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

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.
help archwizards are always right. Already addressed previously.
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.
See response to (1) above.
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.


Joseph / JayAreJay the even newbier than thou

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

[Response redirected to \"bs\" group at Laaban\'s request. -- J]

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.

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

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.

Can I have an opinion of an arch then? Is this news thread spam yet? Since
Arch's are always right.

...at the start of this i was all set to give you the link
to SpamAssassin... eheh, literal-minded me.