Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

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.

You do not suggest an alternative, you suggest we just cower in fear. I see no alternative, therefore I think it is best to act if the deterrent is just possible raids.

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.

The community will keep mods in check. And it is unrealistic to not be subjective, it is the same in the legal sphere, where people are trying their best to be objective. But if you insist, the alternative is to ban it altogether. I am proposing a better solution.

You must trust the mods you pick in the first place anyway.

Mods need to be able to make judgment calls and live with the consequences, which to be real, are not so big on this site.

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. 

It just opens more people to do be able to raid. We are not the first and only community, somehow other communities survive raids...

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.

You sounded intimidated by possible raiders.

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. 

This is the power we have, but its not the power the users of the site have. They have no direct control, only indirect thought me and the mods.

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

I suppose this could be made into it's own topic. I don't like it not being allowed, and I expect I won't be the only outspoken one on the issue, but in a created topic specifically about this I might find myself surprised (and disappointed honestly over the gore/abuse portion). 

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

It's not anarchy, it's libertarian. 

 

 

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.

It's censorship plain and simple, and eventually something else will be the next "annoying thing". 

Before you know it it'll just be another forum with the usual rules, and people who want the freedom to say things that might hurt someone else will have to be found elsewhere. This challenge is worth it for, as Kestrel put it, "it's principles". 

It is not an annoying thing, it's a complete throw off. I have purposively seen shocking material and nothing cawk has posted is new to me. But I do not like it and I am tired of seeing it. It has no purpose. It is the spam thats the problem, but its also the content. If its spam of other content, it is less effective.

It does not hurt my feelings. I just have no motivation to be here. Because the content is useless and repulsive. He is not attacking me, he is just repulsive.

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. 

How many people have to disappear?
It is one thing to attack a person and troll them, but it is another to just be a repulsive twat. What cawk calls trolling is not trolling, its just stupid spam.

This is not what SC was when I joined. It had interesting people and dynamics. And I hated them a lot at the end for their behavior, but they were not just plain repulsive(except maybe instrument). You don't see me calling for a ban on their behavior, do you? It is the repulsive useless crap, like shit on the floor, that I want to go.

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. 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.

ok
but I think the content of the spam matters as well
I've not heard anyone disagree with this, only disagreements that it shouldn't be a complete ban?

Turncoat said: 

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. 

So you're doing PR.

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. 

 We need a wave of thick skinned users. Not these fucking cat loving normie tier ass niggas, they shouldn't even have the right to vote for a place named "Sociopath Community". The place is swarmed by them, it's frustrating.

Even here, I feel like there's nobody similar to me.

there isnt anyone as repulsive as you, no

thats my entire point

Good said: 

there isnt anyone as repulsive as you, no

thats my entire point

Do you not realize that is the reason why I slaughter users here like cattle, burn bridges and/or play malicious mind-games with them? The only way normies can make me feel good is by showing me contempt. Their friendship means nothing to me, it has no value whatsoever.

If there was anyone twisted like me here, I'd actually try to be friends with them, and as result, contribute to the site better. With enough users like that, the place wouldn't be "overwhelmed by some asshole that aims to take advantage of those freedoms." as Turncoat described me.

I don't only take advantage of those freedoms, I also take advantage of the fragile normie users we have.

Cawk said: 

Good said: 

there isnt anyone as repulsive as you, no

thats my entire point

Do you not realize that is the reason why I slaughter users here like cattle, burn bridges and/or play malicious mind-games with them? The only way normies can make me feel good is by showing me contempt. Their friendship means nothing to me, it has no value whatsoever.

If there was anyone twisted like me here, I'd actually try to be friends with them.

 

You would be a fool if you did try that.

you don't slaughter anyone, you just repulse them

when you are not posting shit, you are just like the other members 

>you don't slaughter anyone, you just repulse them

I've probably run more users off the site with mind games than Edvard has by posting their doxes. XD

Xena is one of them.

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

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. 

So you're doing PR.

No, I'm just defeatist in this regard. I don't think that my feelings are this place's backbone, I just have a decent amount of stock. 

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. 

 We need a wave of thick skinned users. Not these fucking cat loving normie tier ass niggas, they shouldn't even have the right to vote for a place named "Sociopath Community". The place is swarmed by them, it's frustrating.

Even here, I feel like there's nobody similar to me.

They never had the skin for it, just ignorance to the contrary until it was challenged. 

This was a while ago, back during Dexter's time. Much of our sense of whimsy has survived, but the illusion of badassery left around the time that someone claiming they were ASPD became passe. 

Cawk said: 

>you don't slaughter anyone, you just repulse them

I've probably run more users off the site with mind games than Edvard has by posting their doxes. XD

Xena is one of them.

 if you say so, I don't really know of any instances, but I didnt pay attention either

but since I have paid attention(basically since this SC started), the only distinguishing feature you have than others is your ability to be extra repulsive
i mean, you are different like everyone are different from each other, but the one thing that stands out is that.

Good said:

No rules is anarchy and you are against even the smallest amount, beyond what is truly limiting (legal stuff). The model now is libertarian, but you prefer anarchy is what i meant.

---

Like everyone moderating their posts is a definite form of anarchy(not that I am against it, but its an example).

I'd say that's libertarian still. Anarchy would be if anyone could block anyone's posts in a topic, while Libertarian has the topic poster be the one in control of it's goings on like tending the garden at their house. 

I definitely prefer a more libertarian model. I think we need to be left alone to be ourselves until what's being done truly crosses a line, making for topics like this one. Anarchy would be giving everyone mod tools and saying "Lets see what happens". 

Cawk said:

If there was anyone twisted like me here, I'd actually try to be friends with them, and as result, contribute to the site better.

With enough users like that, the place wouldn't be "overwhelmed by some asshole that aims to take advantage of those freedoms." as Turncoat described me. 

...yeah, it'd be more overwhelmed, by a group of them instead, all backing each other up and patting each other on the back for making people leave like it was before. 

I mostly try to keep that lot around to see if they'll come around and be normal users. Many of them do, so chances have proven worth giving in the past, but there's a point where to do nothing is no longer an option.