[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha / animu / ausneets / chicas / games / had / hikki / sw ]

/leftpol/ - Left Politics

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: ce822b65459840d⋯.jpg (237.27 KB, 1280x800, 8:5, hotpockets.jpg)

 No.9886

In the interest of keeping this board alive and healthy, I think it's about time we had a thread to discuss and debate moderation decisions, rules and other volunteer related stuff. Direct complaints, comments and suggestions for the mods here.

BOARD LOG

https://8ch.net/log.php?board=leftpol

Post last edited at

 No.9888

>>9886

Who is the BO and how can we know we can trust him/her?


 No.9889

Get rid of the loli rule. That's ridiculous.


 No.9890

>>9886

>>9889

Ban all porn. The board should be SFW. It is a politics board not a porn board.


 No.9891

>>9889

>>9890

I think we should keep in the vein of the original board and allow porn as long as it is legal and spoilered.


 No.9895


 No.9903

>>9890

Porn should be spoilered. As much as I dislike loli; it should be allowed.


 No.9914

I like the open modlog. Porn should be allowed if spoilered and legal, including loli and I think this should be clarified in the rules. As a general rule, I think mods should avoid namefagging/tripfagging and using the ##'s outside of posts relating to board management. An exception could be identifying leftist false flaggers like a mod on /leftypol/ used to do, so we can laugh at them instead of ban.


 No.9917

>>9914

>namefagging/tripfagging

On that note, I think the board should have forced anonymous, to prevent cancerous attention whores from forming like on /leftypol/


 No.9919

>>9914

>a mod

Actually it was two of us, possibly more. After I started doing it there was a bit of a chain reaction against obvious shilling.


 No.9922

I think the Strásserism rule should be removed considering it can be a gateway ideology for /pol/acks and people are easily capable of seeing SJWism and calling it out, and the climate change and Holocaust ones removed simply for being unnecessary and doing more potential harm than good.

>>9889

>>9895

>>9903

The rule is there to protect posters in countries where it's illegal. It's not out of puritanism.


 No.9923

>>9890

porn should be kept to one cyclical thread


 No.9924

>>9917

Sometimes trips are useful but we could make a rule against tripfagging.


 No.9925

>>9922

I would be very hesitant in allowing Strsserism considering /pol used to shill that shit constantly back in 2015. NazBols are a-okay though.

>>9923

That is a shit idea; this is political board not a porn one. If you want look at porn then go to another board and jack off there.


 No.9926

>>9922

>The rule is there to protect posters in countries where it's illegal. It's not out of puritanism.

Bullshit. Plus why would you even come to a leftist board if you cared about enforcing unjust laws?


 No.9930

>>9925

Then there should be a rule against constant shilling. If there was the occasional Strsserist thread then that'd be an opportunity to despook them. I think any rule against ideologies in them, even rightist ones, is extremely problematic and just opens to door to what we're seeing in /leftypol/ now.

>>9926

It's not bullshit, those laws actually exist. We already have a rule against illegal content because no one wants to get posters or the board in trouble, this is just extending that rule to other localities for the posters' sake.


 No.9931

>>9922

For clarity's sake, I think it's important to note that this was also a rule on /leftypol/ for a significant while. It was just rarely ever enforced unless people started posting loli shit unspoilered or spoilered but not clearly marked. I'd like it to be like that again, personally.

>>9925

Polniggers also used Nazbol to shill. I fondly remember "theory threads" which they tried to shill Hitler and Evola by burying them in things they thought were leftist. I personally think we should take things on a case by case basis. Some Asserists are very clearly socialists held back by spooks, others are just "guys socialism is when the white race kills ppl xD" and use it to cloak their hatred for niggers.


 No.9955

>>9930

>Then there should be a rule against constant shilling

Would it be a good idea to have a rule against starting threads advocating Strsserism/NazBol, holocaust denialism etc but allow regular posts advocating and talking about such topics?

That way we can avoid /pol/ shilling but people won't get banned just for having an opinion.


 No.9960

>>9917

I think they have their place but namefagging for the sake of namefagging should be responded to with a filter.

>>9919

It's a good idea regardless.


 No.9961

>>9930

>>9955

Anti-shilling rules are an extremely dangerous path to go down, IMO. I think we should return to the open and free style of most of the days of the original board. They can debate it and try to advocate for it as long as it's not obvious outright Nazi shit, but people are just as free to call them enormous faggots and laugh them out of the board.

