[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/polmeta/ - /pol/ Meta Discussion

Discuss anything related to /pol/ and its rules, moderation, posting quality, etc. here. All suggestions are welcome!

Catalog

8chan Bitcoin address: 1NpQaXqmCBji6gfX8UgaQEmEstvVY7U32C
The next generation of Infinity is here (discussion) (contribute)
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1426321713123-0.png (131.74 KB, 1269x401, 1269:401, 2015-03-14 10_27_17-_pol_ ….png)

File: 1426321713123-1.png (5.11 KB, 546x66, 91:11, 2015-03-14 10_28_03-Board ….png)

ec0a61 No.6123

MAXIMUM kek

1ab969 No.6126

Meh Rach is a parody and gives me some chuckles. It's funny you keep complaining about these threads and posts but shitpost yourself by continuously making these threads with kek instead of just containing your autism in one thread.
/polmeta/ should have a sticky for your kind to contain all your complaints about dismissed reports instead of flooding the board with them.

a64494 No.6127

>>6126
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

All of our tripshits are obnoxious as hell and don't contribute with anything constructive at all.

There shouldn't be a name field on /pol/ in the first place. We already have ID's if someone wants to identify themselves as being the same person.

1ab969 No.6128

>>6127
He's still generally on topic whenever I see him post

Eh I see Rach as a clown so I can't get too angry about him but I understand your sentiment with namefags/tripfags.
you're right the name field only serves to attentionwhore and it's pointless with the IDs.

ec0a61 No.6146

>>6126
No. Every case will be examined separately, and nothing will be allowed to be simply dismissed.

Also, Rach was already banned in the past for posts exactly like this. Like the other anon said, ironic shitposting is still shitposting. Not only is this shitposting, but it's also bait. Irony is irrelevant.

cb9be6 No.6147

File: 1426416468929-0.png (26.13 KB, 554x389, 554:389, lccl.png)

File: 1426416468929-1.png (9.38 KB, 569x203, 569:203, lccl2.png)

File: 1426416468929-2.png (11.58 KB, 566x267, 566:267, lccl3.png)

For the uninitiated, Rach is a persona of a /4chon/ troublemaker by the name of Learningcode. DownWithPatriarchy is another name he goes by, along with several others I've lost track of. Pics related are a bit old but should tell enough.

He was under something of a hiatus but is now back to making his rounds. /pol/, /leftypol/, /4chon/, he may just be a shitposter but events in the past have shown that he's orchestrated events with other questionable people.

The buffoonery is a front. He's a malicious little Canadian shit when given the opportunity.

5cd086 No.6151

>>6147

That settles it then.

Give this faggot at least a one month ban now.

d8d009 No.6152

File: 1426462442684.png (179.87 KB, 386x607, 386:607, Cultural Enrachment.png)

>>6147
>Rach is Learningcode!
>Rach is Lazare!
>Rach is DWP!
>Rach is Blart!
>Rach is Stee!
>Rach-Tok!
>Rachsputin's Cake!
>GlitterRach!
>Rach is just the mods trolling us!
How long before you change your story again? I've already gotten one accusation that I'm the benevolent tripfriend rosemary.

I suspect that the truth is much more painful to you: I disagree with your views, I defend my own assertions and support them with evidence, and I consistently make on-topic posts. Your accusation that I am a shitposter, or even a ring of shitposters, says a lot about just how threatened you are by the mere presence of a strong, independent womyn.

d8d009 No.6153

File: 1426462722126.png (164.17 KB, 300x400, 3:4, Maddow17.png)

>>6151
[TRIGGER WARNING: POSTER IS ABOUT TO DISAGREE WITH YOU]
Why? Because >>6147 posted some screencaps of a Skype conversation he had with someone else, and flung a bunch of baseless accusations? Or because you, too, can't handle a strong, independent womyn giving hyr opinion in your No-Gyrls-Allowed Club?

And to the OP: Thank you for highlighting just how oppressed, demonized, and harassed I and other womyn here are. These misogynists constantly report the most benign of posts for the simple act of disagreeing with them, while hypocritically complaining about facing censorship for their own Holocaust denial, racism, and other unjustifiable forms of bigotry.

a64494 No.6155

>>6152
>>6153
Even if you are telling the truth (which I doubt), you are still an obnoxious attention whoring shitposting retard. 4chon was ruined because of faggots like you. If we don't get rid of your type of scum here we'll go down the same route.

You need to have your trip banned along with your shitty avatar.

