/ameta/ - /a/ Meta Discussion

>>64
You get it, you've laid out my own approach better than I could say myself. This is the way I think things should be run and the way I have been attempting to run them. /meta/ would like to paint me as a hardcore nazimod, but I get equally get complaints about not banning enough, usually more so. /a/ has a very good sense of what belongs and when a user has clearly failed to lurk, and certainly I don't permaban for anything other than CP. Even /rec/ threads only earn a 30 minute ban, which I get complaints is too short however it does seem to work, they don't tend to come back. Likely, they were never going to make any more than that single post to begin with. In terms of rule violators, they're tame and manageable, a hard approach is unnecessary.

For someone like that /pol/ack that has been going on a crusade against /a/ the past week, there's little that can be done beyond banning every time that thread gets made, which feeds into his persecution complex further but I don't really care about that. What amuses me about him is that he's utterly convinced every post calling him out is a mod samefagging, which couldn't be further from the truth, he is incapable of comprehending that it could even be possible for the board at large to be against his derailment.

At any rate, I would very much like to see actual examples of anything OP is talking about so I can debate them, but as it stands actual proof seems to be surprisingly hard to come by, and arguments made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence in my book. I will not sacrifice /a/ on the altar of /meta/, many of them will not be satisfied until /a/ is completely unmoderated and run into the ground. The idea that /a/ might actually legitimately want some rules enforced is alien to them.