[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / n / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]

/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: 1431794863665.jpg (21.86 KB, 467x359, 467:359, 1379368708137.jpg)

c26825 No.8056

I think it's pretty ridiculous the moderator is censoring people from saying words he doesnt like or thinks are "dangerous," "trolling," "unnecessary," "offensive," "shilling," etc.

I thought /pol/ was supposed to be a bastion of free speech? This is pretty disgusting when I learned about this

c46d1a No.8057

/b/ is a great place for free speech, OP.

They love new posters, too, I'm sure you'd fit right in.


c26825 No.8058

>>8057

i don't get it i thought /pol/ and 8chan were supposed to be super strong free speech places?


c46d1a No.8060

>>8058

I was being a smart ass. I am insulting you, OP. These are not good times for you, these are dark times.

I would imagine, this was done because the people using the word were fostering little more than arguing and topic derailment. /pol/ is not /b/, /pol/ has a topic, and spamming troll threads is against the board rules.

In any event it's completely benign and if you really want to rile people up, maybe you can actually be a bit clever and use new material rather than spouting "le ebin ruelcuk maymay".


c26825 No.8061

>>8060

why is it a "troll" if people post a viewpoint you find offensive? frankly i think the term, given recent events, seems an accurate descriptor by the people using it

who are you to decide what words people are allowed to use? its ridiculous


c46d1a No.8062

>>8061

The word was primarily used by people flooding posting irrelevant shit, baiting, and generally being morons. It was used to antagonize anyone that wanted the mods to clean /pol/ up and get it back on its topic - politics.

So no, it is not a good descriptor.

A thing is not a troll if I or someone else disagrees with it - it is a troll if it seeks to cause division, senseless and off-topic arguments, and a general decline is post quality. I'll repeat myself and say, /pol/ is not /b/. It has a clear topic, and clear rules. You are not limited to one board, if you want to talk about something that isn't politics, go to the appropriate board or make your own, and if you want to just fuck with people and stir them up, go to /b/, or at least don't complain when it's deleted or even banned.


c26825 No.8063

>>8062

So you want to censor a word because you think it has negative effects? Thats ridiculous.

My gosh it sounds like reddit or another circlejerk site when you want to ban words you think will "lower quality" or are "antagonizing."

I remember on 4chan that /pol/ prided itself on not being a hugbox, but you just admitted that you want to censor speech that offends people. Wow


c46d1a No.8064

>>8063

I don't care what the mods do, filtering a word is relatively benign and this one in particular is much less harder to get annoyed about given its prominent use by people that generally just want to bring the board off its topic.

If you are such a fan, of 4chan, then go back there. 8chan's /pol/ is much less of a hugbox, and given the nature of 8chan, you are more than welcome to simply make a new board yourself. Maybe call it, /polb/, the /pol/ without rules.

But I suppose, that I am a very problematic individual, and keeping your boards posts on topic is a form of systematic oppression, and should be banned on the grounds of free speech. You are right, oh wise anon, we should all follow your path of "Do as you please, say whatever you want, there's no rules here!" as it would surely lead us to enlightenment.


c26825 No.8065

File: 1431801278563.gif (2 MB, 354x200, 177:100, 1290629330297.gif)

>>8064

Censorship of words is wrong. /pol/ shouldn't be banning the use of words it thinks are "from outside," "divisive," "trolling," "low quality."

And yes, free speech is important. It's one of the most important values upheld by /pol/ (or at least, used to be)


c46d1a No.8066

>>8065

Freedom of speech is important. The freedom to express your opinion is important, particularly in this day and age.

However, let us use an analogy. Imagine that in a town there is a group that has come together to talk about lollipops. The group largely agrees that blueberry lollipops are the best kind of lollipop, and that lollipops made in China from cheap toxic ingredients are bad for your health.

I would agree that the group should not throw people out if they happen to like strawberry lollipops, as that would be silencing of a dissenting opinion, and a bad precedent for the protection of freedom of speech.

However, should people come in and start talking about dogs and cats, I would consider that group entitled to ask those people to either talk about lollipops, or go and create their own group to talk about cats and dogs.

Censorship of words is wrong, enforcing a topic is (for the most part, I am aware you already coming up with political versions of this, "oh but what if the government made the topic of parliament communism, that would be wrong to enforce!")

