|
A Buttery Pastry posted:No, we're understanding perfectly what the core message of the the rule is. It's that you're not allowed to call out the in-group when they make up claims about you. if that were true, i wouldnt be able to call this post bullshit
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
smdh mods unable to accept the truth. of course you care more about people who post in your own forum than random fuckers. its directly proportionate to the amount of rope you have to gently caress around. somebody who makes a lot of great content is going to be able to go more buckwild than somebody who doesn't. Nothing particularly wrong with this, you just never say this out loud as a matter of course, its present in every single forum in varying degrees. its why the people who come into to cspam to do a masterful troll to point this out look goony as gently caress. nobody likes you bitch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:if that were true, i wouldnt be able to call this post bullshit An excellent point from the stupid dipshit who caused the whole issue by banning two people for making fun of loving smarxist
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
something has happened to my homeless friends plat icon... something terrible....... i hope this is a bug ???
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
So clearly the biggest complaint so far is that people don't like the new rule. To us, it just seemed like we were putting a rule down that had already existed. Would the new rule haters mind explaining what the problem is a little better so we can better understand where the miscommunication is and how to fix it?Grapplejack posted:also could you consider probing people for the minecraft poo poo, it isn't funny and it's also embarrassing we have been probating for this for a long time now. sometimes people will say it in a different way, like to make fun of it, and that's fine. but using it as a way to get away with saying rule-breaking poo poo isn't allowed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:An excellent point from the stupid dipshit who caused the whole issue by banning two people for making fun of loving smarxist thank you
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
Crusty Nutsack posted:Would the new rule haters mind explaining what the problem is a little better so we can better understand where the miscommunication is and how to fix it? the shitposting nobility wants free reign to poo poo up/spam/derail threads in the forum they hate full of users they hate, and if you stop them, they get insanely mad rofl
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
smarxist posted:the shitposting nobility wants free reign to poo poo up/spam/derail threads in the forum they hate full of users they hate, and if you stop them, they get insanely mad rofl well, this is a shitposting forum, and it's a lot of our own regulars who are complaining about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
i dunno, maybe they object to the wording, i don't even know if it has been invoked yet the only thing i think should be thwacked by mods are spamming/derails, less so content
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
Crusty Nutsack posted:So clearly the biggest complaint so far is that people don't like the new rule. To us, it just seemed like we were putting a rule down that had already existed. Would the new rule haters mind explaining what the problem is a little better so we can better understand where the miscommunication is and how to fix it? You don't see the issue with having an extremely broad, vague rule that could be used to punish any post a mod decides they don't like? It's a shitposting forum, youve got to be be free to make jokes and talk poo poo without getting banned because otherwise this place is just D&D but trump is spelled wrong Also, again, this rule appeared right after a loving idiot banned two people completely out of the blue for mentioning the time one of his posting pals had an unbelievably funny meltdown
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
if you're worried about a rule against threadshitting i think the problem is that you're not a very good poster
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
stop being a disingenuous rear end in a top hat, for someone who hates D&D you sure talk like one lmao it wasn't "mentioning a meltdown", it was a giant derail that went on for pages because fyad are bizarrely obsessive weirdos, and they barreled in to continue it long after mods tried to stop it for being disruptive/boring you can whine (a really funny thing a joke maker and poo poo talker does btw) about how mean cspammers say the honorable slur respecters are all nazis but that seems very strange and also pathetic considering your stated goal
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
like smarxist's meltdown was really loving funny and it's way funnier that he's still posting here, but that horse has been beaten to death and he's just here now
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Eox posted:like smarxist's meltdown was really loving funny and it's way funnier that he's still posting here, but that horse has been beaten to death and he's just here now he posts enough that surely someone could come up with a second joke if they wanted to own him
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
we need a thread where we can lol at people freaking out over cspam imo. that qcs content is there for the reaping
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:You don't see the issue with having an extremely broad, vague rule that could be used to punish any post a mod decides they don't like? we do that anyway. that's nothing new. that's part of being a fyad-lite or whatever we're called. I think if anything, the rule might be redundant because it's stating the obvious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:he posts enough that surely someone could come up with a second joke if they wanted to own him arf's comic was hilarious, the spamming/derails are boring/annoying as usual with that forum there's one really talented/funny guy and a bunch of morons following their lead poorly
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
smarxist posted:stop being a disingenuous rear end in a top hat, for someone who hates D&D you sure talk like one lmao who even mentioned fyad For a guy who can't stop whining about how they're obsessed you sure do mention them constantly, completely unprompted
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
don't turn this thread into a personal slapfight or vendetta against another forum or whatever, that's not what it's for
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
lmao crane fist this isn't qcs that rule exists because the drama forum worked itself into a frenzy and went on a pooptouching expedition, a couple of the idiots bandwagoning in with the brigade got themselves banned, and then successfully argued in qcs that because there was no rule explicitly stating that you can get banned for that, it was excessively harsh punishment so now there's a dumb rule explicitly stating that
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
Crusty Nutsack posted:we do that anyway. that's nothing new. that's part of being a fyad-lite or whatever we're called. It seems like you're trying to have it both ways? "we will punish you arbitrarily as that's the nature of the forum, chaos reigns, it's the wild west, and make sure you're not mean to us because that's against the rules" seems like a confused philosophy
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
Dustcat posted:lmao crane fist this isn't qcs This is a thread about cspam moderation, where I am talking a moderating decision made by a cspam mod, you loving clod
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
