/meta/ - Ruthless criticism of all that exists (in leftypol.org)

>>42797
>There is a site that hosts lolicon porn permanently linked on the top bar

Do you mean GETchan? They're gooners and so on, but I guess after everything they're still family.

I am not a mod though so I can't really answer, but can't you just do ur thing in GETchan and come back here when ur done?

>>42800
That's not my point, I could understand if mods didn't want lolicon porn on this site specifically, but having the hotbar link straight to a site with lolicon porn, when the mods are banning anons for mentioning or linking to it, or even SFW content tangentially related to it, is a strange double-standard, and it bothers me that there is no obvious explanation for it.

pedos and zoophiles getting btfo is a good thing

>>42802
> when the mods are banning anons for mentioning or linking to it, or even SFW content tangentially related to it
What

>>42804
he's crying because people (or he) got banned for defending pedophilia

>>42805
Lolicon isn't pedophilia

>>42805
Read rule 14.

>>42806
it's a legal issue regardless of whatever else it is

>>42812
Lolicon isn't illegal, sexual depictions of minors are (In some jurisdictions.) Obviously lolicon falls under that, but hentai that is demonstrably of a character who is under the age of consent but not a loli is often uploaded to this site without issue, despite being illegal. (I.E. Asuka from NGE.)

Saying verbatim "I am going to kill the president of the United States." Is a crime in the USA, but no mod would seriously consider removing that. (I hope.)

>>42797
>I'm trying to be considerate
Rookie mistake. Mods aren't people. They're sociopaths and lunatics and should be pinned down and inhale the fart tubes until they choke on their own vomit
>>42812
Liar. Moderating in itself is the crime being a compilation of defamations, assaults, harassments, and instigating retaliation.

Also it's no secret moderators 99% of the time are pedophiles. Literally projection.

Don't even bother arguing with me about what is or isn't, I won't participate.
I want moderators money. I want the court to recognize them as terrorists, I want them homeless, I want all their pathetic door dash or wherever the fuck they work's wages as compensation

To build my vape empire
So I can sell vapes to minors
Because I do think kids should be smoking not fucking
Mostly to piss you off but also so they grow up with higher testosterone levels. It's biology, look it up.

Because mods are moralists, simple as. Pearl clutching ovet drawings is the same as pearl clutching over what people may be thinking or imagining. Pure pearl cluthing! and even a bit idealist and lib-brained (believing that an abstract idea will translate into a material reality rather than vice reversa)

>>42811
Why do they have to be equally bad for both of them not to be bad.

>Explicit footage of child porn
<Explicit footage of bestiality
Yeah, like one of them is worse. Doesn't make the other good.

I swear to god you get most of the kicks of your fetish arguing with everyone calling you a sicko. I mean that makes sense, I think most people into CP and other illegal content are mostly into it for the thrill of the taboo and the illegality, and feeling like a scum bag, so it's natural that a large component would be broadcasting it to the world so you can get your fresh dose of verbal denigration for your degenerate pastimes.

In 24 hours not one mod could be spared a few minutes of time to answer a simple question, not in this thread, the other threads made in the past days OR in the meta thread.

>>42831
Seems they did it again…

A brat thread was removed over night. But this thread stays up >>>/siberia/702046
Seems like you can mention/reference lolicons only if you make fun of them, or think they should all die/be executed. UNLESS you make mention of GETchan while doing it, then you also get removed. Can anyone help me understand this logic?

>>42815
If I tie up you in a chair and slowly open cuts in your skin, wouldn't you prefer that it never should have happened? You can say that morality is abstract, but abstract things & fiction are real & thought.

>But what if the universal law governing atomic particles directly translate for each human with different material combination and condition to have a different thoughts and moral outlooks??

And how in this logic we reach the conclusion that morality is 'meaningless' ?

>A causes B, so B is meaningless

It does not make sense at all

>>42797
You are rapeuyghur, arent you?

>>42841
He is reformed into consentuyghur now.

Mod here, we can do whatever we want lol fuck you.(Rule 4 - impersonating staff)

For context, I don't moderate the entire website. I am mostly in charge of specific boards and threads. Let it be know that I represent only myself here. The staff is not divided, but we are not a monolithic entity either. We disagree on policy sometimes and talk about it often. We convince each other of our positions all the time, and we also sometimes just agree to disagree on certain points.

