[ Rules ] [ ot / g / m ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Server Status ]

/meta/ - site discussion

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File(20 MB max)
Video
Password (For post deletion)

Hellweek is currently active! Read the thread

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. 62753

File: 1694196704570.webm (494.13 KB, 321x464, Motherknowsbest.webm)


No. 62764

>>62753
what does this goldstar mean

No. 62765

>>62764
Usually it means a post is significant to the culture of the website, is really good milk/post, past gold stars have been given to posts like first announcement of the movie nights. I think mods or the admin give them out a their own discretion.

No. 62767

>>62753
Can we get some context for this other than the random star?

No. 62768

Did someone delete the most recent moovie nights thread? What happened?

No. 62770

>>62768
I tried looking in the catalog too. Can a admin restore it and yell at whoever deleted it?

No. 62771

Farmhands, what did you do with the moovie night thread? It's not just unpinned- it's gone
>>>/ot/1691801
>>>/ot/1691805

No. 62772

>>62771
I guess I can make a new temporary one unless another anon feels more comfortable adding the links. I think cerbmin can bring it back like they brought back /m/ threads.

No. 62773

>>62771
this is such a blasphemy

No. 62774

>>62771
apologies, 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. 62776

>>62774
no worries farmhand thanks for the quick response, and thanks for being on top of the spammers!

No. 62778

Yeah, an accident. Sure. Okay. Holy shit.

No. 62779

>>62778
you're right deleting the moovie thread was a conspiracy by admin to get us all to kill ourselves in grief so she could abandon this burden of a site

No. 62780

>>62779
No 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. 62781

>>62780
People can just go on the internet and tell lies? Post your ban.

No. 62782

>>62774
Thanks for updating us!

>>62779
>>62780
Maybe 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)

>>62781
It's right here, it's "unspecified" I have screen shots of my question attached as well

No. 62784

>>62774
I really don't understand how you could accidentally delete a months old pinned post while deleting "spam". I don't even know what you deleted, all the infighting in celeb cows is still visible and cover in redtexts to overcompensate for your bullshit.

No. 62785

>>62783
I asked the same question and did not get banned. The perma ban with no reason specified– which is exactly the quick ban that goes to spammers, makes me think this is a case of farmhands getting innocent anons and threads caught in the crossfire of larger banwaves

No. 62787

Whoa, the movie thread is gone. What's going on??

No. 62788

>>62787
anon.

No. 62789

>>62783
That's like the one I got a week ago and the label from my ban still says schizospammer. You were probably assumed to be a spammer like I was. I haven't gotten banned since evading and resuming my normal routine. Pls no ban mods

No. 62790

>>62787
Go read the lolcow hate threads on crystal.cafe to get an idea, it's out of control.

No. 62791

>>62790
reading that thread is like reading a document written in the wingdings font instead of text

No. 62792

>>62789
>>62785
I'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. 62793

>>62787
Scroll up anon
>>62774

No. 62794

>>62791
I guess that's on you then, because I had no issues following it.

No. 62795

>>62790
The farmhands need to check post history before mass deleting and banning but don't pretend that you spergs haven't been shitting up meta for a month. You guys can't even stay consistent for more than a few days.

No. 62796

>>62792
what possible motive would admin and farmhands have for deleting the movie thread and a random question about a post THEY goldstarred? Occam's razor

No. 62797

>>62792
If you got perma'd you could've been "banned/deleted by ip" which basically deletes all your posts that you've made from a specific ip address

No. 62798

>>62797
that makes sense. That sounds like what would be done to spammers, too. Imo this seems like a mistake.

No. 62799

>>62792
If they mass deleted all your posts then it would have deleted the thread you made. It probably wasn't done manually. My posts weren't deleted but my permaban and label stayed up on the bunker thread.

No. 62800

>>62796
Because she is pissed I asked questions about this Ashley Hutsell Jankowski stuff and probably meant to piss me off. Does that sound crazy? Yeah, frankly it does, but I don't think the admin is exactly mentally stable anon.

No. 62801

>>62797
I have made a number of other threads from this ip that are still up.

No. 62802

Farmhands can you address this before this goes off the rails? I've been here long enough to sense when shit is about to hit the fan due to tinfoiling with no formal explanations.

No. 62803

>>62782
This happens during the blaine spam, I got banned in the crossfire somehow lol. Tbh I was arguing back it’s him like a retard so probably that. But I got labeled as the schizo tranny

No. 62804

>>62801
Are you sure? What about posts from the same IP?

No. 62806

I also had one of my posts deleted yesterday (i answered an anon who asked what the cat piss incident was) but I didn't get a ban or any of my past posts deleted. It was honestly probably just a mistake and jannies just didn't check (which they should, everyone has been complaining about them not being assed to check context) but I don't think it's a huge conspiracy.

Anyway, dying at the thought of one of the moovie night anons who I've probably conversated with being one of the spergs who keep shitting up /meta/ kek

No. 62807

>>62803
This is exactly what happened to me in the cc bunker thread. Anyways, can farmhands do a better job of checking their bans and not getting innocent anons in the crossfire? It obviously didn't just happen to me I just didn't post about it.

No. 62808

>>62804
I've made the current confessions thread, the previous things you hate and the previous vent thread and all are still in the catalogue, I guess I can check for other posts

No. 62809

>>62806
Definitely not that sperg anon.

No. 62810

>>62809
I believe you but it sounds like a bad ban and mistake. They should address it though because now there's 3 of us who got permabanned and mistaken for other ban evaders.

No. 62811

>>62810
If the thread doesn't get restored we have a back up copy of the thread description so anons don't have to worry about it.

No. 62812

>>62810
My thing with the Blaine ban was months ago, when he was more active during Shaymin. But it was still an issue. To be honest I think it has to do with the actual site itself since it seems kind of poorly put together. But we’ll see when Admin or farmhand says something about it I guess

No. 62813

>>62812
I 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)

>>62787
admin 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. 62817

>>62816
admin literally directed people to check out the cc thread if they're curious in the OP of this thread. If they were trying to cover something up why would they do that?

No. 62818

>>62817
Then what was with the episode today of deleting posts that asked basic questions, like why that bizarre video was given a gold star? There has been at least a dozen posts removed from this thread that asked a very innocent question.

No. 62819

>>62817
lmao you mean the part where she dismisses them as a group of schizo spammers? note the obsession with the word schizo, a word being thrown at everyone talking about it despite most of these people being normal ass anons who walk away confused as to why their posts are being deleted out of nowhere. not being able to see ips on cc has got her tweaking. anons bave posted caps of their bans and deleted posts on cc, go take a look at how weird some of these were. mods have never, ever deleted random posts like this before and there was no spam… aside from a few of the usual nikocados itt we've had on a near daily basis atp sigh.

No. 62820

remember to screenshot your posts before they get grabbed by the ghoulies too, nonnies

No. 62821

>>62818
literally 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. 62822

>>62821
Anon, these posts weren't deleted all at once, they were deleted one by one over the course of more than half of the day. You're acting like a farmhand came in here and deleted dozens of posts when it was one or two posts being deleted every couple of hours.

No. 62824

>>62821
Samefag to say that your post probably hasn't been deleted because so much attention was drawn to this nonsense by all of these other bizarre deletions and bans.

No. 62825

>>62822
this. 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 deleted
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. 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 only
has 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. 62828

>>62826
I feel like you're purposefully ignoring the part about how these posts being deleted are completely innocuous and being deleted at random intervals with no specified reasons, posts by anons who haven't spammed anything. I'm sure you've noticed a decline in the moderation quality, what are you arguing for exactly? That you don't believe the tinfoil? Cool, no one asked you to, the behaviour from the farmhands is still unacceptable.

No. 62831

>>62819
>despite most of these people being normal ass anons who walk away confused as to why their posts are being deleted out of nowhere
Unhinged. You really can't handle things changing after 3 years.

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 years

but 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 quality
tbh 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. 62834

>>62831
…what??? changing to… start deleting posts at random?

No. 62835

>>62832
>and crystal.cafe has never housed schizos like blaine
That's an utter and blatant lie what the fuck? The lc bunker threads were full of blaines shitposting.

No. 62836

>>62831
Nta, but what do you mean? Clearly you're not keeping up, not every anon is the crazy ccc post in the bunker thread.

No. 62837

>>62835
Nta, those threads were lcf centric. That doesn't have anything to do with cc as a standalone website. I've always been told the site is full of trannies and yet every time I've gone to cc its completely normal. The worst I've seen is soyjack spam.

No. 62838

>>62834
It's just interesting that a group of ex farmhands from 3 years ago want to talk about what is and isn't banned, what is allowed and isn't allowed. Nitpicking changes in moderation because there have been rapid changes in administration over the past 2 years, but it's all a conspiracy. Yeah the mods don't want to deal with this shit and you're acting like spam hasn't been deleted for months. You're just angry that your spam or edits are getting banned and I'm saying this as someone that was banned in the midst of the schizoposting.

No. 62839

>>62834
nta but I've had my posts accidentally deleted before during spam, it does happen sometimes
>>62832
>crystal.cafe has never housed schizos like blaine
anon… 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. 62840

>>62835
keyword there is bunker–as in when lolcow was down and there was no where else to go. if blaine wanted to shit up /meta/ he'd shit up /meta/ with a vpn not a crystal.cafe thread.

No. 62841

>>62838
>I'm saying this as someone that was banned in the midst of the schizoposting
Then you better go take your meds because you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

No. 62842

>>62841
nta, you're really selling your case here with the 'ol "take your meds" in response to a completely reasonable statement

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. 62844

>>62842
What's reasonable about admitting to schizo posting? The problem here is that normal anons are being banned for posts that aren't offending and they aren't being deleted en masse as a response to spam.

No. 62845

>>62838
>You're just angry that your spam or edits are getting banned
I'm not making spam or edits, schizo-chan. what the fuck are you talking about?

No. 62846

>>62840
He 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.
>>62841
What are you even saying at this point kek

No. 62847

>>62844
>What's reasonable about admitting to schizo posting
your 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 you
I'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. 62850

>>62846
>You're acting as if anons haven't seen this pattern for months and can't recognize the posting style and mannerisms.
None of the posts in the lc hate thread match Blaines typing style, why are you trying to gaslight?

No. 62851

>>62849
>>62842
Inb4 we're accused of being "Ashley" or the same anon
>>62845
Some 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
>>62849
They 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. 62852

>>62847
Oh wow I misread one word, boo hoo.

No. 62853

I think some girls are mad they're out of the loop, so they deny, deny, deny.

No. 62854

>>62843
you 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 hack
this 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. 62855

>>62851
who cares about fat edit spam didn't we invent the word hamconstellation

No. 62856

>>62852
Why 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. 62857

>>62853
more like "what are you talking about" "what are you talking about" "what are you talking about" because you refuse to explain shit and instead just infight with anons who are trying to make sense of your posts. I'm not saying it's him because his idiosyncrasies are not here this time, but it does remind me of when the schizo tranny would get naïve anons asking him to explain his schizo shit and he would do the same thing as what you're doing here: become more cryptic and just start insulting people of trying to understand. Which is why anons here are clocking you as schizo bullshit. If you want to get through to people, actually fucking EXPLAIN, or we will write you off as another crazy schizo and that will be entirely your fault for not doing the bare minimum about the burden of proof.

No. 62858

Look, i don't have a horse in this race and all in all i really don't care about this drama that much. But the CC nonas that keep accusing everyone of being Ashley when they ask for explanations/proof or when they're skeptical are not doing you any favour. As well as the nonas that come on here to spam Ashley's pics and other edits. The admins even shoutouted your thread in the OP, if nonas here are interested to read about this they can easily find everything they're looking for. We really don't need you to shit up /meta/ with this stuff that is boiled down to speculation and tinfoiling.

No. 62859

>>62856
Jokes on you I am the anon who made the damn schizo saturday blinkie. I don't have a vendetta against some random anon, I'm annoyed that anons keep dismissing the issue and acting like these bans aren't a big deal and are normal behaviour. They keep framing the bans as something completely different than what they are. I don't care if the tinfoil is true or not, the behaviour from the farmhands is unacceptable

No. 62860

File: 1694239742991.png (805.32 KB, 1080x1567, 1694217691872.png)

>>62856
nta 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. 62861

>>62858
Point out where an anon accused anyone of being Ashley in this thread to me nona. Like the other anons, you are ignoring the point about post deletions and bans.

No. 62862

>>62849
They 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. 62863

>>62860
I already read the summary and 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 Ashley. I can't take this seriously and I think that you guys have to believe it because if this is all autistic bad tinfoiling you all look dumb on top of the moid infiltrating staff rumors.

No. 62864

I think farmhands are just unbearably incompetent and stupid, remember the ot anon who got a redtext for NOT posting a clear pic of an asshole? It’s likw they don’t have a clue what they’re doing

No. 62865

Dense.

No. 62866

>>62864
I saw an anon get a ban for not embedding a YouTube video on a post that already had an image.

No. 62867

>>62861
>the CC nonas
Not 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

>>62867
No, 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

>>62858
it'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 Ashley
pix 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

>>62860
I 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. 62872

>>62860
My favorite part is that it's obviously written by someone who has been pushing the same similar vendetta over the past month. There's a severe lack of self awareness when all these former farmhands don't realize it's narcissistic to think the site couldn't have moved on without them. I actually wonder why former farmhands only come around to stir up drama after their admin leaves, like the ones who were hired by Ian and spoke out on the women who came after them. One of my friends applied to be a farmhand and the reason why she decided not pursue it, is because of psycho anons in the cc name-dropping other anons. Keep your hotdog water vibes away from me.

No. 62874

>>62872
The former farmhands would know better than you do about the state of things, smart ass. You're literally no one.

No. 62875

>>62873
why would she spam her own site with gore and cp? it just doesn't make any sense

No. 62876

>>62871
it 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 lately

kek

>>62872
I think your friend just got rejected

No. 62877

>>62871
Another post that totally disregards post deletion and permabans for no reason. Like, are you being fishy on purpose?

No. 62879

>>62878
That's… not true. CP and gore spams have happened when nothing else is even going on on the site.

No. 62881

>>62873
>She's got issues with mods from lc also being mods on other ib despite it being volunteer and they can choose what they'd like to do with their free time.

Are you talking about the ex mod who didn't really do anything but snoop on people's post histories? Yeah I wonder why people would find that weird when there's a discussion on the mess incestuous staff creates. It's compelling when other anons have made similar accusations about having their post histories snooped on at 3c. There's complete silence on what the former moderator said about the boardowner doxing her first name and being paranoid about being messed with. It's not a good look that boardowner was trying to contact "Ashley" before she posted about getting hacked. If she wants to be convincing at least explain the back and forth.

No. 62883

>Spamming gore and CP on her own site
Yeah this doesn't really make sense

No. 62884

>>62880
i mean, denying this just makes you look like a liar pushing a conspiracy to anyone who's been around to see the non-context of the spams before, like I have. So by all means keep responding immaturely I guess.

No. 62885

>>62881
A massive part of the moderation job is snooping post histories, anon who looks kinda familiar. Did you post >>62863 too?

No. 62886

>>62884
Typical behavior of folks who spam plastic surgery monsters as a hobby. It would make sense that they're dismissing the improvement in spam and raids if they actually haven't been around. That's the problem when you come back to a site with a vendetta years after you were actually involved.

No. 62887

>>62860
The last point in 3778 is just straight up wrong/made up lol. We literally had both farmhands themselves and cerbmin say on here that some of the old staff still has been here since the admin change.

No. 62888

>>62887
Kek they probably shouldn't take everything that an "ex-janny" says at face value

No. 62889

>>62886
Burritomin 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.

>>62887
She 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. 62890

>the implication that that old staff was also there during the shaymin era
Cindy! This is a skeleton, this is bones!

No. 62891

>>62890
>>62889
You genuinely sound like you're on drugs. I legit can't even tell what you're saying.

No. 62892

>>62891
Sorry, that old staff comment made me kek really hard irl

No. 62893

>>62821
there is no way to 'clumsily' add a gold star to a post. clicking ban instead of delete, maybe.

No. 62894

>>62889
>All the mods
>Some old mods are still around

Looks like you're the one out of the loop. All the other retired and current mods aren't as immature and retarded as you so it must be one admin doing everything rofl

No. 62897

why were tonnes of posts about ashley deleted? suspicious as hell

No. 62898

File: 1694249928727.jpg (422.43 KB, 1079x772, Stink.jpg)

>>62897
Because 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. 62904

>>62902
>trying to get them to send boobs by making them rage
This is an insane reach. Just stop ban evading.

No. 62905

>>62904
Nta but no one is ban evading because no one has gotten banned yet, the jannies are mia again

No. 62906

>>62904
I'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

>>62906
Ok? 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

>>62905
She 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. 62910

>>62909
Tbh at this point you both seem one and the same with how you keep going back and forth with each other accusing the other party of being moids or obsessed women or what have you. And you both don't know how to sage your shit in celebricows. Just stop engaging with the titty spergs and she'll/he'll be talking to no one, problem solved.

No. 62911

>>62906
>even though no one is hating on her, just criticizing her recent pedophilic photoshoot)
nta but the other day someone kept going on and on for dozens of posts about how much of a whore and "cumrag" she is and dumping screenshots of her nude scenes

No. 62912

>>62907
I 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?
>>62911
It'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

>>62912
I 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 >>62906
Is 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 >>62902
Is a moid and that other anon is clearly trying to shut their relentless sperging up.

No. 62914

>>62911
That anon is >>62912
It’s a moid and it is trying to call other people moids because they’re sick and tired and are calling him out.

No. 62915

>>62910
I’m glad you can admit it’s the titty sperg that is a moid. The moid wants to convince everyone it’s those that accuse jealousy that are the moids but what is more likely a moid; the one who calls someone a cumrag or the one that calls someone jealous?

No. 62916

>>62915
>the one who calls someone a cumrag or the one that calls someone jealous?
Both are probably moids, now stop shitting up meta and celebricows. The fight ended but here you are to drag it out some more just like last time

No. 62917

>>62915
They're both moids as >>62916 is saying.
>>62914
I'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
>>62773
The 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. 62930

>>62906
I remember the time a veteran farmhand discovered that one of the most prominent Bellespergs was a moid and she found his reddit where he seethed about her not looking like jailbait without filters. I don't remember if it was called out or not in the thread but it's a thing.

No. 62936

>>62928
Thank you for your efforts… please tell farmhands to be more careful, last night was a shitstorm.

No. 62938

>>62930
When did that happen, it didn't. All those editors were women coping so hard, we even had a few larping as male posters because they refused to admit being women and tried to lead it off as other anons shitposting and planting posts as mods. I don't remember that in any thread. Where did the mod apparently post about this because it wasn't the discord either.

No. 62939

>>62938
This 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. 62941

>>62930
That happened on pull not here. It was some reddior named tanjilo seething about her not looking 12 or some shit and the retarded mods there did nothing about it continuing to let him play contrarian. He sperged out briefly in the lolcow thread using the same verbiage right after pull got nuked but got permabanned. There's been absolutely no confirmed connection between the bellespergs and that moid as far as I'm aware. This all happened years ago now.

No. 62942

>>62939
This is so laughably false

No. 62943

>>62938
You're trying so hard to paint women jealous of sexworkers who we a actually feel pity for. Belle got tricked by her bf into this and she's getting so much creeper attention from pedos, trust me the ones shooping her cunt and ass to be worn out are more likely than not pedophilic men who believe adult women are loose and worn out whole kids are tight and fresh(ew)

No. 62944

>>62941
I'm pretty sure it happened here too but I think you're right about it being related to PULL. It's still gross.

No. 62945

>>62943
That's what anons literally did in her thread. They edited her photos then pretended men or belle herself was posting them.

No. 62946

>>62945
Yeah because men were posting them, kek. The same men who now say belle is loose and old because she can't manage to photoshop herself into looking 13-14 year old anymore.

No. 62947

File: 1694338928715.jpeg (99.02 KB, 845x316, IMG_1768.jpeg)

>>62751
Scrote 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)

>>62947
And in unpopular opinions too. His scrote takes are everywhere.

No. 62951

>>62948
He even admitted his father left him, feelsbadman

No. 62952

>>62951
He types so unbelievably male kek

No. 62953

>>62952
I 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. 62954

>>62751
Retard in camgirls thread

No. 62956

>>62946
Terrible bait and no. It's okay to admit farmers do degen things to cows photos.

No. 62958

>>62956
How do you know one way or another? I think you just want to claim normal farmers did this even when we saw the genuine photos getting bans while dumb edits didn't. You want some reason why Belle's thread should have been locked and idk why but you don't want to blame scrotes or pedos for it. The whole narrative of "jealous women" is misogynistic.

No. 62959

>>62956
Two things can be true. But let's not act like men are above coming here to ask for nudes.

No. 62960

>>62953
When did this happen and where?

