File: 1694187374127.png (692.47 KB, 702x531, img.png)
No. 62751
This is a containment thread for meta discussion that doesn't fall into complaints and suggestions. Feel free to tinfoil or talk about the state of the site but try to avoid being too autistic.
If cerbmin needs to hear it, post it here.
REGARDING SPAM:
While we generally avoid over-moderating in /meta/, we are currently being regularly spammed by a handful of schizos from the lolcow hate thread on crystal.cafe, and we are deleting their posts here. If you are concerned about us censoring
valid criticism, you are welcome to check that thread.
Previous responses to anons:
>>60572 dev updates, KOSA bill, scrotefoiling
>>61061,
>>61064 the "rapesock" controversy
>>61566 discussion of moderation, staff holidays, lack of staff
>>61595,
>>61597,
>>61644,
>>61647,
>>61649,
>>61657 farmhand responses to questions about moderation
>>61724 farmhand announcing ban glitch was fixed
>>61923 schizoposting and banning in meta
Previous thread:
>>60569 No. 62774
>>62771apologies, I accidentally deleted it when removing a bunch of spammers. Admin is going to restore it. In the mean time,
>>62772 a temp one is fine, so sorry farmers.
No. 62780
>>62779No
nonnie, I'm the anon who started the movie nights and the thread was deleted just about two hours after I recieved a perma ban for asking a simple question. That's why I don't believe it.
No. 62782
>>62774Thanks for updating us!
>>62779>>62780Maybe you were caught in the crossfire. I got banned in the crystal bunker thread and labeled as one of the schizos even though they were infighting with me kek.
No. 62783
File: 1694226766640.png (787.26 KB, 1080x2264, ban.png)
>>62781It's right here, it's "unspecified" I have screen shots of my question attached as well
No. 62792
>>62789>>62785I'm really supposed to accept that it's an accident that the moovie thread that
I posted was deleted by accident the same day that I come in here and ask some questions and recieve a permanent ban?
No. 62813
>>62812I wasn't banned or accused of being Blaine, I was confused for being one of the 3c schizos that swear lcf admins DDoSed their site and cc
>>>/ot/1678310 you can see it's recent
No. 62816
File: 1694232944524.jpg (160.28 KB, 1080x413, 1694201125620.jpg)
>>62787admin in full blown panic mode messily trying to delete all posts related to whats going on on cc and onf right now. shes claiming its all spam but we have multiple regular users stating they had specific posts deleted just because they mentioned it, im one of them. she really is streisanding. welp, hopefully that exfarmhand will be able to follow through with the in depth compilation post featuring all the relevant receipts on the matter soon. for now we have to watch everything be chalked up to schizos, blaine, incels, the matrix, kpopfags, and kiki kannibal.
No. 62821
>>62818literally already covered upthread that the most likely explanation is haphazard banning when an clumsy farmhand was speedrunning banning spammers and reports, due to the forma of the bans and instant deletes plus the fact that I asked the exact same question an anon got incorrectly banned and deleted for but my post is still up and i am not banned. This is my post
>>62767 and this anon asking the same thing is still up too
>>62764 No. 62825
>>62822this. in some cases, new posts would be deleted while others would stay up for hours and then the mod would go back and delete them. the deletions are erratic.
it doesn't make sense that admin says
>>61923 and then proceeds to hellban all discussion of the most credible tinfoil about the staff we've seen less than 2 weeks later. rumors about the staff in the past that were actually retarded as fuck like the gay data mining rumor or troon allegations didn't get this treatment or this amount of pushback. deletion is supposed to be reserved for spam and illegal content only. blaine's non-spam word salad posts still stand undeleted on older /meta/ threads despite anons begging for mods to get rid of them to make the threads readable again but instead THIS is what gets deleted. deleting innocent anons' posts is only going to make them talk about it more, because why wouldn't admin just ignore it if it was all lies.
No. 62826
>>62825>blaine's non-spam word salad posts still stand undeleted on older /meta/ threads despite anons begging for mods to get rid of them to make the threads readable again but instead THIS is what gets deletednot true, I've personally seen hoards of the schizo tranny's babble posts get "swept" as he calls it. I've been around to witness at least 50% of all of his episodes from what I can guess and I'd say in 80% of those cases, his schizoposting was deleted. To be frank, I can't parse shit out of the CC thread and have frankly given up, but on the off chance you're genuinely concerned anon and not some schizo weirdo, making flase claims about LC's typical post deletion habits that everyone knows are false to try to prove that these posts being deleted means they're true is not a convincing argument and if anything leads credance to the idea that you're an outsider who hasn't been around long enough to know that:
>deletion is supposed to be reserved for spam and illegal content onlyhas not been the rule on LC for years, for better or worse. Farmhands routinely delete the schizo tranny, moids, and porn of both the legal and illegal variety. So to be honest all of these supposed posts (which read, if the CC thread is similar) like the same crackhead conspiracy shit our resident schizos have been shitting out off and on for years, seems pretty reasonable and in line with the norms here.
No. 62832
>>62826>not true, I've personally seen hoards of the schizo tranny's babble posts get "swept" as he calls it. I've been around to witness at least 50% of all of his episodes from what I can guess and I'd say in 80% of those cases, his schizoposting was deleted.everytime I went on meta for a while I would open the thread and not be able to read it because it was full of his ilk, dated hours or days before, so I just don't believe this.
>which read, if the CC thread is similar) like the same crackhead conspiracy shit our resident schizos have been shitting out off and on for yearsbut it isn't. this is coming from normal anons, not schizos. many of these are just asking what's going on, some aren't related at all. and crystal.cafe has never housed schizos like blaine. the thread over there is a mess because its a bunch of old farmhands and the admin screaming at eachother in a language only they understand, but if you make a post in there you'll get a levelheaded response.
>To be frank, I can't parse shit out of the CC thread>>>/ot/1691688 hope this helps
No. 62833
>>62826>I'm sure you've noticed a decline in the moderation qualitytbh until the whoopsies from today with the random bans, i've been really impressed with the stepped up moderation ever since cerbmin was instated. Gore and spam actually gets deleted in a pretty timely manner lately, which is great. Idk what happened today but up until now I thought things were much improved from shaymin times.
>what are you arguing for exactly? That you don't believe the tinfoil? Cool, no one asked you to.Not really arguing for anything, I was just pointing out a massive flaw in the logic you were using to try to prove your point. I don't even know if I believe the tinfoil or not because like I said, I legitimately and honestly cannot follow anything happening in the CC threads and tbh yeah it does mostly sound like the same brand of schizo shit we've seen here for a while now a la ADMIN IS A TRANNY! or ADMIN IS (random name you've never heard before)
No. 62839
>>62834nta but I've had my posts accidentally deleted before during spam, it does happen sometimes
>>62832>crystal.cafe has never housed schizos like blaineanon… you can't be serious. Like
>>62835 said, he was the sole and only annoyance that plagued the bunker threads on there last winter and was all over that damn site back then.
No. 62843
>>62837>Nta, those threads were lcf centric. That doesn't have anything to do with cc as a standalone website.Pray tell, what is the lcf hate thread if not lcf centric then?
CC gets mentioned on 4chan, specifically /r9k/ way more often than lolcow does, and if you post in their friend finder thread it will be mostly men that will try to contact you. Multiple women I know that did that had the same experience. It also used to get mentioned on the sharty more often than lc, despite being less active. I'm saying this as a cc regular, the imageboard is just way more popular with men because of its
femcel reputation.
