Topic: You make the rules.
sim !!/URrIA3AX started this discussion 1.1 year ago #5,186
As the headline states. Make the rules for the board, work together. Come to some consensus. Do it faggots.Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #91,411
1) Don't take yourself seriously--ever.The Editor !FuckWtfW8M joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 23 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #91,412
Fridays are casual Friday.
Killer Lettuce !!+BWon2MGy joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #91,413
Trolling of any kind will result in a perma-ban.Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #91,415
Try to make your posts as coherent and legible as possible.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #91,416
1st time users will be redirected to the rules page.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #91,417
NO TROLLING
The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #91,418
Chris Tomkinson !UoVHVa1d2. joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #91,420
No off-topic replies, and no /i/ shit.
Anonymous G replied with this 1.1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #91,421
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #91,423
Rules of Minichan:
1. There are no rules
2. Not even the first rule
1. There are no rules
2. Not even the first rule
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #91,424
No more pedo topics. :/
Be mostly nice.
Don't act like a 12 year old who just found /b/.
@91,418
Quit posting that fucking picture.
Be mostly nice.
Don't act like a 12 year old who just found /b/.
@91,418
Quit posting that fucking picture.
Anonymous I replied with this 1.1 year ago, 49 seconds later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #91,425
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #91,426
1) Impersonating another poster is a banable offence, unless serious lulz are generated.
2) All posters using the name "sim" must be banned. (This includes admins.)
3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
4) Trolling is absolutely fine.
5) All topics relating to paedophilia must be stickied.
6) Raids are okay, so long as they aren't targeted against other chans.
7) All of the above must be enforced to the best of the admins/mods ability. Any moderator found abusing their powers must be shitlisted immediately.
That is all.
2) All posters using the name "sim" must be banned. (This includes admins.)
3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
4) Trolling is absolutely fine.
5) All topics relating to paedophilia must be stickied.
6) Raids are okay, so long as they aren't targeted against other chans.
7) All of the above must be enforced to the best of the admins/mods ability. Any moderator found abusing their powers must be shitlisted immediately.
That is all.
Katerina Shcherbatskaya joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #91,433
- All content must abide by Swedish law
- No shock images outside of designated threads
- Don't post the same shit over and over again
- Frivolous threads may be removed at mod discretion. In any remotely borderline case, the mod must explain and lock before deletion.
- No shock images outside of designated threads
- Don't post the same shit over and over again
- Frivolous threads may be removed at mod discretion. In any remotely borderline case, the mod must explain and lock before deletion.
grg !!fERIbUB8u joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #91,439
* Absolutely no spam of any kind, including referral/"make cash by linking"/"short URL" links and "signatures". Any Web site spammed here will get its address permanently added as a banned phrase, or worse.
* No "chan drama". Any accusations (or even insinuations) of spam, attacks or any other topic in any way related to AT and any of the chans is not allowed. It doesn't matter how well you put it. We've had more than enough (and then some!) of that nonsense here.
* Always do your very best to write "perfect" texts. You are not expected to write a novel or any kind of advanced English, really, as long as the stuff you do write is correct in terms of grammar, spelling and punctuation. If you don't know how to use fancy punctuation, just write simple sentences! Incorrect spelling is "unforgivable" due to spell checking, but grammar is trickier. Try to keep things "on your level" — a simple but correct text is better than an advanced text that is incorrect. If you are not a native English speaker and you haven't received proper education, but it is obvious that you try your very best to form English sentences, your post will be accepted. Please mention this, though. Slang and smileys are OK. So-called "textspeak" or "Internet English" is not.
* Sentences begin with a capital letter. Questions end with question marks. Acronyms are typed in upper-case. These are very basic rules that anyone who has ever spent one hour studying English must know. Always use this basic knowledge here!
* Don't ask questions about the board (or post at all, really) before you have carefully read the FAQ and explored all the sections of the entire Web site.
* Completely ignore the trolls and crappy posts. Abuse report them and then pretend that they don't exist at all as they will sooner or later get removed. Replying to them or in any way acknowledging their existence only messes up the topic, creates lots of extra moderation work and may get you banned and shitlisted as well.
* No matter how tempting, do NOT tell anyone about the fact that you reported them!
* Think of every topic as a separate "universe" which should not refer to any other topics, except for useful links, etc. A topic should always make sense stand-alone with no background information or context.
* If a reply does not cite any other reply, it is to be assumed that it is a reply to the OP or to the discussion (so far) in general. It is possible to do "@OP", but this is only to be used, optionally, in the relatively rare cases when you cite other posts and then want to include a comment to the original post/poster in the same reply.
* Replies must be 100% on-topic (of course you can include short off-topic remarks in the same reply which is otherwise on-topic) and helpful (never tell people to "Google it" or something similar (assuming that the topic is a question/request)). Never be afraid of "branching" a discussion by starting a new topic whenever there is even a slight risk that the discussion will drift off-topic.
* Read not only the headline, but also the topic body (carefully!) and at least skim any and all replies before replying.
* Never use "short URL" services as this is considered spam. Post real URLs!
* When linking to news, try to find the real, original source. Don't link to crappy blogs or other "middlemen" if it can be avoided.
* Do not start more topics about the board itself if at least one of the last 100 topics is a topic about the board. There are often far too many topics about the board itself, usually about things already covered in the FAQ or elsewhere on the site. Make "real" topics instead!
* Always respect the privacy of everyone using the board, including yourself, and anyone you refer to in posts. Do not post, or provoke others to post, any personal information, including e-mail addresses.
* Respect the topic starter ("Original Poster") and his/her intentions with the topic. Of course you can disagree, but don't hijack it to spread your own agenda.
* Never assume that people know what you are talking about. This board has NO SPECIFIC THEME, so always clearly state what the hell you are talking/asking about.
* Turn on your brain and don't make the board think for you. Its filters and logic are able to stop some of the worst junk from being posted, but it is just not possible for it to detect all errors. Simply seeing no errors in the spell checker and being able to publish a post is not any kind of guarantee that the post is perfect or even good enough to keep.
* Don't just say "see the headline" or something like that in your topic's body. Use the body to add details, examples, extra information, etc., if your headline is a "straight-forward" question.
* Don't bitch about a topic being "revived" in the "revived" topic. (Posters can "revive" bullied topics after a certain number of days if nobody replied to them the first time.)
* No topics that are "public questions for Sysop". Use the private message system for that.
* "Seeing something done" (a rule violation) does NOT mean that it's OK for you to do the same; it only means that it has not yet been found out. Report it.
* Think globally. Not everyone lives in your country. Include such vital information when asking legal questions, etc.
* Never use the board while drunk, "high", very tired or in any other way "unfocused" or "out of your mind". Also, never let anyone else use your ID. You are solely responsible for what is posted using it, and it is far from sure that you will be believed when you blame a troll post on your "stupid little brother" or "idiot friends".
* NEVER share your internal ID/account with ANYONE! Do not let others vote in polls or post as themselves using your ID. You will be banned as soon as your poster account is found acting as both female and male.
* Using or talking about any illegal clone of this Web site for any purpose will get you permanently banned without the possibility to appeal it. As a traitor scum who supports thieves, you are no longer welcome here. (This may sound like some sort of a joke to some people, but I assure you that it's very seriously meant. Please respect the innovation and uniqueness of this place and do not support plagiarism and thieves.)
* No "chan drama". Any accusations (or even insinuations) of spam, attacks or any other topic in any way related to AT and any of the chans is not allowed. It doesn't matter how well you put it. We've had more than enough (and then some!) of that nonsense here.
* Always do your very best to write "perfect" texts. You are not expected to write a novel or any kind of advanced English, really, as long as the stuff you do write is correct in terms of grammar, spelling and punctuation. If you don't know how to use fancy punctuation, just write simple sentences! Incorrect spelling is "unforgivable" due to spell checking, but grammar is trickier. Try to keep things "on your level" — a simple but correct text is better than an advanced text that is incorrect. If you are not a native English speaker and you haven't received proper education, but it is obvious that you try your very best to form English sentences, your post will be accepted. Please mention this, though. Slang and smileys are OK. So-called "textspeak" or "Internet English" is not.
* Sentences begin with a capital letter. Questions end with question marks. Acronyms are typed in upper-case. These are very basic rules that anyone who has ever spent one hour studying English must know. Always use this basic knowledge here!
* Don't ask questions about the board (or post at all, really) before you have carefully read the FAQ and explored all the sections of the entire Web site.
* Completely ignore the trolls and crappy posts. Abuse report them and then pretend that they don't exist at all as they will sooner or later get removed. Replying to them or in any way acknowledging their existence only messes up the topic, creates lots of extra moderation work and may get you banned and shitlisted as well.
* No matter how tempting, do NOT tell anyone about the fact that you reported them!
