Download Game! Currently 75 players and visitors. Last logged in:BleezuzDelgareAcidiaAlso

BatMUD Forums > General > Re: Algorithm, computable def\'n for

 
 
#1
27 Oct 2003 08:15
 
 
I\'d like an objective definition of, and/or a computable algorithm for
determining, \"spam\".

A method that is effectively equivalent to \"I can\'t define it, but I
know it when I see it\", or \"It\'s in the eyes of the beholder\"
(re US Supreme Court and pornography/obscenity) is not objective. The
algorithm must work correctly and repeatably irrespective of the person
using the algorithm, or the source of proposed spam, and it must be
computable, deterministic, and feasible to compute.

(Agreed that imperative statements by wizzes, or even moreso by archwizzes
and higher, that \"X is spam\" are true by definition, by help
archwizards are always right. That still doesn\'t make such statements
objective or computable; rather, they are akin to Delphic pronouncements
or a parent\'s \"Because I say so\".)

I\'ve looked at help spamming and help batmud (both pointed to by help
spam), but the information provided is insufficient for my needs.

Thanks for your time or any help you can provide towards this request.



Joseph / JayAreJay

 
 
 
Jayarejay
14d, 16h, 28m, 14s old
Level:
29
 
 
#2
27 Oct 2003 09:46
 
 
Jayarejay wrote:
I\'d like an objective definition of, and/or a computable algorithm for
determining, \"spam\".

A method that is effectively equivalent to \"I can\'t define it, but I
know it when I see it\", or \"It\'s in the eyes of the beholder\"
(re US Supreme Court and pornography/obscenity) is not objective. The
algorithm must work correctly and repeatably irrespective of the person
using the algorithm, or the source of proposed spam, and it must be
computable, deterministic, and feasible to compute.

(Agreed that imperative statements by wizzes, or even moreso by archwizzes
and higher, that \"X is spam\" are true by definition, by help
archwizards are always right. That still doesn\'t make such statements
objective or computable; rather, they are akin to Delphic pronouncements
or a parent\'s \"Because I say so\".)

I\'ve looked at help spamming and help batmud (both pointed to by help
spam), but the information provided is insufficient for my needs.

Thanks for your time or any help you can provide towards this request.



Joseph / JayAreJay
if it fills the other persons buffer so much that it pisses them off.... thats
spam. :)

----------------------------------------------
If life gives you melons, you may be dyslexic.

 
Rating:
15
Votes:
15
 
 
Ssmud
N e w b i e  H e l p e r
201d, 17h, 15m, 45s old
Level:
70
 
 
#3
27 Oct 2003 10:50
 
 
Jayarejay wrote:
I\'d like an objective definition of, and/or a computable algorithm for
determining, \"spam\".

A method that is effectively equivalent to \"I can\'t define it, but I
know it when I see it\", or \"It\'s in the eyes of the beholder\"
(re US Supreme Court and pornography/obscenity) is not objective. The
algorithm must work correctly and repeatably irrespective of the person
using the algorithm, or the source of proposed spam, and it must be
computable, deterministic, and feasible to compute.

(Agreed that imperative statements by wizzes, or even moreso by archwizzes
and higher, that \"X is spam\" are true by definition, by help
archwizards are always right. That still doesn\'t make such statements
objective or computable; rather, they are akin to Delphic pronouncements
or a parent\'s \"Because I say so\".)

I\'ve looked at help spamming and help batmud (both pointed to by help
spam), but the information provided is insufficient for my needs.

Thanks for your time or any help you can provide towards this request.



Joseph / JayAreJay

If you are looking for scientific definition for spam, you can't find one.
Neither there are any computable methods for defining spam.
But there are some signs that can tell when spamming has been taken place.
Below are listed some of them:
1) If you get pkilled after you have used channels or tells, it is likely
that you have spammed.
party report
2) If you get zapped it is likely that you have spammed.
3) If you get some tells where others ask you to stop spamming, it is
likely that you have spammed.
4) If You get summoned without you have asked for it, it is likely that
you have spammed.
party say PFE -OFF-
5) If you type 'ignore' and see a long list of dudes who ignore you, it
is very likely that you have been spamming continuously.

Bmoa the utter newbie

 
 
 
Bmoa
N e w b i e  H e l p e r
1y, 247d, 21h, 6m, 17s old
Level:
52
 
 
#4
27 Oct 2003 10:50
 
 
Bmoa wrote:
Jayarejay wrote:
> I\'d like an objective definition of, and/or a computable
> algorithm for determining, \"spam\".
>
> A method that is effectively equivalent to \"I can\'t define it,
> but I know it when I see it\", or \"It\'s in the eyes of the
> beholder\" (re US Supreme Court and pornography/obscenity) is not
> objective. The algorithm must work correctly and repeatably
> irrespective of the person using the algorithm, or the source of
> proposed spam, and it must be computable, deterministic, and
> feasible to compute.
>
> (Agreed that imperative statements by wizzes, or even moreso by
> archwizzes and higher, that \"X is spam\" are true by definition,
Quote:
> by help archwizards are always right. That still doesn\'t make
> such statements objective or computable; rather, they are akin to
> Delphic pronouncements or a parent\'s \"Because I say so\".)
>
> I\'ve looked at help spamming and help batmud (both pointed to by
> help spam), but the information provided is insufficient for my
> needs.
>
> Thanks for your time or any help you can provide towards this
> request.

