For calm interpersonal discussions and questions and answers.
Also didn't deserve their own thread, but is geared for community engagements.
Also for community input and other things that happen to not be a question or an answer.
/qa/ - Questions and Answers
Keeping the community together by giving you a voice
1690948814_2.gif (854.8 KB, 340x213, 9ECDA514F9170D903A7E1DC01352C58E-875324.gif)
411 replies and 132 files omitted.
>>8103
A Fasces's answer about the dilemma is due. He has to take responsibility on what is decided and stand for it as he stood for banning generals in /mlpol/.
A Fasces's answer about the dilemma is due. He has to take responsibility on what is decided and stand for it as he stood for banning generals in /mlpol/.
>>8103
A general thread with only 5 or six replies independent of the actual newslinks is worse than a bunch of actual discussion threads with a few replies.
A general thread with only 5 or six replies independent of the actual newslinks is worse than a bunch of actual discussion threads with a few replies.
>>8104
Generals have always been banned in /mlpol/. Technically they're banned sitewide, but enforcement is low.
Generals have always been banned in /mlpol/. Technically they're banned sitewide, but enforcement is low.
>>8107
Nobody's going to complain if the threads are actually good.
And they would still complain if they kept seeing the general thread on /sp/ on the overboard.
Single-topic news threads are the intended site format.
Nobody's going to complain if the threads are actually good.
And they would still complain if they kept seeing the general thread on /sp/ on the overboard.
Single-topic news threads are the intended site format.
>>8108
>Nobody's going to complain if the threads are actually good.
This is a crappy answer about a moving target. Rule 3 is a fixed post where the mod and acolytes shield behind. I want the same assurances.
>Nobody's going to complain if the threads are actually good.
This is a crappy answer about a moving target. Rule 3 is a fixed post where the mod and acolytes shield behind. I want the same assurances.
>>8109
I mean, are you going to make a thread for every vaxxed retard that dies? I think we can all agree duplicates need to be deleted.
I mean, are you going to make a thread for every vaxxed retard that dies? I think we can all agree duplicates need to be deleted.
>>8110
>I think we can all agree duplicates need to be deleted.
>deleted
This a trap and you know it. I remember when I asked permission to post in /int/ and was granted. then months later all threads where deleted.
By the way, accountability is nowhere to be seen, the staff has not been sacked yet.
>I think we can all agree duplicates need to be deleted.
>deleted
This a trap and you know it. I remember when I asked permission to post in /int/ and was granted. then months later all threads where deleted.
By the way, accountability is nowhere to be seen, the staff has not been sacked yet.
>>8092
>>8093
Does nobody read the policy page?
You're both saying one rule but referencing a completely different one.
What the fuck.
>>8103
Is it an actual HAPPENING?
"HAPPENINGS" are the first responder threads to world events, and are required to have basic information; who, what, when, where, how, why, and a citation or link to an article or direct video of the event itself
>>8110
At this point every time that occurs feels less like an important event as its been covered repeatedly just with different deceased people.
>>8103
Is it actually important?
>What about the garbage no response spam posts that have literally zero content with ten new threads every minute.
Hmmmmmm.
>>8111
I, an anon with faulty memory, remember that a bit differently. Some other anon was bitching about something, ya'll said sure thing broski and did it. As the duplicate 'Rona thread there and on the main board didn't actually get addressed just some random anon.
Not an admin or a mod going in depth about any of that. Just some random anon. I could very well be incorrect.
I think I disagreed with that other anon back then because thw points didn't make sense at the time. Not you, the other anon. I think.
Anyway.
Jumping to action doing it. As in really fucking fast.
The talking peters out because something else comes up.
As you've said months later, they see a duplicate thread about a topic just about the same. Look and see it's a copy as in one for one repost. And ax the no response duplicate.
I think it was also around the time the shit wave was there for retarded reasons as that was the bigger overreaching issue at the time. I think it was
<HI ANON
<I've hijacked this alzheimer medalist's post.
<Did you know peetzer is considered enough of a vegetable for the USDA to put it on school lunches
<Like many Earth vegetables they don't belong on peetzer and neither does USDA pizza while also not counting as peetzer.
<Did you know world power status only belongs to those who have the best peetzer currently?
<One key ingredient many Earth Peetzers miss in Love!
<Did you know like peetzer this post took over an hour to type since the first viewing.
<Not my part, and that's why I'll hurry and sign off before he checks back in.
<May the peetzer be with you all and God bless you.