* Think of every topic as a separate "universe" which should not refer to any other topics, except for useful links, etc. A topic should always make sense stand-alone with no background information or context.
* If a reply does not cite any other reply, it is to be assumed that it is a reply to the OP or to the discussion (so far) in general. It is possible to do "@OP", but this is only to be used, optionally, in the relatively rare cases when you cite other posts and then want to include a comment to the original post/poster in the same reply.
* Replies must be 100% on-topic (of course you can include short off-topic remarks in the same reply which is otherwise on-topic) and helpful (never tell people to "Google it" or something similar (assuming that the topic is a question/request)). Never be afraid of "branching" a discussion by starting a new topic whenever there is even a slight risk that the discussion will drift off-topic.
* Read not only the headline, but also the topic body (carefully!) and at least skim any and all replies before replying.
* Never use "short URL" services as this is considered spam. Post real URLs!
* When linking to news, try to find the real, original source. Don't link to crappy blogs or other "middlemen" if it can be avoided.
* Do not start more topics about the board itself if at least one of the last 100 topics is a topic about the board. There are often far too many topics about the board itself, usually about things already covered in the FAQ or elsewhere on the site. Make "real" topics instead!
* Always respect the privacy of everyone using the board, including yourself, and anyone you refer to in posts. Do not post, or provoke others to post, any personal information, including e-mail addresses.
* Respect the topic starter ("Original Poster") and his/her intentions with the topic. Of course you can disagree, but don't hijack it to spread your own agenda.
* Never assume that people know what you are talking about. This board has NO SPECIFIC THEME, so always clearly state what the hell you are talking/asking about.
* Turn on your brain and don't make the board think for you. Its filters and logic are able to stop some of the worst junk from being posted, but it is just not possible for it to detect all errors. Simply seeing no errors in the spell checker and being able to publish a post is not any kind of guarantee that the post is perfect or even good enough to keep.
* Don't just say "see the headline" or something like that in your topic's body. Use the body to add details, examples, extra information, etc., if your headline is a "straight-forward" question.
* Don't bitch about a topic being "revived" in the "revived" topic. (Posters can "revive" bullied topics after a certain number of days if nobody replied to them the first time.)
* No topics that are "public questions for Sysop". Use the private message system for that.
* "Seeing something done" (a rule violation) does NOT mean that it's OK for you to do the same; it only means that it has not yet been found out. Report it.
* Think globally. Not everyone lives in your country. Include such vital information when asking legal questions, etc.
* Never use the board while drunk, "high", very tired or in any other way "unfocused" or "out of your mind". Also, never let anyone else use your ID. You are solely responsible for what is posted using it, and it is far from sure that you will be believed when you blame a troll post on your "stupid little brother" or "idiot friends".
* NEVER share your internal ID/account with ANYONE! Do not let others vote in polls or post as themselves using your ID. You will be banned as soon as your poster account is found acting as both female and male.
* Using or talking about any illegal clone of this Web site for any purpose will get you permanently banned without the possibility to appeal it. As a traitor scum who supports thieves, you are no longer welcome here. (This may sound like some sort of a joke to some people, but I assure you that it's very seriously meant. Please respect the innovation and uniqueness of this place and do not support plagiarism and thieves.)
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #91,441
@previous
I support this.
I support this.
Killer Lettuce !!+BWon2MGy replied with this 1.1 year ago, 38 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #91,442
Okay, a serious one.
In general, I think that the rules should be nice and unintrusive, not too overbearing but still helping to keep the site in good order. Here's some general examples:
1) No content which is considered illegal
2) No excessive trolling/shitposting (DM and that OP guy being yardsticks here, as long as several 'shit' threads aren't made in a short space of time, or a poster doesn't reach DM levels of annoying schtick, it should be considered tolerable).
3) Repeated attempts at drama stirring should result in a short ban, which get longer and longer and eventually perma if it persists.
4) Same as above, but for excessive shitposting.
5) If needed, some kind of mod explanation should be given when a thread is locked.
In general, I think that the rules should be nice and unintrusive, not too overbearing but still helping to keep the site in good order. Here's some general examples:
1) No content which is considered illegal
2) No excessive trolling/shitposting (DM and that OP guy being yardsticks here, as long as several 'shit' threads aren't made in a short space of time, or a poster doesn't reach DM levels of annoying schtick, it should be considered tolerable).
3) Repeated attempts at drama stirring should result in a short ban, which get longer and longer and eventually perma if it persists.
4) Same as above, but for excessive shitposting.
5) If needed, some kind of mod explanation should be given when a thread is locked.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
James MAtthews replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #91,443
@91,433
No Russian chicks. Please.
No Russian chicks. Please.
grg !!fERIbUB8u replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #91,444
I'd like NSFW content to be confined to topics tagged with NSFW but I realise that's probably not going to happen.
Anonymous O replied with this 1.1 year ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #91,445
@previous
nor should it
nor should it
grg !!fERIbUB8u replied with this 1.1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #91,447
@previous
Would make life easier for anyone who wants to browse from school or work. No more browsing with your fingers poised over alt+tab.
Not that minichan is that bad anyway.
Would make life easier for anyone who wants to browse from school or work. No more browsing with your fingers poised over alt+tab.
Not that minichan is that bad anyway.
Anonymous O replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #91,451
@previous
just disable images when you need to do that; not like they ever add to the discussions.
just disable images when you need to do that; not like they ever add to the discussions.
Anonymous F replied with this 1.1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #91,454
Every female poster should introduce themselves with a time stamped picture of their tits...
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,458
- No Ks.
- Make me a Jan.
- No spam.
- Trolling is only accepted if it's light hearted and generates lulz.
- Any personal /i/ shit is a permabannable offence, unless it involves the French.
- Everyone is fair game for trolling, no matter the handle.
- Impersonation is allowed even if the trip has been cracked. It's the namefags own fault for being a retard.
Seriously.
- Make me a Jan.
- No spam.
- Trolling is only accepted if it's light hearted and generates lulz.
- Any personal /i/ shit is a permabannable offence, unless it involves the French.
- Everyone is fair game for trolling, no matter the handle.
- Impersonation is allowed even if the trip has been cracked. It's the namefags own fault for being a retard.
Seriously.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 30 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,462
@previous
> - Make me a Jan.
loololol, can we change 'Minion+' to 'Jan'?
Also, here is my contribution:
These rules are meant to be broken.
> - Make me a Jan.
loololol, can we change 'Minion+' to 'Jan'?
Also, here is my contribution:
These rules are meant to be broken.
Green !pFNWNYROxA joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 27 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,465
@91,439
100 character limit for all replies.
100 character limit for all replies.
psychopath !PAHVpsycho joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,470
1. No spamming/crapflooding
2. No CP/child-models
3. No blank-bodied reaction-image chains (you know what I'm talking about if you've been on any TC thread ever)
2. No CP/child-models
3. No blank-bodied reaction-image chains (you know what I'm talking about if you've been on any TC thread ever)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,472
@previous
I agree with this completely. People who only reply with reaction images are lazy comedians at best.
I agree with this completely. People who only reply with reaction images are lazy comedians at best.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 1.1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,473
@91,470
> 2. No CP/child-models
Pretty sure that would fall under this rule:
> - All content must abide by Swedish law
No need to be so specific, as that is simply asking for it to happen.
> 2. No CP/child-models
Pretty sure that would fall under this rule:
> - All content must abide by Swedish law
No need to be so specific, as that is simply asking for it to happen.
Green !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 1.1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,475
Anonymous F replied with this 1.1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,478
@previous
No reposting of the same picture in the same day as part of a lame schtick.
No reposting of the same picture in the same day as part of a lame schtick.
psychopath !PAHVpsycho replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,479
@91,473
> - All content must abide by Swedish law
Lolicon/shotacon would be still allowed, but must be posted under a spoiler tag of sorts. One will have to enable the display of lolicon/shotacon thumbnails through a dashboard setting. Violators of this rule would be punished with a silence ban depending on the context.
> - All content must abide by Swedish law
Lolicon/shotacon would be still allowed, but must be posted under a spoiler tag of sorts. One will have to enable the display of lolicon/shotacon thumbnails through a dashboard setting. Violators of this rule would be punished with a silence ban depending on the context.
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 1.1 year ago, 10 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,480
@91,475
Doing just makes you look like you have nothing interesting to say. Ever.
Doing just makes you look like you have nothing interesting to say. Ever.
Anonymous J replied with this 1.1 year ago, 59 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,481
Rule 1. Don't be a faggotThus endeth the rules
Anonymous O replied with this 1.1 year ago, 36 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,482
psychopath !PAHVpsycho replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,483
Anonymous J replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,484
brie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 1.1 year ago, 43 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,485
@91,479
If we are following the trend of allowing gore and yiff as long as there's a warning, I don't see the issue with allowing loli/shota, especially if it hidden behind a dashboard setting.
inb4 "fuck you, pedo scum".
