[ Rules ] [ ot / g ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Discord ]

/meta/ - site discussion

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Youtube
Password (For post deletion)

File: 1549754396510.jpg (101.31 KB, 850x476, znBZH50.jpg)

No. 8771

Please post all general issues and complaints here. If you want mods to do something, or have some issue with or suggestion for site content, you should use this thread.

>>>/meta/6821 should only be used for technical issues and suggestions (can't load site, site slow, bugs, site feature requests). This thread is for non-technical issues.

No. 8774

I am in favor of /m/. It is a distinct category and we have enough threads for it. Perhaps we could have a poll?

Will minimodding continue to be a rule only in /pt/ and /snow/ or will it become global?

No. 8775

>>8774
I'm against it but agree with the poll idea

No. 8776

I'm interested to know the answer to this question someone asked in the last thread. I want to understand!

>Is there a reason for not redtexting when you ban?

>Seems like all it does is make people think the post has been ignored by mods.

Inb4 hurrdurr have you ever used an imageboard b4???? It's a simple question.

No. 8777

File: 1549819901754.png (233.04 KB, 1321x331, screenshot.png)

I was kinda following this in the Azealia thread and the last Complaints thread, but this is just really confusing as a user, can you offer some clarity here?

nta but Why was this person banned (pic related)? I thought "hi cow" was against the rules too but I checked because of what this anon said and everything (regarding rules) was correct? So…you're banning the users that actually know your rules now instead of the user who is trying to enforce rules that don't technically exist or deciding what people get to talk about in that thread? If there's a reason other than that an explanation would be helpful because this makes mods look terrible tbh.

So, saw that in the AB thread, and then saw (what I assume was the same anon sperging about "hi cow" doesn't get redtexted or something in the last complaints thread) and mod said:
>We do not redtext everything, we do ban them though.
So then how is it a bannable offense if it's still not in the rules? Even after the rules were updated as recently as "January 22, 2019" according to the page? If you're banning people for it I guess I just don't understand why you still haven't added it to the rules or why it's not stated anywhere?

So then I guess my other question is are we not allowed to discuss the possibility that a cow is a farmer at all? Even if no one is "hi cow"-ing? Cause half of that thread (and past Celebricow threads) is talking about how Azealia is probably a farmer, and there's plenty of examples to allow for speculation. Is that still considered "hi cow" if we're not specifically accusing any user of being her? Just discussing the probability based on her actions?

Honestly not trying to argue or anything I'm just really trying to follow the logic here and understand the rules. Also cause Azealia is one of my favorite cows and but because of this I'm not sure what we're allowed to talk about anymore. Cause like I said just as someone seeing the situation from the outside it looks like:
>user a mini-mods thread, says they're breaking rules that don't actually exist (without reading any of the thread it seems like?)
>user b tells them the rules, says to read the thread (in a bitchy way, tbf)
>user a goes and whines in the complaints thread about "hi cow"
>user b permabanned…because….? person a threw a tantrum?
>?????

Anyways, any clarity would be helpful, thanks mod-senpai!!

No. 8778

>>8777
obviously not a farmhand, but i think a lot of them are tired of seeing infighting and general autism relating to what is being perceived as "mini-modding"
i saw the post you're referencing and thought it was warranted simply because of the unnecessary sperg-out

No. 8779

Can something be done about Shay's thread? The last ten replies have been nothing but damn arguing.

No. 8780

Can an admin clean up the anons in shays thread who are wildly tinfoiling about dogfucker-Chan (dawn) and the idea that she’s trying to sell her puppies to other gross dog fuckers? It’s shitting up the thread. Thanks.

No. 8781

>>8780
Thirding this–we finally have someone giving us fresh Shaytard milk and anons are speculating dumb shit about her. Please take care of it, mods, at least for the infighting.

No. 8782

>>8775
Why are you against it?

No. 8783

>>8777
This is one of the most autistic posts I have ever read on this site and I was here during Kikis sperg. Wow.

Just…wow. got any official diagnosis, buddy? If not I recommend getting it officially diagnosed, I bet you qualify for a tugboat.

No. 8784

>>8779
>>8780
>>8781

all this. At this point I have no idea what is going on, I can't tell what posts I should report for infighting because it got really out of hand.

No. 8785

File: 1549844089047.gif (1.59 MB, 332x332, F11vuyrf0_540.gif)

>>8778
I guess so, but then why not ban all parties in that case? They were both being obnoxious and shitty, so if both were banned that would make sense to me. I guess I just don't understand anons that go into a thread to be mad at people for discussing the subject of the thread. If that's not mini-modding or derailing then what is? Like, if one anon goes into a thread and picks a fight by basically saying anyone who believes x thing is "fucking retarded"….how is that "infighting"? Isn't that just 1 person starting shit with the rest of the thread?

I've seen a lot of confusing bans that don't seem to follow any rules (or logic), I just picked that one cause it seems like a good example. (Also because it was so clear that that one anon was the one sperging in the last thread about "hi cow").

>>8783
….asking for clarification on users being banned over rules that don't exist is "one of the most autistic posts you have ever read"? You must not read much friend.

