Stop assuming. I said I considered it spam because suddenly a bunch of socks/accounts filled up the front page
Activity spike.
with topics about a subject we rarely talk about. You're trying to skirt the spam rules by a technicality here and then get mad when we're not as impotent as you'd like.
Pedophilia is not a rare subject in this community.
You intervene and prevent the community from expressing its interests when you fear it might cause change as Ed and you expressed in the past.
I said I considered it spam because suddenly a bunch of socks/accounts filled up the front page with topics
You're trying to skirt the spam rules by a technicality here and then get mad when we're not as impotent as you'd like.
While I was not around for this drama-set, I am inclined to agree with Inquirer's choices here. Even with a series of accounts behind it, it still expresses very clear "flooding", and if those titles were to be shown to me the content itself would likely be on the tier of spam. Cawk however is free to show me what sorts of topics went away and we can gauge it for ourselves.
Also, as shown by my "Siiiigh" topic, I've been doing the same thing. Anything beyond the deletion of spam (such as condensing) is me making personal choices that are not a reflection on the protocol.
Cawk said:Pedophilia is not a rare subject in this community.
Talks against it tend to be fairly common, that is true.
I wonder why? 
I said I considered it spam because suddenly a bunch of socks/accounts filled up the front page with topics
You're trying to skirt the spam rules by a technicality here and then get mad when we're not as impotent as you'd like.
While I was not around for this drama-set, I am inclined to agree with Inquirer's choices here. Even with a series of accounts behind it, it still expresses very clear "flooding", and if those titles were to be shown to me the content itself would likely be on the tier of spam. Cawk however is free to show me what sorts of topics went away and we can gauge it for ourselves.
Go to page 5, you will see a wall of "spam" there, that was left up. Presumably because it was "less harmless", or rather, less blatant than the topics of today, as I've proven by now to be the reason those of today were deleted. The topics of today were of the same nature as those on page 5, just more blatantly worded (but still legal). They did not contain CP or even nudists whatsoever. No media or linking to it was included in the topics, they were all 100% text, no links or media attached. If people are allowed to threaten each other with murder etc. here, the only conclusion can be that the topics that were deleted today were deleted for biased reasons (as shown below) and very much to be considered mod abuse.
Inquirer has incriminated himself and proven to share the same views as Mod Abuser Edvard, including his stance of censoring "pedo talk", etc. What else do you want to talk to me with?
I would even go as far as to say an entire page of posts with one-liners + no activity & all by different people should be wiped. Spam obscures the function of a forum—having structured conversations. Some here and there is a good thing. A whole page is just a net negative.
I would even go as far as to say an entire page of posts with one-liners + no activity & all by different people should be wiped. Spam obscures the function of a forum—having structured conversations. Some here and there is a good thing. A whole page is just a net negative.
Bingo.
I said I considered it spam because suddenly a bunch of socks/accounts filled up the front page with topics
You're trying to skirt the spam rules by a technicality here and then get mad when we're not as impotent as you'd like.
While I was not around for this drama-set, I am inclined to agree with Inquirer's choices here. Even with a series of accounts behind it, it still expresses very clear "flooding", and if those titles were to be shown to me the content itself would likely be on the tier of spam. Cawk however is free to show me what sorts of topics went away and we can gauge it for ourselves.
Go to page 5, you will see a wall of "spam" there, that was left up.
Huh, yeah you're right, there is a wall of spam there. I'll handle it now. 
Presumably because it was "less harmless", or rather, less blatant than the topics of today, as I've proven by now to be the reason those of today were deleted.
Curious, do you not understand leniency beyond seeing it as a display of weakness?
The topics of today were of the same nature as those on page 5, just more blatantly worded (but still legal). They did not contain CP or even nudists whatsoever.
But it was still a flood of topics, yes? Have you tried doing less of an influx of posts, or keeping it contained within a few topics?
All capital random letters are "still legal", but as we've seen years prior to CP even being a thing... there is a need to address the floods as well. You want the attention, you're getting it, you ought to be happier about it.
No media or linking to it was included in the topics, they were all 100% text, no links or media attached. If people are allowed to threaten each other with murder etc. here, the only conclusion can be that the topics that were deleted today were deleted for biased reasons (as shown below) and very much to be considered mod abuse.
Do the people who "threaten murder" post entire pages worth of seemingly useless topics though?
ThrillKill for instance kept it contained within her own topics and her murderblog, and even people with the most infamy were fairly reasonable about it (like Jim for instance). The only people who compare to your current strategy are the likes of Sinister and Dexter.
Inquirer has incriminated himself and proven to share the same views as Mod Abuser Edvard, including his stance of censoring "pedo talk", etc. What else do you want to talk to me with?
I'm going to be frank with you:
Comparing everyone who does something wrong to "Edvard" makes it a lot harder to take seriously. It's like comparing all homeless people to Oscar the Grouch, or all vigilantes to The Punisher.
so basically we a have "no purposefully intentionally flooding the front page for the express purpose of flooding" rule?
and it is up to the mods discretion whether or not the posting of multiple topics in a row is with the intention of flooding or not
I think its fair as long as the mods are fair about only deleting or containing if its obviously flooding
sorry cawk I enjoy the freedom of the way spamming feels but I have to contain myself too