It would be easier just to take it on an individual basis. We already have rules against trying to hide your prejudices using pro worker rhetoric and holocaust denial, which covers basically any /pol/ faggot trying to mislead and shill on here. To add more would be pointless IMO.

Post last edited at

 No.9967

>>9961

So would holocaust denialism be allowed so long as you are not making denialist threads and hiding it in leftist rhetoric?


 No.9978

>>9967

I think things should be taken on the basis of the individual poster. If someone's sole interaction with the board is trying to le epic redpill us about the holocaust and solely argue about it, I see no problem with removing them, as I've never seen such an argument ever occur without them acting in extreme bad faith, and not to mention that a thread dies for what amounts to a pointless argument. But, on the other side, if a nazifag comes here to debate something and it gets derailed into their beliefs on the holocaust, I see no reason to ban them as long as they try to keep good faith and keep it in their relevant thread. I don't see the point in adding any more rules on shilling than we already have, because that "don't hide your prejudices" rule in question covers pretty much most bad faith shit with, /pol/fags nazbols and Asserists to begin with.

Also, holy fuck, that was one hell of a context changing error in my post. I meant to say "We already have rules against trying to hide your prejudices USING pro worker rhetoric".


 No.10003

File: 041a9cac3d398be⋯.png (179.92 KB, 580x376, 145:94, NO MORE PLAYING AROUND.png)

>>9889

>>9890

Pick one of these.


 No.10019

>>9890

Somehow we managed to live with spoilered porn for last few years, there's no need to ban it for the sake of it.


 No.10024

Being the four leaf clover 'Luck of the Irish' flag from /leftypol/ over to /leftpol/


 No.10045

>>9889

This was never an issue in the old board.

Why are you making this now that we are here?


 No.10047

>>10045

It wasn't really enforced, as far as I can remember. You could sneak things past the mods all the time.


 No.10051

>>10045

Because they just added that rule a couple days ago here.


 No.10053

>>10045

It was when they deleted GETchan's birthday present


 No.10214

>>10045

It was never an “issue” because it was debated in the past and banned, with some backlash, though not super strictly enforced.

I agree with other posters that Loki shit should be banned. Porn in general should be discouraged unless used in a funny way. This is a politics board not a porn board, it’s simply a manner of consistency.

Otherwise boards being run great, no complaints from me


 No.10270

>>9922

This. I'd also add that lolicon might be illegal in the country of the server location and would therefore necessarily need to be moderated. Not sure if it is, and instead I encourage anyone who has that knowledge to contribute, but do keep that in mind.

>>9926

That's an easy claim to make if you aren't subject of a regime that will hang you for minor offenses.

>>9961

I agree and would like to invoke an anti-spam sentiment instead. A self-contained rightist debating thread is not an issue. Reactionaries coming into every thread and trying to make it about race is another thing entirely.


 No.10274

>>10270

>I agree and would like to invoke an anti-spam sentiment instead.

Absolutely this. I'd be completely happy to enforce clearly defined spam rules. It's a much better thing than codifying shill paranoia.


 No.10280

>>10270

>I'd also add that lolicon might be illegal in the country of the server location

It's not.

<In the interest of free speech, only content that directly violates the DMCA or other US laws is deleted.


 No.10285

>>10280

If the server is located in the U.S., it becomes a state-based issue. Between States that are subject of Jurisidication that considers lolicon to be child pornography and the Miller test, the safer bet is that it is not permitted under United States law.

Back when Hotwheels was at the helm it was permitted because he was not aware of the above, particularly the Miller test. This is no longer the case and I would advice the /leftpol/ administration to err on the side of caution. (This does not include Alunya or "short stack" characters. Domovina is an issue though.)


 No.10294

>>10285

not any state ive ever heard of


 No.10352

Just spoil all porn.

Don't forget it's a SFW board, some of us are browsing at work or in a public place.


 No.10414

File: 12d2d520c7526ce⋯.png (413.36 KB, 1672x918, 836:459, ss1.png)

File: ba4f27ca68ae62f⋯.png (269.6 KB, 1640x917, 1640:917, ss2.png)

File: ecf67064a789a0f⋯.png (253.67 KB, 1636x910, 818:455, ss3.png)

File: 3e3f76d8efe444b⋯.png (655.68 KB, 1631x917, 233:131, Screenshot from 2018-01-06….png)

if u want a custom css for this board pls consider mine https://hastebin.com/wiqugibeca.css


 No.10417

>>10352

Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime,

that's why I post on company time.


