Sociopath Community

Luna was a tyrant becasue she was young. She expressed from day one her hatred of moderators and those in power. She cared deeply about her rep and senate system because she thought it was the answer to having to assign moderators herself.

The entire senate was Luna trying to give up her power. She wanted to create a self-sustaining community that could exist without her.

In the end though, SC became a permanent serfdom under Meta, with Meta having no desire to give up power or grow the community.

itsmuffintime said: 

Luna was a tyrant becasue she was young. She expressed from day one her hatred of moderators and those in power. She cared deeply about her rep and senate system because she thought it was the answer to having to assign moderators herself.

The entire senate was Luna trying to give up her power. She wanted to create a self-sustaining community that could exist without her.

In the end though, SC became a permanent serfdom under Meta, with Meta having no desire to give up power or grow the community.

Exactly.

Luna was an empath, and a selfless idealist. She chose to never put up advertisements. She tried to avoid assigning moderators. She tried to even bargain with those who attacked her giving them chance after chance.

She was too innocent for this place. Her naivety and youth was her downfall. It was SC's downfall. Luna created this place when she was 15 years old. She ruled for 6 years before giving up on us. She declined all attempts by users to buy her website.

We can only hope Meta can keep the corpse alive.

Meta is much better fit to be leader. Cold, uncaring, only concerned with himself. He will never have Luna's passion though.

This place's most long time users did a good job at destroying her spirit and creation.

Major Major said: 

Turncoat said: 

It's more like four versions: The group's version, Cawk's version, the 'Luna the Abuse Victim' parody, and the 'Jim being nice to Cawk occasionally' version.

Can you give, like, a short 2-3 sentence summary for each?

I don't even need that much, but I hope you don't mind but it's going to reek of snarky exaggeration that borders on parody: 


Group Story: "Through [large series of events], we collectively broke down Luna."

Cawk Story: "These events happened, and I was there as it's epicenter! PRAISE ME!" 

Luna Abuse Victim: "Poor Luna, all those CP posters kept abusing her!" 

Jim Being Nice: "Me an' Cawk are masterminds, and while others did stuff they aren't hackers like we are ufufufu." 

itsmuffintime said: 

Luna was an empath

Nope, she doesn't even qualify as an emotional parasite. 

Turncoat said: 

I don't even need that much, but I hope you don't mind but it's going to reek of snarky exaggeration that borders on parody: 


Group Story: "Through [large series of events], we collectively broke down Luna."

Cawk Story: "These events happened, and I was there as it's epicenter! PRAISE ME!" 

Luna Abuse Victim: "Poor Luna, all those CP posters kept abusing her!" 

Jim Being Nice: "Me an' Cawk are masterminds, and while others did stuff they aren't hackers like we are ufufufu."

Thanks; none of these are correct

TC said:

Nope, she doesn't even qualify as an emotional parasite.

Your view is distorted because you dislike Luna. She was an empath by every measure, like Muffin says.

Major Major said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Your fatalistic judgments are noted, but I'm not concerned what you think about me, so we can just skip that conversation.

I'm just honest about my opinion. I would be the first person to support you if I thought there was even a slim chance of you fixing things. But I've seen these types of situations so many times, and they always end up tragically. Unless there's something exceptional about you, I'll just assume your story ends up in a tragedy as well.

I would tell you to prove me wrong, but that would be unfair. You aren't the type of person who'd be up for it, and I don't feel like celebrating seeing you fail.

 

I appreciate what Luna did, but she was in many ways a tyrant. I wouldn't even be able to count on both of my hands the times that she's had meltdowns and tried to suppress users for little more than expressing offensive opinions. Ed and TC's role as mods were 50% controlling spam, and 50% getting Luna to come back to Earth when she went full Pol Pot.

And you didn't like that? You all enjoyed it.

 

In contrast, Good has a very laisse-faire attitude toward the community, which is what most of us wanted to begin with. We ran into some bumpy territory early on, but we're on some very solid ground at the moment. There were some issues with Cawk, but he's clearly in this thread and not posting offensive material. So there is no problem. Good can have his personal takes, which he's actual made very clear by saying he does not like a decent portion of the community. But he's not so one-dimensional that he always has to enforce his beliefs on everyone. That would be a Luna move.

This is like a hot chick describing his BFF, how he's nice, considerate, and gentle, before she fucks the exciting but abusive crack addict. Good just isn't very exciting. He's predictable, boring, and unchallenged.

 

Good is a programmer, and it's unlikely that this site costs him much. It's also probably a place where he can experiment, as he got that opportunity when DDoS was an issue. I talked to him yesterday, and he seems pretty content at this juncture.

That's the most disappointing thing I've heard here all week.

 

Perhaps you are just upset that you're not getting what you want.

Duh.

 

Turncoat said: 

It's more like four versions: The group's version, Cawk's version, the 'Luna the Abuse Victim' parody, and the 'Jim being nice to Cawk occasionally' version.

Can you give, like, a short 2-3 sentence summary for each?

 

 

Tryptamine said: 

I'm so unconcerned with formatting right now, so I'm stealing your formatting work in order to respond to Major.