Also that rule was not made because of smarxist, it was after a bunch of other things happening too. Everyone seems to be reading it in that context only. But take for instance, the situation in the covid thread where mourne would keep coming back to the thread and calling everyone in there freaks and losers, bringing up oddly personal insults, and then would get probed for it and come back a week later and do the same thing, and not post anything else. Everyone seemed to hate his posting in that thread, and it helps in that situation for mods to have a strongly worded sign that they can tap on. And there are other things that happened too, it’s a rule and meant to be general, not applicable only to one case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
Crusty Nutsack posted:So clearly the biggest complaint so far is that people don't like the new rule. To us, it just seemed like we were putting a rule down that had already existed. Would the new rule haters mind explaining what the problem is a little better so we can better understand where the miscommunication is and how to fix it? That aside, this tendency also seems to reinforce an extremely America-centric perspective, in the style of arguing Brazilians can't possibly truly understand the concept of unemployment and poverty, because it's just a bunch of Americans talking about America. When you're a member of the cultural hegemon, you more than anyone need to learn to listen and be willing to hear people out - even, or hell, especially when they're mocking you for being a myopic rear end in a top hat. Eox posted:if you're worried about a rule against threadshitting i think the problem is that you're not a very good poster Eox's evil D&D twin posted:If you're worried about a rule against threadshitting, I think the problem might be that you're not a very good poster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
mods can we make the forum background rudy giuliani please thank you
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:It seems like you're trying to have it both ways? "we will punish you arbitrarily as that's the nature of the forum, chaos reigns, it's the wild west, and make sure you're not mean to us because that's against the rules" seems like a confused philosophy you're right, we should have made it more vague lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
also change the name from C-SPAM to RUDY
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
twoday posted:Also that rule was not made because of smarxist, it was after a bunch of other things happening too. Everyone seems to be reading it in that context only. Can you blame us? That was an extremely visible, very stupid mod decision and the rule was instituted immediately once an admin reversed the decision, it didn't seem like a reach to assume the impetus for it might have been creating a justification for doing the same poo poo next time. Might be worth rewriting it to be far more specific or you know just getting rid of it entirely because it sucks Crusty Nutsack posted:you're right, we should have made it more vague lol lol nice. why the gently caress did you get made a mod
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
for the record i didn't know about cspam staff angling for that rule, didn't bother them to do it, and have never reported jack poo poo on this forum except that one really hosed up rear end in a top hat trying to insinuate that i was a "sex pest", which only got them a 1 day probe lmao all i want to do is post with my pals
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
The intention behind it was not to squash dissent, or even to stop people from arguing or insulting each other. It was aimed at people who are consistently being jerks, causing derails with weird personal grudges, and not posting anything funny or interesting. Some people come to c-spam solely to post about how much they dislike c-spam. Like, ok we get it, why are you here then?
twoday has issued a correction as of 21:08 on Dec 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
twoday posted:Tails get trolled poster? What? some dude posted the classic tails gets trolled comic and you unjustly probed them. also it doesnt really matter because it was like 12 hours or somethin but it was funny enough to me to remember
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Putting that rule into writing is cementing a bad tendency in C-SPAM modding/culture, one which we should move away from rather than embrace. There is plenty of evidence in the annals of SA history that fostering these kinds of no-critique zones makes sub-cultures go off the deep end until eventually they flame out. We don't want C-SPAM to do the 2021 equivalent of convincing goons to live entirely off bacon fat. I hadn't considered those bigger picture contexts in relation to this, so thank you for the perspective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:Can you blame us? That was an extremely visible, very stupid mod decision and the rule was instituted immediately once an admin reversed the decision, it didn't seem like a reach to assume the impetus for it might have been creating a justification for doing the same poo poo next time. Might be worth rewriting it to be far more specific or you know just getting rid of it entirely because it sucks *wracking my brain for an amazing own* why did you get made a huge moron *exhales slowly from the mouth and nods in satisfaction*
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
twoday posted:But take for instance, the situation in the covid thread where mourne would keep coming back to the thread and calling everyone in there freaks and losers, bringing up oddly personal insults, and then would get probed for it and come back a week later and do the same thing, and not post anything else. mourne is a pretty bad example because he would post about his irresponsible behavior and get viciously flamed for it but when he flames back he gets hit harder than anyone else. should just let flame wars go and sixer people (everyone involved) if it gets tedious imo. like the covid thread needs a villian or a marriage falling apart or something else its just garbage cat pics and food. let my flamers flame
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:*wracking my brain for an amazing own* why did you get made a huge moron *squizzle's friend darryl* gently caress HIM UP SQUIZ
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:smdh mods unable to accept the truth. of course you care more about people who post in your own forum than random fuckers. its directly proportionate to the amount of rope you have to gently caress around. somebody who makes a lot of great content is going to be able to go more buckwild than somebody who doesn't. Nothing particularly wrong with this, you just never say this out loud as a matter of course, its present in every single forum in varying degrees. its why the people who come into to cspam to do a masterful troll to point this out look goony as gently caress. nobody likes you bitch. also very true. wise imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:somebody who makes a lot of great content is going to be able to go more buckwild than somebody who doesn't. Nothing particularly wrong with this, you just never say this out loud as a matter of course, Yeah, but that’s kind of what we were trying to do with that rule. The message was meant to be something like, “if you’re gonna post in c-spam, try to contribute something that’s interesting and entertaining, or at least just chill and be neutral, but if you’re here exclusively to derail conversations and call everyone a moron in some unfunny way, then gtfo”
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Putting that rule into writing is cementing a bad tendency in C-SPAM modding/culture, one which we should move away from rather than embrace. There is plenty of evidence in the annals of SA history that fostering these kinds of no-critique zones makes sub-cultures go off the deep end until eventually they flame out. We don't want C-SPAM to do the 2021 equivalent of convincing goons to live entirely off bacon fat. This is a good point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
Updated the outgoing message on the hotline
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
twoday posted:Updated the outgoing message on the hotline  but ears
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2020 00:36
|
|