de7055 No.4849
I just woke up and posted in the gamergate thread and people were already discussing IDs but you only banned me and one other guy, not the guys defending your mods. This is why no one likes /v/ and I stick to /a/. You gamergate people are faggots.
de7055 No.4850
File: 1425853648548.png (78.04 KB, 1080x493, 1080:493, Screenshot_2015-03-08-18-2….png)

Also apparently this Mark guy has nothing better to do but lurk chanology threads 24/7 all day.
What a fucking faggot.
f6f989 No.4851
>>4849Meta goes in /metav/, you knew this but derailed the thread anyway. Then you ban evaded and then he probably perma banned you.
81a2b7 No.4853
>>4851No I didn't, I don't go to /v/ that often and when I went there people were already discussing IDs. Only me and one other guy were banned, those other posts are still up but only posts this "Mark" guy hated were banned. If I were a mod I would delete all meta posts equally and give a warning instead of ban which is how the /a/ meidos do it.
f6f989 No.4855
>>4853Yes you did, the rules state that meta discussion goes on metav, then you said he banned you for talking about it.
81a2b7 No.4856
I just want to know why this Mark guy only banned 1-2 posters, not everyone discussing meta, he only banned the posts with opinions he doesn't like which is bullshit. I only came to check the news, I don't really play video games I admit however people were discussing IDs already and I contributed my opinion, then I was banned. On /a/ they would delete all the meta discussion equally and only give you a warning, which is good. Being a biased moderator is bad.
81a2b7 No.4857
>>4855Then as I said, why did he only ban me and not everyone. He only banned me and one other anon, instead of ban everyone discussing meta.
f6f989 No.4858
>>4856>>4857How did the discussion start?
81a2b7 No.4859
>>4858
>>>/v/2580082 posted the initial post, then the discuss was reignited 2 hours later by people against himAt this time the moderator stepped in to ban the 2 anti ID posters but left the pro ID posts alone.
I understand the need to moderate metadiscussion, but it should be applied equally to all sides. You must delete all meta equally and ideally only give the a warning/shortban.
f6f989 No.4860
>>4856can you give me the content of your post, I wanna unban you without unbanning the other guy
f6f989 No.4861
>>4859no you're right, I was a bit extreme with the bans. I'm gonna remove the bans now, just remember to keep /metav/ discussion in /metav/
81a2b7 No.4862
>>4860I said "if you want IDs you can use a tripcode".
f6f989 No.4863
>>4862regardless I shouldn't have banned you for a day. It should've been an hour. the bans are removed.
81a2b7 No.4864
>>4861Thanks anon, and sorry for calling you a faggot. Not much place for me to tell /v/ how to do things as I consider myself an outsider.
f6f989 No.4865
>>4864Actually I was speaking in third person to get a better understanding of the situation. aka I was only pretending to be retarded, that said you ARE right that it isn't fair. So I'm gonna unban you both and I'm even going to unban the evading IP to make up for my mistake. my apologies.
de7055 No.4866
>>4865That was the core of my issue, thanks. I've seen how metatrash grows like a tumor on smaller boards, so I understand how important it is, but the appearance of taking sides/biased moderation is dangerous. Thank you very much for that.