/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

>>15969

Thanks

Good to see this place hasn't been abandoned completely by moderation. And yes it's a good way to make /polpol/ relevant even when traffic is as slow as it is now.

But it isn't really a new direction, as the board has pretty much always been used this way.

I am still here, i login and post in the info dump normally once a week at least, hasnt been a lot of moderating to do. i haven't been promoting it because i figure you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink, if people cant see theres fundamental problems with /pol/ then we cant force them to come here. the board was at 500UIDs and apparently that still wasnt fast enough for the simps that browse /pol/

>>15973

If it's any consolation it seems increasingly clear that it's near impossible for smaller boards to "make it". If anything smaller boards are all becoming completely dead now.

I visit regularly and have tried to contribute threads before with mixed success. If we're trying to revive this place I'll try to create and maintain a few new threads

>>15977

Define "making it," define your vision of /polpol/.

>>15982

It's just the problem that if a board isn't extremely popular, it only has awhile until it drops down to practically zero usage. I don't necessarily want this board to be as fast as /pol/, but there's no middle ground the way these things seem to work

>>15986

If you go by PPH it is practically zero usage. But if we get better quality posts I don't see the problem with that. As long as you, the board owner, and I am here there won't be zero usage. It's just the problem of generating activity.

Maybe we should take a note from the internet secession thread and copy good thread OPs from /pol/. Look at the catalogue here a lot of things are just complaining about /pol/, is that all we have to offer? Because, if that's all we as a board can form coherent thoughts on, then we aren't going to die from inactivity, we'll die from being retarded cave-painters.

Anon if you want /polpol/ to be successful you gotta be the change you want. Masturbating over /pol/'s faster threads or circle jerking over /pol/'s stupidity isn't going to get us anywhere. We gotta create our own material, our own dank memes.

Posting race baiting articles isn't going to work here, we don't have enough people to shitpost. To make this board work we gotta actually put in some effort. It's hard to be a startup, but once we go public we can sit back and watch the shitposts roll in.

>>15969

Thank you, halfchan has become a cesspool.

It looks to me like you're just taking /pol/ and hoping for a better community.

Well, I'll be here more often. Finally got banned by imkampfy or whatever that shitposting faggot is named

>>16000

That's sort of the problem I had when reading the OP. You see /pol/ can post about events because within a minute of making a thread about ebin happenings you can get 50 shitposts, though it depends on how ebin it is, or how much bait. That's also why there are multiple copies of the same thread even on the same page. To just sticky event threads isn't playing to this board's strength. We do need some sort of event thread thugh because /pol/ is /pol/ and /n/ is /polb/.

>>15969

So if I make a suggestion, why not create an event thread sticky? It would be like the info dump thread except events get dumped in there. That way we don't have a bunch of event threads with no replies sitting on the board's front page. This also means multiple events can be responded to at once. There is a problem of shill articles and unreliable sources on /pol/ but I don't think those should be outright banned as you can gleam some information from even those articles. But do what you will.

>>16008

>So if I make a suggestion, why not create an event thread sticky?

sounds reasonable, it's sad seeing the new stickies without any new replies

>>16026

I forget the exact number of users when the first exodus happened but /pol/ had 1200-2000 or so and was fine. It then shot up to upper 3000s and got terminal cancer.

I think it's more to do with how communities in general develop. Look at the US for example:

It was formed by people willing to do things and they believed in things. They weren't perfect, but they didn't need to be. Now look at their posterity that they wanted to protect so badly. It is disgusting, it's so disgusting I didn't use a contraction to begin this sentence.

The lazy and weak will always take advantage of the strong. It's when the parasites begin to infest and poison the wells that everything goes down hill. The more people you have the more likely that's going to be. But, some things just attract filth naturally; look at /leftypol/, hell go down lower and see all the low visitor boards that are purely dedicated to filth. The idea of /pol/ isn't filth, it's just that they want to drown in their own shit to have entertainment than produce anything worthwhile. Bread and circuses after-all.

But in other news we've hit 22 users apparently, so there's that.

>>15969

Old threads don't need to be shut down. I have a few I'd like to update when I have the time.

I volunteer for a volunteer position if the BO is still here

onevolunteer@grr.la

Just one question: Is the average user on /pol/ really that stupid, I mean just look at what's going on lately. Are they THAT stupid? Or are most of those posts from shills. I need to know for my own sanity. Just LOOK

>>16029

I'm just always amazed at how much chaos and destruction election politics causes every 4 years. It's truly amazing

>>16027

>I think it's more to do with how communities in general develop.

