No.21292[Last 50 Posts]
Vote to change the predefined ban lengths to:
Predefined Reasons:
Length - Reason
10m - Responding to obvious bait
30m - Flaming, overly disruptive/hostile posting
1h - Spamming threads with unrelated discussion, spamming the same topic repeatedly
2h - Disruptive identity politics, reactionary thought, et cetera
12h - Samefagging, building false consensus, enflaming arguments by taking both sides
1d - Hysterical, gratituitously offensive, hateful posting, edgelordism etc.
10d - Bait topic, false flag topic, /pol/ spam topic (not machine spam)
30d - Machine spam, advertising spam, gorespam, etc (not off-topic discussion)
(double original ban length) - Ban evasion
Permaban - Illegal content
Second offenses: double time
Third offenses: triple time
Fourth offenses: quadruple time (and so on)
If a user incurs a ban length of over 90 days (through repeat offenses) they may be permabanned at moderator discretion.
NOTE: Mods can still use bans/reasons outside this template whenever they want, this is just a guideline.
Vote will end 03/06/22 5pm.
I vote aye.
No.21293
>>21292Sorry I meant 'I vote aye'.
No.21296
Sounds pretty legit ngl
No.21303
Small print: after this list which is open to abuse, mods can do whatever they want anyway
No.21304
>creating false consensus
So mods have to post with their mod trip for every meta post then or be banned?
No.21308
Abstaining for now, I haven't decided if I agree with these lengths specifically and I think some should be rewritten to be congruent with the current publically stated rules. However think it would be good in general to try out ban presets with an open mind and see how it goes. I agree with pasq and other people's sentiment that becoming too rigid with banning practices would lead to more problems than it would solve.
No.21309
>>21308I have no problem with rigidity, it's just that there is no way to mechanize this process, context is a thing and all that
No.21310
also it's missing rather important things like schizoposting and probably others I can't remember off the dome
No.21312
>>21308<it's shit because me and pask will no longer be able to hand out cringe meme bans that nobody except us finds funny, as well as the random year-long vague "spam" bans that never get elaborated onFTFY
No.21313
>>21312it's just a preset lel
No.21314
also, just to repeat for even the most stupid
there are no permabans
the only really long bans are for illegal content and VPNs that we 100 billion percent know are bad
No.21315
>>21313A preset the decent mods would follow, and the shit mods would ignore. I think we all know which camp you fall into.
No.21316
>>21315A preset is not a rule to follow, you sound confused
No.21317
>>21316I know it's just a guideline. But it's a guideline which your clique is most likely to ignore. Look at the logs, all of excessive 30-50 week long bans for spam and idpol come from a select few mods. The same few mods who are opposing Caballo's proposal.
No.21318
>>21317there are things which are covered and things which are not covered
already explained the "long" bans
rethink your life choices
No.21319
>>21318Spam is clearly covered.
>1h - Spamming threads with unrelated discussion, spamming the same topic repeatedlyEven on the 24th offence of spam, that's only a day long ban.
The long bans are exclusively for illegal content, not spam and idpol.
>rethink your life choiceswdhmbt
No.21320
>>21319>Even on the 24th offence of spam, that's only a day long ban. that would be quite bad then, wouldn't it?
No.21321
also that's like a major misread
No.21322
>>21320I just done the math (high intelligence stuff), and to get a 30 week long ban someone would have to have made over 5000 spam posts.
If you've managed to keep track of that many posts I think you're the one who needs to re-evaluate your life choices.
No.21323
let me repeat one last time: all the long bans are for either illegal content or VPNs we know are bad meaning exclusively used for spam
and no spam doesn't get a one hour ban that is silly
No.21324
>>21323>all the long bans are for either illegal content or VPNs we know are bad meaning exclusively used for spamSo let's check the logs to see if that can be backed up:
<krateshidden2 days/leftypol/Created a new 43-week ban on all boards for xxxx (#9059) with reason: Spam
<pasqualehidden2 days/leftypol/Created a new 3-week ban on /leftypol/ for xxxx (#9048) with reason: american trash
<caballohidden2 days/leftypol/Created a new permanent ban on all boards for xxxx (#9058) with reason: nazi spam (so much for no perma-bans lol)
<wvobblyhidden3 days/leftypol/Created a new 5-week ban on all boards for xxxx (#9029) with reason: schizophrenic infracel
<pasqualehidden4 days/leftypol/Created a new 30-week ban on all boards for xxxx (#9017) with reason: eceleb / trans obsessive spammer
<wvobblyhidden1 week/leftypol/Created a new 26-week ban on all boards for xxxx (#8868) with reason: polAnd these are just from the last week on the /leftypol/ logs.
>and no spam doesn't get a one hour ban that is sillyTake that up with Caballo, it's his proposal.
No.21325
>>21324yes?
these are all spam
normal people just don't get these, why would they?
No.21327
>>21326there's a couple different ones
repetitive messages, in most cases meaningless but doesn't have to be
unwarranted ads
in most cases it boils down to repeating posts that were already banned previously, sounds usually like your average /pol/yp etc.
come on, you know this
No.21328
>>21327In that case, why is Caballo suggesting only a one hour ban for spam, compared to the months long bans that are being given right now?
And would you mind explaining bans like:
<pasqualehidden2 days/leftypol/Created a new 3-week ban on /leftypol/ for xxxx (#9048) with reason: american trash<pasqualehidden4 days/leftypol/Created a new 30-week ban on all boards for xxxx (#9017) with reason: eceleb / trans obsessive spammer No.21329
>Half the ban reasons are extremely vague and more or less impossible to strictly define
>One of the reasons is tantamount to “being mean”
>This list is also just specifically “predefined” reasons, mods will explicitly keep their ability to ban for completely arbitrary reasons, such as their favored “schizophrenia” bans (caught one for making fun of the penny poster in Si/b/eria)
>The first actual post which was critical of the mods was deleted
<This terrible list is sort of the thing Bunkerchan had fo died for
Nice to see the Moditorious is up to the usual shenanigans
Don’t even see the point of this vote when the mods have already stated their intention to retain arbitrary bans; are we just being asked if we want the punishments for breaking incredibly vague rules to be even harsher?
