/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.