 No.10562

>• Deny the problems of climate change

What the fuck does this rule mean? Who determines what the problems are and how? Why the fuck does this rule even exist? Why doesn't Apo ever make any posts talking about shit like the rules? He communicates even less than Che.


 No.10565

>>10562

he spends all day playing Witcher 3 since he got time off for Winter break.


 No.10573

>>10562

He seems p busy lately, but I can try to ask him.


 No.10586

>>10414

As I told you on /leftypol/: no eye destroying bright CSS for goodness' sake.


 No.10587

File: d5edf78d41fc94c⋯.jpg (34.63 KB, 852x480, 71:40, eye bleeding.jpg)

>>10414

wtf is this trash


 No.10602

>>10573

Th-thanks mod-chan


 No.10638

File: 3abd4892e6d3de3⋯.png (437.41 KB, 1183x855, 1183:855, pa75.png)


 No.10642

>>10638

can you NOT use 255 red?


 No.10644

>>10642

Yeah i wish i have more red.


 No.10646

>>10644

It burns the eyes


 No.10649

File: 65c5d2ee6cfdf12⋯.png (215.77 KB, 1878x853, 1878:853, Bez tytułu.png)

>>10414

It looks like fucking reddit.

>>10642

>>10644

Can't you just use default Burichan, except with reddish colours instead of bluish? Something like pic related.


 No.10651

>>10646

https://hastebin.com/fiwepegufo.css

>>10649

i will see what i can do with it.

Post last edited at

 No.10659

all your custom CSS are very gay and inferior to the soft blues used already


 No.11051

>>10586

black on white is literally the most readable color combination


 No.11142

>>11051

Except white is a shitty background colour, light blue as it is now is much nicer to look at.


 No.11171

>>11142

imho a dark theme would be nice


 No.11290

I really dig our current default CSS tbqh.


 No.11732

>>11171

Dark blue/black background with white writing is the most comfy combination.


 No.11915

We have custom CSS? All I can tell that's different is the /leftpol/ font up top and the absence of the Attention Hungry Games.


 No.11917


 No.11984

>>11917

Nice, that's all it needs.


 No.12054

File: b0f931975d5ad1f⋯.jpg (338.37 KB, 944x1138, 472:569, 0118.jpg)

>>10024

Oi! Mods! Where the feck is mi clover!


 No.12362

After this threads derailment; >>12022 can we please ban all sorts of pedo/hebe/AOC discussions on /leftpol/. It has nothing to with left politics and only derails good threads into shitflinging fests.


 No.12380

>>12362

>ban a thing because it caused 1(one) shitstorm

meh


 No.12429

>>12362

reminder that you have the option to filter posts that trigger you.


 No.12434

>>12429

You're dumb as fuck if you think the topic offends me, I really don't care about the subject one way or the other. It's just that people(on both sides) are obviously unable to discuss the topic without shitting down multiple unrelated threads on multiple boards. The thread I linked was a good and important thread at first


 No.12596

>>12434

This exactly. I'm sick and tired of it turning into a mudslinging contest every single time. Either designate a thread for it or just restrict the topic altogether.


 No.12640

>>12362

Derailments happen all the and unless you want to make a rule against derailing threads, then your reddit-tier rule (literally) is just bullshit to restrict certain topics because some people are too autistic to reasonably discuss it.

>It has nothing to with left politics

Are we going to start banning topics that aren't directly related to socialism now?

>>12434

Again, derailments are a part of imageboards, and if you want to fix that, then go back to discussing the actual topic and tell the derailers to gtfo.

>>12596

Don't read threads/posts you don't like. Don't advocate more rules that aren't particularly needed like a fucking redditor. Restricting the topic is what makes people so autismal about it.


 No.12703

>>12434

>>12596

like i said, you can filter posts that trigger you. asking that mods do this FOR YOU is laziness, and also increases the work that mods already have to do. if you feel that certain discussions are off topic you can filter them & ignore the posters.

i personally choose to ignore obvious bait.