I don't know why that anon was banned, but I'd like to use this case to speak on something I feel like is important for users to understand better how moderating works, as that may avoid frustration from both parties going forward.
I once read an anon say that "the foundational unit of an imageboard is not the poster, it is the post". While this is a sound logic, in practice this does not follow. Most Leftypol users do not break the rules, and the majority of posts that do break them belong to a minority of very loud posters with a lot of free time on their hands (more free time than I have, anyway). In this past month, I have banned multiple IPs, but I don't think I've banned more than 5 real human beings in total.

When the staff hands out a ban, we are more heavy-handed to repeating offenders and troublemakers in general. On the other hand, we tend to be more lax to users who mostly follow the rules by handing out shorter bans or just deleting the post and letting it slide if it's not too egregious. If a user is always on the edge of breaking the rules, by making inflammatory comments and acting in bad faith, we keep a close eye on them. We also sometimes accept ban appeals that, while the ban was deserved, the user has a good post history and shows commitment to not do that again. I've also accepted appeals from bans that were honest mistakes from a member of the staff, this is not common (for me at least), but it has happened before. It is possible that this poster has broken a rule in other posts but, amidst their post history, the moderator clicked on Ban in that specific post, even if that singular post does not contain a violation, a recent post of theirs might.

About lolicon content, it upsets me a little that some posters think it is a position made out of moralism. While it could have been the case and it wouldn't be any less legitimate for it, there are many reasons for this content to be forbidden:
>an arbitrary, aesthetic preference (e.g. some imageboards prohibit specific out of aesthetic conformity)
>a decision guided by optics (semiotics is important)
>a decision made out of compliance with the services used to host Leftypol
>a decision that respects the will of the majority of the userbase
Please think through why some rules exist instead of coming up with the most bad faith, convenient explanation of why people you presumably dislike do things that you disagree with.

>I'm making a whole new thread on this because mods never answer any questions in the meta thread
This is not true. I often reply, I just don't like using the mod tag, as I try not to speak from a position of authority (in the colloquial sense). I also avoid speaking about bans I did not issue and threads I do not moderate.

>>42892
I want to genuinely thank you for making a long and thought out reply, and for better illustrating the effort that goes into moderating. It makes it much easier to have sympathy for your actions and understand why they take the path that they do.

>This is not true. I often reply, I just don't like using the mod tag
I assumed that this was the case in some situations. But this has its own issues. If a mod responds to something without anyone being able to tell they are a mod, their input is significantly easier to accidentally dismiss as just another anon assuming, or placing themselves into a situation. The feedback meta thread has had no obvious input by the mods for over a month, and no real questions or concerns answered. And as an example this anon >>42888 I had no way of knowing if they were seriously a mod or not so I just reported anyways, I was half expecting them to be serious at this point.

>About lolicon content, it upsets me a little that some posters think it is a position made out of moralism. While it could have been the case and it wouldn't be any less legitimate for it, there are many reasons for this content to be forbidden
To be perfectly clear, I don't think lolicon porn should be allowed, or at the very least, I simply don't see any more reason for why it should be allowed, than not. My question in OP is: Why does seemingly just mentioning it or even having a serious discussion about it, appear to be banned de facto. I gave examples such as an anon linking to a slice of life manga with the word "shota" in the title being removed. This could be reasoned as a genuine mistake on a moderators behalf, but it raises some questions, like why would simply linking to loli/shota content be grounds for removal, when there is a site that hosts lolicon porn permanently linked in the top bar? This is a politics site primarily, but politics often overlaps with matters like morality, philosophy, legality etc etc. Is it not strange that of all matters to arbitrarily limit discussion on, lolicon would be one of them? Why shouldn't users be able to freely discuss why something is wrong, or should/not be acceptable? It is easy to rely on a priori arguments like "Its self-evidently bad" or "It's trivial truth" but those don't really hold up under the ruthlessly critical lens of materialism.