If you are looking for scientific definition for spam, you can\'t
find one. Neither there are any computable methods for defining
spam.

But there are some signs that can tell when spamming has been taken
place. Below are listed some of them:

1) If you get pkilled after you have used channels or tells, it is
likely that you have spammed.
Rule by the strongest (meanest, most popular, etc). If that\'s the way
the mud works, either by explicit pronouncement / general popular
agreement, or else by defacto behavior without an explicit
acknowledgement, then ... So be it.

Just gives me motivation to get up to that level 100 uber player killer
tank with maxxed skills and spells and all full boons and abilities and
maximally effective eq, too, so I can be just like everyone else. Right?

OTOH, it\'s reminiscent of how U.S. public high schools work, kinda
semi. I was an unpopular geek there -- maybe that should be a hint for
me.

And, of course, it\'s certainly not objective, yadda yadda.
Quote:
2) If you get zapped it is likely that you have spammed.
help archwizards are always right. Already addressed previously.
Quote:
3) If you get some tells where others ask you to stop spamming, it > is
likely that you have spammed.

\"Because I say so\" (or \"Because I don\'t like it\"). Or,
\"Because WE don\'t like it\". Already addressed previously.
Quote:
4) If You get summoned without you have asked for it, it is likely
that you have spammed.
See response to (1) above.
Quote:
5) If you type \'ignore\' and see a long list of dudes who ignore
you, it is very likely that you have been spamming continuously.
For myself, I see one person with reason of \"blah blah blah\", and
another with reason of \"2 talkative\". I suppose 2 might be a long
list.

On the other hand, I never thought of \"too talkative\" as being
equivalent to \"spam\". (Many things, yes, but not _spam_ per se.)
But, what do I know?



I appreciate your response, even tho it doesn\'t tell me anything I
didn\'t already know (or anything I can effectively use). Thanks for
your time.


Quote:
Bmoa the utter newbie
Joseph / JayAreJay the even newbier than thou

 
 
 
Jayarejay
14d, 18h, 28m, 31s old
Level:
29
 
 
#5
28 Oct 2003 10:38
 
 
Jayarejay wrote:
Bmoa wrote:
Jayarejay wrote:
> I\'d like an objective definition of, and/or a computable
> algorithm for determining, \"spam\".
>
> A method that is effectively equivalent to \"I can\'t define it,
> but I know it when I see it\", or \"It\'s in the eyes of the
> beholder\" (re US Supreme Court and pornography/obscenity) is not
> objective. The algorithm must work correctly and repeatably
> irrespective of the person using the algorithm, or the source of
> proposed spam, and it must be computable, deterministic, and
> feasible to compute.
>
> (Agreed that imperative statements by wizzes, or even moreso by
> archwizzes and higher, that \"X is spam\" are true by definition,
Quote:
> by help archwizards are always right. That still doesn\'t make
> such statements objective or computable; rather, they are akin to
> Delphic pronouncements or a parent\'s \"Because I say so\".)
>
> I\'ve looked at help spamming and help batmud (both pointed to by
> help spam), but the information provided is insufficient for my
> needs.
>
> Thanks for your time or any help you can provide towards this
> request.

If you are looking for scientific definition for spam, you can\'t
find one. Neither there are any computable methods for defining
spam.

But there are some signs that can tell when spamming has been taken
place. Below are listed some of them:

1) If you get pkilled after you have used channels or tells, it is
likely that you have spammed.
Rule by the strongest (meanest, most popular, etc). If that\'s the way
the mud works, either by explicit pronouncement / general popular
agreement, or else by defacto behavior without an explicit
acknowledgement, then ... So be it.

Just gives me motivation to get up to that level 100 uber player killer
tank with maxxed skills and spells and all full boons and abilities and
maximally effective eq, too, so I can be just like everyone else. Right?

OTOH, it\'s reminiscent of how U.S. public high schools work, kinda
semi. I was an unpopular geek there -- maybe that should be a hint for
me.

And, of course, it\'s certainly not objective, yadda yadda.
Quote:
2) If you get zapped it is likely that you have spammed.
help archwizards are always right. Already addressed previously.
Quote:
3) If you get some tells where others ask you to stop spamming, it > is
likely that you have spammed.