No. 62961

>>62953
You keep saying this all over the board but I don’t see any evidence. Why don’t you have screencaps?

No. 62962

File: 1694367882991.jpeg (269.8 KB, 977x548, IMG_1792.jpeg)

>>62953
I 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. 62963

>>62953
>>62952
>>62951
>>62948
>>62947
I know it's hard for some nonas to believe but there are some misogynistic and spergy women that speak like this. It doesn't mean they are moids, like in this situation, they just have vastly different opinions and speak in that manner, especially in anon settings. Regardless, bans have been issued as rules were broken. Please be cognizant that a part of growing up in internet culture is that women often times feel the need to pick up moidspeak to fit in. Please continue to report them for infighting and derailing but don't always assume they are moids.

No. 62965

File: 1694369535187.jpg (78.98 KB, 918x296, Screenshot_20230910-210549_Ope…)

>>62962
They didn't call me a man.

BTW this pic ill attach is from unpopular opinions thread blackpill-chan is ban evading again.

>>62963
It 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. 62966

>>62965
an unfortunate reality for many women, but ad homming them is not the way to empower them to unlearn their unhealthy mindset. Regardless, please continue to report them if you see it.

No. 62967

>>62966
You're right I shouldn't have replied to them.

No. 62968

>>62966
What 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. 62969

>>62968
Samefag I don't know how to link posts on other threads kek, I'm not a newfag I'm just retarded, here's the link >>>/ot/1693577

No. 62970

>>62969
Both the post you quote and the one it's replying to seem to be baits. I think some mentally ill anon is baiting, usually about her mother.

No. 62971

>>62958
Because the posters got redtext in other threads too. Pretty sure most men wouldn't engage in jvlogger discussions the way the anons were.

No. 62977

>>62971
so you magically knew which posters posted in Belle's thread and in other threads, or are you a farmhand? Did you forget how the jvlog thread at times got infested by male redditors defending Chris? Bad choice for your argument of "just a bunch of jealous women"

No. 62983

>>62977
I can't find it now, but someone made a whole post linking all the posts that referred to bans from the threads in /w/. There were quite a few of them, and some said "bellesperg" but in the Jvlog thread. It happened in the Venus thread too, the same anons edited Venus to look pregnant. There's actual proof that anons were in other threads doing this stuff, not men being the primary ones to do it. This is all well documented anyway. The anons were female, probably one male if that, and they get to be embarrassed about the fact that they were editing vaginas and assholes just to get anonymous board clout with their "gossip". Imagine stockpiling sex worker photos just to edit them.

No. 62994

>>62983
It just sounds like deranged trolling. Regardless of whether you think they're male or female on this anonymous basket weaving forum, they're definitely not your average farmer.

No. 62996

>>62977
At this point I believe the men who shoop those women then come here and accuse the shoopers of being jealous women. How can they even know which poster is a woman unless they're a farmhand? And if I remember correctly, farmhand never said those sperg anons had female post histories.

No. 62998

Can we make breast analysis a bannable offence in the celebricows thread? Now they’re doing it to Olivia Rhodrigo.

No. 63000

Was just about to ask a farmhand to clean up /ot/, thanks whoever came online just now kek.

No. 63004

Can we lock the celebricows thread? Even the OP is a massive shit stirrer, trying to bring up the whole Timothy and Melanie fiasco (stale milk) falsely claiming she has proof of self posting and making unhinged wojaks about people. I think she’s the one who’s been obsessively sperging about everyone’s tit jobs for weeks now.

No. 63005

>>63004
Why 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. 63007

>>63005
Exactly, I knew it was just some anon, the thread OP is trying to mislead people into thinking it was Timothy and posting dumbass wojaks about people that call her out. I’m pretty sure that titsperg is constantly ban evading and starting shit in different ways.

No. 63009

>>63007
Yeah and I didn't even bring her first. Anon said Melanie had a similar pedopandering aesthetic but no one judged her for it, I said people did judge her and that a lot of people still believe her to be at least a little guilty at the situation with her friend. Then those anons attacked me for it and they still believe im timothee

No. 63011

>>62998
Report it for moid-type nitpicking.

No. 63014

>>63011
I think farmhands banned all titspergs. Thanks to farmhans

No. 63018

>>62998
Agreed, same with fatsperging and I really believe the thread needs stricter moderation. I'm tired of the derailing because weirdos want to talk about tits or gang up on each other over weight or looks.

No. 63019

>>63009
We laughed at you because you cited Timothy Heller who basically fessed up to making it all up. I was the wrong who brought Melanie up, calm down.

No. 63020

>>62996
That's not what happened.

No. 63021

>>62864
lol
>>62866
Looks 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. 63022

>>62948
>scrote takes
Consider they could also just be tradfem conservatards. It's annoying when anons accuse other anons of being scrotes just because they disagree with their opinion, however braindead or bait-y that opinion may be.

No. 63023

>>63022
That was a woman but she was baiting on purpose.

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. 63026

>>63019
She did no such thing. Melanie fans released a screenshot of a “tweet” that was proven to be fake. It was very obviously fake from the beginning because it literally said something like “ok guys I admit it I lied lol”. I am not saying I do or don’t believe her but all the “proof” you have that she lied is absolute bunk.

No. 63028

>>63025
I did none of that I just know you accused Melanie of something that's still debated. And it was only brought up because of your hate boner for Sidney.

No. 63029

File: 1694506488585.jpg (308.6 KB, 1080x691, Screenshot_20230912-111738_Ope…)

>>63026
Ignore 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. 63030

>>63029
Girl- I know you're not taking celebricows drama to meta, kek. Nonnies like you are gonna get the whole damn thread locked

No. 63031

If K-pop is banned from here then so should Genshin Impact

No. 63033

>>63030
Why do you keep bringing up celebriticows getting locked? Baiters got banned, why would it get locked?

No. 63034

>>63033
This is the first time I've said that kek, tinfoil harder Miss Schizochan

No. 63035

>>63031
I think kpop is banned because most kpop fans are underage and sperg as fuck. Notice how we started having retards once CCC shut down? Yeah, if kpop was allowed, a large chunk of anons would be underage koreaboos who are obviously gonna infight a ton and derail stuff to talk about their husbando

No. 63037

>>63035
Nta but I think what she's saying is that genshinfags act the same way so logically they should be banned too.

No. 63038

>>63037
I haven't seen genshinfags spam reaction gifs of their husbando across all the boards and trying to shoehorn it into every conversation but if that started happening I'd agree with you

No. 63042

Baiters in celebricows

No. 63043

Unpopular opinion thread is a mess

No. 63044

>>63043
it always is

No. 63068

>>62751

It'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. 63069

>>63068
>didn't go to Japan
so the japanon was a different person or…?

No. 63072

>>63068

I also want to profusely thank those in the chat who dedicated time trying to help me and encouraging me to leave him.

No. 63080

>>62871
It'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.
>>63033
It 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. 63081

>>63080
Just because you dislike a thread doesn't mean it'll get locked. Just hide it. Also stop replying to the namefags, whatever discord drama you guys had, keep it on your discord.

No. 63085

Why does some anons still think there is an "offical" lolcow shitcord? I seen posts asking for an invite, asking for a lolcow shitcord and whinging about some shitcord drama like it's all lolcow's fault the members are so mean.
>INB4 why are you calling it shitcord? Because it's shit.

No. 63086

>>63085
Pretty sure everyone is talking about various offshoots, there hasn't been an official discord in at least a year I think.

No. 63088

Extremely disturbing CP being posted on /pt/

No. 63089

>>63086
Mods and admins probably have one but not for the general users. Tbh keep it that way. I don’t think having a general discord for everyone is a good idea. When they were verifying users in the most recent official one I think they had to kick out some users who got in because they were like 15 or something. My memory is blurry but yeah

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.
>>63085
They're probably new and don't know how much of a shitshow the og discord was.

No. 63104

Stop banning for stupid reasons and and unlock the Athena thread!
Not all of us know exactly what to do when we start to participate!

No. 63105

>>63104
>Not all of us know exactly what to do when we start to participate!
That's why you learn to lurk dumbass

No. 63106

>>63104
Lmfao way to out yourself newfag

No. 63113

>>63104
get their tranny janny asses

No. 63116

>>63113
>>63104
Cry more newfags

No. 63125

DAE see the gore a few hours ago? Was it only targeting the TIM thread and no other threads (again)?

No. 63126

Anon in confessions thread admitted to starting infights when shes upset/bored. When someone asked if the last few infights were instigated by her, she replied positively.

No. 63128

Is it just me, or is something retarded happening to the site right now. I tried to report a post like four times, and three old bans from months ago stopped it from going through. And another time thr site just stalled out and never gave a confirmation message. Still don't know if my report went through. Not that it matters because /ot/ mods are MIA but still.

No. 63132

>>63128
this happened to me on mobile earlier today, bans (not mine) from 2019 and 2020.

No. 63133

Amerifag thread is full of racebaiting moids/retards. Someone was trying to say slavery was a myth.

No. 63134

>>63128
/ot/ reads like someone gave internet access to a psychiatric ward, there's something going on, I just have no idea as to what.

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. 63138

>>63136
Can you say if they are the same anons who keep complaining that they miraculously keep getting "another anons ban"? I don't ever believe anons who get a random ip thats lolcow banned specifically. It happens, but not at the frequency it has been lately. I'm assuming some of them are getting no explaination bans because of it like in the other meta thread because you just ban them on site, as you should. They aren't subtle which should make it easy to spot them.

No. 63140

I noticed that they only seem to be shit posting in the ot boards because they can act super retarded and blend in, meanwhile if they were actually shitposting in the pt/snow/w, they would be justifiably banned and no other anons would blink an eye. clever but still retards nonetheless.

No. 63143

>>63140
Those boards have actual rules for posting you megaretard

No. 63144

>>63143
So, you just reiterated what I said. Great reading comprehension skills, anon! Keep it up.

No. 63145

>>63144
Yeah so obviously the off topic boards would have off topic shitposting as opposed to the boards with posting etiquette that gets enforced by jannies. How is that clever? Are you dumb?

No. 63146

>>63145
Are 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. 63147

>>63146
This is too funny for me to formulate a reply sorry you win

No. 63148

>>63144
>>63146
I have a tinfoil that every highly vitriolic anon who specifically mentions "reading comprehension" while infighting is the same person.

No. 63149

File: 1694750967123.png (1.67 MB, 1077x1235, image.png)

>>63148
yeah 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.

>>63147
picrel

No. 63153

>>63148
I agree. It's an infight tactic

No. 63154

>>63153
Ntayrt but how is it an infight tactic when many fights happen due to someone misreading another anon's post? Or in some cases completely making things up.

No. 63155

>>63153
Everything is an infight tactic when you're a dumb sperg

No. 63156

File: 1694755403023.jpg (30.59 KB, 540x405, _1f13695a_540.jpg)

gore spam in /ot/ and /snow/

No. 63158

>>63156
specifically tim thread

No. 63159

>>63156
Can someone inform me when it's gone please?

No. 63161

jannies can you pls do something about the gore in /m/ and the /pol/tard posting race shit in the general image thread

No. 63162

>>63156
also on /m/

No. 63163

it was posted in top thread on each board pls jannies!

No. 63164

>>63148
I rarely get banned for infights or engage in them but I have to be honest the reading comprehension levels severely dropped on lolcow recently. It's not really an infight tactic as much as it's just basic observation skills kek

No. 63165

Gore posted in the following threads
>Vent Thread #187 in /ot/
>Sexual Issues/Trauma Thread in /g/
>Tropes you hate in /m/
>Thread Requests #6 in /pt/
>MtF/Trans-Identified Male General #118 in /snow/
>Mickey Moon Pt. 18 in /w/
>Complaints and Suggestions #19 in /meta/

I didn't want to link directly to the posts in case mods killed me for it when they got back. Hopefully they'll sweep it up in the next couple hours, nonna.

No. 63167

>>63159
all gone now

No. 63171

>>63149
Guessing it's the usual suspects. The ones who go full tinfoil about tranny jannies and such. If they accuse everyone else of 'infighting tactics', no-one will suspect them. Big brain time. see >>63153

No. 63172

>>63164
Zoomers and homosexuals are not the most engaging conversationalists

No. 63173

>>63155
We have to feed farmers some sugar so everyone can lighten up a little

No. 63175

>>63136
How exactly were staff able to connect these are the same posters as the ones from the crystal cafe thread, as OP implies? Pretty bold claim. Kind of just sounds like you want to try to discredit any larger criticism or questioning. What a weird thing to focus on. What's next, try to pin it on the movie thread anon? This is ridiculous

No. 63176

>>63175
i built them a pair of long distance iptracer xray goggles so they can swat snitches faster

No. 63177

>>63175
>how are mods, that can see ip addresses and post history, able to–
put the crack pipe down

No. 63179

>>63177
nta but how can they be sure, considering rampant VPN usage, that they are all the same people and not just people happening to use the same VPN therefore share IP addresses at times

No. 63180

>>63175
They're watching you. The only way to escape mods is to go outside, you can do it anon.

No. 63181

>>63179
they'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

>>63180
agreed, I believe in you anon!!

No. 63182

>>63181
nta but didn't people say in the last thread (or in the complaints thread forgot which) that farmhands can't see device info? (when some anon explained why device banning couldn't work)

No. 63183

>>63179
You are absolutely naive to think that ip is all the site shows.

No. 63184

>>63181
>>63182
>>63183
so can they or cannot they see device info? if yes, then what info?

No. 63185

>>63184
They can see your MAC address, which is why you should only ever use Windows or Unix based systems if you value your privacy

No. 63187

Everyone please do me a favor and google "website cookies" thank youuuuu

No. 63188

>>63185
stop lmao

No. 63189

>>63187
ok but you first

No. 63190

>>63189
i actually did before i asked everyone, so i could be sure to suggest the right thing to google.

No. 63191

>>63190
it's only smart to do you know

No. 63192

do the retarded jannies seriously not understand how fucking cookies and browser prints work are the jannies elaine what is happening

No. 63193

>>63116
being an oldfag on this site is not something to be proud of

No. 63195

>>63085
They're probably referring to splinters but they pretend there's an official shitcord still around so they can blame shit on staff. Because anons are retarded and there will be women over the age of 21 who unironically overshare details about their lives and post photos of themselves or their friends without their consent, despite previous servers and mods warning them not to. And then if someone here doxes them or reposts what they publicly shared they will cry to the mods about it and not accept responsibility.

No. 63196

>>63136
I KNEW IT. Thank you farmhands.

No. 63197

>>63192
>accusing jannies of being a different random discord persona every day
Please stop.

No. 63198

>>63185
Kek you know damn well some idiots are going to run with this after the Google analytics sperging

No. 63200

>>63185
>>63183
So 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. 63201

>>63200
I'm pretty sure different mods have different privileges, like how some mods are restricted to certain boards. Baby jannies probably can only see IP addresses.

No. 63202

>>63185
>which is why you should only ever use Windows or Unix based systems if you value your privacy
Fucking 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.
>>63201
That'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. 63203

If I were one of these boogieman anons staff seems to be implying are trying to.. I have no idea, I'll go with ruin the site because that's the only logical conclusion (even though I'm not convinced admin/farmhands are using logic anymore?)
This is what I'd do:
>Instigate subtly and unsubtly
>When subtly I'd mass report responders for any grievance I could imagine
>Report any post on the site I could even Olympic level stretch into being something its not
>Watch the farmhands mass ban and delete innocent anons under the guise of me having some masterplan to usurp admins' throne or whatever schizo thing

And if that's not what they're doing, it seems to be working excellently in that way. I really wonder how many innocent anons have been caught in this dumb, petty little game because the farmhands are casting a big net for their mino fish. Even if there are some evil CC mastermind spammers, it's admins and farmhands choices in response that are actively ruining the site for legitimate users.

No. 63204

The way the "off your chest" thread is moderated makes no sense. Sometimes replies to other people's vents are redtexted and sometimes they aren't, with seemingly no consistent logic. The hell is going on there.

No. 63205

>>62751
The bc pushing scrote is back on OT I think

No. 63206

>>63200
You know your ISP doesn't change with your VPN,right?

No. 63207

>>63206
Oh boy, now we can be banned for using the same checks notes
>Internet service provider
As 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. 63210

>>63207
If the shitposting is happening but different ips but it's a lot of mass posts at once, another way they could guess is that way, anon. Especially if it's the same vpn service on top of it. Its deducing, not 100%.

No. 63211

>>63136
This should honestly be a big red text on top of every board. I've seen it happen so many times but the majority of posters don't check /meta/ so they buy into the bait immediately.

No. 63212

>>63210
So 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. 63215

>>63212
Give you and inch and you go a mile. No.

No. 63216

>>63213
Can 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/?
>>63214
If 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. 63217

>>63216
I wish they could permaban you. You're not even trying to hide.

No. 63218

>>63217
This, imagine thinking anyone falls for this shit.

No. 63219

>>63217
Point 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. 63220

>>63217
>>63218
IA, the funniest and most redeemable thing about this shit is how clockable that posting style is

No. 63221

>>63220
Quote any of my posts and show me where I'm being unreasonable or troll like, I'm waiting.

No. 63222

>>63212
>>63214
>>63216
I don't even know how the thread got to this point or why the anon got that inference from the farmhand's post. Nobody mentioned cc, telling on yourself much?

No. 63223

>>63222
Read: >>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. 63224

>>63223
That was during the past 2 or 3 weeks but they didn't say the people infighting were from cc. The schizos who were insisting cerbmin was some cow from kiwifarms slowly died off after getting banned off fujochan and cc. The OP might be referencing anons who posted on cc and admitted to getting banned here.

No. 63225

>>63224
How 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 address
This 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. 63232

>>63231
They were fucking around… clearly anon ffs

No. 63233

>>63232
There are people who believe they can see mac addresses though. It's mentioned regularly here.

No. 63234

>>63197
its called a joke you fat autist

No. 63235

>>63233
mentioned regularly as a joke. you all have terminal autism

No. 63236

>>63214
>someones getting nervous
you have schizophrenia

No. 63237

the retarded jannies in here whiteknighting themselves and thinking everyone is some retard theyre beefing with on discord is so funny like take your meds

No. 63238

>>63198
>They still haven't realized
This is better than any banepost

No. 63240

>>63231
>>63198
>>63188
>>63233
it's true and actually the fat sperging is also a reference to the only way of keeping your files safe (hint: Only use FAT32 file system), someone from the farmhand team is giving us clues encrypted in shitposting (talking about """cookies""" is another hint towards getting FAT)

I'm just taking the piss out of the weirdos that have been haunting us lately, I'm sorry for engaging with it at all

No. 63242

>>63240
You're just doing the same thing as them but less subtle for the autists in the audience

No. 63247

WHY DO YOU ANONS COMPLAIN SO MUCH YOU LOVE TO REPORT EVERY LITTLE POST EVERY POST YOU CANT UNDERSTAND ISNT A MAN BUT YOU SAY IT IS EVERY POST YOU DONT UNDERSTAND IS A JOKE BECAUSE IT IS A JOKE AND YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED SAYING MODS ARE STRIESANDING WHEN I CANT EVEN UNDERSTAND WTF KS GOING ON TALKING ABOUT CRYSTALCAFE AND CHOACHANCAFE AND SNAIL AND YAMMY AND SPOOKYFAGGOT WHO CARES WHO THE FUCK CARES JUST READ ABOUT YOUR GODDAMN COWS READ ABOUT YHE COWS AND STOP FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER AND REPORTING EACH OTHER AND COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING BANNED AND COMPLAINING ABOUT NOT BEING BANNED AND MODS STOP REDTEXTING JUST STOP BANNING ANYONE UNLESS THEY ARE POSTING ILLEGAL CONTENT JUST LET THE RETARDS KILL EACH OTHER OFF I CANNOT BELIEVE THE REDTEXTING AND I CANNOT BELIEVE TJE ONLY WAY I WILL BE HEARD IS TO TYPE ALL THIS ALL CAPS LIKE A SCHIZO ANONS DTOP REPORTING EACH OTHER STOP TATTLING ON EACH OTHER SO MUCH HOW THE FUCK DOES STAFF GET MULTIPLE HUNDREDS OF REPORTS A DAY I AM BEGGING YOU SPARE THE STAFF AND SPARE YOUR FELLOW NONA SISTERS STOP REPORTING EACH OTHER AND JUST READ ABOUT YOUR COWS AND THEIR ANTICS AND JUST POST MILK AND POST EDITS AND DISCUSS AND DISCUSS PEOPLE NEAR TO THE COWS AND PLEASE DONT BAN MILK AND EDITS AND COW ORBITERS JUST LET IT BE LIKE IN THE OLD LOLCOW DAYS BEFORE REGINA AND AMANDA AND ASHLEY AND SPOOKYFAGGOT AND ISABELLA JANKE LEAVE THEM IN YHE PAST AND LET US GO BACK TO OLD LOLCOW NO REDTEXT NO WHINY FAGGOTS REPORTING EACH OTHER I BEG YOU I BEG(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)

No. 63248

>>63247
No! We will continue to refresh CC and then give it all a shoutout in an Admin post because we all care A LOT! Stay mad newfag!