>Please think through why some rules exist instead of coming up with the most bad faith, convenient explanation of why people you presumably dislike do things that you disagree with.
I have thought about it though, more so than anyone should reasonably have to, mostly because I have to much time on my hands. I genuinely don't believe I am acting in bad faith here, I am trying to understand why these actions are taken, and ruling out any explanations that I can possibly think of through deductive reasoning. I have already thought about every single point you brought up, and although its not directly relevant to my main concern, it still interests me to discuss. So I'll go through these points, but this is not intended to be an argument for why the rules "ought" to change.
>an arbitrary, aesthetic preference (e.g. some imageboards prohibit specific out of aesthetic conformity)
This would make sense if the site was a squeaky clean, strictly politics and serious discussion site, but it really isn't. And we literally have a loli character as our mascot.
>a decision guided by optics (semiotics is important)
The first thing anyone sees of this site will undoubtedly be its mascot, who is a little catgirl. (And who some have come to this site specifically for.) I do not mean to imply that having a loli mascot necessarily means that loli porn should be considered "good" or "ought" be accepted in any way, but I find it hard to believe that restricting discussion around lolicon specifically, would be in order to signify some sense of legitimacy or respectability (Too who?), considering the context in which it is done. And if this was the genuine concern, the discussion part should be the least of anyone's worries, considering everything else. For example, whenever GETchan is mentioned in connection to this site, some anons crawl out of the woodwork to accuse them of being pedophiles, and the mods of being in cahoots with them, whenever the mods log on they sweep away these sentiments as if they never happened, now I don't know why they do this, but I would assume it's simply because those anons are acting in bad faith and really annoying, but if it's done for "optics" I have to say it really doesn't make the site look better, from a random anons perspective it actually looks shady as fuck. May I also remind that r/socialism banned catgirls in general for very similar reasons, something that I remember being used as a rallying cry for this sites comparative freedom.
>a decision made out of compliance with the services used to host Leftypol
This is the most obvious explanation to me, and the one I was under the assumption of for some time. I don't know what the terms of service for Leftypols providers are, but I illustrated here how the mods approach may be very sloppy >>42813 Basically if sexual depictions of minors are banned (And I would assume that they are.) Mods are doing a bad job of enforcing this rule. I've reported lewd artwork of NGE characters under the age of consent before, to varied results. I don't know if moderators agree where the line is drawn but I would hope their service provider is more clear on the rules than Leftypols rules are. (If the hosting provider very clearly prohibits loli specifically, but not minors in general, I'll have to take it up with them I guess lol.) Also there is literally loli hentai in an old thread on the anime board, that has been up for over five years now. I wonder what your service providers would say?
>a decision that respects the will of the majority of the userbase
If the mods put forth a rule arbitrarily banning something, and claimed it represented the will of the majority of the userbase without further evidence, I would assume the rule was made in bad faith. As an aside: The mods banned "feral" porn without any clear purpose or reasoning, despite the majority of users who commented on it, doing so only to protest its ban. One anon even thought the rule had been lifted when it left the ordinances, even though it was stuck to the rules proper.

TLDR: I don't want to look at loli hentai, and if I really did I would go to a porn site. I don't even want the mods to change the rules necessarily. I just want to be able to have serious discussion about lolicon and adjacent topics, even if it isn't that serious of a subject matter. This isn't reddit. (Also I wish the mods were less sloppy with post removals and bans, but knowing more about what goes into how they operate, I can't fault them, nobodies perfect.)

>>42897
No problem.
>I genuinely don't believe I am acting in bad faith here
I don't think you are. I worded it in a general manner, there are posters who behave as mentioned. I'm sorry for the confusion.
>And we literally have a loli character as our mascot.
It's debatable as whether this is the case. "Loli" refers to a very specific aesthetic. Even so, not everyone would agree on Alunya's age.
As to avoid having my reply too green, I'll talk generally about some of the concerns you raise, which are completely reasonable FYI.

>about pornographic lolisho and sexual depiction of underaged anime characters
We constantly tiptoe around what's permissible not only by law but also by the service providers that we use. This is an issue for us because those restrictions are often arbitrary, judged on a case-by-base basis, and non-negotiable (worst case scenario, Leftypol gets shut down for a while); and not only that, but they (our service providers) are not 100% clear on what they don't allow. You raise an interesting point: why is pornography of, say, Hatsune Miku, who is often depicted as a minor, not banned? The simple answer is: it hasn't gotten us into trouble, yet. The plausible justification of "this character is illustrated as an adult here both in age and in secondary sexual characteristics, regardless of their canonical age" does a lot of heavy lifting. If this sounds too arbitrary to you, don't worry, it's not just you. That's just the way these things are enforced, and this is out of my control.
Another thing that I have to point out is that it's not because something is permissible by law that it is permissible by the terms of use of a service provider. Often, they play it safe and try to save their butts first and foremost. They can't afford a margin of error. That's just how their business is.

