/qa/ - Questions and Answers

I, for one, support this.

>>8801
>Suggested Rule Addition: Lurk Moar Fagget
>Proportional banning/tempban/kick/shitposty-retaliation/unusual-punishment for faggotry.
Basically it means a return to the Fasces' reign, banning everyone you don't like and /mlpol/ reduced to 12/20 posts every 24 hours.
Very clever of you. /s

>>8803
>return to the Fasces' reign
What does that even mean? He's been an mod for like 6 years now, and never stopped. What is there to return to?
>banning everyone you don't like
That is not what he said.
>/mlpol/ reduced to 12/20 posts every 24 hours.
That's a normal rate for us.
>/s
The reddit-speech is how I can tell you're a newfag. Lurk moar.

>>8801
tl;dr: "we refuse to take responsibility and permaban nigel", also, sage

>>8804
>That's a normal rate for us.
Tell me you are not a /leftypol/ plant. /s

>>8805
I think he's implying the opposite of what you just said.

>>8806
>/s
More redditspeech. Lurk moar.
I've been using chansites for the past 15 years, and /mlpol/ for half of that, and I know that nobody on IBs use fucking "/s" to indicate sarcasm.

>>8808
I do.

>>8803
I mean you could lurk more faggot because you're not living in reality.
>wow suggesting a rule that would mean I can't ignore everybody else in my online community simulator how awful
>there's this secret janny closet and they hunt me down with soap and sponges
See if you lurked right and proper anons wouldn't immediately know you're a fag.
Instead it's known because surprisingly many people who use this site have a pretty damn good memory retention and pattern recognition.
There's no lists, no secret janny alerts, no secret user alerts, just raw autism and noticing things.
I wanted you to be part of the community. Since then you've stuck yourself on your hill burnt nearly every bridge and hand that extends to you.
Regular shitposting so you get a clue hasn't worked. Talking like people hasn't worked. Assuming shit and talking aeound the bush didn't work.
Every means of communication has failed.
So an escalating rule. The punishment lurk moar fagget.

>Oh but I want the whole community to follow my vision of me doing 99.99999999% of the posts every week
Nobody wants you alone posting 7 gorilion posts every day.
Alot of people are sick and tired of the garbage tier posts made, even when they're tangentially almost on topic.
You aren't cultured, you're still from whatever shithole websites you've came from.

>>8801
You know what I expect from the implantation of the Lurk Moar Fagget rule.
<Told to lurk more. Warning.
<After that whatever shitpost or unusual imageboard stuff.
As in just no-holds full shitposting autism allowed.
<Temp Bans of increasing amounts repeated.
Just continually increasing till it's practically a perma-ban.
Because hopefully in the best case they've LURKED and Learned.
In any case the users and staff have another tool.
>>8805
It means perma-banning nigel. If I wasn't clear.

>>8801
>It boils down to they don't lurk as in there is no assimilation to our imageboard culture.
I think this is one of the vulnerabilities we've unwittingly created for ourselves. /pol/ itself has always been vulnerable to newfags, because newfags refuse to lurk since they want to participate in current events as soon as it starts. For /mlpol/, it's a combination of that and the fact that as the board ran into slower times in the first half of its existence some Anons got a bit too desperate for new users and started accepting newfags without expecting them to lurk, as well as the fact that we were a new board and thus everyone was a "newfag". At first, it wasn't that bad because the new posters generally came from 4chan, but as the site lived on it became evident that some of the newfags had never used 4chan in their lives, and they brought their off-site habits with them to the board.
/mlpol/ was supposed to be a bastion of old imageboard culture, free of the reddit/Twitter/Facebook sewage that infested the parent boards, but lately it feels like it hasn't been living up to that.

>>8810
>perma-ban
Nigger, you are delusional. This is not your exclusive playground and there is enough boards to and threads to contain even the anons you don't like.
Would you like to retreat to your writefag safe-space breads and leave the rest alone?

>>8812
>only responds to one line
Why don't you address his actual arguments?

>>8803
Boom Boom. Nigga. Nobody liked your shitty republican-grandpa memes. It's time to move on.

>>8814
>It's time to move on
Then go, your writefag bread is waiting for you. Anons are waiting for you.

>>8812
>This is not your exclusive playground
That's right it's not MY or YOUR exclusive playground.
That's the point of this rule.
>>8811
You've said it better than I have.

>>8810
>See if you lurked right and proper anons wouldn't immediately know you're a fag.
This. It's shouldn't be that hard.
>Nobody wants you alone posting 7 gorilion posts every day.
>Alot of people are sick and tired of the garbage tier posts made, even when they're tangentially almost on topic.
This. Garbage posters that produce no engagement, or worse, only produce negative engagement flaming about how garbage they are, are worse than having no posts at all. That kind of crap suffocates quality content, drives off content creators, distracts users, wastes time, and overall lowers the quality of the board.

>You know what I expect from the implantation of the Lurk Moar Fagget rule.
>Told to lurk more. Warning.
>After that whatever shitpost or unusual imageboard stuff.
As in just no-holds full shitposting autism allowed.
>Temp Bans of increasing amounts repeated.
Just continually increasing till it's practically a perma-ban.
>Because hopefully in the best case they've LURKED and Learned.
>In any case the users and staff have another tool.
This seems like a reasonable implementation. I'd prefer a more heavy-handed approach, but that's just my opinion.

>>8817
>quality content
Yeah, right. /s
So much quality that even when everypony was banned the best you faggots where posting was Hi Anon threads.

>>8818
>where
* were

>>8818
>everypony was banned
What the absolute fuck are you talking about.

>>8810
>See if you lurked right and proper anons wouldn't immediately know you're a fag.
>Instead it's known because surprisingly many people who use this site have a pretty damn good memory retention and pattern recognition.
>There's no lists, no secret janny alerts, no secret user alerts, just raw autism and noticing things.
This. So much this. Nigel never understood this either.

>>8815
> Anons are waiting for you.
Bet you wish you could say the same, eh? Get better memes and stop being a retard and it may just happen one day.

>>8812
>This is not your exclusive playground
The only one who's acting like he owns the place is (You).
Pics related.
>>8818
>/s
Again with the redditspeech.
Why can't you learn? Why can't you assimilate imageboard culture like the rest of us? Why didn't you lurk?
>everypony was banned
Who is "everypony"? When did this supposed mass-banning take place? How many posters were banned, and over what?
>>8815
Oh yeah, Anons are waiting for the quality content creator who makes interesting posts that improve the quality of the board. Maybe you should take some tips from him.

>>8820
>What the absolute fuck are you talking about.
What I said at >>>/mlpol/372469 →

All of you are smart enough to know that when the precedent by one act, it will be done again. That's why having reasonably clear and articulated standards is essential.

I'm not a fan of phrasing the rule as if the problem is newfaggotry. That is not the problem, and we want newfags.

To me, the most common attribute of excessive faggotry is making everything personal. Too many first-person pronouns in their posts, and too many personal attacks of other posters. I don't mean blog posting. Blog posting doesn't bother me. It's haughtiness, followed by a string of ad hominin attacks that's disruptive and completely shits up threads

>>8824
Another common feature would be schizo-posting; by which I mean a general disconnection with reality

>>8822
>The only one who's acting like he owns the place is (You).
Once you came to /mlpol/ "You will never leave"
Remember that?
>Again with the redditspeech.
Whatever. I do use /s and I will continue using it. Nothing extraordinary here.

