Sociopath Community

Dress me up in satin, lay me down in a bed of roses🎶

Good said:

Not acting towards what has to be done because of fear is defeatist.

I'd call it cause and effect, ones with past references that serve as examples for the why. 

To rush in blindly is to be defeat-ed. 

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.

The minute you do that is the minute you justify Luna and Ed's modding styles, and allowing for poor behavior on a whim from mods has led to many community deaths. Having a protocol that mods are expected to follow helps with both the users gaining a set of straight forward expectations and for keeping mods under control. Should mods ever have to be deputized, straight-forward guidelines will make that less of a potential problem. 

The minute it becomes about the mod being able to do whatever it wants is the minute that it becomes a popularity contest with actions that can be justified over absolutely nothing. It's better to be smart about it before there's problems, especially when the problems risk becoming repetitions of history. 

Something needs to keep the mods in check, and a consistency basis through established norms is how to render it robotic and impersonal, as it ought to be. 

Raids and such issues come to any community, even on SC where the rules were literary not to post illegal shit.

It's different once you start targeting arbitrary legal stuff. "Illegal" takes no time at all to explain to people, while legal lets people see a lack of consequence in their actions. 

You must not be intimidated.

My arguing against the group when need be while otherwise not shutting down the discussion is my not being intimidated. I'm not going to let some short sighted feelings bring us back to blacklisting and witch hunts as long as there are better answers.

Him being on thin ice right now is also not intimidation, but rather establishment. When/if he fucks up this one final time, we'll be able to reference it forever. I'm not sitting here saying "it's hopeless", quite the opposite you're not only right here implementing developments, but these tools have been pretty damn great compared to what I'm used to, and I'm discussing this more so from the position of what to do with all of this power instead of how powerless we are. 

It really is a nice change of pace, Luna's forum really was me having to explain how I couldn't do anything, now it's merely principles discussions. 

We are discussing banning pro-pedo, child gore, and animal abuse.

I don't think a 100% anarchy is the best environment for something of value.

You and cawk don't seem to understand how this content affects less disordered people.

But this place is for disordered people who are notorious for committing vile crimes (read: site domain/title). Whoever is "less disordered" should go to Facebook or something, they're not meant to be here and site staff shouldn't sell out to please them.

There's plenty of sites where the rules stand as you describe them, alternatives for those who can't take the pressure here. Even if this site died due to inactivity because everyone had left as a result of gore and what-not, then it simply was meant to die. The place shouldn't be made softer.

If the site dies as a result of upholding its ideals, then it does and that is how it eventually should preferably.

SC dying because it followed its rules is the best possible death reason for it. Not some power tripping brat like Loona pulling the plug, going on ban sprees, or having power tripping mods. If Loona hadn't pulled the plug, S-C would've died eventually by lack of activity. A lot of people had dropped out due to their strict, imaginary rules.

For example, Blanc's shit-posting pisses me off a great deal too, I don't go full hypocrite and try to get imaginary rules created to have her banned.

Turncoat said: 

You and cawk don't seem to understand how this content affects less disordered people.

This is a disordered forum, it is literally named after a disorder and it's drawn in majority dark triad traits towards the community, and you are arguing in favor of removing things because they hurt people's feelings. This forum was built on the back of hurt feelings. 

This isn't some hugbox, and once it becomes that we might as well change the name. 

If it was called pedo community not SC, yes.
If this continues, at the end it will be you, cawk and the resurrected jim, posting alone, until someone like neg comes along as well. It will be a worthless forum.

I will personally not post on SC even more (again), if it continues, it is disgusting. MissC has also said she doesn't.

You put your vision of SC over the real SC. My vision of SC is much more rule-based, but I know this is not what the community wants, so I don't expect or say anything (practical) on the matter. I do however agree more with the real (current) SC, then the SC you want it to remain.

I will respond to the rest later.

And I do want to change the name personally.

Cawk said:

then it simply was meant to die.

...this is largely where I disagree.

While I do think that the website ought to not pander to it's lowest common denomenator, there are points where even the midgrounders and smaller demographics are otherwise on the same page. 

To be too rigid is to break, while to be too flexible is to burst. There is a balance in it with adaptation, but a focal point must be held to give it a sense of direction to keep pushing in spite of said adaptations for it's own survival. 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said:

then it simply was meant to die.

...this is largely where I disagree.

You say that, but your actions, or rather, lack of them don't.

I don't even try to hide that you're covering for me, because if this turns into a hug-box, you might as well ban me now.

You disagreeing with me means you're agreeing with Good's stance to add more rules that take away freedom.

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

You and cawk don't seem to understand how this content affects less disordered people.

This is a disordered forum, it is literally named after a disorder and it's drawn in majority dark triad traits towards the community, and you are arguing in favor of removing things because they hurt people's feelings. This forum was built on the back of hurt feelings. 

