Indy

Indeed. I've heard that from others as well.
I, personally, do not intend to delete my account (yet), but I am aware that it is a manual process. As so much is here, it seems.

I recently made some adjustments to my stuff here and it's helped a little. (You'll see the irony momentarily.)
I've unsubscribed from most kbin magazines and have subscribed to magazines (communities) from other Fediverse instances instead. Now my feed actually has content and a lack of SPAM. So, essentially, I'm here in name only.

Eventually, all of us normal users will need to ditch this platform because we won't our names/accounts tied to something that is notorious for SPAM and other illegal activities. Perhaps sooner than later, if the rest of the Fediverse decides to stop federating with kbin.
Until then, I figure at least I can still look through the window at the rest of the Fediverse.

Agreed. My block list is unbelievable. As I've said in previous comments about this kind of thing: communication is key.
We're getting zero communication and, if we so wanted to leave, can't even delete our own accounts on the way out.

Real posts (from kbin.social magazines) are becoming quite rare. I find myself coming to this site now to do the following circuit:

1. sort by new and report SPAM and block users
2. scroll through headlines and read (the few) recent comments/posts to mags I'm interested in
3. come to kbinMeta and see if anyone else is seeing what I'm seeing and feeling the same way
4. see if the radio silence has yet been broken by the dev

It's a fascinating case study in the rise and fall of an internet community and digital communication platform. And it highlights one important fact about human community management and technology development: COMMUNICATION IS KEY.

Starting to feel like there's more SPAM than posts on Kbin, at this point.
I sort by new and comb through reporting "SPAM" and blocking users, but it's a never-ending cycle it seems and users reported for SPAM are still posting (hence why I block them in addition to reporting the individual posts).

I mean it’s fine if you enjoy the game, but it really isn’t a good game at all. It’s fun in that it is a way to immerse yourself in Trek content.

This sums it up really well. I also find it to be a fun place to meet up with geographically distant friends who also like Trek. Hanging out in Quark's while chatting over voicechat is pretty great.

Over at Daystrom, this comes up from time to time. I've formed a head-canon for it as well. To quote one of my comments on a thread there regarding the explosions (and the "rocks"):

My understanding is that the "rocks" are a product of the electroplasma system being exposed to air. Whether that is some sort of coolant that is meant to seal the EPS leak in that console or some sort of EPS byproduct reacting in air, I don't remember or have a head-canon for it.

All of that said, if I form this reply into one worthy of Daystrom, then I say it is an intended safety mechanism to protect the crew against catastrophic failure of the EPS conduits.

So, the consoles are exploding from the failure of the EPS conduits and the expansion of the coolant.

Thank you for putting into words what I've been trying to weigh out regarding a Steam Deck.
I think your tech arrangement is similar enough to my own and therefore just what I needed to read in order to convince myself I won't miss not having one.

That's exactly the thought I had about it. (The sample return part.)

Perhaps also with a small containment field with its own power supply? Thus the smaller size would allow for more efficient use of such a field, whether by allowing it to be more secure while using the same power as a larger field or to sustain a smaller field for a longer time in cases of general power failure?

My understanding is that the "rocks" are a product of the electroplasma system being exposed to air. Whether that is some sort of coolant that is meant to seal the EPS leak in that console or some sort of EPS byproduct reacting in air, I don't remember or have a head-canon for it.

All of that said, if I form this reply into one worthy of Daystrom, then I say it is an intended safety mechanism to protect the crew against catastrophic failure of the EPS conduits.