Contradiction in the Spam Forum

Before you enter the spam forum, it specifically states: "Warning: Many rules do not apply in this forum. If you post here you will probably be viciously attacked".

As you enter, there are rules to the spam forum. I have no clue why there are rules to begin with, but it's there.

Inside the thread it states: "Threads dedicated to hate and/or flame a member aren't allowed."

Now read the first quote, then read the second one. Is there another definition of vicious that I should be aware of?

Remove the censoring and moderation of the spam forum. It's ridiculous how users can still be punished for following the context that the description holds.

 

[The Ract]

I don't get why Sandbox can't be the less vicious version of spam forum where people won't be personally attacked, then have the Spam Forum have no limitations to what people can say (to an extent)

I thought that was what Sandbox was made for.

Anyways, there's no point in moderating the spam forum unless it's something serious such as phishing or harmful links.

 

I don't get why Sandbox can't be the less vicious version of spam forum where people won't be personally attacked, then have the Spam Forum have no limitations to what people can say (to an extent)

I thought that was what Sandbox was made for.

Anyways, there's no point in moderating the spam forum unless it's something serious such as phishing or harmful links.

I thought the same. It seemed to turn to a gambling/competition forum than anything else. I agree that moderation of anything hacking related should be taken care of nonetheless.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

Already being taken care of.
http://www.sythe.org/report-spammer-archive/1686663-reported-post-mohtasaunique.html


Once it's changed in the thread, mods will have no basis to believe they're supposed to mod the SF.

 

Already mentally noted that they need looked in to

I disagree slightly though, I don't think it should be totally unmoderated - there needs to be a line when it turns in to more than just trolling/some fun.

 

Already being taken care of.
http://www.sythe.org/report-spammer-archive/1686663-reported-post-mohtasaunique.html

Once it's changed in the thread, mods will have no basis to believe they're supposed to mod the SF.

Ah, was unaware.

Already mentally noted that they need looked in to

I disagree slightly though, I don't think it should be totally unmoderated - there needs to be a line when it turns in to more than just trolling/some fun.

That is subjective. What may be more than just trolling/some fun to you, may be the opposite to another. This is why it should not be moderated.

Another example of what should be moderated is:

Unwanted pictures posted of that user.

~~~~

The moderation of recent, has been unnecessary.

 

It's pretty obvious when it turns in to bullying in some cases. I'm not even referring to recent events, but generally there has to be SOME sort of line.

 

It's pretty obvious when it turns in to bullying in some cases. I'm not even referring to recent events, but generally there has to be SOME sort of line.

"Viciously attacked"

That would be bullying. Am I wrong?

 

[The Ract]

It's pretty obvious when it turns in to bullying in some cases. I'm not even referring to recent events, but generally there has to be SOME sort of line.

If you can't take some words over an internet, just don't use the spam forum? The thread states you may be viciously attacked.. If you're too sensitive for it, just don't go. Shouldn't it be that simple?

 

Don't act like it isn't obvious when it goes beyond SF humour and trolling. It's blatantly obvious and everyone knows it is.

I'm not in any way strict about the SF - I have rarely punished for SF posts/threads. But I do think there should be a line in place.

 

My $0.02 on the type of moderation regarding trolling/hate etc

I believe if any individual truly isn't provoking any hate and legitimately is not feeding the situation then it could be closed. Trolling can be funny but there's nothing funny about blatant harassment and bullying.

When I say truly isn't provoking any hate and legitimately is not feeding the situation I mean more than having them say "leave me alone" and then minutes later exclaiming "trolololol". We don't want bullchit crying wolf situations going on to return the next day phaggier than ever nomsayin?

 

[MohtasaUnique]

Already mentally noted that they need looked in to

I disagree slightly though, I don't think it should be totally unmoderated - there needs to be a line when it turns in to more than just trolling/some fun.

The spam forum is supposed to be there for users to vent their misconduct so that it doesn't spread to the rest of the forum. If a user can't handle it, they shouldn't open the spam forum, and therefore, there's no need to draw a line. It's ridiculous that one bitching user can ruin it for the rest of us who are perfectly content with wallowing in our own piss.

The spam forum isn't a fucking pony ride. One shouldn't be able to halt the ride because their toes got stepped on. Mods being vigilant for excessive trolling, or whatever you'd define as "more than just trolling/some fun." leads to some sort of unjustified preemptive actions, such as this: http://www.sythe.org/spam-forum/1688431-most-hated-sf-user.html
The only possible reason for this to be locked is because you probably saw it going south with one user or another getting targeted. If that were the case, they shouldn't be doing stupid shit to get targets for one, and for two, they don't have to look at the thread or in the spam forum. If they're truly hated enough to get ripped apart in that thread, then they should take the goddamn hint and leave the spam forum

 

[Akrotaz]

I think the punishments should apply to both parties, so that would mean Tr** and Ch*** would be banned as well as the other people, that is IF SF were to be moderated. If someone makes too many threads that are only personal attacks, that might be understandable to a certain extent, but otherwise say if someone compares SF to a videogame and someone comes in and derails the thread, that should be allowed.

 

http://www.sythe.org/spam-forum/1688431-most-hated-sf-user.html

It was all in good fun, I could care less about the current drama - hence why the rest of the threads are open. I've done it on several occasions when I feel like it just for my own amusement, if that's somehow making you think I'm strictly moderating the SF then you've taken it wrongly and I'll just leave shitty threads be

 

Don't act like it isn't obvious when it goes beyond SF humour and trolling. It's blatantly obvious and everyone knows it is.

I'm not in any way strict about the SF - I have rarely punished for SF posts/threads. But I do think there should be a line in place.

This is the internet, not an elementary school.

Just to add on that, we are talking about the spam forum. In comparison to many others, this one has too many restrictions, taking away the feel of an actual spam forum.

> No bullying
> But you can be racist

 

[Akrotaz]

This is the internet, not an elementary school.

Just to add on that, we are talking about the spam forum. In comparison to many others, this one has too many restrictions, taking away the feel of an actual spam forum.

> No bullying
> But you can be racist

The ironic thing is that my care level for bullying even if it's against me is almost zero. Racism, on the other hand, tends to offend more people.

 

This is the internet, not an elementary school.

Show me where I've treated it like an elementary school?

There have been at most 2 occasions when I've had to remove content from that forum or warn someone about their behaviour there.

I don't want to ruin anyone's fun or think that if you insult someone vaguely then you should be banned or reprimanded for it - I've turned down many a report or request to remove threads that have insults aimed at said person.

I'm just saying there needs to be some sort of line in place for extreme situations where the person on the other end legitimately is 'suffering', for lack of a better word and as Jack G said, not willingly partaking.

 

Show me where I've treated it like an elementary school?

There have been at most 2 occasions when I've had to remove content from that forum or warn someone about their behaviour there.

I don't want to ruin anyone's fun or think that if you insult someone vaguely then you should be banned or reprimanded for it - I've turned down many a report or request to remove threads that have insults aimed at said person.

I'm just saying there needs to be some sort of line in place for extreme situations where the person on the other end legitimately is 'suffering', for lack of a better word and as Jack G said, not willingly partaking.

Never said you did, nor did I say you was the cause of this effect. If I listed the users, I'd be spam forum banned most likely.

If you are at the point of being emotionally unstable for being verbally abused on the internet behind a computer screen, you shouldn't have entered the forum. I mean.. There is a disclaimer before entering.

 

I'm not even going to get in to the debate of bullying with you. You can't just sit back and pretend that personal-level shit isn't being said about you in a joking/humiliating manner when you've done nothing to provoke or encourage it, bullying does affect people and as a forum for all ages and what-not, there should be some sort of restriction for when it gets out of hand (which in my opinion is barely ever).

I'm not saying the SF rules shouldn't change or should be as strict as they are now, personally - I'm all for loosening up in the SF a little. I'm just not with the idea of having ZERO restrictions whatsoever.

 

[Abarta]

I support OP

I understand if you take trolling out of the spam forum it should be an infraction but calling someone out should not warrant any infractions in the spam forum..