 No.12839

Why does Apo keep perma-banning for offenses that are just mildly shitty? Why has he still not talked to us about the rules, or about anything in general?


 No.12847

File: 42cd0d58631edc6⋯.jpg (87.63 KB, 536x640, 67:80, the fuck am I reading.jpg)

>>12839

>avatarfagging

>mildly shitty


 No.12848

>>12839

Apo is just Che 2.0. It's ironic that their names share so many similarities and hint at different ways their respective boards will die. He's a fucking idiot, I already dislike him more than 2016 BO.


 No.12867

>>12839

>>12848

What bans are you talking about? I went to undo them but all I see is bans for CP spam, spamming gore, /pol/cucks intentionally being disruptive and one avatarfag. This isn't anything that would have not got you banned in /leftypol/'s heyday. Could you please give me an example of what I'm missing.


 No.12873

>>12867

There are posters who misunderstand /leftpol/ as a "free speech" or whatever alternative to /leftypol/, like /1917/, rather than just a continuation of /leftypol/ before the drama. You don't have to venture far into the board (or this thread) to see where this manifests.


 No.12913

>>12867

If I had to guess he banned the maddow poster, someone from /pol/, and a spammer. I see nothing wrong with this tbh.


 No.12961

>>10562

The rule exists like every other rule as a carry over from /leftypol/. that's what this board is about, and that's why this board was opened with mods from /leftypol/. There have been other projects with different ideas, like /rojava/, /1917/, bunkerchan, etc. but you're not posting on them. Now people are starting to come forward saying they want fundamental redrafting of the rules, which wasn't a stance widely spoken for last time we had a mod feedback thread.

I'm not opposed to fundamental changes, I've always said I'll work with the consensus In the last thread, I even opened the topic of picking a community chosen BO, which vosotros ended up not taking up.

It's difficult to tell where board opinion lies since people aren't inclined to post about how they are totally fine with the current moderation (though people still do this). /pol/acks are the ones that make a true fuss. If you look in >>1, you'll see the biggest complaint is about not being allowed to deny the holocaust, which is a rule literally no socialist has a problem with.


 No.12966

>>12961

I am totally fine with the current moderation. My only request would be for yourself to be a bit more visibly present also more flags.


 No.12974

>>12961

Moderation is pretty good, but can we do something when autistic pedos shit up threads?


 No.13029

File: c662ee05132ab54⋯.jpg (35.21 KB, 540x304, 135:76, c662ee05132ab54c45bec91eac….jpg)

>>12961

you are doing a good job, BO. don't take this place too seriously. if people are enjoying themselves they will post here.


 No.13056

>>12913

He banned the Maddowposter, but not Karen who also avatarfags with generic anime girls? At least Maddowposter was amusing.


 No.13074

>>12867

I'm not necessarily saying the bans were unwarranted, just that it being permanent is too much. The Maddow poster was avatarfagging, but simply being a liberal shouldn't be bannable if they're arguing in good faith. The /pol/ ban was the same guy butthurt about not being able to argue climate change/the holocaust, which isn't necessarily /pol/, but probably ban evasion, and it also didn't warrant a permanent ban. I don't know what the spam one was for, but unless it was a bot or CP, it probably shouldn't also be permanent.

>>12961

>you'll see the biggest complaint is about not being allowed to deny the holocaust, which is a rule literally no socialist has a problem with.

I have a problem with it. Not because I think the Holocaust is fake, but because it seems like an unnecessary rule which was unilaterally imposed, and that the rare Holocaust thread could be better dealt with by posting compilations of refutations instead of just banning someone who might be arguing in good faith. The climate change rule is really the most egregious one since it doesn't say what are the problems of climate change (making it open to individual vol's opinion), it's unnecessary, and it's a recent rule since Che went to fuck. The board currently has very decent moderation, I'm just afraid of where unnecessary, unilaterally imposed rules with a largely uncommunicative BO can go.


 No.13083

>>13074

>if they're arguing in good faith

protip: they weren't.

>didn't warrant a permanent ban

You think given 2 weeks, the holocaust denying /pol/ack would become a valuable contributor to this board? You're naive if you think anyone who unironically says "Truth does not fear investigation" isn't /pol/

>Instead of just banning someone who might be arguing in good faith.

No holocaust Denier argues in good faith. their entire MO, invariably, is to use cherry-picking, innuendo, and outright dishonesty to hide Nazi crimes.