If we are following the trend of allowing gore and yiff as long as there's a warning, I don't see the issue with allowing loli/shota, especially if it hidden behind a dashboard setting.
inb4 "fuck you, pedo scum".
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous O replied with this 1.1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,488
Green !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 1.1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,494
Chris Tomkinson !UoVHVa1d2. replied with this 1.1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,496
@previous
No virgins allowed, asshole.
No virgins allowed, asshole.
Green !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,501
Chris Tomkinson !UoVHVa1d2. replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,509
@previous
Is that the dildo your bald Star Trek boyfriend is going to rape you with tonight, cupcake?
Is that the dildo your bald Star Trek boyfriend is going to rape you with tonight, cupcake?
Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 46 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,510
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,512
Anonymous F replied with this 1.1 year ago, 27 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,513
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 1.1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,517
@91,512
Nick is an unfunny asshole.
Nick is an unfunny asshole.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,519
@previous
My proposed rule: No unserious fraud/scam jokes. A joke's only funny if everyone can laugh about it.
My proposed rule: No unserious fraud/scam jokes. A joke's only funny if everyone can laugh about it.
Anonymous F replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,520
My rule; Everytime Green posts a picture of Robert Picardo, I shall post this picture @91,513
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 1.1 year ago, 42 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,521
@91,519
Humour's pretty subjective, though. Trying to put rules on it wouldn't work out.
Humour's pretty subjective, though. Trying to put rules on it wouldn't work out.
Chris Tomkinson !UoVHVa1d2. replied with this 1.1 year ago, 46 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,522
Green !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,523
@91,520
Ok. I hate cake though.
Ok. I hate cake though.
Chris Tomkinson !UoVHVa1d2. replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,524
Green !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,525
@previous
What is your problem?
What is your problem?
Chris Tomkinson !UoVHVa1d2. replied with this 1.1 year ago, 56 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,526
@previous
I've been reading too much output from the Robert Amsterdam propaganda mill.
I've been reading too much output from the Robert Amsterdam propaganda mill.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 1.1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,528
@91,519
Can you explain this with a little more detail please?
Can you explain this with a little more detail please?
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 33 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,529
No illegal content
No excessive shitposting or shtick (I had a thread deleted yesterday that wasn't even a shitpost -- it was a parody thread)
No deleting of threads unless they contain illegal content (to improve transparency)
No spam (once again I posted a link to my site the other day and the thread was deleted -- it was one link).
That is all.
No excessive shitposting or shtick (I had a thread deleted yesterday that wasn't even a shitpost -- it was a parody thread)
No deleting of threads unless they contain illegal content (to improve transparency)
No spam (once again I posted a link to my site the other day and the thread was deleted -- it was one link).
That is all.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 1.1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,531
@previous
some fag deleted a topic about effects of fruit juice on farts that I made a while ago for no reason
some fag deleted a topic about effects of fruit juice on farts that I made a while ago for no reason
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,532
@previous
And that's exactly my point. If it just an occasional thread, just fucking ignore it and stop being a fucking baby. If there are 5 threads like that on the front page, lock all but one. If I had been spamming links to my site in every thread, that would have been deletion and even banworthy, but I made a single thread about it which was deleted within 5 minutes. This is bad for transparency, and if people are going to be deleting shit without transparency just on a whim, then they shouldn't be mods.
IMO the less rules the better, and honestly, if rules are being made to prevent people's sensibilities from being offended, then the "chan" suffix should be removed from this site's name.
And that's exactly my point. If it just an occasional thread, just fucking ignore it and stop being a fucking baby. If there are 5 threads like that on the front page, lock all but one. If I had been spamming links to my site in every thread, that would have been deletion and even banworthy, but I made a single thread about it which was deleted within 5 minutes. This is bad for transparency, and if people are going to be deleting shit without transparency just on a whim, then they shouldn't be mods.
IMO the less rules the better, and honestly, if rules are being made to prevent people's sensibilities from being offended, then the "chan" suffix should be removed from this site's name.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Foxer !FANATICibM joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,533
@91,411
> 1) Don't take yourself seriously--ever.
@91,415
> Try to make your posts as coherent and legible as possible.
@91,433
> - All content must abide by Swedish law
> - Don't post the same shit over and over again
> - Frivolous threads may be removed at mod discretion. In any remotely borderline case, the mod must explain and lock before deletion.
@91,442
> 1) No content which is considered illegal
> 2) No excessive trolling/shitposting (DM and that OP guy being yardsticks here, as long as several 'shit' threads aren't made in a short space of time, or a poster doesn't reach DM levels of annoying schtick, it should be considered tolerable).
> 3) Repeated attempts at drama stirring should result in a short ban, which get longer and longer and eventually perma if it persists.
> 4) Same as above, but for excessive shitposting.
> 5) If needed, some kind of mod explanation should be given when a thread is locked.
@91,470
> 1. No spamming/crapflooding
> 2. No CP/child-models
> 3. No blank-bodied reaction-image chains (you know what I'm talking about if you've been on any TC thread ever)
I picked all the good ones, imo, and think this is a really nice list.
> 1) Don't take yourself seriously--ever.
@91,415
> Try to make your posts as coherent and legible as possible.
@91,433
> - All content must abide by Swedish law
> - Don't post the same shit over and over again
> - Frivolous threads may be removed at mod discretion. In any remotely borderline case, the mod must explain and lock before deletion.
@91,442
> 1) No content which is considered illegal
> 2) No excessive trolling/shitposting (DM and that OP guy being yardsticks here, as long as several 'shit' threads aren't made in a short space of time, or a poster doesn't reach DM levels of annoying schtick, it should be considered tolerable).
> 3) Repeated attempts at drama stirring should result in a short ban, which get longer and longer and eventually perma if it persists.
> 4) Same as above, but for excessive shitposting.
> 5) If needed, some kind of mod explanation should be given when a thread is locked.
@91,470
> 1. No spamming/crapflooding
> 2. No CP/child-models
> 3. No blank-bodied reaction-image chains (you know what I'm talking about if you've been on any TC thread ever)
I picked all the good ones, imo, and think this is a really nice list.
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,534
@previous
See, I think that removing threads should be reserved for illegal content. I think threads of specious quality can be locked a mod discretion, therefore allowing the OP to PM an admin about it for a final decision. I can tell you right now, that "mods deleting things at their discretion" is going to piss a lot of people off, as this is a huge part of why T4C became such a shitstorm.
See, I think that removing threads should be reserved for illegal content. I think threads of specious quality can be locked a mod discretion, therefore allowing the OP to PM an admin about it for a final decision. I can tell you right now, that "mods deleting things at their discretion" is going to piss a lot of people off, as this is a huge part of why T4C became such a shitstorm.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,536
@previous
Let people be pissed. I'll never understand why the board backed off from AC style moderation, it just worked. Since then there has been nothing but problems and continued decline. This same old drama shit-storm etc around moderation is fucking old as hell. Its not rocket science, yet it continually gets fucked up, keep trying new things... why? Have something that works, abandon it, and never get it right again.
Let people be pissed. I'll never understand why the board backed off from AC style moderation, it just worked. Since then there has been nothing but problems and continued decline. This same old drama shit-storm etc around moderation is fucking old as hell. Its not rocket science, yet it continually gets fucked up, keep trying new things... why? Have something that works, abandon it, and never get it right again.
Foxer !FANATICibM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,538
@91,534
I'm thinking that deleting threads should be reserved for only the lowest quality, clearly trolling/shit topics that serve no purpose; the no-question ones that everyone can agree upon needing to be removed.
Locking would be for threads that aren't quite that bad but really don't need to continue or ones really getting out of hand. They'd get a reason it was locked and can discuss it with the staff.
I'm thinking that deleting threads should be reserved for only the lowest quality, clearly trolling/shit topics that serve no purpose; the no-question ones that everyone can agree upon needing to be removed.
Locking would be for threads that aren't quite that bad but really don't need to continue or ones really getting out of hand. They'd get a reason it was locked and can discuss it with the staff.
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,539
@91,536
No, I agree completely. I just think that transparency is key. AC always locked threads and provided a reason. The poster may not have agreed with it, but there was a reason. That is a million times better that a thread of suspect (and a lot of times subjective) quality mysteriously vanishing. What I'm saying is that having your thread vanish with no explanation is extremely off-putting, and people will leave if it continues to happen.
My bottom line is this: DON'T DELETE THREADS UNLESS THEY CONTAIN ILLEGAL CONTENT -- LOCK THEM!
One last thing on the subject of transparency. Even with anonymous mods transparency is just as important. Who took action is irrelevant, but why action was taken needs to be clearly stated.