For the record, I have been addressing the theme I read into your OP, not the specific of banning a word. The idea that /pol/ is somehow supposed to never delete or ban anything, is I think, pretty silly.

Also, cola flavor best flavor.


c26825 No.8067

File: 1431802522404.jpg (46.87 KB, 162x258, 27:43, 1259557801909.jpg)

>>8066

>Freedom of speech is important, however…

No, I don't care. /pol/ shouldn't censor words that it doesn't like or thinks are "from outside," "divisive," "trolling," "low quality."


c46d1a No.8068

>>8066

enforcing a topic is (…) not *


c46d1a No.8069

>>8067

You…completely ignored my entire post.

Come on, at least put some effort into this! You showed so much promise, at the start.

Sigh. What a waste, you could have really had a decent conversation on this topic, or at least managed to bait me into saying something I'd regret. I mean come on I've been awake for 48 hours it wouldn't have been that hard to make me slip up.

Oh well.


c26825 No.8070

File: 1431802761103.jpg (69.11 KB, 627x429, 19:13, 1334717374748.jpg)

>>8069

I ignored it because you're overcomplicated it, with poorly written walls of text.

Censorship of words is wrong, no matter your justification. Not allowing people to say "rule.cuck" is censorship.

I don't care about your justifications, saying its "from outside," "divisive," "trolling," "low quality" is the same justification reddit or Tumblr or Neogaf uses to ban certains words or speech.


58766d No.8071

File: 1431812067891.jpg (104.44 KB, 800x800, 1:1, cirno_9.jpg)

there is nothing wrong with it, is just a wordfilter; I mean everybody knows what the original word is; like when Moot (sorry for talking about 4chinz) wordfilter "faggot" for almost a year, nobody died back then

besides if you don't know how to bypass wordfilter you are a newfag


7c5478 No.8072

I am somewhat dissapointed in the new BO.

I thought he was pro free speech or gave a shit about the board, but it turns out his only saving grace is being inactive as fuck.

testing: rulecuck


eda674 No.8073

If I wanted to filter rulecuck for the sake of censorship, I would have added multiple wordfilters to try to catch as many iterations of it as possible. Plus, once it's out that there is a word filter, everyone knows what "Long Live /pol!" represents. This sounds like a few /int/ shitposters are a little butthurt…

Post last edited at

7c5478 No.8074

>>8073

I like wordfilterswhen theyre done for the sake of humor; why not make it filter into something like "FUCKING STATISTS" or at least something more witty/creative?


eda674 No.8075

>>8074

Suggestions are more than welcome!

I'll take them in this thread, thx for the feedback anon


ecacb8 No.8087

>>8073

If you're actually cracking down on /int/ metaposters, I would be willing to take your offer from a while back. I couldn't care less about them baiting, but the meta spamming has been grating against my nerves. It's not worth the effort trying to police baiting anyways.

I trusted /int/ once, and they blew their chance by pushing metadrama into every hole they could fit it in.

Also the archive sticky not being used makes me sad.


ecacb8 No.8088


0e416e No.8091

>>8087

>>8088

I strongly advise against this. It will absolutely bring more drama to /pol/ again if an old mod returns.

Then again, I always figured you would crawl your way back, consequences be damned.

If you are reading this, BO: ask for the opinion of your current volunteer first before making a decision. Don't fix what isn't broken.

And good luck, new BO.

-you know who I am.


ecacb8 No.8092

>>8091

Someone from /int/ hates my guts, what a surprise.


0e416e No.8093

>>8092

I don't hate you, I just think it is a horrendously bad idea for you to be a moderator of /pol/ again.

Consider the following: /pol/ is doing pretty well right now. /polmeta/ is down to 14 users in the past 3 days (including the board owner + at least two ex-mods), meaning there is very little drama or dissatisfaction, and I have seen no complaints lately on the main board either. BO + the volunteer have been handling things very well.

If you want to be a mod, that obviously means you want to use your moderator powers to do something, or to change the board's moderation in some way, since by definition that is the only power that being a volunteer would provide you. But what needs changing?

Well, judging by how you personally have moderated in the past (e.g. banning someone for posting "race isn't everything" as a response to a thread; and otherwise banning people within threads for doing nothing more than posting a dissenting opinion) I suspect your return would see /pol/ take a step towards becoming something like /gamergatehq/: a heavily moderated board where dissent is not allowed and users leave in droves.