No. 8786

>>8785
>if one anon goes into a thread and picks a fight by basically saying anyone who believes x thing is "fucking retarded"….how is that "infighting"? Isn't that just 1 person starting shit with the rest of the thread?

It's instigating infighting by virtue of seeking so start a fight on the site lol

No. 8787

>>8785
>"We do not redtext everything, we do ban them though." - Admin >>8764

No. 8788

>>8786
>It's instigating infighting by virtue of seeking so start a fight on the site lol
Are you having a stroke anon? What's happening here?

>>8787
you're literally quoting the exact post I said didn't make any sense in the first place >>8777

No. 8789

Thanks for vetting the Shay thread and I hope a staff member can stay vigilant in there. The Dawn obsession is still going. I personally hate the way any player gets venerated when they are opposed to Shay but anons really need to shut the fuck up about it all.

And please don't give that mess a tripcode.

No. 8790

File: 1549849640843.jpg (29.23 KB, 293x339, 1532766331086.jpg)

>>8788
>how is that "infighting"? Isn't that just 1 person starting shit with the rest of the thread?
You asked how the situation you described is infighting so I tried to explain why picking a fight in a thread is violating the no infighting rule even if nobody has responded to it yet.

No. 8791

>>8777

The only change made to the rules was updating Admin's email address.

No. 8792

>>8777
Just take your ban and be done with it. PS, AB is not a cow.

No. 8793

File: 1549855681979.png (323.66 KB, 1394x625, screenshot.png)

>>8790
Right…but the anon who started shit isn't the one that got banned, the anon that apparently followed the rules was, that's why I'm asking for more clarity here because it doesn't make any sense. Honest to god, can you not read? Why are you so personally offended by me asking a question here?

>>8792
Mods already approved the thread, so take it up with them if you're that upset. Already said I'm not that anon but judging by the established pattern, I'll end up getting banned too for asking a question in the complaints/issues thread, and the anons inciting the infighting and starting shit will not get banned. Because that seems to be the logic here.

Can we just stop with this already? Honestly this is why people think Azealia is a farmer, if you say anything about her anywhere spergs come out of the woodwork to scream about how she's not a cow or derail everything. I just came to this thread to ask for some clarification on rules in general, and you turned into an Azealia thing. Christ.

Mods, can you please just answer my question so I can leave? That's all I came here for, just some clarification.

No. 8794

>>8788
So if you're aware that not all bans get redtexted, what makes you think the anon who started it didn't also get banned? This sounds like you're butthurt you got redtexted and the other anon didn't.

No. 8795

File: 1549857889304.jpg (35.59 KB, 865x332, 9ZYMwsC.jpg)

>>8778
>>8791
>>8784
We're still working with the old rules so I'm unsure about where the confusion is. Here is a sneak peak of the new condensed global rules.
>>8793

>Right…but the anon who started shit isn't the one that got banned, the anon that apparently followed the rules was

You have no way of knowing that. Sometimes the more mass reported post get red texted so users know it was dealt with.

No. 8796

>>8795
>Sometimes the more mass reported post get red texted so users know it was dealt with.
Right, but what was being dealt with here exactly? That's what I'm asking for clarification on, just in general. What rule was broken here, so we can know not to do it in the future. Again, it's not just that thread, that just seemed like the most glaring example of it.

>You have no way of knowing that.

Right, I don't know that because there's no way for me to know that with the way the information is presented…which is why I'm here in this thread, asking for more clarification. But instead of answering any of my actual question you just picked out one random sentence that had very little to do with it. I still have any way of knowing that, because you haven't answered anything?

I appreciate you getting back to me Mod-sama and I'm really not trying to be combative or anything….but do you see how this is confusing for other users? Publicly displaying a ban on a comment that's literally quoting the correct use of your own rules, contrasted with no acknowledgement of the user who actually broke/is writing their own definition of the rules?

Can you just offer some more clarity on the rules here, since it seems like you the anon who directly quoted the rules was incorrect? Like on mini-modding or "hi cow" etc.

No. 8797

>>8796
I was the anon who asked why redtext isn't for every ban in the previous thread.

The answer seems to be that there is no fucking reason for who gets redtext. It's arbitrary.

No. 8798

>>8795
Happy to see new, succinct rules! I wonder if the phrase 'posters with a phallus' is going to trigger anyone.

No. 8802

Q: What is considered infighting?

>>8761
Can we define when exactly an argument turns into an infight thus making it bannable?
Because I get real sick of seeing a discussion where things start out reasonable/civil and then someone starts slinging personal attacks, and then things snowball from there.
I do feel like there's always one or more people more in the wrong than people who didn't really start it. Although I realize arguing is unproductive on either side and I'm guilty, I just hope this sort of rule is weighted.

No. 8803

>>8802
Ban length could probably vary but both parties should be punished to some degree bc you can always choose to drop it. People continue to argue to "win" which isn't really helping the thread getting shit up.

No. 8804

>>8795
Is there going to be an expanded version? There's a lot of "this isn't <thing>" and confusion over terms like cowtipping lately.