No, I agree completely. I just think that transparency is key. AC always locked threads and provided a reason. The poster may not have agreed with it, but there was a reason. That is a million times better that a thread of suspect (and a lot of times subjective) quality mysteriously vanishing. What I'm saying is that having your thread vanish with no explanation is extremely off-putting, and people will leave if it continues to happen.
My bottom line is this: DON'T DELETE THREADS UNLESS THEY CONTAIN ILLEGAL CONTENT -- LOCK THEM!
One last thing on the subject of transparency. Even with anonymous mods transparency is just as important. Who took action is irrelevant, but why action was taken needs to be clearly stated.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous V double-posted this 1.1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,543
@91,538
But if a clearly shit thread is locked it will get bumped off the front page soon enough, and shitposters will just be driven to continue shitposting if their thread is deleted, and will just evade if they get banned. The minimal action elicits the minimal reaction. I'm saying that low key, transparent moderation will keep everything chill.
The only thing I can add, is that if a thread is locked and the poster of said locked thread makes a BAWWW/rage thread about his other thread being locked, that should be deleted, as that's just stirring up drama.
The bottom line is that censorship is a slippery slope, and it's one that's likely to get really nasty.
But if a clearly shit thread is locked it will get bumped off the front page soon enough, and shitposters will just be driven to continue shitposting if their thread is deleted, and will just evade if they get banned. The minimal action elicits the minimal reaction. I'm saying that low key, transparent moderation will keep everything chill.
The only thing I can add, is that if a thread is locked and the poster of said locked thread makes a BAWWW/rage thread about his other thread being locked, that should be deleted, as that's just stirring up drama.
The bottom line is that censorship is a slippery slope, and it's one that's likely to get really nasty.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,546
@91,539
Ah, I see. We do agree! I'm extremely miffed moderation has been such a fiasco for so long. I made a stink back when AC style moderation was dropped, I was ignored by admins/mods. I'm still ignored, they still fuck it up. No explanation, seemingly no reason, and most importantly no progress. I don't even like to talk about it, because I don't want it coming off like a personal vendetta or attack, or drama stirring etc. But goddamn... Its like Sim tries so hard to please the wrong people and it just keeps biting him in the ass. I dunno what to think... or say exactly.
Ah, I see. We do agree! I'm extremely miffed moderation has been such a fiasco for so long. I made a stink back when AC style moderation was dropped, I was ignored by admins/mods. I'm still ignored, they still fuck it up. No explanation, seemingly no reason, and most importantly no progress. I don't even like to talk about it, because I don't want it coming off like a personal vendetta or attack, or drama stirring etc. But goddamn... Its like Sim tries so hard to please the wrong people and it just keeps biting him in the ass. I dunno what to think... or say exactly.
Chris Tomkinson !UoVHVa1d2. replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,547
@previous
Aside from geolocation, what exactly was AC-style moderation?
Aside from geolocation, what exactly was AC-style moderation?
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,548
@91,546
Yeah, I've never understood it either. TBH the people that get all fired up about shitposting bother me more than the actual shitposters. I run a board that is 90% shitposts and everyone gets along fine. It's also interesting to see how the shitposters post quality stuff as well. My board is forced anon so that really cuts down on shtick as well. I started it as kind of a proof of concept to see firsthand how it starts and what the endgame is, but I enjoy it, since I don't give a fuck about what gets posted there as long as it isn't CP or bot spam.
Yeah, I've never understood it either. TBH the people that get all fired up about shitposting bother me more than the actual shitposters. I run a board that is 90% shitposts and everyone gets along fine. It's also interesting to see how the shitposters post quality stuff as well. My board is forced anon so that really cuts down on shtick as well. I started it as kind of a proof of concept to see firsthand how it starts and what the endgame is, but I enjoy it, since I don't give a fuck about what gets posted there as long as it isn't CP or bot spam.
Anonymous V double-posted this 1.1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,549
@91,547
He would lock threads with a clear explanation, pretty much. He also kept it humorous, and never deleted shit unless it was illegal.
He would lock threads with a clear explanation, pretty much. He also kept it humorous, and never deleted shit unless it was illegal.
Tekamine !AnRbswGQv. replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,550
@91,546
Oh, okay...
Oh, okay...
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,551
@91,547
1. Transparency (why a thread was locked)
2. Consistency (shit posts/threads were ALL dealt with no matter who made them)
3. Trolls/drama starters/shitposters were all dealt with rather than ignored
4. Repeated image dumps were deleted (notice some people post the same damn pic in every damn thread now)
Shit got done. Constantly and consistently. And if someone was a problem too many times they got banned.
Very few of you weren't around when AC was mod, you really don't need a detailed explanation of what it was like and the "geolocating" card is just gay (and old).
1. Transparency (why a thread was locked)
2. Consistency (shit posts/threads were ALL dealt with no matter who made them)
3. Trolls/drama starters/shitposters were all dealt with rather than ignored
4. Repeated image dumps were deleted (notice some people post the same damn pic in every damn thread now)
Shit got done. Constantly and consistently. And if someone was a problem too many times they got banned.
Very few of you weren't around when AC was mod, you really don't need a detailed explanation of what it was like and the "geolocating" card is just gay (and old).
Ks !KansasxqvM double-posted this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,552
@91,550
Nothing more to say? Do you disagree? Am I wrong about something? "Oh, okay" is generally a response to attempted trolling or shitposting etc. Thats why I ask.
Nothing more to say? Do you disagree? Am I wrong about something? "Oh, okay" is generally a response to attempted trolling or shitposting etc. Thats why I ask.
Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,555
@91,529
> No deleting of threads unless they contain illegal content (to improve transparency).
I agree wholeheartedly. Topics/posts do not need to be deleted just because a moderator/janitor doesn't approve. Unless it's complete and utter shit, it should not just disappear.
> (once again I posted a link to my site the other day and the thread was deleted -- it was one link).
I strongly disagree with whichever person in power who did this, but I think you should've at least tried to get it undeleted.
My contribution:
Minichan is not twitter, faggot.
> No deleting of threads unless they contain illegal content (to improve transparency).
I agree wholeheartedly. Topics/posts do not need to be deleted just because a moderator/janitor doesn't approve. Unless it's complete and utter shit, it should not just disappear.
> (once again I posted a link to my site the other day and the thread was deleted -- it was one link).
I strongly disagree with whichever person in power who did this, but I think you should've at least tried to get it undeleted.
My contribution:
Minichan is not twitter, faggot.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 23 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,557
@91,549
He deleted "shit" and often PM'd the poster. It didn't have to be illegal, annoying and/or worthless was enough. And inb4 "subjective" or "censorship" <-- those cards have been played too many times. Shit is shit, even by standards as low as /b/'s.
He deleted "shit" and often PM'd the poster. It didn't have to be illegal, annoying and/or worthless was enough. And inb4 "subjective" or "censorship" <-- those cards have been played too many times. Shit is shit, even by standards as low as /b/'s.
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,559
@91,551
AC's moderation was the best existing model, but I think even that went too far. I really believe that moderation should be lax as possible because trolls feed off of reactions. The thing is that anyone can evade bans, and anyone can flood the board with shit. They do it in the first place to test the moderation, and if the reaction is favorable to them (i.e. rage, bans, any kind of response) they'll continue. I was all for the "self moderation" idea, but most channers lack the self discipline and detachment to do it properly. This is why I say minimal moderation is the best way to do it.
It's like a political system in many respects, sure you can take a hard-line authoritarian stance (inb4 Godwin's Law) and maintain order that way, or you can take a libertarian stance (as close to anarchy as possible) and only exact consequences on people that cause harm to others (I'm not talking about crap talking or trolling, I'm talking about full-blown feuding and shit that is detrimental to the community).
My bottom line is if trolls and shitposters are largely ignored, they won't get any enjoyment out of trolling/shitposting, and will move on to somewhere that they can.
AC's moderation was the best existing model, but I think even that went too far. I really believe that moderation should be lax as possible because trolls feed off of reactions. The thing is that anyone can evade bans, and anyone can flood the board with shit. They do it in the first place to test the moderation, and if the reaction is favorable to them (i.e. rage, bans, any kind of response) they'll continue. I was all for the "self moderation" idea, but most channers lack the self discipline and detachment to do it properly. This is why I say minimal moderation is the best way to do it.
It's like a political system in many respects, sure you can take a hard-line authoritarian stance (inb4 Godwin's Law) and maintain order that way, or you can take a libertarian stance (as close to anarchy as possible) and only exact consequences on people that cause harm to others (I'm not talking about crap talking or trolling, I'm talking about full-blown feuding and shit that is detrimental to the community).
My bottom line is if trolls and shitposters are largely ignored, they won't get any enjoyment out of trolling/shitposting, and will move on to somewhere that they can.
