Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

So in other words we're throwing out the vanity clause and a bunch of other shit we spent ages debating over because they just "forgot it". 

FFS I question why I'm even here if my work at recalling the history is just "fake news" when they don't like it. 

 The mods never discussed any rule changes. You took the initiative to tell the community that we were.

I oppose your claim, Inq opposes it, Meta is hard on the current rule and staying the same, and Sturm is smacking around a ball of yarn. Other members have voiced their opinions as well and they are pro Tony.

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

So in other words we're throwing out the vanity clause and a bunch of other shit we spent ages debating over because they just "forgot it". 

FFS I question why I'm even here if my work at recalling the history is just "fake news" when they don't like it. 

The mods never discussed any rule changes. You took the initiative to tell the community that we were.

They were insisting the rule was something it wasn't because of Inq charging in out of nowhere to say how he handled things once he became mod. 

This doesn't address how much none of you were paying attention to the old rules lawyering topics, apparently, at all. Do you know how much time and effort went into those, just to go away because you all have different reasons to either not care or pay attention? You'll now sit there and be like "Now now guys, don't panic, nothing's changing" as you change things. 

I understand it being up to the community, but to say "Fake News" and "TC wants to change the rule" is madness when you're the ones changing it from having somehow not noticed it. 

I oppose your claim, Inq opposes it, Meta is hard on the current rule and staying the same, and Sturm is smacking around a ball of yarn.

How many of us mods have actually read the old rules lawyering topics? Any of you, or did you just do what "felt right" when you were saddled in there with no instructions from Luna? 

The issue is over how you two (Inq and you) handled it not being the originally agreed upon setup. You can say how you did it, sure, but that's not the SC culture for it's historically known form, and we even have other users who remember it. 

Spatial, why are you on a website called "Sociopath Community" if you want to put safety buffers on all the stuff? 

Other members have voiced their opinions as well and they are pro Tony.

...are they now? 

getting over ruled by sturm, some loser who isnt even one of us lol... thats rough tc, you lost all your sc influence

SC had its trial, and its rules were created through consensus by the users.

The rules we focus on are in the now.

If you want to do petty things you're free to do so. But let it be known the rules were developed by the people, and surely not a mod who wants to erase them, Turncoat.

puppygirl said: 

getting over ruled by sturm, some loser who isnt even one of us lol... 

Sometimes it feels more like being ruled over by a collective Alzheimer's force. 

thats rough tc, you lost all your sc influence

Luna, you can't even notice when I'm still browsing your website, how are you supposed to gauge how influence works? 

if anyone would like to dox someone, and they are not aloud here on SC for whatever reason, they are welcome to post the dox on https://antisocial.boards.zone, if anyone comes across meta or sturm's dox, i might even offer a reward to see it!

@tc im not debating, just saying you lost influence.. its tragic considering its all you ever cared about

All I want to know is if med posts a selfie here and someone reposts the same selfie, is that considered a dox or a repost?

Spatial Mind said: 

SC had its trial, and its rules were created through consensus by the users.

Exactly, and you guys just seem to have forgotten it all. This answer of yours completely breaks away from the more deviant aspects of the website, and even looking at our history of dramatics shows clear contradictions. 

Otherwise, it was trials, plural, it was multiple, and it became a joke at my expense the more I tried to incorporate the userbase, but through it all we landed on a consensus with individual clauses that served as a compromise to both the fearful bunch and SC's old cultural "pre-rules" mindset. Much of our past would have been impossible with how you think it used to be, and how much attention were you really paying to mod policy before you were made one? 

Again, always more room for more trials, rules can change, but to sit here and say no rules are changing as they change into what you'd prefer is misleading. 

The rules we focus on are in the now. 

See, this is fine. 

If SC's history and culture is to be killed by it's own community, that's one thing, but if it's killed solely by those lording over it being forgetful... that's fucked up and not what I signed up for, and frankly harkens back to some former issues I learned to resent about Luna. 

Community discussions over changes to the rules is inevitable (albeit incomplete in it's current form), but to say I'm trying to change a rule is simply "fake news" as you'd put it. 

If you want to do petty things you're free to do so.

Petty things are free to be done as long as the freedom to do so is in our rules. 

This is why it must be protected, that freedom needs to be here, and consequences for one's own actions were an agreed upon angle by the older views to the point of extra clauses in the dox rule. 

It was never just "I'll take down anything of you that you don't want up", that's nonsense that serves to ignore so much of our past drama's best chapters. With this change those events could never happen, especially if we can take down friend's doxes. 

If for instance Sugar asked for Alena's dox to be taken down when Alena was fine with it, does it still go down? We've still yet to define where the clause divides on "friend", and you seem to not want to. 

But let it be known the rules were developed by the people, and surely not a mod who wants to erase them, Turncoat.

They were, this is why I'm opposing your mistake of recall here. 

-sweats nervously-

M-My dox??

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Whorechata said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

That stuff TC was saying. That was fake news.

 It seems we all had some different understanding of the rule and therefore I would like for it to be put out clear for all to seeeeeee and refer to as that topic feels unfinished

Doxxing is allowed and taking down doxes is available upon request by the doxxed. This includes family, friends, school, social media and work that's tied to the individual. The reason for this is because failure to do so can be more of a liability at the expense of the owner, which also ensures a more stable platform. 

So in other words we're throwing out the vanity clause and a bunch of other shit we spent ages debating over because they just "forgot it". 

FFS I question why I'm even here if my work at recalling the history is just "fake news" when they don't like it. With this it's just going to be that much closer to a hugbox, which is something we ought to be working against, not towards. How do you figure much of our past conflicts would have even happened if we didn't have rules to protect against the removal of too much content? 

Past a point the name here might as well change too, as all that'll be left of it is people waxing nostalgia over a dead age and questioning why their safety measures made the place become boring and sterile. 

 Yup. Thank you TC