Sociopath Community

Cawk said: 

Going by the retards' logic who argue the site would look dead with an invisible status therefore do not want it, all statuses but online would be removed if we listened to them.

Since you decided to add various statuses and keep them, those who argue the site would look dead with an invisible status should be dismissed from your view.

You added statuses, you should've added all of them, including the invisible one. Discord/Skype, etc. do not have it for no good reason.

No, I never said anything about idle, etc. Things are fine as they are now, I only suggested that the invisibility function could be removed. Consider the following:

A. All people are allowed to have it. A number of people likely begin to use that instead of merely idling, causing the site to look barren.

B. Things are kept as they are (clearly you don't want that).

C. If all can't have it, then none can have it.

Sure, with option A you get something more convenient than having to log in and out & you get to use the chat without appearing on the user list. I'm just looking at things from a utilitarian point of view.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Cawk is the only proponent of this ridiculous measure and as such we're safe to dismiss it. 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

So you... 

---

1) Want a block function and invisibility function so that people can ignore you more easily. 

Block function has been here all along, we just didn't know about it.

You haven't answered an important question: What harm could I cause with a puppet army in invisible mode?

I don't claim to know all the answers, it's just the first thing that comes to mind. 

2) Don't want a hide posts function so that they can't ignore you as easily. 

---

I don't get it, do you want to be seen or don't you? The ones who wouldn't click to see what you're saying are liable to be the same people that'd be blocking you, right? 

Switching to invisible status is voluntary, and having your posts hidden by others is involuntary.

Is it a big enough deal though? 

It is.

Some guy who doesn't have kids in his 30s, lives with his parents and off their money convinced you not to add it?

I know, that was ice cold but it's the truth and the fastest way to bring you back on earth. It's not about number of votes when people of this nature make up the majority of user-base, it's about logic.

Actually, that's called ad hominem. None of that has to do with forum policies, this is just a jab at life circumstances (inaccurate ones at that, I live off the government tyvm). 

Who in the modern age even judges someone by if they have kids or not by a certain age anyway? 

Narcissistic that you thought I was talking about you there, the description doesn't even match you, nor was my post in reply to you. lol

>Some guy who doesn't have kids in his 30s, lives with his parents and off their money

A person who fits this description, is objectively a failure, who likely, has little intelligence, therefore, it is relevant to the discussion.

I cover my points without explaining every single detail of my thinking up-front like an autist, meanwhile you make up scenarios in your head that don't even make sense to you. Try to keep up.

The site does also look more dead with most of the logged in users being in idle status all the time. Going by the retards' logic who argue the site would look dead with an invisible status therefore do not want it, all statuses but online would be removed if we listened to them.

It shows that they've been on at all within the last quarter-day, right? 

That means they can count on the increased likelihood of them responding somewhere within the next 24 hours, unlike a completely empty roster selling that it's empty and not worth the effort at all. 

You wouldn't be able to tell who is present and who isn't if there was an invisible feature available for everyone, unless the person was in a visible status.

So how would it discourage activity?

You added statuses, you should've added all of them, including the invisible one. Discord/Skype, etc. do not have it for no good reason.

You still can't seem to explain why it's needed, or even why you personally want it. 

Does anyone else even want it? How much of a demand is there for it?

So you think you're smarter than Discord and Skype executives, being okay with having all statuses but the invisible one? Can you get any more narcissistic? xD

Tryptamine said: 

Cawk said: 

Going by the retards' logic who argue the site would look dead with an invisible status therefore do not want it, all statuses but online would be removed if we listened to them.

Since you decided to add various statuses and keep them, those who argue the site would look dead with an invisible status should be dismissed from your view.

You added statuses, you should've added all of them, including the invisible one. Discord/Skype, etc. do not have it for no good reason.

No, I never said anything about idle, etc. Things are fine as they are now, I only suggested that the invisibility function could be removed. Consider the following:

A. All people are allowed to have it. A number of people likely begin to use that instead of merely idling, causing the site to look barren.

B. Things are kept as they are (clearly you don't want that).

C. If all can't have it, then none can have it.

Sure, with option A you get something more convenient than having to log in and out & you get to use the chat without appearing on the user list. I'm just looking at things from a utilitarian point of view.