Princess Mi Amore Cadenza
-- ♡ Peetzer Pony
>>8112
I will post news exclusively in a containment thread in /sp/ so every hater can gladly fuck off.
I will post news exclusively in a containment thread in /sp/ so every hater can gladly fuck off.
1693716736.png (40.4 KB, 418x603, FFF40203DE360736A48AF0C684D3E3FB-41413.png)
>>8113
<That doesn't solve the inherent issues.
<The problem stems from hyperactivity compared to the lethargy of all other responses.
<Like good peetzer it'll stand up to being left out over night or over a week as the party winds up and down across the time.
-- ♡ Peetzer Pony
>>8115
<You have to put that cock into a mare.
<Many mares can do with quick shots but long lasting love huddles.
<Love huddles aren't a one pony show, I would know.
<It can't be a quick shlick because like friendship love huddles need time and care.
<As you've currently seen it takes time for responses from others.
<Three Anons and myself responded and none of them are who you actually wanted to hear from.
<So prepare the pre-pony pile peetzer platters you have time.
<As of yet nothing has actually occurred and don't miss the mare with Applejackulate.
<Background ponies or the pony prize?
<Don't shoot so quick and savor the peetzer.
Princess Mi Amore Cadenza
-- ♡ Peetzer Pony
<That means wait a week as everypony is busy that way a proper response is had. Also keeping an eye on when there is and read in detail.
[Read more] <You have to put that cock into a mare.
<Many mares can do with quick shots but long lasting love huddles.
<Love huddles aren't a one pony show, I would know.
<It can't be a quick shlick because like friendship love huddles need time and care.
<As you've currently seen it takes time for responses from others.
<Three Anons and myself responded and none of them are who you actually wanted to hear from.
<So prepare the pre-pony pile peetzer platters you have time.
<As of yet nothing has actually occurred and don't miss the mare with Applejackulate.
<Background ponies or the pony prize?
<Don't shoot so quick and savor the peetzer.
Princess Mi Amore Cadenza
-- ♡ Peetzer Pony
<That means wait a week as everypony is busy that way a proper response is had. Also keeping an eye on when there is and read in detail.
>>8116
>You have to put that cock into a mare.
Exactly, they lost their Equestrian graces and are bitter about that.
>You have to put that cock into a mare.
Exactly, they lost their Equestrian graces and are bitter about that.
>>8117
<Are you messing with me?
<I would be disappointed if nothing what I typed is read.
Princess Mi Amore Cadenza
-- ♡ Peetzer Pony
<Are you messing with me?
<I would be disappointed if nothing what I typed is read.
Princess Mi Amore Cadenza
-- ♡ Peetzer Pony
For a while, the Coronavirus thread was shut down, which made sense as the issue was dead and there was nothing more that really needed to be said. But then, it popped up in the news with several new events, like a "new strand" and companies making regulations over it again, so it's a relevant news topic again.
So where could news about it be posted? Is the thread created for coronavirus discussion a """general"""? Well if it's banned from being posted there, where do you post it? To the random news thread, or other amalgamation of news? No, that too is declared a """general""". So do you make a new thread? No, we already have a thread for coronavirus, so that makes any new thread a rule 11 violation. And that rule actually makes sense, because duplicate threads reduce the quality of the catalogue. So then where could new updates and news about the Coronavirus be posted? It would seem the answer is nowhere; every possible location on /mlpol/ would be a "rule violation." And just like that, /mlpol/ has rules banning discussion about coronavirus that are actually stricter than Youtube or Twitter had at the height of censorship. That is stupid, and everyone should see that that is stupid.
So where could news about it be posted? Is the thread created for coronavirus discussion a """general"""? Well if it's banned from being posted there, where do you post it? To the random news thread, or other amalgamation of news? No, that too is declared a """general""". So do you make a new thread? No, we already have a thread for coronavirus, so that makes any new thread a rule 11 violation. And that rule actually makes sense, because duplicate threads reduce the quality of the catalogue. So then where could new updates and news about the Coronavirus be posted? It would seem the answer is nowhere; every possible location on /mlpol/ would be a "rule violation." And just like that, /mlpol/ has rules banning discussion about coronavirus that are actually stricter than Youtube or Twitter had at the height of censorship. That is stupid, and everyone should see that that is stupid.