Hope I don’t unironically get banned for stating my criticisms of the new rules or whatever this is
Suffice to say I vote nay but I doubt my vote will matter much anyway
No.21330
>>21324Moody does this but he does it so it doesn't appear in the logs, I've had a 20+ for spam without spamming. He didn't even delete any posts.
No.21331
>>21330Do you have proof of this? I have seen a few others say this but never any screencaps proving it's happening.
No.21332
>>21328>>21328>american trashusual /pol/ spam
>eceleb / trans obsessive spammersorta self explanatory, he is here every day spamming about e-celeb shit and trans issues, pretending to be either trans, part of some org (or "org") and a whole host of other things
pathological lying in its extreme
No.21333
>>21331You can’t exactly prove a negative, i.e. you can’t directly prove that your bans or deletions are escaping mod log somehow because it’s sort of impossible to show that something should be there but isn’t
No.21334
you know what, while you are completely wrong on all counts and a massive faggot, I will vote with you
No.21335
>>21329you know what, while you are completely wrong on all counts and a massive faggot, I will vote with you
(flood)
No.21336
>>21332This is a contradiction of what you said earlier about long bans only being used for bad VPNs and illegal content. Do /pol/ posts also warrant long bans?
<wvobblyhidden3 days/leftypol/Created a new 5-week ban on all boards for xxxx (#9029) with reason: schizophrenic infracelAnd what about this Hazoid? He's not /pol/ or posting illegal content but still got a long ban.
No.21338
>>21333Next time it happens, take a screencap of your ban screen and the board log. That's the only way I can think to prove it.
No.21339
>>21336context
I specifically said /pol/ spam not /pol/ post
lrn2read
you are just trying to annoy me at this point, aren't you?
No.21340
>>21331It just looks like a normal ban screen without the post. If the public facing log pages were upgraded with a sitewide log and search function you would see them.
Also in the log you see him sometimes move things to /gulag/ but then you can't see it there which is pretty sus if you ask me and probably has some unintended use due to shitty imageboard code.
>>21338There's no actual date or time on either so it doesn't prove anything, though proving it doesn't matter because the jannies know it's happening and simply don't care.
No.21341
>>21339Does /pol/ spam count as a long ban? In caballo's OP he only thinks such spam should get a 2h ban for reactionary thought or a 10 day ban for /pol/ topics.
What's up with that infracel ban too
No.21342
>>21341I assume spam of the infracel variety
10 days or 30 barely matters
what are we talking about
No.21345
>>21342<wvobblyhidden3 days/leftypol/Created a new 5-week ban on all boards for xxxx (#9029) with reason: schizophrenic infracelIt was a 5 week ban.
No.21347
>>21344>>21346Whatever.
I wish Caballo and other janitors luck in getting any reform at all through with toxic retards like this on the mod team.
No.21349
>>21347yeah. like whatever man
No.21350
>>21324Hi, that permaban was for a persistent offender who has been banned multiple times.
I'm sorry some people are not liking the proposal, maybe we do need to take it back to the drawing board.
No.21351
>>21350>I'm sorry some people are not liking the proposal, maybe we do need to take it back to the drawing board.Caballo truly is the Obama of leftypol dot org
I can't wait to see how watered down this shit is going to be, and y'all thought it was an ineffective proposal as it is now lol.
No.21353
>>21329To pick this up again at a more fruitful line of discussion.
In regards to the vagueness, take a gander at the attached video, if you will. It goes into the problem of interpretation in the game of football, which is a simple game.
sry for any unnecessary rudeness in the earlier post
No.21354
>>21353Just annoyed because I feel like vaguely written rules are specifically written to be vague; i.e. they are designed to have multiple interpretations and thus be subject to easy abuse
If the mods want to state rules like these they should make them very clear, very
explicit, give examples of posts, and remove stuff like openly keeping the power to dish out arbitrary bans for offenses not stated in the written rules
No.21358
I just find it funny that you guys are gonna have all this talk but everybody involved knows literally nothing will change substantively at all. Even if your vote passes, mods will continue to do whatever the hell they please. You all know this, it’s all any of you have ever done. Why bother pretending? Your hobby is to pretend to make systems for moderating an image board.
No.21359
>>21358This proposal is not intended to be some ground-breaking new step forward for user rights, I don't get why people keep wanting to make it something it's not. It's a minor administrative change.
No.21360
>>21358Sage, did you read the full proposal? I think this part is the most important
> NOTE: Mods can still use bans/reasons outside this template whenever they want, this is just a guideline. No.21361
>>21359> This proposal is not intended to be some ground-breaking new step forward for user rightsYou miss the point, I’m saying, literally whatever system you guys write down in your constitution, will be flagrantly violated by you, the writers, as soon as one of you gets an itchy clicky finger and it has never been any other way.
>>21360Yes precisely. It’s an utterly pointless endeavour. You don’t even follow your own hard rules, why on earth would any of you give a shit about a guideline?
No.21362
>>21361I don’t even get the purpose of asking us to vote on a set of vague “guidelines” they openly state they don’t even need to follow
No.21365
>>21362no one's asking you to vote
No.21367
>>21365The OP says
>Vote on new ban guidelinesIs this just a vote between the mods to decide how we get fucked?
No.21368
>>21367If you wanna call it that
As has been explained and should be obvious, there is no anonymous voting
No.21369
>>21368So
>Users have absolutely no say in how this communist board is run?
No.21370
>>21369Of course everyone is welcome to give feedback
(the people that take this opportunity the most by far tend to have no clue, just how things work out I guess)
Anonymity and voting can not work.
No.21371
>>21370>Anons actually voting on the rules that effect them cannot workLol
No.21372
>>21371how do you suppose anonymous voting would be accomplished?
No.21373
>>21370>the people that take this opportunity the most by far tend to have no cluethis being trivially explained by (self)-selection bias, a force responsible for a great many social ills
Is a real shame
No.21374
>>21372Why not use that site that gives you an encrypted key or something?
