I am a long time poster here and I made a post about the Pacific Northwest. I did not advocate for violence and I don't believe anything in my thread could be misconstrued as a call for violence. I came to this site for political discourse, if you had a problem with my proposal you should have had a discussion with me. If truth was on your side then you would have made me look like an idiot. You do not need to censor your users.
Now if this was just a joke or something I'm fine with that. Mods need a laugh from time to time too, but could you please lift the ban?
It looks like a mod doesn’t like the Northwest Front
You have been unbanned, and the post restored from shadow deletion
Thank you. Is it against the rules to post about the NWF?
The concern was that there were previously attempts by persons in the Northwest Front to contact here, and issue arose where site users thought the NWF were LARPers, and the NWF thought ponies were degenerate. The closest applicable rule is the rule against advertisement (“shilling”), which does not really apply here as it is discussion about the NWF by a long time user, not an advertisement. In any case, a ban was over zealous.
Just a random Anon here: generally, the NWF is a divisive topic on the site, with some people supporting them or their ideals, others believing that they're just a bunch of LARPers, and yet others that believe that the Pacific Northwest is a lost cause. It doesn't help that the NWF consider us to be "degenerates", which is understandable from an outside lense but pony porn is part of our identity.
It's not really against the rules, you're just guaranteed to start an online shouting match whenever the topic is brought up.
It's alright. I know you just want to protect the site. Just be more careful with your bans in the future.
Why was the /pone/ refugee banned?
What are you talking about?
I remember that one. A spammer who was angry that his shitty one liner OPs were being deleted decided to copy and paste the /pone/ refugee thread (I think with one of his shit images attached) for one of his own threads.
>>4879Whew, it wasn't me this time>>4875
I'll admit, I have been a bit quick with the hammer. This was recently addressed in staff discussion, wherein I agreed to stay my hand. Staff reads and takes ban appeals seriously, and nothing I can do cannot be undone by anyone on staff. Still, doing it for free is no excuse for being overzealous, and I am sorry.
It bears mentioning that in some cases, site detractors will effectively false flag with their posts and professed intent, and seeing how they respond to a ban is often the most telling way to determine the legitimacy of their participation on site.