Fuck off already.

fb9c05 No.6157

File: 1426466373787.png (18.84 KB, 1501x103, 1501:103, Untitled.png)

>>6153
Since I'm sure you're going to post here asking about this soon anyways, I'll answer why you were just 2 day banned. When your post is 2/3 bait like this post, it's not excused or allowed by the half a line of actual discussion in there.
Post last edited at

d8d009 No.6160

File: 1426466691329.png (246.18 KB, 659x313, 659:313, Maddow170.png)

>>6157
>Banning me on /pol/
>Enabling force Anon on /polmeta/ in a blatant attempt to stifle tripfriends
Will it end?

>When your post is 2/3 bait like this post, it's not excused or allowed by the half a line of actual discussion in there.
What do you identify as bait, and what do you identify as discussion? None of it is bait, and as I wrote in my appeal, I even added a trigger warning so that easily butthurt users could avoid my differing opinion if they needed to.

It seems to me that you're just profoundly butthurt at someone else expressing an opinion that doesn't line up exactly with your own, given that you've labeled a benign post as "bait" and even deleted multiple posts of mine from /pol/ altogether. Would you say that's accurate? If not, please explain your actions.

fb9c05 No.6162

>>6160
The trigger warning itself was the bait. It added nothing to the discussion other than provoking angry responses. I don't really care if you think otherwise. Also, I don't control /polmeta/, I couldn't tell you why or when it became forced anonymous.

d8d009 No.6165

File: 1426467768327.png (4.57 KB, 208x264, 26:33, Le Skeptical Fymynyst.png)

>>6162
>The trigger warning itself was the bait.
Really? Telling easily offended stormderps that burst into treats at the drop of a hat and cry for their modmy to ban the big angry fymynyst to avoid looking at a certain post if they wish to avoid being triggered is baiting? If you truly believe that I posted bait, wouldn't warning them away from it be considered the exact opposite of baiting?
>It added nothing to the discussion other than provoking angry responses.
Oh? And how many angry responses did that part of my post provoke?
>I don't really care if you think otherwise.
I guess that means "zero". Sounds like someone's butt is hurting. You can tell byg systyr Rach all about it.

But, I now must also ask:
>It added nothing to the discussion other than provoking angry responses.
Does this mean that official /pol/ mod policy is now to issue two-day bans for any poster whose posts offend any /pol/ user for any reason ever? Because that's how you're making it sound. You contend that one part of one of my multiple posts in one thread was "baiting," and now I'm banned for two days. Can all /pol/ users expect to be banned for similar offenses? If this is the case, I've been baited on /pol/ countless times, including today. Would you like me to report them?

fb9c05 No.6168

>>6165
You've been purposely toeing the line for weeks, quit whining because you got caught stepping over it. Misrepresenting my argument won't change that your post was bait.

a64494 No.6170

>>6168
Consider the fact that he also already got banned before. That should be enough reason for you to extend his ban to one week.

Also, please consider getting rid of the namefield on /pol/ as well, not just here. It was caused nothing but problems. Quetin, Rosemary, this faggot, etc. There's not a single decent tripshitter on /pol/.

cb9be6 No.6174

For the consideration of /polmeta/.

>>>/4chon/16551

>>6152
You wish you were Lazare, at least he had originality. As said in the thread linked, all you have is the same routine. As also confirmed in the link is you basically admitting to be Learningcode, so gg on being caught on that. If I was anymore autistic I'd pick apart the rest of the shit you've spewed here so far.

Eat glass.

c72a7a No.6177

File: 1426508668330.png (308.8 KB, 692x720, 173:180, 1415414922857.png)

>>6160

>Enabling force Anon on /polmeta/ in a blatant attempt to stifle tripfriends

That was me

I just wanted to see how you would react

88f87c No.6181

File: 1426541053015.jpg (76.07 KB, 1009x364, 1009:364, learningchode.JPG)

>>6147

Don't forget he's actually a cuckold.

5cd086 No.6182

>>6147
>>6181

So, that other retard who said it was "rulefags" who killed 4chon was wrong. It was actually the tripfaggots/namefags.

166630 No.6183

>>6181

>hitlerdubs on a cuck post

I like his style

d7286d No.6185

>>6182
Learningcode/Rach was actually a mod there, so that's basically what killed it. All of the worst shitposters were tripfagging mods or people in their IRC circlejerk, and they were all the worst stereotype of a /b/-tard you could imagine (cuckold fetishists, tranny chasers, et cetera) that hated /new/.

5cd086 No.6188

>>6185

You see this, /polmeta/'s BO. You threw your little tantrum for nothing. You should NEVER take someone's word for granted in a context like this unless proper evidence is provided.

