Sociopath Community

"To me the people seeing this site for the first time an never coming back aren't nearly as big of an issue as the people who see the chat at the top of the page full of mindless gibberish and think "this is a site for me", just saying."

Do you disagree that we potentially lose diverse and interesting potentially new members because of the chat spam? I assume as long as you've been here, you've seen exactly that happen yourself. Do you agree these antics we are discussing interrupt dialogue on the forum, and break the "one rule": "Do not ruin the usability of this site (such as spam, flooding, or illegal activities)."

There are a few more things you are not allowed to do here...but let's be honest. This site without proper moderation would be complete pandemonium, and would not be able to fulfill the function of a forum: Facilitating dialogue among others.

"Its annoying. But from what I remember we made a point of not banning Dexter. Granted I was only here for the later half of his time here but I thought his ban was a non-negotiable decision by Michael Prey, when he was trying to clean up after Luna's antics. That said, he is breaking the one rule."

TC and I discussed this in another thread.

Tryptamine: "The general consensus at the time was that he was an interesting case study, and should therefor not be banned. He would be banned and return, then behave for a while. He was most likely given leniency because of his interactions with TK. Also from time-to-time, he did share interesting things and provided entertainment. But the shtick got old."

Turncoat: "I admittedly let him slide for quite a long time too. He wasn't initially spamming during some of his returns, but he'd fall into familiar patterns if given the time and incentive, be banned, then occasionally behave for a time where he could be milked for character investment."

By the way, dexter was banned whenever he began to flood the chat or the threads. He was allowed back because he was an interesting character. The screen shots of texts with his mother were priceless. That is what I meant when I said he contributed. He was capable of novelty, and he could give everyone something to laugh about. Not always at him always at him, but with him, as well.

Whenever he went on a spamming spree, he would be banned. That is why his activity was punctuated with months of inactivity.

"To me, until we decide exactly what qualifies as spam being banned for your first or second violation is a tad too harsh."

I brought up my perspective in the main thread discussing this very subject, and I think what I had to say formed a very cohesive argument in regard to this subject. However, others do not seem to be contributing much, other than (ban him! He is clearly a spammer!). Your two cents would be appreciated.

"That said, as you mentioned earlier its been here for quite a while and on multiple accounts, so it has likely broken your site's rule many times. But at the same time, the fact that its such a persisting problem makes me wonder how effective a ban on one of its accounts would even be."

To my knowledge, IP bans effectively solve this situation.

This is a good idea. I second this and I would like a voting system as well. The voting should be done in private so no on knows who votes.

It would read...

Ban, Do not Ban or I don't care. 

Just mute him ffs. do you wanna ban everyone who seems to annoy people? That ruins this place. Mute him or ignore him, if enough people do that he won't have any fun here anymore. Or he does, but you dont have to give a flying fuck because you dont have to see it.

"I've seen new users come to the site, thinking it may have potential. Then they decide to never come back, because they see some guy on a marathon of spamming random nonsense."

To me the people seeing this site for the first time an never coming back aren't nearly as big of an issue as the people who see the chat at the top of the page full of mindless gibberish and think "this is a site for me", just saying.

Everyone who wants to promote a ban because someone made 10 empty threads (as if anything you faggots say has any value or contribution to the community) is a sensitive little bitch lmao

Sometimes spamming is a peeve. For everyone else, there's /b/.

To my knowledge, IP bans effectively solve this situation.

A guy FullGaze (not me) was ip banned but he made another account f130.

BTW turncunt is abusing his powers with full's ban! he even claimed spamming threads is akin to chain posting!

IMO He should ban both full and empty if anything.

"A guy FullGaze (not me) was ip banned but he made another account f130."

There is a dilemma where users can log onto new accounts through TOR if they are IP banned.

"BTW turncunt is abusing his powers with full's ban!"

Same behavior, same reason for ban.

"he even claimed spamming threads is akin to chain posting!"

Part of what this thread is about is communing to a communal consensus on what is and is not acceptable moderation. But not many people are putting forward cogent arguments.

WW3 stated: source post

both chat and post bans ban the ip of the account you banned.

I was able to post that time I was banned on 1.0 on a new account anyway, and beyond that I recall a larger uproar during that Kiwi stint once it extended towards our own users as well. I could have sworn Luna mentioned that she had to manually root out IPs in order to IP ban someone during that time...

If I was able to undo bans from a ban list I'd test this out.