(untitled)

Hello. My post was deleted and I was derezzed. Here's a screenshot of what the post looked like (I didn't get a chance to screenshot the original). I was derezzed for rules 4, 6, and 7. I consider the ban to be unjust, and the moderator who did it should probably stay out of the thread due to a conflict of interest. He can also step down. >4: You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. I'm pretty sure I elaborated on my opinions, considering I was only responding to others posts. >6: Do not whine and cry about 8chan, lainchan.jp, "quality", "invasions", "new users", mods, bans, or kalyx outside of /q/. Is the post being removed because I mentioned kalyx? that seems banal as hell, and an excuse to remove my contribution to the discussion. This is not the spirit of the law and I should know: I was there when we made it. >7: Do not spam or advertise unrelated content. I deleted the initial post and reposted because of more details I wanted to add. I doubt this is advertising because I mentioned "alicechan" which is not how seph wants her site described.

ah crap, forgot my tripcode. I want to add that I was derezzed, and have to post this using tor. I think the system is broken if you ban me such that I can't even make an appeal.

There was a bit of discussion about lainzine 5 in my post, too, I said when it came out and who was running it. Pretty important details, no? Anyway, it was the last post in a chain, if you are enforcing the "solely" law you might want to take out the rest of that sequence as well. Of course you didn't, because we both know this isn't about the rules. It's about me versus you. I've let go of that, but still you cling to me. And now you're attacking my friends. Let them work on the lainzine in peace, this affair has gone on long enough.

You failed to elaborate on exactly why this site is ``a now-dead imageboard'', but this was the least clear rule violation. You repeatedly complained about the quality of the website and the administration, which violates rule six. Lastly, you were advertising this Alicechan, along with some IRC channel and whatnot. It seems clear to me that the post violated the rules. You were also derezzed for one hour, which you failed to mention. This is not the first post to be deleted from that thread, as >>4696 shows; derailing and attacking the thread to impact the Lainzine effort is not being allowed. >>4721 Bans can be appealed, but, again, this was a one hour ban. >>4723 >There was a bit of discussion about lainzine 5 in my post, too, I said when it came out and who was running it. Pretty important details, no? Anyway, it was the last post in a chain, if you are enforcing the "solely" law you might want to take out the rest of that sequence as well. That sequence will be left, as there was some relevant conversation; only any such posts made after that staff posting will be deleted. >Of course you didn't, because we both know this isn't about the rules. It's about me versus you. I've let go of that, but still you cling to me. And now you're attacking my friends. Let them work on the lainzine in peace, this affair has gone on long enough. You violated the rules and your post was deleted. Continue your train of thought here, if you must, as the staff posting states.

>>4720 >But you know I didn't say that. >>>/lit/437 There's you saying those things. Here's intron saying the things he said https://lainchan.jp/cult/res/363.html#q373 I'm not gonna dig up the times you said "all of the authors agree with me" we both know you said it despite them flat out telling you that wasn't the case. That's the real rub, you didn't just say that you didn't care what they had to think, you acted it.

personally unrelated to this entire showdown, but we should be able to mention and discuss other wobsites without it categorically being considered advertising retarded bullsoykaf

>>4726 >There's you saying those things. pay attention to everything else I said, too. >despite them flat out telling you that wasn't the case. If it's with regards to lainchan.jp, hell, the typesetter didn't agree with me. The important part is we had a discussion about it, instead of getting mad the way others did - like that guy who said, "I *didn't* contribute, but if I *did* then I sure wouldn't want to contribute again." And this is exactly what I've been talking about. People who contribute little to nothing acting like they should run soykaf, because they promise to help us eventually. And we all know how that goes. Obviously, if you take part in the project, I care about your opinion. But more importantly than that, your opinion actually makes a difference, because the magazine looks like what you want it to. I know I spoke flippantly. It's what I do, and what a lot of other people do when you harass them like this. I have no desire to sound like an impersonal robot, and emotionality would be expressed nonetheless. But I'm tired of this. I've sent you these responses in private, you gave me a one-line non-answer and proceeded to derail this thread from the censorship that happened I have better things to do with my time, and I hope you do too.