I think it’s a bad show to draft up far harsher punishments for much more vague guidelines that mods don’t need to follow anyway and then openly saying only the mods who came up with this get to vote on it as well
This feels like yall are just rubbing it in at this point
And it’s bizarre to post this to hear user feedback and then sort of acting like people are wrong to be critical of this (which is at least the feeling I got)
If anything the rules should be less stringent than they currently are and mods should be forced out of dishing out arbitrary bans; realistically only clear actual /pol/ users or repeat spammers (that is, posting the exact same thing constantly and without relevance to any topic) deserve harsh punishments and those people are very clear by just reading post histories, but regular leftypol users also get targeted
No.21375
>>21374>that site that gives you an encrypted key or somethingwhat? seriously
that one site with the words and the text, you know
One can be critical in a competent way and in an incompetent way, I am not against feedback, just that it tends to be neither well made nor brought forward by unbiased parties and etc. pp., which leads to it just not being good.
I think there are issues, I think it'd be worthwhile to have a discussion but I am missing someone making a serious effort on it.
I believe the point about vagueness I have addressed. I have made the point about outsiders and our regulars myself, I don't think anyone is disagreeing and further it is already practiced.
So it's like, way ahead of there, that's about it.
No.21376
>>21372I have previously suggested system to implement a form of soviet style democracy on the board, I have they saved in long form and about half of the mods at the time I talked to about it.
So don't act like there aren't ways, you just don't want to implement them.
No.21377
>>21376anonymity and voting can't mix.
No.21378
>>21377which is why I have previously suggested firstly the establishment of a room on Matrix for anon's to discuss the board, owned by the posters and allowed to be advertised on the board without restriction by the moderators.
This room would staffed by posters known to be at the very least not polyp infiltrators and bad actors, so, posters in the matrix etc with a long time reputation. Note, not a political affiliation, merely a reputation that they have been around a while and are definitely a leftist and are properly concerned with the future of the board.
From this group, mechanisms can be put in place to define board consensus. From there, either certain verified posters from within this group can be co-opted onto mod team votes, or simply, the view of the majority of the board, unspoiled by mod subversion, can be better ascertained, so as to be presented to the mods.
I agree, anonymity makes subversion, by outsiders or the mods themselves easy, which is why the above system is set out as it is.
No.21379
also inb4 mods claim we already tried this, we didn't, they did everything they could to harrass and attack the room that was made, and eventually deleted it off the board. This took place over a couple of days, in that time the room had more people in it than the mods own room for discussing the board. These are the absolute facts. For anybody still denying it, i've got the screenshots, you have all seen them before so don't bother.
This proves 1) people are interested to be engaged, even in the face of repression 2) the mods are opposed to people being engaged, while they say "it can't work" in fact what they are saying is they don't want it to work.
They will also claim that such a thing can be just done on meta, which is again, them not wanting representation to happen to its fullest extent.
They have previously said "it shouldn't happen because it won't be representative enough" even while they actively squash representational potential.
Everything they say is false, it is merely thinly veiled excuses to hold onto their tinpot system.
No.21380
>>21378this isn't the place to have the same discussion for the 100th time
I talked about self-selection earlier, it is a major concern
If this is a system for something it is not one for polling anon
No.21381
>>21380inherent in your crit of self selection, is that posters may self select people who are opposed to your way of doing things. Perhaps this is what people want. Who can say, a discussion unsullied by subverters cannot take place and has not taken place.
It is 100% a better system for polling board users, than what exists now.
The only reason you refuse to admit that, is because it means the users will have a forum to say they don't like what you are doing, perhaps.
You swing from "absolutely not votes can work" to "this will not include 100% of potential voters and therefore cannot work" in an instant.
breaking one of your own rules it seems:
"enflaming arguments by taking both sides"
so which is it? Votes can never work, or not enough people will be included in the system?
Perhaps you have an alternative suggestion for a more inclusive system?
No.21382
>>21381malicious misreading
there is no contradiction
it cannot work because it cannot be representative (anonymity), you can poll something (you are basically coming up with numbers, not all numbers are meaningful) doesn't mean it has inherent worth.
one last thing, someone does the vetting, it is inevitable but again even assuming some great arbiter of this, selection blabla who cares
No.21383
>>21382There is absolutely a contradiction.
>it cannot work because it cannot be representative (anonymity)representation is not absolute. Something can be more, or less representative. Currently there is zero representation.
I am suggesting a system which has more representation, I have laid out how that could be. You've just repeated the line that it is not representative enough. It is however more representative than the current system.
>you can poll something (you are basically coming up with numbers, not all numbers are meaningful) no, but some numbers are meaningful, what a vacuous statement.
I think it is inherently valuable to know what various users of the board are thinking. Much more valuable than the board being only judged by what mods think, which is a much smaller sample size of people, which is not representative of the average user, because none of these people are average users, they are mods.
>one last thing, someone does the vetting,yes, the posters, selected via previous criteria, do the vetting. It is a very simple task to look in the matrix chat and see if somebody is engaged and has been for a while.
I would suggest having such a group fairly open within those parametres, which would go a long way to stopping self selection. After all, there is a wide variety of people in the matrix chat currently who believe all kinds of different things, therefore, if they are vetting purely based on the idea that this person is acting in good faith, it will yield a variety of results.
Regardless, what harm can it do, to at least try it out? What reason can you give, that this system could not be tested, it costs you nothing but the possibility that I might be right and is obviously more representative than whatever we have now.
No.21384
>>21383representativeness is a specific thing in surveying
so no, something either is or is not that
No.21385
>>21384in a group of 100 people, is it more or less representative to ask 5 random people from this group what they think of a thing, or to ask 55?
We are obviously not discussing specific statistical analysis language and jargon, but in the area of democratic representation, i.e. a representative, what is representative of the general views of a people.
You are telling me you have concerns about representation, so your answer to that is to maintain the system where posters have literally no say at all, and not create a place where posters can merely discuss what they might say, or might build protocols for discerning representation.
