Venting Doesn’t feel like a safe space for suffering people anymore

[Dot]

ive seen the mods do this. i cant remember specifics but im fairly confident i saw a heavy prolife thread (in the recovery section!) a little while back and the person got banned. i think that was before the whole "why arent we allowing prolife views" though, so i dont think its as bad as it use to be, but still extremely hypocritical

Am awre of th/ thred 2 whch u r refrrng

Tht membr tk a lw-effrt cpy & pste ChtGPT 'reasns t/ liv' & mde a thred frm tht

Whn sme ppl tld tht membr tht sme of th/ 'reasns' of tht lst wre unrealstc fr thm tht usr ws condscendng & tld membrs tht thy hd th/ wrng mind-st & wre nt tryng hrd enuf & wre jst b-ing neg8tve etc - th/ thred OP thn dbled-dwn & startd gs-lightng membrs bcse thy wre 2 arrgnt 2 C tht stuatns r oftn mre complx thn a ChtGPT perspctve

Inspirng & spportng ppl thu recvry = Ncourged in tht sectn of th/ frum -- showng up pretndng t/ b a guru wth 0 slf-reflectn jst t/ upst ppl & tlk dwn t/ thm lke childrn wth 0 nuance or cnsidratn fr individl strggls wll nevr b toler8td

She makes the exact same post several times over to get attention and sympathy

She's just attention seeking

Ths = speculatn on ur prt

---------

Mods r awre of critcsms rgardng ths usr bt slf wll also sy tht mods recive regulr cmplaints tht mods r bth simltaneously 'protctng thm' & also 'allowng harmfl commnts 2wrds thm' -- ths = bcse mods d/ nt condsidr ventng abt h8tng lfe t/ b agnst th/ rles bt also allw civl critcsms of thr psts 2 rmain on th/ threds bcse membrs r allowd t/ dsagree wth ech-othrs perspctves

Wht happns betwn mods & usrs = nt publicsd & = delt wth priv8tly bt slf cn assre membrs tht if a thred = shwn t/ b problmatc or cnsidrd t/ b Ncourgng suicde etc or viol8tng n.e rles thn warnngs & deletns r issud jst th/ sme as wth n.e othr usr

Membrs r alwys welcme t/ rport ruls violatns bt sme1 copng b/ ventng evry dy tht thy h8 lfe = nt viol8tng n.ethng & membrs cn stll ignre

Mods r stll opn t/ specfc cncerns abt harmfl b-havr & if membrs wnt 2 msg mods wth specfc xampls thn thy cn & wll b investg8td

 

[Pluto]

My suggestion would be to implement a new rule against incitation.

Tantacrul once came here solely to attack our community for 'causing' the death of a minor when in reality, he was not open to a mature discussion. He was banned within a matter of days, if that. (The fact that he later got his revenge with a massive video that directed thousands of minors to this website is beside the point.)

The same should apply here. Anyone coming here purely to divide us, to ignite internal conflict, to stress-test our boundaries with incendiary content (in some cases, pro-child suicide, vehement opposition to other people's "recovery", etc.) and to establish themselves as a de facto cult leader is here for narcissistic reasons that have nothing to do with legitimate suicidal ideation, nor any genuine empathy for others.

I don't buy the weaponisation of victimhood; that's trick number 1 in the Dark Triad playbook. Likewise, the get-out-of-jail-free card of "I was just venting." All previous critics have gotten worn out by the repetitive tirades and left the site, but now there seems a growing consensus that this situation is becoming unacceptable to most members.

This community should be about the community. We have enough foes outside of the website and should have and enforce rules against purposefully turning us against one another.

 

[DreamEnd]

My suggestion would be to implement a new rule against incitation.

Tantacrul once came here solely to attack our community for 'causing' the death of a minor when in reality, he was not open to a mature discussion. He was banned within a matter of days, if that. (The fact that he later got his revenge with a massive video that directed thousands of minors to this website is beside the point.)