>>8121
It seems to me that you're thinking about this a little backwards. Instead of worrying about how to post low-engagement content without getting banned, maybe you should be putting a little more thought into what you post to begin with. From what you've been saying, it seems like the content you want to post mainly consists of news articles and memes that are generating little meaningful discussion. The issue for you seems to be whether it's preferable to dump all of this content into a single containment thread or make a separate thread for each article. Imo this question completely misses the point.
This is a discussion site, not a news and meme aggregator. If you come across a news article that you think would provoke some meaningful discussion on the board, then the thing to do would be to make a thread with a meaningful subject line, a link to the article, and maybe a brief summation of what the article is about. Since not every news article is a discussion-worthy event, it's probably worth putting some thought into whether or not the article you want to post is worth posting.
As you've pointed out, in the past we've had complaints about slower pony-related threads being pushed out of the catalog by large floods of news-related threads that receive few replies, and this is a valid complaint. However, taking the same amount of threads and dumping them into a single neverending general isn't really a solution either, since the core problem is that if the threads are not receiving replies, it probably means that no one is interested in discussing these topics in the first place. So if that's the case, why post any of it at all?
The overall goal here is not to restrict content, but to improve the quality of content. In general we don't like to tell anyone what they can or can't post, but if an individual user is flooding the board with low-quality content that generates little meaningful discussion, it brings down the quality of the site overall and ruins the experience for all users. So, while in general we prefer that it be a last resort, we do reserve the right to hand out bans or to delete content as we see fit.
[Read more] It seems to me that you're thinking about this a little backwards. Instead of worrying about how to post low-engagement content without getting banned, maybe you should be putting a little more thought into what you post to begin with. From what you've been saying, it seems like the content you want to post mainly consists of news articles and memes that are generating little meaningful discussion. The issue for you seems to be whether it's preferable to dump all of this content into a single containment thread or make a separate thread for each article. Imo this question completely misses the point.
This is a discussion site, not a news and meme aggregator. If you come across a news article that you think would provoke some meaningful discussion on the board, then the thing to do would be to make a thread with a meaningful subject line, a link to the article, and maybe a brief summation of what the article is about. Since not every news article is a discussion-worthy event, it's probably worth putting some thought into whether or not the article you want to post is worth posting.
As you've pointed out, in the past we've had complaints about slower pony-related threads being pushed out of the catalog by large floods of news-related threads that receive few replies, and this is a valid complaint. However, taking the same amount of threads and dumping them into a single neverending general isn't really a solution either, since the core problem is that if the threads are not receiving replies, it probably means that no one is interested in discussing these topics in the first place. So if that's the case, why post any of it at all?
The overall goal here is not to restrict content, but to improve the quality of content. In general we don't like to tell anyone what they can or can't post, but if an individual user is flooding the board with low-quality content that generates little meaningful discussion, it brings down the quality of the site overall and ruins the experience for all users. So, while in general we prefer that it be a last resort, we do reserve the right to hand out bans or to delete content as we see fit.
>>8120
>And just like that, /mlpol/ has rules banning discussion about coronavirus that are actually stricter than Youtube or Twitter had at the height of censorship. That is stupid, and everyone should see that that is stupid.
Or maybe, just maybe, the OP is not even willing to have a discussion to begin with. So his thread ends up becoming a spam dump.
I suggest you take your time to analyze the situation more thoroughly before making a judgment. This shit has been going on for quite a while now. Your mods didn't act arbitrarily.
Alternatively, you can just ignore it like you've done so all this time. And go back to the designated neckbeard thread.
>And just like that, /mlpol/ has rules banning discussion about coronavirus that are actually stricter than Youtube or Twitter had at the height of censorship. That is stupid, and everyone should see that that is stupid.
Or maybe, just maybe, the OP is not even willing to have a discussion to begin with. So his thread ends up becoming a spam dump.
I suggest you take your time to analyze the situation more thoroughly before making a judgment. This shit has been going on for quite a while now. Your mods didn't act arbitrarily.
Alternatively, you can just ignore it like you've done so all this time. And go back to the designated neckbeard thread.
>>8121
First of all, everything that Fasces said about not posting dumps of memes without comment, and of the need to generate actual discussion, applies.
What Elway says in >>8122 is on point as well and you should read that post thoroughly.
Second, posting of news where relevant and not redundant, is not banned from /mlpol/, and we are not going to interpret in such a way as to ban all discussion about political topics.
A news post must at minimum have a link to a news article, and multiple lines of text (usually green text) quoting the linked article, or summarizing it in enough detail that the content of the article can be understood by reading the post. The news must have some connection to politics or the culture wars, and should not be duplicative.