>about discussions on the ethics or legality of lolisho
I don't think these are outlawed, unless it's a metathread that should be here instead of the other boards. But they are often very inflammatory (i.e. full of bait, falseflagging, etc), and often devolve into apologetics for pedophilia and real CSAM. I don't blame the staff for straight up bumplocking, locking, deleting these threads etc, but if you really want to talk about it, I can open the discussion with the rest of the staff and see if I can get it to work. Do be aware that it's such a sensitive topic to everyone that it'd be hard to hold a productive conversation.

>about optics
I do believe it's important. But my opinion on this is not the majority among the staff as far as I know. I won't delve further into this because it's very subjective and talking about this wouldn't be insightful. Let me clarify that I only mentioned this because it's something I care about, I don't honestly think it's our policy, and I don't delete nor ban because of optics.

>on the will of the userbase
We have tried conducting polls here but the results are not that helpful since multiple IPs can ban. A while ago we had a poll asking if the moderation was too lax or too strict and the results were very mixed: anons that post dubious pornography and shitpost complain that it is too strict, and anons that want to talk about politics complain that it is too lax. I do see a lot of anti-porn and anti-lolisho opinions though, but you'd have to take my word for it. As for most posters, I think they just don't care/think about it. You can always hide images and threads on your end after all.

If there's anything else I can help you with, let me know. I'm not logged in as a mod right now but I'm the same mod you replied to.

>>42898 (me)
My tone might give you the impression I think all shitpost is bad. I don't. This isn't Reddit and I wouldn't want it to be, either.

>>42811
left one is worse, they are both bad and disgusting
>all it takes to take down the brain mush porn addict argument is to remove one word

>>42898
>I worded it in a general manner, there are posters who behave as mentioned.
Quite understandable.
>loli character as our mascot.
>It's debatable as whether this is the case.
I'm aware it is debatable, I probably should've mentioned that. I've seen anons argue about it before, and while I would categorized some well known depictions of Alunya that way, I'm aware there are also many (maybe even most.) artworks of her that are really not close to loli at all.

>about pornographic lolisho and sexual depiction of underaged anime characters
What you touch on here generally puts the moderators actions in a much more reasonable light overall, from my point of view, and makes it easier to understand why it is like this way. Personally I am really not aware of all the intricacies that go into maintaining a website and appeasing hosting providers (especially for a site like this.) but I know sites can be taken down for often nebulous reasons.

>about discussions on the ethics or legality of lolisho
I am well aware that they are very inflammatory discussions to have, and historically I would stay well away from related topics for those very reasons. But recently, in the light of events like reactionary group collective shout working to criminalize any fictional depictions of rape and incest, as well as the classic book bannings/restrictions and so on, I have become more concerned with questions like "where does freedom of expression end, and abuse begin?" and "do these events set a precedent that could be used to censor radical political content, IE expression about overthrowing an existing state?" which I think are very poignant topics for leftists to discuss. I was considering making a proper discussing thread on /siberia/ probably, but I would want to take more time to put effort into an OP rather than just making a thread that reads
>ITT: loli, good or bad? discuss

>about optics
I understand bringing it up as it was something I even thought of when considering why/how the rules ended up where they are. And while maybe it's different conversation to be had, I don't think its a bad thing to keep in mind.

>on the will of the userbase
I do actually remember the thread on that poll, but I didn't notice there was an actual poll you could vote in. But I echo all your concerns here. I also have seen a general anti-porn sentiment, for a while, but in my discussions with them they usually don't discriminate.

>>42899
Well when I think about it now, a lot of the posts referencing/mentioning lolicon I have seen get removed were just low effort shitposts, rather than more serious attempts at sparking discussion.

And that raises one last question I'm curious about, although less important to me personally. And I don't know to what extent you will be able to give a definitive answer, which is fine. But to what extent would shitposts that simply make reference to lolicon related tropes/media/whatever be prohibited? Like obviously the explicit pornography, and probably outright "provocation" of lolicon-"isms" would be removed, or at least strictly limited. But as an example: >>42839 A very low effort, cringe, shitpost (I don't remember exactly what it was, just that it had few words, and "brat" used in that way lolicons do in memes.) was removed. It clearly wasn't pornographic, but it was implicitly evocative of lolicon themes. Or anons simply posting a reply in a thread like "I like lolicon." Would those kinds of posts fall under an existing rule or just be up to moderator discretion? And would it be better if anons who post such things simply refrain from doing so?