>>8824
>That's why having reasonably clear and articulated standards is essential.
See >>8810 has already proposed a standard of implementation.
>we want newfags
We want good posters. We want posters who respect imageboard culture for what it's been for years, and don't dick up the place with reddit/Facebook/Twitter sewage. We want posters who either lurked on 4pol and /mlp/ before posting and assimilate the culture, or lurk here to assimilate before posting. That's why this site exists.
>making everything personal
>Too many first-person pronouns in their posts
>To me, the most common attribute of excessive faggotry is making everything personal. Too many first-person pronouns in their posts, and too many personal attacks of other posters. I don't mean blog posting. Blog posting doesn't bother me. It's haughtiness, followed by a string of ad hominin attacks that's disruptive and completely shits up threads
Agreed.
>>8826
>You will never leave
You're missing the point of the post entirely.
>Whatever. I do use /s and I will continue using it.
It's exactly this attitude is why none of the other posters like you. Your insistence on doubling down and continuing to shit-up the board with your off-site tourist habits, instead of learning imageboard culture like the rest of us.

>>8827
>It's exactly this attitude is why none of the other posters like you. Your insistence on doubling down and continuing to shit-up the board with your off-site tourist habits, instead of learning imageboard culture like the rest of us.
Well, I'm so sorry you are taking it that way. But an inflexible mindset is synonymous of autism. Did you know it?

>>8828
>complaining about autism on the Mongolian horsewhispering forum
Lurk moar fagget
We have customs. We have culture. We have standards that we live by. Maybe bother to learn them if you want to play here.

>>8827
>See >>8810 has already proposed a standard of implementation.
In terms of how it would be implemented, yes, the system of incremental warnings and bans mentioned there is the best way to go about it, I think.

But I want to articulate the behavior in such a way that the next time it's applied, there is some standard to point to, and say "this is acceptable and this isn't"

>>8820
>everypony was banned
>everypony
>implying there were multiple copies of him
This is part of his routine. He wants people to believe that there are multiple anons posting shitty faceberg memes in his meme-dump threads in an effort to astroturf actual demand for the shitty content he posts. If you go through his threads, you can actually observe instances of him replying to himself in order to fake thread engagement. He's even been called out on it multiple times and he still does it. He is literally that autistic.

>>8824
>>8825
I understand what you're saying for clarity.
The ideal is that newfags (and all lasting visitors) become oldfags.
At least try to reach being an oldfag.
Not pushing this place to become like other places.
It's to prevent hyper-nu-cancer from inching in.
Putting into words what defines an outsider that is actively rejecting calls to party.

>>8829
>Maybe bother to learn them if you want to play here.
Too fuzzy and subject to arbitrary interpretation.

>>8831
>This is part of his routine. He wants people to believe that there are multiple anons posting shitty faceberg memes
Incorrect. The anons banned were arguing in threats I was not participating.

>>8833
>Incorrect. The anons banned were arguing in threats I was not participating.
Do you have any actual threads or posts you would like to cite, or are you just going to keep making vague accusations all day? The only person I remember getting banned over the endless stream of sewage posted in your faceberg threads was you.

>>8830
>articulate the behavior
Underlying expanding from a shared culture to a list.
That's pretty hard, but let's give it a shot.
Going to type some stuff out and think a bit.

>>8835
>>8832
Basically, I think we need to define what a "newfag" is, what an "oldfag" is, and what "hyper-nu-cancer" is

As stated before, to me, the most common symptom of posting-I-don't-like is a rejection of anonymity for a strong assertion of self-identity. Not just any rejection of anonymity - "Business Dog" does not bother me. It's bad when the assertion of self-identity is arrogant and superior. And especially, when there is an attempt by the one asserting a superior self-identity to drag anonymous users out of their anonymity, and give them some undesired identity. And then further to derail discussion with personal attacks and personal self-aggrandizement.

>>8834
>Do you have any actual threads or posts you would like to cite, or are you just going to keep making vague accusations all day?
Dude, I didn't take a screenshot foe every time an IP was blocked and the reason explaining why. To be fair with the janny, half of the blocks were for pornography.

>>8828
>an inflexible mindset is synonymous of autism. Did you know it?
So is pattern recognition, but ironically the most autistic and objectionable users on the site ((You), Nigel) seem to lack this trait. And thus, the cycle keeps repeating:

>obnoxious autist posts content nobody likes
<gets called a faggot
>obnoxious autist doubles down
<gets called a gigafaggot and is asked to leave
>obnoxious autist triples down
<b&
>b& expires or obnoxious faggot evades
<cycle resumes

Many such cases. Sad.

>>8830
>But I want to articulate the behavior in such a way that the next time it's applied, there is some standard to point to, and say "this is acceptable and this isn't"
I'm not normally one for overly-generous discretion in policy, but isn't it also to a certain degree the staff's responsibility to interpret stuff like this? If they're staff, they should be experts on chan culture. It's their role as the staff to maintain the health of the board, which includes culture, which is by nature vague. Considering we trust them all enough to give them full access to sitewide admin tools, we should also be able to trust them to police the site with due discretion.
We don't have any rules against spammers, raiders or advertisers, and those get banned anyway because of common sense discretion. It should be hard to apply to this either.

I feel like what's missing from here is the stakes. Imageboard culture is a very fragile thing. Just a couple shitposters who didn't lurk can drastically impact the culture of a board because the volume of their posts dilutes what gave the board its soul. After a certain threshold is reached, the damage is irreparable, because new posters will only have the warped shitposts to learn from when they themselves lurk. Oldfags and content creators leave as the board they loved is no longer the same, leading to a death spiral of culture loss until you get this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f4xeD0kbJBA
Newfags on imageboards are like immigrants from foreign countries: if they assimilate properly, they can be be great; if they don't lurk, they can be incredibly destructive.
>>8831
>He wants people to believe that there are multiple anons posting shitty faceberg memes in his meme-dump threads in an effort to astroturf actual demand for the shitty content he posts.
I used to believe him, perhaps because I didn't personally want to believe that only one poster was responsible for so much damage, but now I can see through it.
>If you go through his threads, you can actually observe instances of him replying to himself in order to fake thread engagement.
I noticed this too. Also the threads intentionally made without poster IDs to obscure the samefaggotry.
>>8832
>Not pushing this place to become like other places.
A thousand times this.
If we're going to turn into a Boomer's crappy Facebook feed, we may as well just die.
>>8833
>Too fuzzy and subject to arbitrary interpretation
Maybe you'd understand if you LURKED MOAR FAGGET

>>8837
How do you even know when other poster's IPs are blocked? Do you have the banlogs?
99.9% of bans are for bots and raiders.

>>8840
>How do you even know when other poster's IPs are blocked?
Because when you use VPN or Tor (in which IPs are shared among a lot of people), if the IP was banned by /mlpol/, when you attempt to post you are welcomed with a message informing you why and when the ban will end.

>>8837
You're the one making claims about mass-banning. It's you who should be proving it.

>why don't we just ban obviously obnoxious faggot posters when they are obviously being obnoxious faggots without caring whether there is a written rule about it?
The reason is simple. Because not every onboxious faggot poster is one that you are thinking of right now, and any such rule is going to be applied more broadly than just to the posters you are thinking of right now. It's helpful to have some kind of objective rule to point to so that users can be told "stop fucking doing that or we will ban you."

There's another reason. As this rule would be applied to actual users of the website - that is to say, those who actually wish to engage in discussion - a part of its function is corrective. Just telling an autistic person "stop being a newfag or will ban you" tells him nothing about what he did wrong or what behavior needs to be changed to fit in. It's better to give specific directions and feedback as to how exactly to stop being an excessive faggot.

>>8837
Can you at least point to the thread you're talking about? Because again, the only ban I can recall is you, getting banned for continuing to post junk and belligerently arguing with staff.

>>8836
>As stated before, to me, the most common symptom of posting-I-don't-like is a rejection of anonymity for a strong assertion of self-identity
>"Business Dog" does not bother me. It's bad when the assertion of self-identity is arrogant and superior.
Agree with this. "Business Dog" is annoying and I usually snipe at him when I see him, but he hasn't done anything he deserves to be reprimanded or kicked out of the community for. The main traits of faggotry are usually self-centered attention-whoring, coupled with some kind of persecution complex.