Anonymous V double-posted this 1.1 year ago, 56 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,561
@91,555
> My contribution:
> Minichan is not twitter, faggot.
I love you
> I strongly disagree with whichever person in power who did this, but I think you should've at least tried to get it undeleted.
Honestly I didn't feel like bugging the admins about it.
> My contribution:
> Minichan is not twitter, faggot.
I love you
> I strongly disagree with whichever person in power who did this, but I think you should've at least tried to get it undeleted.
Honestly I didn't feel like bugging the admins about it.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,562
Tekamine !AnRbswGQv. replied with this 1.1 year ago, 43 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,564
@91,552
Not, you just come across as if the moderation team never gave two fucks. Ok, AC had a more hands/user friends on approach with moderation, but you don't really know the effort that involves. Sometimes it a lot easier to delete threads than to let the river of shit gain momentum. When you have multiple threads that people like DM start, and then bitch when they're locked, it's a lot fucking easier to quash them with deletion.
It's all well and good you having some kind of opinion of something you don't really know an awful lot about, but try and see it from the other side when you're giving your over opinionated views.
Not, you just come across as if the moderation team never gave two fucks. Ok, AC had a more hands/user friends on approach with moderation, but you don't really know the effort that involves. Sometimes it a lot easier to delete threads than to let the river of shit gain momentum. When you have multiple threads that people like DM start, and then bitch when they're locked, it's a lot fucking easier to quash them with deletion.
It's all well and good you having some kind of opinion of something you don't really know an awful lot about, but try and see it from the other side when you're giving your over opinionated views.
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,566
@previous
DM was a rare case. IMO he should have either been completely ignored or banned on sight. The only reason he got so out of hand was because he was cut a lot of slack before he'd finally get banned and he reliably got reactions.
DM was a rare case. IMO he should have either been completely ignored or banned on sight. The only reason he got so out of hand was because he was cut a lot of slack before he'd finally get banned and he reliably got reactions.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 1.1 year ago, 45 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,567
@91,557
I do miss AC's PMs, and they weren't just moderating related, either. Sometimes he'd say "good contributions", or something to that effect. He had good PR.
@91,546
The situation isn't abysmal, bud. The mod team do a good job.
I do miss AC's PMs, and they weren't just moderating related, either. Sometimes he'd say "good contributions", or something to that effect. He had good PR.
@91,546
The situation isn't abysmal, bud. The mod team do a good job.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,568
@previous
Yeah I liked that about AC. He may be quirky, but he's a genuinely nice guy. The thing I liked the most about his moderation style was that he always kept a sense of levity about it.
Yeah I liked that about AC. He may be quirky, but he's a genuinely nice guy. The thing I liked the most about his moderation style was that he always kept a sense of levity about it.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 0 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,569
@91,559
Accountability. If people can evade bans no problem, it should be fixed. The same trolls and shit-posters have been around since the beginning, apparently nothing works. Ignoring problems won't make them go away, and anyone who thinks trolling = shit-posting or drama stirring on small BBS for YEARS has real mental problems. All that time and effort for nothing of value... wow.
> My bottom line is if trolls and shitposters are largely ignored, they won't get any enjoyment out of trolling/shitposting, and will move on to somewhere that they can.
I'd agree with you normally, but here it seems we're not dealing with normal, mentally healthy people. I don't know how else to say it. In all my time on the net I've never encountered people who are so seemingly obsessed with the idea of trolling. It reminds me of the people who thought posting on AT constantly and "subtly trolling" Kimmo was somehow a normal way to think. Its an obsession of some sorts yo. Seriously.
Accountability. If people can evade bans no problem, it should be fixed. The same trolls and shit-posters have been around since the beginning, apparently nothing works. Ignoring problems won't make them go away, and anyone who thinks trolling = shit-posting or drama stirring on small BBS for YEARS has real mental problems. All that time and effort for nothing of value... wow.
> My bottom line is if trolls and shitposters are largely ignored, they won't get any enjoyment out of trolling/shitposting, and will move on to somewhere that they can.
I'd agree with you normally, but here it seems we're not dealing with normal, mentally healthy people. I don't know how else to say it. In all my time on the net I've never encountered people who are so seemingly obsessed with the idea of trolling. It reminds me of the people who thought posting on AT constantly and "subtly trolling" Kimmo was somehow a normal way to think. Its an obsession of some sorts yo. Seriously.
Tekamine !AnRbswGQv. replied with this 1.1 year ago, 39 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,571
@91,566
No he wasn't. I was merely using him as example. We had Scatman/JPL, Ophere, Bobby2sox, and others I can't remember. People like using repetitive schitck for some reason, yet it grows stale very quick, and leads to a permaban...then they're forgotten.
I think warnings about repetitive schitck and frequency to which images are posted, should be an integral rule, as it's very fucking annoying.
No he wasn't. I was merely using him as example. We had Scatman/JPL, Ophere, Bobby2sox, and others I can't remember. People like using repetitive schitck for some reason, yet it grows stale very quick, and leads to a permaban...then they're forgotten.
I think warnings about repetitive schitck and frequency to which images are posted, should be an integral rule, as it's very fucking annoying.
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,572
@91,569
I think the only person that was so dedicated was DM, because he has no fucking life. Thinking about it more, I think he should have been permabanned on sight from here from the beginning. As for ban evasion, with the advent of VPNs and programs like FoxyProxy, there is no way to prevent it. Changing you MAC address and spoofing your user-agent is just as easy.
I think the only person that was so dedicated was DM, because he has no fucking life. Thinking about it more, I think he should have been permabanned on sight from here from the beginning. As for ban evasion, with the advent of VPNs and programs like FoxyProxy, there is no way to prevent it. Changing you MAC address and spoofing your user-agent is just as easy.
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,573
> My bottom line is if trolls and shitposters are largely ignored, they won't get any enjoyment out of trolling/shitposting, and will move on to somewhere that they can.
Self moderation is best moderation. :)~
Self moderation is best moderation. :)~
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 1.1 year ago, 29 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,574
@91,571
While they all got banned eventually, I agree that they should be cut less slack. After a while of them doing it, it's pretty obvious when a person's only reason to come here is to stir drama/post shite.
While they all got banned eventually, I agree that they should be cut less slack. After a while of them doing it, it's pretty obvious when a person's only reason to come here is to stir drama/post shite.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 29 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,575
@91,571
The rest of those people were forgettable, and didn't put nearly as much effort into their shticks as DM. I think people like that only got out of hand because of the leeway they were given in the first place. Honestly I think that kind of behavior is destructive and malicious, thus shouldn't be tolerated at all.
The rest of those people were forgettable, and didn't put nearly as much effort into their shticks as DM. I think people like that only got out of hand because of the leeway they were given in the first place. Honestly I think that kind of behavior is destructive and malicious, thus shouldn't be tolerated at all.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,578
@91,564
Oh please, "my over opinionated" views? I've been a moderator before, its not fucking rocket science. There's like what 60 (or less) posters here? A flood of shit? Fucking ban hammer if its such a "hard job".
FFS this is just a really overcomplicated subject around here. And no I don't think the moderation team never gave two fucks, but I KNOW they never got it right, as evident by us still talking about it. After all this time.
Same old vicious circle. I'm sorry if I'm coming off like a dick, frustration is frustrating.
Oh please, "my over opinionated" views? I've been a moderator before, its not fucking rocket science. There's like what 60 (or less) posters here? A flood of shit? Fucking ban hammer if its such a "hard job".
FFS this is just a really overcomplicated subject around here. And no I don't think the moderation team never gave two fucks, but I KNOW they never got it right, as evident by us still talking about it. After all this time.
Same old vicious circle. I'm sorry if I'm coming off like a dick, frustration is frustrating.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Tekamine !AnRbswGQv. replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,579
@previous
Calm down dear, it's not RL. And yes, you are coming across as a dick. You left for a reason, and now you're back to bitch, seems like your schtick is coming through.
@91,574
Agreed. But you'd be surprised at the people who do it anonymously, yet seem to be a normal poster.
@91,575
Yeah I suppose. His schtick is border line schizophrenia.
Calm down dear, it's not RL. And yes, you are coming across as a dick. You left for a reason, and now you're back to bitch, seems like your schtick is coming through.
@91,574
Agreed. But you'd be surprised at the people who do it anonymously, yet seem to be a normal poster.
@91,575
Yeah I suppose. His schtick is border line schizophrenia.
Green !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,580
@91,573
Hey! =)
Hey! =)
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 9 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,582
@91,578
Well, the discussion is getting rather tangential at this point. Back to the topic at hand, which is how it should be now, I think the excessive shtick trolls have all been dealt with, so I think as long as there is transparency and that the genuine, good posters are given as much leniency as possible, everything should be dandy.