>>42901
So sorry for the late reply.
>But to what extent would shitposts that simply make reference to lolicon related tropes/media/whatever be prohibited?
The mods apply their discretion as to enhance the quality of Leftypol, but that's inevitably going to end up in a subjective process. When someone else on the staff disagrees on something, a discussion sparks out until it's politely resolved or put to a vote.
The problem (as I see it) with fostering pro-lolicon sentiment and inside jokes from these subcultures is that it ends up with something like 4chan: "you can be a pedophile, you just can't post pedophilic content", or "you can be politically incorrect, you just can't organize hate crimes". How is that going to end, when every other palatable corner of the internet has zero tolerance to not only fringe content but apologetics for them? This subculture will start congregating here and their behavior, over time, will seep into other aspects of the forums. Let me remind you that /pol/ was a containment board and nowadays it's the cultural powerhouse of 4chan, infecting all other boards with their culture over the years and forcing older, non-complying users to pack up and leave since the staff won't take their side. Does that make sense? But again, that's my position only, you'd have to ask every member of the staff individually. And for transparency's sake, it wasn't me who banned that anon, I'd only have deleted the reply/thread and left it at that if they didn't force the issue.

>>43007
Since your online I'll copy this here:

Are the mods going to address why they added ordinance 8 to rule 10 rather than remove it entirely as promised? It's been more than 6 months and now there's actual bans over this shit that should've been snuffed out in january.

>>43008
I didn't partake in the discussion regarding this and I wasn't aware that it was promised to be removed. I'm guessing it has to do with compliance. If our service providers decide something is an issue, we have to comply, even if on short notice. But this is just a guess and I can't give you a proper answer.
Now, I know you don't need to justify yourself or anything, but I just have to ask, out of curiosity, and as a fellow anon rather than as a mod: why even bother? This is a niche imageboard themed around politics. What would make Leftypol particularly desirable to share and download any type of pornography, let alone fringe pornography? I imagine there are other imageboards, or boorus, or maybe other communities to share and view this content. Honestly curious. This seems such a non-issue to me, since I talk about different topics in different places rather than on here.

>>43009
That's the thing: the "why bother" lands on the rule itself, not the opposition to the rule. Feral is a purely an art term to describe physiology, because on literally any other website that hosts nsfw furry art people can tell that a character with that physiology could be a sophont, because the sophont/non-sophont destinction is the kernel of what count as bestiality, and we already had a rule banning bestiality.

I'm not telling you to get rid of rule 10, rule 10, minus ordinance 8, is good and normal to have. What I and several others have explained is that banning feral has nothing to do with leftism and makes the site significantly more fringe than if it didn't ban feral, because it's such a oddly specific exception for a site to make I've literally never seen any other site do.

I strongly encourage staff to check with your site host or whatever is potentially being complied with to see if it really isn't allowed. If it is the host, state or such that's the problem then I don't think anyone would begrudge that as long as that's specified, and if the rule was removed once such conditions changed (i.e. moving servers, host/state/etc… changes terms of use/laws/etc…)

>>43007
Thank you for replying. I have no idea if that anon was even banned, just that the thread was removed.

>How is that going to end, when every other palatable corner of the internet has zero tolerance to not only fringe content but apologetics for them?
I understand this sentiment, but personally a lot of the points you bring up feel like slippery slope fallacy. I do not mean to imply there should not be any lines drawn on what is acceptable, like I think this thread made a good point about nazi infiltration: >>42828
Ultimately it is subjective like you say, for me, I never realized lolicon was widely considered "fringe" until quite recently, I always thought of it as simply a genre of anime and hentai like any other. Of all the places on the internet I used to frequent it rarely came up, and the ethical objections were often waved away as non-issues. It seems only recently I've had the idea that it's widely considered fringe beaten into my head by the vast amount of palatable corners of the internet I used to frequent, suddenly banning it, hiding it, or simply disappearing altogether. What is and isn't a "palatable" corner of the internet is also ultimately subjective.