No. 63256

>>63247
The based

No. 63261

>>63247
Ew this 2014 tumblr superwholock wall of sperg

No. 63263

>>63261
They are mad in the other thread using caps too.

No. 63268

>>63247
calm down, put your phone, and experience the real world. i oromise it will do you good

No. 63271

>>>/meta/63267
Great update to the embedding tool! Thanks, cerbmin!

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/63228
I 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. 63280

>>63279
to be fair 12 hours really is nothing

No. 63281

No offense and it's nice you got a simple embed code to work but can you start on fixing any other aspect of this site? Opening the catalogue literally breaks the site on mobile. Can you also hire farmhands that aren't 18 year olds who have no clue what they're doing? Or maybe an oldfag or two?
What are these two "dev" admins even doing?
We haven't gotten an update on this new lolcow exclusive engine either, when is that supposed to be ready?
Why are you so occupied with petty drama to the point that it will get an immediate response and a pinned update post with further shitflinging? You know this is an anonymous gossip site and you aren't supposed to be a personality that is even able to take offense to any of the shit people make up right?

I guess the forced Cerbmin nickname is pretty fitting after all because the Admin sure has been acting like 3 cows at once

No. 63282

>>63280
12 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. 63283

>>63281
I know you are probably one of the people who has made her hobby shitposting so this is a waste of time, but you realize that the previous thread was full so a new thread had to be made? and every general meta has been pinned while it was active? if you're going to fling shit at least make it valid

No. 63284

>>63283
I'm afraid you have missed the point

No. 63288

>>63263
THAT’S NOT ME I AM MAD THAT ANONS ARE ALWAYS SNITCHING ON EACH OTHER I DONT CARE ABOUT OTHER THREADS!!!!!!!

No. 63289

>>63281
They've been updating and fixing various things with the site since they got here (e.g restoring /m/ after only a month, updating the search page, apparently updating BTS mod tools) and they already said the rest of improvements will be on the new site. I'm the first one to criticize staff, but its like some of you forget that things take time. Especially for something that's not an actual job, and especially when this is the most attention an admin has given the site in literal years. To me, the updates they're doing on the site show that they're at least somewhat serious about putting out new site.

No. 63292

>>63288
Yeah, this is the metasperg. "Snitching". Going to use any terms to get a reaction, huh? There report buttons for a reason, if a mod doesn't think it's ban worthy, then good. You come off as being a major necessity to report. This new tactic is stupid.

No. 63293

>>63279
>makes shit thread
>types in every field like a newfag
>gets banned for newfaggotry
>cries
get a grip

No. 63294

>>63279
Idk about the shit thread reason, but if tripcodes aren't allowed here then obviously you will be banned for using them anon. It's not like they can magically know that it's a mistake.

No. 63295

>>63293
I 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.
>>63294
A 12 hour ban for a mistake that is blatantly obvious if you read the context of the thread.

No. 63300

>>63295
Nta 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 partycoffin

There a lot you were dumb with.

No. 63303

>>63282
>>63279
>sperging out like this over a 12 hour ban
They should've given you a longer one.

No. 63304

>>63300
>>63303
How 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. 63305

>>63304
>I'm not going to start fighting with someone who clearly has nothing better to do
>after writing a paragraph arguing
Nta but you can't be serious

No. 63307

>>63304
I'm the second anon and thanks for proving my point kek. No one even mentioned samefagging, but way to tell on yourself.

No. 63308

>>63304
I don't know what to say to you except to express that I understand your frustration, and just ignore the poster(s) trying to provoke you to infight.

No. 63310

>>63295
>A 12 hour ban for a mistake that is blatantly obvious if you read the context of the thread.
I read it. Most anons, even newfags, figure out what to put in when making a thread, and if they don't they usually delete the thread. I know anon said she didn't realize and that's why she didn't delete, but again jannies aren't mindreaders. It's not like this is the first time someone got a ban for accidentally tripfagging either. It's like someone forgetting to sage in a /snow/ thread, yeah it may be a mistake but they still have to ban it so everyone knows not to do that.

No. 63313

>>63289
Nta but all of the updates they've done (from what we can see on the user end) would take a single person with Google maybe 30 minutes to figure out/implement, yet alone 'two web devs'. It's a literal joke, especially with the amount of time they've had.

No. 63316

feels like there's more and more people itt making scenes about their bans now. i get disputing a permaban but why throw a fir about ban that lasts a frw hours?
it's a damn website. you'll live. just go take a nap, read a book or something until it expires.

No. 63317

>>63313
Sure, but it's like anons expect a completely new site from admins that have been here for less than a year and again those "30 minute" updates are the most improvement we've had in years. I agree that more updates on newcow would be nice though.

No. 63318

>>63304
Your thread sucked.

What's with the these hypersensitive newfags not understanding how the site operates? No one is going to coddle you.

No. 63319

>>63316
Because 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. 63321

Idk what's the problem with just apologizing for not knowing how to make a thread and then make the thread again in the correct way after the ban time is over, just remaking it would had been enough since anons wanted the thread anyway. Now nobody will want to post there because of the freakout… You should had handled it better nonna.

No. 63323

>>62751
Cp in pt

No. 63324

>>63322
Nta but I appreciate any updates to the website

No. 63325


>>63322

People in /w/ I know have been wanting tiktok support. Lots of cosplayers on there. Just because you don't want the feature doesn't mean other anons don't. Just don't use the feature. It's like they offer free fruit punch and you want to bitch they didn't supply orange juice too.

No. 63328

>>63322
I can't imagine being this angry because a site you use for free updated with new features that they developed for free. Chill. Touch grass.

No. 63332

>>63330
>like you arent even huffing your own farts anymore you are injecting them at this point

You are definitely the same harpy from a few weeks ago who is obsessed with huffing gas.

No. 63335

>>63322
>Who asked for these updates though?
What? Are you even a farmer or someone who pays attention to anything going on with the site? The tiktok support, search page update, /m/ restoration, glitch fixes etc… were all the things that anons asked for. The only thing we didn't ask for was the small update with the report box that forces anons to type a reason, but that's it. Anons have especially been begging for tiktok support for months, it may have been the most anticipated update out of all the ones they've done.

No. 63336

>>63335
iirc YouTube embeds were broken so that needed a fix too

No. 63339

>>63331
You missed the point of the analogy. That had nothing to do with the site. You're an obvious idiot.

No. 63343

>>63322
>>63327
>>63329
>>63330
>>63331
>>63337
>>63338
>>63340
>>63341

Report the moid.

No. 63345

>>63322
Oh shut the fuck up, being able to post mp4s and tiktoks great for cow threads and something that has been long overdue. Before that nonnas had to constantly convert to webm.

No. 63346

>>63345
Wait, we can do mp4s now? Yippee!

No. 63348

There is a man in the get it off your chest thread larping as a schizo woman. >>1700681 report and ignore

No. 63354

>>63353
There he is

No. 63357

>>63348
Is it related to Ashley/her friends?

No. 63361

Someone is doing tranny tactics in the leftcows thread, tinfoiling about the mods and deleted posts. I watched it as it happened and it’s complete nonsense but would probably confuse new lurkers. They’re literally posting screenshots of comments that have the password deleted and claiming they can’t delete them, after deleting their actual comment. Nonsense.

No. 63362

really weird deletion of innocuous posts while jewsperging is left up in leftcows thread. might be rogue farmhand redscare fan or misfiring ip bans or intentional rightoid samefag infighting with himself to get the thread banned like tradthots

No. 63370

>>63361
I 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. 63372

>>63370
>>63362
Yeah yeah we know blah blah blah, most anons just move on. You're not hiding by pretending to try to rally farmers against farmhands.

No. 63373

>>63370
Like clockwork, all the dramatic tinfoiling continues right after the alogging schizo repeats their phrases and wording all the time.
>>>/meta/61742
>>>/meta/61858

No. 63374

>>63373
No one is buying their schtick, especially when the mods have made it clear they keep replying to themselves lol

No. 63376

>>63370
Yeah those posts are generally banned because they're choatards and Blaine. Please tell me why you think spamming your schizo meltdown is any different?

No. 63377

>>63376
tbh I think since there is no way to prove anything without doxing they can't really say anything which is why these tards spam here in /meta/ all day, because maybe if they even slighly believe that admins/farmhands aren't male or trannies they'd still want them to dox themselves

No. 63378

File: 1695049024850.jpg (22.59 KB, 266x330, Listening.jpg)


No. 63380

>>63377
Of course anon, that's why multiple admins have been faildoxed multiple times by different cows. It's almost endearing.

No. 63381

>>63370
Stop ban evading.

No. 63383

>>63380
Theyre just trying to take down another imageboard because they're paranoid, mentally ill, and miserable. Blog but I have vented about an abuser, a real abuser that has nothing to do with lolcow, in the GIOYC thread in /ot/ and there was a weird schizo that kept like mirroring what I was saying and aggressively replying to it indirectly like they thought it was about them. The schizo choatards have literally taken random posts in that thread that anons have made about their abusers and people wo have hurt them and tries to make it about themselves and the chch mod crew, which is fucking inhinged. I know its them for sure after last night's spergout. They referenced several posts I made spaced out over a span of literal months and tried to make it about themselves. They clearly have a lot of skeletons in their closet if they see any post about a stalker and think its referencing them.

No. 63386

>>63383
This did not happen

No. 63387

Out of pure curiousity, how did lolcow become a female dominated board? I’m not an oldfag, but I’m skimming through some really old stuff and it’s so messy I can’t figure it out

No. 63394

>>63387
Idk over time users were just like women ar based

No. 63398

>>63387
It was a offshoot of /cgl/ on 4chan which was primarily dominated by women

No. 63403

>>63386
The material is literally right there, sperg. They spent hours last night chimping out about it, nice try.

No. 63404

File: 1695115753868.png (828.1 KB, 750x1624, E6248EA2-AC2B-4E88-9853-B82054…)

Lol wtf

No. 63405

>>63403
I don't see it, mind linking?

No. 63406

man…

No. 63408

>>63404
All that effort just because he's seething about his post history getting nuked kek, truly a display of the lowest end of moid IQ there.

No. 63409

>>63408
Dude is probably 5'6" with a tiny dick. Giving that energy.

No. 63410

>>63404
Why post this here? Suspicious.

No. 63411

>>63410
Cc isn’t some sekret cloob and I thought it was funny and would explain some shitposting kek

No. 63412

>>63411
>I thought it was funny
No one went for your idea there and no one is going to go for it here. Give it up already

No. 63413

>>63412
? i didn’t make the original post. I just thought the post was funny that it’s laid out like some devious plot lmao. If some retarded shit happens this could explain it

No. 63414

>>63408
>>63409
>he
try harder, we know you're not a moid

>>63412
ikr

No. 63416

>>63404
I cannot even comprehend devoting this much time and effort to annoying like 50 people on some literallywhocares cgl offshoot

No. 63417

>>63410
Nta but the same reason why anons keep advertising CC here and telling us to go read their threads

No. 63418

>>63404
Isn't this what happened with movie thread anon who got all their posts wiped

No. 63419

>>63418
Movie thread anons posts predated cerbmin and cerbmin said that's why they couldn't easily fix it from back ups.

No. 63420

There's been some anons arguing (pretty mildly, but enough to deter the conversation) about shota in the artist salt #47 thread. Is this considered infighting or derailing, or should it just continue? I know there's the rule about shota being discussed and posted, but should I report?

No. 63423

>>63387
it was an offshoot of a site called staminarose started by /cgl/ anons after the drama ban. we used to have men and even a male admin but they were banned from outting themselves as men because they would derail threads by defending cows and calling everyone jelly fat haters, something that sometimes still happens. men never really used the site much because they regarded the kind of drama we were focused on as petty, and it basically has only been angry incels and trannies ever since.

No. 63424

>>63423
Nta 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. 63425

>>63424
>until more recent years
As in, the past 5 years.

No. 63426

>>63424
I've been here since the 4th momokun thread and even back then this was known as a female centered board with no male posting, as per rules. You have no idea what you're talking about.

No. 63427

>>63425
Yeah, yeah, calm down, I don't care if no scrotes allowed now, just relaying history.

>>63426
And 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

>>63424

Thx 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

>>63426
She 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. 63430

>>63424
>simp WKs
so like what is going on still, and now even threads get locked bc these people won't stop. It's going to kill Dakota's thread next, even though she has started posting again.

No. 63431

>>63419
that doesn't change the fact that they were allegedly a spammer if their post history got nuked OR they used a VPN. that's the simplest explanation, in that case, good. fuck the gore spammers.

No. 63433

>>63428
An older admin made a thread for a board mascot and anons started drawing their suggestions.

>>63429
The reddit bans happened literal years later after we had gc/pp/manhate threads, stop this retarded revisionism.

No. 63435

>>63431
it's neither, they explained in one of the vent threads and in the movie thread that they had a dynamic ip and how some of their other posts remained

No. 63436

>>63430
I hope so. The usual derailers and nitpickers are feigning posting congratulations photos trying to blend in in the dakota thread. Might want to blame them for most of /w/ being locked.

No. 63437

>>63433
It's not revisionism, it started under admin Sencha so let's not pretend it was around from day one. It wasn't, they became more and more insufferable over time. Most aren't even actual radfems let alone feminists.

No. 63440

>>63424
Shut the fuck up. I'm tired of "oldfags"(aka newfags trying to rewrite history) straight up lying as if robots/r9k moids weren't mocked for being males even when they were allowed to post. A female centric website will have misandrist women who voice out their opinions, you can't stop it.

No. 63441

>>63440
I'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. 63443

>>63440
Ah, samefagging as usual.

No. 63444

>>63436
>feigning congratulation photos
actual congratulations do not belong on an imageboard, you understand that, right? Writing to the cow directly in the thread is a bannable offense (I reported it) and I don't know why you find that acceptable but any other discussion of a goddamn legacy cow annoys you. No one is derailing by discussing Dakota in the Dakota thread. Fuck off.

No. 63445

>>63437
>Most aren't even actual radfems let alone feminists
Then 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. 63446

>>63445
Nta but the point of the original post was to relay lolcow history which was being called revisionist. The anon you're replying to is affirming it wasn't revisionist. Your own post seems to be in agreement with what the original post said. Idk where you're trying to go with this.

No. 63447

>>63444
Wishing her a happy birthday seems like that falls in line with your bannable offenses spiel.

No. 63452

>>63447
It's not a spiel. I reported that post. It's the same as posting braindead congratulations in any other thread. These threads don't exist for farmers to talk to the fucking cows.

No. 63453

what REALLY happened was that tumblr user larpsandtherealgirl was a lolcow user and talked about it on tumblr and that brought bunch of tumblr radfems here which caused rest to follow. the end.

No. 63456

>>63441
>disability
Yeah, calling someone out on lying isn't a disability.

No. 63457

>>63442
>seen you sperg multiple times
Those weren't me. Not every anon who disagrees with you is the same person

No. 63461

Jfc it didn't matter why the site exists. You guys are humoring the scrote still.

No. 63462

>>63461
We know the spammers are not scrotes, they've practically admitted it by now

No. 63463

>>63462
When they act like it, who cares?

No. 63465

>>63463
everyone, 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. 63466

>>63465
It's no secret that women and men both spam the site. If female posters want to act like redditfags, they can get miscalled scrotes by anyone. We have have more than one idiot posting.

No. 63467

>>63457
>>63456
No, you're definitely that samefag who spergs on meta about how they just hate men and that's the end all be all of your arguments every time. You've been shown archives in past meta threads and you still don't believe it, you're told each time no one is promoting scrotes posting and you still spazz on saying that's somehow what is being said. I wish they'd range ban you.

No. 63468

>>63466
>generalizing when you know we're talking about a very specific thing
yeah you all suck at even moderately disguising yourselves.

No. 63469

>kiwimoids scapegoating women again
ok good luck with that

No. 63470

that one fagmoid who keeps going on about how we hate men because of muh trauma seriously needs his balls cut off. "dont indulge in your hate touch grasSssSs" like really retard? we hate men because they unfortunately exist outside too
ps josh is fat

No. 63471

also these dummy fagmins you keep installing just get dumber and dumber and more obvious. get a real woman or if that sperg is a real woman (X) then get one who isnt a psycho who drinks toilet water

No. 63472

hey gays from la if youre reading this the joke is that lidl is a bad parody of the latest e-girl josh got rejected by <3(<3)

No. 63473

>>63442
Lol not how it went at all. Men ruined the cgl board thirsting over costhots and banning critique of costumes, female seagulls left and men stayed at 4chan to continue jerking off. The schism happened because men cared about cooming and women cared about costume construction and were sick of the hobby turning into another industry that focused on using sex to rinse men of money instead of a space where nerdy men and women can hang out and discuss anime, games, and j-fashion. Just another thing men ruined because they have no control over themselves. Now they cry about e-whores and how they are being attacked by “da j00s” with pornography ten years too late. And rather than learn anything for once, men now want to control all image boards and then complain about online space homogeneity ten years later. It is all so tiresome.

No. 63474

File: 1695236338462.jpg (30.51 KB, 480x581, 1655455274627.jpg)

>>63437
We 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

>>63473
The 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.
>>63474
I'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. 63476

>>63475
>they came from tumblr and twitter because I said so on meta for years!
Kek okay. Keep crying, even back then anons told you seeing the truth in trannys and men is just how the lolcow userbase evolved with the context of things happening irl and growing older. And yes, that includes a lot of seagulls too. Trannys have not been as much of a vocal issue in fucking 2010 or something than they have now. Men also were more often insufferable in their dedicated spaces and not fully and openly spread all over mainstream media with their blatant misogyny. Views can change and so can farmer's opinions, that doesn't mean they're from twitter or reddit or what ever else you want to cope with.

No. 63477

>>63476
Stop lamenting, jfc.

No. 63478

I’m still new as fuck, I’ve only been here since 2021, and I’m not here 24/7. I also didn’t grow up on board culture, so there’s a lot I don’t get yet. I notice a general disdain for the farmhands and admins in threads. Is there a reason for that? Do the admins and farmhands suck or am I too new to hate them?

No. 63479

>>63476
It looks like you're somehow taking this as some personal attack on your beliefs or something weird. No one cares if you developed your beliefs over time or if the rest of the userbase did, the wave of newfags with wannabe radfem beliefs happened regardless. It doesn't change that, that wasn't how lolcow started or originally was, and I have no idea why you have such a stick up your ass about that fact. No one is saying they like trannys, no one is saying they like scrotes, no one is saying they care if you didn't like them since day 1. Good job, hi-five, now get over yourself and let the rest of us discuss things without your paranoid derailing.

No. 63480

>>63478
Lots of us disagree with the current direction they're taking things or handling things. Lots of us don't or don't care. If you're new, just enjoy the site for whatever you're here for. If you never come to meta you probably won't notice much.

No. 63481

>>63478
It'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. 63482

>>63479
Several people are disagreeing with you and you’re chimping out. It’s obvious how much misogyny is creeping in that there is a plan in motion to pivot the direction of the site and its user base, whether the users like it or not. Personal attacks against any user defending and explaining the desired culture aren’t convincing and just confirm what everyone already suspects. The site will lose users to kiwi farms that has partitioned a section of the site for women to talk about whatever they please without restrictions. if this site becomes 4chan with e-girl nitpicking, the owner will not have a desirable user base to market to if it becomes overtly male dominated, because every other site on the internet covers that demographic already.

No. 63483

>>63478
Youre still obvious

No. 63484

>>63481
>some call her burritomin

nope, just you and your retarded little cronies brigading the site right now. no matter how many ways you try to slice it, we have you figured out kek

No. 63485

>>63483
hey! that's my line

No. 63486

>>63469
You 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

>>63479
Because 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.

>>63478
Don'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. 63489

>>63484
Huh? I don't call her "burritomin" anon. I just call her oldmin. I'm not any of the anons from crystalcafe that have been sperging here. I don't think you even read my post, actually.