\"Because I say so\" (or \"Because I don\'t like it\"). Or,
\"Because WE don\'t like it\". Already addressed previously.
Quote:
4) If You get summoned without you have asked for it, it is likely
that you have spammed.
See response to (1) above.
Quote:
5) If you type \'ignore\' and see a long list of dudes who ignore
you, it is very likely that you have been spamming continuously.
For myself, I see one person with reason of \"blah blah blah\", and
another with reason of \"2 talkative\". I suppose 2 might be a long
list.

On the other hand, I never thought of \"too talkative\" as being
equivalent to \"spam\". (Many things, yes, but not _spam_ per se.)
But, what do I know?



I appreciate your response, even tho it doesn\'t tell me anything I
didn\'t already know (or anything I can effectively use). Thanks for
your time.


Quote:
Bmoa the utter newbie
Joseph / JayAreJay the even newbier than thou

You seem to have missed the entire point of the help file 'archwizards are
always right'. That point being is finality. If an arch said x is spam, it
is spam. Simple. Seems to solve problems of ambiguity right nicely.

 
 
 
Duke
A r c h w i z a r d
1y, 84d, 3h, 19m, 48s old
Level:
420 [Wizard]
 
 
#6
28 Oct 2003 10:38
 
 
Duke wrote:
Quote:
You seem to have missed the entire point of the help
file \'archwizards are always right\'. That point being is
finality. If an arch said x is spam, it is spam. Simple. Seems
to solve problems of ambiguity right nicely.
I\'m perfectly willing to agree help aaar concerns finality.

That\'s orthogonal to my original inquiry, which (I think anyway)
essentially asks how / why something is to be / is determined on grounds
other than \"Because I say so\" or its moral equivalent. On grounds
which aren\'t possibly going to vary based on personality conflicts,
PMS, popularity, and the phase of the moon. \'Cause, that\'s how it
looks to me, currently.

I mean ... say if someone wanted to claim that anything and everything
that made it ... inconvenient, or unpleasant, for a person using an
old-fashioned paper teletype terminal and raw telnet (or perhaps a blind
person using a Braille terminal) to play the game is spam and should or
must be avoided, well, that\'d be objective. (Silly perhaps in the
greater scheme of things, but objective.) (And under such criteria, God
help bards, kerbholtz masters, yadda yadda, right?)

But, for someone to say \"I don\'t like this, it\'s unlike what
I\'m used to doing / seeing in my N years of experience, and I\'m
bigger and stronger than you so I\'m gonna beat you up and make you do
things the way *I* like them to be done\", well... I\'m an illiterate
hack and all, but that sounds to me vaguely like a Lord of the Flies type
situation. (Maybe, anyway. Hell, I dunno, I barely made it through See
Spot Run.) Vaguely Darwinian perhaps, the strong having ultimate mastery
in all fashions and ways over the weak. Which, if that\'s the way
things are, is perfectly all right and everything, but let\'s at least
come out and admit this is what\'s going on.

Referring back to help aaar... No one\'s going to deny that an archwiz
has the authority, and the power, to pronounce something and make it
stick. On _any_ grounds they want to, or no grounds at all. But that has
nothing to do with whether their pronouncement is objective, or
defensible, or even fundamentally fair. (Not that there\'s any
requirement for an archwiz to be any of those things if they choose not to
be -- it\'s their toys, and their rules.) (And, hell, I\'d personally
try to stay the hellout of the way of archwizzes anyway -- one never knows
what\'ll happen with them, I fear.)



Truly, I think Ssmud\'s response, joking as it was, is the flat and
unvarnished fundamental truth.

I guess that\'s kinda sad, if you think about it. But, at least it\'s
honest.



Me, I\'m off to consult my Magic 8-Ball.

Thanks for your time. Be well.



Joseph / JayAreJay

 
 
 
 
 
#7
28 Oct 2003 16:01
 
 
I'm having increasing difficulties in folloing this thread. Dunno if anyone
else has noticed but i find it pretty hard to actually extract the point of
what Jayarejay is trying to make here.

Eventhough I quite admire the fine vocabalary and nice grammar I'm still bit
unsure about the point of this post. Is this trying to be an informal post
about spam that was intentionally made to be spammy?

Br,
Pahvi

 
 
 
Pahvi
W i z a r d
1y, 300d, 4h, 42m, 36s old
Level:
95 [Wizard]
 
 
#8
28 Oct 2003 21:10
 
 
Quote:
I\'m having increasing difficulties in folloing this thread. Dunno if
anyone
Quote:
else has noticed but i find it pretty hard to actually extract the point
of
Quote:
what Jayarejay is trying to make here.

Eventhough I quite admire the fine vocabalary and nice grammar I\'m
still bit
Quote:
unsure about the point of this post. Is this trying to be an informal
post
Quote:
about spam that was intentionally made to be spammy?