When posting news, first check and see if there is a thread on that topic, and if there is, post it in that thread. If there is not, you should make a new thread. The proper organization is by topic. Generalized news threads like Random News, and American Politics, are not allowed
>>8123
This is not just a Boom Boom issue; we need generalized rules concerning news, so I think it's worthwhile to clarify. Making a rule that accidentally bans all discussion of Coronavirus just because you hate and want to contain Boom Boom is not wise. We have other ways of constraining him that don't have such collateral damage.
[Read more] First of all, everything that Fasces said about not posting dumps of memes without comment, and of the need to generate actual discussion, applies.
What Elway says in >>8122 is on point as well and you should read that post thoroughly.
Second, posting of news where relevant and not redundant, is not banned from /mlpol/, and we are not going to interpret in such a way as to ban all discussion about political topics.
A news post must at minimum have a link to a news article, and multiple lines of text (usually green text) quoting the linked article, or summarizing it in enough detail that the content of the article can be understood by reading the post. The news must have some connection to politics or the culture wars, and should not be duplicative.
When posting news, first check and see if there is a thread on that topic, and if there is, post it in that thread. If there is not, you should make a new thread. The proper organization is by topic. Generalized news threads like Random News, and American Politics, are not allowed
>>8123
This is not just a Boom Boom issue; we need generalized rules concerning news, so I think it's worthwhile to clarify. Making a rule that accidentally bans all discussion of Coronavirus just because you hate and want to contain Boom Boom is not wise. We have other ways of constraining him that don't have such collateral damage.
>>8123
>Or maybe, just maybe, the OP is not even willing to have a discussion to begin with.
But you can have a discussion with everybody else, don't you?
And if nobody replies, then what? Every post is a testimony of how the psyop developed and still is developing and is rich enough for every faggot interested on digging in the truth.
Shutting down posting only favors the conspirators. Also if it is not of your liking, just ignore it, but silencing threads is not how it works.
>Or maybe, just maybe, the OP is not even willing to have a discussion to begin with.
But you can have a discussion with everybody else, don't you?
And if nobody replies, then what? Every post is a testimony of how the psyop developed and still is developing and is rich enough for every faggot interested on digging in the truth.
Shutting down posting only favors the conspirators. Also if it is not of your liking, just ignore it, but silencing threads is not how it works.
>>8126
There is a big chunk of generals that are a reflection of the current political times, memes included, if those threads have little engagement is because the board is deserted, don't blame me, I do my part and very well.
There is a big chunk of generals that are a reflection of the current political times, memes included, if those threads have little engagement is because the board is deserted, don't blame me, I do my part and very well.
>>8125
Post a zip file then. Preferably an external link so you don't waste server storage.
/s
I don't think this site's supposed to be your blogpost/repository.
Post a zip file then. Preferably an external link so you don't waste server storage.
/s
I don't think this site's supposed to be your blogpost/repository.
>>8125
>Every post is a testimony of how the psyop developed and still is developing and is rich enough for every faggot interested on digging in the truth.
The problem here is that this is not why this site exists. As I stated above, this is a discussion site, not a news aggregator or a site for archiving news articles. If you simply want to keep a detailed public record of every development in the Corona/vaccine conspiracy, you may want to consider creating your own private site to contain it.
>Also if it is not of your liking, just ignore it, but silencing threads is not how it works.
The problem here is that we have a limited amount of space in the catalog, and people get tired of seeing megathreads that are nothing but huge information dumps with no discussion going on being constantly bumped to the top of the front page/overboard. There is also a concern about slower-moving threads with better discussion and content getting crowded out by large dumps of memes and information. Again, this is a discussion site, not an aggregator. If your project is simply to document the coronavirus issue, you should consider creating your own site or hosting an off-site backup of corona-related information as >>8128 suggests.
[Read more] >Every post is a testimony of how the psyop developed and still is developing and is rich enough for every faggot interested on digging in the truth.
The problem here is that this is not why this site exists. As I stated above, this is a discussion site, not a news aggregator or a site for archiving news articles. If you simply want to keep a detailed public record of every development in the Corona/vaccine conspiracy, you may want to consider creating your own private site to contain it.
>Also if it is not of your liking, just ignore it, but silencing threads is not how it works.
