(untitled)

The (literally) homosexual mod finally got mad and deleted my thread. He did this after earlier making, what I assume to be a subtle threat, incorporating geographical information into one of his replies. Essentially leaking IP range information in a "meant for you" kidn of way, which still reflects poorly on staff. http://web.archive.org/web/20230629005812/https://lainchan.org/hum/res/72019.html Unfortunately I didn't bother to archive it often, so a good 70 lengthy posts were deleted. I hadn't had time to read and review a lot of them. I suspect this is the same mod that deleted the Visual Snow thread, and is prone to deleting several others. He clearly sees himself fit to delete the products of other people's time and energy on the basis of his feelings. It's a clear and recurring pattern, and I do suspect it's the same mod. He also sages threads frequently. I think this is as much a matter for /q/, but it happened here so I'm posting it here. Deleting other people's work and investment takes a very particular mindset, and is not acceptable. >pic unrelated

>>11854 >Deleting other people's work and investment takes a very particular mindset, and is not acceptable. This isn't your personal blog.

>>11855 There he is. >Unfortunately I didn't bother to archive it often, so a good 70 lengthy posts were deleted. I hadn't had time to read and review a lot of them. >Deleting other people's work and investment takes a very particular mindset, and is not acceptable. Please learn to engage in good faith. I'm gioving you the benefit of the doubt, it could be reading comprehension or emotional flooding.

>>11854 i don't care cus you're annoying and i don not trust you

I'm not the mod who deleted your thread, but I did engage and try to help the discussion not be totally fuarrrking retarded. I cannot speak for who deleted your thread, but my guess is that you guys probably couldn't help yourselves despite my efforts to help prevent it from just enaging argumentum ad hominem. For what it's worth, I was asking for elaboration and explainations from people instead of just sitting there and striking people down about how they were wrong about x, y, z. It is important to give people the benefit of the doubt, so we can at least learn about the perspectives.

>>11858 >so we can at least learn about the perspectives. Not anymore. It's gone.

Yeah, when I first started using this site, I loved it. Now I realize the jannies are niggers, just like every other site...sad!

>>11860 Thread OP was multiple Rule 3 and Rule 4 violations as were many (over 17 ) of the replies. Several of these violations were also reported. If you break the rules we will delete your post. Do it repeatedly and you'll be derezzed. Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. I didn't delete the thread based on feelings , just because of the multiple rule violations. I have never saged a thread and I didn't reply to your thread in /hum/. If you want your work to be eternal, please don't post on an ephemeral imageboard and expect it to be eternal, post it on pastebin or webhost and then link it, that way you control the uptime. Alternatively make an OP that doesn't violate the rules and actually clarify the dialogue / discussion you want to have.

>>11861 >Several of these violations were also reported. Can we get earlier warning on posts that are considered r3/r4 violations before the thread gets nuked? I missed the most recent stuff, but I thought the thread was more or less OK, very surprised to wake up and find the thread gone. Would've been nice to see a couple posts warned so the boundaries are more clear. >Thread OP was multiple Rule 3 and Rule 4 violations I read the OP as memetic creative writing and not as a r3/r4... (although it could've been more clear about the intended topic for the thread). >>11854 >>11861 >He did this after earlier making, what I assume to be a >subtle threat, incorporating geographical information into >one of his replies. Essentially leaking IP range information >in a "meant for you" kidn of way, which still reflects poorly >on staff. Is this true? Don't see it in the archive but not sure where to look.

>>11854 Good. Your thread sucked and I say this as someone who thinks glitterboyry is a mental illness. Consider 4chan next time you have a soykafty idea for a thread.

>>11862 >Is this true? >Don't see it in the archive but not sure where to look. I can't prove it beyond all doubt, but it seemed that way to me. Like I said though, it was woven in in a way that more implied knowledge than outright asserting it, but it was definitely too odd and particular to just ignore as coincidence. I don't really care that much, hence including that detail ITT, but also probably don't benefit from being more specific. It's walking the line imo, if it is how it seems, I consider it bad imageboard ettiquette. Just don't like the vibe and implication of someone in a position to watch everyone's session IDs and IPs across threads leaking it into the pseudo-anon sphere of normal users. Or otherwise acting on it. Leave tjhat bullshit for facebook.

>>11864 >Good. Your thread sucked and I say this as someone who thinks glitterboyry is a mental illness. Yeah but this seems the same as the Lain from the first few replies. You say "your thread is soykaf and so are you" but then you tack on this vague "but we have alignments in our views, and your thread is still garbage, that's how garbage it is." And you sage like the other one too. It's just not believeable. That's not how people conduct themselves. It really reminds me of cluster B relative positioning mindset. The same mindset that says "if I break everyone else's legs I'm the fastest guy in town" also says "I want to put you as low as possible, and I can't do that from an outsider position. So I'll say I'm "one of you" and then reject you from that position, so the drop is much greater and more meaningful, and the others see it and it has a chilling effect on them." It's just games. These are the kind of games manipulative people like to play. Kind of like a false flag, oldest trick in the book. No, it's not clever. You're not fooling anyone. You're definitely not fooling me. The basis and genesis of this type of behavior was what a good chunk of my thread was about. It's gotta go, plain and simple. Algae bloom behavior. >>11862 >>11866 Just to restate, I can't prove it and should have been clearer on that in my OP. However towards the end of the thread, a few replies before I came back to find it deleted, my replies to a particular poster were deleted very shortly after posting. So I just reposted them. Correlation, or connected to the deletion? Don't know.

>>11862 Yes you can get earlier warnings and this are early warnings of Rule 3 and Rule 4 violations do happen, but after a certain point , threads either get cleaned (replies with multiple rule violations per reply get deleted, but thread stays up) or the thread is derailed into bickering or Rule 7 and Rule 9 violations in additional to Rule 3 and Rule 4 violations and then it is easier to delete the entire thread , rather than mass warn and wait for the thread to move in a less hostile and toxic direction. Just because you think a thread or an OP is ok doesn't make it magically not violate the Rules. Thank you for asking for more interaction before post deletion, I will see what I can do, though previously threads that were warned multiple times ended up being derailed , rather then being saved by their various reply chains.