 You wouldn't be able to tell who is present and who isn't if there was an invisible feature available for everyone, unless the person was in a visible status.

So how would it discourage activity?

---

I'm very much in favor of A, everyone should have it. I'm fine with C, if everyone can't have it, nobody should. B = riot.

The invisible option that's being downplayed here can be reversed onto the mods. If we're expected to log in from lurking just to send a message in chat, mods should do the same just to take mod action.

But I hope even those who can't think properly comprehend this: If invisible status had no use like Turncoat claims, mods wouldn't have it in the first place. It's as simple as that.

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

So you... 

---

1) Want a block function and invisibility function so that people can ignore you more easily. 

Block function has been here all along, we just didn't know about it.

You haven't answered an important question: What harm could I cause with a puppet army in invisible mode?

I don't claim to know all the answers, it's just the first thing that comes to mind. 

2) Don't want a hide posts function so that they can't ignore you as easily. 

---

I don't get it, do you want to be seen or don't you? The ones who wouldn't click to see what you're saying are liable to be the same people that'd be blocking you, right? 

Switching to invisible status is voluntary, and having your posts hidden by others is involuntary.

Is it a big enough deal though? 

It is.

Why? 

Some guy who doesn't have kids in his 30s, lives with his parents and off their money convinced you not to add it?

I know, that was ice cold but it's the truth and the fastest way to bring you back on earth. It's not about number of votes when people of this nature make up the majority of user-base, it's about logic.

Actually, that's called ad hominem. None of that has to do with forum policies, this is just a jab at life circumstances (inaccurate ones at that, I live off the government tyvm). 

Who in the modern age even judges someone by if they have kids or not by a certain age anyway? 

Narcissistic that you thought I was talking about you there, the description doesn't even match you, nor was my post in reply to you. lol

>Some guy who doesn't have kids in his 30s, lives with his parents and off their money

The majority of it fits my situation. The only part of it that doesn't is "off their money", and it's not like they haven't assisted me in the past. 

A person who fits this description, is objectively a failure, who likely, has little intelligence, therefore, it is relevant to the discussion.

A) "Actually, that's called ad hominem. None of that has to do with forum policies, this is just a jab at life circumstances"

B) "Who in the modern age even judges someone by if they have kids or not by a certain age anyway?"

The site does also look more dead with most of the logged in users being in idle status all the time. Going by the retards' logic who argue the site would look dead with an invisible status therefore do not want it, all statuses but online would be removed if we listened to them.

It shows that they've been on at all within the last quarter-day, right? 

That means they can count on the increased likelihood of them responding somewhere within the next 24 hours, unlike a completely empty roster selling that it's empty and not worth the effort at all. 

You wouldn't be able to tell who is present and who isn't if there was an invisible feature available for everyone, unless the person was in a visible status.

So how would it discourage activity?

It's been explained. 

You added statuses, you should've added all of them, including the invisible one. Discord/Skype, etc. do not have it for no good reason.

You still can't seem to explain why it's needed, or even why you personally want it. 

Does anyone else even want it? How much of a demand is there for it?

So you think you're smarter than Discord and Skype executives, being okay with having all statuses but the invisible one? Can you get any more narcissistic? xD

So... you can't explain it then?

You still can't seem to answer the question, and otherwise are acting pretty dodgy when asked. 

But I hope even those who can't think properly comprehend this: If invisible status had no use like Turncoat claims, mods wouldn't have it in the first place. It's as simple as that.

So because it exists, that denotes it's usefulness?

This is like saying that admins and mods being able to change the text under "Sociopath Community" is an unfair breach of power. 

Xadem said: 

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Cawk is the only proponent of this ridiculous measure and as such we're safe to dismiss it. 

 Going by the majority's vote has heavily hurt the community as opposed to usage of logic.

Cawk said: 

Xadem said: 

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Cawk is the only proponent of this ridiculous measure and as such we're safe to dismiss it. 

Going by the majority's vote has heavily hurt the community as opposed to usage of logic.

How so in this case?

