I appreciate your thoughts. Censorship is removal of content for its own sake, not for the sake of behavior. My own practice when dealing with a violator who also provides usable content is to preserve the content while still disciplining the violation. A long analytical comment being removed over one obscenity would be censorship; if the community prefers no obscenities, it's better to ask the contributor to self-edit, letting him know that loss of content associated with violation would become unavoidable if he doesn't end the violation.
The motive to delete content solely because it's close to a violation is not inclusionist. When I say "we hate" that kind of censorship it's because I read a strong consensus here that tools are for violations, not content. You might see different evidence of consensus.
If AI content is not clear then we don't discipline based on a suspicion only without some corroboration. If AI content is supportive, then good, but if people believe it's spamming (which it could easily be even if it's supportive to a positive, civil presentation) then an objective line can be set.
I could see dedicated AI producing most of what Will produces, possibly even in his first appearances here (but sometimes he drops the botlike character for a bit). He does "choose" to express good etymologies mixed with puns, take them or leave them; this "inspires" other users to rethink, especially as to the use of authority in Christianity, which I find a good challenge to keep abreast of.
Now, I'm not trying to convince you of an approach, just seeking to explain. The general principles would probably need working out by the mod (team) in realtime given your and the rest of the community's views. So perhaps nothing need be pinned down; but let me look at your other comment. Also, I just started a fresh vote on the subject.
I know the general approach in such matters and I was focusing more on the specifics around dealing with AI chatbots and shills infestation, but I see that I wouldn't get a definitive answer.
Regarding free-will-of-choice, it is clear to me that he's a shill. DZP1 said something very interesting - he's a human, who uses a bot for most of his comments, but interferes when there's a reason to look human.
fwoc never posted. If a human has something to say, he wouldn't wait 4 years to only comment under other's posts. That's not human behavior.
fwoc constantly spams his etymological comments, which are mostly incorrect, but not all can understand that. He is vastly ignored/blocked by people in here, yet he keeps on spamming for 4 years... That's not human behavior.
fwoc is flooding the comments, so they seem incoherent and work to make others disengage on any useful discussion. That's the work of a shill. (Now not so much because he's on the radar, but he's still here and there on topics that need to be suppressed or confused...)
I think you're making the mistake in believing that shills and bots will be easily recognizable, while their methods are far more advanced than you imagine...
hes explained why he doesn’t post threads. Pretty sure I saw swamp relay to you why that is in another thread a couple weeks ago but I’m not gunna go hunt for it
his comments are great if you actually read them and try to understand what hes saying, which is admittedly something that isn’t always easy. But most things worth doing aren’t easy.
“flooding” the comments lol? Eh, I don’t see it. What I do see is joeygerbils5 making dozens of low effort spam posts multiple times per day, which legitimately IS flooding this place and you act like hes trying to save the forum by posting shitty screenshots of decade old 4chan posts lol
I appreciate your thoughts. Censorship is removal of content for its own sake, not for the sake of behavior. My own practice when dealing with a violator who also provides usable content is to preserve the content while still disciplining the violation. A long analytical comment being removed over one obscenity would be censorship; if the community prefers no obscenities, it's better to ask the contributor to self-edit, letting him know that loss of content associated with violation would become unavoidable if he doesn't end the violation.
The motive to delete content solely because it's close to a violation is not inclusionist. When I say "we hate" that kind of censorship it's because I read a strong consensus here that tools are for violations, not content. You might see different evidence of consensus.
If AI content is not clear then we don't discipline based on a suspicion only without some corroboration. If AI content is supportive, then good, but if people believe it's spamming (which it could easily be even if it's supportive to a positive, civil presentation) then an objective line can be set.
I could see dedicated AI producing most of what Will produces, possibly even in his first appearances here (but sometimes he drops the botlike character for a bit). He does "choose" to express good etymologies mixed with puns, take them or leave them; this "inspires" other users to rethink, especially as to the use of authority in Christianity, which I find a good challenge to keep abreast of.
Now, I'm not trying to convince you of an approach, just seeking to explain. The general principles would probably need working out by the mod (team) in realtime given your and the rest of the community's views. So perhaps nothing need be pinned down; but let me look at your other comment. Also, I just started a fresh vote on the subject.
I know the general approach in such matters and I was focusing more on the specifics around dealing with AI chatbots and shills infestation, but I see that I wouldn't get a definitive answer.
Regarding free-will-of-choice, it is clear to me that he's a shill. DZP1 said something very interesting - he's a human, who uses a bot for most of his comments, but interferes when there's a reason to look human.
fwoc never posted. If a human has something to say, he wouldn't wait 4 years to only comment under other's posts. That's not human behavior.
fwoc constantly spams his etymological comments, which are mostly incorrect, but not all can understand that. He is vastly ignored/blocked by people in here, yet he keeps on spamming for 4 years... That's not human behavior.
fwoc is flooding the comments, so they seem incoherent and work to make others disengage on any useful discussion. That's the work of a shill. (Now not so much because he's on the radar, but he's still here and there on topics that need to be suppressed or confused...)
I think you're making the mistake in believing that shills and bots will be easily recognizable, while their methods are far more advanced than you imagine...
Fwoc is the farthest thing from a bot this forum has
Please explain then.
hes explained why he doesn’t post threads. Pretty sure I saw swamp relay to you why that is in another thread a couple weeks ago but I’m not gunna go hunt for it
his comments are great if you actually read them and try to understand what hes saying, which is admittedly something that isn’t always easy. But most things worth doing aren’t easy.
“flooding” the comments lol? Eh, I don’t see it. What I do see is joeygerbils5 making dozens of low effort spam posts multiple times per day, which legitimately IS flooding this place and you act like hes trying to save the forum by posting shitty screenshots of decade old 4chan posts lol