No. 62846
>>62840He was still posting when it got back up and revealed himself several times with other cows and started posting on cc too. You're acting as if anons haven't seen this pattern for months and can't recognize the posting style and mannerisms.
>>62841What are you even saying at this point kek
No. 62847
>>62844>What's reasonable about admitting to schizo postingyour reading comprehension… anon said "in the midst of THE schizoposting" aka, her posts got swept up amidst other people's spam.
I'm not even trying to fight with you but you need to slow down and read things properly and actually explain shit so the uninvolved can understand
No. 62849
>>62843>if you post in their friend finder thread it will be mostly men that will try to contact youI've literally never had this happen, I haven't seen any tranny spam outside of the bunker thread and you
know just as well as I do Blaine is easy to spot, his posting style is easily recognizable. So cc is being spammed by some new mysterious "schizo" poster all while random, harmless posts are being removed on lc and perma bans handed out with no reasoning and they're happening at the same time? And also at the same time the woman being accused of being responsible for all of this just also happens to be in the cc thread, as proven by her verified account reposting an image from the cc thread on ONF? Just go away.
No. 62851
>>62849>>62842Inb4 we're accused of being "Ashley" or the same anon
>>62845Some of the people posting in the cc thread admitted to spaming the fat edits, if it wasn't you that's on me but you make a lot of the same talking points
>>62849They are the type of people who will say Blaine doesn't exist and hasn't been harassing women on here and other pastures
sorry Ritard No. 62854
>>62843you could at least try reading the posts and understanding the situation in there before you dismiss it all as schizobabble, nona. their posts aren't crazy and the person in question this time is exactly like our former admin who
>has actively been defending herself in the cc threads at the same time she was defending herself in her onf thread>has a vendetta against the ccc admins who were both former farmhands>has a vendetta against null for the same reasons this woman does>is still somewhere on the lolcow staff to this day despite being a hackthis woman rumored to be that admin was even caught posting a screenshot directly from the cc thread on their onf account, you can tell from the filename.
No. 62856
>>62852Why are you so mad at the anon? You come off as a vendettachan when you keep trying to sell convoluted drama none of you can explain. It's been weeks of the same anons like last Schizo Saturday
Shout-out to the anon who made the Blinkie for that I don't think it's all Blaine though
No. 62860
File: 1694239742991.png (805.32 KB, 1080x1567, 1694217691872.png)
>>62856nta but it's frustrating to be called a schizo all day for even bringing it up, especially when the issue of irrelevant post deletion has come into play. here's a summary post from /ot/'s cc thread.
No. 62862
>>62849They love to integrate and pretend to be women, although now that's unrelated to the lcf thread because I doubt men looking for gfs on cc care about that. CC mods are way more focused on deleting tranny posts than leaving them up and redtexting them, so you don't see a lot of tranny posts unless you're present in the thread as its happening. LCF hate thread is mostly left unmoderated though, and no, I don't think Blaine is posting in it right now. CC also has regular gore and cp spam, that happens at times that are unrelated to to convos happening in the lcf hate thread.
>So cc is being spammed by some new mysterious "schizo" poster all while random, harmless posts are being removed on lc and perma bans handed out with no reasoning and they're happening at the same time?About two weeks ago when the actual schizo posting was happening about the javascript thing and admins being blamed for collecting info and cross-referencing it across unrelated sites it was happening both in meta and cc at the same time. It wouldn't surprise me at all if farmhands here thought it's the same people because the spam is again happening around the same time too (late american, early morning EU hours), if we're going to reference posting times like anons did with ashley posting on onf at the same time deletion was happening. Plus the writing styles are similar to the schizo from two weeks ago, whoever it was.
No. 62867
>>62861>the CC nonasNot here, but in the LC hate thread. The anons posting here and there are probably the same anons so at least one of you is probably guilty of doing this kek
>you are ignoring the point about post deletions and bans.No I am not. I think we all agree that moderation has not been on point and mods need to do a better job and also communicate things better. But the admin explained to you why people were getting banned for mentioning Ashley and all this CC drama, it's not rocket science. People have been shitting up /meta/ for days now with posts relating to this exact topic, so it's not unbelievable that mods just got tired of it and started deleting all of the posts in relation to it. Especially since a lot of it is low-effort spamming and "hi Ashley".
No. 62868
>>62867No, you literally are ignoring the point. I don't know how many times it's been said or has to be said, but these posts being deleted are innocuous nothing posts asking simple questions and are
not being posted
or deleted during times of excessive spam but rather are normal posts being sporadically deleted at random, with bans, with no specified reasons.
No. 62869
>>62858it's being shit up with the tinfoil because the tinfoil relevant to the stange post deletions, they happened precisely because it isn't a theory only a small handful of schizos are discussing.
>>62863>all the speculation comes down to the word of a former farmhand who ran choachan and said all her devices and accounts were hacked by Ashleypix or gtfo. these weren't just former farmhands, these were the only active mods for a while until their abrupt departure.
No. 62870
File: 1694240497182.png (40.78 KB, 806x152, what.png)
Feel free to tinfoil except when you tinfoil about the wrong thing. I've seen way more off the rails tinfoiling in these threads that didn't have this kind of reaction from the farmhands.
No. 62871
>>62860I mean, I guess I follow, but I still have these two qualms with the theory:
1) I disagree that moderation has been "absent" since cerbmin came on board. Almost everyone here would agree it's been much more attentive and better at getting CP and gore down. During shaymin's reign, I unfortunately saw many instances of gore/cp and since cerbmin, that number is zero.
2) Due to the fact I'm generally happy with the sit's moderation since cerbmin, I don't understand why I should even be mad about it if cerbmin is ashley. The one thing I care about (lolcow) has been running well lately, if her crimes are just fighting with former farmhands and gayops on other websites then tbh that's cringe but she's still doing a good job here lately so I struggle to care. If things were still like they were under the shaymin persona, if that's what it is, then yeah I'd be more mad. But if thing continue to go smoothly for users here, i'm prepared to accept that admins of sites like these care usually cows in one way or another, such as moon etc.
No. 62876
>>62871it isn't absent but the quality is poor aside from the bare minimum (timely gore and cp removal). that's been on full display today, but numerous other decisions in recent history have also been questionable at best.
>(lolcow) has been running well latelykek
>>62872I think your friend just got rejected
No. 62885
>>62881A massive part of the moderation job
is snooping post histories, anon who looks kinda familiar. Did you post
>>62863 too?
No. 62889
>>62886Burritomin turned all her mods away and developed vendettas against them for it herself but they're the ones in the wrong? Kek maybe we need a refresher on all the cowish moves made during the last 3 admin arcs, and then a reminder that she's been on board throughout for some unknown reason.
>>62887She didn't lie! One of them definitely has! What I wouldn't give to see her chubby DreamWorks smirk as she typed that out
No. 62898
File: 1694249928727.jpg (422.43 KB, 1079x772, Stink.jpg)
>>62897Because the admin is super paranoid after getting doxxed on kf apparently.
No. 62902
File: 1694263273144.jpg (148.75 KB, 939x418, Screenshot_20230909-154343_Ope…)
Idk what's happening here but a male in celebricows is possibly trying to get anons to send their boobs by making them rage.
No. 62906
>>62904I'm not ban evading didn't post when Sydney stuff was being posted yesterday.
