Sociopath Community

Turncoat said:

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.

I am disgusted by how, even NOW, you downplay the cancer that Cawk's been splattering here. I complained about this place turning into a pedo sewer literally two weeks after we settled in. I don't remember ONE day in which I came here and one of his child rape threads wasn't on the first 1-2 pages.

It benefits the community to uphold the freedoms here, even when they suck, until it hits a breaking point.

You're notorious for going doormatty and being horrendously ineffective when it comes to dealing with breaking points. I see no reason why this instance would be any different. I have zero trust that you'd effectively get your humping dog under control and away from dirtying our legs.

Edvard said: 

Turncoat said:

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.

I am disgusted by how, even NOW, you downplay the cancer that Cawk's been splattering here. I complained about this place turning into a pedo sewer literally two weeks after we settled in.

Appeal to emotion towards a hyped bandwagon, you aren't even trying to play fair. 

You otherwise ought to actually read what I'm saying instead of just blowing off the handle. You're ignoring context out of either convenience or stupidity. 

I don't remember ONE day in which I came here and one of his child rape threads wasn't on the first 1-2 pages.

How many? Just one? We agreed on a spam rule: Up to 19 topics isn't spam. As I've repeated we could renegotiate this, I think 19 is excessive, but what was agreed on by both users and mods was "as long as it doesn't fill the page". 

Or is this more about wanting to censor the "pedo talk", where even seeing "one" topic is too much for you? 

It benefits the community to uphold the freedoms here, even when they suck, until it hits a breaking point.

You're notorious for going doormatty and being horrendously ineffective when it comes to dealing with breaking points. I see no reason why this instance would be any different. I have zero trust that you'd effectively get your humping dog under control and away from dirtying our legs.

How we're handling it now's better compared to your methods, and Inq is onboard. 

You really can't stop singling me out, you need to work on that. 

Edvard said:

I don't remember ONE day in which I came here and one of his child rape threads wasn't on the first 1-2 pages.

Do you remember right now? 

There's only one pedo topic within the first three pages, and that's the one I've turned into a mega-thread for it. Why don't you just sit there and look pretty while we take things from here. That cool with you? 

 Yes, this is not about "spam" but about "spam with pedophile material".

Turncoat said: 

How we're handling it now's the better compared to your methods and Inq is onboard. 

How are you handling it? I see Cawk pedo filth in chat right now, and his threads will keep popping up if he believes he can hold the community hostage with its "principles", like he deludes himself it's worked so far.

Cawk needs a good scare right now. You should pray that his cowardice is bigger than yours right now, and decides to behave better from now on.

Turncoat said: 

Edvard said:

I don't remember ONE day in which I came here and one of his child rape threads wasn't on the first 1-2 pages.

Do you remember right now? 
 

I remember Cawk making 3-4 pedo threads less than 24 hours ago.

Edvard said: 

 Yes, this is not about "spam" but about "spam with pedophile material".

Turncoat said: 

How we're handling it now's the better compared to your methods and Inq is onboard. 

How are you handling it? I see Cawk pedo filth in chat right now, and his threads will keep popping up if he believes he can hold the community hostage with its "principles", like he deludes himself it's worked so far.

He's not doing it though, because he now sees that he can't. All he needed was a list of angry people and some last chance rhetoric, and if that still isn't enough it'll be handled one way or another. 

Cawk needs a good scare right now.

That's what's happening right now. 

You should pray that his cowardice is bigger than yours right now, and decides to behave better from now on.

Why? We can handle it either way quite easily. 

This is more about what path he wishes to take now that this topic's here as more-than a wake up call. Regardless of if he decides to play nice or not at this point the CP and spamming will be being handled regardless. 

Have some patience man, one way or the other it's done (save for the "pedo talk" situation, which as Inq has stated as well can be discussed and handled adaptively). 

So Ed, do you feel like having gore banned? 

I remember Cawk making 3-4 pedo threads less than 24 hours ago.

Do you still see them? 

Yes, this is not about "spam" but about "spam with pedophile material".

Where would you draw that line? What pedo speech is too pedo-y and what pedo speech isn't? You could easily be a part of those discussions. 

Inq and I are both on board with "Timeouts" instead of "Bans" over spam, that "pedo talk" volume is something to be weighed out overtime (and falls into my repetition clause for spam), and he had no objection to this last chance granted. 

I am firmly against making up more rules when it comes to how users here should behave. There will always be a way to go around the rules and achieve the same effect as breaking them, if that is the desire of a specific individual.

Turncoat said:

 

Edvard said:

I remember Cawk making 3-4 pedo threads less than 24 hours ago.

Do you still see them?

 I don't have to see them to remember them. This is a problem for every user here if your only intention is to clean up after this guy.

Edvard said: 

I am firmly against making up more rules when it comes to how users here should behave. There will always be a way to go around the rules and achieve the same effect as breaking them, if that is the desire of a specific individual.

What rules are we making up right now? 

Turncoat said: 

Edvard said: 

I am firmly against making up more rules when it comes to how users here should behave. There will always be a way to go around the rules and achieve the same effect as breaking them, if that is the desire of a specific individual.

What rules are we making up right now? 

You are TRYING to make up rules about what constitutes spam or pedo content. Which won't work, because there is no good way to define them in the first place.

Edvard said: 

Turncoat said:

Do you still see them?

 I don't have to see them to remember them. This is a problem for every user here if your only intention is to clean up after this guy.

If you're worried about merely witnessing the word "pedo" scarring your fragile little mind, then it's hopeless for you. Like really, what do you expect? 

Cleaning up afterwards is what a mod does, we can't mind control the guy, we can only respond based on what he's doing by the nature of us being the ones on Defense. 

You are TRYING to make up rules about what constitutes spam or pedo content. Which won't work, because there is no good way to define them in the first place.

I think it's moreover how it's too complicated for you to mull over in your head. You never really were capable of much complexity, but you don't need to project that onto others. 

I believe meanwhile it'd be a good idea to have an understanding of what spam is as a community instead, and I'm not alone there. As has been expressed, we're adaptive now, not stuck on year long development hiatuses for features we'd never asked for, and if what we define doesn't work we can work on it some more.