I was just wondering how people feel about this infowars thread that rtcvb32 continues to post in.

According to my google search spam is:

irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc.

It seems to me that nobody, other than rtcvb32, really cares about that thread. rtcvb32 is just about the only person who posts anything on topic.

The thread seems to be intended to be some kind of advertisement for infowars, it seems to be irrelevant and unsolicited, is it not spam?

The effect of having that thread ongoing is that there is one less topic in the first page when I check the old "General Discussion" topic. Its not a big deal but it seems like there is no reason for rtcvb32 to just continually post about his irrelevant pet topic on a games website when literally nobody else seems to care on contribute.

Everyone tells him this, but seldom does he ever listen. You can say to him whatever you want. Check the thread and you'll see that many of us have already tried. He's not interested in listening, he's only interested in spamming and hearing himself talk.

^ Yep,it has the advice but just can't use it:))))))))))

Well, personally, as long as he keeps that in that thread and doesn't pollute the rest of the forum, plus the reading of his thread is not mandatory, I don't see why GOG should remove it. Plus if you want some good laugh, or a good fright, it's a useful thread... ;)

You're wrong, actually. The key property of spam is that it's automated or semi-automated. rhctib69 seems to be posting manually and authoring the posts personally, individually, on a per-post basis. In that they are no different from other human [citation needed] shitposters (fairfox, snowkatt, cletus, tauto, etc) - in fact better, because shitposts are kept to a separate thread, rather than filling up the forum with new shit threads and/or shitting over existing threads.

If it were my forum, I'd delete it, and as a user, I'd welcome its deletion, but if I were a mod charged with maintaining the status quo, I would not. Allowing the infowars thread to exist is not a break with the current de facto policy.

...I'm sorry, what? Those two are perfectly good people.
Tauto and Kleetus, ok, yeah, they're both trolls, but Fairfox and snowkatt? Fairfox may have an odd way of typing and snowkatt may be lazy, but they are, by no means, somehow "shitposters" just because they attempt to speak in a humorous manner or aren't paying attention to every little piece of punctuation and capitalization.

As long as it is contained in that thread, more power to rtcvb32 & the post-padding.

Interesting, since it's neither irrelevant, advertising, phishing or spreading malware... yet still called spam. The occasional 'advertisement' might qualify when books/movies are mentioned; although I usually reference amazon; Although more than once I've referenced archive.org instead.

Most of the links/references are news usually directly mentioned nearly 1:1: Fox news, daily mail, some CNN financial, RT, Drudge report references, Yahoo, Breitbart, Infowars, Wikipedia, Wikileaks, The hill, WND, New York Times, the Independent UK, ABC News, BBC, CBS, Daily Beast, C-Span, LA Times, and many more.

Then again, you'd actually have to open and look over the contents to realize that. I agree, if you're not interested skip it.

Personally I'm giving it a priority for the immediate future. How long? No clue. I won't keep this up forever, i'll say probably less than 100 days at this point. Every post is crafted by hand, carefully and lovingly... like a weed-whacker to a bush :)

I've always thought the most important thing distinguishing spam from not-spam is how involved the user is with the forum outside of the maybe-spam. Someone signing up solely to whore something out seems inherently worse than someone who's been around for awhile and participated elsewhere suddenly having a pet thread.

At any rate, it's all easy enough to ignore, and that way we don't have to get into messy subjective interpretations of what does and doesn't constitute spam (or "irrelevant" in a general discussion forum, or "unsolicited" on a forum in general). Less of a headache, and probably a friendlier outcome.

Just because he's the only poster doesn't mean there isn't others reading it.

I presume Starmaker just didn't want to take sides, hence so many names. :)

why am i not allowed to have my own thread then?

As I said I haven't really read the infowars thread at least recently so I have no idea what kind of controversial stuff there is... but I see it a bit similarly as that "funny and mindboggling stuff on internet"-thread where there also seems to be mainly just one poster.

I first thought it is some kind of funny-cat-videos thread, but there seems to lots of anti-capitalism links there too, so I presume the poster's sympathies are towards the left side of the political spectrum.

And I am totally fine with that, keep posting those anti-capitalistic Youtube-videos and articles in that thread. The only thing I don't like is that it is a bit harder to find the funny videos among the anti-capitalistic videos because I visit that thread only for the laughs.

Artisan Spam. Would be hard to advertise that without people expecting canned meat.