No. 63491

>>63482
Nta but I distinctly remember when I found lolcow back in 2017 the userbase accepted the reality that moids were gonna post because it was the nature of an imageboard (some people here don't seem to understand this concept). The caveat being if they announced themselves they'd get a permaban for being a retard. There was definitely feminist leaning because naturally that's going to happen on an imageboard specifically marketed towards women, but I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. (Personally I come to agree with a lot of the feminist leaning, although it's definitely antithetical to an extent to participate in a lot of the threads here.) The idea that some users adapted their beliefs and that some migrated from social media is not mutually exclusive. I don't have a problem with radfem ideology just as long as anons don't act like zealots by suggesting all women have to conform to their beliefs ect. What bothers me sometimes is what I assume must be newfags larping the recent little they've observed of the culture here and scaring away milk. We're an imageboard designed to gawk at cows first and foremost (excluding the ot boards) so when anons screech like banshees at the sight of a scrote ready to drop milk it really sucks the fun out of everything. For example initially Felice Fawn's (one of my favourite legacy cows) ex was nearly scared away by anons who couldn't compose themselves long enough around the scrote to enjoy the milk delivery and then relentlessly bully him. If that becomes the norm here we might as well shut down the cow boards if we're turning away what little milk we get because we can't even pretend to humor someone first before shitting on them later. 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. 63492

>>63489
Samefag but if you were there you know that anons used to call Oldmin brown and Mexican out of spite (and also cause of that hand pic she posted). I know "burritomin" is new but I included it since anon literally said she's a newfag and maybe won't know who it's referring to.

No. 63493

>>63482
You're projecting some random thing and imagining things no one ever said. If there are truly several people who can't read to that extent actively conversing on meta right now, I'd be concerned.

No. 63494

>>63487
You're imagining things again.

No. 63495

>>63491
>Nta
you aren't fooling anyone lol

No. 63497

>>63491
> the userbase accepted the reality that moids were gonna post because it was the nature of an imageboard (some people here don't seem to understand this concept)
This is what turns me off using the site. The fact that it's 2023 and anons still can't ignore and report bait, and screech about moids everywhere when this isn't a forum or a private subreddit.

No. 63498

>>63495
You're just trying to instigate a fight when I'm clearly not the same anon because I agreed with the both of you to an extent. Why you're trying to bait over something this dumb I'll never understand.

No. 63499

>>63478
Historically speaking, the people with the biggest vendettas against the admins and farmhands are either serial ban evaders and rule breakers or former farmhands themselves. I don't think they want to bring anymore attention to themselves since the Ashley sperging but it isn't the first time it's happened. It's like clockwork, a new admin comes along and then farmhands who were active under different admins come along to spread their narrative. A lot of the time it's resentment over being fired, not becoming admin, or having their interests banned from the site. You can check out the kiwifarms thread and older cc threads to compare how similar the drama is. There are people who don't want this site to exist because they don't believe newfags like you deserve to experience it.

No. 63501

>>63474
I 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. 63502

>>63478
Sometimes the bans and rules are not consistent. There are times they will ban non-rulebreaking posts because they didn't read the context or understand a joke, or sometimes with no explanation at all (i.e, the cancer vent anon) while allowing infights to go on for days. It's not like that all the time though but enough where it feels like a pattern. The accidental deletion of the movie thread, and denying the op of that thread's ban appeal when she clearly wasn't the spammer, makes me side eye the most.

No. 63505

>>63501
No1currs

No. 63506

>>63505
I care. I appreciate factual history and I'm glad that anon is standing up for it. Too bad for you

No. 63507

>>63474
This. They can go to crystal cafe if they want a moid ridden female imageboard, they shouldn't complain here

No. 63508

>>63501
>as a former mod
So 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. 63509

>>63506
You mean you are posting about it.

No. 63510

>>63491
>We're an imageboard designed to gawk at cows first and foremost
For 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. 63511

>>63507
>>63508
>>63509
>>63510
You people are insufferable precisely because you're incapable of not making every little thing be about gendercrit. Even when anons are doing something like telling a curious newfag site history, you screech and shout with accusations of trannys, scrotes, handmaidens, etc, etc. This is exactly the reason anons have hated you, but you continue to ignorantly go on about how they're just trying to undo your 'safe space' even when there is no sentence of any post in the entire convo you can quote that actually points to that. Beyond obnoxious.

No. 63514

>>63511
My post had nothing to do with gender. Take your pills. You've been at this for weeks.

No. 63515

>>63501
Bullshit. 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. 63516

>>63510
I understand you use the site differently but there's a time and a place for moid hate. If you're going to shit up cow threads or wreck a milk delivery you're not even pretending to follow the rules. You may see hating on men more valuable than gossip (to an extent I agree) but that's no excuse for anons to ruin things for others who use the site differently. If we want to coexist there has to be some middle ground, not just the militant presumption that everyone must conform to your thought process. And this is coming from someone who actively hates on trannies here and IRL.

No. 63517

>>63515
No one hated terfs or manhaters. They hated posters like you who try to twist everything into something it's not under the guise of GC. Delusional.

No. 63519

It's just the same old scrotes trying to "reclaim" lolcow as their own.
Same old, same old. Been seeing this since forever on /meta/, they're absolutely sore losers. Funny how you never see them anywhere else but here, complaining. Only here to bait others and cause chaos. Don't entertain the scrotes.

No. 63521

>>63508
I haven't been a mod since 3 admins ago so your argument will fall flat since I haven't given a shit.
>>63519
Calling 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. 63522

>>63521
Starting to see why you were relieved of mod duties

No. 63523

>>63521
I'm one of the other anons arguing for lolcows actual (non GC) history. Pretty sure it's just a troll trying to bait us. No one is this stupid and they're multi post replying too frequently at odd hours. Would be nice to see Farmhand's actually hand out a reasonable ban for once, but instead we suffer.

No. 63525

>>63519
>Funny how you never see them anywhere else but here, complaining
Except for crystal cafe's lolcow hate thread. Which is funny because it just further shows their real agenda.

>>63523
Pointing out wrong claims is not a bannable offense and neither is it trolling.

No. 63527

>>63510
>For me this site is open free speech of women without moids and moid coddlers.
But that's not what we are. We're a site to gawk at cows. The OT boards were added as an extra sidebar for cow gawkers and I wish we'd just go back to /pt/ /snow/ and /b/ already. Newfags assigning this site a full new purpose are literally what killed the board culture. Claiming our site is inherently feminist is ridiculous on so many levels, just look at any thread about female cows. We used to self-police just fine. The only moid who was tolerated here was OG Admin because farmers initially assumed he was gay and he understood that women should be running this site. Moids that weren't dropping milk were labeled with the robot icon and laughed out of the site. Our url was blacklisted on 4chan to keep moids from spamming raid requests. We still got moid tourists, but they were never welcome. All that was a side effect of our evolving board culture and I understand that it's important to many users but the constant push to declare this site some sort of political mainstay is delusional and if that's what you want then you should find or make a different website. You're on a site that was created to tear apart mentally ill women if the things they post are entertaining.

No. 63528

Why do you want lolcow to go back to a shittier previous younger version of itself so bad. It obviously evolved with its userbase. Adapt or move on, use the cow boards if you want and ignore the rest, ignore and hide posts that you hate, idk why this discussion is still happening. You can't be this mad about other anons all the time, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.

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

>>63528
atp 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. 63532

>>63510
>For 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.
None of these things are mutually exclusive. You can laugh at cows being retarded while also advocating for a male-free space that prioritizes women, like lolcow has always done. But nobody wants low quality posters - the ones who derail every discussion to sperg about their black and white "radfem" thought or the trannies living inside their heads nor the ones who a-log and obsessively nitpick harmless cows who don't deserve it or use the threads as their personal blogs. 2X and most of /ot/ (and /w/ to be honest) should be nuked because they attract shitposting and constant infighting that drags the overall posting quality down to the trenches, maybe we'd actually have interesting cows for once if everything wasn't buried under metric tons of stinky manure.

No. 63534

The site is as it is now though, so stop complaining about 7 years ago. Derailing /meta/ for this garbage dump from lamenting sad cunts.

No. 63540

complaints thread reached reply limit

No. 63541

>>63540
No thanks to your double posting

No. 63542

>>63534
Can 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?

>>63525
You'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. 63543

>>63542
I don't care. You can't even read any real meta-discussion in here because anons are using this as a slapfight for who has been on lolcow the longest when it doesn't have anything to do with currently and how it isn't going to go back to how it was.

No. 63544

>>63542
nta but she's clearly retarded and you're wasting your breath

No. 63545

Got a bunch of 15 year olds roaming around the Gyaru thread

No. 63546

>>63545
yes, the 14 year old costhots defending sexualizing minors.

No. 63547

>>63546
That'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. 63548

>>63547
>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
Nta but some of them end up doing both. I've seen some online admit to using images of adult women larping as kids as a legal outlet for their degeneracy.

No. 63549

>>63547
No one is talking about young children but you. Teens look more like adults than they do young children and men who look at teens don't generally want to abuse young children. The point about DDLG is that it's not a physical attraction. Men want to abuse teenagers based on a power dynamic. Sexualizing something inherently related to teenagers just makes men associate that with teenagers doing it. It's not a hard concept.

No. 63551

>>63549
Samefagging, but if you're hung up on the word pedo, that's also on you.

No. 63552

>>63548
Just 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?

>>63549
She 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. 63553

>>63552
Men ONLY associate school uniforms with teenagers, you're grasping at straws to defend them. You're hung up on the word pedo to be used to describe men who want to abuse teenagers but that's just splitting hairs.

No. 63554

>>63552
>She doesn't even look like a teen
What 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. 63555

>>63553
You're hung up on the word pedo. This whole original thing was about how no one would look at her and think she was pandering which anons accused her of pedopandering. This devolved into nitpicking aspects of the photos overall and now it's gone into generalizations. This has derailed completely off the topic at hand when the point was that she, as the cosplayer, is not pedopandering. Don't post photos accusing cosplayers of doing that then get pissed when anons use the word "pedo" to tell you that you're wrong.

No. 63556

>>63555
are you responding to the right person? you realize that the term pedo has both a medical definition and a loose slang definition the former meaning any man attracted to anyone underage. you're literally acting like the onion ephebophile meme.

No. 63557

it's funny that as soon as pedo/male defending anon comes here to whine, all the fighting stops because they're the one who's fighting. sorry if you're a cosplayer catering to men who want to abuse teenagers, but it's disgusting and you probably don't belong on this site.

No. 63558

>>63557
You do realize the samefagging is obvious, right?

No. 63559

>>63558
Learn the definition of samefagging, newfag.

No. 63560

>>63558
you know samefagging and doubleposting are different right?

No. 63561

>>63560
>>63559
I literally don't care. If you're going to reply to the same post multiple times in different replies, you should cop a ban.

No. 63562

>>63561
No one did that though. There are many anons who disagree with your defence of moids, but you're the only one who is defending it. It's probably confusing to you because you were clearly samefagging in the gyaru thread and responding to yourself. I don't even care if I get banned for infighting because anyone who thinks fetishizing teens is okay shouldn't be on the site.

No. 63563

>>63562
No one said fetishizing teens is okay. Stop reaching trying to make other anons look like bad guys.

No. 63564

>>63563
Sexualizing a school uniform is fetishizing teens. Sorry you don't understand that. Why are you pretending to be another anon?

No. 63565

>>63564
Take some meds.

No. 63566

>>63565
i wish shitposters like this would be permabanned. they've been posting bait for hours and then once they get called out they pull this shit. no one agrees with you. that's why the arguing stopped in other threads as soon as you got caught up posting here. only a moid would think it's okay to do porn in a school uniform.

No. 63567

>>63566
So I'm a moid, another anon, a shitposter, and I think it's okay to fetishize teens apparently? Yeah. You need those meds. Of course, the discussion stopped in the thread, I came here to report the derailing.

No. 63568

>>63567
Why 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. 63569

>>63568
I haven't samefagged. Knock it off and mods can tell.

No. 63570

>>63568
>>63568
Nta, don't even read the thread this is about, but I'm more curious what you think it achieves to accuse anons of samefagging to troll? If it's as frequent as you claim, calling them out clearly isn't a deterrent. At best you're contributing nothing, and at worse you're baiting an anon who isn't samefagging into arguing their innocence. It might as well be 'hi, cow'.

No. 63571


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. 63574

>>63528
It all boils down to "lolcow was so much better because there were no feminist and men weren't bullied out!", so go figure why it bothers him so much.

No. 63575

>>63574
Why is this even a discussion when feminism has long died on lolcow? It died when the radfems got kicked 3 years ago. The demons that flooded this place afterwards have nothing to do with feminism and are only using it as a convenient troll-shield so they can quickly look integrated

No. 63576

>>63574
Convenient you're the only one saying that when not a single anon itt has said anything even remotely. Literally making things up.

No. 63577

>>63576
>Even remotely like that.
Don't know how my phone ate the end of that sentence.

No. 63578

>>63575
>The demons that flooded this place
>demons
>for hating men and trannies
Thanks for proving my point, defected y chromosome.

No. 63579

>>63574
Right, all he has to do is not announce he’s a male and he can keep using the site. That’s not enough apparently and now it has to cater to his feelings specifically. Men get a taste of how women experience every other site online and can’t deal at all

No. 63580

>>63578
Don't you have to kiss Nulls ass some more or go shopping at Aldi or whatever it is you do in between your stupid attempts at riling people up? Do you see how dead this place is? You're a cancer on this community or whatever was left of it. At least you're shitting up a more deserving place now

No. 63581

>>63575
>The demons that flooded this place afterwards have nothing to do with feminism and are only using it as a convenient troll-shield so they can quickly look integrated

I agree with this halfway, but feminism is far from dead yet. There are a lot of cringey little keyboard stacies here who think the fast track to integration is to parrot the most extreme blackpill views in inappropriate threads, though.

No. 63582

>>63581
Unfortunate hyperbole but it's certainly not the way it was 3-4 years ago. Those people parroting the whole kekeke moid y chromosoid shit are so terribly unfunny and embarrassing that I'm categorizing them as larping gay men. Overall this site has so little activity now that I don't even see how anyone could be bothered by the little actual feminism discussion that is left

No. 63583

>>63570
The anon who was defending costhots wearing school girl uniforms was literally only one person so it's not a stretch to think she(he) is samefagging.

No. 63584

>>63580
Projection that doesn't even make sense.

No. 63585

>>63584
Read a book

No. 63586

>>63583
Ok, but what does it achieve to repeatedly screech someone is samefagging, or whatever? What if they really aren't samefagging? And if they are, in what way does it help to dogmatically deny anons any agency by repeating it ad nauseam? Not trying to argue for this anon or scenario or anything, but it's really a pointless, baity claim that doesn't help anyone 99.9% of the time.

No. 63587

>>63583
Someone else agreed too it being nitpicked too. Go pretend to care about drawn children elsewhere.

No. 63591

>>63586
Nta but very interesting that "screeching about samefagging" didn't seem to be an issue when you did it mere hours ago.

No. 63593

>>63586
to 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

>>63593
Mods 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. 63596

>>63521
>kicked out of mod team
>Mentions it like a badge of honor
>Says anons she argues with should cop a range ban
Huh, that's why you were kicked, kek. Retard.

No. 63597

>>63591
Go ahead and quote who you think I am.

No. 63600

>>63597
Pretty sure anon thinks you're >>63563 quoted wrong post

No. 63602

>>63600
Makes no sense since I still haven't read the threads in question, kek. I just think nonstop samefag accusations are the same kind of baity spam as hi cowing.

No. 63603

>>63602
It 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

>>63603
Now 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. 63605

>>63603
I'm not even sure if it's that they don't believe it, or if they just fall back on that as a cop out for having to make an actual argument. It's really illogical because if a farmhand popped up and confirmed it wasn't samefagging, it's not like whatever you disagreed with in the first place has changed. Pointing out samefagging potential is one thing, treating it like a weaponized insult is just dumb.

No. 63606

>>63604
You don't know that. This is meta and one of the only times they've done that is during the blaine fiasco or other times a very specific cow has tried to call attn to themselves, otherwise they don't really call specific anons out for that

No. 63607

>>63606
Ignoring you because you have no idea what is being talked about. Read the /meta/ threads. The farmhand called out the group of posters.

>>63605
It'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. 63608

>>63591
The gyaru thread is notorious for samefagging and not even recently >>>/w/302426

No. 63609

>>63596
They're just a larping kiwiscrote.

No. 63610

>>63604
That anon wrote in meta that she was asking a question about media she posted after the delete window expired, so it's a poor example imho. I think you pretend a lot though.

No. 63611

>>63610
There's plenty of other examples if you look. /w/ is filled with samefagging and looking through it is constantly tinfoil-type, non-milk posts or posts that are obviously shitposting. When something milky actually happens you tend to not see those redtexts often at all because anons don't have to try and force some kind of discussion.

No. 63612

>>63609
It's definitely a mentally ill person, you're right.

No. 63613

Can a farmhand or admin please clarify what is considered doxing here? Publically available records have always been acceptable to post as far as I'm aware. Is it a recent development? Or have I just neglected to notice anons redacting publically available personal information thus not receiving bans?

No. 63615

>>63613
I don't exactly remember where I heard this, may even be the rules, but p sure if they didn't post about it on their social media, it's considered doxxing. Like, yes a lot of information is publically available but when you put it all together and put it on the site, it becomes doxxing. Like if I know your name, and google it, and find your phone number and address really easily but you hadn't posted about it on your social media, I think that's doxxing.

No. 63616

>>>/w/308271
Nothing in my post was "hi cow"ing. I wasn't alluding to any cow in particular by pointing out that the pickme defenders of cosplaying sexualized child/underage characters in the thread are likely the ones heavily into DDLG themselves so they can relate. This isn't about Pinkii so much as the practice as a whole that disgusts me, no matter who does it.

No. 63617

>>63616
Welcome to nu-lolcow, bans don't need to make sense. You're supposed to just imagine it said (infighting).
>>63613
It 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. 63618

>>63617
It wasn't actually my post I'm just genuinely confused I didn't think in all the years I've been here that court documents/arrest records counted as doxing because they're in the public domain. Either I haven't been paying attention or the rules have changed very recently.

No. 63619

What is it about yukapon that makes the gyaru thread go into autist turbo drive?
With the amount of other costhots that equally do sexy schoolgirl cosplays that never get brought up, it really does feel like there’s a specific vendetta (inb4 whiteknight, it’s just funny to see the shitflinging still going over a crusty weeb)

No. 63620

>>63619
I just looked myself it reads like a bunch of they/them teenagers having a melt down over something that happened years ago. All the cancel pinkii tiktoks brought them here unfortunately.

No. 63621

>>63618
I'm really not joking, things like this are why anons are discontent with current staff. It keeps getting blown off as kiwifags or scrotes or upset former mods or CCC or CC or whatever, but you aren't alone in anons confused by the inconsistent and random rule changes/enforcement. They rarely expand on it or answer in meta unless it's a convenient moment, either. This is just the site now and most anons are happy with that, I guess. When they aren't they get written off as schizos, lol.

No. 63622

>>63615
This. I tried to explain this in the other /meta/ thread.

No. 63623

>>63616
So 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.

>>63619
It is.

>>63618
And 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. 63624

>>63623
>So 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.

That's not what hi cowing is. If that's the case then every anon posting here is a cow in some way, shape, or form. Hi cowing is about calling out specific, established cows, not random nobodies. In fact, i'd wager to guess that Nat has been WKing herself in the thread and was the one who reported the instance as hi cowing, because it makes no sense otherwise. You seem to think you're really clever with your backwards logic, but it just rings really suspicious to me. This was never about Nat for me, but when I see retarded justifications for sexualizing underage girls and pandering to moids, i'm going to call it out every time.

No. 63626

>>63624
>Sorry that you cope with turning 30 by LARPing as a sexualized child for coomer bux, maybe use some of that money for therapy instead of cheap temu schoolgirl cosplays to impress your discord daddy.

If that isn't some low hanging hi cow crap. You don't have to be op to have anons insinuate you're a cow. And you are hi cowing any posters in /meta/ by claiming they might be Nat. But yeah, definitely not hi cowing at all kek

No. 63627

>>63623
My point isn't what you consider doxing it is what was unanimously enforced as doxing previously. I'm pretty sure I've seen information obtained through state databases like what was posted without repercussion in the past so I'm confused.

No. 63629

I'm happy kpop discussion is banned. I wanted to discuss a recent drama but then i realized the kind of users kpop stuff attracts so it does make sense to ban it

No. 63630

>>63627
That's not a personal take on doxxing lol

No. 63631

>>63630
Then idk kek, I must just be having a senile moment.

No. 63633

>>63631
The site isn't going to do whatever it did previously if it can get them in trouble. Saves a lot of work on the admin side of things. Anons would rather risk the site just to post personal dox information and complain rather than try to keep the site alive and out of trouble. Anons aren't going to die because the post is gone.

No. 63634

>>63630
Nta 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

>>63633
Doubleposting (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. 63636

Can any mod do something about the infighting going on in the Vtuber thread. It’s three people calling eachother fat and retarded and they just never stop.

No. 63637

>>63635
It might not be allowed now. Just because the site was a certain way years ago doesn't mean they can't adjust rules. Just wait until admin says something, sperging this hard over something not even that big of a deal is so unhinged. Anons have an opinion of why, you don't need to complain about a plausible reason.