>>8840
This is a fair point. How would you know when someone else has been banned? Unless there's a giant red "USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST," there is no way to tell. Odds are, all of the "users" you're talking about are just instances of yourself, and part of your effort to astroturf engagement in your shitty threads, as outlined here: >>8831

>>8842
>mass-banning
Let us not exaggerate. These bans were sufficient to make /polack/ posting almost gone. Then I stepped up to fill the void and (you) begun to shot flak at me. Very shitty of (you).

>>8846
>These bans were sufficient to make /polack/ posting almost gone.
I've been here the whole time, and I've been able to observe the quantity of posting as it increased and decreased. The absence of /pol/ack posting you mention isn't the result of bans, because if it were it would have been noticable by the abrupt absence of certain posters.
>I stepped up to fill the void
Fill the void with what now?
>(you) begun to shot flak at me. Very shitty of (you).
(We) Began shooting flak because the posts fucking sucked.

>>8844
>Can you at least point to the thread you're talking about?
No because I didn't care. I was not a participant.

>>8848
How are we supposed to take your claims seriously without even seeing the thread?
All of the banlogs should still exist. Staff could look up the band you're referring to if you'd be more specific.

>>8847
>The absence of /pol/ack posting you mention isn't the result of bans, because if it were it would have been noticable by the abrupt absence of certain posters.
For what I saw bans were mostly because the posters were rude (nigger, faggot, kys, etc), or because they were calling out other anons with names such a jew or shill or fed.

>>8848
Well, then I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. What you're talking about doesn't ring a bell for me, and you're being vague and evasive, so I guess I have no choice but to just call bullshit on you and leave it at that.

>>8851
>Well, then I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about
The messages informing of the blocked IP and the reason why are part of the /mlpol/ code.

>>8850
We've built up thousands of bans over the years, mostly from the raiders who used to nuke the catalog every single day.
If you can't cite any specifics, there's really no way we can accept what you claim as fact.

>>8851
>What you're talking about doesn't ring a bell for me, and you're being vague and evasive, so I guess I have no choice but to just call bullshit
This, tbh

>>8853
>If you can't cite any specifics, there's really no way we can accept what you claim as fact.
I have been repeating this a few times during the hoaxdemic in the /qa/ board while arguing with (you) exactly about the same topic as this bread, you didn't pay attention it seems.

>>8855
Point to your posts then

>>8803
>>8855
You know, all this aside, you're claiming that the OP is trying to "return to" this supposed era of mass-banning that only you know about, when at face value there wasn't any sort of policy change to leave that era.
Mods have, for as long as we know, almost never banned anyone but overt raiders and bots. The fact that we're even having this conversation is proof that they don't discipline people for simply shitposting, no matter how obnoxious it is. You're claims that changing this status quo would mean a return to an era of mass-banning is self-defeating.

>>8854
>>8856
>image numbers
Wait. That's not Ponerpics

Get out of here, faggot

>>8856
Allright.
Threads where I was arguing were:
https://mlpol.net/qa/8462
https://mlpol.net/qa/4126
https://mlpol.net/qa/8629
https://mlpol.net/qa/8541
https://mlpol.net/qa/7990
https://mlpol.net/qa/5974
https://mlpol.net/qa/6135
https://mlpol.net/qa/7314
https://mlpol.net/qa/6590
https://mlpol.net/qa/6736
https://mlpol.net/qa/6719
https://mlpol.net/qa/5810
Those are 1,000s of posts to read.

>>8843
>Just telling an autistic person "stop being a newfag or will ban you" tells him nothing about what he did wrong or what behavior needs to be changed to fit in. It's better to give specific directions and feedback as to how exactly to stop being an excessive faggot.
The catch-22 here is that the most extreme autists don't generally respond to specific directions or feedback any better than they respond to someone just calling them a faggot. How many different times did Nigel have it explained to him, in plain English, exactly what he was doing wrong and what he would need to do to correct it? Did he ever listen? For that matter, Boom Boom has also had the negative aspects of his behavior pointed out to him, and all it does is make him double down on his persecution complex. As we are currently witnessing in real time.

>>8852
>The messages informing of the blocked IP and the reason why are part of the /mlpol/ code.
See, this is exactly what makes me suspicious about your claim. The only user who would see a message detailing reasons for a ban would be the banned user. Unless the staff chose to put a "User was banned" message on a specific post, the rest of the board would not have any way to see that a user has been banned. In other words, these banned users you keep bringing up are actually you. You are complaining that you yourself were banned, but are trying to make it look like other users were banned along with you.

>>8858
Ponerpics is still buggy, has a bunch of redundant images, and the ratings system is non-existent. That's a discussion for another thread though.
Also these pics were saved a long time ago.

>>8858
*posts image saved from twibooru just to annoy you*
Nothing personnel, kid.

>>8860
>Boom Boom has also had the negative aspects of his behavior pointed out to him, and all it does is make him double down on his persecution complex.
He even did it in this thread with the /s, ffs.

>>8857
>The fact that we're even having this conversation is proof that they don't discipline people for simply shitposting, no matter how obnoxious it is
I was banned just for posting a meme in the Flat Earth bread twice or more times I believe, and actually I'm not sure because I was switching IPs while I didn't know I was banned. Then accused of ban evasion many times, but I didn't know.

>>8863
>He even did it in this thread with the /s, ffs.
Knock it off, son.
/s
/s
/s

>>8864
You were banned for spam.

>>8864
So in other words, these "mass bannings" you keep bringing up were just you, being banned under multiple IPs. Thus validating my statement.

>>8866
Padding my bread is not spam.

>>8868
>Padding my bread
And here he is, admitting to samefagging and astroturfing fake engagement, just like I accused him of only a few posts ago.

>>8867
>mass bannings"
You said that, I never did.

>>8865
You knock it off.
Nobody wants your Facebook sewage in this board. Nobody uses "/s" on imageboards, especially not /pol/ where the ability to interpret irony is so expected for users.
Learn how to post on an imageboard. Lurk moar.

>>8869
>admitting to samefagging
WTF, I pad a bread, I keep it bumped and alive. I did nothing wrong.

>>8861
shruugs

You don't have to give me what I want, I don't have to give you what you want

>>8871
Autistic fags don't understand irony faget.

>>8871
/s

>>8872
You bump it with redundant images and low-rez jpegs that were already posted, or grainy image macros taken from Facebook in a sloppy attempt to bait posters into engaging you in arguments that were already had earlier in the thread.
That's spam. It's hardly different than a "/pol/ BTFO" thread.

>>8875
Keep digging. It'll totally make the other users like you eventually.

>>8876
>image macros taken from Facebook
Oof, same lies again. Those memes would never ever be admitted in faceberg.

>>8870
Nigger, these are your exact words:
>So much quality that even when everypony was banned the best you faggots where posting was Hi Anon threads.
Let me call special attention to this part:
>everypony was banned
"Everypony" implies multiple people. You are trying to make it look like more than one person was banned, when in reality it was just you posting from different IPs.

>>8872
>I pad a bread, I keep it bumped and alive. I did nothing wrong.
You keep it "bumped and alive" by posting fake replies to make it look like there are other anons posting besides you. The only reason it required bumping in the first place is because no one else was interested in the content you were posting, thus nobody else was participating. And yes, you did do something wrong: you disingenuously posted fake replies to a bullshit thread to fake engagement in said thread.

>>8874
>implying
You've clearly haven't been on /pol/ very much, or 4chan itself for that matter.

>>8879
>You keep it "bumped and alive" by posting fake replies to make it look like there are other anons posting besides you.
>fake replies
Nope, those are addendums to early posts. Please stop the slander.

