Get rid of the shit, valueless threads he makes. If anything or even nothing takes it's place it's a better move for the forum.
The line should be drawn on the deletion of topics if it's multiple clickbait threads with an emphasis on making people reactionary. I'd put a thread limit at 3 per day on him, or on anyone in general tbh.
Yes, let's censor trolling and turn this into a place for nerds, where only highly intellectual discussions must happen.
While I do appreciate the sudden outpour of togetherness, as per usual it's over a common enemy. We need to be careful during these times or we'll risk sewing in black list propaganda akin to when Edvard and Luna were given permission to. I know Cawk pisses most of you off, but in spite of him being the only "adversarial" figure we need to keep it about protocols at least as long as it's humanly possible.
It's not just about community backing, it's about consistency. We'd had a very relaxed time for a bit since the forum move, and during said time we had even the infamy sort doing more normal posting as part of the group, but such a time appears to be done as the dust of S-C settles.
We need to do this right, not just act emotionally, and the original guidelines being handled less lax is how it's going to be done. I'll be incorporating measures that were needed to deal with older spammers and we can discuss (instead of accept) if what I'm doing has passed any lines. There must be no risks of allowing emotions to have us run mad with power, otherwise this will transfer over to our practices.
No. Blacklisting. Individual leniency and chances are one thing, but outright making the rule be "Ban [name] on sight" is poisonous to our own futures.
I'll be responding to people's posts now.
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
"How much spam is spam?" Yellow questions plz.
By current spam guidelines (filling the page) he's staying within the lines by choice. If you guys don't like "less than the entire front page" as much as I have been disliking it as the current spam guideline, say something or accept it for what it is, as this is what was accepted the last time we asked around since the new forum by both members and staff.
Save for his "I must show the mods/Alena who's boss" moments, he's been trying to skirt under accepted practices, which is why I'm asking what they should become. The more vague and ambiguous it's left, the more that it risks becoming a logical fallacy to follow and it will not be hard to have us called on it. We need these sorts of things to grant ourselves Hydra Insurance.
I've re-adopted "Repetition" as a focus for "spam criteria" in the meantime, and as that gets pushed further it may have to go to other former guidelines.
MissCommunication said:I'm rarely here cos I have no interest in hanging out on a pedo cesspit. It's boring.
You and Ed are seriously dramatic. I say this not because I'm not working on it but because you see a few "ordering a child online" posts and you two get your panties in a twist.
We've had content here, and it's always been our responsibility to sift through it. Otherwise Cawk wasn't actually breaking any spam guidelines by the way that spam was at the time being followed as criteria. It also wasn't handled sooner because no one was making a group fuss about it, we just had people like Blanc being like "OH NO THERE'S A DEAD CAT IN MY THREAD!".
We went through this 2 years ago.
One person posting dead babies and archery targeted animals is the same as "2 years ago" to you?
You have invalidated your opinion through excessive generalizing. I get the sentiments behind it and I see the group wanting action, but it must be the right action, not merely action at all, otherwise we might as well just go back to Ed. It's a slippery slope, and it's our responsibility to keep the boat from rocking over as a result of it.
Imo, we should have a no pedo policy that includes no CP or pedo talk.
No "pedo talk" is not the same thing and serves to arbitrarily draw a line, plus there's all sorts of other things we'd need to sort out:
1) What crosses the line as "pedo talk"?
2) How much "pedo talk" can someone do before it crosses a line?
No blacklisting, and keeping it vague and ambiguous like this could easily become Luna's "Don't wreck the usability of the site"'s transformation into "RUINING MY MOOD IS WRECKING THE USABILITY RAAAAAAAAAAAAA-"
People's moods are fickle, even people flip-flopping on Jim is a perfect example. Literally following you guys' urges towards a speedy trial is what would serve to risk making mods into the future bad guys, again.
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.
If we're going to be that strict about it, then we need to be banning Alena on sight, and for that matter we'll need to keep Jim off of our forum too. He posted a single instance of it on here when he was mad about something, but letting that one offense slide confused him and immediately turned him back into "one of us".
I was hoping Cawk would come around, and at this point even his current last shot in line with these adjustments many would argue is me being too generous, but the occasional peace-time or lenient moment has many times been how we've converted problems into users.
It's just Cawk today, but it could easily be someone new tomorrow. Blacklisting is the key to witch hunts, while protocol adjustments is the key to consistency.
Good said: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?
I agree from that being the current flavor of it, but as Sinister has shown us, 16-bit pixel dogs running on poorly detailed rainbows can be spam, as Dexter has shown us youtube videos of annoying music and religious propaganda can be spam, as Goober's shown us nonsense can be spam, as some older puppets have shown pre-generated nonsense that resembles conversation can be spam, Porn showed us that porn can be spam... ANYTHING can be spam.