Not to butt-in to this conversation, but I am personally interested in the status of ordinance 8 as well.
>This seems such a non-issue to me, since I talk about different topics in different places rather than on here.
This is generally the conclusion that I came to as well, but every time the topic comes up, I really have to echo this anons point.
>>43010
>That's the thing: the "why bother" lands on the rule itself, not the opposition to the rule.
It is simply such a strange thing to ban in specificity. Unless of course it were matters of compliance with a terms of service, in which case, I would be genuinely more concerned over such a draconian hosting providers ability to censor legitimate political discussion for being too radical, seeing as that is the primary purpose of the whole site.
>I strongly encourage staff to check with your site host or whatever is potentially being complied with to see if it really isn't allowed. If it is the host, state or such that's the problem then I don't think anyone would begrudge that as long as that's specified, and if the rule was removed once such conditions changed (i.e. moving servers, host/state/etc… changes terms of use/laws/etc…)

And I was actually going to ask basically this exactly. I know a mod made mention of something similar in another thread: >>42935
>we doubt that more explicitly outlining them in the rules will make people suddenly start obeying them. We've tried overly-verbose rulesets before and it just makes them more likely to be ignored if anything
I think it's important to explain things to users, to try and help them understand why they need to follow the rules. If this had been the case already, I might not have needed to make this thread in the first place.

>>43010
>>43012
About "feral", it seems it was decided as such because it was deemed inappropriate for the forums. I imagine this is not the answer you'd want to hear, but while I wasn't involved in the decision, I honestly agree it's kind of unsightly and I don't think there'd be much interest in bringing it back, both from the staff and from the userbase, considering I've only seen you two talk about it. I don't know who allegedly promised to get rid of it but it doesn't seem like this is happening. But while I find it unsightly, I have no ill will, really. I'm sincerely sorry. I don't think this is as fringe as some other stuff so I'm sure there are boorus and forums more appropriate for it.
About other content and compliance: we talked (briefly) and, to keep it short, changing host provider and cybersecurity service is a costly, time-consuming, and difficult endeavor. For now, it doesn't seem like complying has brought any major losses to the core of Leftypol (left-leaning political discussion and occasional shitposting), but this is not out of the table if things start getting unviable in the future. We just want to avoid it if/while it's possible. It's also worth noting that any host or cybersecurity service provider that "protects free speech" is likely to be ideologically opposed to our purpose as a website, so it's not guaranteed that it would work out well for us.

Okay, I cannot help but feel one of the mods on /siberia/ has a marked bias towards removing threads with a sexual subject matter.

I made a thread about a femdom sexual fantasy written from a first person point of view and presented as a question, it got removed without reason. I asked about it in the /meta/ thread, but nothing. Alright then, I thought maybe it had something to do with the attached image, it was NSFW but it was properly spoilered. Anyways, I reposted the same thread with a different image about a day later, not wishing to spam the board. I get banned for "low quality posing." What the hell? The thread was not low quality, it had a higher word count than 90% of the threads the /siberia/ for gods sake.

Okay, so I thought if that counts as "low quality" I'd play a little game of malicious compliance, and I went through the first couple pages of the board, and reported every OP that had a lower word count than my thread for the same rule 11 violation my thread was removed for. I get banned for report spam. Fuck, okay fine, I deserve that, but I'm getting frustrated here.

I know I'm not owed an explanation from anyone, but I have never encountered such behavior in all my previous years of shitposting on /siberia/. I just want to understand what the issue is here. It's bugging the hell out of me!!

>>43024
I deleted it because it had one of the Kagamine twins in underwear as the OP image. IDK why other instances were deleted.

Really? I thought they were wearing jorts, I just grabbed a random image from google. If I reposted it with a properly modest image would it be allowed?

>>43023
>I've only seen you two talk about it
Just back read the ordinance thread, there was tons of anons voicing their complaints back when it was first passed.

Also to be perfectly clear, I don't actually care about "feral" specifically at all. I was just holding out hope that the mods would have a more reasonable explanation for unilaterally banning something than just "its bad vibes, bro." But, my hopes have been dashed. This place isn't too different from Reddit after all.

>>43027
>I deleted it because it had one of the Kagamine twins in underwear as the OP image.
Also, since when is posting a picture of an anime character wearing underwear grounds for not only removing the thread, but banning me as well?? And even if the image was problematic, why wouldn't you just remove the image and not the whole thread?