>>8878
>my memes are so gay not even Faceberg will take them
>somehow this validates my point
The absolute state of this nigger.

>>8878
When I reverse image search them, they show up on the flat earth Facebook page, full of memes of the same quality.
But do share, if not Facebook, where do you get your memes? What site are you getting these from?

>>8879
>"Everypony" implies multiple people. You are trying to make it look like more than one person was banned, when in reality it was just you posting from different IPs.
Suuuuure. /s

>>8881
>gets called out for obvious samefagging and astroturfing
>slander
The absolute state of this cum-guzzler.

>>8883
>When I reverse image search them, they show up on the flat earth Facebook page
>Flat Earth
Flat Earth might be in faceberg, but NOT the 1,000s anti-zog memes I posted in /sp/

Behead the boomer

>>8884
>gets caught dead-to-rights in an obvious gaslighting attempt
>accuses others of gaslighting
The absolute state of this rump-ranger.

>>8886
Half of them still showed up on reverse image search.
Also you still didn't answer the question.

>>8885
>>8888 (quads)
>>8889
I believe we reached the end of the argument for today. Dinner time faggots.

>>8884
So are you saying that it wasn't multiple people banned, and was instead only you?

>>8891
>was completely, utterly and unequivocally btfo by multiple anons yet again
>makes pathetic attempt at damage control while backing out of the argument
>still thinks he has the high ground
The absolute state of this semen-sipper.

>>8889
He doesn't even know what the word "gaslighting" means, even though it's been explained to him before.

>>8836
Also so we need more posts and posting to hash this out completely.
First and foremost, staff intuition and post event user verification.
<Users should report posts that break the rules, bants come afterwards.
As in staff should just do it the community trusts you even when you worry about faggot stuff and do a dumb sometimes and wackey user side freak outs.
Users will post on /qa/ if you fuck up or other users fucked up. Maybe bants a bit, but it'll all be good.
And if it's not good users will shit on /qa/ in a thread and responsibly get shitfaced, shitpost and post horse pussy.
I'm being serious this is less of the old fags needed to purity spiral, because purity spirals are really super extra bad, but a tool to ensure the magical beginning stays that magical beginning.
Do not purity spiral.
I know old fags are shit heels and are annoying as fuck so are newfags and cancer-fags and /ptg/ fags, but it's the specifics in flavor and nuance.
>Oldfags want /mlpol/ to stay /mlpol/. The other fags don't.
With that quick rule of thumb out of the way.
Here's a supplemental list so you can tell the faggots why they're a faggot. Pick maybe a handful or all of them or one.
Listed in no particular order.
>Just Lurk More
Yes that is a solution, stop ass mashing the keyboard and go learn about the old guard. The history, the green texts, the shit posts. Learn some imageboard history in this a place.
Call it learning about history or something.
>Staff Custom order
That's right (You) make up some bullshit then post it some /qa/ thread or stick it on that post for shits and giggles. Hopefully they'll learn from it.
Just making fun shitposts legal.
Stick a rainbow flag or whatever other nonsense, we're all imageboard residents and you have to have a bit of fun.
>It Happened again
It happened again. And again and again ect.
>Communications go nowhere.
It's not that they don't talk. It's like talking to a brick wall that sometimes spits a shaken canned soda of shit.
>Superiority Complex
They're better than everybody. They're of higher value than everyone else.
>Anti-Discussion tactics
It's impossible to have a good-faith discussion.
>Puppeting for arguments agreement
They pretend to be somebody else to trick others and that pretend somebody who happens to agree with everything is not them. Usually done poorly and it's retarded.
This isn't mocking or pretending for the purpose of discussion, most of all nobody is tricked or is tricking. It's a retorical technique.
>Paranoia speak
Such as the staff is a shill, that point is kike centric or it was horse cock legend. Ect. On a personal note sorry about that.
>Babble-bullshit
It's more than nonsense it's going the extra mile.
>Slog
It has little redeeming properties, it's not fun, it's not insightful, it's not new, it's not an update, it's not knowledge, it's not shitposting, it's not bettering anybody in any way, it's not even trying.
>Speaking from ignorance
The faggot just spews ignorance like a niggah moment.
>Doubling down to the nth power.
Happens again and again and again. It's just retarded enough like a paki throwing away drugs and expecting the officer to also forget about it once it's out of sight. Or that it was just a moment ago.
>Dissociation
It wasn't them after all continuity of consciousness doesn't exist for them.
>Tactical slipperiness
Like slime if you grab it too hard.
>Legalese Salad
You know for violating race mixing rule because of a pony and human. It's bullshit and nonsense.
>Total Rejecting /MLPOL/ etiquette. No attempt to learn or retain it.
It's that self-behavior modification didn't or doesn't work or happen.
<What is horse-whispering forum etiquette that matters for community and site health.

>>8843
>Because not every onboxious faggot poster is one that you are thinking of right now
And who are those other obnoxious faggots?
>>8824
>To me, the most common attribute of excessive faggotry is making everything personal. Too many first-person pronouns in their posts, and too many personal attacks of other posters.
So, I dunno if I understood this correctly. But if you mean to say that shit flinging should become a bannable offense. It should first make it to the rules. In fact, it should be put under the same scrutiny as anything on this thread. Poners can be confident the staff will handle this with the same caution it has handled this thread thus far.

Fuck I actually have to address this here or it won't be documented.
>>8824
Lotus you cook a good steamed ham. But you're saying the immune system sucks because everything gets red and puffy and full of weird fluids.
It's a sign of a reaction to an illness the immune system uses all the time and it goes away once there's nothing wrong.
You're looking at the symptom rather than the root cause according to what you've typed.
As such I vehemently disagree. You could do what you've suggested. You'll find ailments has gone terminal.
It takes it's toll on the body and it takes time to recover.
>I'm not a fan of these rules.
I know. I'm sad that is the case.
I understand you desire maximum freedom of speech and I thought that too. Because everyone could talk it out even if we don't agree we're all here in this together.
The problem is not everyone is in this together.
For Anonymous users in the trenches it's grating like sand paper. Wiping your hand across it once is fine, doing so repeated gets down to the bone.
That's why I'm suggesting a rule, because the default shitposting immune system found something new, so we need staff.
If you want to try going about it as a user feel free, but if you don't understand I have to insist you give it shot so you have this complete experience.
It hurts, I am sorry for that.
And I am sorry I didn't get around to this sort of thing sooner, but I didn't get it fully yet then. It might take years, it did for me.
I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
On a lighter condensed note I suppose I am telling you to stick your hand into a hurt-box so the visceral wearing down can be used to safe guard the future.
<It's way different from gripping sharp spiky metal balls which is what users of /mlpol/ or the old times tend to be.
Yes (You) all have balls of steel.
Quickly piercing down to the bone marrow so the ball is released which is full of pony and a toxic concoction of autism, shitposting, friendship and more pony.
And sometimes going all the way through out the other side.
By design this ends most faggotry staff doesn't want or need to touch.
The optimal hurt-box minimizing suffering for maximum cultural and psychological conversion or leakage from the experience.

>>8895
This sounds to me like a commie rationalization of your basic intention: banish that anon because he will not fold to our wishes. Kinda a mutation of the liberal hivemind.
>>8897
And this is a naked attempt to use law enforcement to do the dirty work for ya. What about if you mind your business and leave the rest alone?

