Sociopath Community

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

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?

It serves a directly practical purpose, and the way it can be done is in everyone's hands. All it does is reinvent the idea of how a topic works in ways that don't even censor the message. 

What does it bring except discouraging overall activity, or make people be fake and play nice?

You were on S-C, if anything it made people post more out of defiance instead of less out of defeat. 

It's liable to promote activity from both people who'd enjoy the function and those on the receiving end of it. 

Are you retarded? 

Does that matter? 

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.

It still doesn't contribute anything to the discussion really. 

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.

It's still a logical fallacy that hasn't contributed anything to your argument. 

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.

I split it so that you'd be more likely to answer the points. They're separate ones, and this one was pretty archaic. 

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.

So what's the practical benefit of that?

It sounds like you want users yelling at emptiness in case you might be there. Not only is that not really much of a boon, but you could accomplish the same confusion by switching your status to idle. 

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.

It actually hasn't, you just refer to things like company executives and non-reproducing 30 year olds, then try to make it about some sort of equality banner without having anyone rallied behind it or even a clear motivation for it shown. 

At this point it could be argued that you just want him to do extra work because it'd be funny. 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

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?

It serves a directly practical purpose, and the way it can be done is in everyone's hands. All it does is reinvent the idea of how a topic works in ways that don't even censor the message. 

We're back to square one!

1. Extra clicks

2. Some won't view hidden posts, fearing it's gore or some other gross shit, therefore it is censorship even with the option to view hidden posts.

3. Not everyone posts the same amount of topics, or gets the same amount of activity as others in them.

If I hid all of your posts in my topics, it'd affect you far more than if you did to me not only because my topic post ratio is far higher than yours, but you also tend to post in my topics often.

It's a shitty, unfair, not needed feature that shouldn't exist. It would benefit me much personally because I post a lot of topics, but you see, I want the best for everyone.

What does it bring except discouraging overall activity, or make people be fake and play nice?

You were on S-C, if anything it made people post more out of defiance instead of less out of defeat. 

 

Do you think people would admit they post less or of less quality in topics of certain users because of post hiding? I would, but anyone else? Likely not most.

It's liable to promote activity from both people who'd enjoy the function and those on the receiving end of it. 

Are you retarded? 

Does that matter? 

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.

It still doesn't contribute anything to the discussion really. 

narc

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.

It's still a logical fallacy that hasn't contributed anything to your argument. 

Literally my argument against your "you ad hominem w0w". Suddenly, it's not relevant because there's nothing you can counter with.

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.

I split it so that you'd be more likely to answer the points. They're separate ones, and this one was pretty archaic. 

Kids are life changing and important to have. You will understand one day.

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.

So what's the practical benefit of that?

 

It's been explained.

Benefits would be things like not having to log in from logged out lurker status just to reply to somebody in chat.

 

At this point it could be argued that you just want him to do extra work because it'd be funny. 

 Me? No way.

i dont really see a big issue with invis status

how active the site is irrelevant

but i dont want to change things without the forum agreeing, since i said i wont do that

Cawk said: 

 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?

People are more responsive to what they see (some online and idle users) as opposed to what they think might be there (invisible users). There are already people who claim "dead site," when it's fairly active in my opinion.

 

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.

It's functionally a relic from one of the ways Luna sought to get rid of CP. Now that those methods are outdated, so is the purpose of the thing. I acknowledged that it offers some convenience in my last post. When I look at things in terms of what is most useful to the site, I think the feature is a detriment. But that's not to say I'd be upset if it were implemented.

MC said:

On old SC it was not uncommon to have 40 fucked up,

No, we never were this many. I think at best there used to be about 10-15 really active members at once over a given period of time.

On Nabble we only had posts to interact with one another. But since the dynamics of the community increased towards the social game/bonds thing, and people became closer together via chat, skype, discord, etc... the idiotic idea of "rep", the necessity of mods, people like say Xadem and Turncoat/Crow maneuvering and forming "support groups" for "forum position" and "friendlships" that had no genuine admiration/appreciation but a "you cover my back I will cover yours" feel to it... well things changed.

I don't think all this is bad though, drama became more intense than ever, but sure, we have less mindfuck, fewer mindgames, less energy put into smart things or posts, or jokes and funny things... They are simply not rewarded and appreciated enough these days I suppose. The memes and keks are what's appreciated here, with upvotes, replies, etc. It's a pity, but people becoming more lazy here is not smth you can really criticize them for. Everyone here just wants to chill and enjoy their time here.

Cawk said:

The thing is, we're the new generation. Oldcast has moved on for the most part.

 LMAO, you are the closest to oldcast behavior there is nowadays, excluding the neurotic pedo postage, which you think is provoking, but is in fact purely reactive at this point.

Good said:

I cant do it in discord, because i cant pay attention to all that bullshit, its too fast, i have to sit there all the fucking time. I actually have other things to do. Like sitting here all the fucking time and keeping Primal out.

On topic, I see no point in mods having the ability to be invisible. Why are we still acting as if it's war when it's not. It's bad enough we have 4 people with powers to delete and censor and ban, as it is.

If anything, it would make more sense to keep the mods visible as online at all times.

 

Cawk said:

The thing is, we're the new generation. Oldcast has moved on for the most part.

 LMAO, you are the closest to oldcast behavior there is nowadays

How so? In what way?

Cawk said: 

 

Cawk said:

The thing is, we're the new generation. Oldcast has moved on for the most part.

 LMAO, you are the closest to oldcast behavior there is nowadays

How so? In what way?

You bite and don't let go. You will push things "too far" for people and don't hesitate to get into their real life to mess with them. You have no sense of "too much", and don't get into these hugboxes for comfort. You say what you want to say without fearing the social damage it could bring to you.

Edvard said: 

On Nabble we only had posts to interact with one another. But since the dynamics of the community increased towards the social game/bonds thing, and people became closer together via chat, skype, discord, etc... the idiotic idea of "rep", the necessity of mods, people like say Xadem and Turncoat/Crow maneuvering and forming "support groups" for "forum position" and "friendlships" that had no genuine admiration/appreciation but a "you cover my back I will cover yours" feel to it... well things changed.

You really don't think it was just people who, in tandem, had similar feelings? How much prior sorting do you think goes on for this stuff? The lengths you'll go to justify things... 

Who are you to say I don't appreciate my friends beyond having a support network? That's baselessly bold to say out of nowhere, especially when I don't mind challenging so much of the userbase in ways that should make it harder for me to have friends, not easier, plus I barely if at all even touched the hugbox poisons that actually were about having a support group (which is largely what branched into the current higher-than-thou apathy crowd that I'm principally against). 

Unlike you, I'm not afraid to shoot the shit through levity and roasting, while you're clearly the one who's afraid to do those things out of a character weakness. I'm thinking this might be more projection on your part, seeing as you're the one who can't "get real" with your friends while I expect it to happen as a part of said friendship.