I repeat again my final remark:
>what harm can it do, to at least try it out? What reason can you give, that this system could not be tested, it costs you nothing but the possibility that I might be right and is obviously more representative than whatever we have now. No.21386
rep·re·sen·ta·tive
/ˌreprəˈzen(t)ədiv/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Philosophy
Parliament
adjective
1.
typical of a class, group, or body of opinion.
"these courses are representative of those taken by most Harvard undergraduates"
Similar:
typical
prototypical
characteristic
illustrative
indicative
archetypal
paradigmatic
exemplary
Opposite:
atypical
unrepresentative
2.
(of a legislative or deliberative assembly) consisting of people chosen to act and speak on behalf of a wider group.
No.21387
>>21385we are obviously not discussion either specific or statistical concepts
but as someone who has some basic knowledge of it this is just an absurd discussion
you can do what you wish but don't make it my problem
and yeah it's been done
>>21386I told you it was a specific thing don't quote (what looks like an internet) dictionary
No.21388
>>21387It is clearly highly relevant to what we are talking about.
>you can do what you wish but don't make it my problemBut I can't, because I will be harrassed and then deleted after pouring hours into the thing, most which was discussions with various mods trying to exert control over it.
There would have to be guarantees.
>and yeah it's been doneabsolutely insane. See above, and see when I predicted this response
>>21379I'll post the screens if you want. I've done it before and you know I'll do it again.
>I told you it was a specific thing don't quote (what looks like an internet) dictionarythe word representative has several different meanings, you've decided I was talking about it in that way, but I was not.
No.21389
>>21388>absolutely insaneI know you are
No.21390
>>21389so I should post the screens then
No.21391
>>21390I don't know what that means.
Don't spam.
This thread is pretty well over, so it's whatever to me.
No.21392
>>21391the screenshots proving that in fact, it was not tried before, because the mods wrecked it, of which there are many, showing I am not insane, and that denying this happened is in fact insane
No.21394
>>21378>matrix nolifes should decide anythingno. why are people who spend their time on matrix talking shit more qualified to decide things than those who don't?
No.21396
>>21393>>21395Not an argument
>>21394They are not, but we can at least see they are not polyps etc. If others would like to contribute they can join.
No.21397
>>21317You have to be seriously mentally ill to still be trying to dramafag about literally whos years later. Anyways don't derail the proposal thread.
No.21398
I approve the format of the list but not the contents of it. Most of the anons ITT comments are worthless (tempted to D+ Sage) anyway, but the haggling of the spam bans does reveal the need for a different hierarchy of offenses.
No.21400
Proposed amendment: any poster with trip code 61KGLATVW should be permabanned.
No.21403
>>21402delete all posts by IP
No.21404
>>21401I have made multiple different accounts in the leftychan voting room if that is what you are referring to. It's impossible to trully vet people for voting with no ID without making the bar to entry such that the voting bloc does not represent the whole userbase. Either you get a privileged group of users (that probably suck up to the mods or have their own agenda) without even doing any work themselves or you have you have users or brigades from other sites creating multiple accounts to influence the outcome of votes.
No.21405
>>21404How do you have multiple accounts when Matrix only allows one user to have an account per server? Over @ leftychan this is how it runs and it runs ok.
This just sounds like skitzo shit.
No.21406
>>21404Or are you out right lying because everyone who hangs out in that place pretty much knows eachother. The community is so small that something like this wound have been noticed. This just sounds like an out right lie by the mods, lol.
No.21407
>>21405You can just run Matrix in your brower, or have different accounts? Or you could use multiple different types of Riot clients. Or do it on your phone. And so on…
No.21408
>>21404This is the same shit we heard during the split.
No one is actually A: Going to do this for a niche leftist imageb oard community outside of pol and vetting is nearly 100% succesful with these types. and B: this is still way more democratic than anything happening in this place. As was stated prior by sage.
This is the same rhetoric the mods intentionally ignored during the actual split, FYI.
No.21409
>>21407No one is going to do this and you deff have not done this, kek. No one is going to sit around with 3 massive bloated programs open eating up their CPU to rig if an imageboard wants a a new board or not.
Even if it were people would be found out pretty quickly and they would be ejected from the community. This is still just the same bullshit justifications that have been repeated since the dawn of civilization.
"People are to dumb to do anything themselves so give all the power to me and let me do it for you."
>Calling it riotYeah this is deff a mod speaking.
No.21410
>>21406Doubt this is true, the only leftypol mod who tried to join on an alt got caught out after like a day. They tend to glow pretty hard, doing shit like immediately reading all messages throughout the day but not replying etc.
And even if a wrecker was in the voting room, there's enough votes from others to dilute their votes power to the point of insignificance. Most votes aren't close enough to make it count basically.
No.21411
>>21410It's usually pretty unanimous there.
It's mostly mundane votes. Like that's what I don't get. the mods here act like it's such a massive deal when all that happens is literally voting on what boards will be on the roulette wheel, what the default theme should be, etc etc etc.
Extremely mundane shit.
No.21412
>>21411Exactly. It's not like people are making votes for schizophrenic shit that we need the eternal wisdom of mods to protect us from.
As it turns out, a lot of users are equally invested in this community as the jannies are and don't want to randomly destroy it lol. I think that's what the mods here can't seem to understand when it comes to interacting with anons, in fact they're probably the most paranoid bunch I have ever encountered on the internet.
But yeah, we do occasionally get a spicy vote like a new mod or the fbi.gov one, that was pretty contentious. Other than that's it's fairly standard stuff.
No.21413
>>21403for talking about meta shit in a meta thread. Yup, definitely sounds like hinged mods with the boards best interests at heart.
inb4
>heh deleting all your posts would make the board a better place heheboring
>>21404Classic mod "we can't have voting because I would subvert it"
>It's impossible to trully vet people for voting with no ID without making the bar to entry such that the voting bloc does not represent the whole userbase.As i've already said, there are a bunch of long term matrix posters who would qualify. They can then decide vetting methods, which in my view would be: if you can discuss the board in an objective, none toxic, mature way. I.e. literally discuss the board using facts from its history and what we think it should be.