>>8896
>>8897
For those of you who still don't get it. Lotus is referencing a small group of posters who wanted certain undesirables banned. And whom more often than not, got into arguments with him and other staff members in some cases. You can say they aren't very polite.
>>8824
>>8843
Welp, I was gonna wait and see if you're willing to swallow your pride for the site's sake. But I've known the answer for years now.
Tho you hate "self-aggrandizing" posts. It's hard not to bake them when I'm better than you.
For what it's worth. I'm sorry for having antagonized you like that. I'm sorry for going all out in such a personal level. And I'm sorry for being such a shit throwing monkey. I said somethings about this site's users, and about you, that I shouldn't have said. And it was with the only goal of making you and the others feels batman.
So, am sorry fella. I don't deserve to be welcomed back with open arms like nothing happened. I chose to abandon this place then and there, when I started attacking you and the others. And you were justified to have banned me.
I can't speak for niggas and the others. But I atleast won't get in the way any longer. Do whatever you want. I hope you can make the right choice.
Some of my posts >>>/sp/22015 → >>>/sp/22372 → Btw, I know this is all contradictory to what I've told you in the other thread, Sven. But this is called making a compromise and putting your pride aside and it isn't done very often.

>>8899
>Then why don't you actually leave?
I will. I haven't even posted for a very long time. Only came back to shi...I mean, tell Sven something I wanted to tell him for a long time.

>>8895
>>8897
BTW, in the threads pointed at >>8859 I said a few times that you faggots are killing /mlpol/ when you bring forward drama and division. Your answer has always been derision and outright dismissal, those threads don't lie. Just saying.

>>8897
Godspeed, anon.

>>8896
>And who are those other obnoxious faggots?
I think a short answer of "what posters come to mind for excessive faggotry?" is that every one of them has been ad hoc banned at least once

>>8896
>So, I dunno if I understood this correctly. But if you mean to say that shit flinging should become a bannable offense. It should first make it to the rules. In fact, it should be put under the same scrutiny as anything on this thread. Poners can be confident the staff will handle this with the same caution it has handled this thread thus far.
More or less. I think there's more to it than just "shit flinging," but there's definitely a point at which ad hominin attacks just suffocate discussion.

>You're looking at the symptom rather than the root cause according to what you've typed.
As such I vehemently disagree. You could do what you've suggested. You'll find ailments has gone terminal.
I think you're saying "If you know it's problem, just fucking do it," correct?

>>8899
pets ze anon

sage
>>8807
>>8810
what you do not seem to understand, is that rules are secondary to the staff - if the staff is not willing to do something, the rules will not make them, and conversely, if the staff is willing to do something, the rules will not stop them
all this change does is enshrine the 'we'll hem and haw and argue and avoid banning nigel at all costs'
for what it is worth i am in favor of this change - so that people know straight from the doorstep that jannies here will do no jannying, and you are safe from bans as long as you appear to be 'an active user' even if 905 of your activity is walls of schizophasic graphomania

>>8905
>all this change does is enshrine the 'we'll hem and haw and argue and avoid banning nigel at all costs'
As opposed to the status quo where shitposters go unpunished because "they technically didn't break any rules"?

>>8902
>you faggots are killing /mlpol/
You are such a massive hypocrite. I know no less than four posters who have stopped posting because of you, and yet you accuse everyone else of "killing" /mlpol/ for daring to talk about it on the designated board.

>>8898
>What about if you mind your business and leave the rest alone?
This is our business. It's the site we've been using for 7 years. This is the place to talk about it.
There was a time in the early years of the site when we had a new /qa/ thread every week to talk about things like this, but you weren't here for that, were you?

>>8904
>I think you're saying "If you know it's problem, just fucking do it," correct?
What he's saying is that you shouldn't let natural pushback get in the way of appropriate action.

>>8904
>I think you're saying "If you know it's problem, just fucking do it," correct?
What I'm saying is you might be looking at the wrong thing, but I can't know.
So I'm talking about it and hoping.
So there's understanding where various people of all sides get that it's harmful even if they've never felt it.
I don't want to shove it off on a single or Hand-full of staff members, that'll fucking break the everything.
Instead I'm attempting sympathy to convey why this rule isn't ban everyone I don't like.
Even though I don't like them after being burned many times afterwards.
It wasn't like that towards the beginning, I stood by their side.
Putting more time and energy into interacting and seeing others attempt to interact something was wrong.
If there was an attempt to communicate back its akin to someone shitting in the cereal on the table just as you're pouring the milk.
So people who don't like shit in their breakfast tried and failed to tell them not to shit in the cereal.
Then different attempts were made so the cereal won't be shat in.
It doesn't work, talking could have worked but for some reason it never does. Maybe because we suck at it. Who knows.
What I do know is every bridge gets burned and people who tried to keep the bridge open to the cereal shitter gets burned for doing so.
The Proposed Rule is to try to communicate something to the cereal shitter, because all normal and special means of communication that users have totally failed.
So we (the users) need staff to attempt communication using whatever you feel like using to get our point across, stop shitting in the cereal.
The rule is so that members of staff can be confident they're speaking with us supporting what they say. Whether it's making a meme, putting special words at the bottom of the post, changing a name, posting to say knock it off, whatever insanity required to communicate or even a ban.
Because non-staff methods of communication have broken down.
>>8905
>rules are secondary to staff
I know.
That's why I'm hoping through this and explaining this position thoughtfully and I need help.
That way for future reference nobody has to be the only one dealing with the burning shit.

>>8898
>mind your business and leave the rest alone
I did.
You're one of the hardest people to communicate with I've personally spoken with that by all technicalities we should all be friends.
But nobody could successfully talk with you or to you.
>banish that anon because he will not fold to our wishes
Do you know what I wished for?

Derailing threads with tangents should be a banable offense if done persistently and repeatedly.

>>8912
>tangents
You mean new, not explored angles?

>>8913
Tangents as in arguments not directly relevant to the OP, that should instead be made into separate threads.

>>8914
It might be absolutely relevant if it turns the OP is another psyop.

>>8915
Then make another thread about it.

>>8912
>Derailing with tangents constantly that aren't appreciated
It's another marker of needing to lurk moar. It does occur.
Counterpoint, the green of the hoarse fucker.

>>8919
Nice projection.

>>8917
>Counterpoint, the green of the hoarse fucker.
I remember that, lol
This is an appropriate counterpoint, however, it is already addressed by rules #3 and number #10. Ponies are allowed, no exceptions; and posting pony content in a thread should always be considered appropriate.

>>8921
Thanks for contextualizing.
Personally I'd extend extreme leniency for all humor, mockery, parodies ect.

>>8906
They will still go unpunished because the problem isn't the rules, the problem is staff. If the staff wanted to punish those shitposters, they'd add a rule for that long ago by themselves - "TECHNICALLY :nerd: they didn't break any rules" is an excuse, a shoddy one, for being lazy/spineless, and more rules won't cause punishment for shitposters - they'll cause staff to make up more excuses.
>>8910
tl;dr

>>8923
>If the staff wanted to punish those shitposters, they'd add a rule for that long ago by themselves
>"TECHNICALLY :nerd: they didn't break any rules" is an excuse, a shoddy one
This is a fair point, tbh...

>>8923
>>8924
>more bitching about staff
>more non-ponerpics sourced images
I'm not going to lie. When one or more users cry out for another regular user to be banned, I often ask myself "whose behavior is pissing me off more right now? The person these people are asking us to ban? Or the people asking us to ban him?" And if the answer is "the people asking us to ban" the scales tend to be tipped in favor of innaction. This was actually my big problem with Glimmergate back in the day - the people bitching were as disruptive and thread derailing as Nigel

>>8925
>disruptive and thread derailing
That's why we're doing it in the designated shitting thread.

>>8925
You know what? I'm not sorry at all. This really is the reason we do so very few discretionary bans.