That anon has been talking about tits and saying all Sydney-haters(even though no one is hating on her, just criticizing her recent pedophilic photoshoot) have bad tits as a tactic that I've read R9K men use to try and get nudes.
Don't you remember how incels called shaynafags males to get their nudes and then posted the nudes to r9k right afterwards?
No. 62907
>>62906Ok? So not to
victim blame but if you’re stupid enough to send a nude to someone on an anonymous imageboard just because they called you ugly or male, then you deserve a fucking Darwin Award.
No. 62909
>>62905She got banned days ago for sperging about Sydney’s tits and now she’s back and denying it, as well as calling other anons pedos or moids for not wanting to talk about sweeneys rack 24/7. Deeply disturbed individual. Then she comes and accuses me of
>>62906 which is a concern. This is obviously what she’s doing since she’s so obsessed with other women’s body parts.
No. 62912
>>62907I know a lot of anons are either drunk or not really in the right mindset so I think it's still worth being careful about. Don't you remember how many anons sent their pictures here and later on regretted it?
>>62911It's probably the same moid. He's posting his fap folder and also saying anons are jealous of her tits to get more pictures for his folder.
No. 62913
>>62912I pity them because they were looking for genuine friends or connections. That could happen to anyone. I struggle to believe that anyone who posts here would be stupid enough to do that and that’s why I think
>>62906Is a moid. Only a moid would think a woman would ever be so fucking stupid and you all know how relentlessly they post here and try to fit in, especially in the celebricows thread. That same anon that RELENTLESSLY posts about how Sydney sweeney is a whore and ban evades. This anon
>>62902Is a moid and that other anon is clearly trying to shut their relentless sperging up.
No. 62914
>>62911That anon is
>>62912It’s a moid and it is trying to call other people moids because they’re sick and tired and are calling him out.
No. 62917
>>62915They're both moids as
>>62916 is saying.
>>62914I'm not the cumrag-chan. Both cumrag and jealousychan are obviously 2 different men, one calling Sydney a whore and the other saying anons are jealous uggos who wish they got as much creep attention as Sydney does
No. 62928
>>62768>>62770>>62771>>62772>>62773The thread has been restored. However unfortunately all the images were lost. We were able to restore some of the thumbnails using an archived version of the page, but the rest are not recoverable. If you have an image that is missing from the thread,
please email it to admin@lolcow.farm and include what post number the image was attached to. We'd like to restore as many of the missing images as possible!
No. 62939
>>62938This did happen when I was there. I think a farmhand post about it might have been made, and I saw the reddit history of that "anon". It was a moid.
>I don't remember that in any thread. Where did the mod apparently post about this because it wasn't the discord either.Sorry I don't remember a discord server I was in years ago? I don't have to prove anything to you, calm down.
No. 62947
File: 1694338928715.jpeg (99.02 KB, 845x316, IMG_1768.jpeg)
>>62751Scrote in the things you hate thread, calling people misandrist and saying scrotesquè things like picrel.
No. 62948
File: 1694339132742.jpeg (131.09 KB, 921x325, IMG_1770.jpeg)
>>62947And in unpopular opinions too. His scrote takes are everywhere.
No. 62953
>>62952I hope it's a man. He admitted he was the one who sperged about Sydney being hot and that's why we're all jealous of her so if it's not a man, it's probably a sexworker who's being exploited the same way Sydney is.
The more I talk to her(?) the sadder I feel.
No. 62962
File: 1694367882991.jpeg (269.8 KB, 977x548, IMG_1792.jpeg)
>>62953I found it. Seems he admitted he doesn’t sage but nothing about Sydney sweeney. Maybe you just have beef with that anon because they called you a man? Why are you desperately trying to connect that anon to the single mother sperg who posts stuff like
>>62947???
No. 62965
File: 1694369535187.jpg (78.98 KB, 918x296, Screenshot_20230910-210549_Ope…)
>>62962They didn't call me a man.
BTW this pic ill attach is from unpopular opinions thread blackpill-chan is ban evading again.
>>62963It doesn't sound like a man but we hoped it was because a woman being this sad and misogynistic is worrying. She admitted her father left her and that women are the ones faulty for men leaving - a woman who thinks this way would make us sad while a man who thinks this way would be made fun of.
No. 62968
>>62966What about users like this? >>1693577
If they have a regular post history then my bad but it feels awful suspicious that there's suddenly a bunch of anons who are saying weird moid shit like this
No. 63005
>>63004Why should it get locked? Can't they just perma ban titsperg? If they lock the thread, the retarded baiter will go bait in other threads anyway.
Also I'm the one who had brought up the melanie stuff last thread to prove that women with pedophilic aesthetics can be predators or dangerous.
No. 63021
>>62864lol
>>62866Looks like farmhands are being a bit too heavy handed over trivial shit, I've noticed. I think the word for that is
nitpicking? Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>62876>numerous other decisions in recent history have also been questionable at best.If things keep going as they are, it may not bode well for the future of the site. Being too heavy handed is just retarded - I recently saw red text on an on topic post that mocked a cow's appearance. Is mocking cows not the primary reason for this sites existence? For the anons who say they're seeing less CP and gore, I've never seen either of those things. I was once briefly subjected to scat p0rn in /pt but that was it. Granted I apparently don't spend enough time here to see some of crazy shit other anons have reported.
No. 63025
>>63019"we laughed", girl. Be honest with me. You guys had a meltdown while typing paragraphs blaming on the
victim. Didn't you guys get banned on the recent and on the last thread as well because you kept conspiring and posing soyjaks? Why are you infighting and ban evading so much? What's the point?
No. 63029
File: 1694506488585.jpg (308.6 KB, 1080x691, Screenshot_20230912-111738_Ope…)
>>63026Ignore it. They'll defend all of the creepy women that literally promote pedophilia and rape their friends but accuse older women woman of pedophilia for dating a younger MAN, not a kid.
No. 63068
>>62751It's Bib here
I don't know what CCC, blaine or chocachan is, didn't go to Japan, I don't have a stalker, I don't have underage nudes, am not in any Discords, and I'm also not a farmhand.
My misstep was oversharing uninhibitedly to a groupchat of other farmers during a time that my ex forbade me having in-person friends. I had no one else.
My life has moved on inexorably due to medication and reconnecting with the IRL friends I was forced by my ex to abandon.
I apologise to anyone I disgruntled in the chat during that time.
No. 63080
>>62871It's nice that you're still here. If we have to be stuck with gangstalk-chan, ritard and the other one from CC, at least you balance it out by being a sperg for the other side.
>>63033It should be locked. Wouldn't be the first time. It's been a problem since it started and continues to be so lock it up. There are some threads that should just be locked and left behind because nothing good will ever come from them: t. Belle Delphine.
No. 63090
Can you guys please delete the male posts in manhate thread? It already got redtexted but having a mans opinions stay on that thread is ironic.
Also thanks to the farmhand who's moderating 2X, the boards quality improved ever since you started redtexting more.
>>63085They're probably new and don't know how much of a shitshow the og discord was.
No. 63136
Firstly, if you haven't read the OP, please read it.
There are a handful of users committed to starting as many infights as possible on /ot/, /g/, /m/ and /meta/. We are banning them but it seems they have nothing better to do with their time (see: OP text) so they are of course ban evading. Please don't give them the satisfaction of a response, it's very clear they have a specific goal in mind. Keep reporting them, we are banning them but we can't redtext every single post they make. The starting of an infight doesn't necessarily have to start with "kek ur dumb" or whatever. We've noticed many different ways that they are trying to pick fights. For example, being super critical of anons in vent or the advice threads. Just don't give in to it. Infighting is still against the rules, always will be, so if you and another anon disagree, avoid being vitrolic and just ignore them. If they respond with infighting, report them and move on. Be on the lookout for samefagging too, it's common for this group to hop onto other VPNs or devices to try to act as if there are other anons that agree with them.