Do you think that when Xadem is making sexual innuendos, he is being serious? Or like did you think he would talk to Luna about anal/fecal topics, that what he genuinely wanted was to observer or participate in any of that? Xadem blatantly uses shock humor, and I don't understand why people can't pick up on it, and some even become offended. I mean...are you genuinely of the mindset that Xadem got mad because he wasn't able to fuck her? Or is that just an ad hominem?

No, I don't think Xadem is serious when he's making sexual innuendos. Xadem couldn't bone Luna. He started the sexual innuendos, fecal topics and attention whoring after getting angry over being rejected. Every post screamed "if you refuse to notice me, I will make you notice me."

I hate when people break apart posts like this and respond line-by-line. Reason being, people end up just nitpicking over broken up statements, the general narrative is lost; a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation develops. So I am going to try to address you in a way that doesn't do that, but you're asking me a lot of very specific questions, so try to have a bit of patience with me.

Obviously I enjoyed Luna having meltdowns, I even accelerated some of them. There is no ambiguity about me being an obfuscator, or even a blatant antagonist at times. It was never my obligation to be kind to her, though I was quite often. I was perhaps even one of the kindest to her. There are a lot of mental games being played, even now. That's not even just the nature of a site; that's the nature of the world. It just happens to get displayed prismatically in environments where people want to observe such things.

You know, Luna thought she wanted that same thing. Until she realized that people on a site intended in principle for sociopaths (but mostly just a confrontational community) would not respect her. She was wrong all along, and probably too young to be associating with some of the folks that pass through. But again, I still respect what she did. And I actually think highly of Luna.

I think that you have a bad read on Good, I've been in the same communities as him for approximately 8 years. My experience of him is exactly why I came to him to help set all of this up. You can have a negative opinion of him if you want, but he basically materialized a new site for our community out of thin air, with no expectations. And if you ask SC members (except for maybe Ed), we all prefer how he handles things over Luna. But you think he is "betraying his ideas" or some shit like that, so you're upset.

The last thing I have to say in response to you is that Xadem has always employed that type of humor, and even continues to. Your calibration on his personality is a bit off.

Tryptamine said:

I hate when people break apart posts like this and respond line-by-line. Reason being, people end up just nitpicking over broken up statements, the general narrative is lost; a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation develops. So I am going to try to address you in a way that doesn't do that, but you're asking me a lot of very specific questions, so try to have a bit of patience with me.

It's always people who are easily distracted and/or with bad memory that seem to dislike people splitting apart their posts for their nuggets. 

I see splitting a post for it's content as useful for it's room to see the overall message, especially when it comes to splitting the wheat from the chaff for what portions are actually important. If you just respond to 'the overall message' it always misses things, typically just showing where the reader's eyes clung to the post while ignoring the rest of it, while a split shows the room to address each and every point made for their own individual merits. 

If someone makes three separate strong points, why not split it up instead of averaging out some rough impression? Your room for impressionism already has had you mistake events, so if anything splitting it apart should help you hold onto what they're trying to say (assuming you're even trying anyway). 

More often than not, those I see that bother to split a post apart tend to be the ones who are actually trying, even if that splitting is done in chainpost form for each quote like Turquie tends to do. Your complaint to me strikes me as just a lazy excuse to try to avoid the increased pressure to respond to each individual point that'd otherwise be there. 

Tryptamine said:

It was never my obligation to be kind to her, though I was quite often. I was perhaps even one of the kindest to her.

Starting to sound like Spatial a bit here. 

She was wrong all along, and probably too young to be associating with some of the folks that pass through.

Assuming Luna wasn't lying about her age. 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said:

I hate when people break apart posts like this and respond line-by-line. Reason being, people end up just nitpicking over broken up statements, the general narrative is lost; a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation develops. So I am going to try to address you in a way that doesn't do that, but you're asking me a lot of very specific questions, so try to have a bit of patience with me.

It's always people who are easily distracted that seem to dislike people splitting apart their posts for their nuggets. 

I see splitting a post for it's content as useful for it's room to see the overall message, especially when it comes to splitting the wheat from the chaff for what portions are actually important. If you just respond to 'the overall message' it always misses things, typically just showing where the reader's eyes clung to the post while ignoring the rest of it, while a split shows the room to address each and every point made for their own individual merits. 

If someone makes three separate strong points, why not split it up instead of averaging out some rough impression? Your room for impressionism already has had you mistake events, so if anything splitting it apart should help you. 

I think I managed to address everything that he just said within a cohesive narrative, and I highly doubt I'm the only person capable of doing that. There didn't seem to be much distraction there.

The thing I've noticed about when people choose to do that, is that things end up devolving into split up arguments over several things. And perhaps that is preferential to some, but not to me. Generally when I would do that in the past, my intention would purposefully be to create chaos out of the situation—not to reach a point of clarity. For the means of being clear, I think it is useful to point out particular quotes, but not to dissect each and every thing piece-by-piece.

The way that those conversations tend to flow into an oblivion of side-arguments is basically what demonstrates my point. And there is probably some utility in that; it's just not my preferred style of conversation when I think someone is being serious about something. Simply because too many tangents causes a lack of overall cohesion.