Contradiction in the Spam Forum

If you post in the spam forum (knowing that you will be flamed) and then complain that you're getting bullied then you are in the wrong. I'm all for people getting chastised for bullying people for no reason (let's say flaming someone who doesn't even post in the spam forum) but if you post anything at all you completely void your right to not be flamed, bullied, or personally attacked in any manner whatsoever. Any content posted that has a negative effect that is not just personal (phishing, porn, etc.) should be moderated. If someone honestly thinks that they're being bullied or attacked so much that there needs to be moderator intervention I believe that they have the right to SF srb and fuck right off. If you request a SF srb then all flaming and attacking towards that person should be stopped.

In my opinion this is very simple. If you wish to partake in the spam forum you must be able to put up with the shit everyone else does. If all of a sudden everyone in the spam forum started calling me a slobby fat cunt every time I posted I would not report the thread nor would I ask for some moderation and I expect the same from everyone else there.

tl;dr

Don't post in SF if you can't handle SF pls go to sandbox ty

 

It was just food for thought.

Don't bring personal information into the spam forum.

Eg: User mentions they have a child.

I mention the child. Then what? Who is at fault here?

You are responsible for your personal life being personal, not us.

 

Let me give you an example of what I would remove (not ban/infract for), then:

My parents are dead. You somehow hear this through the grapevine or what have you. You then, in reply to a completely unrelated post of mine in the spam forum, start to bring this up/joke about it. Every day you mention it, troll about it, aim derogatory comments at me or them relating to it.. to the point where it's pretty physically upsetting. I leave the spam forum/request a ban from the spam forum however when things have such a deep, personal basis it's hard to just "not look at it" and not retaliate. I ask a moderator to remove the threads and ask that the topic be dropped. The moderator deletes the threads and life goes on as normal.

Here is an example of what I wouldn't remove:

User reports a post that mentions them and insults them.
User is retaliating and encouraging the viscous behaviour however doesn't want to be called names.
Etc



Surely you can now understand what I mean by extreme cases.

 

Support OP.

In response to everyone who is saying 'No moderation', the only things that should be moderated are:

1. Personal info and pictures
2. Blatant Sythe.org rule breaking
3. Agressiveness towards staff

The guidelines that are stickied were made before there was a Sand Box forum. The SB was made for the people who couldn't handle the SF, yet people still come to the SF and get butthurt even though it explicitly says they will be viciously attacked.

 

I understand trolling etc like you know everybody gets a bit of grief here n there.

But it's past that, the spam forum is literally just verbal abuse, even on topics that have nothing to do with people.

Like legitimately I dread to think what the average and IQ of users in there are because it's worse than a playground.

If you wanna talk shit then do it over private message instead of doing it in public in the hopes of gettin attention. It's utterly pathetic on so many levels. Better yet, you wanna talk shit then go do it somewhere else entirely.

As active as it is, SF is everything wrong with Sythe. It's just a constant reminder that Sythe doesn't enforce members to take an IQ test before registering.

 

Completely agree with Xier0.

The things that should be moderated are personal info/pics, and directly disrespecting a staff member.

Also threads about a specific user should be allowed. Everyone does it anyway, staff just use it as an excuse to selectively lock threads when someones trolling backfires and they get butthurt.

I disagree with your example above Roary. Even in extreme cases it doesn't really make sense. If the person stops responding/talking shit back there would be absolutely no reason for the person to keep bringing it up. Trying to moderate an interaction like that just leads to more aggressive trolling, more threads popping up, etc.

Imo it shouldn't be "feel free to troll if we believe it is in good fun" it should be "feel free to troll in here."

Also while that might be an example where you might just delete the thread, another staff member might perm SF ban someone for that etc. It just makes better sense to stay out of it unless something explicitly personal is posted.

 

Then no removal of threads will be needed, but that is where my line would stand.

It would be like a benchmark for all mods to moderate against, if a mod couldn't comply with that rule then they wouldn't be OT mods

 

yes

/thread

 

This. Being a sociopath should be punished. Moderating something because "it hurt my wittle feelings" is a no go but serious thought out attacks that are based of serious life events shouldn't be allowed in my opinion. Roary's example of a family member's death is a great example.

 

I'm not saying you would do this, but often times mod will delete/lock threads before things settle themselves out. If it was just left alone then people would duck out of the SF if it got too intense for them. Almost every time that a mod locks/deletes a thread there it just perpetuates the issue.

Having "extreme cases" isn't an objective benchmark. Mods can see that very differently. I really think that Xier0's three things to look for would be a good standard that is in the best interest of everyone involved in the SF.

