Sociopath Community

Good said: 

1. If all pro-pedo talk based on emotion or without a debate/exchange of information to be banned(or posted repeatedly). Yes, this is subjective, so any pro-pedo talk left up is at the mercy of the mods, if this is applied.

What if it's said as a referential joke? 

Talking about it is less of an issue compared to the potential to flood the message. Talk is harmless, but oversaturation's another story. 

2. Ban of all child/animal abuse gore images posted for no other reason than shock value.

Why? 

I'd lean more towards some sort of relevancy clause, but that's it's own share of red tape that leads towards some potential slippery slopes. 

You do not negotiate with terrorists.

Diplomacy has had some surprising effects for slowing if not stopping some of them, but the time for diplomacy seems to be passing and the sole one making a fuss about it doesn't "want to negotiate with terrorists" either. 

I wanted it to work, he's otherwise interesting. 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

1. If all pro-pedo talk based on emotion or without a debate/exchange of information to be banned(or posted repeatedly). Yes, this is subjective, so any pro-pedo talk left up is at the mercy of the mods, if this is applied.

What if it's said as a referential joke? 

Talking about it is less of an issue compared to the potential to flood the message. Talk is harmless, but oversaturation's another story. 

If the mod decides it's not a joke then it's banned(or if its pro-pedo joke, then its no-no as well, according to the rule). Posting that joke will come with that risk. The mod does not need to justify himself either(I can post proof of the transgression if it's required).

2. Ban of all child/animal abuse gore images posted for no other reason than shock value.

Why? 

I'd lean more towards some sort of relevancy clause, but that's it's own share of red tape that leads towards some potential slippery slopes. 

Because it is disgusting and pointless. I personally do not like to post on this forum because of the environment these posts and images have created. It is enough that I let them be posted on my forum, in my database, with my money(I won't stop letting them be posted, but I don't like it and I don't want it and I don't have to like/want it). The only reason to keep them is to let the twat have his way, like he is a child, to indulge in the dynamic of what will happen if people are free. While those reasons are cool, they are not worth the trouble, as the people who post these images have little to offer, until they mature (and in the case of Jim, live to talk about it).
This is my reason. I expect other members to have similar reasons, however.

You do not negotiate with terrorists.

Diplomacy has had some surprising effects for slowing if not stopping some of them, but the time for diplomacy seems to be passing and the sole one making a fuss about it doesn't "want to negotiate with terrorists" either. 

I wanted it to work, he's otherwise interesting. 

There is no diplomacy when the other party has nothing to offer.

I only support a funban if we collectively agree not to speak of Cawk anymore afterwards as it would just fuel his fragile ego if we did 

Or something among those lines 

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

1. If all pro-pedo talk based on emotion or without a debate/exchange of information to be banned(or posted repeatedly). Yes, this is subjective, so any pro-pedo talk left up is at the mercy of the mods, if this is applied.

What if it's said as a referential joke? 

Talking about it is less of an issue compared to the potential to flood the message. Talk is harmless, but oversaturation's another story. 

If the mod decides it's not a joke then it's banned(or if its pro-pedo joke, then its no-no as well, according to the rule). Posting that joke will come with that risk. The mod does not need to justify himself either(I can post proof of the transgression if it's required).

Seems like it'd be on the backs of how quickly the mod's liable to use it as an excuse. I figure saturation's probably a generally good gauge. 

2. Ban of all child/animal abuse gore images posted for no other reason than shock value.

Why? 

I'd lean more towards some sort of relevancy clause, but that's it's own share of red tape that leads towards some potential slippery slopes. 

Because it is disgusting and pointless. I personally do not like to post on this forum because of the environment these posts and images have created.

This is intolerance. I get it for CP from it being illegal, but banning gore? What's next, scat? 

Again, I'd base it on saturation. The sheer repetition is the real milling factor. 

The only reason to keep them is to let the twat have his way, like he is a child, to indulge in the dynamic of what will happen if people are free.