Well, the discussion is getting rather tangential at this point. Back to the topic at hand, which is how it should be now, I think the excessive shtick trolls have all been dealt with, so I think as long as there is transparency and that the genuine, good posters are given as much leniency as possible, everything should be dandy.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 1.1 year ago, 30 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,583
@91,575
We shouldn't go too far though. There's a difference between our Hamfists and our Scatmans (men?). While the former might sometimes shitpost, they do post normally most of the time, and have an actual desire to use the board. Someone like scatman, on the other hand would always shitpost and had no real desire to make halfway decent replies.
TL;DR by all means be less tolerating of prolific shitposters, but don't go too far and over-punish people who only do so occasionally.
We shouldn't go too far though. There's a difference between our Hamfists and our Scatmans (men?). While the former might sometimes shitpost, they do post normally most of the time, and have an actual desire to use the board. Someone like scatman, on the other hand would always shitpost and had no real desire to make halfway decent replies.
TL;DR by all means be less tolerating of prolific shitposters, but don't go too far and over-punish people who only do so occasionally.
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG replied with this 1.1 year ago, 31 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,584
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,590
@91,583
Exactly. I made that parody thread last night of the "rate my boyfriend" thread, where I posted this pic and added some dachanfagging. That thread was swiftly deleted, even though it was relevant to another topic. The other night I made a thread about my new site and posted a link. That thread was swiftly deleted as well. In the mean time, I've been here from the very beginning. I like this board, I like the community, and I use the board frequently and contribute a lot of quality content. I think that if I want to make a borderline shitpost/parody thread or plug my own site, I should have every right to, especially since I did it tastefully.
Exactly. I made that parody thread last night of the "rate my boyfriend" thread, where I posted this pic and added some dachanfagging. That thread was swiftly deleted, even though it was relevant to another topic. The other night I made a thread about my new site and posted a link. That thread was swiftly deleted as well. In the mean time, I've been here from the very beginning. I like this board, I like the community, and I use the board frequently and contribute a lot of quality content. I think that if I want to make a borderline shitpost/parody thread or plug my own site, I should have every right to, especially since I did it tastefully.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 1.1 year ago, 9 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,591
@91,579
As long as they don't do so in unbearable amounts (anon or not), it should be tolerated. We're all entitled to the odd shitpost. :3
Also, I'd be the first to admit that I go anon sometimes to post un-quality stuff, but personally I never go too far.
As long as they don't do so in unbearable amounts (anon or not), it should be tolerated. We're all entitled to the odd shitpost. :3
Also, I'd be the first to admit that I go anon sometimes to post un-quality stuff, but personally I never go too far.
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 16 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,592
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,597
@91,579
My "shtick"? I don't have a fucking "shtick". Your response had nothing to say about my post, merely a sentence full of insults directed towards me. Maybe you should reevaluate who is being a dick Tekamine. Being critical is not always "bitching". This thread was created for discussion was it not? Now anything critical is "bitching"?
@91,582
I hope you're right.
My "shtick"? I don't have a fucking "shtick". Your response had nothing to say about my post, merely a sentence full of insults directed towards me. Maybe you should reevaluate who is being a dick Tekamine. Being critical is not always "bitching". This thread was created for discussion was it not? Now anything critical is "bitching"?
@91,582
I hope you're right.
Green !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 1.1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,608
@91,584
I'm ok thanks. How are you? =)
I'm ok thanks. How are you? =)
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 1.1 year ago, 0 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,609
@91,597
@91,426
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
@91,426
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
> 3) Anyone who treats the internet as SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS must also be banned.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,616
@previous
Justin Bieber eating that hotdog would have completed that post. :')
Justin Bieber eating that hotdog would have completed that post. :')
Mister !Bones6oqqQ joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 43 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,617
I think we all need to get over ourselves and just have a laugh on the board. Shitposters who take it too far (and most of us will know when it's gone too far) should be banned and warned and all that, concluding in a permaban. Topics should be locked, left for 5 mins with a reason, then deleted. No set in stone rules so to speak need to be enforced. And mods are hoomans too, they have opinions and if they delete something that they think is shit, when it's not, well we should easily be able protest and suddenly a minichan eutopia will be born.
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,620
@91,597
Well, I think my model should be given a try. Minimal moderation -- only delete illegal content. Lock everything else with a legitimate reason posted by the mod that locks the thread. Not only does this add transparency, but it allows the OP to take any grievance to the admins and have the thread that was locked still intact. Furthermore, I think we've learned a lot from DM, JPL, et al. in which case, shtick should be strictly forbidden, and the administration should give any unique poster who uses shtick no more than 100 posts. If, within that span, the person displays a tendency for excessive shtick and drama stirring, should be permabanned, and if he/she evades, banned on sight. That's all I really have to say on the matter, as I think this will give the good posters the leniency they deserve, while swiftly and ruthlessly dealing with the bad ones.
Well, I think my model should be given a try. Minimal moderation -- only delete illegal content. Lock everything else with a legitimate reason posted by the mod that locks the thread. Not only does this add transparency, but it allows the OP to take any grievance to the admins and have the thread that was locked still intact. Furthermore, I think we've learned a lot from DM, JPL, et al. in which case, shtick should be strictly forbidden, and the administration should give any unique poster who uses shtick no more than 100 posts. If, within that span, the person displays a tendency for excessive shtick and drama stirring, should be permabanned, and if he/she evades, banned on sight. That's all I really have to say on the matter, as I think this will give the good posters the leniency they deserve, while swiftly and ruthlessly dealing with the bad ones.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG replied with this 1.1 year ago, 17 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,622
SQUARED :3 !L.....AlN. replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,624
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 1.1 year ago, 13 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,626
Mister !Bones6oqqQ replied with this 1.1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,634
@previous
No, but a few days ago something just as exciting happened. There's this garage by my house and for some reason they got a load of those dolls they put clothes on in stores (I can't remember their names, they come alive in Doctor Who though...) so me and my friend Paddy decided to rob one. They were all female and in bikinis and we were running down the street with it and much lulz ensued. We ended up leaving it in a B and M bargain store.
EDIT: It's not a garage it's a car dealership.
And I'm fine thanks, you?
No, but a few days ago something just as exciting happened. There's this garage by my house and for some reason they got a load of those dolls they put clothes on in stores (I can't remember their names, they come alive in Doctor Who though...) so me and my friend Paddy decided to rob one. They were all female and in bikinis and we were running down the street with it and much lulz ensued. We ended up leaving it in a B and M bargain store.
EDIT: It's not a garage it's a car dealership.
And I'm fine thanks, you?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 1.1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,647
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,650
@91,571
I'd always assumed some of those "persona" were the same people, shocking and amazing if not.
I'd always assumed some of those "persona" were the same people, shocking and amazing if not.
Mister !Bones6oqqQ replied with this 1.1 year ago, 57 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,654
@91,647
That word, yes.
That word, yes.
Anonymous Z-2 replied with this 1.1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,659
Interestingly enough, Jeffrey Dahmer stole a mannequin once before he started committing murders.
Mister !Bones6oqqQ replied with this 1.1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,662
@previous
How very interesting...
How very interesting...
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 1.1 year ago, 16 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,663
Anonymous V replied with this 1.1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,667
Not to sound like a faggot, but this thread really ought to stay on topic.
sexual aerosol !!mtq555+/1 joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,780
Ice cream social
nimj joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,791
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 29 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,830
@previous
No one "just stumbles in". Well maybe, but its extremely rare to be sure. Any new namefag is probably just an old namefag or an old anon...
No one "just stumbles in". Well maybe, but its extremely rare to be sure. Any new namefag is probably just an old namefag or an old anon...
brie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 1.1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,840
@previous
some people actually spread the word, so that's not true necessarily.
some people actually spread the word, so that's not true necessarily.
Anonymous O replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,843
Anonymous Z-6 joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,853
@91,830
Nah, I stumbled on these boards only a few months ago from another site. Technically the board I was on was being raided and got tons of spam. Lurked for a bit. Post occasionally. I see lots of good interesting discussions come from shit posts and trolling. On the old board, on TC, and here. It's neat to see. Lot's of shitposts are satire, which is funny, but can also spark more compelling discussions. The more rules you have, the harder they are to enforce and the more people you're going to dissatisfy. In my opinion illegal content should be deleted, and objectionable content should be given clear room to exist (locking as opposed to deletion) but overly repetitious content should be deleted or merged into the same thread.
Nah, I stumbled on these boards only a few months ago from another site. Technically the board I was on was being raided and got tons of spam. Lurked for a bit. Post occasionally. I see lots of good interesting discussions come from shit posts and trolling. On the old board, on TC, and here. It's neat to see. Lot's of shitposts are satire, which is funny, but can also spark more compelling discussions. The more rules you have, the harder they are to enforce and the more people you're going to dissatisfy. In my opinion illegal content should be deleted, and objectionable content should be given clear room to exist (locking as opposed to deletion) but overly repetitious content should be deleted or merged into the same thread.