 No.13097

>>9886

Why is thee a wordfilter on t*rkroach?


 No.13106

File: 32439fe4392eb6b⋯.jpg (452.44 KB, 1866x1304, 933:652, beaver echo chambers.jpg)

>>13074

>debating ideas instead of censoring them

i agree with you but most people don't.

like BO said, you have an alternative at >>>/1917/

you should contribute there if you aren't already doing so. i split my time 50/50 between leftpol and 1917.


 No.13110

>>13097

>all ideas, even those demonstrably, obviously false, need to be up for debate forever.

I don't want to spend my time on /leftpol/ arguing whether Blacks should be slaves. you can go to the starting island on pubg if you want that level of discourse.


 No.13119

>>13083

>protip: they weren't.

The Maddowposter didn't seem particularly bad. He was an annoying liberal but he didn't seem to be trolling.

>>13083

>You think given 2 weeks, the holocaust denying /pol/ack would become a valuable contributor to this board? You're naive if you think anyone who unironically says "Truth does not fear investigation" isn't /pol/

I don't know about two weeks, but permanent is permanent. IMO, permanent bans should only be for illegal content or botting.

>No holocaust Denier argues in good faith. their entire MO, invariably, is to use cherry-picking, innuendo, and outright dishonesty to hide Nazi crimes.

Just because their sources are dishonest doesn't mean the poster is. There's a difference between being ignorant and easily fooled and arguing in bad faith. The fact that people like that come here either says they're looking for a genuine argument or they're just trolling: the first shouldn't be punished for the crimes of the second. Trolling and baiting threads in general should and are bumplocked, I don't see why Holocaust ones should be unique.

>>13106

I want a specifically Leftist board, I just want one that's not afraid of debating or tolerating retarded positions.

>>13110

>>all ideas, even those demonstrably, obviously false, need to be up for debate forever.

It's not the ideas that are up for the debate, it's the opportunity to persuade someone arguing in good faith while simultaneously protecting the community from sliding into increased moderation because people are too lazy to self-moderate.

>I don't want to spend my time on /leftpol/ arguing whether Blacks should be slaves

Good thing you don't have to. Self-moderation should be main policy of any community, while a completely retarded thread like that can just be bumplocked.


 No.13141

>>13119

>permanent is permanent

that's actually not how 8chan bans work.


 No.13206

>>13110

>I don't want to spend my time on /leftpol/ arguing whether Blacks should be slaves.

I’m not supporting that. I was just asking about a wordfilter on a fun word.


 No.13231

>>13056

Karen poster, for all his faults and hysteria, at least is under the believe he himself is a leftist and posts in good faith.

>>13074

>>13119

Take a peek at >>10270 and >>10274.

The Maddowposter is a known jokester. Dunno if I'd call them a "troll" as their intent seems to be to amuse, rather than to trick.


 No.13284

>>12867

I'm not concerned with bans. Apo just leaped at the opportunity to ban certain words when the board was created and it seems obvious from that what the boards fate will be. Old BO did fuck all and it worked fine, Apo has already outdone 2016 Che.

I've been on imageboards for a decade so it may seem petty but it's pretty obvious how the story ends.


 No.13461

>>13284

>Apo just leaped at the opportunity to ban certain words when the board was created

Like what?


 No.13465

>>13461

you can see wordfilters in the settings.php

wordfilters":[["(( (","\u2618\ufe0f"],[") ))","\u2618\ufe0f"],["Dege nerate ","Chad "],[" I Q "," Autism Level "],["Ki ke","Capitalist"],[" I. Q. "," Austism Level "],["Stras seris","Asseris"],["Natio nal Socialis","not socialis"],["deg eneracy","fun"],["she kel","punt"],["G oy","Sassenach"],["\u20 aa","IR\u00a3"],[" Tu rk"," t*rk"],["Shl omo","Seamus"],["Femo id","Mom"],["MG TOW","willful cuckold"],["Shab bos Sassenach","Sanctified Sassenach"],["Jewi sh ideology","Hibern ian Conspiracy"],["Z OG","ZOG Occupied Government Occupied Government"],["Soros B uck","Paddy Pound"],["Oy V ey","Begorrah"],[" SDF"," SDF"],["Sor os Bux","Paddy Pounds"],


 No.13469

>>13465

SDF=SDF?