>>8796
The post you're (still) going on about was pretty obviously infighting and sperging. It shouldn't need any clarification, let alone this ongoing discussion.


Anyway, can someone please clean up the Miranda thread? It's been a swamp of Shut up, Miranda, ranting and useless commentary / shitposting for at least two threads now.

No. 8805

>>8803
Idk, I argue because I'm firm on my points. "Winning" to me would mean anons turn over to my point, which obv rarely happens. I feel like other anons take "winning" as demeaning the other side as much as possible until they quit.

No. 8806

File: 1549866427011.gif (1.98 MB, 480x270, vine.gif)

>>8796
>>8797
>>8800
>>8802
Glad to see I'm not the only one who's confused by this all the time and could use some more explanation. I feel like 85% of bans I see make zero sense and just look like mods are banning whoever they feel like for no discernible reason (because we can't see who's samefagging or whatever), but knowing that not all bans are redtexted just makes it even more confusing. The rules are all numbered, would it really be that difficult to just put the number of the rule broken instead of just a catch-all "(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)"?

>>8796
>>8777
this makes less than zero sense, if that's possible. I always considered mini-modding to be anyone who says what can or can't be discussed in a thread, is that not correct? I see users all the time act like their opinion is the law on what constitutes nitpicking or what's worth talking about, and there's never any consequence to it at all (that we can see) even though it's super disruptive and derails conversation and leads to infighting.

Basically "fighting" in threads should only ever be people's opinions on the subject. The rules should be so clear that there should be no room for users to constantly fight about their own interpretation of them in threads. If a thread is already in motion with active participants or mods have specifically approved a subject, comments like >>8792 or anything similar should be bannable. If you don't like a thread or don't think a cow deserves one, then don't look at it. Just move on from that shit, this shouldn't still be happening.

No. 8807

>>8806
>I feel like 85% of bans I see make zero sense
Then you need to integrate more. It's simple really.

No. 8808

>>8796
>I still have any way of knowing that, because you haven't answered anything?
No, you actually still have no way of knowing. For the record you were being an extreme minimod to the point where you were derailing the thread. It wasn't even one person responding to you, it was multiple anons. If you're here to ask me if I spanked the other anons instead of reflecting on your own ban then you've come to the wrong place.
>>8802
I would think slinging personal attacks randomly is infighting. However I think the person instigating should face the hardest ban, not the anons responding unless it's gotten way out of hand.
>>8806
The put of of pasture message should be used when the ban reason is obvious, like male posting or an obvious samefag or spergchan.
>>8797
Pretty much but it really depends on how many anons have reported the post and whether or not the post can serve as an example of frowned upon behavior.

No. 8809

>>8805
Right, but remember the context is infighting which is different from a debate on a real topic. Intellectual discourse within the thread's framework is kosher as far as I've seen.

If you're debating something OT or flaming back and forth you are part of the problem too so how "firm" you are doesn't really matter since LC isn't debate club. You should be dropping it instead of trying to win.

No. 8810

>>8808
>For the record you were being an extreme minimod to the point where you were derailing the thread. It wasn't even one person responding to you, it was multiple anons.
Wait, what now? Your replying to my post, I'm >>8777 who was trying to understand the ban logic here, but I'm not the OP of the post I was asking about…which I think is who you're trying to address here? I have no idea what any of this means or who you're talking about. Who was being a mini-mod? Who was derailing the thread? There's only 5 posts in that entire "infighting" interaction, who was being responded to by multiple anons? What are you talking about?

>If you're here to ask me if I spanked the other anons instead of reflecting on your own ban then you've come to the wrong place.

Again, not that anon and I literally never asked that, I just asked for clarification on what rule was broken there to earn a ban, because it's unclear

>The put of of pasture message should be used when the ban reason is obvious, like male posting or an obvious samefag or spergchan.

Except nobody can see any of that info except mods? How is it "obvious" to the rest of the site's users? Again, there's only 5 posts in what appears to be a multiple-person interaction, so what exactly counts as being a spergchan and who's the "obvious samefag" in that situation?

>No, you actually still have no way of knowing.

What does this even mean?

Seriously? Is this the new farmhand tactic? Ban people for no clear reason, start fights with users who ask for clarity and accuse them of being samefag (despite being able to see IP info, etc) because info that no one but farmhands can see is "obvious"? Literally all I was looking for was "they were banned because of rule #x" but you just made it 100x worse and more unclear. I've been on this site for years and that was some of the worst sperging I've ever seen.

No. 8811

>>8796
>>8808
This is amazing.
>Get banned for being an autistic spaz
>Go on /meta/ pretending it's not your post
>wHy DiD tHiS aNoN gEt BaNnEd? ToTaLlY wAsNt Me
>Why was this anon banned omg no reason for it
>Multiple people explain why
>Buut whyyy?
>Continue on insisting you were dindu
>BUT DID THE OTHER SIDE GET BAAANNEED TOOO

You clearly didn't get banned for long enough.

Btw, I think diagnostic response is a month so I reckon a two month ban would get you enough time for therapy AND a diagnosis?? Just throwing that out there.

