Sociopath Community

No, why more rules? We thrive on being the exception to the rule here.  

It is boundaries for Turquie and the bot option for me. I am not pro Pedo, but I dont seem to see a big problem here. I find Xadems spams funny and I don't think he is a pedophile. We already have a no CP rule. Some members troll or want to say edgy shit, but I do not really see a big pedo problem at the moment here. How would you define pedo positive talk? Making jokes? Dragoon wanting femboys or so? Even when Jim was here he was compliant and did not post cp. He made many bad and distasteful jokes but I have to admit I laughed about some of them. I would not be super against a rule related to pedo positive talk but I have concerns about finding a common defintion and how to enforce it. 

Xadem said: 

No, why more rules? We thrive on being the exception to the rule here.  

 The idea behind more rules was that it would be more welcoming to new members. A lot of active members seem to take some issues with the present climate as well. I am honest, I am put off by turquies shit spam, it is just too much and the forum is almost unusable for days when she's bumping Wakka Flocka.

I thought "no positive pedo talk" was something already instated.

Turq and bots are fucking annoying, but creating rules to limit a user's freedom of speech is icky.

The bots are pretty annoying, but letting users pretending to be bots keep spamming defeats any benefits of creating a rule for bots in the first place.

Ban pedo talk but no other rules added.

Friedrich said: 

Xadem said: 

No, why more rules? We thrive on being the exception to the rule here.  

 The idea behind more rules was that it would be more welcoming to new members. A lot of active members seem to take some issues with the present climate as well. I am honest, I am put off by turquies shit spam, it is just too much and the forum is almost unusable for days. 

 Imo, there could be a way to handle turq without creating a site wide rule just for her.

We could vote on a "standard practice" that isn't a set in stone rule etc

PastelPink said: 

Friedrich said: 

Xadem said: 

No, why more rules? We thrive on being the exception to the rule here.  

 The idea behind more rules was that it would be more welcoming to new members. A lot of active members seem to take some issues with the present climate as well. I am honest, I am put off by turquies shit spam, it is just too much and the forum is almost unusable for days. 

 Imo, there could be a way to handle turq without creating a site wide rule just for her.

We could vote on a "standard practice" that isn't a set in stone rule etc

 Isn't that just semantic cope?

Please ban turquie. I can't take her schizo posts anymore.

Ban the bots too.

People having schizo spam episodes should be timed out too like Med and Delora. Letting them spam a page is too lax imo.

PastelPink said: 

I thought "no positive pedo talk" was something already instated.

 

Turq and bots are fucking annoying, but creating rules to limit a user's freedom of speech is icky.

 

The bots are pretty annoying, but letting users pretending to be bots keep spamming defeats any benefits of creating a rule for bots in the first place.

 

Ban pedo talk but no other rules added.

I wasn't here for that decision. 

May I remind you that legalise childrape has been a staple slogan of the free speech of sc movement, which isn't even a movement it's an eternal imperative to protect what makes us absolutely unique, for which the broaching of taboo topics is a necessity