CallistaBoard

Dollystana wrote:

I hate PercyxAnnabeth, like seriously what is wrong with them being friends

Which book are you on?

Barrow Cove wrote:

ive read the whole first series but im scared to try the second because i dont wanna be let down

Don’t worry, it’s good. So are the trials of Apollo. Magnus chase confuses me though.

Barlyy wrote:

No, but we should remember that our citizens have voted for the relaxation of the rules, including "fun little conversations are legal". Also, the "Defining Spam" dispatch does *not* include a section like that.
It's not about *contribution*, it's about *pointlessness*. Say, someone was to say "guys you guys suck lololol amogus!!! uwu owo" when there are a bunch of people also talking about it. It doesn't change the fact that it is pointless.

Yes, but what if we think about the fact that it is not pointless, and while the case you stated is true, if nobody contributed, wouldn't the conversation... just.. die? I wasn't expecting backlash because of a single post with 3 "Mc"s in it. It did contribute to the conversation, just no one replied to it. It was clearly related to the topic you had stated earlier, and you were also making some fun out of that too. Just because I contributed to it in a different term that you thought was spammy didn't mean it did not contribute.

Barlyy wrote:

No. There WERE other ways to contribute. Example: "Yeah, I really like [FAST FOOD RESTARUANT]'s food." The reason it got suppressed, as I said, is because of it being considered "pointless".
No, that is not how it works. Just because a post "contributes to the conversation" (which is debatable) does not mean it cannot be "pointless", and therefore, "spammy".

But does that mean no one else can post? Just because someone wasn't the one to start a conversation doesn't mean they can't post anything out of the ordinary in the conversation. Conversations are meant to branch out, and random interruptions are meant to do that. Just because someone posted something else that wasn't too related to the conversation doesn't justify the fact that it's bad. Are we just going to keep talking about chicken wings forever? No! The "Mc mc mc" post could have lead to something else branching out from the original conversation, such as maybe corporations, or maybe even zombie chickens!

Arisyan wrote:

I have returned. *sees long posts*. Uh oh, something bad happened when I was away.

So, what did I miss?

existence.

Arisyan wrote:

I have returned. *sees long posts*. Uh oh, something bad happened when I was away.

So, what did I miss?

TVE did a uhh, BCK...

Barlyy wrote:

No, no, no... You can obviously branch out from conversations. That has always been a privilege all of our residents and people who post in our RMBs have had, and we are not here to violate that. The flaw here is that "Pointless" =/= "stick to something forever". If you have something interesting to share, or even just talk about, you can talk about it with being *too* interruptive and/or spammy.

The problem with "Mc Mc mc" is that it is considered pointless, even if it "tried to divert from the conversation" which sounds like a stretch.

Churchill 1 wrote:

Yes, but I can defend myself by going back to the previous point: You didn't exactly define what was "spammy". So spam can basically be what you don't like. I clearly followed the other stated rules. My post also did not impact the RMB much, as it flowed smoothly as usual afterwards. If you had just ignored the post and went on, you could've kept the conversation going with the other person.

Spam HAS been defined. We have a whole dispatch for that. And we are not like other regions, we don't "just ignore" rule-breaking posts.

I am now going to sleep. I recommend that this case is postponed until tomorrow.

Last post of today. Continue with your other defenses, I'll answer them tomorrow.

Churchill 1 wrote:

You did not clearly state it. If you want someone to not do it, put it in the dispatch. New players won't see the post from hundreds of days ago stating the word "banana" is illegal.

The dispatch has slight flaws that we are working on, but these flaws do not include the your post, that rule is clear as day.

If they do post "banana", we'll make them read the defining spam dispatch.

Barlyy wrote:

Last post of today. Continue with your other defenses, I'll answer them tomorrow.
The dispatch has slight flaws that we are working on, but these flaws do not include the your post, that rule is clear as day.

If they do post "banana", we'll make them read the defining spam dispatch.

Yes, but I read it. And the thing is, I did not know that it was illegal. I knew that single word posts were illegal, as well as the other rules, and I respected that. Why don't you put it in then, eh? If you argue that you didn't, I know that I only had one warning left, but you did not clearly state that warning, showing that it was not properly jurisdicted as a formal law. If you're so serious about rules, list them out.

Arisyan wrote:

Please, I need to know what is happening. I refuse to read all 20 RMB pages I missed. I saw that Cerata was appealing their ban, and that VCE committed a coup, but who and why?

The founder of TVE