Sociopath Community

please dont, kinda want MY topica to get a chance

What do you think SC values are? 

I haven't done anything differently from the older methods. 

Turncoat said: 

What do you think SC values are? 

I haven't done anything differently from the older methods. 

 More freedom than shit places like PF.

Having a toll on freedom in order to be more appealing to potentially new users already feels wrong for what SC is.

Your older methods are wrong. People here are biased regarding other users' punishments especially if what they root for won't affect them, you know this. It just happens that the rather "key members" of the site are not "spazzy" ones thus you aren't called out on your "older methods" often and/or it's not taken very seriously.

You entered mod abuse ground and I will keep challenging you because of that until you step out of it. I value each of my topics, delete them once more and I will intentionally piss you off through loop holes harder than last time. You deleted over 20 topics of mine, I let you off with minor stress and stopped at your "Sigh" topic, next time I won't.

Ever since Dexter, we had to amend the old "No Rules" ideology in favor of flood control. It's why mods were even made to be a thing in the first place, as that naivete hadn't been broken yet. 

For years since, spam has been addressed as a matter purely of flood control, and what's constituted that has been debated in numerous topics (such as how to handle "chain posting", "bumps", etc) until it solidified into an aim towards consistent processes. What you are opposing now is the old way, and has been accepted SC values since even before me when ThrillKill was at the mod controls during SC1. 

I've always as a personal choice collected spammer's posts into single topics so that people could see what topics are disappearing and understand why, and because I like having a collection of their past posts to be able to spot themes and oppose as much censorship potential. 

How it appears to me is that you don't care about SC values until they turn against you in particular, as if you are arguing in favor of freedom purely you would not be defending Meta's decisions against Edvard and Primal from that being censorship. As I have said multiple times before, you expect special treatment, and have called those who did it before you "Dumb" and otherwise not worth visiting as reason for handling you similarly. 

I like to give people warnings, have a discussion with the person responsible, and give them time to see how it was a mistake, but at this point you already understand what you're doing and think that playing dumb is how to get a bandwagon of sympathizers. At this point only Jim would follow your example, and even that is a largely pending maybe depending on how busy he is with his actual life and how embarrassing a presentation you're giving for your "cause". 

I will continue to handle your posts as tradition has dictated with slightly more leniency than I perhaps ought to be expressing, and if you don't like it then we're liable to be butting heads for a while. I understand that you can't help yourself, so I don't blame you for this behavior, and in time I expect that you will get better as you have done numerous times before. 

Turncoat said: 

Ever since Dexter, we had to amend the old "No Rules" ideology in favor of flood control.

Floods can easily be skipped by using page navigation to jump pages of threads.

Dude, the people you amended the old rules with started the ban on sight bullshit back on S-C and what not. Most of them should not even be allowed to vote on the objective things, they just aren't capable of that.

How it appears to me is that you don't care about SC values until they turn against you in particular, as if you are arguing in favor of freedom purely you would not be defending Meta's decisions against Edvard and Primal as being censorship. 

 It's not my problem that your old methods go against the S-C values you claim to maintain, but yours. I'm not only defending myself but everybody else as well: Nobody's topics should be deleted unless they are actual spam, posted with a short time frame in-between in shape of mass copy pasta or gibberish like "niawndunsawd" or other spam characteristics.

Because of Good's insistence that Primal is to be kept away, we are on subjective ground already, so we need to adapt. I defended what needed to be defended for the most likelihood that the site stays up. If things go Ed's way, Good will end up taking the site down.

I will also admit I have a personal feud with Ed. He pulled the same shit on me back on S-C that I pulled on him with my proposal to ban him.

Cawk said:

Dude, the people you amended the old rules with started the ban on sight bullshit back on S-C and what not. Most of them should not even be allowed to vote on the objective things, they just aren't capable of that.

Believe me, keeping the boat from rocking means not listening to a lot of the old cast at points either. This is why I like to set up consistent behaviors for mods before people get all moralfag-y. 

There was a time that their heads were more on straight, and these days it seems like they're returning to such a point. It's not like it was during the CP scare, they're more jaded and patient with the staff handling it now. It's a lot of weight off my shoulders honestly. 

How it appears to me is that you don't care about SC values until they turn against you in particular, as if you are arguing in favor of freedom purely you would not be defending Meta's decisions against Edvard and Primal as being censorship. 

 It's not my problem that your old methods go against the S-C values you claim to maintain, but yours.

Actually, it is your problem as you're the one protesting me following the tried and true baseline practices that worked well until CProtests and ban-on-sight became the norm. 

I'm not only defending myself but everybody else as well: Nobody's topics should be deleted unless they are actual spam, posted with a short time frame in-between in shape of mass copy pasta or gibberish like "niawndunsawd" or other spam characteristics.

So "niawndunsawd" is bad but "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" is okay? 

Because of Good's insistence that Primal is to be kept away, we are on subjective ground already, so we need to adapt. I defended what needed to be defended for the most likelihood that the site stays up. If things go Ed's way, Good will end up taking the site down.

But you're the one threatening to make the website go down if you don't get your way. You're only accepting this because of your bender against Edvard. 

Again, you expect special treatment, and the rest of what comes out of you is just justifications for your actions. Even your running to Jim for help is you furthering your desire to be treated like you have more privileges than others here, and without his help you'd never accomplish any real damages here. 

Turncoat said: 

Cawk said:

Dude, the people you amended the old rules with started the ban on sight bullshit back on S-C and what not. Most of them should not even be allowed to vote on the objective things, they just aren't capable of that.

Believe me, keeping the boat from rocking means not listening to a lot of the old cast at points either. This is why I like to set up consistent behaviors for mods before people get all moralfag-y. 

There was a time that their heads were more on straight, and these days it seems like they're returning to such a point. It's not like it was during the CP scare, they're more jaded and patient with the staff handling it now. It's a lot of weight off my shoulders honestly. 

How it appears to me is that you don't care about SC values until they turn against you in particular, as if you are arguing in favor of freedom purely you would not be defending Meta's decisions against Edvard and Primal as being censorship. 

 It's not my problem that your old methods go against the S-C values you claim to maintain, but yours.

Actually, it is your problem as you're the one protesting me following the tried and true baseline practices that worked well until CProtests and ban-on-sight became the norm. 

I'm not only defending myself but everybody else as well: Nobody's topics should be deleted unless they are actual spam, posted with a short time frame in-between in shape of mass copy pasta or gibberish like "niawndunsawd" or other spam characteristics.

So "niawndunsawd" is bad but "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" is okay? 

If there are no multiple AAAAAAAAAAA posted within a short time, yes.

without his help you'd never accomplish any real damages here.

 We shall see.

Again, you expect special treatment, and the rest of what comes out of you is just justifications for your actions.

 Also this part. A huge factor of why I try to behave is because TFI is the one who hosts the site.

 If you or Ed were hosting for example, things would be a lot different. Especially if Ed.

Cawk said: 

 

Again, you expect special treatment, and the rest of what comes out of you is just justifications for your actions.

 Also this part. A huge factor of why I try to behave is because TFI is the one who hosts the site.

 If you or Ed were hosting for example, things would be a lot different. Especially if Ed.

if you dont repost primal, i dont care what you do
if its illegal i will try to stop you, but i will not personally care

dw

and tybb

edit: oh and if the community does have an issue with something you do, i will implement ways to defuse you, part of the unwritten contract sry