No. 63146
>>63145Are you fucking stupid or something? I'm very obviously posting about the spammers that were literally just talked about and have been talked about in this entire thread.
I take back what I said about your reading comprehension skills.
Take a gander and get back to me in a few days when you've had a chance to process, mkay
nonny?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_(linguistics) No. 63149
File: 1694750967123.png (1.67 MB, 1077x1235, image.png)
>>63148yeah because i'm the only person who has ever mentioned reading comprehension as a comeback on a site where you mostly read things… that's a bad tinfoil. that's like me saying every anon that has ever said they "have a tinfoil" is the same anon that is sperging with incorrect tinfoils.
>>63147picrel
No. 63156
File: 1694755403023.jpg (30.59 KB, 540x405, _1f13695a_540.jpg)
gore spam in /ot/ and /snow/
No. 63181
>>63179they've explained how it works before
nonny. VPNs are not magic cloaks that hide everything. if that were the case, the spammers wouldn't also be device hopping as well like they said, they'd just use more VPNs. pls lurk moar
>>63180agreed, I believe in you anon!!
No. 63200
>>63185>>63183So do explain why they were just claiming they can suddenly see nothing but IP addresses?
And how exactly do they keep confusing innocent anons with these evil mass spammers from the scary crystal cafe? The bull that spews from our own staff's posts doesn't add up.
No. 63202
>>63185>which is why you should only ever use Windows or Unix based systems if you value your privacyFucking lol my sides, this was good anon.
I'm honestly starting to think farmhands/admins don't understand how vpns work or that you can spoof and change device addresses and are doing the biggest cow move of blaming a select handful of people they dislike as the villains. This couldn't get more cowish on staff's part. Wrangle each other up and figure out a better baseline standard of conduct already.
>>63201That's not what they were commenting on though? Previous staff have explained this all multiple times but for some reason this one keeps flip flopping. I don't need you to actually explain this to me anon, I know it, I want to understand why our staff are being so weird about it.
No. 63207
>>63206Oh boy, now we can be banned for using the same
checks notes >Internet service providerAs another anon? Watch out anons, the trolls are coming for an ISP near
you!
No. 63209
File: 1694805613675.png (498.36 KB, 800x413, IMG_20230915_132311.png)
>>>63206
>be anon
>casually posting using AT&T
>suddenly, the trolls strike
>get lifetime ban with no reason
>ok just a mistake, I'll make a ban appeal and the farmhands will fix this right up!
>they refuse the appeal
>have to ban evade to explain I'm the movie anon thread creator and they deleted the entire thread because of a misunderstanding
>multiple users wtfing
>only now do staff backtrack, apologize, unban, then cry about how much manual labour their own mistake caused them
Damn those ISP trolls!
(I'm not the movie thread anon fyi, that's just one of the most prominent, recent and easy to use examples).
No. 63212
>>63210So by your own deduction they are indeed just guessing, are banning innocent anons in doing so, and have no way to confirm these are the meanie CC trolls, as originally claimed? And you see nothing wrong with that?
And you also think that people using common internet service providers = they are the same person? So if I post normally when trolls are spamming and we happen to pay the same internet man, in your mind, that means I am them? You should apply to be a farmhand your reasoning skills sound on par. I've heard they're short staffed.
By the way, good VPNs do cover your ISP. But for the sake of explaining how retarded that defense was, we can play pretend and you can respond to my above response to that. If you want to confirm this, go to an IP look up site with your VPN off. Then again with your VPN on. If the VPN is encrypted, the ISP will be different. How absolutely useless would it be if it just told every site your ISP is (insert local internetman) while your IP address claims you're halfway across the world, lol? Use your brain, this is silly.
No. 63213
File: 1694807665639.png (2.02 MB, 1400x639, kys.png)
this is what society would be like if we all just ignored the one """""""le regular user"""""""" ((((totally not vendettafag against the site)))) who comes here to complain all day every day and sits in this thread just to tinfoil and be hypercritical with some sort of agenda as if we can't sniff them a mile away
inb4
>i swear i-i'm just a regular user!!!! now where are the jannies!! this hellsite is doomed goodbye!!! I won't be back!! see you tommorrow!!!!!
No. 63214
File: 1694807964693.gif (52.91 KB, 160x120, 1670133251424.gif)
>Farmshands please tell me how you recognize anons so I can banevade and samefag better!
>akschualy poor innocent anons are getting banned and totally not me so please don't swing the banpitchfork too hard!
Kek someone's getting nervous, good riddance.
No. 63216
>>63213Can you quote all the "le regular users" and show the false arguments ITT? I don't see them. Looks like
valid points to me. Or are you wanting to insinuate anyone who disagrees with the current staffs' choices and understands basic technology online is a schizo troll, lol? Is schizo troll the new hi cow, hi moid for /meta/?
>>63214If I were one of your 'schizotrolls' what I'd been doing to ban evade seems to be working just fine. I don't need farmhands to tell me because unlike you, I understand what information a website can access from its users. I want them to hold themselves accountable and stop pointing fingers that really just add fuel to the schizo claims. I want lolcow to be better. You clearly want to prop up any kind of problem or issue that has come of this, and that would make you a better candidate for being a 'schizo troll' than anyone. Unfortunately, I truly believe you are just that ignorant, so I'll kindly humor your dumb takes. You're welcome.
No. 63219
>>63217Point out how literally any single sentence I've said isn't reasonable. Don't worry, I'll wait until you're done making false accusations and trying to bait me. I don't use a VPN, either. Farmhands could easily discern that much, if they wanted.
The chain posting in agreeance with yourself just further cements to anyone with half a brain cell to rub together who the "schizotroll" is. I'd just like to see staff for once actually ban them for samefagging up meta with this baity garbage instead of letting it go on when it's in some weak defense of staff… even though it literally is making staff look bad if you even have a vague understanding of technology.
No. 63223
>>63222Read:
>>63136>Firstly, if you haven't read the OP, please read it.
>There are a handful of users committed to starting as many infights as possible on /ot/, /g/, /m/ and /meta/. The OP:
>REGARDING SPAM:>While we generally avoid over-moderating in /meta/, we are currently being regularly spammed by a handful of schizos from the lolcow hate thread on crystal.cafe, No. 63225
>>63224How else would you interpret:
>Please read the OP>We are banning them but it seems they have nothing better to do with their time (see: OP text) so they are of course ban evading.And then the only thing in the OP that appears relevant is the claim of schizo spammers from CC?
And if the OP was referencing anons who posted on CC that they got banned here, how would that dismiss anything I brought up in my posts? (Pretty sure it is referencing why they mass deleted a bunch of posts in the past /meta/ thread, but for discussion's sake, we can go with your theory instead).