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 unhinged
I 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. 63640

>>63638
You need help

No. 63641

Two questions I haven’t been able to find with lurking

1. You know how some cows posts here get a special little banner under their name linking to their shit (Ritard and Kiki Kannibal) are there more? What does a cow have to do to deserve the little banner under their messages? Is Kiki the only one with her special little sperg-chan website? Cause Ritard just links to all her posts without talking about who she is, I had to look that up separately

2. At some point, how does a snow cow move to pt? Momokun was snow once before she was moved to pt, but Shayna is WAY milkier than her. What keeps her on snow? Do you have to do something extra milky to be on pt? I’ve lurked for a bit but I never got an answer

No. 63642

>>63641
shayna has her own goddamn board.

No. 63643

>>63642
I 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. 63644

>>63643
She doesn't need to be on pt when she has her own board. That's just how it is.

No. 63645

Anon is derailing in thread about an issue that needs to stay in meta >>>/w/308373

No. 63646

>>63641
The 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. 63647

>>63645
why do you announce things like this, just report it like a normal farmer if you have an issue. that anon has a point anyway

No. 63648

doublepost (god it's retarded I have to say this to avoid a "samefagging" ban)
>>63638
your post is completely logical btw, there's no reason for this hostility at all >>63640
If 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. 63649

>>63647
Something like that just causes discourse

No. 63650

>>63648
If it's about hair, why do they have to agree it's a terrible cut otherwise you'll accuse them of whiteknighting? This just sounds like you want to control what other anons think about posts when no one has to hate the same thing you do.

No. 63651

>>63638
Thank you I don't think anyone seems to understand what I'm getting at. I'm not trying to be offensive by not taking their word for it, I just want clarification for the update from staff seeing as it was allowed previously. Since people didnt link to an example where the definition of doxing was changed in the past I'm still confused kek. I don't have strong feelings on the subject either way, I'm just looking for clarification not peoples opinions on how it's immoral and why it may be punishable now.

No. 63652

>>63651
No 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.
>>63648
Appreciate your reassurance, Ty anon.

No. 63655

>>63650
Wow, 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/308339

My question about whiteknighting had nothing to do with her berries n cream bowl cut.

No. 63656

>>63649
doublepost but "discourse" is discussion and I don't see why you're against that.

No. 63658

>>63655
>73 posts mentioning about her haircut
Anon, pretty sure that falls in line with nitpicking and calling it out isn't defending a cow. At what point is her hair no longer milky because it's the same thing repeated.

No. 63659

>>63658
Nta 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. 63660

A schizo is having a meltdown in the personal cows thread.

No. 63662

>>63659
I think it has to do with the discussion not really being a discussion when it's just talking about the same thing constantly, especially if it isn't adding anything new to the thread. The thread has just over 400 posts and almost a 1/4 of that is about her hair. I understand your saging argument, but this is over someone replying to a question about the popularity of the cut. Pointing out anons have nitpicked 1/4 of the thread over her haircut seems like a fair statement. If you thinks it's rule breaking, why not report it, but what would you report it for since it's a reply to a question? I don't mean you specifically, but what would anons even report that for?

No. 63663

>>63662
Those 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. 63664

>>63663
Dakota's entire career is based on her appearance, idk seems like fair game to me. Just leave the discussion alone, new people are going to comment on it and Dakota doesn't need a defender in the thread telling everyone how it's so trendy in Japan without posting any proof of that. It's not like Japanese women are balding like Ostrengas anyway. ffs this is Dakota

No. 63665

>>63664
Nta, but her appearance hasn't changed. It's not a new discussion. You can admit some anons post just to shit on cows. Those types of posts ruin a threads quality. Just because she's a legacy cow doesn't mean her thread should be a trashcan. What's the point of a milky thread when it's never milky anymore?

No. 63666

What's the solution to the type of turbo autism the gyaru thread is consistently subjected to? It's all clearly tiktok transients moralfagging and vendetta posting circle jerking the same talking points over and over on repeat. It's gotta be one of the worst threads in /w/ and that's saying something. I'm not suggesting closing it but what's the solution because it's clearly attracting people who are the anthesis of your average farmer?

No. 63667

>>63666
Its just a bunch of sjws. They wont stop derailing about fake children.

No. 63670

>>63667
Go back to kf

No. 63674

>>63670
I was never a kiwifag. I agree with the anon in that thread saying anons need to move on from comparing adults in bad costumes to children, especially since they specify fictional children. It's absolute mental illness, luv. Isn't there some pedo thread you can derail about this?

No. 63675

>>63674
Way to strawman and argue in bad faith. No one's comparing them to children, but girls LARPing as underaged teens and sexualizing themselves in order to pander to scrotes is more related to the prevalence and encouragement of pedophilia/ephebophilia than you're willing to admit. Are you the type who would argue that giving pedos realdolls modeled after children is going to curb their appetites for actual CP, when there have been absolutely zero studies supporting that? Scrotes will take what they can get, and they aren't solely attracted to real life children when seemingly harmless alternatives are good enough for their scummy boners. Secondly, you clearly haven't seen screenshots from actual pedo forums because they do list age ranges, such as saying ages 8-16 are the sweet spot to them and so on. Most men would fuck 13 year olds if they could get away with it and yes, today's teens are more physically mature and in a rush to look more adult, oppai-loli is a thing, so you can't say "but the cosplayer doesn't even look like a literal child!!" because they are emulating a sexualized teen, fictional or not. Why are you okay with that? You brush it off like it doesn't affect or perpetuate those attitudes towards women and young girls as a whole when costhots and DDLGers play into it for coomer bucks.

No. 63676

>>63674
Its multiple anons who share your opinion, they're retarded. You don't have to agree with Natalia's behaviour to see its vendetta sperging from newfags.

No. 63677

>>63676
I don't even know these cows but old deleted milk definitely seems vendetta

No. 63678

>>63675
To add to that, men's sexuality can be rather fluid so they don't have to be strict pedos to lust after underage girls or consume pedo-adjacent content. As long as men can be sold on the fantasy, their dick doesn't know the difference and doesn't care. I can't speak for others, but I will reiterate that personally, I didn't come in to argue against Nat on some vendetta, I came in to argue against defense of the practice as a whole.

No. 63679

>>63674
>>63678
>>63675
Any-fucking-ways, it looks like we've all since moved on from that so there's no reason to keep bringing it up in meta.

No. 63680

>>>/ot/1705852
moid attention whoring

No. 63681

>>63678
Jesus just move on already.

No. 63682

CP in /ot/

No. 63683

Some bonehanded retard was derailing and infighting in the LC Caps thread. Thread is currently being derailed by some spoilered text I can't be bothered to read.

No. 63685

>>63683
tl;dr
>anon responds to a cap saying 'tranny hands wrote this post'
>some obnoxious personalityfag immediately assumes 'tranny hands' refers to her
>derail ensues

No. 63686

>>63675
anon is either a pedo or a costhot. she's probably not even a gyaru considering she also defending the same shit in the momokun thread.

No. 63687

File: 1695539238923.jpeg (12.27 KB, 554x554, 13446393863.jpeg)

>>63686
>everyone who disagrees with me is a pedo and the same person

No. 63688

>>63687
they admitted everything i said upthread. plus the discussion wasn't about nat in the beginning.

No. 63689

>>63688
>>63686
Anons have said this about various cows, this isn't new, but you might be.

No. 63690

is there no one moderating /ot/ anymore

No. 63691

>>63675
Has anyone ever unironically considered having a thread for just pure infights? I'm not joking, these two could really see a lot of value from that thread and take this bullshit about gyaru pedo shit there instead of meta.

No. 63692

We need a hellmonth. Maybe even a hellyear. Or permanent hell.

No. 63693

>>63691
I swear something like that existed at one point in /ot/ or I could just be on crack

No. 63694

>>63693
Maybe these?
infight thread: >>>/ot/781585
disagreements only thread: >>>/ot/1008929
post-infight thread: >>>/ot/1599375

No. 63695

>>63693
yeah but it's meant to be an unserious shitposting thread lol >>>/ot/1008929

No. 63697

>>63674
Whining about sjws and bringing up umm akschually those aren't real children lolipedo arguments just sounds like neckbeard.

No. 63698

>>63697
I 100% agree. the "fake children" reeing is pretty suspicious and scrotey. but I wish the discussion would move out of that thread regardless

No. 63700

>>63697
>>63698
Please god stop trying to continue this autism

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/1705577

And here: >>>/ot/1650373

I 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. 63712

>>63068
You are such a liar

No. 63713

>>63689
anon admitted she also posted her hot take in the moo thread, stop being retarded.

No. 63714

>>63713
Are you new? Anons made fun of this during her Kanna cosplay too years ago. Most people make fun of others in the community who actively believe grown ass adults with tits will appeal to pedos regardless of the outfit. Get a grip.

No. 63717

>>63714
you're the only one who thinks this.

No. 63718

>>63714
Anon, why are you so upset that people think that? Why would it upset you that people are criticizing how some women pander to men? What's the reason you are so upset about it?

No. 63719

>>63714
nta but Moo is a completely different animal altogether. It's a false equivalence to compare all discourse against women and girls intentionally sexualizing themselves as underaged (fictional characters or not) to pander to scrotes to be the same as someone criticizing Moo for attempting to lewd an underaged character when she hardly even resembles the character much less looks passably underage. It's gross, but she's an attention seeking costhot who doesn't seem to make it her main thing.

No. 63720

>>63719
i 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. 63721

>>63720
The cow in question in the gyaru thread didn't look underage, so idk why you're all sperging about this. That was the whole point that was made in thread and now it's formed into derailing about general porn industry shit. You guys have zero reading comprehension. The point is Moo and the gyaru cow DON'T look like pedobait because they look old. Jesus, go outside. Call the fbi or something if you're this concerned about women producing non-cp.

No. 63723

>>63491
2017 a lot of newfags came in with onision drama. I've been posting since 2014 and the no male posters rule was in effect.

No. 63725

>>63721
The kicker is it wasn't even a nude cosplay of a 17 year old drawing either, it was only "lewd". Obviously it was in poor taste, but it was deleted years ago when it happened, and had already been discussed at length (this very same circular sperging). I don't know why other than this being bait, or unintegrated just newfags, we're still drudging it up like it's relevant using bad faith arguments like "anyone who wants us to finally stop sperging is a moid or peadophile". It's absolutely deranged, obsessive behaviour when there's so many more egregious examples out there. Even though I don't agree what she did it's no wonder everyone thinks it's just vendetta/zoomers from tiktok.

No. 63728

>>63725
Are you seriously telling me the character is 17 anyway? These twitter anons need to go outside.

No. 63729

>>63723
anon 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. 63730

>>63721
Why are you so obsessed with defending this shit?

No. 63731

Baiting tranny in the fujo thread derailing with beastiality porn and infighting.

No. 63732

I know we had a "thread suggestion" thread somewhere but I can't find it. But I don't think anyone made a new celebrity gossip thread yet? Or at least I can't find it

No. 63734

Could a jannie please delete this thread >>>/ot/1707815 I fucked up when making it and put the title in the name field instead of subject field. I tried deleting it but for some reason (bad internet maybe?) I can’t delete it. It just keeps coming up with ‘unknown error’. Thank you and sorry for messing it up.

No. 63735

>>63732
It's here, anon: >>>/pt/913498
and someone has already requested kek: >>>/pt/919907

No. 63736

weird little retarded newfag raid in the leftcows thread

No. 63738

>>63736
It’s still going on lmao

No. 63740

>>63738
I saw. I really don’t know what’s going on but they’re flooding the thread with unsaged nonsense, they’re gonna max it out at this rate

No. 63752

Any opinion you disagree with isn't "bait".

No. 63753

>>63752
Of course it is! The poster is also obviously a male and a tranny if I disagree with them uwu

No. 63754

>>63752
I don't think it's about disagreements itself but when a post sounds like the OP is being inflammatory on purpose or saying something factually incorrect.

No. 63755

>>63752
Or they are the cow or cows friends (ie dakota thread)

No. 63758

>>63755
It's definitely someone from their orbit. A lot of them lurk and troll. The thread is a mess.

No. 63760

>>63712
First lie being
>I am Bib
? Because I always thought Bib was just Elaine based on the vocaroos being sent around

No. 63761

>>63760
Bib is supposedly Japananon who happened to share a server with some farmers including the choachan admins. I don't know what that has to do with Elaine other than Bib being British, so is one of the former choachan admins. It seems like gay shitcord drama that gets brought onto /ot/. For whatever reason any anon mentioning Japananons stalker gets gaslit.

No. 63762

>>63761
It was another anon from that server that complained about how we were all mean girls in /ot/ because this one other anon in the server shared with her how milky japananon was and how she was her personal lolcow I think. Just remembered how offened and aghast she was about it

No. 63763

>>63761
Bib's vocaroos sound like Elaine but the last time I heard one was a while ago so I might be misremembering
>As is one of the choachan admins
Okay? Nice? Guessing that's a thinly veiled threat not meant for me so I'll let you have whatever point that was supposed to make

No. 63764

>>63760
>bib was Elaine
Holy retardation

No. 63766

>>63646
>The real reason is that her threads have serious post quality issues
Nta but if we're saying that about Shayna threads, then what about the Luna and Lillee threads? The Luna thread has been dead other than "she's fat" and "her hair died" for almost 2 years now and Lillee has been "she's dumpy" for over half of her threads. It's not reasonable to make this about post quality when /pt/ is very noticeably dead with active cows being milkless. It still amazes me Lucinda never made it to /pt/ despite last year being the most bizarre drama

No. 63767

>>63764
I'm not saying she is, I'm saying from other anons posts I think Bib is British, which may explain why anons are confusing them.

No. 63768

Can mods open up the tradthot thread again please. It was one of the most active and milky threads on the site, many farmers including myself want it opened again and it should be back by popular demand.

No. 63769

>>63768
Why was it locked? I didn't follow it consistently but it always seemed to have an above average flow of milk

No. 63770

>>63769
Constant racebait and actual tradposting I assume?

No. 63771

>>63769
it was being shat up almost daily by tradfags, racebait, derailing, angry scrotes, etc basically a constant stream of low quality garbage flooding the thread.

No. 63772

File: 1696002116022.jpg (476.21 KB, 1080x1821, SQct98A.jpg)

Can we revive the yandere dev thread?

No. 63773

>>63772
>>>/snow/410442
it was revived yesterday

No. 63776

locking the leftcow thread is dumb and lazy. no one has modded that thing, red texted bait or infighting, or banned spammers for a year. there have always been periods without “milk” it’s a thread about a scene not a person. low IQ modding.

No. 63777

>>63776
it attracts more offsite users and attention than any other thread, it has always needed mod attention it hasn’t gotten. that’s not our fault.

No. 63778

>>63777
is this the most undermoderated this site has been

No. 63779

Why the hell are there suddenly tripfags wandering around? Before this week I hadn't seen tripfags here in literal years.

No. 63780

>>63779
tripfags or just newfags who mistake the name field for the subject?

No. 63781

>>63776
>locking the leftcow thread is dumb and lazy
>no one has modded that thing, red texted bait or infighting

pick one

No. 63782

>>63776
are you blind? even the OP has a redtext. there's a lot of bans for 8 days, there should be more but this is fine with me too, it's been unusable and ban evaders gonna ban evade

No. 63783

>>63776
Agreed. Most calling for it closed were clearly the cows themselves

No. 63784

File: 1696014098220.jpeg (279.3 KB, 750x675, D80210DD-4530-4D8A-A9FD-336F05…)

>>63776
This post calling for the thread to be close was obviously some cow doing faux concern trolling. There was plenty milk. Radfem Hitler has been mentioning lolcow on Twitter a lot lately and Catherine/ jardinsecret88. I have a feeling it was one of them

No. 63785

>>63776
Normally I would agree but it’s been an unreadable mess for days now and was obviously being brigaded by twitterfags trying to epically troll. Almost every other post was by someone completely failing to integrate
RFH straight up name dropped the site a few days ago, med gold and delicious tacos were subtweeting about it… I don’t know exactly what it was that drew so much attention to it all of a sudden but it probably needs to be taken offline for a few days until the heat is off

No. 63786

>>63785
Dasha mentioned gossip about her posted on the site/the BAP-Dasha dating rumors originated from both LCF and Twitter, that is why there’s so many Twitter BAPists there. BAP’s stans are the worst, and are the moids paranoidly calling everyone a Jew or a racial slur or hicowing RFH.
A smaller subset of the newfaggery had to be from jardinsecret888’s friend group, a few days ago. I’m glad the thread was locked

No. 63795

>>63786
Why couldn’t the mods be normal and ban them instead

No. 63796

>>63786
> I’m glad the thread was locked
Who are you? The mod? If so, you suck at your job

No. 63798

>>63796
Nta but its so telling when anons call other anons mods.

No. 63803

>>63780
Tripfags are a specific type of namefag. Instead of putting something retarded in the name field to signal that it's the same person posting, they attach a tripcode. It's attention-whoring behavior that totally defeats the purpose of an anonymous board. Avatarfagging and selfposting are banned for the same reasons. You're not supposed to make yourself identifiable.

No. 63805

>>63803
I know, it's just that I don't think I've seen actual tripfags yet but newfags putting thread titles in the name field which generates a tripcode because of the # . or are there actual tripfags now too that I didn't see?

No. 63824

Any mention of husbandos/yaoi/bara/etc etc outside designated threads (fandom/BL/husbando) should be a bannable offence already

No. 63825

>>63824
>offence
speak american retard

No. 63826

>>63825
sorry I cannot tell the difference between the breeds of the english language

No. 63828

>>63824
god yes. it's exhausting.
they seem determined tobring retarded fujo/husbando sperging in every single fucking thread and it's always the same slapfights over and over. maybe a global ban should be cinsodered because everytime you report one sperg a new one shows up in another thread

No. 63829

>>63828
yes i agree we should ban every topic that isnt about knitting, gardening, cooking or some form of horrible crime committed against a woman that we can all doompost over

No. 63830

>>63829
not what i said. some of us are just tired of seeing the same autistic slapfight pop up in unrelated threads. go cry into your bodypillow about it

No. 63831

>>63830
i think they are retarded too but suggesting a global ban when this place bans you for absolutely everything now and nobody is posting anymore is just dumb

No. 63833

File: 1696201032292.png (933.37 KB, 885x1500, this is what you wanted.png)

>>63828
>a global ban should be cinsodered

No. 63834

>>63833
stop posting your mom already she wouldnt want this

No. 63835

>>63824
as much as I dislike all that, but it shold be discourages

No. 63837

>>63835
do you smell burning toast by any chance

No. 63838

>>63824
This is literally an imageboard, do you even know where you are

No. 63839

>>63824
By this logic all of /g/ save for the odd hobby and information thread and most of /ot/ should be nuked too as male worship is rampant on both.

No. 63842

Please for the love of God ban the schizo faggot who keeps replying indirectly to a majority of posts in GIOYC thread in /ot/ he thinks everyone is writing him love letters

No. 63843

>>63839
remember when Adam Driver mentions used to be banned outside the driversperg thread because of the constant derailing. and it worked.

No. 63845

>>63824
I agree. Every husbando or yaoi mention is obviously only made to bait and derail %99 of cases

No. 63846

>>63842
i think you might be the schizo one for assuming the posts are about you? like what makes you even think they're referring to you? calm down

No. 63850

Can we have another hellweek. If I see another twitter transplant larping as an oldfag while using tiktokspeak I will end it all

No. 63852

>>63850
Seconded. Plus the wannabe Mean Girls larp is getting out of hand, at least in /ot/.

No. 63854

>>63850
They'll just go whine about being banned all over /ot/ because they did nothing wrong and how their slangs and tiktok/twitter verbiage are apart of their culture and blah blah blah.

No. 63856

>>63855
>Replied in less than a minute
Get a life.

No. 63857

>>63850
Please, for the love of god if I see another 'SA'd', 'k*lled' etc. in a thread I'm going to crack it
>>63853
>>63851
Are you one of these tiktokspeaking Mean Girl larpers?

No. 63860

>>63859
Do you need to scream in a field or something, nona? What's got you so angry? Did you get banned in a past Hellweek and it gives you flashbacks? Do you need to talk to someone?

No. 63862

>>63861
Good luck swimming.

No. 63863

>>63861
>so now im doxing you and shitting on your fucking porch
and somehow this isn't cringe kek

No. 63865

>>63864
wut

No. 63866

>>63864
I live on a island, et c'est tout.

No. 63867

>>63860
>>63863
Just ignore the ignoramus in this thread. You can see who's who just by the replies and what they really are.

No. 63869

File: 1696251863182.gif (3.96 MB, 522x640, 908979869.gif)

(^_^)v(^_^)(^_^)\(^_^)/\(^_^)/:-)(^^)d:->(^ー^)( ゚ー゚)( ^ω^)( ^ω^)( ^ω^ )( ^ω^ )(⌒‐⌒)d=(^o^)=b( ^Д^)( ゚ー゚)p(^-^)qp(^^)q
doing this to summon farmhands so they can clean up whatever the fuck is going on(contributing to spam instead of reporting a single post ITT)

No. 63871

>>63869
God bless, nona

No. 63875

what's up with all the newfags in /snow/ not saging, using twitter lingo and making retarded threads? did someone namedrop lc on tiktok? we need a hellweek pronto please

No. 63876

>>63875
not the hellweek meme again

No. 63880

>>63875
Kek how much did the hellweek help last time?