Not gonna lie, i dont care about lolis

>>43029
I don't know much about reddit but you can go there if you think it's the same thing. Dont forget to close the door when leaving

>>43023
I know for certain that https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/ allows feral stuff and is run by non-chuds, they host some chud sites but in a spiteful way where they'll allocate payments from particular flavors of chuds to charities they know the chuds don't like, check maning them to either leave or run counter to their own beliefs (i.e. transphobic sites end up giving money to the Trever Project)
So they should be chill with ya. Don't know how their prices compare to your current host tho.

>>43033
I'll pitch this, but no promises. Thanks

>>43031
What kind of reply is that lol, if youre mod thats pathetic. The current direction this site has been going the last few months is pathetic. Why do the mods constantly do stuff that nobody asked them for?

SO I got a week long ban for "irony poisoning" because I posted a cringey meme about lavrentiy beria I found online, Thankfully my appeal was accepting, ty mods.

>>42892
>When the staff hands out a ban, we are more heavy-handed to repeating offenders and troublemakers in general. On the other hand, we tend to be more lax to users who mostly follow the rules by handing out shorter bans or just deleting the post and letting it slide if it's not too egregious.
In the past week, I've gone from never being banned before, to having been banned like 4 or 5 times. I got banned once for (I assume?) a mod mistakenly thinking I was ban evading, then I got banned for posting a thread that did not break any rules with no reason given, next I got banned for spamming reports. (This is the one ban I can actually understand why it was issued, as I was clearly engaging in disruptive and rule breaking behavior, and I am sorry about that.) But now I have been banned for simply posting memes I thought were cringey????
>>42892
>Most Leftypol users do not break the rules, and the majority of posts that do break them belong to a minority of very loud posters with a lot of free time on their hands
And the majority of my posts that were removed didn't break the rules, and the majority of bans I got were baseless…
So is it possible I am being profiled as a "troublemaker" because I have already been banned multiple times by mistake? Or because I'm criticizing the mods more than usual? This is the same kind of posting I've been doing since 2019, and very suddenly it feels like I'm treated as a pariah for it.

Back reading this thread, I really can't keep hold of the respect I had for this site and it's moderation, while at least one mod was genuinely patient and made a very kind attempt to explain their actions to me, which I really do appreciate. All of the questions I had originally made this thread to ask have been mostly left unanswered and the moderation's behavior have made me assume the worst of them.

The one mod who was explaining things to me did say they were not the one to remove references to "problematic" material,
>>42898
>I don't honestly think it's our policy, and I don't delete nor ban because of optics.
so I can't blame them for not being direct with me, but as long as any mods are continuing this pattern of over-moderation without justification, their concerns ring hollow.
To revisit a point I made earlier in this thread:
>>42897
>May I also remind that r/socialism banned catgirls in general for very similar reasons, something that I remember being used as a rallying cry for this sites comparative freedom.
>>42899
<My tone might give you the impression I think all shitpost is bad. I don't. This isn't Reddit and I wouldn't want it to be, either.
Honestly, this site has no demonstrable difference in it's moderation. The only real benefit to it is that mods can't lurk through your post history on other websites and use it to preemptively ban you for association with "problematic" elements, which considering the behavior I have witnessed, I have a feeling some of them might.

Another concern of mine while making this thread, was that mods have proven themselves particularly difficult to get answers out of, and are generally hesitant to interact directly with anons at all. Like I ask why do mods unilaterally ban "problematic" material?
Although the mods are particularly cagey, in their own words:
>>43023
>it was deemed inappropriate for the forums.
>it's kind of unsightly
For a site which describes itself as:
>the negation of /pol/; anti-fascist, materialist, better read.
I would have hoped that the rationale behind decisions would be more… material. But, whatever, I can accept it. Question answered.
>>43007
This whole reply was just kind of a non-answer to the question I had asked "Is it okay to make jokes about lolicon?"
>The mods apply their discretion as to enhance the quality of Leftypol, but that's inevitably going to end up in a subjective process. When someone else on the staff disagrees on something, a discussion sparks out until it's politely resolved or put to a vote.
Do the mods ever even bother to actively vet the others actions? I had originally assumed that these overreaches of power could have just been one bad actor slipping past the rest of the mod team. Like if one mod just arbitrarily removes threads they don't like, even though they don't break any rules, would any of the other mods even bother stepping in? It feels like they don't see any issue with it.

Sorry this post is all over the place, I kind of just typed a random stream of consciousness while waiting for my ban to be appealed.