Also it would probably need to be based on a long term contribution, so that the things you say can't happen unless someone is extremely dedicated. But again, these types of people would probably slip up or loose interest and doubly so, because the room wouldn't actually have any power to do anything so it would have to be an extremely long con.
>the voting bloc does not represent the whole userbaseit would represent the userbase who care enough to contribute, which is a fine barrier to democracy to me. Most democracies including the soviet democracy worked like this, nobody was forced to vote.
> Either you get a privileged group of users (that probably suck up to the mods or have their own agenda)that is what runs the board now, the mods and their simps.
>>21407mod again demonstrating all the ways in which they have been duplicitous and acted in bad faith lmao
>>21408>No one is actually A: Going to do thisnobody normal, but, mods would, which is the grand irony. They preach about the great subverisve boogy man being the reason we can't have user input, because that is what they would do, because that is what they currently do.
>and B: this is still way more democratic than anything happening in this place. As was stated prior by sage.thanks bro
No.21414
>>21413>a whole bunch of accusations without evidenceYep, deleting all your posts would indeed make the board a better place.
No.21415
>>21414.. the evidence is them admitting it in this post:
>>21404in fairness, i did assume they were a mod, but so did several other posters.
The mods themselves have accused me of all kinds of things over the years without evidence either so.. yknow
No.21430
>>21401you are welcome to give feedback in the matrix
To sum it up again, even assuming no false play (not an assumption you can make), the people that hang out in chatrooms all day long are not representing anon.
No.21431
>>21410>>21409>>21411love how blasé you are about the possibility of rigging, your defense against getting fucked ends up being that "no one is going to bother"
It's like that Freud joke about the hammer
It really shows exemplary your attitude to politics (such as it is).
Also the experiment on the splitter fbi.gov or whatever ended up with an incel board, so while in this case it really doesn't matter, not exactly inspiring confidence and should inspire skepticism (I understand no one really cares about that place). That is not to say that things would turn out just as fucked up here, it's a special situation over there (again, self-selection)
>>21414a fine example of the issues I have talked about however.
No.21432
>>21396>Not an argument There was no argument brought forward
you wrote you had information that will prove you are not insane, which is funny
btw there has been no such proof forthcoming
No.21495
>>21431So how is the current state of this board looking?
>Down 2000 ips since the split and still falling.>Mods are absolute autistic children and everyone still hates them>Authoritarian dictatorship.Hmmm. It's almost like this is a cover up to divert attention away from the fact that even the worst case scenario on leftychan is still better than the best case scenario on this shit hole, kek.
No.21496
>>21495you are living in a complete fantasy
I suggest touching grass
No.21498
>>21496also not gonna say anything about the undeniable and obvious for all to see fact (no speculation here) that incels have captured your so-called alternative site?
No.21499
>>21495you're free to go to leftychan anytime, oh wait they have like 0.1PPH
No.21502
coma you're a jannie
No.21503
>>21499The PPH there are actually growing, lol.
Unlike this place.
Also, it's clear which board has superior post quality and it isn't this one.
No.21506
>>21505you are a very special boy
No.21507
>>21432why do you fucking morons even bother? We do this all the time, the proof is still on the board, the chats still exist, the former mods who were mods at the time openly admit they did this lmao.
and like I've said before, I've capped the whole thread so its there forever, the proof that you people will just lie and lie and lie and lie.
>>13067>proof>>13067>proof>>13067>proof>>13067>proof No.21508
>>21503why the fuck are you hanging out here then loser.
No.21509
>>21507you are a special boy too
No.21510
>>21504Yeah fuck rosties tbh.
>>21506I'm glad some.one finally realized this. Kappa.
>>21508The same reason I hang out in 4chan. To get my dopamine fix.
This is basically the leftists equivalent of that.
No.21511
>>21430>To sum it up again, even assuming no false play (not an assumption you can make), the people that hang out in chatrooms all day long are not representing anon.its good to see you admitting that mods who hang out in chat rooms all day don't represent anon.
Again with your completely ludicrous and completely insane takes.
"its not representative if the posters have a place to discuss the board and put forward proposals, but it is representative to have a completely unelected body, which has only ever self selected, which provably, regularly attacks the user base in a variety of ways, which has a long sordid history of splits and drama, which openly admits it subverts attempts at democratic process, which actively, provably lies about events, with proof that is on this board right this second, that is what is somehow really representative"
Bat shit. Coocoo gaga land. Don't know how you are actual shameless enough to post the things you do
No.21512
>>21509proof status = posted
mod status = toasted
No.21513
>>21510I actually would like an answer to the question of your incel problem
cause it's something concrete and not fantasy
but hey, I expect nothing from you
No.21514
>>21513like how did it come to be, what did the vote look like and etc.
don't matter
No.21515
>>21514It's legit not an issue
Vote was contested. 6-5 split after an initial failing and a month long wait for a revoot. Little issues have been had. The Most hardline incels are usually shouted down. It's actually not a big deal at all.
No.21516
>>21515>actually no biggieyou can say that, that is a value judgement
but why have the problem at all, that's a conscious decision
No.21517
>>21516so after I post proof you are gonna just pretend it doesn't exist lmao
No.21518
the mind of a mod
No.21519
>>21517proof of it being allowed is what you posted
there is no point trying, is there?
you are repeating the same lies for years, it's some next level shit
No.21520
lmao
No.21521
should I move on to the screens from former mods where they discuss how certain mods actively tried to harass posters off the board just for having opposing views to them?
No.21522
>>21519What happened was, it was originally allowed, then deleted, then I had to rephrase the post to make it more friendly to you mods, because you didn't like the wording, then it was deleted again. In order to get it undeleted the first couple of times I had to spend hours and hours talking to you, which is what that is a screenshot of.