It's about saturation, we were more than fine with gross-posting before as demonstrated through users like Primal, Instrument, and so on. We need to make sure that why we're handling things is for the right reasons, and those reasons are very legalistically connected to the words we choose. While as Ed has said, this can just inspire trolls to find workarounds, this also means our protocols are being stress-tested to see how realistic they actually are.
Shock content has it's own value, the problem is how much that one specific thing is being abused. Banning something for it's overuse instead of targeting the overuse itself is how to steer a culture as opposed to how to keep a place clean.
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.
"Mercy of the mods" doesn't sit well with me as a guideline. I've enjoyed it as an exception to rules to give people unusual chances, but when it's used this way it's legalistic power-tripping that could stand to trigger principle battles versus people already here and those who may join us from platforms like 4chan and Discord.
We'd also have to stop promoting ourselves as a "free speech" community. Focusing on saturation at least allows it to be about how their actions are stifling the free speech of others.
Next time I believe Cawk has posted CP I will ban him. I've been tolerant enough.
...exactly. I wanted it to work like you did, he had interesting things to say, but we've already gone too far with leniency. I like Cawk but his self-control being tested thus far has brought us to this point.
I believe we started defining spam and disruptive content on old SC due to there being disagreements what those are. Mainly due to Luna and Edvards corrupt modding decisions. Now that we have a decent staff, I am much more comfortable with allowing some freedom for the mods and admins to judge content on how shitty it is.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I don't trust myself enough to just have it be "my call", and frankly within this forum's history neither do they when the time comes even with a fairly good history behind me. It also means that us electing new mods will pose less risk and that the bandwagon fallacy and appeal to emotion can be more readily avoided.
Having it be on the back of protocol itself helps us be like "It's out of my hands", "I'm just doing my job", "It's only somewhat up to me", or even users being like "Don't we have a rule about this?" instead of "OH NO DED AMINALS!", and it helps us get around what could risk happening if a problem character otherwise befriends the staff to it's own unfair advantages, like back during Jim times where keeping him off the forum was able to have nothing to do with our friendship otherwise.
At the end of the day, I'd rather it be my responsibility, not my pleasure, that gets things done here. I want what room there is to say I'm "abusing my power" to be as reduced as possible, even when/if I am the only one at the time that is otherwise against said abuse. I cannot take peers as permission, it has to be accepted protocol, or it all unravels apart at the seams slowly like many a discord server before.
Often what people want is good "for right now", but not in the long run. It's worth the excessive steps now to prevent more work later.
I think not many will disagree that Cawk is cancer, and the bad kind of cancer at that. So what we're arguing is technicalities while everyone's more or less on the same page. We all know what we're referencing here so let's just allow the mods to delete Cawk spam as they see fit and if one of them messes up the community will react.
I am not partial to blacklisting, but you address that in the yellow text.
HAHAHHAA I got an ERROR 1008 code just now
"ACCESS DENIED - THE OWNER OF THIS WEBSITE HAS BANNED YOUR IP ADDRESS "
I'm enjoying this so much: the community reaching the conclusion, AGAIN, in almost identical circumstances, that the actions implemented on SC when I became mod are the most adequate course of action. This, when the situation right now is not even half as bad as it was back then. The very same people who fought it tooth and nail the first time get to see it happening again, and I'm laughing at them so hard right now.
It's not the same thing, but I wouldn't expect you to get the difference (nor Misscomm).
I'm also not as quick to jump into the pool as you are, lest I use their enabling to wreck the place as you did. "On the back of the bandwagon" is sloppy, and even Discord has proven that the very same people backing your ban choices today can be the same people protesting about "your choice" made tomorrow. The people are fickle, and what's done outlasts them, so it must account for that instead of merely going with their feelings on a whim.
Kestrel said:Get rid of the shit, valueless threads he makes. If anything or even nothing takes it's place it's a better move for the forum.
I'm going to use this opportunity to second how "general rules are better". The minute we just start removing them for being "valueless" is the minute we're making a judgement call instead of following a protocol, and the minute that feelings turn sour towards someone in charge is the minute that said "judgement calls" come into question. It changes it from "begrudged yet unified censorship" into "plain censorship", and is VERY PLAINLY HYPOCRITICAL.
Things are good now, but it's a flimsy backing that could change as quickly as me arguing with the wrong person next week. It's always been this way, so the practices followed must supersede me in the name of consistency. Blacklist practices as I've otherwise expressed in other split-replies in this topic is a slippery slope with witch hunt problems, while protocol is something that offenders can gradually adapt to in spite of their opinions of "The Bandwagon".
The line should be drawn on the deletion of topics if it's multiple clickbait threads with an emphasis on making people reactionary. I'd put a thread limit at 3 per day on him, or on anyone in general tbh.
See, then we get people like Ed complaining about that "limiting normal users", and how he'd rather "keep his options open".
It's tricky. This however is you unintentionally answering a yellow question, with actual numbers even, which is great thank you.