 No.13554

>>13284

>>13465

About half of those word-filters are old ones from /leftypol/ before it went to shit, the other half are funny solely targeting /pol/ shitposting. It's not showing favoritism or hostility to any leftist sect or does it make genuine discussion difficult.


 No.13693

>>13465

>paddy pounds

>willful cuckold

>mom

All great filters, but maybe "Z0G" should filter to Hibernian Infested Country or HIC.


 No.13756

why was this bumplocked? ;(

>>13542


 No.13895

>>13465

>Shl omo

>Seamus

These are far better than I had originally thought.


 No.13936

>>13756

belongs in leftytrash


 No.14055

The guy who banned >>14029, could you try not to be a trigger-happy tard banning for the most inane shit like /leftypol/ mods? I didn't sign up for this.


 No.14058

>>14055

it is a 1 day ban for being a prolific shitposter. if he stopped making shitty no-effort threads the first 4 times, he wouldn't have a 24 hour timeout.


 No.14064

>>14055

Flooding the front page with multiple shit threads and duplicates isn't a bannable offense to you?


 No.14073

>>14055

Don't flood the board with threads. Every time you make a new thread you push another from the board. This isn't an issue if there is a steady increase in threads, but if people ram the frontpage with new threads constantly it will push quality threads needlessly off the board.

Also, would appreciate it if newfriends would stop posting sectarian rubbish. Identity/internet politics aren't all that important, so we don't need three consecutive threads discussing whatever group of people you don't like.


 No.14483

Who destickied and decycled the mod thread?


 No.14494

File: 2fc8422ac07816e⋯.jpg (17.32 KB, 185x255, 37:51, leftytfel.jpg)

>>14483

>Who destickied and decycled the mod thread?

This beautiful creature of course.


 No.14502

>>14483

My guess: >>14166


 No.14927

File: 2fb7c29b16ad8d2⋯.mp4 (1.9 MB, 480x360, 4:3, The state of leftypol_2.mp4)

>>9888

Here is your board owner.


 No.14939

>>14927

this would actually be really funny without the jumpscare ear rape at the end


 No.15133

File: ae71006ea4d9f8a⋯.jpg (55.52 KB, 619x617, 619:617, Skeletor.jpg)

I have a suggestion for the BO and Volunteers.

To improve the quality of discussion on /leftpol/ and to encourage serious discourse in a shitpost-free environment (designated shitpost-free areas) could we have more strict moderation in threads the OP marks as serious?

So for example if op writes (serious) or whatever in the subject or the body of the post or asks for serious discussion only could the mods delete posts which are low-effort posts, or shitposts, or don't add anything to constructive discussion. Replies that just say "no", are in all caps, etc.

What do you think, comrades?


 No.15134


 No.15204

Why are there only ten pages of threads. It used to by 25.


 No.15324


 No.15348

>>15204

See here >>9062

If /leftpol/ keeps its current traffic, or hopefully increases, I suppose that's an argument to go back.


 No.15426

>>15134

>>15324

Why not? What's so bad about having a thread or two where we discuss something with thought out replies in a shitpost-free environment?


 No.15443

>>15426

no

in all seriousness the anti-shitposting agenda on leftypol is one of the main things that made the board so unpopular and boring and I don't really want that on leftpol


 No.15490

File: 644846d1169173c⋯.jpg (32.3 KB, 600x683, 600:683, serious discussion.jpg)

>>15133

If you want serious discussion, go someplace with usernames, mate.


 No.15501

>>15133

>leftist asking for heavy-handed, hamfisted censorship

why am I not surprised?


 No.15507

don't sticky this thread see >>14166

>>15133

sounds too much like reddit.

We'll ban derailers, but learn to handle bants.

Post last edited at

 No.16128

>>15443

>anti-shitposting agenda

You're such a drama queen, holy shit. Literally one or two threads that aren't filled with low-effort replies, baiting, trolling and false flagging. Guess it's too much to ask.

>>15490

>I use anonymity to shit out of my mouth on the internet.

>>15507

Yeah, that is why for any serious questions regarding theory I go to /marx/.


 No.16545

>>10285

>the safer bet

there is no wagering at 8chan, Grandpa




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha / animu / ausneets / chicas / games / had / hikki / sw ]