The same should apply here. Anyone coming here purely to divide us, to ignite internal conflict, to stress-test our boundaries with incendiary content (in some cases, pro-child suicide, vehement opposition to other people's "recovery", etc.) and to establish themselves as a de facto cult leader is here for narcissistic reasons that have nothing to do with legitimate suicidal ideation, nor any genuine empathy for others.

I don't buy the weaponisation of victimhood; that's trick number 1 in the Dark Triad playbook. Likewise, the get-out-of-jail-free card of "I was just venting." All previous critics have gotten worn out by the repetitive tirades and left the site, but now there seems a growing consensus that this situation is becoming unacceptable to most members.

This community should be about the community. We have enough foes outside of the website and should have and enforce rules against purposefully turning us against one another.

Yes. I agree 100%.

 

[4.I.2.Must.Die]

Yes. I agree 100%.

Good I'm glad you agree, I'm glad you agree because the last time you didn't agree the thread became a verbal battleground with your debate with another user

 

[Bed]

My suggestion would be to implement a new rule against incitation.

Tantacrul once came here solely to attack our community for 'causing' the death of a minor when in reality, he was not open to a mature discussion. He was banned within a matter of days, if that. (The fact that he later got his revenge with a massive video that directed thousands of minors to this website is beside the point.)

The same should apply here. Anyone coming here purely to divide us, to ignite internal conflict, to stress-test our boundaries with incendiary content (in some cases, pro-child suicide, vehement opposition to other people's "recovery", etc.) and to establish themselves as a de facto cult leader is here for narcissistic reasons that have nothing to do with legitimate suicidal ideation, nor any genuine empathy for others.

I don't buy the weaponisation of victimhood; that's trick number 1 in the Dark Triad playbook. Likewise, the get-out-of-jail-free card of "I was just venting." All previous critics have gotten worn out by the repetitive tirades and left the site, but now there seems a growing consensus that this situation is becoming unacceptable to most members.

This community should be about the community. We have enough foes outside of the website and should have and enforce rules against purposefully turning us against one another.

i like this suggestion a lot. will be looking into it with the mod team.

 

[Chinaski]

My suggestion would be to implement a new rule against incitation.

Tantacrul once came here solely to attack our community for 'causing' the death of a minor when in reality, he was not open to a mature discussion. He was banned within a matter of days, if that. (The fact that he later got his revenge with a massive video that directed thousands of minors to this website is beside the point.)

The same should apply here. Anyone coming here purely to divide us, to ignite internal conflict, to stress-test our boundaries with incendiary content (in some cases, pro-child suicide, vehement opposition to other people's "recovery", etc.) and to establish themselves as a de facto cult leader is here for narcissistic reasons that have nothing to do with legitimate suicidal ideation, nor any genuine empathy for others.

I don't buy the weaponisation of victimhood; that's trick number 1 in the Dark Triad playbook. Likewise, the get-out-of-jail-free card of "I was just venting." All previous critics have gotten worn out by the repetitive tirades and left the site, but now there seems a growing consensus that this situation is becoming unacceptable to most members.

This community should be about the community. We have enough foes outside of the website and should have and enforce rules against purposefully turning us against one another.

Broadly agree however I'm very wary of any rule which affords an instaban to anyone for reasons which are essentially up to mod interpretation - a quick scroll through my interactions with staff on my profile page from about a year back, on this very subject as it happens, will give some explanation as to my caution.

EDIT: would also add that expressions of "empathy", in the true sense of the word, are not a pre-requisite imo.

 

[RainAndSadness]

ive seen the mods do this. i cant remember specifics but im fairly confident i saw a heavy prolife thread (in the recovery section!) a little while back and the person got banned. i think that was before the whole "why arent we allowing prolife views" though, so i dont think its as bad as it use to be, but still extremely hypocritical

We have applied the ban because the person in question posted chat-GTP advice. That's not how the recovery subforum works. Just because it's a recovery subforum doesn't means you can preach and proselytize low-effort empty plattidues.

Here is what the member in question posted in that thread:



Here is the response from Chat-GTP when I asked for reasons not to commit suicide. It's almost identical text.



