened, discussion/conversation ensued, but that does not make "multiple attempts."  If I am missing something here, let me know.

Re #4, controversy has arisen over quite a number of things on this site, including the inclusion of Radiohead, the recent DT/Octavarium situation, and dozens of threads and posts that "some people deemed inappropriate," and that many members "were against."  However, the admin group looked at each of these "offending" threads, posts, etc. on a case by case basis, and in most cases allowed them to remain because they did not rise to the level that the admin group felt warranted deletion.

Contrary to your statement, no one is "protecting these spammers and not taking notice of the long-term members feelings."  We are indeed taking notice of the members' feelings.  However, while the members are entitled to their feelings, we do not agree that the remedy being sought by some members (i.e., deletion) is appropriate in this instance; we have chosen to "err on the side of caution," since it appears that some good may well come out of the sales.  For us to delete the threads would amount to our "caving in" to member pressure, based largely on what is the presumed nefarious intent of the sellers - which not only cannot be proven, but which is actually disproven by some of the sellers' claims, made not in response to this controversy, but at the time of initial posting.

No, what is occurring here is that sometimes the majority is wrong, and it is incumbent upon the administrators of the site to stand behind the "greater" principle - free speech - than the "lesser" principle, a somewhat tenuous issue of "morality" vis-a-vis the entire concept of scalping.

Peace.