If it please the court I would like to submit the following conversation I had with NHC today on the RMB. By his own admission his definition for spam is to be messaged repetitively. He purposefully chose to continue to "Double Post" and violate the RMB Rules and Etiquette policy and decided that the Warning he was received by a duly elected LC member after each violation as spam.
I would also like to point out that this is not the first time NHC has run afoul of the RMB's ban on Double Post suppression as after Auphelia's first term as LC and during her first attempt to get re-elected. NHC opened up not one but two "Corruption Cases" against Auphelia for post suppression. One which was considered without merit due to lack of evidence and the other which was abandoned by NHC after the election and Auphelia was not re-elected.
linguiniland;34704770 Wrote:Oh NHC I have a honest question for you. Say you have a credit card that you are required to make monthly payments on. You miss a few payments. Do you consider the letters that the credit card company sends you, telling you that you need to pay your bill as spam?
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34704826 Wrote:Would they send them 3 times within ~10 minutes?
linguiniland;34704861 Wrote:How about if they say sent one after each missed payment?
linguiniland;34705269 Wrote:An NHC your back. Can I please get an answer to this question?
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705289 Wrote:*you're
If it's not very rapid then it's fine.
linguiniland;34705326 Wrote:That wasn't the question. The question was if you were supposed to make a payment and you missed multiple payments would you consider it spam for each reminder that you missed the payment after you missed the payment?
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705383 Wrote:If it doesn't happen constantly then it's not spam because it's not too repetitive. Like, if we had only one session of *hugs* on the RMB for every week, then I personally wouldn't consider it too repetitive. This is also different from Volaworand's TGs in the aspect that this is something I should acknowledge.
linguiniland;34705462 Wrote:It was just an example of notification. I supposed I could have used an overdue library book for the same effect.
The thing I am trying to understand is why you consider it spam that he notified you after each time you double posted that it was against the rules and that he was going to suppress you for doing it. I mean if he was sending you multiple TG about suppressing TG then you were either double posting in rapid succession (which you both admitted to in the forum post) and/or there was a TG exchange between the two of you (also which you both admitted to in the same forum post).
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705487 Wrote:Not after I blocked him obviously.
linguiniland;34705519 Wrote:So you blocked him for sending you TG stating that he was going to suppress your double posts after each time you double posted. And you consider it spam because it came at a rapid succession because you in turn were double posting in rapid succession. Do I have that correct or am I missing something?
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705647 Wrote:btw if you put everything in the list tag it would remove the line breaks.
Whether something is repetitive or not is really a matter of opinion, but yes.
linguiniland;34705681 Wrote:So in your opinion double posting multiple times in a row is not repetitive? Sending you a TG after each time you double post telling you that its against the RMB rules is repetitive?
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705712 Wrote:No, double posting is not repetitive, at least relatively. If double posting is repetitive, then so is single posting. The amount of actual posts doesn't change how repetitive it is.
EDIT: Oops, quoted the wrong post.
linguiniland;34705748 Wrote:I asked if double posting multiple times was repetitive.
Well the dye was provided by the finest dye makers in Midand and I did request Skunk Black. Remember always support local as it helps the community as a whole.
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705773 Wrote:It's just as repetitive as singular posting, or at least the content, which is what I'm considering.
linguiniland;34705839 Wrote:Ok lets see if I got where you're coming from right. If you or someone breaks a rule of the RMB and an LC member sends you ONE TG then there is no repetition and the TG is not spam. If you or the same person continue to break that exact same rule multiple times and the same LC member sends the same or about the same worded TG to said rule breaker then the rule breaker is not being repetitive but the LC member is and the TG's are spam?
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34705867 Wrote:Double posting can be repetitive, but that's the point when you're literally saying the exact same thing in 2 posts.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+repetition
Repetition is "the action of repeating something that has already been said or written."
linguiniland;34705953 Wrote:And the region defines Double Posting as: Double-posting, or posting two posts in a row, is considered illegal on the RMB. To put multiple things in one post, it is advised for nations to use the edit tool or wait for another nation to post first.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1177407
So I ask again. Based upon the rules of the RMB how is double posting multiple times not considered repetitive but sending TG's (and here is the part I am having a hard time understanding) after each time said person double posted considered repetitive?
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706352 Wrote:Because they contain different content.
Also, got first place in National History Day. I'm going to the state competition nao.
linguiniland;34706476 Wrote:Congratulations that's quite an achievement.
As to the other topic just because your double post contain different content, by the rules and definition of the RMB and since you used Urban Dictionary (example 3) both of which state multiple posts in a row by the same person. How is it not considered repetitive if it is done multiple times.
RMB Dispatch (Clause V): https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1177407
Urban Dictionary (Example 3): https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p...ble%20Post
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706503 Wrote:It's not repetitive because it's not the same thing twice.
www.google.com/search?q=define+repetition
linguiniland;34706550 Wrote:Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided) LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.
Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided) LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.
Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided) LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.
Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided) LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.
Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided) LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.
Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided) LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.
Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided) LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.
Person A Double Posts (according to the two examples I provided) LC B Sends TG to ask to stop Double Posting and to state that Double Posting will be suppressed.
By your entire argument Person A is not being repetitive but LC B is. Am I correct in stating that?
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706656 Wrote:Yes, because the content of both posts were not the same.
linguiniland;34706805 Wrote:Question are you purposefully ignoring my stated examples of the definition of "Double Posts" because it doesn't fit your narrative or are you not seeing it? I only ask because your argument has devolved into conjecture and I don't know how to reword my question anymore.
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706820 Wrote:The RMB etiquette dispatch specifically says that debating is legal.What is your definition of double posting again? It's clearly different than that in the RMB etiquette dispatch.
linguiniland;34706868 Wrote:Ok one more time, and I suppose louder for those in the back.
RMB (Clause V): Double-Posting, or posting two posts in a row, is considered illegal on the RMB
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1177407
Urban Dictionary (Example 3): Simply two posts, by the same member, regardless of reason, after each other.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p...ble%20Post
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706876 Wrote:If they're not the same post then it's not repetition, what is confusing about that?
linguiniland;34706913 Wrote:Yep you are simply ignoring the definitions so that they fit your narrative. I sir do cease this conversation and await my turn at the "So and so is Corrupt" case that will most likely be brought up against me on the Forums by you.
Edit: You may block me on TG's if you wish I will not mind but I also will not be sending you any TG's either.
new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706920 Wrote:You're ignoring the definition of repetition, what the hell do you mean? If I post twice in a row and if they're both different then it's not repetition.
EDIT: I have no reason to block TGs from you, you aren't pointlessly flooding me with notifications.