No. 8814

The majority of bans look like a mod picked a word from the rules and slapped it into a post they didnt like.

>>8807
Dont be disingenuous please, the majority of bans dont make sense and its pretty obvious.
Also, very rich of you to tell the other anon to integrate when the mods stick out as very new to imageboards.

No. 8815

>>8811
That anon's post was so autistic it was the only one that deserved redtext. Don't understand how she can't see that.

No. 8817

File: 1549889973322.png (139.25 KB, 686x416, pnp.png)

Why was this anon banned in the PNP thread?
>>>/snow/753018

The post is saged and doesn't seem to break any rules? It's a screenshot of that t-shirt design she stole from Lolcow (and pretended it was her idea), so IMO it's relevant.

No. 8818

>>8809
Well sis that's why I'm asking for clarification of what constitutes infighting, because there's never been a set definition. I'm saying lots of arguing starts as debate but some anons turn into an infight so where's the line. It made sense back before we had general boards because nobody wanted to browse dedicated lolcow or snowflake threads and have to scroll through a million replies of ot arguing.
However, there's always been a free for all attitude when it comes to arguing on ot though, and the rules for what is permissed have always flexed depending on the moderation team. So that's why I'm bringing it up to maybe add something into the rules since 'infighting' was specifically mentioned. That way there's no more arbitrary interpretations.

No. 8819

>>8807
am i in the minority agreeing here?
i rarely see bans that don't make sense besides the little issues we were having with the new farmhands a couple weeks back.
hell, i've caught a few bans in the last week or so i can't really argue with.
sometimes you just have to take your L and wait out the ban.
everyone has a right to appeal too.

No. 8820

>>8817
you really think a picture of her holding a t shirt with zero context is relevant in any way?

No. 8821

>>8817
i'm guessing because there was basically no context for the reason of posting the shirt (which is old news that it even exists)

No. 8823

>>8814
I'm not being disingenuous in the slightest. Like >>8819 I generally have no trouble understanding the context of a redtext I see in a thread. I've only been banned unfairly once on this board and it was not under this new team nor under the first admin. If the staff and other experienced users can see the context, then the problem is you.

No. 8824

>>8820
In the context of the thread, yes, because most frequent readers know what's this about and she's bringing the t-shirt up again now for some reason. I don't think every screenshot needs an elaborate explanation, or does it suddenly need one?

No. 8825

>>8824
a picture of her wearing a t shirt everyone's already discussed is not milk and not worthy of being posted
the pnp thread is under strict moderation because it was highly contested that it even be brought back
so post better content or deal with the bans and possibly see the threads closed down again

No. 8826

>>8825
NTA but redtext not giving a reason is the reason you guys are having this argument now right? Admin claims it happens when the ban reason is "clear" but it's evidently not because there are anons who don't think so.

I called out weeb insecurity when /w/ was made, now gonna call out unnecessary infighting bait on the redtext being temperamental. Declare a number of reports for redtext to appear, and always give an actual reason for the ban in the redtext. End of the stupid vague arguments I am so sick of reading in these threads.

No. 8827

>>8807
Nta but nah. I've been coming here for years and some shit is just mysterious because mods, etc. don't explain bans as they occur. It seems flippant sometimes, even. I'm so sick of the LuRk MoRe attitude. It reeks of falsely inflated ego. Stop.

>>8826
>Declare a number of reports for redtext to appear, and always give an actual reason for the ban in the redtext. End of the stupid vague arguments I am so sick of reading in these threads.
It's really very simple. Idk why the mods are making this so convoluted and retarded.

No. 8828

I've gotta agree that numbered reporting seems like it would cause less issues and it does seem easier than typing "USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE" although I still like seeing that for scrotes, kek.

No. 8829

>>8826
i'm not one of the anons arguing about it, i'm one that doesn't give a fuck about micromanaging the mods and admin as far as bans are concerned
most of the (put out to pasture) redtexts i see are pretty obvious to me idk

No. 8830

>>8828
Yeah, I'm all for it being the phrase for scrotes cause it amuses me too. Aside from that, make shit clear and functional. Seems like Admin already takes every step with this goal in mind so I see no reason not to implement this # based redtext qualifier with ban-reason disclosed.

No. 8831

I'd love to see anons draw board-tan more and I don't think the "offcial art thread" should be in /meta/. Wouldn't it be better if it was in /ot/ so more farmers could see it?

No. 8833

File: 1549916192918.png (111.11 KB, 720x720, IMG_20190211_121549.png)

I see you farmhand!!
Tysm for considering the will of us plebs!!

No. 8834

>>8833
It's sad that you guys are so retarded they had to idiot proof redtext bans. You literally need to have even the most obvious rule breaking spelled out to you in giant red letters to pick up on it.
>b-but stop calling us unintegrated newfags!

No. 8837

>>8834
Obvious rule breaking can just have the [USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE] redtext as far as I'm concerned. But seeing as this is an anonymous board, it's not always apparent when someone is excessively posting in succession (just one example). I don't understand why calling out users publicly and elaborating on bans is such a big deal to you. It will actually help integration. Don't we all want better posts?
Admin and mods don't have to do anything they don't agree with. I'm just gonna leave this at that.