>>4733 >If it's with regards to lainchan.jp No. For most it was with regards to the zine and trusting your good will and that you weren't lying through your teeth when you said "we're going to be non-partisan." For that individual, well, he says it better than me 'It's very, very misleading to say that "they were fine with it", when you're the bottleneck. I wasn't fine,' >People who contribute little to nothing acting like they should run soykaf But it wasn't. It was the guy who's written more articles for you than anyone else (afaik he's the only one in every zine) and it wasn't about anyone running soykaf. This here right now is about having different people run it because we've had enough of you. Back then, all that he wanted was for you not to assume that he agreed with you but instead you insisted that he couldn't exist because nobody other than me ever likes to address people by name. It was you arrogantly putting words in his mouth that he took exception to and when he confronted you about it you doubled down. What I personally wanted was a token of good faith so that the confidence that had been lost would be restored. The guy you mentioned, who didn't contribute, for instance and a whole bunch of others and yes these people count. Not directly but for everyone saying it there's another 10 thinking it (that's a general rule, applies to all sides) and ultimately it's that pool of people who write your articles. I really hoped that it was just an oversight. That you were being honest and had done it as an offhand thing while retracting the zine for other reasons. You did change your mind on the whole "we're going to be non-partisan" thing. I'd hoped you'd be like "oh soykaf sorry forgot about that" and faith would be restored in you. Everything would have been fine, you'd still be running things, but instead you said that you weren't interested in what people had to say and insisted that all of the authors were fine with it. >if you take part in the project, I care about your opinion. But more importantly than that, your opinion actually makes a difference, because the magazine looks like what you want it to. Except they did take part in the project and the magazine didn't look like what they wanted it to and not only were their opinions ignored, you were telling everyone that they thought the opposite. >I know I spoke flippantly. You didn't just speak it. You acted it and believed it. It wasn't just a bad tone. You put words in your authors mouths and accused me of samefagging. >you gave me a one-line non-answer I woke up to your messages. Sent a line contradicting your "I never said those things" bullsoykaf, posted the same publicly here, and then went to work before any responses. I work 11 hours a day and I have a lot of RL soykaf at the moment and this is the first time I've really sat down since then. What do I get in my messages? You accuse me of quote mining. In response to me linking the posts in full in their original context... And fuarrrk your "this is better off private bullsoykaf." You're willing to say things publicly when they make you look good, "you gave me a one line non-response," "I wrote a whole thing detailing why you were wrong but I realised it doesn't need to be public." fuarrrk that. Your "whole thing" was incoherent. Thing is I don't have anything to say to you privately. If it wasn't for the fact that you came here hypocritically whinging that people were "stealing" and arrogantly insisting that "If we're ever going to finish this thing, you'll have to work with us." (no Junk, that's the point, we won't) I wouldn't have anything to say to you at all. As it stands my only dog in this is clearing it up for the two people who don't know the craic and are wondering why some guy is trying to stir soykaf (well that and the fact you're publicly accusing me of soykaf that I evidently didn't do, nobody likes that). >from the censorship that happened You were told to take meta discussion like this to /q/. This is the second thread whinging about that. That thread is for getting the zine stuff done. Whinge here. Wait one little fuarrrking second. I'd assumed that you made another post after the warning but your post wasn't even deleted... Look it's right there >>>/lit/1371 . You just live in a dream world Junk. You constantly talk what is evidently soykaf, "I didn't say those things," "my post has been deleted" and then tell everyone else they're rewriting history and creating false narratives.

so getting to why I created this thread, >>4724 >You failed to elaborate on exactly why this site is ``a now-dead imageboard'', I said the site died for me when kalyx sold it. I'm not sure what else there is to elaborate on. >You were also derezzed for one hour, which you failed to mention. That's not something I knew. There wasn't anything on the page that said it was an hour-long ban, if there was then I didn't see it. I'm more concerned with the content being removed, but I'm glad that you changed your mind and allowed it to be posted. >This is not the first post to be deleted from that thread, as >>4696 shows; I noticed you never actually responded to that post. Kinda funny how you acknowledge it but not why it was deleted. >That sequence will be left, as there was some relevant conversation; only any such posts made after that staff posting will be deleted. There was relevant conversation in my own post, too. Not to mention Jove's schpiel was littered with personal attacks, which if I seem to recall are grounds for deletion whether or not there's relevant content in the post. I've also just been informed that you told appleman you contacted the organizers of the lainzine - that is to say, shmibs intron and I, about how the project was going. I didn't receive any messages like that from you and neither did our group email. It seems like you made the thread on that pretense, so this seems incredibly fishy.