Every time there's a call "oh my god ban this guy," without fail, the people calling to ban him are the people who are stupid enough to derail the thread by arguing with someone they know better than to argue with in a thread they know it's off topic to argue about that given thing. Stop taking the bait every damn time. Back in Glimmergate we decided to end it by setting a redline for thread derailment and banning anyone who crossed it. And you know what happened? Nigel saw that redline, said "thank you" and stopped, while Vril anon intentionally crossed the redline. And he was the only ban, besides one guy who was trying to dox. And this happens every time there is some drama that the person who is the subject of the drama isn't the source of the very worst behavior - there's always some detractor who does something worse.

And then there's the people who sit and bitch like >>8923. Go fuck yourself. On 4chan you'd just be banned alongside the person you're bitching about, but we can't have a "don't piss off staff" rule, so the best thing for me to do is to very deliberately not give you what you want and instead leave the person you hate free to post. Because you're like a bug to light, incapable of resisting the urge to go right back to trying to move an immovable object. So I can just sit back and watch both of you seethe endlessly. The dog returns to its vomit, and the sow returns to wallow in her mire. Get fucked.

>>8925
>disruptive and thread derailing
Good news, that should stop with this new rule.
<Why?
Because evidently users can't do anything about such by shitposting and bantering on 'em.
So in thread disruptions should go away to a tolerable warning minimum.
<Downside
You are going to have to deal with more reports and rehabilitation or whatever is chosen is in staff's hands. Even in differing opinions (at the staff level), it is like the Nigel fiasco, but instead of users shitting up the thread it's reports.
I'd recommend something to signify something's been done so repeated spam doesn't occur.
It's alot of stress being placed on you all.
If the follow-up user posts weren't there who'd piss you off the most?
>>8923
I understand your frustration and pain. I have a different take.
They don't do the grand sweeping shitpost gestures of yester-year for two reasons.
Accumulating users.
Community pushback (and friction).

On paper keeping every single user maximizes how many are on the site. Yay numbers.
In practice there's edges and more nuanced takes that lead to users leaving because of another user. Or users joining because of another user.
Those effects are not obvious at first or second glance. The time span for it can be short or a very long time.

The site is made with love and care, and every action rocks the boat always. Even waiting. All actions. We all want the boat to stay afloat.
If somebody starts filling the boat with water something has to be done and most people don't know who to turn to, to properly remediate the situation. When something is done and people don't like it for any reason is made known even if it was or wasn't the right call at the time.

>>8927
It's good to get it off your chest.
<don't respond, make sure to report
Sure thing.

>own the haters by deliberately refusing requests and concerns that other users made
Not the healthiest attitude towards moderation, tbh.
Have a Trixie.

>>8927
On the plus side you can tell people to report more and not take the bait.

>>8928
>We all want the boat to stay afloat.
I'm one of them.
Please stop bitching and shitpost moar. Thank you.

>>8929
>not giving me the (You) I so rightly deserve
>thinking you can just order the unpaid moderators to do what you want while maintaining a shitty attitude throughout, the same way you bully minimum wage retail employees
Kiss my ass.

>>8928
>>8930
Thank you

Yes, I think that reports would definitely be better than derailing the thread with pointless arguments that the users in question know are pointless

I suggest that we TRIPLE Janny's salary.

>>8933
Cool.
I guess I'll try getting some more people in the thread who haven't input here yet and let everyone know to say something.
>>8931
Oh good, since you also support this now, that's a load off my shoulders.

>>8935
>Oh good, since you also support this now, that's a load off my shoulders.
To keep /mlpol/ afloat YES. To witch-hunt posters NOT.

>>8935
Glad that's all wrapped up... >>8936
I'm pretty sure you weigh more than a goose, so you can't be a witch.
I weigh more than than a goose.
Pretty sure most image board users weigh more than a goose.
On the other hand that'd be a great new age way to pawn off a weight loss plan. It'd light a fire under their ass.

It's a two-fold problem, shitting in response to shit just makes everything shitty.
So have to hand it to jannies to see what is going on.
You get less derailing and more constructive posts and possibly helpful lessons to maximize user retention and high quality and quantity posts.
And more time is spent making stuff instead of inane unwanted corrections.
It sounds like a win-win-win-win for everyone.

>>8937
>It sounds like a win-win-win-win for everyone.
Sure, I like that. However some anons won't meet that needed sanity threshold and will come back with new ways to create drama. You see, those anons are more comfortable bitching non-stop and antagonizing than to take the smart road and ignore their perceived offenders.

>>8812
You have CLEARLY stated that you don't lurk enough. The mods and jannies have openly refused to remove Niggel out of some retarded sense of duty. At least 50 anons know how much of a whiny furfag soygoy commie he is.

>>8824
>>8825
>>8925
Then do a job right for once in your life: ban Niggel for the unfuckingtold number of actual schizophrenic fursecution posts he has made, and will inevitably make again.
Continuing to fail at this has shown that you are incapable of being legitimately unbiased and highly dishonest about keeping /mlpol/ strong. But oh fucking well, one shred of decency seems impossible since (You) can't pull that enormous head out of (Your) own asshole.

>>8938
>You see, those anons are more comfortable bitching non-stop and antagonizing than to take the smart road and ignore their perceived offenders.
Ignoring stuff is very hard for those that aren't normal fags and get what's going on.
What is easier instead is to make it someone elses problem, still a tough call is manageable because of activity on the other people picking it up.
>However some anons won't meet that needed sanity threshold and will come back with new ways to create drama.
Life is pretty dramatic. Best anyone can do is make the best of things.
To be honest I'll probably run afoul of any part of this myself at times, the new proposed rule, the adding a double check to what I post, but I also know the staff are very long suffering.
It's the only way to keep your head amidst chuckle fuck assholes like myself, besides copious amounts of SNOWPITY and Mare Essence.
See? >>8939
>>8939
Have some mare. You need it.

>>8938
>However some anons won't meet that needed sanity threshold and will come back with new ways to create drama.
Well, right on time and spot, the post >>8939 is a textbook example.

>>8939
Nigel's been gone for at least a month now, and even that couple posts were the first in several months

This is another problem I have with the "ban this guy and everything will be great!" push. You literally haven't even noticed Nigel's absence.

The same thing happened when Boomer was banned for a month (more than once). Nothing improved. We didn't have more quality posting. None of those alleged lost posters came back. It was just less posting.

>>8940
>Ignoring stuff is very hard for those that aren't normal fags and get what's going on.
It is super easy and a way of not ruining other posters' mood with noisy drama.

>>8942
>None of those alleged lost posters came back.
I mean would you?
Unless they know things have changed alot and someone gets into contact with them somehow it's near impossible, unless one day they show back up.
If it's the same old same old, the reason why they left still exactly as it was they'll say they weren't wanted.
Didn't have to be true, but that's how it looks.
>>8939
He was banned, it's since expired.
He's still gone or gone near silent.
So please understand exactly why I'm posting about adding this rule.
>>8944
Yes the streamlined process of blocking posts and or users has been made efficient.
Out of sight is not out of mind and many care very deeply about this place.
Drama tends to follow caring an incredibly large amount and trying to act on it.

>8925
>8927
>because people are bitching, I will refuse to remove the cause of their bitching, without which there'd be no bitching
Clown wig. Now.
>8933
>unpaid moderators
You could be getting paid a dollar per janny action but you'd still be getting paid a nice round zero.
>8942
>None of those alleged lost posters came back.
Why would they? They left. They don't know anything about what you have or haven't done.
>It was just less posting.
And "more posting" is An Unquestionable Good.
sage
VPN Detractor was Banned for this Post

>>8946
>And "more posting" is An Unquestionable Good
(You) made it clear before in other threads. (You) are perfectly happy with a dead site only useful for your exclusive use on writefag breads. Kinda you only accept posts from you and friends while cockblocking the rest because reasons. And BTW, when this site was almost dead with the traffic to the bottom, and you and friends didn't post much besides the Occupied Equestria games.
I doubt you care about /mlpol/ much.

