Sociopath Community

Edvard said: 

Cawk said:

You can't ban me without betraying your principles.

One should not cling to principles and rules, but purposes.

Purpose is inconsistent, and principles + rules are still enough in this case. At most the "number of topics until it's deemed spam" rule could be seen as a problem for allowing 19 topics in a row without it being seen as an issue. 

It was my purpose in this case to see if he could become a user, like many before who have, and with that purpose growing outdated it's shifting. The principles and rules meanwhile are still there, and going away from that purpose is what's having them be used as they were meant to be. 

In this case doing the right thing means me abandoning said purpose and descending purely onto protocol. 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Edvard said: 

Cawk said: 

It is up to GOOD to finally make Cawk's ban official. It is quite rare that so many people in this community agree on something, and strongly enough that they ACTIVELY COMMENT on it. It is only YOU now who struggle against a more forceful way to stop this disgusting behavior that we have to put up with, and YOU are not the community or that important in it to have any veto power.

 Why would I be banned, RetardEd? I don't post CP.

 You affect the functionality of this site. The community agrees that you do, and you are at the mercy of the community and its prosperity. You still don't get this, do you.

The rule is for the benefit of the community, and its purpose is whatever suits the community. You twisting it to favor a little man with a massive inferiority complex, goes against the very purpose of the rule.

This is not a popularity contest.

You can't ban me without betraying your principles.

...actually, we kind of can now based on your track record alone.

I had never received a warning for what I did, as such I assumed it was alright to do so.

You should've warned me earlier and I would've stopped sooner.

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Edvard said: 

Cawk said: 

It is up to GOOD to finally make Cawk's ban official. It is quite rare that so many people in this community agree on something, and strongly enough that they ACTIVELY COMMENT on it. It is only YOU now who struggle against a more forceful way to stop this disgusting behavior that we have to put up with, and YOU are not the community or that important in it to have any veto power.

 Why would I be banned, RetardEd? I don't post CP.

 You affect the functionality of this site. The community agrees that you do, and you are at the mercy of the community and its prosperity. You still don't get this, do you.

The rule is for the benefit of the community, and its purpose is whatever suits the community. You twisting it to favor a little man with a massive inferiority complex, goes against the very purpose of the rule.

This is not a popularity contest.

You can't ban me without betraying your principles.

...actually, we kind of can now based on your track record alone.

I had never received a warning for what I did, as such I assumed it was alright to do so.

You should've warned me earlier and I would've stopped sooner.

You assumed it was okay to post CP because you were never warned that it'd get you banned? 

For real? 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Edvard said: 

Cawk said: 

It is up to GOOD to finally make Cawk's ban official. It is quite rare that so many people in this community agree on something, and strongly enough that they ACTIVELY COMMENT on it. It is only YOU now who struggle against a more forceful way to stop this disgusting behavior that we have to put up with, and YOU are not the community or that important in it to have any veto power.

 Why would I be banned, RetardEd? I don't post CP.

 You affect the functionality of this site. The community agrees that you do, and you are at the mercy of the community and its prosperity. You still don't get this, do you.

The rule is for the benefit of the community, and its purpose is whatever suits the community. You twisting it to favor a little man with a massive inferiority complex, goes against the very purpose of the rule.

This is not a popularity contest.

You can't ban me without betraying your principles.

...actually, we kind of can now based on your track record alone.

I had never received a warning for what I did, as such I assumed it was alright to do so.

You should've warned me earlier and I would've stopped sooner.

You assumed it was okay to post CP because you were never warned that it'd get you banned? 

For real? 

 Correct, at least not my main account.

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Edvard said: 

Cawk said: 

It is up to GOOD to finally make Cawk's ban official. It is quite rare that so many people in this community agree on something, and strongly enough that they ACTIVELY COMMENT on it. It is only YOU now who struggle against a more forceful way to stop this disgusting behavior that we have to put up with, and YOU are not the community or that important in it to have any veto power.

 Why would I be banned, RetardEd? I don't post CP.