No. 8838

>>8837
She's posturing for no reason. Chalk it up to autism that rejects any change at all.

No. 8839

File: 1549946570877.png (84.21 KB, 800x460, Screenshot_2019-02-11-20-40-20…)

This type of shit needs to stop, ie. derailing to infight after the offending anon has been redtexted.

>>>/pt/128373

No. 8840

>>8839
this. this is some primitive fucking idiot shit right here.

No. 8841

>>8818

Also, infighting is not explicitly included in the rules. It is considered derailing and thus a bannable offense.

No. 8844

File: 1549948483979.png (29.21 KB, 901x577, fuckingstupid.png)

this was pretty fucking stupid and i don't even care if i get banned for evading.

/ot/ is supposed to be a lax board.

No. 8847

>>8844

Admin, your email address in ban notices needs to be updated!

>>8839

Also, this thread should perhaps be locked since she is imprisoned. Even KF locked their thread on her.

No. 8848

>>8844
Imagine giving a 2 day ban for someone's hurt feels. FFS infighting is arguing and how the hell can you ban someone's opinion as trolling if they've only written one post. Her post after that before she got banned was fine. I was happy in the townhall, but I hope these aren't the changes we'll be seeing.

No. 8849

>>8844
What thread is this from?

No. 8851

>>8849
Female Gaze. The thread has been going strong without derailment and with a high number of thoughtful input so her post quality stood out compared to the other posts by far.

No. 8852

>>8851
How do you know if she hadn't posted other things? There are multiple posts in the thread with that typing style.

No. 8853

The fakeboi thread is a fucking mess. I can't tell what it's supposed to be about. I feel like a lot of people use it to post incidental drama about people who happen to be fakebois.

No. 8854

>>8851
Yep, no contribution. Like how is she even in this thread complaining.
Seems like she thinks /ot/ has less rules or something.

No. 8855

>>8854
>Seems like she thinks /ot/ has less rules or something.

/ot/ does have less rules, asshat. Admin even stated that /ot/ and /g/ are getting a new set of rules. They have never really had the same rules anyway.

No. 8856

Is this thread just a place to appeal bans now?

No. 8859

>>8855
Is this stated somewhere? Sorry for retardation.

No. 8860

>>8859
Nta but have you ever even read the rules?

No. 8861

>>8856
no it's a place to bitch about a 30 minute ban that already expired or red text. that said, I disagree with >>8844 's ban.

No. 8862

>>8859
Yes, see >>8761.

No. 8865

>>8860
Yeah, that was the first thing I did before asking. The rules page only has specific rules for /pt/ and /snow/.

>>8862
Thanks for the heads up! Appreciate it.

No. 8866

Is the site loading slowly for anyone else in the past few hours?

No. 8868

>>8859
>>8865

The first section are rules for all forums. The second section are additional rules for /pt/ and /snow/. Therefore /ot/ has fewer rules than /pt/ and /snow/.

No. 8869

>>8841
>Also, infighting is not explicitly included in the rules.

Infighting was specifically mentioned in the new set of rules from last thread that admin wanted to propose, which I quoted in my OP.

No. 8870

>>8868
Touché, thanks for spoon feeding my ignorant self lol

No. 8873

>>>/snow/777551

Was the redtext for this image?

http://archive.fo/LkNI1

There is no personal information on her LinkedIn page, and the information that is there she posted herself.

A screencap of her LinkedIn page was posted on GG via Imgur. It was removed almost immediately from Imgur, presumably because she lodged a complaint. Then the lolcow.farm link was posted. The GG mods have not redacted it, and their policy regarding doxing is far more strict than ours.

No. 8874

>>>/snow/333727

Anons keep bumping the thread with milkless posts and not posting evidence.

No. 8875

i didn't sage my post in the unpopular opinions thread, but it didn't bump to the top of the catalog. is the thread on autosage? or am i on autosage? kek

No. 8876

>>8875
it hit the bump limit. someone needs to make a new thread.

No. 8877

>>8873
Hi, first of all the post was necro. A LinkedIn profile of a snowflake isn't milk and due to the persons post history, it seems more like an attempt to dox/vendetta. The picture got removed/considered dox because of the circumstances.

No. 8878

>>8844
if you look at the new rules for /ot, they're not lax w/r/t infighting or starting shit. that post is trying to start shit, no?

No. 8879

Is this post not doxxing? I reported it a few days ago but it's still up.
>>>/snow/777365

No. 8880

>>8877

It looks like the user on GG posted it here for lack of anywhere else to post it (it's too large to be posted directly on GG). They are discussing her CV there, not attempting to dox her. I checked her thread there after seeing her thread here necro'ed. She accuses everyone on every forum discussing her of cyber bullying and harassment. Surely I wish her and her cats dead by virtue of thinking about her right now!