The problem here is that we have a limited amount of space in the catalog, and people get tired of seeing megathreads that are nothing but huge information dumps with no discussion going on being constantly bumped to the top of the front page/overboard. There is also a concern about slower-moving threads with better discussion and content getting crowded out by large dumps of memes and information. Again, this is a discussion site, not an aggregator. If your project is simply to document the coronavirus issue, you should consider creating your own site or hosting an off-site backup of corona-related information as >>8128 suggests.
>>8128
>I don't think this site's supposed to be your blogpost/repository.
I agree, that's why your claim is untrue. My posting is not about me, but the current political situation. When you demand my engagement in discussion, you indeed want to make it about me.
>I don't think this site's supposed to be your blogpost/repository.
I agree, that's why your claim is untrue. My posting is not about me, but the current political situation. When you demand my engagement in discussion, you indeed want to make it about me.
>>8130
Bro, you literally namefag half the time.
Anyways, address Elway or something. Maybe they'll get tired after a while. Not that I blame them.
Bro, you literally namefag half the time.
Anyways, address Elway or something. Maybe they'll get tired after a while. Not that I blame them.
>>8129
>Second, posting of news where relevant and not redundant, is not banned from /mlpol/
I wish that would be slightly close. I'm getting banned just for sniffing.
>Second, posting of news where relevant and not redundant, is not banned from /mlpol/
I wish that would be slightly close. I'm getting banned just for sniffing.
>>8132
The first pic is a heavy handed ban, the second is a ruthless application of Rule 3. Even posts that a well within of the rules are fought with controversies to make me desist and retire from the board. Sorry, that won't happen.
The first pic is a heavy handed ban, the second is a ruthless application of Rule 3. Even posts that a well within of the rules are fought with controversies to make me desist and retire from the board. Sorry, that won't happen.
I kinda like meme, news dumps and such even if I'm not replying, I still end up lurking stuff.
I kinda like to when threads don't need to be overwritten in order to exist. Also, I think so long as the post fit the thread, there is no problem if it is a simple meme.
Perhaps there is more to it. I haven't really managed to follow what's going on here but that's my two cents.
I kinda like to when threads don't need to be overwritten in order to exist. Also, I think so long as the post fit the thread, there is no problem if it is a simple meme.
Perhaps there is more to it. I haven't really managed to follow what's going on here but that's my two cents.
>>8134
>I haven't really managed to follow what's going on here
Simple, some ponyfags decided by themselves that the board belong to them only and /pol/ fags are unwanted. They managed to expel most of them
>I haven't really managed to follow what's going on here
Simple, some ponyfags decided by themselves that the board belong to them only and /pol/ fags are unwanted. They managed to expel most of them
>>8132
>>8133
First of all, what you're quoting is from Lotus's post, not mine. Second, you're taking these ban screens out of context.
>The first pic is a heavy handed ban, the second is a ruthless application of Rule 3. Even posts that a well within of the rules are fought with controversies to make me desist and retire from the board. Sorry, that won't happen.
This is pure gaslighting. Your bans are the end result of a much larger pattern of obnoxious spamming that multiple anons have complained about. As I stated earlier, we prefer not to ban people or to delete posts if we don't have to, but you're leaving us little choice at this point.
>>8133
First of all, what you're quoting is from Lotus's post, not mine. Second, you're taking these ban screens out of context.
>The first pic is a heavy handed ban, the second is a ruthless application of Rule 3. Even posts that a well within of the rules are fought with controversies to make me desist and retire from the board. Sorry, that won't happen.
This is pure gaslighting. Your bans are the end result of a much larger pattern of obnoxious spamming that multiple anons have complained about. As I stated earlier, we prefer not to ban people or to delete posts if we don't have to, but you're leaving us little choice at this point.
>>8136
>Your bans are the end result of a much larger pattern
I agree, your campaign against my posting is long and widely known.
>Your bans are the end result of a much larger pattern
I agree, your campaign against my posting is long and widely known.
>>8138
>Try not to get lonely up there on your cross
I hope not for long and some fags will join my crusade.
>Try not to get lonely up there on your cross
I hope not for long and some fags will join my crusade.
>>8132
Well, you’re not going to be banned for the second kind of post anymore. If you’re banned, it’ll be because of shitty behavior. Again, everything else said by Fasces and Elway applies.
Also, see >>8131
Personally, I don’t care about meme dumps or “””spam””” nearly half as much as I do about the namegagging. This is an anonymous imageboard. The point is for anons to not have an identity. You have an American geolocater flag, so you have an easier time remaining anonymous than some posters. You should take advantage of that.