As far as banning him goes, im impartial. We all know he's behind the CP shit at this point, we're only putting up with it out of principle. I believe that is important.
One day, just maybe he'll get some self esteem and stop power tripping on thinking he's a clever machiavellian mastermind by posting dead baby pics
+1
there will always be a way around the ban, but might as well waste as much of his time as possible
That still grants us the room to adapt.
I'll update the list. 
Good said: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?I agree from that being the current flavor of it, but as Sinister has shown us, 16-bit pixel dogs running on poorly detailed rainbows can be spam, as Dexter has shown us youtube videos of annoying music and religious propaganda can be spam, as Goober's shown us nonsense can be spam, as some older puppets have shown pre-generated nonsense that resembles conversation can be spam, Porn showed us that porn can be spam... ANYTHING can be spam.
It's about saturation, we were more than fine with gross-posting before as demonstrated through users like Primal, Instrument, and so on. We need to make sure that why we're handling things is for the right reasons, and those reasons are very legalistically connected to the words we choose. While as Ed has said, this can just inspire trolls to find workarounds, this also means our protocols are being stress-tested to see how realistic they actually are.
Shock content has it's own value, the problem is how much that one specific thing is being abused. Banning something for it's overuse instead of targeting the overuse itself is how to steer a culture as opposed to how to keep a place clean.
I disagree to a point.
Posting gross things is one thing, but each image has a context. Gross porn is just porn, its usually not serious. Gore of adult humans is easy to overcome because adult humans are aware of death, they have the power to avoid it and it is rarely not their fault. Shit is just dirt...
But gore of children is more serious. Children are innocent as they say: they do not know about death. But more importantly, humans are hard-wired to like children and dislike bad things happening to them. It is the same with certain animals(usually soft and big eyes), believe it or not, I read a study about how they remind humans, subconsciously, of children, specifically babies.
Pro-pedo talk is just shock value of abuse of children variety in text format.
And while a not too stupid person can recognize that the entire point of this content is the shock value and to get a reaction, it still has an effect on most people that are not completely desensitized, when it is done all the time over a long amount of time. Like you go here and you see these topics and images and it just makes a sour taste in your mouth. And after 100th time, you just don't want to do this to yourself anymore. It is annoying and not worth the trouble. Not to mention that by posting here you give passive attention to the spammer, as you have to shift through his spam and you look at it as you do.
So spam of this specific content is more annoying than any other type. So it is a saturation thing, but the saturation level is much easier to reach with this type of spam.
I really wouldn't care if the spam was not of this type, even if it never stopped and was at the amount it is now. But lately, I just hate seeing the site, it annoys me and I feel disgusted.
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."Mercy of the mods" doesn't sit well with me as a guideline. I've enjoyed it as an exception to rules to give people unusual chances, but when it's used this way it's legalistic power-tripping that could stand to trigger principle battles versus people already here and those who may join us from platforms like 4chan and Discord.
We'd also have to stop promoting ourselves as a "free speech" community. Focusing on saturation at least allows it to be about how their actions are stifling the free speech of others.
It is either mercy of the mods or total ban. It is not power-tripping, it is the opposite: every time something is left up and the community does not disagree, the mod has been gracious, as he didn't have to make this judgment call, yet he did. You may have a dispute with members when something was left to be left up, while members think it should not. But if you apply this only to the mildest of cases I think these disputes can be resolved. If not, we can discuss it again then.
Good said:If not, we can discuss it again then.
Tell that to them when "later" comes. 
People instead like to be quiet until one person speaks up, then all their bottles break at the same time and what they didn't want to be "the first" to say will all come out at once. If they were more willing to show group ideas sooner and negotiate through them instead of pretending to be above it until the last minute it wouldn't have to seem so explosive.
Good said:Not to mention that by posting here you give passive attention to the spammer, as you have to shift through his spam and you look at it as you do.
We could reincorporate the idea of OPs being able to conceal posts.
Good said:If not, we can discuss it again then.Tell that to them when "later" comes.
People instead like to be quiet until one person speaks up, then all their bottles break at the same time and what they didn't want to be "the first" to say will all come out at once. If they were more willing to show group ideas sooner and negotiate through them instead of pretending to be above it until the last minute it wouldn't have to seem so explosive.
That's when later comes. If no one cares enough, it is irrelevant.
Good said:Not to mention that by posting here you give passive attention to the spammer, as you have to shift through his spam and you look at it as you do.We could reincorporate the idea of OPs being able to conceal posts.
Yes, but the OP still has to see the post and I was imagining the main page with the child rape threads.
I don't think anyone, except cawk, here really minds if the things I purposed are gone, in fact, most of the people will want that. And this is about the community right? What it wants.
You are afraid to set up rules as if its a slippery slope towards more rules. But if the community agrees, why is it bad? Might just be the next step in the evolution of the community.