Cawk said: 

Xadem said: 

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Cawk is the only proponent of this ridiculous measure and as such we're safe to dismiss it. 

 Going by the majority's vote has heavily hurt the community as opposed to usage of logic.

 

 Just because the majority agrees on something doesn't mean that it's sheepish behaviour or a stupid decision. That's a contrarian way of looking at it and just as bad. 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

So you... 

---

1) Want a block function and invisibility function so that people can ignore you more easily. 

Block function has been here all along, we just didn't know about it.

You haven't answered an important question: What harm could I cause with a puppet army in invisible mode?

I don't claim to know all the answers, it's just the first thing that comes to mind. 

2) Don't want a hide posts function so that they can't ignore you as easily. 

---

I don't get it, do you want to be seen or don't you? The ones who wouldn't click to see what you're saying are liable to be the same people that'd be blocking you, right? 

Switching to invisible status is voluntary, and having your posts hidden by others is involuntary.

Is it a big enough deal though? 

It is.

Why? 

Why give normal members the ability to hide each other's posts, shadow posts that are completely within the rules? What does it bring except discouraging overall activity, or make people be fake and play nice? Are you retarded?

Some guy who doesn't have kids in his 30s, lives with his parents and off their money convinced you not to add it?

I know, that was ice cold but it's the truth and the fastest way to bring you back on earth. It's not about number of votes when people of this nature make up the majority of user-base, it's about logic.

Actually, that's called ad hominem. None of that has to do with forum policies, this is just a jab at life circumstances (inaccurate ones at that, I live off the government tyvm). 

Who in the modern age even judges someone by if they have kids or not by a certain age anyway? 

Narcissistic that you thought I was talking about you there, the description doesn't even match you, nor was my post in reply to you. lol

>Some guy who doesn't have kids in his 30s, lives with his parents and off their money

The majority of it fits my situation. The only part of it that doesn't is "off their money", and it's not like they haven't assisted me in the past. 

That was definitely narcissistic of you, you caught me off guard thinking it was about you.

A person who fits this description, is objectively a failure, who likely, has little intelligence, therefore, it is relevant to the discussion.

A) "Actually, that's called ad hominem. None of that has to do with forum policies, this is just a jab at life circumstances"

It served the purpose of weeding out retards to reach an end to the discussion more quickly.

B) "Who in the modern age even judges someone by if they have kids or not by a certain age anyway?"

Why are you dismantling the description? It was about having all points simultaneously.

 

The site does also look more dead with most of the logged in users being in idle status all the time. Going by the retards' logic who argue the site would look dead with an invisible status therefore do not want it, all statuses but online would be removed if we listened to them.

It shows that they've been on at all within the last quarter-day, right? 

That means they can count on the increased likelihood of them responding somewhere within the next 24 hours, unlike a completely empty roster selling that it's empty and not worth the effort at all. 

You wouldn't be able to tell who is present and who isn't if there was an invisible feature available for everyone, unless the person was in a visible status.

So how would it discourage activity?

It's been explained. 

For example, if somebody sent something in chat 2 hours ago but isn't in visible status, you would not reply to them thinking they're offline, or you would reply to them thinking they're present in invisible status. It goes both ways.

You added statuses, you should've added all of them, including the invisible one. Discord/Skype, etc. do not have it for no good reason.

You still can't seem to explain why it's needed, or even why you personally want it. 

Does anyone else even want it? How much of a demand is there for it?

So you think you're smarter than Discord and Skype executives, being okay with having all statuses but the invisible one? Can you get any more narcissistic? xD

So... you can't explain it then?

You still can't seem to answer the question, and otherwise are acting pretty dodgy when asked. 

 It's been explained.

Xadem said: 

Cawk said: 

Xadem said: 

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Cawk is the only proponent of this ridiculous measure and as such we're safe to dismiss it. 

 Going by the majority's vote has heavily hurt the community as opposed to usage of logic.

 Just because the majority agrees on something doesn't mean that it's sheepish behaviour or a stupid decision.

Here, most of the time, it IS.

That's a contrarian way of looking at it and just as bad. 

 It's not when literally nobody else cares or is not on the same page as me, because they don't want change.