No. 8881

>>8879
how the hell is it doxxing? it's a cap of a public facebook comment(this)

No. 8882

>>8881
Okay, fair enough. I just figured since it's in the personal lolcows thread it was kinda fucked up/doxxing to put her full name out there.(is an)

No. 8883

File: 1550105348926.jpeg (161.1 KB, 944x638, 647DFE6E-CD36-4F59-8530-9AE774…)

I kept trying to post on snow, multiple times, and every time I couldn’t because of someone else’s ban notice. It’s not my post. I don’t even post in jill’s thread and I’m not an anachan. I assume it’s from ip cycling, since it’s happened before to many anons. So I was like whatevs, since it said it would expire as soon as it I saw it. But now anytime I try to post in snow this ban shows up (which I appealed) and won’t let any of my posts go through. It’s kinda annoying.

>pic related is before and after appealing ban
(infighting)

No. 8884

>>8883
are you using a vpn?(example)

No. 8885

>>8878
Exactly.(assume this was a warning ban)

No. 8887

>>8884
Nope, no proxy and no vpn. I just assumed it was ip cycling. I’ve gotten 4 bans previous before that weren’t mine, including one ment for Sarah from the onision threads. But this one wouldn’t let me post on snow for 5 hours after I had viewed it. I can post now though, so it’s fixed thankfully!

No. 8888

>>8887
Yikes. Does that mean there are farmers close to you that are constantly shitposting or something? You live in an unlucky area lol.

>>8834
I don't really get the issue with mods redtexting. It makes the moderation visible to everyone and is usually humorous. It helps out everyone who sees it, not just the farmer who got banned.(so this is why most boards don't do this)

No. 8889

I am unaware of how many bans are actually given out on a thread to thread basis, so if it would truly look like that, it would be quite the eyesore.
I guess it makes sense to only redtext the worst offenders and leave the rest unmarked.
My bad, I didn't even really think of the back to back infighting bans which are probably the most common after namefagging bans.

No. 8890

I appreciate the robot, 32 inch waist-chan, and gold star icons!

No. 8891

Why not mark the initial post with a message and just (b) for the other posts? Rather see a little b than nothing

No. 8892

>this is an infighting example

But >>8883 and >>8884 are not part of that thread.

No. 8893

>>8892
I think the mod was just trying to show what infighting bans WOULD look like (ie back to back redtexts) not that those posts were actually infighting. But I could be completely wrong.
>>8890
Yeah they always make me chuckle when I see them.

No. 8894

File: 1550210693947.png (42.79 KB, 653x179, dont type.PNG)

just curious, i've seen this type of thing getting banned before, but when people are posting like this referencing the meme, should they really be banned?

No. 8895

>>8894
5. Integration
Express yourself in a way that doesn't make you stand out from other anonymous users. This means avoiding:
emojis or emoticons
ALL CAPS
a lot of punctuation??????!!!!!
other obnoxiusoius typign sTYLES
Emojis are banned too even when people use them to reference memes.
The anon wasn't banned for long but this is a textbook example of an obnoxious typing style.

No. 8897

In recent months novice anons have been posting shit OP's immediately after the thread reaches 1100 comments, sniping the OP's from the anons who have been regularly posting excellent OP's. This just happened in the Taylor Nicole Dean thread. Anons even suggested requesting the OP be deleted because it is so bad.

Many of the regular OP anons begin preparing their OP's in advance, even taking notes during the course of the thread. Could anons please respect the work that they put into providing the site with quality OP's?

No. 8898

File: 1550226089321.jpg (51.34 KB, 530x548, 34d.jpg)

>>8895
But admin it's a meme.

No. 8900

>>8839

Who keeps doing this?

>>>/snow/778432

No. 8901

>>8894
I feel like the new farmhands are noobs and we're going to have to deal with retarded bans from here on out. Admin seems to stand behind them, so gotta accept it and move on I suppose.

Also I'll never understand how they Shay thread is allowed, especially in the face of the PNP thread ban/perma-sage. I've accepted that rule enforcement here isn't objective anymore. It blows, but whatever I guess.

No. 8902

File: 1550251582614.png (10.03 KB, 264x40, Screen Shot 39.png)

>>8833
Been starting more clear and descriptive red-texts pop up in /snow/, just wanted to say it's not going unnoticed and it's nice to see our requests for more clarity be acknowledged. Even this >>8895 is so much more helpful for following the admins' thought process. It just makes it so much more cut and dry, and takes the "emotion" out of it. For what it's worth if this pattern continues, I just posting the rule number is clear enough. I don't think you should ever have to repost the whole rule for someone (that's just more work for yall), even just a point in the right direction is a 100x more helpful.

>>8888
>It helps out everyone who sees it, not just the farmer who got banned.
Just seconding this notion in general. This kind of >>8834 elitist bullshit attitude is just stupid and the cause of so much infighting all over the site. There's literally no possible way clarity could make the site worse unless you're triggered by the color red. Can you imagine how much less derailing/infighting there would be if you just subtracted the amount of anons throwing tantrums and stomping their feet calling everyone retarded or autist because they had to read one extra line of text? Obviously sometimes idiots/newfags do pop up in threads and then its very clearly warranted, but the amount of fighting over rule interpretation/acceptable site behavior has gotten excessive. It's an anonymous gossip website, not an elite club you can only be in if you know some secret set of rules and behaviors that don't align with any rules or board culture info posted.