Exactly, freedom isn't free. In order to have the freedom to do as you like, many costs come from seeing the potential for those freedoms be abused. To try to steer the community however through excessive rules just serves to make everyone behave in one carbon copy way. 

There is a point where one's freedoms tread on others though, and I'd say that that point is hit by sheer repetition. At least some variety offers more, even if that offer is itself potentially disturbing within the legal range. 

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” 

While those reasons are cool, they are not worth the trouble, as the people who post these images have little to offer, until they mature (and in the case of Jim, live to talk about it). 

Sometimes that's a waiting process that involves direct interaction with us until an epiphany is reached, the slow path. 

...there does come a point though where you have to ask yourself what costs are following such patience though. 

You do not negotiate with terrorists.

Diplomacy has had some surprising effects for slowing if not stopping some of them, but the time for diplomacy seems to be passing and the sole one making a fuss about it doesn't "want to negotiate with terrorists" either. 

I wanted it to work, he's otherwise interesting. 

There is no diplomacy when the other party has nothing to offer.

Their company as not-a-spammer counts as something to offer to me, and was furthered by seeing users like Jim and Sinister come around. 

Still, can't do nothing. Maybe after a long enough time things'll settle and the more peaceful route can try again. 

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

1. If all pro-pedo talk based on emotion or without a debate/exchange of information to be banned(or posted repeatedly). Yes, this is subjective, so any pro-pedo talk left up is at the mercy of the mods, if this is applied.

What if it's said as a referential joke? 

Talking about it is less of an issue compared to the potential to flood the message. Talk is harmless, but oversaturation's another story. 

If the mod decides it's not a joke then it's banned(or if its pro-pedo joke, then its no-no as well, according to the rule). Posting that joke will come with that risk. The mod does not need to justify himself either(I can post proof of the transgression if it's required).

2. Ban of all child/animal abuse gore images posted for no other reason than shock value.

Why? 

I'd lean more towards some sort of relevancy clause, but that's it's own share of red tape that leads towards some potential slippery slopes. 

Because it is disgusting and pointless. I personally do not like to post on this forum because of the environment these posts and images have created. It is enough that I let them be posted on my forum, in my database, with my money(I won't stop letting them be posted, but I don't like it and I don't want it and I don't have to like/want it). The only reason to keep them is to let the twat have his way, like he is a child, to indulge in the dynamic of what will happen if people are free. While those reasons are cool, they are not worth the trouble, as the people who post these images have little to offer, until they mature (and in the case of Jim, live to talk about it).
This is my reason. I expect other members to have similar reasons, however.

You do not negotiate with terrorists.

Diplomacy has had some surprising effects for slowing if not stopping some of them, but the time for diplomacy seems to be passing and the sole one making a fuss about it doesn't "want to negotiate with terrorists" either. 

I wanted it to work, he's otherwise interesting. 

There is no diplomacy when the other party has nothing to offer.

 It took Luna almost a year to come to the same conclusions and preferred path of action Good reached in a few months. I am loving this.

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

1. If all pro-pedo talk based on emotion or without a debate/exchange of information to be banned(or posted repeatedly). Yes, this is subjective, so any pro-pedo talk left up is at the mercy of the mods, if this is applied.

What if it's said as a referential joke? 

Talking about it is less of an issue compared to the potential to flood the message. Talk is harmless, but oversaturation's another story. 

If the mod decides it's not a joke then it's banned(or if its pro-pedo joke, then its no-no as well, according to the rule). Posting that joke will come with that risk. The mod does not need to justify himself either(I can post proof of the transgression if it's required).

Seems like it'd be on the backs of how quickly the mod's liable to use it as an excuse. I figure saturation's probably a generally good gauge. 

2. Ban of all child/animal abuse gore images posted for no other reason than shock value.

Why? 

I'd lean more towards some sort of relevancy clause, but that's it's own share of red tape that leads towards some potential slippery slopes. 

Because it is disgusting and pointless. I personally do not like to post on this forum because of the environment these posts and images have created.

This is intolerance. I get it for CP from it being illegal, but banning gore? What's next, scat? 