The next part of his post is even 100% identical.

His text:



Chat-GTP text:



He later admitted it was copy-pasted. I think that's self-explanatory. On top of that, when members called them out and explained that these suggestions are barely helpful for someone who is sincerely suffering and thinking about suicide, they told them to go to therapy. Here is just one example of them attacking members because they disagreed with that AI text. Sorry, but "you need therapy" isn't an appropiate response to actual suicidal person pointing out that your advice is essentially useless. It's just arrogant and condescending.





Just to clear that up very quickly before rumours spread that we ban people for trying to help out. We don't. But we take action against low-effort Chat-GTP plattidues and toxic, condescending jerks who think they can lecture others about suicide prevention. What makes this forum so different from other places is that people here expect and receive sincere and honest support from other suicidal people who understand what it means to be suicidal, right.

 

[Life_and_Death]

@Dot @RainAndSadness
ok thanks for the info. like i said i couldnt remember anything specific

 

[casual_existence]

My suggestion would be to implement a new rule against incitation.

Tantacrul once came here solely to attack our community for 'causing' the death of a minor when in reality, he was not open to a mature discussion. He was banned within a matter of days, if that. (The fact that he later got his revenge with a massive video that directed thousands of minors to this website is beside the point.)

The same should apply here. Anyone coming here purely to divide us, to ignite internal conflict, to stress-test our boundaries with incendiary content (in some cases, pro-child suicide, vehement opposition to other people's "recovery", etc.) and to establish themselves as a de facto cult leader is here for narcissistic reasons that have nothing to do with legitimate suicidal ideation, nor any genuine empathy for others.

I don't buy the weaponisation of victimhood; that's trick number 1 in the Dark Triad playbook. Likewise, the get-out-of-jail-free card of "I was just venting." All previous critics have gotten worn out by the repetitive tirades and left the site, but now there seems a growing consensus that this situation is becoming unacceptable to most members.

This community should be about the community. We have enough foes outside of the website and should have and enforce rules against purposefully turning us against one another.

The fact that Tantacrul was banned seems to indicate that it is already intolerable according to the rules so what are you even suggesting?

 

[SexyIncél]

Anyone coming here purely to divide us, to ignite internal conflict, to stress-test our boundaries with incendiary content (in some cases, pro-child suicide, vehement opposition to other people's "recovery", etc.) and to establish themselves as a de facto cult leader is here for narcissistic reasons that have nothing to do with legitimate suicidal ideation, nor any genuine empathy for others.

Hmm, with all respect, FuneralCry's current post seems simple, lukewarm, miserable. It's everyone else who's attacking

And that's fine; she's flatly talking about others, so they're flatly talking about her. But that's up to the participants

Maybe the biggest issue is she breaks a mainstream social taboo. You can have people here supporting wars & genocide, starving & bombing kids' arms off. Just normal mass murder, nothing to see here. (And I've learned to deal with that.) But supporting suicide is the sorta taboo that gets the attention of youtube & corporate media hacks. So respectability politics kicks in & people get agitated

I mean... dunno about others, but FC's posts generally faded into the background for me, in that blindspot where banner ads go. Because there's no useful intervention. And she doesn't have unusual power; for example, no ability to close the Partners Megathread nor lower the member age

 

[Proteus]

Membrs r alwys welcme t/ rport ruls violatns bt sme1 copng b/ ventng evry dy tht thy h8 lfe = nt viol8tng n.ethng & membrs cn stll ignre

Just a suggestion, maybe the rules are the problem. I liked FC's points in the past, I still share many views with her, but venting it's different than doing the same thread every day. You say everyone copes differently, but other users do as well and it's counter-productive for many people. Just read this:

To a casual browser of this forum the above post would appear rational and absolutely correct, and l too would broadly agree were it not for the fact that one individual poster has, for a period of approximately two years, insisted on their own perspective being an absolute truth to the point where anyone not sharing this extreme and somewhat immature view is an enemy of the site who must be shunned, a troll, not actually suicidal, a bully etc, and this has been done so routinely and with moderation policies weighted so heavily in their favour to the point where a number of mature, insightful forum members have departed the site, much to the enjoyment of the op - we're now at the point where the op will not cease calling the shots as to who is in and who is not welcome here until the entire forum is designed around her individual needs and can be used as her personal blog. It has continued in this way for so long that the site has suffered for it. Yes her posts can be ignored but there is more to it than that imo.