No. 63881

>>63875
>>63850
Please stop.

No. 63882

>>63846
>no u
The posts are literal direct replies to the posts in thread, you can't look at that thread without seeing a hundred chimp outs by the exact same "anon" talking about their Rhiannon Galloway faildox and genuinely replying to a post indirectly right under said post. Nice try.

No. 63883

>>63875
Hellweek requires mods to actually be online during the tardspam.

No. 63884

I apologize mods, I forgot to turn off my VPN that I use to watch shows and torrent stuff illegally before posting here.

No. 63885

>>63883
we track down the mods and tie them to chairs and whip them with usb cables to force them to mod. make it hellweek for everyone!

No. 63886

I swear to god there's only like one mod on the entire site now.

No. 63887

there's some guy shitting up the place and samefagging who writes like this .
Every other post is some sabotaging scrote anyway, mods are useless

No. 63889

>>63887
Some real insightful words here Nona. I hope our Admin team will take this into account, considering how fast you were to point this out. Not many people have your keen senses

No. 63890

can we reopen the Post-Left thread to discuss the Dimes Square/Red Scare smacktalk from Jack Antonoff’s interview in The Face?
https://theface.com/music/jack-antonoff-interview-taylor-swift-bleachers-lana-del-rey-dirty-hit

No. 63893

What if we made a containment thread for self-posting trannies with a humiliation fetish? Let them be disgusting exhibitionists while we laugh at their pathetic attention-seeking behaviors. It could include blaine, pariah from post-leftcows, and the creepy necrophiliac tranny from the caitlin doughty thread. It could become a sort of tranny thunderdome where they compete for the most attention and try to out-degenerate each other.

No. 63895

>>63893
Your selfposting is disgusting

No. 63898

Saw someone get redtexted for saying "I'm going to kermit." Since when is that a bannable offense, and why? How is it any different from saying "commit seppuku" or "commit sedoku?" It's just a joking way of describing suicide, how is that in any way incongruous with board culture? Is "kermit" suddenly a Twitter thing? I usually don't give a shit about other anons' redtexts, but this genuinely threw me.

No. 63899

File: 1696387090533.jpeg (24.55 KB, 400x400, IzbkFTLI_400x400.jpeg)

>>63893
They're banned, why the hell would we encourage them by making a containment thread just for them? They have the whole rest of the goddamn internet to fuck around on.

No. 63900

>>63898
Just because you word it differently doesn't make it any less of a personal a-log. A-logging in general is bannable. Joke or not. It's not the farmhand's job to spend time trying to figure out through post history if someone just has this humor or not. They just don't encourage it to be posted.

No. 63901

>>63900
Nta but that's not a-logging kek

No. 63903

>>63893
No. Stop trying to permit trannies on this site. No men allowed including deluded men who pretend they are women.

No. 63904

>>63900
It's not a-logging you absolutely retarded newfag

No. 63905

>>63904
>It's just a joking way of describing suicide
So what's the context?

No. 63906

I wonder if we could elect volunteer mods for this hypothetical hellweek, of course there's the issue of bpd and schizo anons abusing this power and perhaps, even moids. (Although is that really any different to how the mods are now?) I don't know, if we can get anons who are both salty but also reasonably mentally stable to volunteer mod for a week, it'd be a very effective hellweek.
>>63893
FUCK OFF MOID

No. 63907

>>63900
a-logging is a disproportionate rage towards someone. it doesn't have to include telling them to kill themselves, even though it usually does. you can't even a-log yourself to begin with, that's called low self esteem.

No. 63909

>>63898
Everyone arguing about alogging is missing the obvious which is that mods probably banned it for self-censoring lingo as used on twitter when edgy teens don't want to get banned for alluding to suicide uh I mean sewerslide

No. 63912

>>63909
The "I'm going to kermit"has been a thing years before the censoring stuff though

No. 63916

>>63890
Please no. I’m so tired of the faggy musicians promoting themselves by being weird about red scare. Do you literally work for No Agency or what? Go make a faggy musician thread for this shit if you want to talk about nobody music strivers in nyc.

No. 63918

what is going on with the influx of shittard zoomers making threads just posting screenshots of some tiktok retard in /snow/ with zero milk vendettas lately?

No. 63919

>>63918
Because they don't discouraged or banned in other threads or boards,they start to feel at home here without lurking. It's a slow decay and not fun anymore.

No. 63920

>>63912
Idk where the Kermit shit originated, whether it's from zoomerfag twitter or what but "I wanna an hero" is in the same vein which I've said many times without coping a ban. If it is some retarded censoring shit I think the farmhand should've included it in the red text which would've avoided all this back and fourth.

No. 63923

>>63920
it's on par with gen x parents hating millennial slang because it isn't what they said
language evolves

No. 63926

So is leftcows closed forever then? It says
temporarily but it’s been a week. Still think this was the work of some disgruntled cow getting mad and mass reporting the thread. You know we could ignore it and keep the thread open

No. 63927

>>63926
agreed nonna i believe that's what it was. and if it wasn't already some disgruntled cow, if anything, all this teaches the cows is that this is how they can silence criticism. there is almost always plenty of milk since most of the people involved in this scene are fucking gross and even if some people don't consider whatever is being discussed milky we have enough traction in these threads to the point someone will make a new one shortly after the last exceeds # of posts. i myself have done that in the past. if they are worried the thread will just get filled with bullshit they can just keep banning tripfags and whoever else is violating rules because surely if it gets filled up someone will make a new thread anyway. that isn't an issue, the issue is currently teaching cows that they can catch a break by shitting up the thread, which punishes good posters as well as bad ones and makes it so anything milky they do in the meantime can be forgotten since people who would normally post in the thread can't do that.

No. 63928

I made a post this morning in a thread on /ot/ and it didn't show up. I thought I might have gone back a page in the browser before it finished posting but I just found it in a thread on /snow/. idk what happened.

No. 63930

How do mods decide what is samefagging/who is who? I got a red text for samefagging but I never replied to myself, simply posted in a thread I made. A few other anons posted there too. I didn’t make the original thread either, I saw it got locked for the op being too long and all over the place so I remade one for them. My thread was shit but what did I do wrong so I don’t do things like that again? Was someone else samefagging in the thread?

No. 63931

>>63926
I reported all of Pariah's self-posts (since moidposting isn't allowed) and lobbied for the thread to be temporarily locked because I was sick of him getting his narc supply through the attention he inevitably received from his haters. I would support a reopening of the post-leftcows thread if all pariah-related posting was strictly banned.

No. 63932

>>63930
my experience with current moderation is that one or more mods do not even know what samefagging is. it's pretty embarrassing to watch someone fuck up the bans so badly

No. 63933

>>63931
agreed

No. 63934

>>63926
noticed the sub was closed too, is there a happening going on?

No. 63935

Is it true that some redtexts in /ot/ are for show and bans don't actually always go through?

No. 63936

>>63934
which sub, r/redscarepod?

No. 63940

>>63935
Sometimes farmhands use redtext to communicate, or temp 1 minute bans in my experience.

No. 63951

File: 1696569083492.png (198.64 KB, 610x384, Screenshot.png)

I understand that there is a troll making race-based baits(especially in the Hoteps thread, claiming the ancient Egyptians were black and that modern Egyptians are all colonizers) but this is an inoffensive past that I don't think anyone should be banned for, its just pointing out the absurdity of an asian guy having this far RW conspiracy fear of soy

No. 63952

>>63951
That's honestly so fucking dumb. How delicate has this place become that pointing and laughing at absurdity is racist?

No. 63954

>>63951
literally not racist at all. meanwhile I reported a post with n-words and blaming grooming/abuse on "black culture" as racebait: no ban, no red-text

No. 63955

>>63952
well
>>63954
>n-words

has been creeping in so roughly that much.

No. 63957

>>63951
I got banned for days in the shayna thread for a saged post calling someone not-east-asian because she was freaked out by people going to an aquarium and then eating seafood
It is literally a joke. I am literally east asian myself lmfao

No. 63958

>>63955
>>63954
Its either blaine or some other faggot whose been baiting these past few days, I get why the farmhands are little on edge, but that's still no excuse for red-texxing statements that were not meant to be offensive in any way.

No. 63962


No. 63964

>>63920
It's definitely more like an hero. People say it because it's funny, not because they're self-censoring. I'm 90% sure it did not start on Twitter, and I know for a fact it was a thing before people on Twitter started getting banned for mentioning suicide.

No. 63966

File: 1696657132155.jpg (30.47 KB, 651x429, 4322222111233.jpg)

The farmhands and admin should probably know that the most popular image board in Finland is currently implementing changes that will effectively make it unusable for the average user, leading to mass exodus to other sites. Lolcow has been mentioned among possibilities. If there is a sudden influx of newfaggotry and moidposting from Finnish IPs, it's because of that. Also consider getting a Finnish-speaking farmhand if you don't have one already.

No. 63974

>>63966
what's happening to cause this exodus?

No. 63978

>>63966
Why here and not a scroteboard?

No. 63986

>>63983
Report and ignore? What else are we supposed to do

No. 63987

where are all of these clearly men (probably gay) coming from? it fucking sucks. go away. why can't women have one sole place? are your dumbass takes so boring you need to harass women? fucking hell

No. 63993

>>63974
the owners are putting it behind a paywall so that you can't see "old" posts unless you're subscribed with a monthly fee.
>>63978
idk, I don't really frequent the site these days, but someone posted a screencap to the Finn thread in /ot where they are discussing LC as an option and joking about larping as women. there are some actual women on the site but most are teenage moids.

No. 63994

>>63988
No it doesn't. Mods delete shitposting all the time. They've even done it in meta. If I post disappears then it doesn't mean that person i a tranny. What about threads that get locked? Clearly the cows control the site.

No. 63995

>>63983
report him for harassment to local police

No. 64002

>>64001
Blaine?

No. 64004

>>64001
You proved nothing besides the fact that we already know mods delete spam. Obviously your shit would be removed. This isn't even the thread to be posting this and you know it. This is all bait for admin and farmhands and they know it. It didn't prove anything at all besides your an idiot.

No. 64005

File: 1696784200029.jpeg (204.81 KB, 750x943, E40F4558-7514-48CC-981C-3D19F0…)

>>64004
Cope, he’s in with the mods here

No. 64006

>>64005
/cow/ is a board on a different imageboard…

No. 64007


No. 64008

>>64004
>>64006
You're talking to the tranny himself, he fucking wishes he was a janny kek.

No. 64021

>>64007
Yet keeps banning himself and deleting his own posts??

No. 64028

I think there's a male or tranny camping in /ot/ at the moment, it's quite obvious, he might even be replying to himself

No. 64034

>>64028
I swear theres someone who keeps sperging about ‘brown people’ in every single thread and I think it’s the troon because he’s known for being extremely racist and posting racebait daily on 4chan.

Every time someone talked about Indian cows like Megha or Kanika Batra some sperg would always say extremely racist stuff about them being brown. There was so much race sperging in the tradthot threads. Same as whenever someone mentions Indians or Muslims, some sperg always attacks them for no reason and it’s obviously the same anon each time. Pretty weird.

No. 64036

>>63770
Yeah the racebait was really bad but I want that thread opened again. I actually think the board has become quite slow and boring since that thread was locked, because tradthots are EXTREMELY active and milky and constantly post so it’s a constant flow. If we could just stop the one sperg who keeps shitting up the thread with racism that would be perfect.

No. 64037

>>63795
Yeah threads are getting locked wayyyy too easily nowadays and it’s kinda killing the board ngl. I don’t understand why you would lock the leftcows and tradthots threads when they are the milkiest and most active threads on the board?

No. 64038

>>63951
It’s not offensive but you can tell when a post has scrotey energy behind it and this one does so I can kinda see why it was redtexted

No. 64039

>>63784
RFH literally admitted posting here and then complained that everyone thought she was a man because of how obnoxious she was so she almost immediately got banned. So yeah that concern troll was definitely her and she got the thread closed by mass reporting because people were calling her out on all her shit.

No. 64040

>>63666
Gyaru threads always attract the biggest spergs it’s a big part of why I left the movement, plus most western gyaru look like eyesores anyway.

No. 64044

>>64037
stuff like this makes me reconsider who is really in charge tbh. I'm not much for conspiracy theories either but that these two threads got locked, and some other questionable ones, makes me feel there is some agenda here

No. 64045

>>64044
And what agenda would that be?

No. 64054

>>64044
the newfags they attracted sucked. You can say it’s a grand design of the cows to get it shut down but the cows in those threads love attention so I doubt it. The cows have obnoxious terminally online fans who can’t integrate.

No. 64058

>>64044
If this is the same song and dance of mods being farmers then shut up. Some threads have absolutely turned to shit or probably are a nightmare for mods to actually moderate given how many ban evades and trolls the thread gets. It's not some conspiracy. It's pretty black and white.

No. 64070

>>64058
Why wouldn’t mods/farmhands be farmers? You need to know about the board culture and be a longtime user in order to become a farmhand, do you not? Anyway I don’t know why everyone is complaining about the janny, if anything I think moderation has gotten way better and faster over the past couple months. It’s much better than it used to be and rule breaking content gets deleted much much quicker than it used to.

No. 64080

>>64044
There is no agenda here, it’s just a bunch of retards (or more likely the same retard) shitting up every thread while on a vpn

No. 64085

even when some baiting retard is trying to make the samefagging stand out by using " ." and obviously wants to get caught, s(he) still gets away with it
what gives?

No. 64088

>>64085
> by using " ."
Wdym

No. 64091

>>64070
Is it warm up there in the jannies ass? I swear you come here to say exactly this every time anyone has a complaint. You're either not very observant, or you have some other motive.

No. 64096

>>64091
You come in every thread claiming everyone has a motive, take your meds, annoying schizo.

No. 64098

>>64096
Stop replying to it.

No. 64112

hello, would it be possible to ban me from just the /pt/, /snow/, and /w/ boards? i've seen other anons ask to be banned from specific threads due to lack of self control and was wondering if i could have something similar. thank you!

No. 64116

>>64112
why not just try to have self discipline

No. 64119

so LCF 2.0 when? i’m really excited for it

No. 64121


No. 64123

>>64116
no need to get cranky at strangers. If a janny tells me no I'll accept it and move on, but I figured it didn't hurt to ask when it seems quick, easy, and free for both sides

No. 64125

I’m trying to lurk moar and learn who the special lolcows who post on the board and get a special page and text under their posts. I just know sperg chan and Ritard. Are there any others I can keep an eye out for?

No. 64127

Having disagreements and long winded discussions about a topic relevant to the thread and being discussed thoroughly in a thread by almost every poster is not infighting. Disagreements happen sometimes. Censoring someone's rationale just shows petty side picking. Infighting is supposed to be short petty snide comments back and forward which add nothing to a threads discussion. Please ban actual infighting.

I've been using this site for 8 years. Spacing out posts because there is a lot of content and because the content diverges from topic to topic and replies is not suddenly now "Reddit spacing" because you choose to see it everywhere.

No. 64130

>>64125
Pakichan but she doesn't have a page. She posted her hand and grandma though.

No. 64135

>>64125
Probably mystery.jpg, Victoria Shingles (although only in her own threads), and a few more. I feel like we should make a compilation or list of all of the exposed posts admins would reveal.

No. 64136

>>64135
If the cows are using VPNs then there is no way to even know.

No. 64139

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I saw that a new thread on snow was immediately locked (admin text said 'shit thread'). It seemed well put together so jw how that's decided?

No. 64140

>>64139
just came here to say this too, the thread seemed well made. i'd seen that guy talked about in the personal lolcow thread before, seemed like it couldve been a good thread

No. 64141


No. 64142

>>64141
A generalization for multiple cows has nothing to do with the ones who have been caught. Retard.

No. 64150

Could we please unlock the qtmilkbuns snow thread? I know those ops were shit but I just heard about this lady the other day and she seems like the perfect candidate for the website

No. 64151

>>64150
No, because you’ve made multiple flop threads and there’s uniquely milky about her, she’s just a typical zoomer koreaboo who got knocked up, also you seem like you have a weird vendetta against her. Keep it in the tiktok cows thread.

No. 64161

>>64151

I’m not the op of either thread I only just learned about her yesterday kek

No. 64164

>>64161
She seems like she can go in a general

No. 64168

I necroed the ausfag thread to ask about the refferendum and then was like ah probs not cow-related enough but still really want to talk about it. I wish we had an Aus general.
anyway sorry farmhands I deleted, pls no ban

No. 64173

>>64168
>I wish we had an Aus general.
You could always make one yourself, if smaller countries like Finland and the Netherlands can have a thread why not Australia?

No. 64175

>>64173
a lil scared to, never made a thread before and I assume there's not a huge amount of us?
but if it's okay I would like to! just like the fin and netherlands ones. on /ot/ should be fine I'm assuming?
ty for reply nona

No. 64179

>>64175
It's not hard anon, don't worry. Put your title in the subject field and a small description of what you want the thread to be about in the comment field. And yeah it goes in /ot/ with the other country threads

No. 64182

>>64168
I find it funny the states that're voting yes have like 0 aboriginals. Imo it's just another way for the government to control their affairs by proxy of puppet representatives.

No. 64186

>>64173
>>64179
>>64182
done! catch ausnonnies in /ot/, ty for the help

No. 64197

So I feel threads shouldn't be looked over technically off-topic of Israel-Palestine, cause everyone is talking about them(and being horrible about it) and are arguing over with other cows, mind you this will only last 2 weeks at most.

No. 64203

File: 1697209797359.png (8.67 KB, 1326x85, post.PNG)

>>64197
I saw that post too and I was confused. Are they just going to keep locking threads because they don't want to actually moderate? People are going to purposefully derail threads if it's that easy to get a thread locked. Yeah I understand that there's a mod shortage, but I don't remember anything like this happening before and we're supposed to have more farmhands/jannies now than we did.

No. 64206

File: 1697211501951.jpeg (858.22 KB, 1170x2177, IMG_3549.jpeg)

I got banned for racebait for mocking the French.

No. 64207

>>64206
between this and that nonna getting red-textted for saying its ironic that an Asian guy is against soy, it seems there's one farmhand who really is weirdly sensitive, like I get the need to lessen racebait(I'm sure its mostly blaine who makes them) but this is getting beyond ridiculous.

No. 64208

>>64206
kek French is a race now? Reminds me of the anon banned for making fun of British people

No. 64209

>>64208
It's a racist caricature regardless that got posted and it's obviously shitposting too. Anon is also ban evading which any farmer would know to appeal, not do that and come here to complain. Anon knows what they are doing, stop defending bad posters.

No. 64211

>>64206
the red-text was funny at least. laugh it off. enjoy your weekend of touching grass!

No. 64212

>>64209
>it's obviously shitposting too.
/ot/ is the shitposting go-to zone

No. 64213

>>64212
As if there aren't limits.

No. 64214

>>62751
>>64213
zeE limitee iz ze fkhench

No. 64217

>>64206
Based French janny. If only you also banned antisemite anons as quickly.

No. 64219

Not op but I still don't really get the ban tbh white people with big noses aren't an offensive stereotype. Or did janny assume it was meant to be jewish?

No. 64220


No. 64221

Can words like gaslighting and queerbaiting maybe be redtexted? They're so cringey and twitter-esque and no one uses the term gaslighting properly since it became trendy to use online 3 years ago

No. 64227

>>64207
Farmhand is most likely a zoomer

No. 64235

>>64221
I agree

No. 64236

Can you guys ban the white man who's posting racebait against Jewish and Muslim women while praising nazi Germany in literally 2X? You'll ban anons for making fun of French but a man who's saying muslim women deserve to be killed and Jewish women deserve to be raped doesn't get banned although he been doing it for days.

No. 64237

>>62751
Whoever keeps posting AI generated pit bulls with dead babies images in the dog hate thread is an unhinged schizo. It stinks of edgy scroteposting.

No. 64245

>>64237
gross, what the fuck is even happening in that thread? i feel like it's always full of unhinged shit.

No. 64246

>>64245
I think we need to stop having any type of animal-hate thread, I don't think normal people need to talk about how much they hate an animal kek

No. 64248

>>64245
that's because it is. literal schizo and moid magnet but mods couldn't give a shit.

No. 64252

>>64246
Kek, underrated opinion

No. 64254

File: 1697355055477.jpg (621.02 KB, 884x1731, Screenshot_20231015_102952.jpg)

Can you ban the feet fetishist male that's telling anons their men will leave them unless anons play into their men's paraphilias and fetishes? İt's an obvious male and given how he's probably using a vpn, "post history" doesn't matter.