Of course its intolerance. Did you expect tolerance from me? People should not tolerate things, instead of the opposite. Tolerance is what ruins you. Do NOT tolerate the shit in your life.
Child gore and animal gore is different than the other ones. This is quite obvious as they are treated different all across the world.

Again, I'd base it on saturation. The sheer repetition is the real milling factor. 

It is, but I just find this compromise annoying, but I can settle for it if you can define it. I am just not interested in trying so hard for the sake of some bullshit.

The only reason to keep them is to let the twat have his way, like he is a child, to indulge in the dynamic of what will happen if people are free.

Exactly, freedom isn't free. In order to have the freedom to do as you like, many costs come from seeing the potential for those freedoms be abused. To try to steer the community however through excessive rules just serves to make everyone behave in one carbon copy way. 

There is a point where one's freedoms tread on others though, and I'd say that that point is hit by sheer repetition. At least some variety offers more, even if that offer is itself potentially disturbing within the legal range. 

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” 

Good, we can now start removing all liberty >:)
Not sure what you want me to do with this bit tho.

While those reasons are cool, they are not worth the trouble, as the people who post these images have little to offer, until they mature (and in the case of Jim, live to talk about it). 

Sometimes that's a waiting process that involves direct interaction with us until an epiphany is reached, the slow path. 

...there does come a point though where you have to ask yourself what costs are following such patience though. 

Well, I am not their mother or nanny to help the child grow.

You do not negotiate with terrorists.

Diplomacy has had some surprising effects for slowing if not stopping some of them, but the time for diplomacy seems to be passing and the sole one making a fuss about it doesn't "want to negotiate with terrorists" either. 

I wanted it to work, he's otherwise interesting. 

There is no diplomacy when the other party has nothing to offer.

Their company as not-a-spammer counts as something to offer to me, and was furthered by seeing users like Jim and Sinister come around. 

Still, can't do nothing. Maybe after a long enough time things'll settle and the more peaceful route can try again. 

The times it doesn't spam do not make up for it anymore. It is just pure cancer. Worthless, annoying and disgusting. Why would I want it or care for it?

Edvard said:

It took Luna almost a year to come to the same conclusions and preferred path of action Good reached in a few months. I am loving this.

 Is this a good or a bad thing?

People Who Want Cawk Gone:

• Blanc
  
• Good
  
• Spatial Mind
  
• Sintetika
  
• Edvard
  
• Wahoo
  
• Xadem
• Sturm88
• Spite? [link]
• PalePeach
• Misscommunication
• Kestrel
• C4
• Lena
  -----------------------
• RealCawkThough
• unpeu

1) How many topics on a page is spam?
We had settled on filling the page. I'd had it smaller, but that was negotiated away.

Keep or change? Daily topic creation having a cap essentially applies similarly to this. 

2) How do we judge what is "spam" for posts within topics?
We've fluctuated where we've stood on this many times, and as is the line's kinda murky.
I'll start with "Repetition". 

OPs being able to conceal posts in topics that anyone else could open up was a solution for this gray area in the past. Perhaps that ought to be resurrected? 

Otherwise what could we possibly go with for this mod-side? "Relevance"? "Effort"? We've got to avoid the singling out risk as much as we can to set a precedent for those who'd do the same later. 

3) Will he stop if he sees us getting more adamant about the CP stuff? 
He's on his last chance. 

Any takers on how long it'll last? 

Blanc said: 

Petition to ban, sign here. 

 

I'm really, really sick of seeing him. He makes too many threads. They're all about child porn. It's disgusting. 

 

I can't take it anymore. 

 

I also believe it's deterring other users from this site. 

 Agree

Sturm88 said: 

Blanc said: 

Petition to ban, sign here. 

 

I'm really, really sick of seeing him. He makes too many threads. They're all about child porn. It's disgusting. 

 

I can't take it anymore. 

 

I also believe it's deterring other users from this site. 

 Agree

 mmm *starts rubbing my nipples* what else do u agree with