If the Farmhand spoke unclearly and did not mean for the post to be taken as a call to action in dismissing anything from CC, it would be nice to see them clarify that. It would also be nice to see them clarify, again, how they have decided the spammers are from CC, as there is nothing on our end that seems to solidify that. There have been multiple accounts of weird bans and even the example I gave upthread of the movie-thread anon where farmhands were wrong and not accepting of a ban appeal, so I don't think it's unreasonable for me to question how they are deciding these things. Like I said in an other post, I have an understanding of what user information a website has the ability to access, so the Farmhand/Admin's claims look off to me. Why would anons expect someone to believe, blindly, in the staff when there have been multiple things now that show they are prone to mistakes? Why should I not question why staff have stated they are short-staffed, and admitted and apologized to wrongfully banning users in the mess of it all, but somehow are able to dig into and discern all the trolls/spammers are from the CC thread? It just seems like a really pointless thing to push and I'd truly like for someone to better address why my concerns are deemed invalid and being lumped in as being part of the schizo-brigade. I'm on meta because I have site feedback, am asking questions related to that site feedback, and there seems to be no end of posters who want to naysay and derail it, but no one who actually discusses the content of my posts. Even the post I replied to is trying to dismiss my concerns and say I'm from CC because I read the first two lines of the Farmhand's post and the OP post, lol? I could be the biggest CC poster schizo spammer there is in all of Lolcow but that still wouldn't make any of my questions not fair questions.
No. 63231
>>63185>They can see your MAC addressThis was confirmed false less than a month ago. And anyone who knows the most basic facts about MAC addresses and what they are used for knows that the vast majority of websites cannot view or collect MAC addresses.
>>>/meta/61597>if by device ban you mean mac address ban, that isn't technically possible for a website to do unfortunately.Why is this even still being discussed, when the admins and farmhands know it's false?
No. 63279
File: 1694940552305.png (235.41 KB, 435x641, threadban.png)
This is such a stupid ban. I didn't know I was creating a tripcode when I made the op. I said this in the /ot/ thread where the thread I was banned over was requested, and in /meta/ responding to a pissed off minimod.
>>>/ot/1699269>>>/meta/63228I don't need to know what tripcodes are because I only use this site, where tripcodes aren't allowed. I didn't delete and remake the OP because by the time I realized there was a tripcode, someone had already posted in the thread. I already looked up what happened so I won't do it again.
Anons in the /ot/ thread said they would love a thread on the topic, and anons in the thread itself were happy about the thread being made. Anyone mentioning the op said it was okay. I don't know why it's being called a shit thread with no explanation on what makes it shit. I did everything I was supposed to, and only fucked up with the tripcode.
Shit like this is why this site is dying. When anybody tries to make a new thread in good faith, you have the mod team throttling them for no reason. I wasn't vendetta posting, I copied what other thread OPs did, and I followed guides. I'm not a newfag, I know how to use the site, and I was making a thread people wanted. I didn't deserve a 12-hour ban for this.
No. 63282
>>6328012 hours is a ridiculous amount for a simple mistake. People get less for infighting for days on here (seen some VPN bans).
Speaking of, what's up with the denial towards anons who say they get other people's bans sometimes? That's completely normal and has always been an issue on here with VPN or mobile data users. Seeing a random ban not meant for you is common on websites that rely on cookies and IP to enforce bans, is the denial because you keep putting too much faith into the extremely outdated software this place runs on and the user post history reveals you guys kept making?
Can staff please stop trying to act like Sherlock Homos and spend their time reading old threads or learning about the history of this place instead?
Man, lolcow has always had its various issues but the current state is just depressing. Sometimes I open /ot/ and it feels like the diary of a schizophrenic person.
Someone save lolcow or just shut it down because the way it is right now is frustrating to witness
No. 63295
>>63293I understand you have social problems, so I'll explain that calling other anons newfags doesn't magically hide the fact that you're a newfag. Obviously every field wasn't filled in.
>>63294A 12 hour ban for a mistake that is blatantly obvious if you read the context of the thread.
No. 63300
>>63295Nta but no. You didn't make a thread correctly. Yes, I'm with the other anons, you're new, you had no idea what you were doing. A rule is to lurk. You didn't. Take your ban and shut up. Either you're ban evading, or if the ban is over, you're fine now.
I swear, the absolute braindead state of posters like you are more of a buzzkill to the site than mods giving you the bans. Newfags like yourself shut up and actually lurk moar.
>tripcode>bio sucks>newfaggotry>you can't say horror general then make it a non-general specifically for partycoffinThere a lot you were dumb with.
No. 63304
>>63300>>63303How are you going to sperg out like this when you can't even be bothered to look up any context? If you're so integrated, why are you calling it a "bio"? This mod had post history, the op, and the rest of the thread to look at before handing down a disproportionate ban, but for some reason you're taking it personally and seething over someone posting in /meta/ about an unfair ban.
You should stop accusing anons of samefagging when you're clearly samefagging yourself. Those posts are by two different people.
Are you that weirdo who shits up /meta/ threads just to fight with other anons? I'm not going to start fighting with someone who clearly has nothing better to do.
No. 63318
>>63304Your thread sucked.
What's with the these hypersensitive newfags not understanding how the site operates? No one is going to coddle you.
No. 63319
>>63316Because they just want to fight about it and the anons sperging that
MODS ARE POSTERS!!!!! as if that were true. If it was, taking the bait is your own fault, enjoy your ban. They want to cause discourse and distrust amongst users and site admin/farmhands. It's been so obvious.
No. 63370
>>63361I think it’s strange that the mods began mass banning
every user who was making posts after the whole scrote farmhand awakening happened…if administration was made up of females, as they claim, why would anyone have a problem proving that? Because there’s no female administration. It’s a man.
No. 63404
File: 1695115753868.png (828.1 KB, 750x1624, E6248EA2-AC2B-4E88-9853-B82054…)
Lol wtf
No. 63414
>>63408>>63409>he try harder, we know you're not a moid
>>63412ikr
No. 63424
>>63423Nta but to add to the history lesson: lolcow was never considered a radfem, feminist, misandrist or whatever site until more recent years, either. I think that came with a wave of users from tumblr/twitter and the admin of the time being completely absent, so not combating the culture shift in any way. Originally our cows stemmed from cosplay circles and even /w/ is a pretty piss poor representation of that. Lots of it was just nitpicking how badly done costumes were (like with momokun or pixyteri), and it kind of evolved into other avenues from there. Men were never unwelcome in criting this because cosplay circles generally had both men and women, but like anon said, it was the simp WKs that were a problem. That and like they said, the drama revolving around appearance and costume construction wasn't something that really appealed to most men.
Being 'thicc' wasn't fully 'in style' yet in those days either, so that left lots of leeway for nitpicking weight. Lots of oldfags overlapped with lolita fashion circles (cgl = cosplay & gothic lolita, after all) which already had lots of gripe with overweight cows and people crying they couldn't fit into lolita, so that really pushed it too. Twitterfags confusing this for outright ED pushing/'thinspo' took it too far, lots of them self posting for some kind of validation and drawing in more newfags during that absentee admin period. Again, a topic that most scrotes don't care about.
The term 'scrote' caught on here originally because we were tired of being called 'roasties' on 4chan and thus decided to return the favor. It was more tongue in cheek back then than some unthinkable sperg out in response insult, like it seems to be now.
TL;dr - we were all fucking weebs. Even calling admins admin-sama started because of our weebiness. Might've even had some crossover with the general obsession on CGL with Mana-'sama' or some other j-music celebs. It was a different time, different world, nothing at all like the current site.
No. 63427
>>63425Yeah, yeah, calm down, I don't care if no scrotes allowed now, just relaying history.