Idiot
No.21523
notice how it says "deleted the thread AGAIN" or are you actually claiming it was allowed to stay up indefinitely and the union was allowed.. meaning the current policy is I can post a union thread and it wont be harrassed? Great ill start today
No.21524
in the face of the proof, the moderator still keeps twisting and twisting reality
No.21525
>>21522bottom line, it was allowed at least for days probably longer (how long do you want to have an advertisement for)
and nothing came of it
there was no goal, so of course nothing comes of it, causality is funny like that
you spending years on being a waste of time is no one's fault but yours
>>21523>your own words are proof of your claimyou do not understand the concept of proof
like holy shit
No.21526
>>21523You can do it on meta anytime, that should be enough to get started
No.21527
>>21516It's not a problem.
Fuck women.
No.21528
>>21526don't, actually
do you know the definition of insanity?
I find that actually tracks very well with the hyper online schizos
>>21527your leftoid board, everybody
No.21531
>>21525hahaha oh so now the story changes, actually it did happen but, it doesn't matter because it came to nothing.
So, you admit then, the thread was deleted, after a couple of days, so, not even enough time for a weeks worth of posters to come by and see it.
>and nothing came of itexcept that, it had more posters in it than your own moderation feedback channel, so clearly people were engaged, and your feeback channel had existed for an extremely long time in comparison.
>there was no goal, so of course nothing comes of it,no, you fucking deleted it you fucking loon.
again and again again you just twist yourself further and further down this weird double and double down.
>your own words are proof of your claimmy words, which are corroborated by the context of you mods not challenging their content MY FUCKING GOD
>>21526ah so now you see, first deny anything ever happened, then when proven that was obviously completely false.
Again, you never answered the question, if it was never deleted, surely I am still allowed to post it? The decision was never made that is wasn't allowed according to you stupid fucking retards.
It won't be seen on Meta as much as it would be on the main board.
Now, all thread you have all told me it won't be representative enough, so, in the interests of representation it should be on the main board.
>>21528>I find that actually tracks very well with the hyper online schizosan image board moderator accuses somebody of being hyper online… k
No.21532
alright this thing will be reworked
this thread is once again monopolized by completely irrelevant shite
No.21533
>>21532perhaps maybe if there was some kind of proper outlet for people to discuss their greivances they wouldnt do it here
No.21534
see what I mean about the selection bias
this thread proves everything I say correct
No.21535
>>21534this thread proves you have absolutely no grasp on reality and now to continue in that vane you have saged it
No.21536
>>21533you don't need an outlet you need a hobby
No.21539
>>21528Lol, as usual. Jannoids can't handle the bants.
You have to resort to censorship in order to twist the narrative in your favor as always. You're sensitive reddit fags to the core.
Though the one good thing the old staff did was force a tor node through that you are beholden to.
No.21542
>>21536I like music, reading, writing, I take part in organising, go drinking and camping with mty friends, have a long term partner
YOU ARE A FUCKING INTERNET JANITOR
i'm convinced at this point that being a janny is a symptom of an anti social personality disorder
No.21544
>>21541>>21543"feedback"
trolling
>>21534which again, not a surprise
>>21370 No.21545
>>21544So criticizing your moderation, the rules, the fact that we have 0 control over anything you do, and participating in this thread for longer than just giving you compliments or a singular soft ball criticism is trolling now?
Muh “self-selection bias”, you are basically saying we’re wrong because we’re criticizing your moderation, and since we’re criticizing your moderation it’s obvious that you’re wrong
Wanna know the problem with claiming this is just self-selection bias? Not a single non-mod has come out to say they disagree with the criticism either
No.21546
>>21545*It’s obvious that we’re wrong
No.21547
>>21545what are you talking about? the issue is trivial to see
No.21548
>>21547What issue?
That the mods are totally unaccountable, frequently arbitrary in their decisions, act incredibly self-righteous, are extremely resistant to criticism as evident by really this entire board but also specifically this thread, and seemingly refuse to listen to users for the most part (again, as evidenced by saging this thread and calling criticisms trolling because apparently the only way you’d listen is if the entire website came here to criticize, even though nobody has actually shown up to defend the mods, which on its own speaks volumes)
No.21550
>>21544I have literally suggested an alternative system whereby posters have a forum to discuss things, how on earth is that trolling?
>>21370>(the people that take this opportunity the most by far tend to have no clue,your words are proof of your claim? Um, honey, do you know how proof works?
LIKE HOLY SHIT
>>21525>>21525>>21525insane
No.21551
>>21549no, wait
I did try to speak to you, have a discussion
there is only so many times we can repeat the same couple points
No.21552
>>21548>apparently the only way you’d listen is if the entire website came here to criticizethis is exactly why they don't want a place where people might potentially organise to do this
You know bosses tend to call unions unrepresentative as well, like, Amazon recently calling Chris Smalls union unrepresentative, for example, Starbucks did the same thing.
Its properly hilarious this how this jannoids act
No.21553
>>21551a discussion isn't where you deny proven facts and then insult the other person, that is you throwing a tantrum.
You aren't arguing in good faith, because you complain that it isn't representative enough, but then do not suggest an alternative, more representative system.
You don't actually want representation, its just a ploy you don't believe in to deny progress
No.21554
>>21553I have explained it to you so many times
No.21555
>>21551What meaning is a discussion that consists of
>We understand your concerns, citizen, but do realize we have your best interests in mind and are doing our best, if you continue to disrupt with your protest we will assume you may be part of the problemBecause that really do be how this “conversation” has felt
No.21556
>>21555protest what?
the voting issue has been explained
No.21559
>>21554your explanation is based on false premises, you have not suggested an alternative system which is better at being representative, or aims to not be self selective or whatever. Therefore, you don't actually care about these things, you are just holding on to control, gatekeeping and so on.
In short, your explanations are incorrect, bad analysis, your mind, is bad.