Nexus !jNexusRe/. joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #91,979
last time we tried this, nothing changed afterwards,
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 41 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,025
No more lulz killingr04r joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,027
I AM THE LAWRULES
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,039
@91,979
This. Variations of moderation discussions have happened a few times. We all seem to agree on a lot of things, things go smooth for a bit, then it slips back into shit. Getting rid of JPL, scatman, MM, and whoever else was a GREAT move though, and well past due (I was so sick of their fucking shit when I left).
This. Variations of moderation discussions have happened a few times. We all seem to agree on a lot of things, things go smooth for a bit, then it slips back into shit. Getting rid of JPL, scatman, MM, and whoever else was a GREAT move though, and well past due (I was so sick of their fucking shit when I left).
Anonymous Z-2 replied with this 1.1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,041
@previous
I don't understand why you pay any attention to them, man. Also, if you could answer a question: you came from T4C, right? How did you find that board?
I don't understand why you pay any attention to them, man. Also, if you could answer a question: you came from T4C, right? How did you find that board?
Anonymous Z-6 replied with this 1.1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,047
@previous
They push themselves on people. It's hard to avoid them. Especially for new people who don't know the shtick.
They push themselves on people. It's hard to avoid them. Especially for new people who don't know the shtick.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,055
@92,041
I took refuge in T4C during a short ban from the mother chan, everybody knew about T4C at that time.
@previous
This. When someone pries their shtick into every thread they can, it becomes truly impossible to ignore. I never talked to them, I did actively ignore them in that way. But its like dog-shit, you don't have to look at it, but it still fucking stinks, you know it there, and you can't exactly ignore the smell away.
I took refuge in T4C during a short ban from the mother chan, everybody knew about T4C at that time.
@previous
This. When someone pries their shtick into every thread they can, it becomes truly impossible to ignore. I never talked to them, I did actively ignore them in that way. But its like dog-shit, you don't have to look at it, but it still fucking stinks, you know it there, and you can't exactly ignore the smell away.
Anonymous Z-2 replied with this 1.1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,060
@previous
If you came from 4chan, how were you able to stick around? If you think MC trolls are bad, how did you survive on there?
If you came from 4chan, how were you able to stick around? If you think MC trolls are bad, how did you survive on there?
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,092
@previous
Believe it or not, in the early days of 4chan there was no such thing as a "troll". Of course people pulled shit etc, but there wasn't a name for it. As soon as the term "troll" came into use it became something of a fad, the extreme amount of shit you see today built up slowly over time. When you're around something as it builds up, it sorta creeps up on you before you realize how bad it is. Go have a look at /b/ today and find one interesting or funny thing, I dare you. It wasn't always that way, but it was never perfect either. MC started as a refuge from that shit, but still had the good "chan" elements, but as soon as the guard was let down the shit flooded right back in. I still lurk 4chan from time to time, but as always /b/ isn't the main reason I go there.
Believe it or not, in the early days of 4chan there was no such thing as a "troll". Of course people pulled shit etc, but there wasn't a name for it. As soon as the term "troll" came into use it became something of a fad, the extreme amount of shit you see today built up slowly over time. When you're around something as it builds up, it sorta creeps up on you before you realize how bad it is. Go have a look at /b/ today and find one interesting or funny thing, I dare you. It wasn't always that way, but it was never perfect either. MC started as a refuge from that shit, but still had the good "chan" elements, but as soon as the guard was let down the shit flooded right back in. I still lurk 4chan from time to time, but as always /b/ isn't the main reason I go there.
(Edited 47 seconds later.)
Meowth joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 3 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,205
Anonymous Z-2 replied with this 1.1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,208
@previous
Please don't shitpost this image everywhere, bro.
Please don't shitpost this image everywhere, bro.
Meowth replied with this 1.1 year ago, 38 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,209
Anonymous Z-2 replied with this 1.1 year ago, 36 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,210
@previous
I'm asking nicely, Meowth.
I'm asking nicely, Meowth.
Meowth replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,211
Green !pFNWNYROxA replied with this 1.1 year ago, 40 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,222
Syntax joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 51 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #92,243
@92,092
excuse Thee but Troll as a term for net slang :one who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Circa 1990 from Usenet groups and first 4um's use was for Admins/Sysops = Trolls at Bianca.com
excuse Thee but Troll as a term for net slang :one who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Circa 1990 from Usenet groups and first 4um's use was for Admins/Sysops = Trolls at Bianca.com
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 1.1 year ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #92,451
You can start by not having any banned phrases on the site. I like having MC parties on tiny cha* and now I'm not even allowed to say tiny cha*? WTF assholes? At least get it right and call it a banned phrase, since it's not spam. I'm not spamming the website to get it attention. I can't even put the word tiny and the word chat next to each other? Even ltamake's wordfilters don't stop me from posting site's he doesn't like.
Anonymous Z-12 joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #92,562
lol
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous Z-12 double-posted this 1.1 year ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #92,563
tinyсhat tinyсhat
TTEH !IzK9KJ2nYY triple-posted this 1.1 year ago, 15 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #92,564
tinyсhat :3
Meowth replied with this 1.1 year ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #92,802
TTEH !IzK9KJ2nYY replied with this 1.1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #92,807
Now 'tinychat' with a crylic с is censored too. :')
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ replied with this 1.1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #92,817
@previous
Lol, oh wow. Honestly, this tiny(moo)chat shit is extremely gay.
Lol, oh wow. Honestly, this tiny(moo)chat shit is extremely gay.
TTEH !IzK9KJ2nYY replied with this 1.1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #92,825
@previous
I don't even understand why it was banned...
I don't even understand why it was banned...
Meowth replied with this 1.1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #92,828
TTEH !IzK9KJ2nYY replied with this 1.1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #92,834
Lawrence !9p5vCatBBQ replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #92,835
@92,825
Neither do I. All I know is that it's silly and we should be allowed to say it without the spam filter being triggered.
Neither do I. All I know is that it's silly and we should be allowed to say it without the spam filter being triggered.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 1.1 year ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #92,953
@previous
say what, ҬЇЍЎсНАт?
say what, ҬЇЍЎсНАт?
Nexus !jNexusRe/. replied with this 1.1 year ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #92,963
tinychan?
Anonymous P replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #93,006
@92,039
You are never fucking happy you are always complaining. You've have never, ever, said one good thing about this board. It will be people like you that will turn MC into a miserable and boring place just like AT.
You are never fucking happy you are always complaining. You've have never, ever, said one good thing about this board. It will be people like you that will turn MC into a miserable and boring place just like AT.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1.1 year ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #93,045
The block has been lifted and mods instructed to baleet Tinychat threads quickly and swiftly once they served their purpose.
We're working around the clock to give you the best possible BBS experience out there. Thank you for flying Minichan Air.
We're working around the clock to give you the best possible BBS experience out there. Thank you for flying Minichan Air.
RogiPhone !tiQBrOS.jo joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,075
@OP Stop taking me so seriously and learn when I am obviously trolling. Can this be a rule?
RogiPhone !tiQBrOS.jo double-posted this 1.1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,081
Double post lolol.
Btw ily sim
Btw ily sim
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,083
@93,006
> You are never fucking happy you are always complaining. You've have never, ever, said one good thing about this board. It will be people like you that will turn MC into a miserable and boring place just like AT.
That is just not true. Can we have a place that isn't as extreme as AT or shitty as TC? TC looks like its gotten a little better recently, but I imagine moderation had something to do with that. People seem to think in two extremes, AT mode or anything goes mode. There is another mode ya know? Even TC has abandoned anything goes mode...
> You are never fucking happy you are always complaining. You've have never, ever, said one good thing about this board. It will be people like you that will turn MC into a miserable and boring place just like AT.
That is just not true. Can we have a place that isn't as extreme as AT or shitty as TC? TC looks like its gotten a little better recently, but I imagine moderation had something to do with that. People seem to think in two extremes, AT mode or anything goes mode. There is another mode ya know? Even TC has abandoned anything goes mode...
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous P replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,124
@previous
> There is another mode ya know?
Is there? Show me it, and please make sure the mode actually works.
Stop striving for perfection, you ain't gonna get it, this is as good as it gets buddy.
> There is another mode ya know?
Is there? Show me it, and please make sure the mode actually works.
Stop striving for perfection, you ain't gonna get it, this is as good as it gets buddy.
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,127
@previous
No, I guess there is not. Its only the extreme rules AT or no rules at all. Nothing else is possible. Ever.
Brb posting endless streams of shit in every thread, making endless shit threads and trolling the fuck out of everyone constantly.