No. 64255

>>64254
somewhat related to that screenshot, something i've noticed lately is that super blatantly bait posts like that, even when reported as bait go untouched while sincere posts like the one in unpopular opinions gets redtexted as bait. just strange.

No. 64256

>>64255
Maybe it's that the /g/ janny doesn't redtext bans but they really should, anons will keep replying if it's not redtexted.

No. 64258

>>64256
Yes that would be very helpful

No. 64259

>>64254
Seriously this freak is still going, they need a ban kek. It is funny watching the pickme and or troon spiral about how we’re all horrible femcels who will NEVER know the true and honest love of a man!!!

No. 64260

>>64259
Yes and it makes me so mad that anons keep replying and janny isn't banning it. Even if it has "female post history" it could just be a man larping for a long time or a vpnfag. So annoying that it isn't getting banned and the whole thread got derailed for a full day.

No. 64261

>>64260
Samefag, "she" is now saying her husband also has a cucking fetish. It's definitely a man.

No. 64262

>>62751
Can we ban the childfree dumbass who keeps derailing the Reddit thread. They can use the thread on g. We don’t give a shit about your weird trauma and hate of the female form.

No. 64263

>>64262
That's also a baiter and I agree. He keeps saying all onlyfans girls are gonna steal anons "nigels", kek. I doubt it's even a woman.

No. 64264

The racebait in OT is extreme rn.

No. 64265

Just wondering admins, would it be possible for lolcow 2.0 to let us upload WEBP files and have it automatically convert to a JPEG/PNG? I've noticed that other (non-IB) sites do this twitter, yeah yeah I know and wondered if it would be possible for an imageboard, especially since it's being made from scratch. If not it's no issue, I know accepting WEBPs could cause problems and we can just keep converting them to PNGs if we need to.

No. 64266

>>64265
Do you really not know how to save photos from Twitter without it being a WEBP?

No. 64267

>>64266
nta but no, I don't know.

No. 64269

>>64266
What? I don't know what you mean, maybe you read it incorrectly. I'm saying that if you post a WEBP image to twitter, if you save it you'll notice that it's a JPEG file. So it converts from WEBP to JPEG. It would be nice if lolcow could do the same thing so we could upload WEBP images without worrying about them being everywhere on here or having to convert it before.

No. 64270

>>64268
>>64269
Who is posting WEBP to twitter and why are they saving on your computer/device as JPEGs after? That's usually not the way that works. The JPEGs usually convert to WEBP. Just change the stupid file ending. It's not that hard.

No. 64271

>>64270
In case you haven't noticed, WEBP images are everywhere now so I'm sure a lot of people have had to post them on twitter (if they post using the web app, atleast). I'm not sure how else to explain this to you, but on a computer if you
>save a webp file from anywhere
>post it on twitter
>right click to save image after posting it
>image will now be a jpeg
Maybe you need to try it yourself. Anyway, the twitter thing is the least important part of that post. But you're right that you can just change the file ending, thanks.

No. 64272

>>64271
Twitter compresses the files after you reupload them. You see complaints about this from a lot of art twitter users.

No. 64274

>>64271
Samefag, actually when I change the file ending I just get a "failed to resize image error" if I try to post it here. Perhaps that's why other anons were still also having that issue despite admins saying it was fixed?

No. 64276

Can you please ban the racist in /ot/ my god I know I’m not the only one reporting

No. 64281

>>64267
Nta but I use this site here https://ezgif.com/webp-to-jpg to convert any webp's to jpgs, it also does gifs and videos too

No. 64285

>>64261
jfc. is he banned now?

No. 64287

>>62751
Childfree baiter posting multiple posts samefagging and infighting in America thread on ot.

No. 64288

>>64287
1. there are multiple anons replying to you
2. it's a subject you brought up to stir shit and attack people, you made the first post on the subject. people who reply to you are not "derailing" the conversation you started
3. you quoted OP like a newfag

No. 64289

>>64288
Not the same anon. Scrolled by and saw a spaz derailing a thread and baiting instead of having a conversation or taking it the childfree thread where the topic belongs. Calm down not every anon is the same person

No. 64290

>>64287
Just ignore it. It's probably the same anon whos also been posting racebait and other stuff to infight. It's kinda sad that they've been at it for several days, i wonder if they even have a life.

No. 64293

>>64285
Yes. Thanks to the farmhand who did it, he was really disturbed

No. 64296

cp on m

No. 64297

File: 1697531053594.jpg (36.87 KB, 940x112, y45.jpg)

'Muslim' is not a race. You should stop accepting snowflake Americans (or any Americans) as mods.

No. 64298

>>64297
There is nothing against the rules about this post.

No. 64299

>>64297
Anon sounds like an absolute idiot to insinuate all this extra context about a tranny and involve women suffering for some reason. Good ban, bad redtext

No. 64300

>>64297
Correct, there is no racebaiting in that post and western troons larping as hijabi muslim women for sexual kicks is sadly a real thing.

No. 64301

>>64297
The demographic the anon is describing 100% exists and has been made fun of previously in the mtf thread. I don't think any religion should be off-limits, not that that anon was even directly critical of Islam.

No. 64302

>>64297
May Allah help you stop racebaiting. Inshallah Allah also fixes your Y chromosome(moid accusation)

No. 64303

>>64300
I almost didn't believe that it was more than a couple people until I accidentally stumbled upon an entire community of more than a thousand men, a couple years ago. I was looking for information on why niqabis start deciding to wear gloves, as this isn't common where I live (neither is the niqab, it's illegal now but previously i never saw one)

No. 64307

>>64300
stop watching porn and hanging out with degenerates. such a thought does not come to mind in normal people

No. 64308

>>64307
Weird response. You've never been to /snow/?

No. 64309

>>64290
It might astound you to hear this, but people who have a different opinion than you are not "baiters" and not everyone with a different opinion than you on various topics in differing threads is the same person. You do not own lolcow.

Especially when the "baiter" in question was responding to another person's post and didn't start the subject's conversation themself. That isn't "baiting", dumbass.

People are allowed to have childfree opinions. If it makes you angry, maybe you could go talk to someone about your feelings.

No. 64311

>>64297
Bad ban but
>(or any Americans) as mods
Are more non-Americans gonna apply then? We've been in a mod shortage for years at this point

No. 64312

New janny in /w/ is unhinged and banning everyone in the Venus thread lmao. Not even doing it in any other thread, just Venus. Think we got a fan over here

No. 64313

>>64307
This.

No. 64315

>>64313
What sort of person thinks that farmers get their info about troon degeneracy from watching porn, and not the TIM thread and twitter etc?

No. 64317

>>64312
Yeah bc redtexting janny bait is on topic, right?

No. 64322

>>64317
The first 2 comments were on topic, saged, and not bait of any kind. New janny is now just plain raging over being called out by many different people.

No. 64323

>>64322
>saged
oh god these retards are back oldfags know to take the complaints to meta, anons were clearly just baiting and samefagging. probably the anons who were banned to begin with.

No. 64324

>>64322
The /w/ janny has been a retarded imbecile for years. Just go back and read the meta threads, even back in like 2021 this shit as happening. They are a fan girl/boy of alot of the cows on that board- don't dare talk shit about their beloved cows on lolcow. No fun allowed

No. 64327

>>64323
>calling others retards when you have no reading comprehension
The first 2 banned comments weren't complaints, they were on topic discussions.

No. 64329

>>64327
Sorry you can't understand how the site works or what being on topic means.

No. 64330

>>64324
I agree with this, every fucking thing is a big deal in some threads. Normal users are antagonized for discussing anything. The whiteknight(s) get no bans despite rewriting history or asking to be spoonfed. It's really out of control and unlike any other part of the site in some threads. Why does the admin allow this?

No. 64334

File: 1697575814857.jpg (127.49 KB, 809x780, how.jpg)

>>64303
I know that the Kiwi Farm has a thread specifically on these 'trans Muslims'. That these fetishists don't get snackbared as soon as they step out of their houses is a mystery.

No. 64335

>>64307
You clearly don't belong here if that's where your mind went immediately

No. 64337

>>64330
They want to discourage anons from using /w/ because the jannie has a boner for most of the cows on that board. I suspect they want to slowly kill it so they can justify not have those threads on the new site..when the new site oes live and there is no /w/ they'll probably say it was a dead board anyway and barely used but fail to mention they punish you for posting there so eventually it dies at the hands of our own mods. And clearly the admin has no problem or agrees with the /w/ janny (though I suspect it's just a one or two person show at this point) because this has been a consistent problem since 2021

No. 64339

>>64337
Get a grip.

No. 64340

>>64337
i think you need a break. /w/ has its own problems like attracting feeble minded twitards and tumblr autist fags who derail at the drop of a hat.

>>64308
i glance at the threads every now and again but i keep my distance and try not to indulge, because if i do then I'm no different from trannys, confused women who think "becoming" a guy will solve their problems, and tranny chasers.

No. 64341

>>64337
Take a break. Most banned anons from w deserve it and they're retards who ban evade like the mental skank that kept shooping bellas asshole and pussy to make her "loose" or the "anorexic" bitch who kept spamming her own fat body and saying she's skinnier than cows.

No. 64342

>>64340
>/w/ has its own problems like attracting feeble minded twitards and tumblr autist fags who derail at the drop of a hat.
This coupled with a lot of the cows drying up, and in some cases over moderation/under moderation makes it a pretty cancerous browse.

No. 64345

>>64343
were you posting chinese people eating random live animals covered in blood?

No. 64346

>>64339
>Get a grip.
>>64340
>i think you need a break.
>>64341
>Take a break.
Reeeeeee, Jesus, are you all sharing one brain cell? And btw Belle hasn't been relevant in more than a year, maybe it's time to stfu about her degenerate porn? You can instead take 1 minute to correct the spelling and grammar errors in your post before vomiting it into the void.

The theory offered by >>64337 isn't that off the mark because in some threads you can get banned for not breaking any rules, and this is a phenomenon from the past 1.5-2y. but as soon as an anon says anything, the bootlickers appear to literally tell us how horrible an entire board is and bring up deranged posters as if that's proof of anything. Just ban the posters, simple solution, and you could also do things like ban reposting someone's porn, instead of clutching pearls about what's "nitpicking" on a damn gossip site.

No. 64347

>>64346
You and the other anons do this on purpose then come to meta to bitch about it all the time. Every ban given makes sense, you just want to be belligerent about it because you think you can post whatever you want under the guise of 'on topic'. It's not hard to follow posting rules, but you seem brain damaged, so I don't know if you will ever understand how the site operates. Sorry for you loss. If you hate the moderation so much, why don't you and the other complaining /w/fags and go to 4chan or something. Keep ban evading like you said in the Venus thread and you'll end up getting redtexted more.

I have been here for years and have yet to see a /w/ mod whiteknighting or favoring a cow. Especially since this 2021 whatever crap. You guys destroyed the Jvlog thread with your petty stalking and nitpicking and focusing on dumb shit that wasn't milk like Elon. I agree with the anon that around that time a bunch of you ruined the Belle thread. There's tons of one-off vendetta threads on /w/ too. This is probably a response you wanted out of one of the 3 posters you linked, because surprise, we are all different anons, but I'll take the bait. If you're going to go out of your way to be insufferable in several threads, it is obvious to the other posters and not just the mods. It seems bunch of people are tired of the derailing quality of /w/ and they have every right to be.

No. 64348

What's crazy about /w/ is that the posters who keep getting banned act more like cows than most of the cows.

No. 64352

The unhinged mod is deleting posts from the AI thread AGAIN!
>>>/m/245124

Can you remove that schizo from the mod team?

No. 64354

>>64351
>>64350
Being so insistent about your shitty AI pictures, even refusing to spoiler out of courtesy to other anons amd just spamming your shit instead just smells like Y chromosome who is too autistic to read the room. You can't sit with us and you don't belong here.

No. 64355

>>64347
>You
>like you said
>you guys
hey dipshit, not everyone who has an issue with the moderation of /w/ is a person shitting up threads. I've never posted in Venus's thread or said anything about posts there, I posted maybe 6 times in 3 years in jvlog and once in Belle's thread in the history of this site. How about you "take a break," you schizo? I don't ban evade either. Yeah, I sure sound brain damaged for expressing an opinion and offering other solutions like banning the posting of porn!

No. 64356

>>64297
There are a number of nonnies that love to use this line as a bullshit technicality/guise of plausible deniability when their complaints are clearly referring to a certain race of people. Criticize the religion all you want but don't play dumb that some retards use it to stir the pot.

No. 64357

>>64356
How do you know they're referring to a specific race and not just criticising followers of a particularly regressive religion?

No. 64359

>>64356
Right. There's a few anons that samefag to shit on both jews and muslims. I saw an anon samefag to say she hates jews and Muslims as two other anons but she got redtexted, probably because she forgot to use incognito, kek. I genuinely believe it's 1-2 neet nazis who keep spamming antisemitic stuff and saying all anons agree as they samefag multiple times

No. 64360

>>64355
I'd believe this if /w/ wasn't full of those posters but I don't.

No. 64362

Are new Grimes/Elon threads being blocked or banned? Where’s the new one?

No. 64363

>>64362
Kek /snow/ anons are so retarded

No. 64364

>>64352
Are you fucking braindead? The images were disgusting and reported by multiple anons.

No. 64365

>>64364
Anons just refuse to be held accountable and it's always the big meanie mods

No. 64368

>>64364
>reported by multiple anons
nta but how do you know? it wasn't discussed in the thread

No. 64369

>>64368
nta, but probably because obvious shitposting usually gets reported by multiple anons. you act like only one person doesn't like a thread derailing.

No. 64370

>>64354
I bet you hated autistic girls at school because you found them unsettling. People like you are the reason so many young women become pooners. It must feel good for you - seeing the women you despised mutilating themselves.(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)

No. 64371

>>64357
She doesn't. It's her American education showing. I'm sure she currently has the Palestinian flag in her twitter bio.

No. 64372

Racebaiters infighting in vent on ot

No. 64373

>>64372
Stop falseflagging. This is not your safe space, maybe you're more suited to Reddit.

No. 64376

>>64369
>a thread derailing
they were AI pics posted in a thread of AI art, how was it derailing

No. 64377

>>64369
>obvious shitposting
Whatever you don't like is now 'shitposting'? How can images in a general image thread be shitposts? What's the logic? Are you just throwing around buzzwords at random, hoping something would stick?

>gets reported by multiple anons

You mean all reported by you using different VPNs?

No. 64378

>>64373
Nta but there are multiple anons who realized there's recently been an uptick in ban evading racebaiters in /ot/. Go back to r9k and continue sucking off neonazi dicklets.

No. 64379

>>64377
I dont even go to that thread lol but when gore spam happens, it's usually banned based on common sense and how exactly do you think they made the gore ai? They used real gore. You're being retarded on purpose. Mods should ban you for attempting to infight tbh.

No. 64381

>>64379
>gore
>spam
If you can't tell apart gore from weird AI art AND if you don't know what spam is (newsflash: posting images in a dedicated image dumping thread is not it) you should not be involved in any activity whatsoever related to this site apart from lurking.

Just admit that you're reddit tourist getting OFFENDED and OUTRAGED, like your typical redditor does. People like you should have no say in how lolcow (or any chan) is run because you always bring that cancerous culture of self-righteousness and 'safe spaces' wherever you go.

No. 64382

>>64381
God just shut the fuck up already. Anyone with a room temp IQ can see you’re having a spergout and spamming horror pics because you’re so butthurt other anons reported your shitty prompts and the mods deleted them appropriately.

No. 64384

>>64382
That AI art dump feels like a subtle moid gore spam ngl

No. 64385

>>64384
It does feel like a ‘raid’ but instead of cp and gore they have decided to go with ai gory meat pics because one anon said they didn’t like this. Scrote behaviour

No. 64386

Thanks mods

No. 64387

Thank you mods for kindly showing the weird meat pic moid the door

No. 64388

>>64384
It’s definitely moidy but I’d nail it on some edgy sperg poster like the rance anon that spends way too much time on male chan boards. Multiple anons are grossed out, it’s not safe for work, and this is a gossip site. I just feel bad the mods have to monitor this crap because the anon would rather piss people off than spoil their posts (which is how this entire spergout started).

No. 64389

>>64384
i think it's a spergy woman trying to concern troll, her reasoning being that since meat + ai in general isn't nsfw that means she can post it. however she's gone too far and the last pics she posts are outright gore (animal decapitation ai art) and that doesn't help her cause.

No. 64390

If an OT thread hasn’t been used in almost 2 years, is it ok to make a new one?

No. 64391

File: 1697671465144.jpeg (56.02 KB, 519x519, A0069409-FCE6-4B90-A014-8D50C0…)

>>64388
I’m not a moid, sorry for the unspoilered gory pic, I’m just an edgy dumbass who like anorexic male… I’m so sorry for being sus and also a disgrace, lolcow.farm is like my internet favorite place please forgive me

No. 64392

>>64382
It's a sign you have no arguments left, if you tell the other party to shut up.
People like you should never be given any say in how things are run, because you spread that cancerous reddit mentality wherever you go. You're operating on outrage and getting your way at all cost, not logic. Very animalistic and bully-like. (You probably were a bully at school too.)

No. 64393

>>64389
It’s stupid that they’re flipping out calling multiple anons a samefag using multiple IPs when they’re doing the exact same shit while ban evading. For someone that hates redditors so much they’re not acting much different with the literal hours they’ve spent on here throwing a tantrum.

No. 64394

>>64391
You'll get banned for ban-evading again. Cowering before reddit mods never works.

No. 64396

>>64392
Nta but stop assuming posters are mods. No one said posters made the rules and even called you a retard for saying only what you deem unacceptable is bannable which is not how the site rules work lol

No. 64409

>>64381
>the person who calls anons reddit tourists both defends racebait and gore
Ah yes, the average r9k fail-female. I'm sure your discord bf is a neonazi

No. 64411

>>64396
she never said anyone is a mod. Reading comprehension, try it. Also it's delusional to assume mods have zero posting presence as farmers on the imageboard they moderate.

No. 64417

>>64381
>complains about reddit tourists
>reddit spaces in own post
what exactly did you mean by this?

No. 64418

How do you even deal with terminally online anons that act like they own lolcow? They’ve been posting in the Ai thread for hours

No. 64419

>>64347
The jvlog thread was destroyed when it became infested with Reddit fanboys. Also the twitter sperg was the one doing the stalking shit and was doing some of the nitpicking and sperging about Elon as you can see they did the same shit on twitter.

No. 64420

Is there really no privacy thread? We have a snoop one but I don’t see one for privacy kek.

No. 64422

I am so tired of the terminally online retards using the "Get It Off Your Chest" thread as a chat space. There's no way that they're lolcow natives. I don't understand how it's so hard for them to stfu and recognize that this one specific thread is a vent space for nonnies to scream out into the void without having to answer to anyone. Banning doesn't seem to deter them because they clearly ban evade. There are other vent or confession threads where discussion is allowed, so for what reason do they lurk in that thread specifically and choose to blatantly ignore the one fucking rule? Are they so desperate for acknowledgement or interaction? Ignoring them doesn't help either because there'll always be someone who gets the bright idea to reply back and enable them. It's just irritating.

No. 64423

>>62751
There’s unsaged white knights and Reddit spacing dorks whiteknighting sniperwolf in YouTube again.

No. 64424

>>64417
It's giving r9k regular with an incel discord-bf. The way that anon seems to be replying to both anons complaining about racebait and her gore spam makes me think it's one of those r9k girls who act racist and edgy because they got no personality.

No. 64426

>>64419
No, not fans, anons became retarded and obsessive. One anon was hell bent on trying to doxx sharla and chris and the same idiot kept posting off topic posts from random scrotes on the thread too and derailing about Elon Musk constantly. The threads are there with everything documented. It wasn't a cow thread anymore and all milk became vendetta and nitpicking sharla and chris's weight. The same doxxing anon has still been off site attempting to doxx. They did it with the belle thread too and mods confirmed it with redtexts. It's all there. Idk why you're trying to pretend anons didn't vendetta-kill it. This is what happened to belle too. The same anons still post in the Venus thread too. I don't think you realize how easy it is too spot the spergs. They even flip out in the Taylor thread over bans when they just refuse to follow posting rules.

The anons aren't fanboys. It's just regular obsessed farmers who don't know when to quit and they say the same thing every single time when they get banned which is how its so easy to find them.

No. 64430

>>64426
If that's the case then all threads should be closed for vendetta and nitpicking. This is a gossip site. The mods and whiteknights are so weird on that board kek

No. 64431

>>64430
You can tell the difference. Don't act like someone repeatedly posting close ups of Sharla's nose is the same as having real discussions about lolzy stuff. Anons ruined the threads and they know it.