And the problem isn't OT mods, it is globals who don't participate in the SF. They can take a look and see it as an "extreme case" when really its just two people going at it.

Trying to moderate based on "what is serious" and "what isn't" isn't a good way to do things. If I say I fucked your mom is that extreme? When I go into detail about it and call your mom a whore is that extreme? What if I go further? What if there was a thread in personal support that I didn't see and your mom died? It is too subject to interpretation. It leads to favoritism and inconsistency. If that is how it is moderated anything you say in the SF could subjectively be taken as "extreme" or an "attack."

 

You're not seeing what I'm saying, one insult here and there is expected - continual harrassment and physical upset is not. I have seen maybe 1 case where an intervention has been necessary, the recent events aside.

Unless it's physically upsetting, unbearable, whatever then it shouldnt be touched - if mods are too quick to punish then they can be asked to leave OT reports. Theres no way that it's logical to have zero regulations.

Just my opinion, there are other staff who will probably disagree with me, so I'll leave my opinion at that.

 

No moderation of the spam forum unless:
Phishing, Porn, ect.
People bring shit from the "Personal Support" forums to bash on someone.

Saying simple shit like "You're a faggot", "Your Mom is a fat ugly cunt", we don't know these things to be true? Unless it's in the PS forums, don't moderate it.

And I created that thread "Most hated user in SF" to see who was the most hated. I obviously didn't make it to blatantly attack anyone? I said you can vote OP, which isn't an issue.

Moral of this pile of feces I just typed, "if you can't take the heat, get the fuck out the kitchen yo."

 

I closed your thread jokingly, I can open it if it bothers you

And those insults would be fine, given they arent so extreme that you're deliberately picking at a known issue CONTINUALLY

 

No dude it's all good, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't in any trubbziez.

And I already said before about how [insert name here] was bashing on someone about something they said in the PS forums...I don't like that shit. It's like, SF is full of savages, but come on. That shits just not cool.

 

I see what you're saying. It works in concept and I personally trust you to moderate based on those criteria. I just don't think that it works as a uniform policy.

If you were to change the staff rules to that exact wording right now and also sent out a notification here is what I'd expect you to see. Except for a short initial avoidance of SF reports it wouldn't have any impact whatsoever. Essentially any action is justifiable under those guidelines as they are so subjective. A staff member can say that the user was upset, or that it was 'too extreme' and it will be covered under those rules.

I think a simple "don't lock threads unless porn,gore, personal information, staff disrespect, hacking, etc occurs or repeated attacks against a user who doesn't take part in the spam forum" would be a better rule for everyone involved. It would make the SF better for the people that use it and save the users who mistakenly report threads thinking that it is going to get better for them. As I'm sure you've noticed begging to get a thread locked only brings it back tenfold anyway.

IMO it is better than "if you think its taken too far lock the thread." As that leads to threads getting locked every time someone can't take the heat.

Do it then? Globals have been to quick to jump the gun recently, I know of a few cases. When you see it call it out as an Admin.

Zero regulations wasn't what I proposed. What I proposed was unless porn,gore, personal information, staff disrespect, hacking, etc occurs or repeated attacks against a user who doesn't take part in the spam forum then staff should stay out of it.

 

honestly the past 2014 year has been bitch shit compared to stuff in the past, far worse has been done and no one was hurt, stop being such carebears

 

Or, you know, everyone could just treat each other with respect and no drama or stupid shit would happen in the first place? I don't see why everyone sees the need to bully people in the SF. I doubt you would do it IRL.

 

I might be new to this site, and have never posted in the spam forum but I'd like to give my opinion. We're all mature enough to know when we're crossing the line, if you're just joking then you should just say so or if you're purposely trying to hurt their feelings then you should say your reason if it's getting to the point where you're being annoying and obsessive then IMO the line has been crossed. Nothing can really hurt you unless you make yourself vulnerable to attacks and that only really happens if you're either to open or just being a douche so the victim usually plays just as large of a role in here as the attacker.

 

I have almst never moderated much there. You have to be mature to determine what crosses the line and what doesnt. I for one dont care what anyone says of me in there, I dont care how personal you think you can get with me either.

Little to no moderation isn't a bad thing but we have to have a "line" that once crossed we step in. I dont know what happened in the SF recently, I have better things to do then to care about the day to day drama there.

 

I've always had a problem with the spam forum anti-flaming rule. Finn started it to protect his allies and that's all its really ever been used for.