No, I guess there is not. Its only the extreme rules AT or no rules at all. Nothing else is possible. Ever.
Brb posting endless streams of shit in every thread, making endless shit threads and trolling the fuck out of everyone constantly.
Anonymous D replied with this 1.1 year ago, 35 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,157
@previous
srs bsns.
srs bsns.
Anonymous F replied with this 1.1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,163
@previous
sup mod
sup mod
Anonymous P replied with this 1.1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,166
@93,127
You just proved my point, you can't show me a working example of this perfect mode you speak of.
It's either all rules or no rules, the types of posters here are too diverse for us all to come to some soft of agreement.
That is why Sim is in charge, someone needs to take control, he has been doing a good job.
If all you're going to do is complain, I suggest you fuck off back to Ghoul and tell DM how to run that shithole. I'm sick of your nescient whining.
You just proved my point, you can't show me a working example of this perfect mode you speak of.
It's either all rules or no rules, the types of posters here are too diverse for us all to come to some soft of agreement.
That is why Sim is in charge, someone needs to take control, he has been doing a good job.
If all you're going to do is complain, I suggest you fuck off back to Ghoul and tell DM how to run that shithole. I'm sick of your nescient whining.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 25 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,185
@previous
Proved your point? Your whole point seems to be an attempt to say all I do is "whine". You have an idea that there is extreme rules or no rules, and nothing in between.
> It's either all rules or no rules, the types of posters here are too diverse for us all to come to some soft of agreement.
So your solution is to not even try? Abandon all hope ye who enter here?
> That is why Sim is in charge, someone needs to take control, he has been doing a good job.
I haven't been around enough recently to judge one way or the other. I do know in the past moderation was a failure. Plain and simple. Getting rid of a few of the worst people was a step in the right direction and definitely improved the board as a whole.
> If all you're going to do is complain, I suggest you fuck off back to Ghoul and tell DM how to run that shithole. I'm sick of your nescient whining.
If me saying anything remotely negative and simply not agreeing with everything you say is going to be twisted into me "whining", I suggest you simply step away from the internet and stop trying to have any discussion at all. Stop relying on insults in an attempt to give your argument weight.
Transparency, consistency, and accountability <-- not rocket science.
What AC did worked for the majority of posters. Your argument is invalid.
Proved your point? Your whole point seems to be an attempt to say all I do is "whine". You have an idea that there is extreme rules or no rules, and nothing in between.
> It's either all rules or no rules, the types of posters here are too diverse for us all to come to some soft of agreement.
So your solution is to not even try? Abandon all hope ye who enter here?
> That is why Sim is in charge, someone needs to take control, he has been doing a good job.
I haven't been around enough recently to judge one way or the other. I do know in the past moderation was a failure. Plain and simple. Getting rid of a few of the worst people was a step in the right direction and definitely improved the board as a whole.
> If all you're going to do is complain, I suggest you fuck off back to Ghoul and tell DM how to run that shithole. I'm sick of your nescient whining.
If me saying anything remotely negative and simply not agreeing with everything you say is going to be twisted into me "whining", I suggest you simply step away from the internet and stop trying to have any discussion at all. Stop relying on insults in an attempt to give your argument weight.
Transparency, consistency, and accountability <-- not rocket science.
What AC did worked for the majority of posters. Your argument is invalid.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous Z-2 replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,275
@previous
> Transparency, consistency, and accountability <-- not rocket science.
All of these things are available to the admins. That's all that really matters in terms of moderation. Let them do their jobs, and in turn the mods will do their jobs.
> Transparency, consistency, and accountability <-- not rocket science.
All of these things are available to the admins. That's all that really matters in terms of moderation. Let them do their jobs, and in turn the mods will do their jobs.
Anonymous P replied with this 1.1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,283
@93,185
> So your solution is to not even try? Abandon all hope ye who enter here?
What we have now is in between too many rules and too little.
> I haven't been around enough recently to judge one way or the other.
Then you have no idea what you are talking about.
> Stop relying on insults in an attempt to give your argument weight.
It's a suggestion not an insult, and it's a very valid one at that since you've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about.
Once again you failed to show me evidence of your "perfect" functioning board.
> So your solution is to not even try? Abandon all hope ye who enter here?
What we have now is in between too many rules and too little.
> I haven't been around enough recently to judge one way or the other.
Then you have no idea what you are talking about.
> Stop relying on insults in an attempt to give your argument weight.
It's a suggestion not an insult, and it's a very valid one at that since you've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about.
Once again you failed to show me evidence of your "perfect" functioning board.
Anonymous Z-16 joined in and replied with this 1.1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,290
@previous
one thing I noticed about "perfect" forums is that they never have meta topics and similar drama. no one complains about the rules at hand, no one argues on how to improve the place or not, and so on. people just agree and do their shit
I mean, there are thousands of forums in the entire internet. if some place doesn't fit your tastes, you just move on, you don't complain and ruin the mood for everyone else.
one thing I noticed about "perfect" forums is that they never have meta topics and similar drama. no one complains about the rules at hand, no one argues on how to improve the place or not, and so on. people just agree and do their shit
I mean, there are thousands of forums in the entire internet. if some place doesn't fit your tastes, you just move on, you don't complain and ruin the mood for everyone else.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,292
@93,283
I don't need to give you evidence of shit son. Back up all your opinions with "evidence" before you ask others to do so.
> I haven't been around enough recently to judge one way or the other.
> Then you have no idea what you are talking about.
I can tell you consistency is a problem. Right now. Today.
> It's a suggestion not an insult, and it's a very valid one at that since you've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about.
> Once again you failed to show me evidence of your "perfect" functioning board.
Perfection is obviously fucking subjective. AC style moderation is as good as it gets. <-- keep ignoring that
You seem to be arguing just for arguments sake.
I don't need to give you evidence of shit son. Back up all your opinions with "evidence" before you ask others to do so.
> I haven't been around enough recently to judge one way or the other.
> Then you have no idea what you are talking about.
I can tell you consistency is a problem. Right now. Today.
> It's a suggestion not an insult, and it's a very valid one at that since you've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about.
> Once again you failed to show me evidence of your "perfect" functioning board.
Perfection is obviously fucking subjective. AC style moderation is as good as it gets. <-- keep ignoring that
You seem to be arguing just for arguments sake.
Anonymous P replied with this 1.1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,302
@previous
No I'll agree with you AC moderation tactics we very successful, but that neither here no there, he's gone.
> I don't need to give you evidence of shit son. Back up all your opinions with "evidence" before you ask others to do so.
> Ask for evidence
> No U
Very mature.
> I can tell you consistency is a problem. Right now. Today.
Where is the lack of consistency? With the new approach to moderation, it's even more consistent if anything. Each post is now judged on it's own merits, not on the posters handle or post count.
I'm arguing because you're wrong.
No I'll agree with you AC moderation tactics we very successful, but that neither here no there, he's gone.
> I don't need to give you evidence of shit son. Back up all your opinions with "evidence" before you ask others to do so.
> Ask for evidence
> No U
Very mature.
> I can tell you consistency is a problem. Right now. Today.
Where is the lack of consistency? With the new approach to moderation, it's even more consistent if anything. Each post is now judged on it's own merits, not on the posters handle or post count.
I'm arguing because you're wrong.
(Edited 47 seconds later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 1.1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,317
@previous
> I'm arguing because you're wrong
Wrong about what?
> No I'll agree with you AC moderation tactics we very successful, but that neither here no there, he's gone.
Yes because it would be entirely impossible to use those tactics, obviously he used magic. AC is a wizard.
> I don't need to give you evidence of shit son. Back up all your opinions with "evidence" before you ask others to do so.
> Ask for evidence
> No U
> Very mature.
I'll give you "evidence" of my opinions if you give me "evidence" of yours. Using my refusal to provide "evidence" is a pretty weak argument to stand on concerning me being right or wrong.
You've resorted to very retarded tactics throughout this discussion to make yourself feel like you're right. Keep doing that and keep failing.
> I'm arguing because you're wrong
Wrong about what?
> No I'll agree with you AC moderation tactics we very successful, but that neither here no there, he's gone.
Yes because it would be entirely impossible to use those tactics, obviously he used magic. AC is a wizard.
> I don't need to give you evidence of shit son. Back up all your opinions with "evidence" before you ask others to do so.
> Ask for evidence
> No U
> Very mature.
I'll give you "evidence" of my opinions if you give me "evidence" of yours. Using my refusal to provide "evidence" is a pretty weak argument to stand on concerning me being right or wrong.
You've resorted to very retarded tactics throughout this discussion to make yourself feel like you're right. Keep doing that and keep failing.
Anonymous Z-16 replied with this 1.1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #93,321
> ac moderation tactics
> stalk users through their ip
he was really good at his job, wasn't he?
> stalk users through their ip
he was really good at his job, wasn't he?