This isn't some hugbox, and once it becomes that we might as well change the name. 

If it was called pedo community not SC, yes.
If this continues, at the end it will be you, cawk and the resurrected jim, posting alone, until someone like neg comes along as well. It will be a worthless forum.

See, this is you being afraid (or accepting of it's death prematurely). 

If we find where all the right points are, we can maintain a freedom driven environment that continues to offer people something different without it being overwhelmed by some asshole that aims to take advantage of those freedoms. It's a matter of measurement that, once found, can force a very baseline conformity that otherwise doesn't censor much beyond the room for excess. 

We want an environment where anyone can say almost anything, and handling the excess is like dragging out the baby that won't stop crying so that we can continue with what we were talking about otherwise. 

I will personally not post on SC even more (again), if it continues, it is disgusting. MissC has also said she doesn't. 

You put your vision of SC over the real SC.

If I put my vision of SC over the community I wouldn't be the one trying to invite these discussions, I'd just be ruling with an iron fist. It is however worth fighting for the ideal this place once represented for as long as it can survive until the inevitable day we go the way of The Simpsons: Whitewashed and Flavorless. 

I do however agree more with the real (current) SC, then the SC you want it to remain.

That yet stands to be seen. We're right now seeing anti-Cawk hype, that is not the same thing as how much you're lumping together. 

This forum has fought for it's freedoms over and over, but they shouldn't have to go away over gore posting that's just weak. 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said:

then it simply was meant to die.

...this is largely where I disagree.

You say that, but your actions, or rather, lack of them don't.

I don't even try to hide that you're covering for me, because if this turns into a hug-box, you might as well ban me now.

You disagreeing with me means you're agreeing with Good's stance to add more rules that take away freedom.

I don't have to agree with his furthest extent of ideas to disagree with the place having to die being it's logical conclusion. 

Adaptation is inevitable, but it will be the "Death of SC" as we've otherwise experienced many times before. We're already living in a shadow of what it was, a shadow of a shadow of a shadow of a shadow of a shadow of a shadow of a shadow of a shadow of a shadow even, and it didn't die any more than whatever that one form of sea life is that builds off of the corpses of itself through budding. 

This place could become something I barely recognize in time, and I accept that. I don't have to like it, but having it die is an artistic idealization instead of the reality. I'm hoping that enough people here won't go for some crazy rules shit, and my effort will be to split that apart from the Anti-You hype. 

I'd propose, as a first step measure at least, to just clamp down on spam a bit more. We don't have to exactly define where the line between accepted spam and non-accepted spam is since the intention of our rules are clear (don't ruin the usability of the site) and Cawk is clearly pushing the envelope. He's also a repeat offender and should be targeted with less leniency than others' occasional spam. I'd also utilize timeouts as a punishment for spam, not bans or purges.

(We should also remove the loophole where we don't punish somebody we know broke our rules simply because they used a sock while doing it.)

After seeing how this change plays out we can decide whether we want to do more or not (for example, if people still feel there's too much pedo talk going on). The good thing about not being on Luna's SC anymore is that we can adapt much more quickly if we want to.

Inquirer said: 

I'd propose, as a first step measure at least, to just clamp down on spam a bit more. We don't have to exactly define where the line between accepted spam and non-accepted spam is since the intention of our rules are clear (don't ruin the usability of the site) and Cawk is clearly pushing the envelope.

Yes. 

I would still like to renegotiate the line for how much is spam though even out of puppets and normal users though, a topic shy of flooding the page is still a bit much imo. It seems like this sentiment's been matched by a few others in this topic in one form or another. 

He's also a repeat offender and should be targeted with less leniency than others' occasional spam. I'd also utilize timeouts as a punishment for spam, not bans or purges. 

The force logout according to Cawk apparently prevents logging back in for a little bit. 

(We should also remove the loophole where we don't punish somebody we know broke our rules simply because they used a sock while doing it.)

It was in place to stop witch hunt blame... but this situation has indeed been almost comically revealing of the perpetrator(s). 

After seeing how this change plays out we can decide whether we want to do more or not (for example, if people still feel there's too much pedo talk going on). The good thing about not being on Luna's SC anymore is that we can adapt much more quickly if we want to.

Yesssss. It's so nice to figure you're saying this stuff without you having read my posts. It gives me more confidence in our mod synergy. 

Censorship should be a last resort, not a common one, and the smallest measures possible to handle the situation are the most ideal. 

Cawk said:

For example, Blanc's shit-posting pisses me off a great deal too, I don't go full hypocrite and try to get imaginary rules created to have her banned.

Looking up this website in a google image search is like 90% "Girls Room" now... 

He's not even alone in that sentiment. While I stand by her right to do it and myself get much out of it at times, "Shut Up Blanc" didn't come out of nowhere, and a lot of people find me too lenient.