Imagine if you were actually serious about giving up on moderating the board and if you influenced other mods with your decision. The board would be completely ruined within a week at most.

c72a7a No.6195

>>6188

>You should NEVER take someone's word for granted in a context like this unless proper evidence is provided.

This is interesting. Is there evidence that Rach was a mod on 4chon? Because that might certainly change my view on what happened to that site.

>Imagine if you were actually serious about giving up on moderating the board

I was never even considering doing this.

5cd086 No.6197

>>6195

Even if he wasn't a mod, it would still prove that it was conspiring tripfaggot circlejerkers who killed the site, not "rulefags" as the other nigger claimed. See: >>6147

>I was never even considering doing this.

It was just a fictitious scenario to try to exemplify what happens when you don't judge the way they're supposed to be judged. You were still influenced by some degree by that post.

Also, go respond to my reply in that other thread already.

5cd086 No.6198

>>6197

*when you don't judge things the way they're supposed to be judged

f044ae No.6206

>>6123
daniellukebarth

f044ae No.6207

>>6206
danielluke board

d7286d No.6215

>>6195
>Is there evidence that Rach was a mod on 4chon?
Learningcode was definitely a mod. Learningcode also implied that he was Rach in another leaked skype chat. I'm sure someone more obsessive than me has it saved. If anyone posts it, that's all the proof you're ever likely to get.

4chon didn't actually have very many rules, but there were obvious cases of rules violations that would be allowed to slide for certain posters consistently. By the point that the site was terminal, /new/ was moderated in such a way that self-policing was impossible because mimicking the behavior and posting style of the tripfags would result in a ban.

All in all I think 4chon's ostensibly laissez-faire ruleset was a good one, and everything wrong was a matter of malice and incompetence and the rules not being followed. Posters like Rach, Rainbow Kid (likely the same poster) and Chemfag being allowed to derail thread after thread when there were clear rules against it played a large part in killing the site. The people blaming "rulefags" are trying to shift the blame away from their own reign of terror causing posters to seek greener pastures rather than being a captive audience to be abuse. Libertarians did flee the site, leaving behind more hidebound radical type, but again this was mostly due to the tripfags that were themselves libertarians making any libertarian argument completely untenable to make in good faith, when your genuine ideological compatriots were variously a proud homosexual pedophile, and a man whose favorite part of a woman's body is the penis.

The only real rule that was ever enacted on /new/ after launch that I can recall was the banning of certain kinds of porn.

cb9be6 No.6219

>>6215
Annoyingly enough, the only person to have any such logs saved would be Smiley. I'll have to dig through my other laptop but I'm pretty sure Smiles is the only person who would've cared enough. I'd be very surprised otherwise.

b93b53 No.8391

File: 1434118489947.png (709.98 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1433900205521.png)

>>6147

So, to add to this, since Rach has apparently stopped posting on /n/ under his trip:

>>>/n/64519

> I think it's a congame by Rach.

> Guess he abandoned the tripcode and decided to only stir shit anonymously.

> He uses a lot of psyops tricks, one of which is the Weak Man:

> http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/

>> One of the cutting-edge advances in fallacy-ology has been the weak man, a terribly-named cousin of the straw man. The straw man is a terrible argument nobody really holds, which was only invented so your side had something easy to defeat. The weak man is a terrible argument that only a few unrepresentative people hold, which was only brought to prominence so your side had something easy to defeat.

…

>>How about “I hate black thugs who rob people”?

>>What are the chances a black guy reads that and says “Well, good thing I’m not a thug who robs people, he’ll probably love me”?

>Relatedly, look at this image. It shows Mr Garrison, a known transexual, being used as a sock puppet to insult transexuals. That's a weak argument, as its out-of-character for Mr Garrison.

>>/n/61256

>Oh look, someone is attacking the obvious Weak Man, who could it be?

He rebutted his own weak man, and presented bait for others to post another irrelevant Weak Man argument themselves. His goal is to condition people to use weak, irrelevant arguments in a racial topic. Not only is /n/ dedicated to more than racial news, but /n/ thread subjects are posted on the front page of 8chan.

What better way to discredit 8chan than to keep its front page full of 'Racist' headlines?

What better way to make that happen than to psyop the board's members into doing it themselves, and making the board discredit itself?

He gets the ball rolling, and inertia carries it into the mire.

He hasn't been subtle about it though, it looks like people are noticing the shilling, they just don't suspect yet that it's Rach.


ad1cc7 No.8392

>>6147

>>8391

The BO's board log and post is outdated, but good info on this faggot appeared anyways.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]