Well, you’re not going to be banned for the second kind of post anymore. If you’re banned, it’ll be because of shitty behavior. Again, everything else said by Fasces and Elway applies.
Also, see >>8131
Personally, I don’t care about meme dumps or “””spam””” nearly half as much as I do about the namegagging. This is an anonymous imageboard. The point is for anons to not have an identity. You have an American geolocater flag, so you have an easier time remaining anonymous than some posters. You should take advantage of that.
>>8140
Thanks, but I doubt that will last long. They have take it personal and will look for way to circumvent the directives and suppress my posting. That is guaranteed.
Thanks, but I doubt that will last long. They have take it personal and will look for way to circumvent the directives and suppress my posting. That is guaranteed.
>>8132
>First Pic
Wow necro bumping a thread with zero content how could this have happened.
Instead of posting on /qa/ where that post you posted belongs, you posted it on the page ten almost dead thread.
>>>/ub/6917 →
Then you go totally off topic continually smugging at anyone and always denying any meaningful response.
Deflecting everything and leaving a toxic pit in your wake.
>>>/ub/6923 →
And you just ask some random anon for SITE WIDE IMPLEMENTATION out of the blue. It's like you think everybody is an admin or mod so the first response is the truest response.
So take a moment and look at the ID mods and admins use. You'll notice they don't have numbers.
>>>/ub/6925 →
Then when somebody says why not put the SITE related META thread QUESTION where it's supposed to be. It's brushed off that anywhere and everywhere else is just as good to shit up almost dead threads with a post of little In-Topic value.
The reactions continue till the last post
>>>/ub/6936 →
So I as a random user think that first ban is deserved. But apparently the obvious meaning of why has escaped your impeccable reading skills.
It has 35 total posts and 19 (20) of them are new. And it's necro'd at the very end of its life for something that goes in /qa/.
That means 16 posts not including the original poster's post. Every post has nothing to do with the OP in and of itself.
[Read more] >First Pic
Wow necro bumping a thread with zero content how could this have happened.
Instead of posting on /qa/ where that post you posted belongs, you posted it on the page ten almost dead thread.
>>>/ub/6917 →
Then you go totally off topic continually smugging at anyone and always denying any meaningful response.
Deflecting everything and leaving a toxic pit in your wake.
>>>/ub/6923 →
And you just ask some random anon for SITE WIDE IMPLEMENTATION out of the blue. It's like you think everybody is an admin or mod so the first response is the truest response.
So take a moment and look at the ID mods and admins use. You'll notice they don't have numbers.
>>>/ub/6925 →
Then when somebody says why not put the SITE related META thread QUESTION where it's supposed to be. It's brushed off that anywhere and everywhere else is just as good to shit up almost dead threads with a post of little In-Topic value.
The reactions continue till the last post
>>>/ub/6936 →
So I as a random user think that first ban is deserved. But apparently the obvious meaning of why has escaped your impeccable reading skills.
It has 35 total posts and 19 (20) of them are new. And it's necro'd at the very end of its life for something that goes in /qa/.
That means 16 posts not including the original poster's post. Every post has nothing to do with the OP in and of itself.
>>8141
>look for way to circumvent the directives and suppress my posting
What is that even supposed to mean?
>look for way to circumvent the directives and suppress my posting
What is that even supposed to mean?
>>8111
>accountability is nowhere to be seen, the staff has not been sacked yet
What are you asking for?
>accountability is nowhere to be seen, the staff has not been sacked yet
What are you asking for?
>>8092
Rule #3 is ponies allowed. Posting news in a general violates what you agreed to, no generals, which is Rule #9 and reads as follows:
9. "HAPPENINGS" allowed, but not "GENERALS"
"HAPPENINGS" are the first responder threads to world events, and are required to have basic information; who, what, when, where, how, why, and a citation or link to an article or direct video of the event itself
"GENERALS" are circlejerks that stew like-minded opinions without room for dissension, recall that originally Trump threads were an interesting place to get up-to date on the election and eventually became 30 awoo posts, 10 copy-pasted link posts, 20 posts about memeing energy, and and 200+ posts talking about dubs with little actual discussion talking
To prevent the kind of closed-minded thinking that was basically meme petri dishes "GENERALS" are forbidden, first post is edited to a happening, second is deleted with a warning, third is bannable
I already discussed with you at length about violating this rule multiple times. You have been warned time and time again. You were banned for once again ignoring me and posting to a general.
