Wait are we actually taking votes to ban cawk?
Discussing mod policy over how lax versus focused it ought to be is technically what's being discussed... but side tangents are inevitably personal when the offender is just that, singular. It's already enough people to warrant no longer being laid back about it, so your name on the list would just be to make it look bigger and otherwise be a joiner.
The yellow questions being answered would be nice too, but I expect it to be largely ignored over "Zomg they might ban Cawk".
It's more that I'm wondering if voting is what will ultimately make the final decision, which seems sorta unfair since if he is to be banned it should be purely because he cannot follow the agreed upon rules we've all came up with.
I'll answer them later I haven't fully read only skimmed a bit seeing the list of people feels more like a majority thing when really it should be mod decision.
Good said:so you just compare me to Luna, like SJW compare people to Hitler.That really is the perfect comparison. He did the same with "Ed-like" for a while.
Heh
Doesn't spam fall under the "do not mess with the usability of the site" rule. He's always spamming. Don't ban him, as annoying as he is that wouldnt be the SC way. Make it so he can only make 1 thread per day and only comment 1 line in the chat per half hour :D
Even if you don't want to ban for CP, and an expressed intent to rape minors-
can we at least get a little jurisdiction surrounding the issue of spam, which is a fair rule applied to everyone.
he is notorious for extreme spam, in the chat and in the threads. constantly.
to the point that it's nuisance. this is grounds for ban, and yet he still hasn't gotten one.
and if you really still won't ban, there should be a rule about pedophilia related posts to be kept to one thread, and no graphic avatars.
I second this. All pedo talk goes into 1 pedo master thread and his spam is controlled
Even if you don't want to ban for CP, and an expressed intent to rape minors-
can we at least get a little jurisdiction surrounding the issue of spam, which is a fair rule applied to everyone.
he is notorious for extreme spam, in the chat and in the threads. constantly.
to the point that it's nuisance. this is grounds for ban, and yet he still hasn't gotten one.
and if you really still won't ban, there should be a rule about pedophilia related posts to be kept to one thread, and no graphic avatars.
I second this. All pedo talk goes into 1 pedo master thread and his spam is controlled
Go on, what constitutes spam control?
This is related to my yellow questions.
Go on, what constitutes spam control?
This is related to my yellow questions.
Doesn't spam fall under the "do not mess with the usability of the site" rule. He's always spamming. Don't ban him, as annoying as he is that wouldnt be the SC way. Make it so he can only make 1 thread per day and only comment 1 line in the chat per half hour :D
Yep. I agree with OP. I'm rarely here cos I have no interest in hanging out on a pedo cesspit. It's boring. We went through this 2 years ago. The community made a new forum to continue, not to go back to the time when we lost most users cos they were sick of pedos and no one taking action.
Ya, ofc cuck will spaz and spam more if he's banned. So what? Why should we role over and tolerate one insecure loser with no creativity, no life and a loud voice.
Imo, we should have a no pedo policy that includes no CP or pedo talk. Period. Having pedos posting here deters other users.
"Sociopaths", if that's impt to you, aren't known for being tolerant. I see no reason to tolerate this bug any longer. He's a bore.
When luna finally implemented her control measures there was no more cp on the site and the little bug still hung around. He hid on puppets and behaved. Being allowed on SC means more to him than having him here does to us. So why role over and enable him? It just seems weak.
Edit: and I thought we had a no CP policy? You were banned if you post it. Just saying it was on another account is retarded if we know who did it.
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.
I think spam that involves pro-pedo talk or child/animal abuse is the problem. So posts that have no other value but shock value with this content should be considered spam. Only some disgusting cunts will like a forum with such content, if you are a disgusting cunt, then I understand why you don't mind, so the question is: is this a forum for disgusting cunts or not?
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.
I think that if your posts contain pro-pedo talk or child/animal abuse, you take the consequences and risk of posting such content, and the risks are that a mod might delete it. The way a user should look at it is that being allowed to post such content is at the mercy of the mods, it is not a right.
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?
Next time I believe Cawk has posted CP I will ban him. I've been tolerant enough.
