i'd like to add that ofc nothing will be made with the proper community approval
i actually forget i am the admin here and that people dont forget it like i do
Cheery bye!
Good said:If not, we can discuss it again then.Tell that to them when "later" comes.
People instead like to be quiet until one person speaks up, then all their bottles break at the same time and what they didn't want to be "the first" to say will all come out at once. If they were more willing to show group ideas sooner and negotiate through them instead of pretending to be above it until the last minute it wouldn't have to seem so explosive.That's when later comes. If no one cares enough, it is irrelevant.
Reducing the velocity of the incoming meteor strikes me as a better idea than just cleaning up where it's already hit.
They express how much they've "always cared" and how it's never their own fault and junk, so clearly if they "always cared" and "wanted something done sooner", a platform where they can feel heard before a spokesman stomps in to break the silence seems needed to keep it civil. I'd argue that could be fixed user-side though, as it's not anything that we're doing that's creating this weird outgroup fear of being "the first", but rather their own perceptions of themselves that's delaying and bottling so much.
Good said:Not to mention that by posting here you give passive attention to the spammer, as you have to shift through his spam and you look at it as you do.We could reincorporate the idea of OPs being able to conceal posts.
Yes, but the OP still has to see the post and I was imagining the main page with the child rape threads.
It'd still help for gray areas like gore posting, and it's another measure to keep it off the website alongside our effort.
People tend to trust or not trust links and unveiled posts based on the alias of the one blocked anyway. It's largely how "totally not Cawk guise" was unsuccessful in peddling CP to people through PMs and chat, as they already knew better.
I don't think anyone, except cawk, here really minds if the things I purposed are gone, in fact, most of the people will want that. And this is about the community right? What it wants.
It'd cause so many rifts and inspire so much trolling to handle things the wrong way, and changing things back is harder than it seems thanks to contextual implications and whatever other drama's surrounding that time.
Once we ban "pedo talk" without defining it as a saturation issue is the minute people specifically make accounts to spam the place with harmless material from it simply being talk. It'd immediately become the expected material for raids that can be justified as harmless, similarly to what EC had to deal with.
Seriously, we don't need a repeat of EC.
You are afraid to set up rules as if its a slippery slope towards more rules.
Correct, the original ideal was over having as few as possible.
Drawing lines has a tendency to lead to more lines.
But if the community agrees, why is it bad? Might just be the next step in the evolution of the community.
Because it'd break the mold that makes this place not just "other forums", a completely hypocritical existence compared to it's ideology instead of only somewhat of one. Past a point it'd not even be itself anymore even a little bit, and at that point I personally'd be asking why I'm even attending when "somewhere else probably offers more freedoms".
Past a point it'd serve to offer even more censorship than Luna if we're not careful about this.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
7/24/2019 2:04:16 PM
If you feel that you gotta ban me and jim in order to ban cawk, I'm all for it tbh.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
If you feel that you gotta ban me and jim in order to ban cawk, I'm all for it tbh.
Nah for real.
But also, I dont think you need to be making a list of people that dont want cawk here, it looks like you're trying to place the blame on them if he does get banned rather than just enforcing the agreed upon rules.
If you feel that you gotta ban me and jim in order to ban cawk, I'm all for it tbh.
Nah for real.
But also, I dont think you need to be making a list of people that dont want cawk here, it looks like you're trying to place the blame on them if he does get banned rather than just enforcing the agreed upon rules.
You would spin it that way, always have to see the worst in something.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
If you feel that you gotta ban me and jim in order to ban cawk, I'm all for it tbh.
Nah for real.
But also, I dont think you need to be making a list of people that dont want cawk here, it looks like you're trying to place the blame on them if he does get banned rather than just enforcing the agreed upon rules.
You would spin it that way, always have to see the worst in something.
Ah tc, that's so awful to say. Have you always seen me this way?
Good said:If not, we can discuss it again then.Tell that to them when "later" comes.
People instead like to be quiet until one person speaks up, then all their bottles break at the same time and what they didn't want to be "the first" to say will all come out at once. If they were more willing to show group ideas sooner and negotiate through them instead of pretending to be above it until the last minute it wouldn't have to seem so explosive.That's when later comes. If no one cares enough, it is irrelevant.