>>43039
that was me, generally I try to keep /siberia/ clear of memes that skirt with fascism because it's been a frequent incursion point for undesirable elements (fascists, incels, /soyjaks, the lot). not to mention it's generally where all of our worst spam goes, so usually whenever I end up cleaning out the whole catalog while I am there.

>>42797
>Why are anons getting banned for merely mentioning lolicon? >>42785
Tbh that could also be from the same anon breaking another rule somewhere else and the mod just clicking the first post they saw to issue the ban.
The post doesn't idicate the text of the ban nor the ban id, so I'm not sure.

Also, regarding "just discussing it", maybe you could be referring to rapefiend anon?
If so then some of his stuff might have ended up accidentally being nukes, because he uses a lot of VPNs, and also used to post a lot of rule breaking content on the same IP, and may have gotten caught up in some mass delete.

> Are the mods going to address why they added ordinance 8 to rule 10 rather than remove it entirely as promised?
First time I hear of this

>>43009
>>43010
> What I and several others have explained is that banning feral has nothing to do with leftism and makes the site significantly more fringe than if it didn't ban feral
Feral doesn't have much to do with leftism either.
And I also highly doubt that it's the active ban of feral being a source of "fringyness"

>>43024
>>43039
The lack of ban ids makes this significantly harder to discuss or evaluate

>>43039
> Another concern of mine while making this thread, was that mods have proven themselves particularly difficult to get answers out of, and are generally hesitant to interact directly with anons at all
Keyword here is time. I myself spend less time here than I used to because of work; and most of the moderation team is on the same boat

>>43044
>Tbh that could also be from the same anon breaking another rule somewhere else and the mod just clicking the first post they saw to issue the ban.
Another mod brought up this possibility, which is a thing I wasn't aware of, so that's definitely possible. I just thought that post was a good example of what I had seen while making this thread.

>Also, regarding "just discussing it", maybe you could be referring to rapefiend anon?
I wasn't thinking of any particular anon, I had just seen a few different anons making references to it in memes or whatnot and get their threads removed, and then the one I quoted in OP made me think I should make a thread asking about it. But it could have just been a coincidence.

>The lack of ban ids makes this significantly harder to discuss or evaluate
I do have a couple of them because I still have screenshots, actually. I didn't think to save them but I'll keep that in mind if something happens again.

Ban for "irony poisoning"
91692

Ban for "ban evasion" (From the screenshot I posted in the meta thread >>43004 )
91378

>Keyword here is time. I myself spend less time here than I used to because of work
Yeah that makes sense, I have a habit of not realizing this, because I'm a neet so everything looks disproportionate from my end.

>>43039
>since 2019
newfag
>is it possible I am being profiled as a "troublemaker"
It's possible but unlikely. They don't have the "resources". Iron Felix is still running around etc. etc.
My name has been dropped once or twice or three times in the last month(s) and I don't even think that was mods. They are generally so unaware.

>spamming reports
is fuckin bs. They can remove all reports of one IP.
It's also nowhere in the rules. But something like that has not been the standard in a long time. Some minimum amount of sanity and/or consistency would be nice, I suppose.

>>43045
But don't accept that reasoning so easily.
"oh we don't have time", then sort it the fuck out. Get someone who has time / gives a shit. You been saying that for years. At some point it gets beyond angering and just becomes really silly. Oh we have long passed that point, in my book.
>Do the mods ever even bother to actively vet the others actions?
no

Edit: formatting error

>>43048
Why would you spam reports in the first place. If you go through the effort of being annoying, you'll get the reaction you're looking for.

>>43075
A silly little response.
If you want spam I can show you real spam.

>>43044
>First time I hear of this
Check the edit history of the ordinance thread OP, pretty sure it was stated there. Otherwise the other thread I knew it was mentioned in bumpslid off, which frustrates me.
>bans thing for non-leftist reasons
>called out on it
>thing doesn't have to do with leftism
The times I've seen it zapped, and the ban I myself got for it, was on /siberia/, the off-topic board. Obviously so.

The only further action requested is finding out if there's anything upstream forbidding feral–which would be equally weird as it being banned here and thus improbable–and removing the rule if not, or linking / citing the rule / law / terms of service of whatever upstream entity forbids it.
Again, this is the only time I've ever seen a site in specificity ban non-bestial, sophont feral art that wasn't a flat ban of porn altogether.