>>63426And I was around since moot used to actively shit post around 4chan and CGL was created as a board. Don't know how to tell you this, but you can still disallow men posting without refuting site history. Even if they were allowed as long as they weren't making a point of their scrotum back then, doesn't mean I'm vouching for it to be a thing now.
No. 63428
>>63424Thx for the explanation! I’ve been here a while, I think about a year, but I’m still a huge newfag when it comes to the site itself.
Also, just adding another question, where did Elsie the mascot come from? I know her name is LC and she shows up every now and then, but literally nothing else
No. 63429
>>63426She isn't wrong. The no men rule came with the first female admin and it was an extension of post tits or gtfo since it's how scrotes treated women on other boards. Reddit banned gender critical and other
TERF subreddits so they leaked here. Ovarit still sucks.
No. 63433
>>63428An older admin made a thread for a board mascot and anons started drawing their suggestions.
>>63429The reddit bans happened literal years later after we had gc/pp/manhate threads, stop this retarded revisionism.
No. 63441
>>63440I'm so sorry about your disability, anon. I'll remember to not to talk about the big scary history of the site as to avoid
triggering your delicate sensibilities in the future. Very sorry. I should have known to include spoiler tags since this is obviously very hard to handle for you.
No. 63442
>>63440>recognizes lolcow came from staminarose>recognizes staminarose came from CGL>recognizes CGL was on 4chan >recognizes 4chan was a male dominant site>somehow has weird fantasy that a bunch of weeb women on 4chan broke free and started instantly hating all men while pettily gossiping about other women's appearances>can't fathom there could be a transitional period in there somewhere Idk what planet you live on but it must be out there, 'cause the mental gymnastics you're preforming have already sped past Neptune, kek.
If you aren't a troll it unironically sounds like you are so stuck in whatever trauma you have you can't even have a normal convo. I've seen you sperg in this exact manner multiple times in meta now so I'm leaning towards troll.
No. 63445
>>63437>Most aren't even actual radfems let alone feministsThen I don't seem to understand the problem? kek
LC has been like this now for longer than it hasn't, and as an oldfag that's participated in /cgl/ pre drama ban threads (which consisted of a female majority, men really didn't give two shits about kota shooping or asherbees poopbrooches) I can tell you that to me it seemed like a natural cultural shift that came with having a female imageboard and a lot of the anons grew up to be sick of 4chan. Not everyone will agree with you, or me for that matter. Have some annoying zoomer baby radfems joined? Yeah, but I'd rather have that than the currently chronically online aesthetic obsessed woke twitter zoomers that for example camp the gyaru thread. Can you imagine if the site was full of them?
No. 63465
>>63463everyone, you dolt. everyone except the spammers coming here and blaming it on the schizo troon and other moids, acting like "no one cares, what's the difference??"
it matters because the motives are different.
No. 63474
File: 1695236338462.jpg (30.51 KB, 480x581, 1655455274627.jpg)
>>63437We had these threads since around 2017, reddit bans were during corona. Get a fucking grip and cope. I don't know why anyone but trannies and men would seethe for this long about those threads or radfems or terfs or our no men rule, to the point you desperately want to shoehorn them being from reddit or twitter. Being an oldfag isn't worth shit if you carry a y chromosome.
No. 63475
>>63473The literal only reason we left CGL is because moot personally banned petty drama from it. The gripe with costhots wasn't even as big of a thing until after lolcow's creation. And even then, it wasn't common place to hate all scrotes as if it were your life purpose - only the retarded thirsty ones, like has already been said. I'm not going to pretend history was something different just because scrotes suck. They can suck and you can hate them now without it being set in stone that the site was full of men hating super queens since day one like your pointless fantasy. It literally doesn't invalidate it. You have 4chanarchives, meta threads here and old cow threads anyone can look at to see the truth, why you bother denying it makes no sense what so ever. I repeat: literally no one is using this as a reason to allow men or cape for men or whatever stupid thing you think.
>>63474I'm not that anon but it did come in mass waves from twitter, tumblr and who knows what other sites. You can even look back in meta threads anons complaining about it. If you think the original weebs who came from CGL were majority man hating radfems or whatever thing, you're nuts. There may have been females that were, sure, but they were a quiet minority at the time if so.
>I'm not going to pretend history was something different just because scrotes suck. They can suck and you can hate them now without it being set in stone that the site was full of men hating super queens since day one like your pointless fantasy. It literally doesn't invalidate it. You have 4chanarchives, meta threads here and old cow threads anyone can look at to see the truth, why you bother denying it makes no sense what so ever. I repeat: literally no one is using this as a reason to allow men or cape for men or whatever stupid thing you think. No. 63481
>>63478It's just cause of poor moderation and site management. From my perspective as someone who remembers becoming a farmer during her time, I think this attitude started during the Oldmin era when she said she hates being a servant for rich white women (referring to farmers, some anons still hold a grudge over it hence why you may see some call her "burritomin" or Mexican), made a lot of moves concerning the GC/PP threads and /2X/ that anons hated, and then because she ended up being a super absent admin. Then there was our last admin ("Shaymin", oldmin said she likes Shayna so that's where the name comes form) who was also absent as fuck and barely communicated. Then during Christmas of last year she made tried to update the entire site, which she got a lot of backlash for and ended up quitting. Jannies/mods are disliked because there's a lot of inconsistency and unfairness, especially lately. I'm not a board user either, but I think anons dislike of staff has more to do with their actions rather than anything to do with imageboards.
Although I disliked with how they handled things a lot and I'm glad we're out of those times with admins who seem to be a lot more dedicated, farmers are huge fucking spergs and the last two admins probably felt super beat down by it. It's not easy being the admin for this kind of site and userbase, and I probably would've gave up and resigned if I was being berated by tards on this site too. I think even if they do things right there will be anons complaining.
No. 63486
>>63469You know the general users of the site (that care enough to check meta) aren't retarded right? We know all about the history that you and the other CC failures have with admin, so pretending to be a tranny or a kiwi"moid" isn't working.
It's sad to see women acting like absolute troglodytes just to act like they're moids, instead of a better strategy to hate lolcow. It's honestly just
sad.
No. 63487
>>63479Because it's not a fact, it's literally just your wishful thinking because manhate, feminist and terfs make you and other trannies seethe. You and other spergs used that same logic to get those threads closed and surprise suprise, it didn't stop anons from talking about it like it would if it was just newfags and off-site people.
>>63478Don't take /meta/ too seriously, there is lots of obsessed samefags with bad intentions and ultra autists in these kind of threads. If you want a better view on what the userbase thinks, look at snow and ot.
No. 63501
>>63474I don't have a Y chromosome retard, I'm stating the facts and you need to get over PP not being a thing until 2 admins later. I was there, I remember. I was involved during discussions as a former mod. Fuck off. I also got to say that I don't think any of us would have allowed the PP thread to stay if we had foreseen the cancer it brought onto the board. That's just my opinion and one that many mods at the time continued to share back then.
There's definitely kiwifags in this thread trying to give each other shoutouts and relevancy by the way.
>>63472>>63471>>63470 No. 63508
>>63501>as a former modSo that's why you're so insufferable, kek. Youre butthurt you no longer have little mod powers to ban anons with and now you have to keep assuming we're all samefag because you no longer can see ip.
It's scary to see how many of the retarded resistant infighters like you are either mods or used to be.