Br,
Pahvi
I believe he/she/it has 2 points. the first is an attempt to point out
the futility of anti-spam rules, and the second is a finely disguised
complaint about a recent punishment givent to he/she/it or he/she/it\'s
friend that resulted from spam. I don\'t know that such punishment
exists or happened, but I must say anyone with experience reading batmud
news posts for any length of time can extract the whiner out of any post
regardless how well it is hidden behind large words and \"nice
grammar\"; and this clearly fell into \"batmud is not fair\"
category whine.

Thus, I am deeming that the OP is merely a whiner. My ultimate proof of
this is the fact that he obviously is not a total moron and any who is not
such (a total moron) would clearly deduce the impossibility of the
original request (which is was define spam in 100% absolute terms blah
blah...)

Anyways I do like the style better though, much more pleasant and
interesting to read than \"mutha fuck this and that you pigs!\"

 
 
 
Duke
A r c h w i z a r d
1y, 84d, 3h, 43m, 38s old
Level:
420 [Wizard]
 
 
#9
28 Oct 2003 21:10
 
 
[Response redirected to \"bs\" group at Laaban\'s request. -- J]

 
 
 
Jayarejay
15d, 7h, 15m, 52s old
Level:
29
 
 
#10
28 Oct 2003 20:27
 
 
Pahvi wrote:
Quote:
I\'m having increasing difficulties in folloing this thread. Dunno
if anyone else has noticed but i find it pretty hard to actually
extract the point of what Jayarejay is trying to make here.
Sorry you\'re having problems following what I write. I totally agree
it can be (VERY) difficult to follow my writing some(all)times, it has to
be followed closely -- this is something many people in many forums have
complained about many times.

Quote:
Eventhough I quite admire the fine vocabalary and nice grammar I\'m
still bit unsure about the point of this post. Is this trying to be
an informal post about spam that was intentionally made to be
spammy?
No, that\'s pretty much how I write all the time. I\'m not doing
anything intentionally different from how I write elsewhere.

Thanks for responding. Be well!



Joseph / JayAreJay

 
 
 
Jayarejay
15d, 7h, 15m, 52s old
Level:
29
 
 
#11
29 Oct 2003 11:13
 
 
Pahvi wrote:
I'm having increasing difficulties in folloing this thread. Dunno if anyone
else has noticed but i find it pretty hard to actually extract the point of
what Jayarejay is trying to make here.

Eventhough I quite admire the fine vocabalary and nice grammar I'm still bit
unsure about the point of this post. Is this trying to be an informal post
about spam that was intentionally made to be spammy?

Br,
Pahvi
Thank you pahvi, for your fine post. I tried to extract my very similiar
feelings to many words, but the closest I could imagine was something like:

"Shut up! SHUT UP! SHUT THE UFKC UP!!! SHUTTHEFUKUP!!!
Go away away! Die Jayarejay! No one wants to listen your never ending
blathering!!!

ULLULULULUL!!! Wiinkufoo!!
---
But then i cancelled that post.
PS. Favorit, please code support for reply-to functionality so I can direct my
fine responses of less than usefull posts to flame or bs with ease.

--
I type this every time


If I had all the money I'd spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink.
-- Sir Henry Rawlinson

 
 
 
Fizzl
C o d e s l a v e
1y, 325d, 13h, 20m, 12s old
Level:
32 [Wizard]
 
 
#12
03 Nov 2003 07:57
 
 
Pahvi wrote:
I'm having increasing difficulties in folloing this thread. Dunno if anyone
else has noticed but i find it pretty hard to actually extract the point of
Well I would say spam is, to give an example, Duke's reply without proper
cutting of previous messages he/she was replying to. It is not just spam, it
is also bad form and against netiquette.
Though I bet it was on purpose to make a point ,-)

The message you were replying to is not spam at all imo, it didn't repeat lots
of stuff, so it was not redundant and a waste of bandwidth and it contained a
lot of orginal text. Whether the text makes sense or is hard to
understand(unless such is caused by bad form, l33tsp34k and stuff =) or not is
less of an issue.

In simple terms, something with a high redundancy to originallity ratio is
spam. Just trying to shed some light into this matter, grin.

 
 
 
Amorell
64d, 15h, 23m, 48s old
Level:
38
 
 
#13
28 Oct 2003 16:38
 
 
Can I have an opinion of an arch then? Is this news thread spam yet? :) Since
Arch's are always right.
Quote:
---> Robin Hood <--<<
Quote:
---> Robinhood <---<<
 
 
 
Robinhood
1y, 25d, 22h, 43m, 17s old
Level:
85
 
 
#14
28 Oct 2003 19:46
 
 
...at the start of this i was all set to give you the link
to SpamAssassin... eheh, literal-minded me.

 
 
 
Khonshu
21d, 13h, 0m, 44s old
Level:
30