oh but again its the mods discretion for if puppet account threads are all from the same user too
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.
They were not one liners and DID have replies, so your argument is invalid against me.
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.
They were not one liners and DID have replies, so your argument is invalid against me.
They did have replies...
Your replies. 
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
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?
The topics on page 5 were not "seemingly useless" or those of today. If those were seemingly useless to you by your standards, you'd be deleting A LOT of other members' topics. Be real for once.
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.
Thrill Kill did that because she was primarily active on PF back then. PF did not even have a pinned off topic thread in those days (like 80% sure). Also she wanted to keep her poems as memoir and property. Also also, she did post her poems & stories on PF initially but got deleted by their mods. PF mods gave her the idea of posting that shit on a blog.
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.
Don't care how you pick up the point up as long as you do, keeps it short for me.
---
Essentially, you do and agree to the same nature of things Edvard did back then, guess purging/banning users. So why did you whine about what he did? Because he caused you to lose your mod status? You went neck deep into the intuition guess mod power swamp to feel victorious over a mess of person online. You've already lost either way.
The next time a puppet posts a topic, will get spam going to cause the puppet to get purged.
last edit on
5/28/2019 12:28:50 AM
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.
They were not one liners and DID have replies, so your argument is invalid against me.
They did have replies...
Your replies.
By your logic, I could ask a regular to post in the threads in order to prevent you from deleting them? You wanna double back away from that route friend, trust me.
Just admit you have the same modus operandi as Edvard, the e-power tripping tyrant.
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?
The topics on page 5 were not "seemingly useless" or those of today. If those were seemingly useless to you by your standards, you'd be deleting A LOT of other members' topics. Be real for once.
The key phrase here you keep avoiding is "flooding". A lot of "seemingly useless" content has stayed up because it wasn't entire pages worth of it.
Why do you hate your posts being collected 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.
Thrill Kill did that because she was primarily active on PF back then.
She didn't spam PF either though, so your point is irrelevant.
She also enjoyed S-C for how few rules it had (with rules she agreed with as well), complaining about PF on the regular, and that did not lead to flooding.
PF did not even have a pinned off topic thread in those days. Also she wanted to keep her poems as memoir and property.
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.Don't care how you pick up the point up as long as you do, keeps it short for me.
---
Essentially, you do and agree to the same nature of things Edvard did back then, guess purging/banning users. So why did you whine about what he did? Because he caused you to lose your mod status? You went neck deep into the intuition guess mod power swamp to feel victorious over a mess of person online. You've already lost either way.
The next time a puppet posts a topic, will get spam going to cause the puppet to get purged.
I swear you're playing dumb on purpose, you aren't this basic when you're analyzing other people with yourself out of the equation, only when you're involved in it.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
5/28/2019 12:30:49 AM
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?
The topics on page 5 were not "seemingly useless" or those of today. If those were seemingly useless to you by your standards, you'd be deleting A LOT of other members' topics. Be real for once.
The key phrase here you keep avoiding is "flooding". A lot of "seemingly useless" content has stayed up because it wasn't entire pages worth of it.
Why do you hate your posts being collected 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.
Thrill Kill did that because she was primarily active on PF back then.
She didn't spam PF either though, so your point is irrelevant.
She also enjoyed S-C for how few rules it had (with rules she agreed with as well), complaining about PF on the regular, and that did not lead to flooding.PF did not even have a pinned off topic thread in those days. Also she wanted to keep her poems as memoir and property.
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.Don't care how you pick up the point up as long as you do, keeps it short for me.
---
Essentially, you do and agree to the same nature of things Edvard did back then, guess purging/banning users. So why did you whine about what he did? Because he caused you to lose your mod status? You went neck deep into the intuition guess mod power swamp to feel victorious over a mess of person online. You've already lost either way.
The next time a puppet posts a topic, will get spam going to cause the puppet to get purged.
I swear you're playing dumb on purpose
Explain your rationale what you think is dumb about my post? Or was that just to slide in a snarky comment?
you aren't this basic when you're analyzing other people with yourself out of the equation, only when you're involved in it.
I use logic. You have nothing to counter it with other than guessing which sock is mine and which isn't during a "flood" and adding snarky comments with no rationale to shut me up.
I swear you're playing dumb on purpose
Explain your rationale what you think is dumb about my post? Or was that just to slide in a snarky comment?
You're better at peanut gallery critiques than direct actions, essentially. When you aren't involved, your comments have a tendency to get to the heart of the point with direct aptitude, whereas when it's you you're stuck with ambiguity, playing dumb, and trying to get others to board your bandwagon-with-the-flat-tire.