 You affect the functionality of this site. The community agrees that you do, and you are at the mercy of the community and its prosperity. You still don't get this, do you.

The rule is for the benefit of the community, and its purpose is whatever suits the community. You twisting it to favor a little man with a massive inferiority complex, goes against the very purpose of the rule.

This is not a popularity contest.

You can't ban me without betraying your principles.

...actually, we kind of can now based on your track record alone.

I had never received a warning for what I did, as such I assumed it was alright to do so.

You should've warned me earlier and I would've stopped sooner.

You assumed it was okay to post CP because you were never warned that it'd get you banned? 

For real? 

 Correct, at least not my main account.

You expect this to work? 

Turncoat said: 

Edvard said: 

Cawk said:

You can't ban me without betraying your principles.

One should not cling to principles and rules, but purposes.

It was my purpose in this case to see if he could become a user, like many before who have, and with that purpose growing outdated it's shifting. 

 You should not have any other purposes as mod other than the benefit of this community.

Cawk said:

I had never received a warning for what I did, as such I assumed it was alright to do so.

You should've warned me earlier and I would've stopped sooner.

HAHAHA is this the pathetic whimper of someone backing down now that the gun is at his temple? Spare us this crappy excuse, only a complete idiot would do the same thing that got him banned in the past, to the same people, and hope for a different result.

Edvard said: 

Turncoat said: 

Edvard said: 

Cawk said:

You can't ban me without betraying your principles.

One should not cling to principles and rules, but purposes.

It was my purpose in this case to see if he could become a user, like many before who have, and with that purpose growing outdated it's shifting. 

You should not have any other purposes as mod other than the benefit of this community.

Ed, the people you don't like are still members of the community, and during much of you not being here there was little spam (under the agreed limits) and until very recently there'd been no CP. You haven't even been around, so you have no actual context to relate this to other than "the good ol' days" and some Misscomm hype following emotional sentiments against him from a variety of directions that aims to use the actual problem he's been to scapegoat him out for their own individual convenience reasons.

He towed the line as it was stated, but pissed off people at the same time, and having him voted off like this is the show Survivor or some shit goes against everything we've stood for. To act like this "CAWK NEEDS TO GO NAO" topic was a loud public outcry before this topic is to ignore the timeline for your own short term conveniences. Prior to this lynchmob situation, we'd been instead focusing on stuff like Shifty, Luna, Jim, etc, and most of the Cawk complaints were over little shit vocalized from isolated pockets. 

Meta was perfectly comfortable with "as long as the CP isn't left on here" and "he can spam as much as he wants, I don't care", but I guess that's changed as of fairly recently, at least out loud. Inquirer is still on board with proper protocols as well, so I can only think at this point that you're aiming to continue to single me out out of spite and some believed sense of convenience. 

It benefits the community to uphold the freedoms here, even when they suck, until it hits a breaking point. We're dealing with that breaking point as of the 23rd, and so far things have been fine with mine and Inquirer's choice to ramp it up a tiny bit and otherwise keep it adaptive not through reflexive decisions, but by decided upon protocols. The tools here are magnificent, not like Luna's at all, so it's really more a matter of discussion with the community to see where things stand. 

I saw you in chat promoting how "gore is harmless" for instance, over Cawk's dead baby avatar? Read what others have been saying lately. We follow "the community" in it's emotional nearsightedness plain and simple and stuff like gore's liable to be removed too. 

There's seriously people getting in a tizzy over animal corpses right now. 

Cawk said:

I had never received a warning for what I did, as such I assumed it was alright to do so.

You should've warned me earlier and I would've stopped sooner.

HAHAHA is this the pathetic whimper of someone backing down now that the gun is at his temple? Spare us this crappy excuse, only a complete idiot would do the same thing that got him banned in the past, to the same people, and hope for a different result.

...yeah I don't know what he was expecting with that one. 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Edvard said: 

Cawk said: 

It is up to GOOD to finally make Cawk's ban official. It is quite rare that so many people in this community agree on something, and strongly enough that they ACTIVELY COMMENT on it. It is only YOU now who struggle against a more forceful way to stop this disgusting behavior that we have to put up with, and YOU are not the community or that important in it to have any veto power.