Anyways, just wanted to say we appreciate it!

No. 8903

>>8894
Tbf it's a stupid meme and makes anyone using it look underage. It's not even funny, just obnoxious.

No. 8904

>>8897
As a regular creator I second this. It actually takes time and effort to put together a good OP, half-assed jobs stick out like a sore thumb and detract from the fun.

No. 8905

>>8883
I agree. I have also been banned for a post I didn’t make. I didn’t appeal it or anything though because the ban had already expired.

No. 8906

>>8895
>>8898
>>8894
I came here to ask about this too. Does admin not get that it’s a meme that has been around for a year? I get we have new farmhands but some of you are acting like newfags.

No. 8907

the mods in the momo thread have gotten WAY too strict. if one sentence of a post could be considered a nitpick, you get banned. commenting on her appearance whatsoever, including clothing, is apparently bannable. she's a costhot popular for looking ridiculous, we're not allowed to comment on it now?

No. 8908

File: 1550276861399.jpg (27.07 KB, 500x330, yndnxyf597c21.jpg)

how much longer til we get news on that leech kelly jean's threads? it's been months and nobody has said anything.

No. 8909

>>8907
>>8906
these, i've been noticing this shit happening way more often the last 2-4 weeks or so. it's kind of annoying in my opinion.

No. 8910

>>8904

I write OP's for several threads. I have the OP's I manage in my text files and update them as the thread progresses. Someone sniped one after 1101 posts. I replied that they didn't update the OP and got bitched at for complaining.

No. 8911

>>8902

And redtexting would reduce mods' workload. The same comments won't be reported over and over.

No. 8913

Admin, can you look into the bug that prevents deleting posts within 30 minutes? This was brought up in the last thread, too.

I am using Chrome on Android. I just posted a few images to the Raven thread. After posting three I wanted to delete the second one to add a comment and I was unable to.

No. 8914

>>8913
Weird, I use Chrome on Android and haven't run into this issue. & I delete posts all the time (within 30 min).

No. 8915

>>8911
It actually doesn't make a difference. Farmers still report the same posts even when we do redtext for that exact reason. (and there's usually never report reasons either)
>>8913
This isn't a bug, the only time window to delete posts is the first 30 minutes.
>>8898
>>8906
I know it's a meme but this isn't twitter. Second of all, I placed the ban myself because obnoxious typing styles violate imageboard culture and show a lack of integration.
>>8907
I think you guys just got used to being able to nitpick moo's facial cleanser choices and obesity without repercussions. If you disagree with a ban, appeal it. Crazy nitpicks are being moderated and it should be noticeable. Actually upholding the rule against nitpicking isn't a newfag thing to do.

No. 8916

>>8904
I agree too, but the infighting in Shay’s thread about this is getting insane

No. 8918

>>8917
Maybe it's related to the dynamic IP on your mobile device not allowing you to delete (hence the automatic password generation). If this happens on desktop I'll have to look into it further but thanks for bringing that up.

No. 8923

>>8915

You misread/misunderstand. I am sometimes unable to delete within 30 minutes. This has happened with both image posts without text, image posts with text, and text only comments.

Also, there have been a couple of instances where I posted a series of images, needed to delete three images, but was able to only delete two.

I first posted about it in >>>/meta/6610. Other anons replied saying it happens to them on desktop.

At the time I asked if it was a browser issue because I had just updated Chrome. After that update my browser window reloads every time leave the tab and return to it.

Since then I have come to believe it is more than an issue related to the update. The error is intermittent and inconsistent. And I can close the tab completely and reopen the site and still delete my comment as I did with >>8817.

I posted about it again in the last thread, and Admin did not reply.

No. 8924

>>8923
ntadmin but could it be a problem with the password? jsyk if your ip changes, you clear your cookies, etc. it changes.

No. 8925

>>8924

Does anything I described involve changing IP or clearing cookies?

No. 8926

when will the “moderators” stop being mongoloids? no, when will this website finally get a clue about decent board culture? “autism” is not a ban reason, its pure cringe. i hate to say it but its becoming unbearable to browse or generally be an active contributor because of the fucked up moderation. i don’t get why over the course of the past several months someone decided to run this place like a dictatorship. you can’t post your opinion on anything because it warrants OT ban, you can’t communicate with other users within the thread because it warrants an OT ban, you can’t DISCUSS anything without getting banned unless its mindless shit talking, even if its schizo level tinfoil or just retarded, but that seems to get a pass on most threads for some reason.
there was a time when you could have back and forths with other users and deviate the discussions you have, and most importantly ENJOY posting here instead of feeling like you need to be wary of some horrendous rules which really shouldn’t exist on a chan style imageboard or, god forbid, tiptoe around bitch moderators.

No. 8928

Mods, please delete robot bullshit instead of banning+closing and letting it fester.
Incels get off on thrashing female spaces and their vile hate being read.
No need to mark/red text, just delete and move on.