>>8947
What's the problem with the writefag thread? I have no idea why you even started attacking it like 2 or so years ago. Is it because of Elway?
>>8925
>>8927
>>8933
>>8942
See, you're letting your emotions dictate what you do with the site again. Can't even put your pride aside a few secs for the sake of this place.
Woops, I said I was staying out of this. Sorry.

>>8948
Hence why codifying a rule that is less tolerant and would tend towards more action, as OP is trying to do, is a good idea

>>8946
>Detractor was Banned for this Post
Ironically, this demonstrates an example of a poster who was banned because the mods determined that their posting was distracting and bad for the thread, even though they didn't overtly break any of the rules.
Can't this same logic be applied elsewhere?

>>8949
It's near impossible to cram the spirit and culture into legalistic words that won't be twisted.
Admittedly what happens for violating the rule is up for staff pick, I even recommend combing multiple sometimes returning to a lighter sentence. The point is communication.
I can't promise anything about even more quanity of posts or high quality posts, because life happens. I've been made to eat my own words many times.
What it is, is giving a name to the driver's wheel for how the site will be.
It's also a pat on the back and showing the difference between anywhere else and here for newcomers, old frens, everyone.
The community is chatting about where to go and staff is the drivers.
>less tolerant
More confident and assured we're behind you.
Like the doctors having no news is good news. If users think you really overstepped we'll bitch and moan and if you haven't and others still do that I'll try being a voice saying it's the right course of action.
And really this is something of a last/medium resort for users, because we'll talk with each other usually.
Heck you all can ask if you overstepped and I'm sure we'll respond.
Let's bake that into the rule too.

<For future fags
I'm really hoping I'm getting across what has gone unsaid but implicitly for many years, even if we forget in the midst of bantering or shit talking.
This is a fun and silly place of ponies and politics and anything else we get our hands on.
I do hear you future fags.
"But OP isn't that the whole point of lurking so you understand and emulate the unsaid values? Hah gottem!"
Yeah yeah it is. The internet isn't how it used to be, nor how general perception shifted. The 4chins can't deal with so many people never bothering to assimilate, the amount of old fags to everyone else is vastly out numbered. So word of mouth and spending as much time trying to find those cashes of wisdom, shitposting or humor amidst everything else.
Here is an alcove not the so called sewer of the internet.
The internet is an amazing, suprising and potentially dangerous place. Like curing salts if improperly used you won't like what happens next.

>>8948
>What's the problem with the writefag thread? I have no idea why you even started attacking it like 2 or so years ago.
It was stated that writefags resent shitposting because it is popping up in the overboard. That bothers them a lot.
>Is it because of Elway?
I have no idea how, or if, he is involved in this.

I was about to write an essay over this, but I guess it's no longer my business anymore.
>>8951
Shitting on [redacted] is the only consistent way to get you banned here. Is it right or is it wrong? I dunno, but it is an undeniable fact nonetheless.
>>8952
Notice that staff is already taking action, and it didn't need to be written down in the rules for it to happen. I dunno if you trust their judgement or not, but that's what it seemed like from your posts. Well, you've seen what their judgement is now. Proceed accordingly and good luck.

>>8954
Needling any member of the staff for long periods of time at every opportunity is retarded.
There's a line that's crossed and further poking just demanding retaliation.
>luck
Well if everything goes to shit you can blame me.
<Nothing ever happens
Then watch as nothing fucking happens. I think things will happen and things will get better.
I have a shred of faith if not in people then in a higher power and then horse pussy.
The rule is over emphasizing what is already here in the rules and what all of what /mlpol/ is.
It's plainly doing something out pic 3 shit fucks.
<Rules don't do anything Anon
That's correct, people do. It's about how people interact and agree or disagree on how to interact with each other.

>>8955
>Well if everything goes to shit you can blame me.
I disagree, there's only so much you can do. Still, it's better to try something than sit in your ass and do nothing.

>>8953
>It was stated that writefags resent shitposting because it is popping up in the overboard. That bothers them a lot.
Stated by whom? And since when do writefags resent shitposting? Writefags are the most prolific shitposters on the board. I'm curious what autismo chain of reasoning led you to reach such a bizarre conclusion.

>>8957
Go look into the treads listed at >>8859 , everything is there.
> I'm curious what autismo chain of reasoning led you to reach such a bizarre conclusion.
It is literally posted on those threads, when pushed for clarifications, that the bumping of threads, disrupts their threads being at the top of the overboard.

>>8960
So, in essence, this is about people complaining about your shitty meme-dump threads always being at the top of the overboard.

When you say:
>It was stated that writefags resent shitposting because it is popping up in the overboard. That bothers them a lot.

What you're actually saying is:
>I post shitty content that nobody likes, and I interpret the many complaints I've received as a conspiracy against me, and for some autismo reason that only makes sense in my head, I place the writefags at the center of said conspiracy

And what you're actually meaning to say is:
>I post shitty content and have severe autism

This is like Nigel and his Discord hater-army. Instead of simply accepting that nobody likes the content you post, and remedying the problem by posting better content, you double down and go on the offensive. You reject the reality that's in front of your eyes, and replace it with a version of reality that you find more palatable.

In other words, you're a delusional fucking retard.

>>8961
>Instead of simply accepting that nobody likes the content you post
C'mon, you and friends by being loud are not the whole /mlpol/
Also I never posted to cater you, but to post memes that are indeed relevant to current events.
Also you are referring to the >>>/sp/21290 → thread, if you don't like it fair enough, but to lobby to shut it down and lying about being "facebook" memes is very jewy of you. I have the right to shitpost in /sp/ as anyone of you.

>>8962
>C'mon, you and friends by being loud are not the whole /mlpol/
This is literally the same gaslighting technique that Nigel uses. "haha, it's not that most or all users on this site hate the garbage content I flood it with, it's just a dedicated group of haters who hate on me because they're haters." Next you're going to be accusing people of organizing on secret Discord servers to plot against you.

>Also I never posted to cater you, but to post memes that are indeed relevant to current events.
Here's the thing, dude: if one person tells you your memes suck, that's one person's opinion. If the near-unanimous reaction to every meme you post is people telling you that your memes suck, then it's a safe bet that your memes actually do suck.

I'd like you to stop and think about something for a second. Really think. Has anyone on this site ever come to your defense? Can you recall any specific instance in which anyone has ever said: "Gee, I really enjoy that gigantic image-dump thread full of the same kind of low-effort unfunny memes my uncle posts on Facebook, I really wish we could have more content like that on the site?"

If everyone you meet tells you that you smell like shit, you can dismiss them as haters if you are so inclined, but really the best course of action is to just go home and take a shower. I'll leave you to meditate on that.

>if you don't like it fair enough, but to lobby to shut it down and lying about being "facebook" memes is very jewy of you
First of all, the vast bulk of your memes literally are facebook-tier. I am going through your thread right now, in real time, and 90% of what I see are low-effort image macros with no punchline. It's the kind of shit that boomer uncles spend all day mindlessly upvoting and retweeting, or whatever it's called on Facebook. As I clarified above, this is not just my opinion, this is a collective sentiment shared by most, if not all, of mlpol, as evidenced by the fact that the response to your content has been overwhelmingly negative. On a personal note, I find it genuinely disheartening that you can't tell the difference between high-quality memes and low-quality ones.

Second of all, if you want to talk about what's jewy, I would direct your attention to picrel, specifically the portion I highlighted which I was able to do because I know how to use GIMP to create and edit images, as opposed to just mindlessly reposting whatever shitty memegenerator.net-created macros my boomer uncle posted on facebook yesterday. This literally describes your literal behavior in this thread. You have claimed that multiple people besides you were banned for posting the same things that you post. When it became obvious that you were actually just talking about yourself being banned under multiple IPs, you backtracked and tried to argue that you never made that claim in the first place. You were also called out for samefagging in your own threads to simulate engagement. When this was pointed out to you, first you denied doing it, then you changed course and said you were making "addendums" and were not samefagging, then you accused me of slander, then you abandoned thread. Watch: next you're going to say that none of it ever happened and I'm slandering you again, even though we can all click on your ID to highlight your posts and see exactly what you wrote.