No. 64432

>>64426
I'm not trying to pretend that anons didn't vendetta kill it. I acknowledged the twitter spergs role in that. They were posting since thread #9 and were the one that started the whole dating discussion. And yeah it's easy to spot that sperg by their constant use of exclamation marks, ellipsis and frequent spelling mistakes which you can also see on their twitter. Their recent posts about Chris are a good example.
There was a group of anons that would complain about nitpicking, tinfoiling and vendetta posting about Sharla and Chris and then do all that to Chris's ex. For months. Anons spread multiple lies about some nobody all over a "oh no my ex prob cheated on me" tweet. Anons were happy to talk shit about others like oriental pearl saying that "hanging out with tkyosam tells you all you need to know about her" yet accused others of having a vendetta for daring to discuss Sharla's friendship with Norm. Some anons were obviously biased, mostly towards Sharla. This was mentioned multiple times here. >>>/meta/46431 >>>/meta/46512

>>>/meta/52937

No. 64433

>>64432
His ex was on topic, I don't know what you're talking about. Especially since she went out of her way to refer to Chris and Sharla. That's why anons talked about her and started looking into her social media. Don't know how you think that doesn't correlate.

No. 64434

>>64433
Anons still nitpicked, tinfoiled and vendetta posted the hell out of her. They were retarded and obsessive and ruined the thread as much as the anons sperging about Chris and Sharla.
Drop the double standards.

No. 64435

>>64434
Didn't say they didn't. She wasn't off limits though. She was directly related to the cows and is a cow.

No. 64436

>>64435
Never said that she was off limits.
Didn't you say that it wasn't a cow thread anymore and all milk became vendetta and nitpicking?

No. 64437

>>64436
It did. Not sure where you think this is going? What's your point. Both sides were. I just said she was on topic at one point when there were anons saying she shouldn't be brought up at all even with the twitter stuff she posted.

No. 64441

>>64437
My point was the anons that complained about the nitpicking and vendetta posting of Chris and Sharla did the same shit to Lily.
The only thing worth discussing was the cheating accusation tweet and no one was complaining about anons wanting to discuss that. It was what came after that anons were complaining about >>>/meta/52937

>>>/meta/52979

No. 64442

Let the dead thread die

No. 64444

>>64420
you can make it yourself, i think it'll be good for some nonas

No. 64446

>>64432
Wading in, as someone who saw all the shit in their threads it was absurd. Lily hadn't posted on Instagram for a year, posted a handful of Tweets a month, like absolutely subzero milk quantities yet "somebody" (obviously sharla or a flying monkey of hers) kept obsessively posting about her like it was milk. I don't think we are missing out with that thread locked like it was 90% vendetta and Chris would private old streams and unfollow people that were mentioned in the thread, they were absolutely reading.

No. 64447

>>64446
Samefag also you could tell when we were hitting too close to home because someone would suddenly start spamming about poop and dick or some shit right after some anon observation (usually an insult about Chris kek) like one or two word posts to try and bury whatever we were saying. Absolute trainwreck of a thread.

No. 64448

is there any other reason to keep the lolita thread alive except for the fact lolita is a cultural heritage in this website? if you look at the thread there is basically no actual milk going on, for months, years even, it's all PULL tier commentary and actual Discord vendetta. /w/ in general is a really shitty board right now.

No. 64449

>>64444
i would if i weren’t so shit at making threads

No. 64451

Please do something about the incel derailing in the yaoi thread in /m/, please.

No. 64452

>>64391
It would be hilarious if this anon got permab&. Jussayin.

No. 64453

>>64447
Anons did that after bans would be given. Some sperg purposely hated moderation so much they'd sperg out when they'd get told something was nitpicking. 100% sure its the stalker who still doxxes them in twitter and tiktok. Anons like this is why we can't have threads. Going that far is unhinged.

No. 64454

>>64453
Just to add, they did the same spergouts in the Belle Delphine thread. Except there the Sharla nose obsessed anon went crazy when they got a redtext and would spam edited a bunch of Belle's photos. They got so mad when anons photoshopped the before and afters for mods to see lol

No. 64458

>>64453
>>64454
it wasn't anons, don't be daft. You are really pushing that narrative and no one believes a regular user of this site spammed jvlog with "i love poopy" spam, sorry

No. 64459

File: 1697787692870.png (1.78 MB, 863x1583, Screenshot_20231020-092933.png)

doublepost but now it's nitpicking to post a pic of Jill in Jill's thread and comment on it? Admin, we need a definition of "nitpicking." Jill doesn't even post photos all that much and yes this one is repulsive, though actually Stevie is far more repulsive in it than she is.

No. 64460

>>64459
What's the milk? It's complaining about her face, something she can't change. That's nitpicking. Why are anons so dumb about the rules?

No. 64461

>>64459
Focusing on how a cow looks rather than their personality or actions has always been considered nitpicking…

No. 64462

>>64461
I mean by that logic most of the posts on this site need to be redtexted.

No. 64464

>>64452
I think "she" is already ban evading.

No. 64466

>>64460
she could change it by not eating absolute crap all the time. It was saged, so not necessarily milk. You people are bizarre, clearly not oldfags. It's ok to remark on people's appearances, they aren't on this site for being angels. This bitch fakes having several mental disorders including ARFID.

No. 64467

>>64446
>>64447
Yeah it was definitely Sharla and probably also sola. And I agree we aren't missing out with that thread locked and I don't want it back. I don't think anyone does. I'm just tired of this double standards bs. And all that anon can say is "but she was on topic" "but she was directly related to a cow".

No. 64468

>>64467
Definitely not. The cows didn't fuck up the thread.

No. 64469

>>64466
When will you understand that saging doesn't mean you can nitpick?

No. 64470

>>64469
>when will you understand
idk why you're talking to me like you know me. I also didn't make that post but I have read scores of posts discussing someone's fat face in many, many threads on this site. It's not a nitpick, it's reality, just like Stevie looking like a greasy moid ready to troon out is a reality

No. 64471

>>64470
This site literally started out making fun of a fat weird looking woman. And I mean sure pixyteri was a lolcow for other reasons but I seriously doubt she would have gotten as much mockery/attention if she looked like a thin Japanese idol.

No. 64472

>>64470
I hope mods keep up with the nitpick bans across /w/ because of the anons who refuse to integrate and nitpick. You're acting stupid on purpose. its just a gossip site uwu

No. 64475

>>64468
Funny how anons were so quick that assume that oriental pearl was posting but Sharla and sola posting is impossible for some reason. They did fuck up the thread with their vendetta. You expect people to believe that some rando was behind all that shit?

No. 64477

>>64475
I don't think any of the cows ever posted ITT

No. 64480

>>64472
It's an imageboard. You sound angry and fat.

No. 64484

>>64459
As the anon who replied to that post to talk about how repulsive stevie is, I'm glad someone else agrees kek
>>64475
Agreed, literally nobody other than Sharla, Chris and the flying monkeys would care enough to defend her. Not like she doesn't have the free time to spam the thread as a foreigner in Japan with only other jvloggers for company. People also spoke at length about her queen bee behaviour where she would get jvloggers excluded from the group for spurious reasons, which basically means total isolation in a place like Japan. She is a total control freak and probably hated the fact she couldn't delete/block our comments.
Also suspect that Australian jvlogger was the one waxing lyrical about how wonderful Chris was, seems like such a weird social group where isolation has built up their view of other westerners to absurd levels, magnified beyond anything that's normal. From what I could tell from the dynamic we witnessed, it 100% was the subjects of the thread replying to it, reporting, and spamming.

No. 64485

>>64484
I wholeheartedly agree that it was someone or people who knew them or wanted to know them irl. Or Sharla and Sola themselves. The twittersperg also seems like an OTT fake account kept for the purpose of saying "don't reopen the thread, look at this crazy person 'trying to dox' Sharla and Chris!" It's so retarded and fake that I can't even believe a real, genuine hater runs it.

No. 64489

could we have leftcows back pls

No. 64490

>>64485
Some anon is posting on 4chan and blaming doxxing on sola. All their accounts have "solaisawhore" somewhere in their name. The cows aren't posting and never were. An anon has been deliberately trying to larp and doxx. Its insane. They left here and went to 4chan. Their 4chan doxxing threads keep being removed too.

It's not the cows. It's okay to admit unhinged anons have an unhealthy vendetta.

No. 64493

The Shayna thread has descended into chaos

No. 64494

>>64493
Lmao there is some sperg in there I suspect might be Kiki or Lil Dicky. It was funny for a few posts but is ultimately annoying and I’m over it

No. 64495

>>64494
Nta but idk why kiki is even having her own personal, non-shay involed stuff posted. It's not the kiki thread.

No. 64499

They’re posting that vagina pic again in the Shayna thread. Seriously can someone ban the shit posting shizo/moid. They’re trying to get the thread locked.

No. 64502

>>64499
I have a feeling the poster is watching meta to see how many complaints they can get.

No. 64505

Mods the shay thread is being more retarded than usual

No. 64506

To be honest, while I know people will be against it, I think the admin and farmhands need to sit down on discord or something and discuss which threads should be pruned permanently. I understand having legacy cows, however, I think it's time a lot of them get put out to the pasture. You should do a tally of how many times they had real milk the past year and how much of the thread is actually nitpicking/derailing/off-topic because of it. If it's more deranged than on actually producing drama/milk, then I think you guys should give them the ax.

No. 64508

>>64490
way to blame it on a farmer, weirdo

No. 64509

>>64508
The farmer made it clear themselves. Why would the cows post personal information for some stalkers to come to their house? Don't be dumb, but being this dumb isn't a shock. The thread is dead, so it doesn't even matter. It's so weird how anons can't it go and bring it up any chance they get, same with Belle Delphine. The same posters were caught in the other thread anyway which goes to show it's not the cows unless there's some reason Sharla is editing photos of Belle and Venus, which is highly unlikely. Especially going as far as to fight with the mods and bait them. Also why would she edit her own photos? It doesn't make sense and it isn't believable. This is why the thread got shut down.

No. 64515

>>64506
I don't understand why this would need to happen unless the threads/anons are actively causing issues? If the cow isn't producing milk anymore or isn't as milky as they used to be then the thread slows down and eventually dies. Let nature run it's course, if they're not breaking any rules then I think they should just take a laissez-faire approach.

No. 64516

>>64514
I legit am covered in tinfoil at this point, I think the anon you just replied to is part of the group or is the one shitting up the Shayna thread in a desperate bid to get her shit locked forever, and posting that was a very faux innocent “maybe you should look at some legacy cows, not saying which because anons are nitpicking/derailing so much!” when it’s obvious what thread would be the first to get looked at after today’s sperg fest. Maybe, probably I’m just inshayne, but idk this whole thing is wild.

No. 64517

>>64516
Sorry I reposted above. And possibly, I haven't actually been paying attention to Shayna's thread except for a few days ago when they were apparently doxxing. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people running around trying to get threads locked since mods keep locking random threads.

No. 64518

Ok, there’s clearly a moid in there running amok bc they have all the vag pics saved from that horrible ass eating infight. There is no way some random girl saved those to use now, at least I hope not. Mods I’m begging you to please come issue bans and even reveal posters if relevant.

No. 64520

>>64518
I missed that infight. what happened? what made someone post their vagina….

No. 64522

>>64520
Kek they're Shaytards any cause will give them reason to act retardedly. If anything the amount of newfags who kept responding to the troll is more proof that the thread should, at the very least, be quarantined in /Shay/

No. 64525

Deep love and happy vibes to the mods getting in the shay thread, may your pastures always been green and filled with flowers.

No. 64526

>>64509
you are the one who brings it up constantly, along with Belle Delphine.

No. 64533

I think there needs to be a hellweek. Too many newfags are replying to bait, they need a lenghty ban to keep them in check

No. 64536

why exactly isn't homophobia as bannable offense compared to racebaiting etc shit?

No. 64538

>>64536
because literally no one cares about lesbians except for other lesbians

No. 64544

>>64536
mods gave a shit before, but the new mods are pussies afraid to ban people for posting moid adjacent opinions because a handful of newfaggots trundle their rolls over to meta to bitch about being banned cus muh freeze peach. its really fucking with the board quality tbqh

No. 64545

>>64544
mods never gave a shit about it. where in the rules does it even state anything about homophobia? every day you fucking newfags come in claiming some bs about 'it used to be like this!' when it NEVER was. go back to your hugbox this isn't twitter, learn board culture and read the rules and lurk more before making shit up.

No. 64548

>>64545
Right?
>>64544 you literally used the word "newfaggots". Do you realize where that word comes from? Kek

No. 64551

>>64536
you bring it on yourselves

No. 64552

>>64544
Do you know where you are, faggot?

No. 64559

>>64552
>>64551
Nta but this tryhard stuff is embarrassing

No. 64560

Someone is pretending to be Ricky Delgado in the Shayna thread topkek I wish it really was him but it’s clearly just bait trying to stir shit up. Pls ban accordingly

No. 64562

>>64560
why do anons larp so much and just assume anons are going to believe it? no cows actually come here anymore to defend themselves. lolcow is well known at this point like 4chan. it's pointless to post here for them. rarely a cow get found anymore and when they do they've made it super super obvious not this once a few times thing.

No. 64566

>>64562
It's the Shay thread, people are taking the bait and believing it lol

No. 64567

cerbmin, would you consider moving the israel-hamas/protocols of zion discussion out of the tinfoil thread into it's own if there already isn't one? it's taking over discussions about actual conspiracies and turning into a racist antisemitic circlejerk. it probably doesn't even belong on the board but i leave that up to the mods to decide. thank you.

No. 64568

>>64567
Whatever the farmhands do, they really need to ban those making "teh evil jews secretly control everything" type of posts. LC shouldn't feel welcoming to /pol/tards.

No. 64571

>>64567
that entire thread is garbage for retards.

No. 64574

I think the anons saying that muslims are disgusting animals should be banned, there is some severe islamophobia going on in that thread. Like, actual racism.

No. 64576

Can the tradthot thread be unlocked please? It was extremely active and milky and /snow/ is boring without it. I don’t care about Shay’s fupa or grimey nails I want to bitch out dangerous grifters that are encouraging crimes against women, who think women shouldn’t be allowed to vote and the misogynistic moids that fund that movement.

No. 64577

>>64574
It’s just one seething racist Jewish moid who is spewing all that racebait garbage. He’s the same one screeching about ‘browns’ in the other threads, the Palestine thing has triggered his racial sperging even harder, he got the tradthot thread locked because he kept being needlessly racist about the Indian tradthots and insulting their skin color. Just report and ignore.

No. 64578

>>64036
It’s sad the tradthot thread was locked because of one racist samefagging sperg.

No. 64579

>>64577
It's always (((them))) kek((((USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE))))

No. 64582

>>64574
I agree with you that they should be banned but the term 'islamophobia' is dumb

No. 64583

>>64371
Sounds like it hit too close to home for you

No. 64585

>>64574
It's not islamaphobia, it's blaine the neonazi and he obsessively posts negative stuff about brown and black women

No. 64587

>>64585
Its exactly islamophobia. And i beleive its two triggered Jews, maybe only one even.

No. 64588

>>64582
Petition to get it in redtext. It's just a meaningless buzzword to desuade meaningful dialogue about Islam cuz reeecism.

No. 64590

>>64588
Definitely should be redtexted. It's a religion, hardcore patriarchal one at that. Who cares if a farmer is "phobic" towards it? Should we ban christianophobia and buddhismophobia as well?

No. 64592

>>64588
But “anti-semitism” isnt? Love the mental gymnastics

No. 64593

>>64571
then don't read it.

No. 64595

>>64592
It's different. Jews are an ethnic group, and have been persecuted because they were considered a race. See: Nazi Germany.

No. 64597

>>64595
And muslims arent being persecuted and genocided in Palestine? There is no extreme racism against muslims in western countries? And dont be dense, muslims are majority middle eastern/brown and are discriminated due to apperance(being brown or semetic looking).

https://hatecrime.osce.org/anti-muslim-hate-crime

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/20-years-911-islamophobia-continues-haunt-muslims/story?id=79732049

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamophobic_incidents

No. 64604

File: 1698184288489.jpeg (122.82 KB, 828x1264, 46B23852-94B3-4482-B89B-F9FCEF…)

Can we get leftcows back?

No. 64605

Sorry for newfaggotry but can someone explain the Life with Cindy thread to me? Are people who create threads allowed to specify a ban length for certain reasons, and also what the fuck? It’s one vendetta-chan and that’s why the thread has been up for a month and has <50 posts, but I’m so confused as to why it has the backing of some diehard dick-gobbling farmhand and why no other mod thinks that’s suspicious.

No. 64606

>>64604
no. fucking insufferable attention whores. they should do something funny if they want it unlocked.

No. 64607

>>64606
But now all cows know what they need to do to get a thread closed

No. 64609

>>64604
I second this, open the leftcows and tradthots threads please this board is dead without those juicy threads

No. 64610

File: 1698207087909.jpeg (31.83 KB, 460x434, 654FA3B8-5583-4D1E-8B0F-111FFB…)

Please….please ban the people who act like spazzy middle schoolers and spam yaoi and bl in ot. Everyone else stays in their containment threads and I’m so tired of seeing it every time I go there.

No. 64611

>>64604
the coquette thread is a pseudo leftcows thread because all the girls on there unironically listen to redscare

No. 64612

>>64585
is he crapperchan?

No. 64613

>>64612
no, (c)rap-chan was pakichan, was revealed by a farmhand. nta

No. 64616

>>64610
Same.

No. 64618

>>64597
Farmhands, is it now allowed to post a bunch of links with no cap? People were banned for it before

No. 64619

>>64610
Agree, and other out of containment posts are banned

No. 64620

>>64605
IMO the individual in question seems very milky, and I don't remember all the way but if OP provided archives of past deeds then I don't see why it shouldn't stay up. Not all cow threads gain traction, many of the old ones don't get posted in as often and simply sink to the back of the catalogue due to the passage of time. It also doesn't help that there are several spergs in that thread who REEEE every time someone mentions the cow being shitty to her scrote (and surprise surprise, it is still entirely possible for a woman to be unreasonably shitty to a man even if men are collectively horrible POS) because they are incapable of any thought that isn't black-and-white.

No. 64622

>>64620
There's milk there but I don't think farmers are that interested in Cindy beyond the occasional mentions in the sims thread on /m/. She already has a snark subreddit, is frequently talked about on Sim Secret and has a tattle life thread. Most of the bans in her thread are for newfaggotry, which no one being banned seems to have noticed.

No. 64624

Where can I post long rants about my crush without bothering other anonitas? It wouldn't belong in the relationship thread (obviously) neither the LDR thread, I think it would be annoying in the vents or get it out of your chest… I don't want to talk about him sexually yet so no hornyposting. Does any thread come to mind? I'm not looking for advice either, just a place I can talk about my romantic daydreams and read about other from fellow anons.

No. 64625

>>64624
maybe impossible/retarded crushes?
>>>/g/150474
if it's a celebrity then IRL husbando thread

No. 64626

>>64624
This thread >>>/ot/1738305 ?

No. 64628

>>64625
>>64626
Thanks, nonies

No. 64646

Clean this up
>>>/ot/1516175

Also, congrats on having your mod team infiltrated by Russian trolls.

No. 64648

>>64646
>infiltrated by russian trolls
>implying they didn't choose them as mods to begin with

No. 64651

admin can u please kindly delete my nerdy crush thread #2 thread I made please so I can change thread pic thank u kindly sorry to be a pain. sorry if wrong thread to ask kek

No. 64653

>>>/snow/1643629

please, please clean up the blaire white thread its nothing but people nitpicking about his looks.
thank you in advance.

No. 64654

>>64651
Anon, jannies are not going to delete a thread just because you want a different threadpic. Lurk a little more.

No. 64655

>>64654
maybe one is feeling kind

No. 64656

>>64655
Kek aw bless your heart

No. 64658

Null or someone else, idk made a thread here about site censorship
>>>/ot/1740076

No. 64679

Can jannies please lock the not my types type thread, the amount of race sperging and stereotyping entire races in there is getting ridiculous.

No. 64683

Male posting in ot, gore and furry. Also can someone check the vent thread? It's full of people wishing to die. Which isn't common for lolcow.

No. 64684

File: 1698480905749.png (147.77 KB, 1419x739, Screenshot 2023-10-28.png)

Why was the "Child at Heart" thread on /m/ deleted for no apparent reason? and can it be brought back at least
>>>/m/263042
https://web.archive.org/web/20230613160830/>>>/m/263042

No. 64685

>>64683
>Also can someone check the vent thread? It's full of people wishing to die. Which isn't common for lolcow.
Most of those posts are done by romanianon multi-posting.

No. 64686

>>64684
not sure why, but this gives me ddlg vibes just from the way it's worded. I feel like the hobbies thread is already a good place for anons to discuss things that some people find immature since, that's what a lot of this comes down to except for clothes, but there's a thread for clothing too.

No.