>>8098
Regardless of looks, that is the rule. If you want the rules to change, please set up a call for a change and discuss it with staff and anons to make your case.
>>8103
Then don't post garbage. Put effort in your posting and don't post every single thing you run across. Fucking hell.
>>8109
Rule #3 is ponies. Rule #9 is what you are referring to. Try pulling up the Policy page that is located at the top of your screen once in a while and make correct arguments.
You are assured that if you post to a general, you will be banned as of Rule #9. This is not going to change because you bitch about a ban. You have to actually attempt a rule change motion.
>>8120
That is where #9 comes in. Happenings are allowed while still appearing to be a general. There is no major happening and so the general needs to go and a specific thread would need to be made like:
"Attempts to reignite a lock down like during corona virus"
This would be more specific, touch on news events, and is not just posting anything at all related to vaccines, people getting sick and passing out, tweets from random people that support or deny corona virus stuff and can be engaging by discussing the movements of nations to reinstall a certain economic and political system of lock down.
It isn't censorship to be more specific. This way you can post and not violate a rule. We can accept multiple threads of the same general topic if they actually discuss different things. We are not limited to a singular topic of a singular subject. That is why there is a thread about G5 plot and a thread about G4 background stuff. It doesn't actually overlap.
>>8121
Listen to any one of my endless suggestions and not ignore literally everything I say. What I have suggested is not unreasonable in the slightest.
>>8132
>>8133
Read the ban descriptions. You violated rules. You decided to violate on multiple occasions to keep reports in /qa/ and the report feature, instead commenting in threads you wished to be banned, then were told directly to stop posting in generals and you then proceeded to post in a general. You were banned correctly.
>>8135
If /pol/fags refuse to follow rules on /pol/, they get banned instantly. If /pol/fags refuse to follow rules on /mlpol/. they get banned after extensive negotiations and attempts to solve the problem peacefully. You have no excuse.
>>8136
As Elway has stated, you are attempting to garner support for behavior that has been dealt with reasonably throughout months of trying to talk to you about this.
>>8137
Lotus and Elway have never been against your posting and have been completely disinterested in the whole situation up until just now. I have been the only one you have been against. Leave them out of your ire and direct it at me, since I am the one actually taking issue here.
>>8140
Another good point. It is counter-productive to make a name for yourself on the site and throw weight around. Just make good content.
>>8142
Thanks for coming here with the facts anon.
>>8111
So, we are left ultimately with this. This is the core issue. You are mad about your threads being extremely off topic in /int/ and being deleted, thus you want staff removed so you may do what you wish. This is your position and this explains why you refuse at every turn to engage in conversation to deal with this peacefully. You do not wish for peace. You want blood. You want to see people removed for opposing you.
You need to admit defeat and resign to discussion and figuring out a practical solution. You failed to convince any of the staff that were completely neutral of your side and instead pissed them off. There is no other solution to this. Talk it out with me or just continue to be angry, I guess.
[Read more] Rule #3 is ponies allowed. Posting news in a general violates what you agreed to, no generals, which is Rule #9 and reads as follows:
9. "HAPPENINGS" allowed, but not "GENERALS"
"HAPPENINGS" are the first responder threads to world events, and are required to have basic information; who, what, when, where, how, why, and a citation or link to an article or direct video of the event itself
"GENERALS" are circlejerks that stew like-minded opinions without room for dissension, recall that originally Trump threads were an interesting place to get up-to date on the election and eventually became 30 awoo posts, 10 copy-pasted link posts, 20 posts about memeing energy, and and 200+ posts talking about dubs with little actual discussion talking
To prevent the kind of closed-minded thinking that was basically meme petri dishes "GENERALS" are forbidden, first post is edited to a happening, second is deleted with a warning, third is bannable
I already discussed with you at length about violating this rule multiple times. You have been warned time and time again. You were banned for once again ignoring me and posting to a general.
>>8098
Regardless of looks, that is the rule. If you want the rules to change, please set up a call for a change and discuss it with staff and anons to make your case.
>>8103
Then don't post garbage. Put effort in your posting and don't post every single thing you run across. Fucking hell.
>>8109
Rule #3 is ponies. Rule #9 is what you are referring to. Try pulling up the Policy page that is located at the top of your screen once in a while and make correct arguments.
You are assured that if you post to a general, you will be banned as of Rule #9. This is not going to change because you bitch about a ban. You have to actually attempt a rule change motion.