When it becomes about you feeling oppressed, or angry, or having any emotions really you expect special treatment, but when others get special treatment you're one of the first to point it out about them. It gives strong hypocrisy vibes, like for instance your stance on the Edvard/Sturm drama.
What if it was you being banned for posting stuff of a similar strain? You'd be liable to change camps almost immediately.
you aren't this basic when you're analyzing other people with yourself out of the equation, only when you're involved in it.
I use logic.
I suppose your narration would have to change after seeing that your MBTI results you were bragging about are strongly different now.
Where before you were "a superior mind", now it's "I use logic", but you say that rather baffling things are "logic" as opposed to ego driven "principle".
You have nothing to counter it with other than
guessing which sock is mine and which isn't during a "flood" and adding snarky comments with no rationale to shut me up.
You wouldn't cease from either though, you'd feel motivated because you see them as "your enemy", and you want "to win". You change goalposts commonly based on short term gains, not the bigger picture.
You like having a cause, but you're bad at it. You don't even know how to make it look tempting to other people, unlike many who tried this game before you.
There's forums that are more than fine with flooding, but that is not here and you'd have no interest in them because you would lack opposition. You want to feel strong through infamy for a number of compound reasons, and at this point I'm wondering if you can even see your own place in these shinanigans or if you're stuck only seeing how others respond to you (followed by a series of warped appraisal statements rooting from your ego).
As for the rationale to "shut you up", I'd rather you not shut up, but I'd also rather you not "flood" the place. Even this far along, you cannot really oppose that idea beyond attacking the fact that I'm using that word without looking ridiculous... because it's the right idea.
With Ego vs Logic, Ego seems to be winning when it comes to your exchanges.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
5/28/2019 1:00:35 AM
I swear you're playing dumb on purpose
Explain your rationale what you think is dumb about my post? Or was that just to slide in a snarky comment?
You're better at peanut gallery critiques than direct actions, essentially. When you aren't involved, your comments have a tendency to get to the heart of the point with direct aptitude, whereas when it's you you're stuck with ambiguity, playing dumb, and trying to get others to board your bandwagon-with-the-flat-tire.
When it becomes about you feeling oppressed, or angry, or having any emotions really you expect special treatment, but when others get special treatment you're one of the first to point it out about them. It gives strong hypocrisy vibes, like for instance your stance on the Edvard/Sturm drama.
What if it was you being banned for posting stuff of a similar strain? You'd be liable to change camps almost immediately.
If I ever get banned from here, I'll post CP 24/7 like I did on S-C. :^)
you aren't this basic when you're analyzing other people with yourself out of the equation, only when you're involved in it.
I use logic.
I suppose your narration would have to change after seeing that your MBTI results you were bragging about are strongly different now.
Where before you were "a superior mind", now it's "I use logic", but you say that rather baffling things are "logic" as opposed to ego driven "principle".
I haven't claimed to be a superior mind, don't think so. You're trying hard to paint me as narc or some shit. I've been preferring logic as first step for a long time. Think then act (usually)...
You have nothing to counter it with other than
guessing which sock is mine and which isn't during a "flood" and adding snarky comments with no rationale to shut me up.You wouldn't cease from either though, you'd feel motivated because you see them as "your enemy", and you want "to win". You change goalposts commonly based on short term gains, not the bigger picture.
Politics is the way to go for me. I'm not going to make it easy for you to silence me by blatantly posting CP. Instead, I'd rather test your SC values and fight a battle to gain more autonomy for myself and others.
You, along with Edvard have been trying hard to push me into posting it though. Your snarky taunts such as claiming how I couldn't cause any real damage without Jim although I was the one who kept you up in the mornings, etc. and Edvard's attempts to trigger me, because he thinks if I feel rejected, I'd post it. This dip shit is so desperate to win against me, he randomly insults me with irrelevancy to the post/topic that he quotes, either it's retarded and/or genuinely thinks he could piss me off with that so I'd post CP again. Little does he know, I feel alienated and rejected 24/7, been there and done that, 100% immune.
... then he wonders why I take jabs at him...?
You like having a cause, but you're bad at it. You don't even know how to make it look tempting to other people, unlike many who tried this game before you.
Many have tried... [and failed]!
I initiated the S-C CP spam phase, I'm the reason you're on this site now and not Luna's in short. I will always be an adversary to some members such as Edvard and MissC for what I did and remembered for years, if not decades to come.
I got a lot of support for my cause during it, and now am on free foot after 2 years of S-C scheming, seeking site vulnerabilities, coming up with plans to cause damage despite all of the site impairments and its lock down status. S-C had 5 janitors in the end, the highest janitor count it ever had because of me, never forget. Trying to undermine my accomplishments won't work on the mastermind himself.
I admit that things would've gotten ugly for me if Jim weren't on my side. It's very clear I appreciate him though.