Debates about any topic are acceptable, as long as they don't lead to flaming.

[Ming-Yan]

Therefore, controversy over a ban is allowed. Am I incorrect?

[Micky]

Are you trying to outsmart the mods? Haha..

[Qwertygiy]

So long as the bannee isn't doing any arguing.

[Noli]

Here comes a new rule.

[Ming-Yan]

I think it all leads down to the definition of what spam is.
I suggest a few examples of what spam is in the rules post.

This is the dictionary definition:
"Send the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet."

That means the same exact message over and over. Not the same topic over and over. Due to this definition in place, the problem is the Moderation, Jacob_, and Kieron's definition of spam.

[Qwertygiy]

How old is your dictionary, and who wrote it?

The way I would define spam:

Advertising something where it shouldn't be advertised
A meaningless post (like "UMG PIKLES!!!!! lol")
Repeated posts of a very similar topic

[Ming-Yan]

You wrote that first one just to spite Kieron. Advertisement is NOT spam, it is junk mail. Plus I didn't find his advertisement that excessive.

If you must know I just looked up Spam on the online dictionary, the one that is updated.

If you want the other definition, it's meat.

[Qwertygiy]

I'm not the one who banned him -- don't blame me.
But ask anyone from ROBLOX and they'll most likely agree with my definitions above. Or you can go look at the comments of any catalog item there ulk: We have it relatively easy.

[Ming-Yan]

In ROBLOX's catalog that is copied/paste of the same thing. That is what spam is.

ROBLOX's community and it's mod force is rather corrupt with it's definitions of things such as trolling, personal attacking, and spam.

But I don't know, maybe I just tolerate too much stuff.

[Ice]

I was the one who banned him, I will have no hesitation of doing it again if he spams (in my definition) again.