Sociopath Community

Tryptamine stated: source post

I remember this now. Meta came in and he started constantly spamming the chat with letters. Which is still a bannable offense, but we at least now have a time-out function. And if I remember correctly, he did it because he wanted her to ban him.

5 videos in a row in a thread to annoy someone does seem to verge on spam, but has another context. I disagree with those removals personally, and think maybe TC should have seen if she would kept at it as he presumed she might. Let's not make this a personal issue though. The main focus should be the usability of the site, and preventing it from being tampered with.

We see things exactly the same. I made a huge case for keeping it about the usability of the site. It got personal because when I said the same things, I was accused of being anti-Turncoat (using the opportunity to strike him down) and pro-Xena (because Xena strokes my ego).

f130 stated: source post

everybody sans edvard was willing because of empty to concede so its just one.

What? I said ban the shithead.

FireMeetsIce said:

"VOTE OR DIE

We can't use votes to ban people, polls can be rigged easily. And even if not rigged, just banning unpopular members that might not be spammers is not the SC way.

VOTE OR DIE

http://vote.pollcode.com/29838164#sthash.9Do9V2XJ.dpuf

everybody sans edvard was willing because of empty to concede so its just one.

you banned fullgaze! isnt that similar?

"We see things exactly the same. I made a huge case for keeping it about the usability of the site. It got personal because when I said the same things, I was accused of being anti-Turncoat (using the opportunity to strike him down) and pro-Xena (because Xena strokes my ego)."

Well, we both know how the site works. It was all about personal relations at the time.

Would it be easier if we all just did/post lists of what we consider to be spam? 

Turncoat stated: source post

He said like one thing after being warned. She basically admitted that the ban was over defiance as opposed to actual spam. The Xena video spam was liable to grow larger than that if given the time (it was handled shortly after it had begun), and she's had a history of in-topic spamming (chain posting) in general, unlike Meta. How big should it grow before I step in, or should established users be given a pass? 

I'm going to give in and deal with the current spam, but I do not enjoy this notion of "bias" from other people playing favorites. Without something to define the lines I'm liable to make mistakes again in the future. 

that many music videos makes my browser go much slower, which is why i don't usually click on the music threads. so xena's chainposting vids really had an impact of the 'usability' of that thread. i also think you're doing fine.

It would probably help, yeah.

Niniela stated: source post

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.

Tryptamine stated: source post

ThenFuckit: "Chat is fine and easy to mute imo​"

I agree with this, but it's more about the principle of what is being done. And not everyone who comes in here and sees that wants to stay. 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. We potentially lose interesting people this way.

It was also quite a bit of topic spam originally. 

"Ban the guy, he's just another dexter."

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. How many times do you need to violate that policy before it should result in a ban? To me, until we decide exactly what qualifies as spam being banned for your first or second violation is a tad too harsh. 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.