Reducing the velocity of the incoming meteor strikes me as a better idea than just cleaning up where it's already hit.
They express how much they've "always cared" and how it's never their own fault and junk, so clearly if they "always cared" and "wanted something done sooner", a platform where they can feel heard before a spokesman stomps in to break the silence seems needed to keep it civil. I'd argue that could be fixed user-side though, as it's not anything that we're doing that's creating this weird outgroup fear of being "the first", but rather their own perceptions of themselves that's delaying and bottling so much.
It doesn't matter what they say they did/thought in the past, so no reason to bring it up. That's just whining.
The reason it will be done later is that it is hard to anticipate everything and I am not really trying either.
Once people care, we change again.
Good said:Not to mention that by posting here you give passive attention to the spammer, as you have to shift through his spam and you look at it as you do.We could reincorporate the idea of OPs being able to conceal posts.
Yes, but the OP still has to see the post and I was imagining the main page with the child rape threads.
It'd still help for gray areas like gore posting, and it's another measure to keep it off the website alongside our effort.
People tend to trust or not trust links and unveiled posts based on the alias of the one blocked anyway. It's largely how "totally not Cawk guise" was unsuccessful in peddling CP to people through PMs and chat, as they already knew better.
Sure, but I feel like its a different issue since the OP still has to see the original spam and as a person who has posted topics, I don't like that either.
I don't think anyone, except cawk, here really minds if the things I purposed are gone, in fact, most of the people will want that. And this is about the community right? What it wants.
It'd cause so many rifts and inspire so much trolling to handle things the wrong way, and changing things back is harder than it seems thanks to contextual implications and whatever other drama's surrounding that time.
Once we ban "pedo talk"without defining it as a saturation issue is the minute people specifically make accounts to spam the place with harmless material from it simply being talk. It'd immediately become the expected material for raids that can be justified as harmless, similarly to what EC had to deal with.
Seriously, we don't need a repeat of EC.
Not acting towards what has to be done because of fear is defeatist. If you put in the rule itself that the mod can be subjective, which is absolutely normal, so there cant be calls for hypocrisy among the rational users. And the unfortunate, for some, truth is that the rational users are better and more.
Raids and such issues come to any community, even on SC where the rules were literary not to post illegal shit.
By this logic, murder should be legal, cause people will kill out of spite as well.
You must not be intimidated.
You are afraid to set up rules as if its a slippery slope towards more rules.
Correct, the original ideal was over having as few as possible.
Drawing lines has a tendency to lead to more lines.But if the community agrees, why is it bad? Might just be the next step in the evolution of the community.
Because it'd break the mold that makes this place not just "other forums", a completely hypocritical existence compared to it's ideology instead of only somewhat of one. Past a point it'd not even be itself anymore even a little bit, and at that point I personally'd be asking why I'm even attending when "somewhere else probably offers more freedoms".
Past a point it'd serve to offer even more censorship than Luna if we're not careful about this.
Censorship by itself is not a bad thing, it is how it's applied and why. Luna did it for herself and seemingly arbitrary.
We are discussing banning pro-pedo, child gore, and animal abuse. The truth is that these things are only used to drive people away and make them uncomfortable(unless the userbase is made up of such people, which it is not). And it is effective because it is tolerated and because of the nature of the content, as I explained earlier. If it is not tolerated, mass spamming won't have such an effect, because people will know they are not helpless about it and it will be removed.
I don't think a 100% anarchy is the best environment for something of value. The drawing of the lines here was triggered by the active disgust created by cawk. It was not triggered by the drawing of lines before.
There is a dangerous slope, as some people hinted at banning cawk himself, which while triggered by the disgust from his posts, it is also taken from the previous banning of jim on sight(this was triggered by the drawing of lines before). But we have managed to avoid this slope, for now, by noticing it. So we have to be able to do this again next time if there is a next time, which I hope there won't be.
We may just have a difference of opinion, but I think it's ridiculous to assume that banning pro-pedo talk, child and animal abuse means we are going to create many rules in the future. You and cawk don't seem to understand how this content affects less disordered people. It is not just an inconvenience and we are not here trying to remove this content on a whim or just because we are having a bad day.
Cheery bye!
last edit on
7/24/2019 2:57:50 PM