No.21560
>>21559there is no anonymous voting
this is an anonymous site
No.21561
>>21560yes, which is why I suggested the regular users who can be identified as such can form a body which can be used as a mechanism for feed back
No.21562
inb4
>thats not representative
lmao. The ride never ends
No.21563
endless repetition
No.21564
>>21556Lmao
The way you people react to criticism is pretty worthy of protest
The fact that you think in fact your moderation is above criticism says a lot
The way bans are dished out frequently arbitrarily and the indignant way mods react when users don’t see how obviously correct they are to act this way
Honestly all I even need to say is the very fact that the mods think they should be basically above criticism
No.21565
>>21564they are literally perfect though, their qualifications prove it and after all, they wouldn't have been elected via due diligent process if they weren't
No.21568
>>21564>>21564that would be a meta criticism but not anything concrete
abstract discussion has no real obviously correct and limited utility
No.21569
>>21568>That would be a criticism of us as the whole, considering all of our actions and behaviors, rather than a singular action you can specifically ask us to amend in that exact moment, so it is useless<Actually getting us to consider our behavior as a whole and discussing each aspect worthy of criticism is useless :)What’s really useless is having threads like these (ostensibly about new guidelines) where mods get opened up to criticism when you absolutely don’t intend to heed anything the users say and get angry at being criticized
I don’t even know if this is even general for all the mods or just specific mods, but even here in meta you aren’t using your tags so I have no clue who I’m talking to; which is actually another massive problem, the fact that mods consistently obfuscate which mod you’re interacting with by never having either their specific name on or frequently even the mod tag itself, so basically we users can’t even say which mod(s) we believe is behaving arbitrarily and leading us to criticize, so we just have to generalize the mods as a whole
Honestly I’m surprised you chose to have a public vote knowing it excludes the users and expecting to escape criticism for doing something like this, like, do we actually get to vote on this or do we just watch you vote on this?
No.21570
>>21569>>21569It is not about criticism but the quality of it
as to the voting, I am not explaining it again (no)
No.21572
>>21570What do you even mean by the “quality” of it?
What does that mean?
Are you focusing on the “voting” thing (really people are shitting on this because you’re making your arbitrary power over us obvious, it’s like this is being done just to show we can’t do anything about it)
You’re just outright ignoring what I said about
>Mod behavior>Arbitrary bans>Mods consistently hiding their identity/which specific mod they are I’m guessing so a single mod doesn’t accrue a significant amount of criticism from users>Stating all criticisms are “invalid” or “bad faith” but refusing to explain how or why leaving users to assume it’s simply that you think you shouldn’t be criticized or don’t want to changeAnd since you guys like the voting thing as the issue to 0 in on, man, the problem is that this thread is proof of the arbitrary power you have over this board
>Open up thread about new guidelines only you can vote on>Get annoyed when users complain about this and use the thread to discuss various other issues they have with your conduct>Sage the thread probably to stop other users from chiming in>Talk about deleting all of Sage’s post history for being consistent in his criticismHonestly I’m surprised nobody’s been threatened with bans for speaking freely here and that says a lot
No.21576
>>21413>for talking about meta shit in a meta thread.For turning everything into a personal soapbox. You are like our local Peterson. The only reason we keep you around is to be the canary in the coal mine. If we tolerate you, we can tolerate anyone else.
>>21569Why give you the opportunity to personalize your scapegoats? The mod team has always acted as an unit (if anything the split has forced us to accept that necessity) so doing this is needlessly sowing division within the mod team and undermining unity
>do we actually get to vote on this or do we just watch you vote on this?The latter. /meta/ is more or less a place to archive all our decisions and movements. It is about transparency, not dialogue.
If I wanted to hear people's opinions on the board, posters on /meta/ (especially ITT, I am making a personal note on your IPs to ignore any advise) are the last group I would reach out.
No.21577
>>21570>your crit of me is low quality lmao, really? You think that? Crazy.
>>21576>For turning everything into a personal soapbox.for talking about meta shit in a meta thread
No.21578
>>21576>Why give you the opportunity to say which mod you take issue withAlright then, all the mods are to blame
> The mod team has always acted as an unit (if anything the split has forced us to accept that necessity)By that you mean you split the mod team deliberately on a different website to have a personal clique on a new website and destroyed the original website where users had breathing room and a say due to differences between mods?
>The latter. /meta/ is more or less a place to archive all our decisions and movements. It is about transparency, not dialogue.> If I wanted to hear people's opinions on the board, posters on /meta/ (especially ITT, I am making a personal note on your IPs to ignore any advise) are the last group I would reach out.How can you not see that when you say things like this you completely validate everything Sage is saying?
You’re pretty much openly stating that you created this site specifically to have total control over it and that this specific board is more or less here so the users can understand how little power we have over a website that would be identical to leftychan if we didn’t participate (that is, dead)
And notice how I’m effectively being threatened with a ban for being critical in a thread you allowed users to speak on :)
No.21579
>>21576>>21578You realize that with statements like this you’re more or less openly positioning the moderators as opposed to the userbase?
If you reply to me you’ll probably deny it, but that is what you’re doing, saying you’re a clique above the userbase that has to be unified against the userbase
And since you’re glad to point out people’s IPs, you’re also making it quite clear this isn’t actually about defending from “glowies” or “/pol/“, each of whom would be evident from their post histories, so it more or less is about regular long-time users
Also note
nothing I’ve said in this thread is viciously antagonistic or against any rule, there isn’t a rule stating you cannot criticize the mods, especially in /meta/ No.21580
>>21577>for talking about meta shit in a meta threadSee, this is your problem. You have already made up your mind, all you want is an opportunity to proclaim it. You demand others to be open-minded to your thoughts, yet are so close minded yourself.
>>21578>Alright then, all the mods are to blameIf you say so
>By that you mean you split the mod team deliberately on a different website to have a personal clique on a new website and destroyed the original website where users had breathing room and a say due to differences between mods? Let me assure you, this website doesn't have the mods who kept purge lists and coordinated with others to pressure other mods out of the team like Turbo and Krates.
>You’re pretty much openly stating that you created this site specifically to have total control over itIf you say so.
>You realize that with statements like this you’re more or less openly positioning the moderators as opposed to the userbase? The userbase in /meta/, yes.