 Why would I be banned, RetardEd? I don't post CP.

 You affect the functionality of this site. The community agrees that you do, and you are at the mercy of the community and its prosperity. You still don't get this, do you.

The rule is for the benefit of the community, and its purpose is whatever suits the community. You twisting it to favor a little man with a massive inferiority complex, goes against the very purpose of the rule.

This is not a popularity contest.

You can't ban me without betraying your principles.

...actually, we kind of can now based on your track record alone.

I had never received a warning for what I did, as such I assumed it was alright to do so.

You should've warned me earlier and I would've stopped sooner.

You assumed it was okay to post CP because you were never warned that it'd get you banned? 

For real? 

 Correct, at least not my main account.

You expect this to work? 

You take actions subjectively now too. How are you different from Eduard or Inq? You've already lost, even with CP stopping to be posted.

CP could stay up for days and still not get the site in trouble, even if reported immediately upon posted.

Think of it as an imaginary countdown: CP has to have stayed up for X amount of time to be eligible for law enforcement action towards the site host (I'd say a week, at least).

In other words, you're overreacting. Other than shock value, it's not different from dox information. Both could get the site in trouble if left up for long periods of time.

Cawk said:

I had never received a warning for what I did, as such I assumed it was alright to do so.

You should've warned me earlier and I would've stopped sooner.

HAHAHA is this the pathetic whimper of someone backing down now that the gun is at his temple? Spare us this crappy excuse, only a complete idiot would do the same thing that got him banned in the past, to the same people, and hope for a different result.

 This is not the same management.

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said: 

Edvard said: 

Cawk said: 

It is up to GOOD to finally make Cawk's ban official. It is quite rare that so many people in this community agree on something, and strongly enough that they ACTIVELY COMMENT on it. It is only YOU now who struggle against a more forceful way to stop this disgusting behavior that we have to put up with, and YOU are not the community or that important in it to have any veto power.

 Why would I be banned, RetardEd? I don't post CP.

 You affect the functionality of this site. The community agrees that you do, and you are at the mercy of the community and its prosperity. You still don't get this, do you.

The rule is for the benefit of the community, and its purpose is whatever suits the community. You twisting it to favor a little man with a massive inferiority complex, goes against the very purpose of the rule.

This is not a popularity contest.

You can't ban me without betraying your principles.

...actually, we kind of can now based on your track record alone.

I had never received a warning for what I did, as such I assumed it was alright to do so.

You should've warned me earlier and I would've stopped sooner.

You assumed it was okay to post CP because you were never warned that it'd get you banned? 

For real? 

 Correct, at least not my main account.

You expect this to work? 

You take actions subjectively now too. How are you different from Eduard or Inq? You've already lost, even with CP stopping to be posted. 

...not only can we infer that it was obviously you posting, but you've even admitted to it directly with the Alena account and anywhere between admissions and allusions otherwise. 

I can objectively say there's been CP here, there's been spam (within guidelines after a point), and that you're on record pleading guilty to it for puppets and had no room to plead at all whenever you "trolled" on your main. It's not even just mere inference anymore (but damn did you make it transparent), this is enough without even having to factor in S-C. 

CP could stay up for days and still not get the site in trouble, even if reported immediately upon posted.

Protest as much as you like, it's still against the rules and there's miles of history and context behind it. Rolling the dice on some believed idea of a safety duration is not only recklessly sloppy, it only serves one person who's overall aim has been destructive in the first place. 

SC overall isn't anarchy, it's libertarian. It's not "no rules anything goes", it's "enough rules to let us all do our own thing". 

Think of it as an imaginary countdown: CP has to have stayed up for X amount of time to be eligible for law enforcement action towards the site host (I'd say a week, at least).

No, that's retarded. 

In other words, you're overreacting. Other than shock value, it's not different from dox information. Both could get the site in trouble if left up for long periods of time.

Doxes are taken down at the request of it's relevant person, we won't keep it up if they don't want it and let that desire be known.