No. 63510
>>63491>We're an imageboard designed to gawk at cows first and foremostFor me this site is open free speech of women without moids and moid coddlers. I personally haven't come to gawk since I was a young teenager and grew out of that phase, or at the very least there just isn't enough interesting zany cows anymore to hold my interest.
>Maybe I use lolcow very differently from a lot of other anons but primarily I feel it should be fun, and then secondarily an outlet/escape from men.No, it should always be an escape from men and the mainstream clownish anti-female culture of near every website in existence. This is a female imageboard and I'm glad anons bullied this scrote to death. Being able to communicate freely with other women on their thoughts and opinions without troon ban hammers, coddlers, handmaidens and rape and death threats is far more valuable than some catty gossip.
No. 63515
>>63501Bullshit. Again, your "facts" are off by 2-3 years and don't line up with what actually happened after all your whining paid off by getting the threads closed.
>>63511>a-actually anons hated terfs and manhaters!!No, you and other bad actors did. Polls and the rest of the website showed you were in a minority no matter how loud you spouted your bullshit on meta.
No. 63521
>>63508I haven't been a mod since 3 admins ago so your argument will fall flat since I haven't given a shit.
>>63519Calling women scrotes for pointing out the facts won't work well in your favor. Anyone can read back in threads and look at the catalog in meta. This isn't a feminist site. None of us have argued to invite men to post.
No. 63525
>>63519>Funny how you never see them anywhere else but here, complainingExcept for crystal cafe's lolcow hate thread. Which is funny because it just further shows their real agenda.
>>63523Pointing out wrong claims is not a bannable offense and neither is it trolling.
No. 63529
File: 1695307281402.jpg (934.4 KB, 1846x908, meta-caps.jpg)
>>63519>It's just the same old scrotes trying to "reclaim" lolcow as their own.Here's a few caps from a meta thread four years ago. The complaints are the same now as they were then.
No. 63530
>>63528atp it's just bait. the girlies from cc are doing anything they can to spark up an argument for the sake of making the site always seeming worse than it really is. "b-but it wasn't that way when
I was a farmhand"
there's a reason you aren't anymore, girlie
No. 63542
>>63534Can you not follow posts replies? Entire thing is because some retards started screeching that anyone stating the provable fact lolcow wasn't originally some GC site was lying and/or a scrotes, tranny, handmaiden or whatever. No one is saying revert the site back to day one. No one is even saying get rid of all GC, but yes, we're still tired of absolute buffoons who derail everything into that, like they're doing here. Meta is meant for site feedback and if that anon has feedback on the other boards or posters she should be free to say it, it's not derailing to do so. Why are you so determined to police meta to be of your mindset/agenda only?
>>63525You're repeatedly trying to bait and infight over something that is provably factual. You keep making up some imaginary fearmongering thing about scrotes, trannys, handmaidens and now some shit about cc or mods or whatever and trying to push this is all some agenda you've made up in your head. You sit in meta looking to do this, then accuse anyone who recognizes you being obtuse as samefagging. Get a hobby.
No. 63547
>>63546That's not what is happening and it's derailing into anons who literally cannot critically think. Bringing up DDLG as if that has anything to do with men who will go out of their way to see kids instead of participating in DDLG. They don't want an adult with the mindset of a child. They want a child body with the mindset of a child. Every talking point is mute due to the fact that anons have zero grasp on the actual point of pedos being pedos. The whole sexualization of childhood is a whole different aspect for adult men who don't like children in that way and now it's turned into grasping at straws by ignoring the cosplaying completely and trying to say that it's all about the school
setting now instead. Men will sexualize kids no matter what if they are a pedo, but the ones that do are not going to be looking at some cosplayer in a school setting who is 25. They will instead go look at kids in a real school setting. I don't understand how anons can't understand this. She took it all down, and I don't even know this cosplayer, because of the stupid flack she got from people who, again, can't comprehend the difference. She didn't take it down because she was somehow in the wrong and using that as a reason for why it's not posted makes no sense when she removed it because twitterfags can't use their brains and think that fictional children need protecting over real children.
No. 63552
>>63548Just like looking at Momokun here, right? Where anons made this same argument?
>>>/pt/919384 At what point does this argument no longer work, then? How creative do you think a pedo wants to get just to get off?
>>63549She doesn't even look like a teen, so it doesn't even matter. That's the whole point anons are trying to make. And no, the DDLG thing you just brought up is wrong in how you're trying to argue it.
>>63551 Learn to delete your post, newfag, and anons said she was
pedopandering.
No. 63554
>>63552>She doesn't even look like a teenWhat does "a teen" look like to you? Many teens look like adult women, especially to men. And again it's not about how teens look, having a fetish doesn't mean you think the person is physically attractive. Are
you 15? You sound super underage and immature to be making these unfounded arguments.
No. 63568
>>63567Why are you acting like it's impossible that you have been pretending to be any of those people all at once? It's entirely possibly to create several personas (as schizos and spammers have done in the past and are literally doing now).
So don't act like it's an impossible thing or an anon is crazy for thinking so, people do it all the time here, esp in meta.
No. 63573
This has nothing to do with gyaru at this point, anons are just derailing to derail further even though the conversation has stopped
>>>/w/308241 Why are they asspatting each other?
No. 63593
>>63586to be fair, there is egregious and obvious samefagging that never gets banned, and then someone doing an obvious media dump does catch a ban for "samefagging." It's clearly our teflon anon who has now turned to shitting up Dakota's thread, since s/he successfully got Belle's and Sharla's threads locked. The topic (school uniforms aren't pedopandering!!) fits perfectly with this person's agenda too, it was the same type of thing posted before
and the grammatical retardation of this anon often makes it easy to recognize when s/he's posting. The moralfagging about doxing (+reference to Belle) sounds like them too:
>>>/meta/63539"missing the point" is a favorite phrase, as is "take your meds" and "enjoy your bans." I'd go on but it's risky business.
No. 63595
>>63593Mods locked those threads because idiots were obsessed with trying to dox Belle and Sharla/Chris. There was no milk anymore. Anons were editing Belle's photos. If you're going to blame anons, blame the idiots who kept copping bans. Other anons aren't at fault. And Dakotafag keeps posting non-milk nitpicks about her modeling career. If that thread gets shut down, which admin said it wouldn't, blame the anons who can't have decent post quality.
One of the Sharlafags keeps trying to dox the cows using their twitter/tiktok still. The posters are unhinged vendetta posters and multiple anons have mentioned this. I'm one of the anons, but not the only one who has mentioned this. Also the gyaru thread had a few posters agreeing its not pedopandering and no, didn't samefag.
No. 63600
>>63597Pretty sure anon thinks you're
>>63563 quoted wrong post
No. 63603
>>63602It is. Anons refuse to believe more than one anonymous poster exist if they don't agree with something. This site has so many users. The only time we got confirmation in /w/ of a bunch samefagging is in threads
>>63593 mentioned, but apparently only one anon ever reports anything kek or they use the whole "the mods are posting and baiting" as an excuse too.
No. 63604
>>63603Now I'm samefagging, but mods have pointed out that anons pretend in /w/ a lot. Here's an example of an anon pretending to reply to a different poster
>>>/w/302240 and the farmhand made good mention its like 4 people using the thread as a chatroom. There's instances of samefagging, but it's not the anons they claim lol
No. 63607
>>63606Ignoring you because you have no idea what is being talked about. Read the /meta/ threads. The farmhand called out the group of posters.