>>4735 >'d assumed that you made another post after the warning but your post wasn't even deleted... I was talking about a post (actually, 2 posts) that were deleted. by "this is what it looked like" I mean "this is what I copy-pasted from the old post." I thought that was clear. >thing is I don't have anything to say to you privately. I'm aware. because you want a spectacle, where it will ultimately come down to my word against yours. On a platform I had abandoned all summer, where people (yourself included) constantly asserted that I was undertaking a "targeted media campaign" against appleman. Which is not true, by the way. Thanks, but no thanks. >If it wasn't for the fact that you came here hypocritically whinging that people were "stealing" >ctrl-f stealing >no results found I'm not sure why you put that in quotes, dude. Anyway, this is all really nitpicky and exactly why I wanted to have a private conversation. Nobody needs to see it, it's pedantic squabbling and clarification and accusations on how to interpret things we said a long time ago. It's a waste of everyone's time and I'm not here for it - I've been sent a better explanation as to why the thread was created, anyway, so I don't need to ask for why you think it exists in the first place. I've been talking to Appleman and hopefully we can work something out about whether the zine splits or not. sorry to be brief and not address most of your points, but I have work as well and study at university. It seems like we've both got real soykaf to deal with and don't have time for this conversation, especially not as a public debate where it's clearly about building up one or another's reputation. I think you need to double-check the order things came in, because you're getting it mixed up again. I hope things get better for you.

>>4738 >I'm aware. because you want a spectacle, where it will ultimately come down to my word against yours. Thing is "my word" is things like "Junk said this, here's the post." Yours is things like, "He just wants a spectacle. You can tell by the way he didn't let it drop when I came along, hypocritically said people were ripping things off and then asserted that I've written a big thing that shows he's wrong but I'll only show it to him privately which is where we should continue this conversation." Piss off mate. >Nobody needs to see it There you go with the hypocrisy again. You put your reasons for .jp right on the front page but when I voice concerns about your management of the zine nobody needs to see it.

Also, >where people (yourself included) constantly asserted that I was undertaking a "targeted media campaign" against appleman. Not true. Kalyx was caught shiIling. You were never even implicated as knowing about it. >I think you need to double-check the order things came in My ordering is fine. You said you don't care what happens. You said all the authors agree with you. That author said they didn't. You said to me that it was just me samefagging. What's wrong there?

>>4742 >>4740 >Thing is "my word" is things like "Junk said this, here's the post." Yours is things like, ..." I actually don't disagree with this. Because I have no intention to argue this the way you are. I'm speaking to you, and not everybody. Because this conversation is not occurring between everybody. I have no desire to rally supporters and have a large debate over who's right and who's wrong. It's a waste of time and doesn't get to the truth of the matter. If it's just between you and me, we both know what happened and what was said. Nobody has to prove a thing. Besides, the lainchan.jp threads you linked don't exist anymore. By the way, I didn't share that post with you alone. I shared it on a selective basis, i.e. with anyone who seemed to express an interest. You must understand that is very, very few people. I want to have this conversation, but I don't want to talk on here. I want to talk to you one-on-one, ideally over mumble. We can have a public discussion. I dislike typing things out on here, it's a waste of time when I have a lot more important stuff to do. Please get in touch so we can actually finish this. I think I know what you're upset about and I no longer think you're just trying to make me look bad. Anyway, I want to thank you and apologize - I was using this conversation to work out my own thoughts on the subject. It will influence my actions going forward, but I don't consider it productive to the conversations I'd like to have. Namely, working out where the zine goes from here. Those have been and will be settled elsewhere, mostly because of my limited say over the release itself. I'm 1 person, not a supreme dictator. People work with me because of those terms, if that were to change then so would the lainzine. I wouldn't want such a project to exist. So thanks for your time.