Your behavior so far in this thread is literally the jewiest shit I've ever seen on this site in seven years.

>I have the right to shitpost in /sp/ as anyone of you.
Yes, and just as you have the right to post, others have the right to react. If you're the only one posting in your thread, and everyone else is telling you that your thread sucks, then the community has spoken: your thread sucks. If your thread sucks so bad that seeing it constantly bumped to the top of the overboard is actually causing users to flee the site, then it goes beyond just an issue of one anon posting shitty thread, to a meta-problem affecting the community as a whole. If every effort to reason with you, ie by explaining to you that your content sucks and asking you to either post better content or stop posting, has failed, and if you obstinately insist on posting the same content that everyone hates in spite of everyone telling you over and over that they hate it, then eventually moderator action is indeed justified. This is basically the substance of what we're arguing about here.

>>8963
>gaslighting technique
Facts.
>it's just a dedicated group of haters who hate on me because they're haters.
Not quite, it is a group of haters because my threads were popping too much in the overboard.
>Has anyone on this site ever come to your defense?
A couple, but they were ignored.
>unfunny memes my uncle posts on Facebook
What a piece of manure you are, I really doubt most memes would not be censored in facekike. >>>/sp/21290 → is there to everypony to see.
>Here's the thing, dude: if one person tells you your memes suck, that's one person's opinion. If the near-unanimous reaction to every meme you post is people telling you that your memes suck, then it's a safe bet that your memes actually do suck.
Here is the thing, dude: I don't buy it. Most of the memes are good. But you went far beyond the content by itself to the personal terrain. Then most the memes I posted suck, according to you.
>Yes, and just as you have the right to post, others have the right to react.
Stay on your lane poner.

...hard to read a wall of text. Jeeez.

>>8963
>If your thread sucks so bad that seeing it constantly bumped to the top of the overboard is actually causing users to flee the site,
I missed this.
I disagree. My threads where created to fill the void for the sudden polack disappearance. (You) mocked me calling me the /mlpol/ savior. Remember?

>>8963
>If your thread sucks so bad that seeing it constantly bumped to the top of the overboard is actually causing users to flee the site,
I forgot the meme.

>>8965
Just go back to sleep, Sonata.

>>8964
>Facts.
Keep on denying the obvious. Living in a delusional private reality worked out well for Nigel, maybe it will work for you too.
>Not quite, it is a group of haters because my threads were popping too much in the overboard.
In other words, your thread sucks and people don't like seeing it every time they reload the overboard, and thus people complain.
>A couple, but they were ignored.
Cite specific posts or you're full of shit.
>What a piece of manure you are
Gee willickers, isn't that just, like, your personal opinion?
>I really doubt most memes would not be censored in facekike.
The quality of the memes is what's at issue, not whether or not they'd be censored.
>>>>/sp/21290 → is there to everypony to see.
Yes, as I said, I have the thread open and am looking at your memes. They suck. They are unfunny rehashed image macros of the sort that are routinely posted by boomer uncles on facebook. This is why the reaction to your meme thread has been overwhelmingly negative. We've been over this.
>Here is the thing, dude: I don't buy it. Most of the memes are good.
Ever heard that old adage about leading a horse to water?
>But you went far beyond the content by itself to the personal terrain.
This is not a sentence. Also: what?
>Then most the memes I posted suck, according to you.
This is not a sentence either.
>Stay on your lane poner.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Also: I believe you meant to say "stay in your lane."
>hard to read a wall of text. Jeeez.
Terribly sorry for making you read. I'm sure anything longer than 140 chars is a tremendous strain on your attention span.

>>8965
>I missed this.
Tends to happen when you have a low attention span and don't read things.
>My threads where created to fill the void for the sudden polack disappearance.
Whatever your purpose in creating them, the simple fact is they are low-effort image dumps that generated no discussion, other than meta-discussions like this one about how your memes suck and nobody likes them.
> (You) mocked me calling me the /mlpol/ savior. Remember?
No, I'm afraid I don't. You must be thinking of someone else.

>>8967
>I forgot the meme.
If that image is your idea of a meme, then it's no wonder you're having trouble understanding things.

Anyway, I've said my piece. If you want to keep on being an obstinate, delusional faggot with shitty meme-game that's up to you; I won't keep wasting my time arguing with you. At this point, I think my vote is for just permabanning you and being done with it.

>>8969
>Anyway, I've said my piece.
A good advise, take it: >>8968

>>8970
>A good advise, take it
This isn't a sentence either. okay, now I'm done replying.

>>8971
>This isn't a sentence either
Writefags and semantics. /s

>>8962
>C'mon, you and friends by being loud are not the whole /mlpol/
Notice how nobody else is saying the opposite? You are the only neigh-sayer in this thread.
Even if it is not all of /mlpol/, it is all of /mlpol/ that bothers to interact with you, so who are you doing this for?

>>8962
>by being loud are not the whole /mlpol/
Indeed, I'm waiting for anyone else to show up in this thread.
I would highly recommend sharing this thread so more points of view can be had from where ever.

I fuckING HATE NIGGERS!!!!!!!! I HATE NIGEL!!!!
And I also hatE THAT ONE BOOMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND THAT TWO BOOMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>8963
>Gimp
Ew, nothing personal, but I'm actually more of a full stack engineer. I use Adobe Photoshop all the time.
Obscure meme from Techlead's lunix video

>>8964
>I really doubt most memes would not be censored in facekike.
Half of the time reverse image search leads me to Facebook.
Where do you get these things? What site do you get them from? What site are you importing all of this from?
>Stay on your lane poner.
This is our lane.

>>8960
>that the bumping of threads, disrupts their threads being at the top of the overboard.
You have once again missed the point. It's not about who's thread is who's. It's about the disruption itself.
Posters complained because the general feeling of the site changed very quickly to something that they were not used to and were not fond of. When those posters eventually figured out that they could trace that change back to a certain user, they got angry.
People who build up an online community for years don't like it when newfags suddenly come in and start changing it. As they say:
>GTFO normies REEEEEEEEE
Especially not horse autists and /pol/acks who built said community because tourists from off-site turned 4chan into something other than what they were used to.
Especially with cases like >>8972 where they refuse to assimilate imageboard culture and keep spewing redditspeech, because they don't know what lurking is and can't comprehend the term "When in Rome".

>But you went far beyond the content by itself to the personal terrain.
It wouldn't be personal if you had just lurked and assimilates into the community like everyone else, instead of always doubling down.
>A couple
Yeah, I was one of those. I thought you'd change overtime, but you didn't.
I still think you could change, if you just tried.

The site is slowly losing anons over time and will die if this continues. We need more anons so how about ads on 4/pol/ and 4/mlp/?

>>8982
That question should probably be asked in its own thread.

>>8982
I feel you, link from a thread redirecting to here suggesting to put it here.
Your point does deserve its own thread too.
I'm hoping that the rule will give pause for people just leaving, and sometimes it can't be helped irl and other things require alot of attention.
Plus if the rule is implemented the preservation and spreading of culture is safeguarded for the new waves.

>>8982
>We need more anons
A detail that I consider of great importance to get some traffic for free. Many bros look for pony pics using search engines and is very important that the posted pics to be properly named in order to be indexed.

>>8985
>Many bros look for pony pics using search engines and is very important that the posted pics to be properly named in order to be indexed.
...No? Most horsefuckers use the boorus for pony pics.