I fully agree with this. I think this kinda destroys the "just ignore it" argument, the issue is much deeper than that.

pro-child suicide

I'm not sure what you mean. Minors are banned from this site and suicide encouragement is too. IMO, if you mean people talking about age barriers, it's just discussion as long as no one gets incited, passively or not. Personally, I will never incite someone to end their life, but I discuss my beliefs on limits and would hate being banned for it.

 

[Pluto]

i like this suggestion a lot. will be looking into it with the mod team.

Thanks for your consideration.

I have been around various internet forums for over 25 years. In most cases that I've seen, conflicts like this eventually lead communities to split into 2 separate forums. But here, with there being no indication of a new DeathForAll.com forum arising any time soon, greater moderator empowerment will inevitably be needed to better protect the community from this ongoing turmoil.

affords an instaban to anyone for reasons which are essentially up to mod interpretation

In practice, this would allow moderators to lock threads created solely to berate the website and ignite a flame war which the OP might not bother to even read.

Hmm, with all respect, FuneralCry's current post seems simple, lukewarm, miserable. It's everyone else who's attacking

I used to feel the same way but my views have shifted over time. For example, a lot of negative media attention which is used to bolster the 'evil death cult forum' narrative directly quotes this one user, who happens to also be by far the #1 user by post count. Yet the commentary of our flagship member presents a dastardly and inaccurate reflection of the spirit of this website and appears to contribute significantly to the movement to shut us down. Hence, there is potentially an existential threat at stake for the entire site.

And if even one healthy young person in the midst of a low-level suicidal ideation phase got pushed over the edge by the echo chamber of the juvenile 'life-bad/death-good' philosophy preached daily, I would personally view that as an immense tragedy for their loved ones. Granted, there are few such people here, but nonetheless this is an issue of community standards and presenting ourselves as at least somewhat respectable to outsiders.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I was referencing previously locked threads in which the same user criticised our delusional pro-life society for not offering Nembutal freely to children.

 

[Dot]

I was referencing previously locked threads in which the same user criticised our delusional pro-life society for not offering Nembutal freely to children.

Am nt ignorng th/ commnts tht u & othrs hve mde & pls b assurd tht thy r all b-ing takn bck t/ mods bt slf jst wn2 add tht commnts advoc8tng ctb fr childrn r eithr deletd or usrs makng thse commnts warnd or bth

Th/ sme hs also applid t/ ths usr

 

[Pluto]

Am nt ignorng th/ commnts tht u & othrs hve mde & pls b assurd tht thy r all b-ing takn bck t/ mods bt slf jst wn2 add tht commnts advoc8tng ctb fr childrn r eithr deletd or usrs makng thse commnts warnd or bth

Th/ sme hs also applid t/ ths usr

Yes, I agree that those matters were dealt with efficiently. No complaints from me.

Regardless of the decision reached by the moderating team, I appreciate everyone's openness to have a dialogue on this difficult topic. I normally keep out of these matters but I feel like we could be reaching a tipping point where some extra powers for moderators could be in order.

 

[Captive_Mind515]

the echo chamber of the juvenile 'life-bad/death-good' philosophy preached daily

There's plenty of other posters on the site, who preach a similar outlook. Which I would consider par for the course among actively suicidal people, many of whom have either given up on life... or who are contemplating doing so.

FC is mostly a victim of their own fame, being such a prominent member and prolific poster. And they have made themselves an easy target, because they attacked the community.

I'm not buying, for one minute, that it's about their worldview. But certain posters are definitely not wasting a golden opportunity to dig the knife in and push that particular agenda. But hey, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I guess if enough of a community wants someone gone, then that's what they'll get.