>glowies” or “/pol/“, each of whom would be evident from their post histories, so it more or less is about regular long-time usersMy dear, if any post history is glow, it is yours. How else can one explain how someone thinks that "Midichlorians are a spiritual organism and connect with a spiritual energy"?
No.21584
>>21580>Mod sidesteps everything states, ignores that both sides were wrong in the split, and makes a snide joke about a discussion in the star wars thread on /hobby/Yup this was a waste
Just please don’t ban me for being stupid enough to think you actually wanted our feedback with an open thread like this, since begging for you to be reasonable seems to be our only recourse and the preferable one
Have a nice day
No.21586
>>21584>Yup this was a wasteImagine how I feel then.
>Just please don’t ban me for being stupid enoughNobody cares
No.21589
>>21580I’m the one here saying we should have a forum for people to discuss their thoughts, and you’re the one saying we shouldn’t have that, but I’m the one not accepting of other people’s opinions?
No.21590
>>21580>the userbase in meta But you literally aren’t allowed to talk about meta shit on the other boards… so the only people you accept the opinions of are people who don’t talk about them.
You’re a weird narcissist
No.21596
>>21590>you’re the one saying we shouldn’t have thatWhere did I say this? If anything you already use /meta/ as your little 'forum for people to discuss their thoughts'.
>so the only people you accept the opinions of are people who don’t talk about them. Yes. The more opinions you have, the more worthless said opinions are. If I wanted anyone's opinion for free, I would ask.
No.21605
>>21596One that isn’t moderated by you guys, so you can actually be critical without you constantly sperging out and threatening to ban people or actually doing it, or subverting the discussion as you do by posting with mod tags in favour of mod stuff creating false consensus and so on
No.21606
>>21596>the more opinions you have the more worthless those opinions are I’m so glad Marx wasn’t a very opinionated guy you actually lobotomised moron
No.21609
>>21605You want us to provide you a place to whine about us without our moderation? How utopian. Why don't you go to your friends at leftychan to whine about us?
>>21606>Marx created Marxism with a collection of cool and edgy opinionsI guess I am not a Marxist then :^).
No.21612
>>21610The mods keep notes on all IPs. If you're not using a VPN or TOR to post, dunno what to tell you.
No.21621
>>21610>>21612Mods puts notes on some people’s IP. We have had it since we moved from bunkerchan.
I don’t think you understood what I meant by purge list. Watermelon and Zul kept purge list of people within the mod team to eliminate or shun. That isn’t comparable to us putting notes on people’s IP for coordinates modding.
No.21622
>>21610bans are notes
the notes are in the "system" i.e the software such as it is
No.21623
>>21621Pasquale also kept lists of people to harrass and attack with the deliberate purpose of pushing them off the board
No.21624
>>21609> You want us to provide you a place to whine about us without our moderation? How utopian. Why don't you go to your friends at leftychan to whine about us<How dare you want the ability to discuss our moderation without us being able to silence you for criticizing us!Literally reddit tier
>>21621Why would users care about inter-mod drama? You’re telling us about things that effected YOU, not US
Just like you absolutely don’t give a shit about the terrible things mods here do to us, why would we ever care when you lot experienced the exact same loss of power and being brought down to where we are?
Is this supposed to make us sympathetic? You all outright brought down Bunkerchan because you couldn’t have absolute power yet won’t even allow us to criticize you as mods, you’re really acting like we should care about that feud at all?
No.21625
>>21624what terrible things? where do you people get this shit from? nothing but actual insanity
No.21626
>>21625>Entire board for people complaining about mod behavior<What terrible things?From the people who brought you such hits as:
“If we can’t control Bunkerchan, no one gets to use it!”
No.21630
>>21621>Waternelon and zul kept purge lists of people in the mod team. Proof?Also,
>>21624There's absolutely nothing but your own hot air to support this claim btw. You're just trying to generate mad up excuses for your shitty behavior and blame it all on the boogie man at leftychan. It's propaganda.
No.21632
>>21631I'll repeat bans are notes
if you ever worked you'd make notes inevitably
as bans are notes
there is a note on the IP as a consequence of a ban
fuckin hell
No.21634
>>21633this screenshot you posted is from bunker so first of all that's a lie
second that wasn't the point, bans are notes also
how is it possible to get this much wrong in this short a shitpost
No.21635
>>21628I have been informed so by former mods. Yes mods more than one. I’ll go and get the screens if I can be bothered but you’d just deny is anyway with some cope even if it posted them
No.21636
>>21634No it's not from bunker this is from this very website supported by lainchan software. Lies and lies and lies.
No.21637
>>21634Also, bans have notes attached to them, but, notes kept on user ips is very abnormal.
No.21638
>>21637wrong
>>21636it might indeed be lainchan. I mixed them up cause there was only one split of note. the second one was a completely pointless shitshow. the dates on there tell their own story.
No.21639
>>21638It's not wrong, lol. This is a lie. You have no idea who you are talking too, kek.
I can show you examples of katsuba and lainchan, I mean, it's open source software.
Bunkerchan ran on lynx chan not lainchan software.
No.21640
>>21639>You have no idea who you are talking toopretty sure I do
but what's important is I am talking to an idiotic animeposter
No.21641
>>21631Those are the notes we talked about earlier.
No.21642
>>21635Do it then. I want to see if it was Turbo or Spragga coz I will believe them.
No.21643
>>21641Yeah they are "notes" being kept on peoples ip addresses which is basically harvesting user data, lol.
They aren't just "notes" they are literally de-anonymizing users, more or less.
>>21640Clearly not because you think these came from bunkerchan, lol
No.21647
>>21646ok? Imagine how stupid you are then, kek.
No.21648
>>21647you aren't just retarded but also a twat
No.21649
>>21648I'm a twat who knows what he is talking about unlike you. unless this is one of the jannies who are just out right lying.
No.21650
>>21649yes you are the first and you literally do not
No.21651
>>21650You will never be a woman.
No.21652
>>21651well, it was already clear to everyone that you're a piece of shit, you didn't have to confirm it
No.21660
>>21657you are less than human
Unique IPs: 23