ANTI-SPAM FORUM

Sort:
GM_chess_player
ChessTitan006 wrote:

I know you guys have all been spammed at least a couple of times, and that you have been really annoyed or hurt by them. Spamming is NOT okay, and it's against chess.com rules. I want this to be a forum to express your opinion about this, free of spamming and rudeness. Thanks and be polite! 

The definition of spamming is this:

"irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the internet to a large number of recipients."

 

 

 

 

 

Mhm! I love spam! It's tasty!

PerpetuallyPinned
Colby-Covington wrote:
PerpetuallyPinned wrote:
Colby-Covington wrote:

I updated the definition a bit, I think that's a pretty accurate description of spam.

Unsolicited messages, usually of witless, immaterial or commercial nature, sent to a large number of recipients or posted in a large number of places with the purpose of drawing attention or causing disruption.

How did you update the definition created by another member? I don't see that update. Must be another multiple edited post. Confusing at least

Well, please point me to the definition given by that other member? I used the Webster's Dictionary Def as a baseline and refined it to better fit my interpretation of spam. You do at least notice a difference here I hope? 

Webster's definition > Unsolicited usually commercial messages (such as e-mails, text messages, or Internet postings) sent to a large number of recipients or posted in a large number of places. (Link)

My definition > Unsolicited messages, usually of witless, immaterial or commercial nature, sent to a large number of recipients or posted in a large number of places with the purpose of drawing attention or causing disruption.

You like editing your posts, adding things after a response.

Do I really need to direct you to the OP?

Colby-Covington
PerpetuallyPinned wrote:

Oh, so it wasn't an actual update of the definition.

I altered the contents of something with the intent of improving upon it. That's the literal definition of an update lol.

You just like to argue, don't you?wink.png 

 

PerpetuallyPinned
Colby-Covington wrote:
PerpetuallyPinned wrote:

Oh, so it wasn't an actual update of the definition.

I altered the contents of something with the intent of improving upon it. That's the literal definition of an update lol.

You just like to argue, don't you?

I asked how you update someone else's post.

You started to argue

Colby-Covington

You haven't provided proof of that other post yet? Please show us that other member's definition so that we may verify your claim's validity.

xXDonuts4LifeXx
SNUDOO wrote:
xXDonuts4LifeXx wrote:

RAR!!

Prime example

you RAR an AR!!

PerpetuallyPinned
Colby-Covington wrote:

You haven't provided proof of that other post yet? Please show us that other member's definition so that we may verify your claim's validity.

Oh my goodness, are you serious?

Colby-Covington
PerpetuallyPinned wrote:

Oh my goodness, are you serious?

This was your earlier post, where you put into question my definition, claiming you were unable to see the difference in comparison to the OP's definition of spam, while arguably implying that I misappropriated it.

You expect me to believe, that you were unable to recognize the difference between these two definitions?

OP definition > "irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the internet to a large number of recipients"

My definition > "Unsolicited messages, usually of witless, immaterial or commercial nature, sent to a large number of recipients or posted in a large number of places with the purpose of drawing attention or causing disruption."

Come on man, it really seems like you are just trying to argue for no reason.

Anyways got some club stuff to do now, I still wish you a nice evening. happy.png

swapnoneelmitra
What is spamming
sndeww

Uh, why don’t you google that first 

PerpetuallyPinned

You said you "altered the contents" and proceeded to enlighten me on the definition of "update".

I still don't see that you updated it as you continue to argue. I see you provided your own, but that isn't an "update".

PerpetuallyPinned
Colby-Covington wrote:

You haven't provided proof of that other post yet? Please show us that other member's definition so that we may verify your claim's validity.

I (unnecessarily) showed my proof of the OP.

Where's your proof of an actual "update"?

Steven-ODonoghue
ChessTitan006 wrote:

spamming is probably the biggest offense on chess.com

Spamming is probably the smallest offence on chess.com.

Cheating, multiaccounting, sandbagging, abuse, etc. Are all more serious offences

mbereobong
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
ChessTitan006 wrote:

spamming is probably the biggest offense on chess.com

Spamming is probably the smallest offence on chess.com.

Cheating, multiaccounting, sandbagging, abuse, etc. Are all more serious offences

 Spamming sure as heck is annoying but calling it "the biggest offense" seems like a exaggeration. thumbup.png

Steven-ODonoghue

Agreed.

PerpetuallyPinned

I think I figured out what's going here (and in other forums) now.

Steven-ODonoghue

Threads, not forums.

PerpetuallyPinned
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:

Threads, not forums.

Call it whatever you like

Steven-ODonoghue

I choose to call things by their correct names

PerpetuallyPinned
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:

I choose to call things by their correct names

You also have a choice of definitions, which don't necessarily determine correctness.

But let's not distract from the topic over symantics, it might be reported as spam.