>>8120
That is where #9 comes in. Happenings are allowed while still appearing to be a general. There is no major happening and so the general needs to go and a specific thread would need to be made like:
"Attempts to reignite a lock down like during corona virus"
This would be more specific, touch on news events, and is not just posting anything at all related to vaccines, people getting sick and passing out, tweets from random people that support or deny corona virus stuff and can be engaging by discussing the movements of nations to reinstall a certain economic and political system of lock down.
It isn't censorship to be more specific. This way you can post and not violate a rule. We can accept multiple threads of the same general topic if they actually discuss different things. We are not limited to a singular topic of a singular subject. That is why there is a thread about G5 plot and a thread about G4 background stuff. It doesn't actually overlap.
>>8121
Listen to any one of my endless suggestions and not ignore literally everything I say. What I have suggested is not unreasonable in the slightest.
>>8132
>>8133
Read the ban descriptions. You violated rules. You decided to violate on multiple occasions to keep reports in /qa/ and the report feature, instead commenting in threads you wished to be banned, then were told directly to stop posting in generals and you then proceeded to post in a general. You were banned correctly.
>>8135
If /pol/fags refuse to follow rules on /pol/, they get banned instantly. If /pol/fags refuse to follow rules on /mlpol/. they get banned after extensive negotiations and attempts to solve the problem peacefully. You have no excuse.
>>8136
As Elway has stated, you are attempting to garner support for behavior that has been dealt with reasonably throughout months of trying to talk to you about this.
>>8137
Lotus and Elway have never been against your posting and have been completely disinterested in the whole situation up until just now. I have been the only one you have been against. Leave them out of your ire and direct it at me, since I am the one actually taking issue here.
>>8140
Another good point. It is counter-productive to make a name for yourself on the site and throw weight around. Just make good content.
>>8142
Thanks for coming here with the facts anon.
>>8111
So, we are left ultimately with this. This is the core issue. You are mad about your threads being extremely off topic in /int/ and being deleted, thus you want staff removed so you may do what you wish. This is your position and this explains why you refuse at every turn to engage in conversation to deal with this peacefully. You do not wish for peace. You want blood. You want to see people removed for opposing you.
You need to admit defeat and resign to discussion and figuring out a practical solution. You failed to convince any of the staff that were completely neutral of your side and instead pissed them off. There is no other solution to this. Talk it out with me or just continue to be angry, I guess.
>>8149
>So, we are left ultimately with this. This is the core issue. You are mad about your threads being extremely off topic in /int/ and being deleted,
Yes, I'm upset. Threads take effort and time to build and being destroyed is not something to wish to anybody.
>thus you want staff removed so you may do what you wish. This is your position and this explains why you refuse at every turn to engage in conversation to deal with this peacefully. You do not wish for peace. You want blood. You want to see people removed for opposing you.
This needs a clarification ASAP. I'm not that petty and understand very well that anyone in the staff will never be sacked because a disagreement with a user, but very probably might be possible if they enter in collision course with the top stallion, which this is not the case. You are confusing a saber-rattling rant with real hurtful intentions.
>So, we are left ultimately with this. This is the core issue. You are mad about your threads being extremely off topic in /int/ and being deleted,
Yes, I'm upset. Threads take effort and time to build and being destroyed is not something to wish to anybody.
>thus you want staff removed so you may do what you wish. This is your position and this explains why you refuse at every turn to engage in conversation to deal with this peacefully. You do not wish for peace. You want blood. You want to see people removed for opposing you.
This needs a clarification ASAP. I'm not that petty and understand very well that anyone in the staff will never be sacked because a disagreement with a user, but very probably might be possible if they enter in collision course with the top stallion, which this is not the case. You are confusing a saber-rattling rant with real hurtful intentions.
1693790323.png (1.1 MB, 1616x1616, 8C4E6241CF0444FEF27C34FE6C9A1DCE-2287864.png)
>>8149
>You are assured that if you post to a general, you will be banned as of Rule #9. This is not going to change because you bitch about a ban.
Everything comes down to the above. F
>You have to actually attempt a rule change motion.
F
and F
and more F
>You are assured that if you post to a general, you will be banned as of Rule #9. This is not going to change because you bitch about a ban.
Everything comes down to the above. F
>You have to actually attempt a rule change motion.
F
and F
and more F
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-250] [251-300] [301-350] [351-400] [401-450] [451-461] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
461 replies | 149 files | 92 UUIDs | Page 1
[Add to Thread Watcher]