/pol/ has had enough changes in its moderation style lately, and now that things are finally stable you want to come in and fuck them up again? No, just let the new mods manage the board in peace; like I said, there is no need to fix something that isn't broken.


ecacb8 No.8094

>>8093

>meaning there is very little drama or dissatisfaction, and I have seen no complaints lately on the main board either.

It's true things have improved a bit, there is less drama and less /int/olerant baiting (bait shouldnt be our job to clean up, I want to clarify I am just using it as an indicator of dissatisfaction from /int/olerants). There has been a few people complaining about lack of moderation, though. I don't mean that as in "Mods ban this shit" or other incessant whining, I am talking about people complaining about stickies being left up too long, no updates to the archive sticky, and very rarely the gap in timezones that F isn't around for gets spammed with off-topic threads.

>If you want to be a mod, that obviously means you want to use your moderator powers to do something, or to change the board's moderation in some way, since by definition that is the only power that being a volunteer would provide you. But what needs changing?

Nothing needs changed, as far as rules and ban enforcement goes. F is already cracking down on metathreads, which I suggested in our staff meetings a long while ago We have a metaboard for it, regular /pol/acks don't want to see it cluttering the catalogue, and allowing them on mainboard just gives detractors outlets to demoralize or distract users from real topics.

>Well, judging by how you personally have moderated in the past (e.g. banning someone for posting "race isn't everything" as a response to a thread; and otherwise banning people within threads for doing nothing more than posting a dissenting opinion)

In your first example, it was a rookie mistake that I learned to never repeat as soon as it happened, I even went as far as publicly apologizing for it in the thread it happened, nobody ever mentions that part of the story though… I used to make shitty bans for posts I considered to be "outright bait" or "off-topic" until I found it just created more problems. I hadn't been doing bans like that for about a month leading up to the mass resignation.

You misunderstand my intent and without seeing both ends of the situation, I don't exactly blame you. I don't intend on coming back just to change how things are done. I just hate going on /pol/ and seeing the same post locked stickies for days, while other arguably more important threads slide off catalog. I also hate seeing my archives sticky falling into disuse, especially when it was well received by the users. As far as meta goes, its finally a part of the rules sticky that meta goes to /polmeta/, frankly it hasn't been spammed much lately but an occasional thread pops up that I wish I could redirect to here.


eda674 No.8095

>>8094

What, the TPP sticky? It's ongoing and important. Don't forget that this is a politics board. Senate and Congress sessions are important to watch and follow if you didn't know. The old Ben Garrison sticky? You were the only one complaining about it iirc. That was 8/pol/ history.

You resigned, I gave you the option to stay if you so chose. The vol team at the moment is doing fine. If you have an issue with how /pol/ is being ran then please make a /polmeta/ thread.

Post last edited at

ecacb8 No.8096

>>8095

I wasn't the only person complaining about the BG sticky being up for so long, I posted about it one time within one of the already existing threads. Kind of unfair to paint that like it was an something solely I cared about. The TPP thread is important and I don't want it taken down either, but there are other important things that have slipped through the cracks as well. There's little harm in having more than one non-permanent sticky up a time.

If you think you guys are fine on your own then that's all good with me. I had thought your offer was a standing offer rather than just that conversation, so forgive me if I came off as presumptuous here. It also wasn't my intent to come off as harshly critical here, but I do wish you were less selective about new threads going into the archive sticky. We don't really have any other options for archiving things until the moe archives get their bugs fixed (if that ever happens at all).


0c2ad3 No.8099

>>8095

Is there any particular reason for why there is only one sticky at a time?


eda674 No.8100

>>8099

There isn't a particular reason, no.


35826f No.8107

>op puts five words in quotations

>five words that were never used by anyone except for him

This is what you faggots love to do, you also say we get "triggered" by anime posters when we tell an avatarfag to fuck off.

IT DOESN'T WORK.

You can shame people on your tumblr/reddit accounts, not on 8chan. You can only annoy.

Onto the issue at hand, >>8060

It's not offensive. It's not rude. It's not dangerous. It's simply fucking stupid and does nothing to foster conversation, and the butthurt produced by banning it shows the level of maturity of the users of that word.

Sorry, little guy, but "muh reddit" "muh free speech" and "muh hugbox" are not arguments. One word was WORDFILTERED. Nobody was banned.


f7a2b3 No.8132

>>8056

Found your perfect board: >>>/b/




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / n / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]