/polmeta/ - /pol/ Meta Discussion

Talking about /pol/'s post rate by the way. It's the same as it was before that board was made.

>>5526
>they

daily reminder: there is no "they,' especially not one which cares about /pol/.

>inb4 /int/
>inb4 crying about shills

This is the meta board. I am allowed to criticize anyone I want: you're the shill if you use that tired ad hominem attack.

>>5529
>nobody cares about /po/

This is what a shil looks like.

We have been under FBI, NSA, JIDF, GAWKER, SRS AND ADL intrustion for years.

>>5532

Sure you have kid, sure you have.

Well, if they're trying to displace /pol/, I'm not sure /polidicks/ was the best name, since it arguably does more to lock them into looking like a joke board rather than a serious replacement.

Looking at their mod rules, it could be nothing more sinister than other 8chan anons who are dissatisfied with /pol/. Given how 8chan began there are going to be some users who neurotically but sincerely loathe anything that could be construed as mod overreach.

There are some freedumbers too, i.e. anons who think the dumbest and the shillest should be allowed to submit whatever tenuously related turds they want, and any attempt to curb their "speech" is an intolerable rip in the moral fabric of the universe. But it seems like /polidicks/ isn't a freedumber board given the rule against cuck spam.

And yes it could be a shill board. Maybe the shill is aware that screwy cuck fantasy posts don't mindfuck anyone. If anything they just make those on the receiving end more racist, so they've banned it.

So meh, who knows? The thing is there are legitimate 8chan users who do dislike /pol/, but only a few of these are actually going to bother getting heavily invested in attacking /pol/ in a dedicated way. It's worth looking not just at what somebody is saying or what their opinions are, but how hard they're pushing it on the boards. Seems like early days for /polidicks/.

If it starts to look more definably and substantially shill-like by all means call it out, but right now it seems like it's anybody's guess imo.

>>5539

*it's

>>5539
are you seriously this bothered by this

get a life mods

this means stop stalking posters and stop stalking other boards

>>5541

Checking post histories isn't the same thing as stalking, shill. "Stalking" means something persistent. Mods don't keep track of every single user on the board, that's a ridiculous claim.

>stop stalking other boards

Why? You got something to hide? Your activity looks suspicious as fuck considering /pol/'s post rate didn't change at all and the /int/ users didn't like your board.

>>5545

>comparing 'stalking' a board to stalking a person

Retard.

>>5542

It is possible shilling, but I'll have to differ with you and say I don't have grounds to call it probable. Having said that I don't visit other boards much at all, so I could be missing all sorts of things.

The problem with minimum moderation anons and freedumber anons is that both are simple and easy poses for shills to strike up when the moderation isn't going their way. You could say the same of politically impartial users, which seems to be what /polidicks/ professes to be. It's only when I'd see some dogged pattern of baiting, sniping, undermining, wheedling, shit-flinging etc. that I'd wonder if there's some shill shit going on.

Even then of course it could just be a crank or a troll, but at that stage it doesn't matter since I suppose from a mod perspective they can be dealt with in the same way (although for the record I'm not a mod btw).

>>5548

They aren't for minimum moderation though. They are for retarded extremely specific rules while ignoring other important issues. That's why /int/ didn't like them.

>Even then of course it could just be a crank or a troll, but at that stage it doesn't matter since I suppose from a mod perspective they can be dealt with in the same way (although for the record I'm not a mod btw).

Again, the weirdest thing about them is their activity itself. You can't pinpoint any sources from where it could be coming from. That's why I think a shill group being behind it is the most likely option.

Personally, I'm glad the board popped up. Like other halfhcna-tier boards before it, it won't gain actual traction, but at least there's no longer an excuse for all the "muh funposting" faggots to stay in /pol/. :^)

>>5551

>but at least there's no longer an excuse for all the "muh funposting" faggots to stay in /pol/. :^)

Are you not following the discussion? They are against this "funposting" shit too. Their rules don't make any sense.

>>5553
o
please accept these quads as an apology

>>5549

I think we got our wires crossed, I didn't mean /polidicks/ was created by minimal moderation anons. Seems like it's created by politically impartial anons, or that's what the board is styled as anyway. I meant to say claiming impartiality can be just as much of a shill masquerade as anything else, depending on the context and the actual behaviour.

As far as the activity goes, if you mean /polidicks/ seems to have sprang up with a ready-made userbase and level of activity which hasn't come over from another board, then yeah I'd say some sort of schenanigans are going on, whether shilling or not.

>>5527
Because they're not /pol/ users. Its just two shitposters from /int/ trying to further their cause of trying to split up /pol/. Notice how after the /int/ failed raid, when the dust settled all the shitposting stopped on /pol/? All their proxies got range banned.

>>5550
To add, they have no user IDs enabled. This is intentional, they don't want their two posters being found out as samefags.

>>5541
I wouldn't have to take screens of peoples ban lists before banning if they didn't constantly get ass-blasted and sperg all over /polmeta/ every time I do. They refuse to provide context for their bans, so I do.

You're shitty behavior is what caused the "stalking" (as you put it).