>>63605It's just a cope. Anons don't like that their posts get banned when it's crappy posts they are adding to the threads. They shift the blame to anons reporting and not the mods who agree its bannable. Mods willignore it if it isn't. Same with samefagging. They can try to report posts like ours for that, but its not samefagging at all,yet the threads they want back so bad are littered with low quality redtexts that say "samefagging". The Jvlog and Belle threads are great examples of the shitposter anons samefagging.
No. 63617
>>63616Welcome to nu-lolcow, bans don't need to make sense. You're supposed to just imagine it said (infighting).
>>63613It is defined by the feelings of the Farmhand's at the time and if people reported your post. I'm not making a joke or poking fun, that is quite literally how all rules have been defined by cerbmins post in meta.
No. 63623
>>63616So you're hi cowing any cow then. Why are you talking to cows through your posts anyway? Your post is derailing and off topic too just to infight.
>>63619It is.
>>63618And I can pay a website to get someone's info, this is still doxxing if you go and post the info. If anon had to pay for the police record, its doxxing.
No. 63634
>>63630Nta but can you at least tell that anon how you know this? Like, are you basing it off a farmhand or admin post they can go find? They obviously want official clarification since rules have changed on here, not just an anon's post.
Imo this is pretty common with lots of stuff on the site rn. Users getting confused between new/old rules and admin/Farmhands not giving adequate or easily accessible updates on what their version of the site rules are.
If a user has explained it adequately, then all they'd have to do is post and confirm that definition is the one they are running off of.
No. 63635
>>63633Doubleposting (I'm
>>63634) but you seem to be missing the broader context. These things had been allowed in the past so anon wants official clarification on the current standard. It's not about allowing whatever specific post, it's about properly understanding the current rules. Even if what you're saying is logical, the fact remains that it wasn't always the case, and anon wants to know the staffs official stance on this rule… so point them in the right direction that they can now go find the admin post if it isn't just your take?
No. 63638
>>63637>It might not be allowed now.Yes, that is understood.
>Just because the site was a certain way years ago doesn't mean they can't adjust rules.Yes, that is understood.
>sperging this hard over something not even that big of a deal is so unhingedI don't think trying to explain what another anon is asking for when people clearly aren't understanding her question is sperging, but sure.
>you don't need to complain about a plausible reason.No one is complaining about the plausible reason. Anon wants to know if Admin has said something already, since that anon said their plausible reason was not just 'their take' on it.
Hope I summarized this in a way you could understand. Thanks.
No. 63643
>>63642I know, that’s why it’s even more confusing. pt is where I see the notorious cows, like Momokun, Onision, and Kiki Kannibal. Shay has her own
board and she still isn’t in pt. Is there a reason that I just can’t find? Is having your own board dedicated to your antics not enough to sit at the legendary cow table?
No. 63646
>>63641The joke about Shayna not being on /pt/ is that she isn't good enough to be on /pt/, even though she has her own board and has twice won lolcow of the year, she will forever remain on /snow/.
The real reason is that her threads have serious post quality issues.
No. 63648
doublepost (god it's retarded I have to say this to avoid a "samefagging" ban)
>>63638your post is completely logical btw, there's no reason for this hostility at all
>>63640If even redacted public court and police records are now "doxing" then the site really has changed and admin need to announce it officially. Lots of cows had complete or partial records posted here.
I'd also like admin to define nitpicking. We've got someone in the Dakota thread saying that not liking Dakota's hime so chic ~uwu~ haircut is nitpicking. Meanwhile every other thread on this site (minus Taylor's) allows farmers to express a simple opinion about a cow's chosen hairstyle or how a picture is edited or whether they have an actual career. Also, please define the bannable offense of whiteknighting. I'm seeing that more and more, never redtexted. Can we please get a definitive reply from Admin?
No. 63652
>>63651No worries, anon. I'm pretty sure there are active trolls in meta that try to antagonize and gaslight, so some of the less rational replies you got might've been part of that. Imo what you asked was clear.
>>63648Appreciate your reassurance, Ty anon.
No. 63655
>>63650Wow, not what I said at all. but there is someone in there saying that not loving it is "nitpicking at its finest." I'm sure you're familiar with the post, but here's the link
>>>/w/308339My question about whiteknighting had nothing to do with her berries n cream bowl cut.
No. 63659
>>63658Nta but isn't the entire point of sageing non milk so that people who only want milk can… y'know… hide saged posts? Why does everyone's comments have to be of the
uddermost milkiness?
No I'm not taking back that godawful pun, anons No. 63663
>>63662Those are solid points. And I agree that isn't defending the cow. Sorry anon, I jumped in and got a bit sidetracked because I dislike when people hyperfocus on policing anon's natural flowing commentary. (Ie. Yeah, tons of comments on the same thing can be excessive, but if most of the cow's milk has been their appearance, then of course all these anons want to state their opinion on it).
I should've paid more attention to the full reply chain/context.
No. 63694
>>63693Maybe these?
infight thread:
>>>/ot/781585disagreements only thread:
>>>/ot/1008929post-infight thread:
>>>/ot/1599375 No. 63708
I'm sure you're already aware but the usual culprits have started shitting up two more unrelated threads in ot with their unemployed narcischizoid activities. Here:
>>>/ot/1705577And here:
>>>/ot/1650373I wish that people would just report them instead of giving them the attention they crave. Is it really all that fun to engage with them? People seem to constantly forget that replying in the "Get It Off Your Chest" thread is disallowed and a bannable offense. I think it should be made into a permaban when it's done more than once, because it seems like it's the same 1-2 people doing it.
No. 63720
>>63719i think the argument that you need to
look underage is part of the issue. moo doesn't look attractive either, but clearly some men get off to her. and it's absurd to think that there aren't men who just use the scenarios to imagine the underage character or young girl in the same situation. it's similar to how lolicon images work, it's not that the characters look like or behave like a child or that the situation is realistic or based in reality, but it creates a scenario in which the viewer can now imagine that this is something the underage character or girl can be involved in, which in turn often sparks interest in pursuing that scenario with undeage children in real life. moo doesn't look like a child, but she doesn't have to, she presenting the character in a sexual situation that men who are so inclined will associate with the character, rather than her physical body. same with the school uniform. it's not about how the wearer looks, but how men will associate the actions of the wearer and the uniform with children and teens who are wearing it. does that guarantee that they will groom or harm children wearing school uniforms? no, but does it create a situation in which clothing that is
only worn by underage students is fetishized by men. also the distinction between pedophilia and other terms to describe attraction to underage children and teens is not a legal definition, and not really a moral one either(in fact greeks just used it as a description for what was socially acceptable sexual attraction). teens are more developed than younger children but still retain damage both physically and psychologically by being abused sexually.
No. 63729
>>63723anon isn't saying there was no rule, in fact she mentioned there was. she was saying that anons didn't get as
triggered when it happened you just laughed at them while they got banned. some anons are so terrified of interacting with men posting accidentally they sound mentally ill. the overall userbase of the site is both more sensitive and more harsh to eachother(like the rest of the internet) there will always be a small risk that you're talking to a man, and that doesn't mean anons should be paranoid or turn against eachother just for having a bad opinion, men can still read the site anyway, it's not private. my issue is people who use the site that are volatile and aggressive towards other anons who are reasonable.
No. 63735
>>63732It's here, anon:
>>>/pt/913498and someone has already requested kek:
>>>/pt/919907 No. 63760
>>63712First lie being
>I am Bib? Because I always thought Bib was just Elaine based on the vocaroos being sent around