No. 8929

Someone needs to delete the robot thread in /ot/ so they don’t keep shitposting

No. 8930

>>8928
>>8929
this this this. what's the point of basically archiving this kind of stuff anyways? it just gets them excited to have their shit kept on here, and i'm technologically retarded, but isn't it a waste of mod and admin's money clogging up space with their stupid crap?

No. 8932

I really like how the site is running so far. My only real complaint are new fags who don't post images and link to twitter /IG accounts instead. It's actually really annoying because it keeps happening. They dont screenshot at all.

No. 8933

Holy shit can someone please ban every single one of the retards fighting in the vent thread please

No. 8935

>>8932
in typing 'new fag' you ironically reveal yourself a newfag. peace out, fam.

No. 8936

>>8932
TY and agree.

No. 8937

An increasing trend in minimodding is attempting to shut down speculation with, "Don't give the cow ideas! She's going to read what you said and do it!"

No. 8938

>>8937
oh god I hate that. policing what you can and can't say and using [redacted].

No. 8939

>>8908

Based on the responses of the last Admin, apparently the host provider doesn't understand section 230 and that the US does not have personality protection laws (Kelly claims that publishing her image, regardless of its source, violates the law).

No. 8940


No. 8941

>>8926
don't act like an autist and you won't get a ban for being autistic. It's really not that hard.

No. 8942

can someone please do something about the like 30 posts in shayna's thread about a fucking chipped tooth???

No. 8943

>>8938
The [redacted] thing is so fucking autistic it causes me physical pain.

No. 8944

>>8915
"obnoxious typing styles violate imageboard culture and show a lack of integration."

lmao what the actual fuck … violates imageboard culture should be a meme unto itself, jfc.

>>8939
I am so surprised this hasn't been abused a whole lot more. Is it still the same host?

No. 8945

can something be done about the newphew crush sperg? It continuously derails threads

No. 8946

>>8945
They were banned a day ago.

No. 8947

>>8915
are you a fucking retard, admin? i was with you for a lot of stuff but the meme isn't a typing style that people use to type, it's like being sarcastic. ffs.

No. 8948

>>8947
Are people really still going on days later over what was probably a 30 minute ban? Whew.

No. 8949

May be a good idea to auto-sage the RealStreamNews thread in /snow/. There is never any actual milk and the thread is constantly self bumped by RSN himself with no contribution or his his newfag orbiter losers with their petty interpersonal infighting.

No. 8950

>>8948
lol maybe if admin didn't constantly out herself as a fat normie we wouldn't have this issue.

No. 8951

The new farmhands are obnoxious as fuck. There's nothing more annoying than seeing a thread full of nitpicky redtext. And for the claim that the new admin has been here since the beginning, it sure doesn't seem like it. Gut the whole team, tbh.

No. 8952

>>8951
all the redtext is because of the people itt insisting that every single minute ban needs a redtext
see:
>>8911
>>8902
>>8888
>>8837
>>8827
>>8826
>>8814
etc etc etc

No. 8953

>>8952
Its a tricky one-not all new farmhands are red texting however certain posts will get reported numerous times because anons do not know they have been delt with because of no red text. Damn if you do damned if you dont.

No. 8954

>>8950
>people who don't like my boring fat teenager normie twitter memes are fat normies
Nice logic. Who cares this much about a 2017 spongebob meme thats gonna last for like 3 more months

No. 8956

can a farmhand please take a look at the shay thread? every time someone says something remotely interesting or attempts to get discussion going past 'nasty pussy' they get reamed while at the same time people post not-milky pictures of her walls or her stuffed animals to sperg about the filth. help, farmhands.

No. 8957

>>8956
people are just posting social media updates and others are posting paragraphs of tinfoil that's already been discussed and is tired. none of it is really banworthy imo.

No. 8958

>>8915
>I think you guys just got used to being able to nitpick moo's facial cleanser choices and obesity without repercussions.

I know you're currently getting shit on for putting the kibosh to the Moo nitpicking, but kudos to you because you're absolutely correct. People in that thread were getting so obsessed they sounded like mentally ill cows themselves. I hope one day /pt/ will be readable for me again.

No. 8959

Please ban this person.

>>>/snow/779295
>>>/w/36435

No. 8961

>>8958
This. The bans and strict moderation in the momo thread is justified, the boob vein a-logs there got so used to Dakota stan level nitpicking it just ruined the threads for everyone and made all the posters look like autistic nutjobs. The fanficcing about her got so out of hand that I'd rather have people be banned for constant "speculation" (ridiculous tinfoiling) than let everything pass. The people currently screeching about jnig taking a hand selfie with her sound like all those obsessed jealous thots on twitter constantly "burning" momo with regurgitated milk for social media clout. Momo does enough awful shit on her own, you don't have to make up stuff.

No. 8962

Terrible admin/mod team on this site, it's pretty much dead because people get banned for having discussion. There's no back and forth between users because of the absurd "derailment" bans, only certain opinions are allowed and encouraged and everything else seems to be shot down by both the mods and the mini mods, and banning nitpick on a website full of women bitching about other women is retarded and a guaranteed way to bury the site. Dead site, dead threads.



Delete Post [ ]
[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules ] [ ot / g ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Discord ]