Oh, i'm sure. Human nature doesn't change.

>The lazy and weak will always take advantage of the strong.

Indeed. The strong will search for this place. They are the only ones with the will to do it. The lazy will be content with what they have, until they see something better. If we advertise this place, we attract both the lazy ones and those with perseverance.

I'm sure it also doesn't help communities that the people who are the most vocal are the shitposters.

> "He who knows much speaks little, but he who knows little speaks much."

>>16028

That's another problem that needs solving. How do we elect volunteers. Would not the best option be to select those who contribute the most to the board? People who search out power are more often than not those who do not deserve it. I'm not saying you aren't anon, but just going with statistics.

>>16042

Select volunteers and observe their activity, that is all.

Those who get selected from a tiny irc club are most often trash mods.

>>16042

>>16043

Give the people that want the job a trial period to prove themselves. If worst comes to worst you can go full Cincinnatus and find the farmer that will do the job well, but would step down afterword.

You can try to select people that contribute most to the board but what if they don't want to do it? Everyone has their different desires. I myself would rather stay on this side of the line, I'll make contributions on my terms. To moderate the board means something completely different than contributing to it. Not only are you a representative of the board but you uphold the laws and rules of the board. People's interpretation of those rules will differ, but regardless you need to do your job. The problem is mods are the jury, the judge, and the executioner also. It isn't like being a cop where your job is simply to arrest, you have to decide whether they should be punished and what their punishment will be.

Since this is a small board their job is a bit easier, but that only makes their actions more noticeable. Volunteers voluntarily lend their service, we should examine those who offer their service. Just electing people "off the street" does the name volunteer a disservice.

>>16045

My email is up for now so if BO doesn't get to this by sunday evening I don't care anymore.

>>16045

>what if they don't want to do it?

Good point. I know I would never want to be an admin or mod.

Perhaps one could use both willingness and prior posting history to make a good decision? They must want to do the job, but out of ten people wanting it, you only allow the few that uphold the board's core values in. Now, of course, you could peel back the requirements if the number of applicants is too low to make a decision.

>Give the people that want the job a trial period to prove themselves.

That is a given. If they are good mods, they are allowed to keep their status, where as bad mods are demoted to prevent damage to the board.

>>16048

Eh, this is an anonymous board posting history is kind of bullshit. Willingness is obviously a given, but let's look at the history of web based moderation and the amount of times people have infiltrated the mod staff. SRS became famous for that.

Case studies maybe? A candidate is given a case and they must be judge, jury, an executioner on that case. You can easily cut through BS and see if they have potential if they give good reasoning for why they do what they do. Let's the best idea I have for now. Unfortunately, you can't make them duel each other and see who comes out on top, it'd be more entertaining too.

>>16049

>Willingness is obviously a given, but let's look at the history of web based moderation and the amount of times people have infiltrated the mod staff. SRS became famous for that.

That's what worries me about picking people who want to be mods.

>Case studies maybe?

Now this may be a good test. Keeping infiltrators out would still be difficult, because they could always say what the board owner wants.

>>16051

Here's the thing, no matter how much they try to suck off the board owner they cannot replicate the experience of someone who has been in this shit. For example, give them a /pol/ thread, not a /polpol/ thread, a /pol/ thread. Keep the faggy OP, keep the shitposts, keep the random people that try to have a discussion, the whole damn experience. Anyone from "around these parts" would know how to effectively moderate that thread, if "they ain't from around 'ere" they'll fuck shit up. If they can manage not to fuck up a /pol/ thread they'll do fine here. Since we're so small self moderation is more effective since threads can disappear with a few posts.

It'd be nice if we can pitch in a grade the new recruits, but, we don't want anyone to learn the grading methodology, they'd post it on tumblr or something so they can hijack the board from ebil racists or something.

Check out what's going on now with the stickies on /pol/

I actually think they periodically reset the board by making problems, whenever that is in their interest. Ownership never changes and has probably never changed since the beginning. It just shifts from one e-persona to another whenever neede

>>16048

I'd love to moderate a /pol/ but would never put myself out there for that, because I can't guarantee to invest enough time to make it work. That's the problem, in general for a larger board anybody that can commit is almost guaranteed to be a shill

>>16057

Interesting theory, got any further argument to back it up?

>>16059

Got anything to back up the idea that ownership actually changes? That's not confirmable and their behaviour seems to indicate otherwise

>>16060

To be specific, I don't have to prove ownership changed, the shitposting cunts that run the board would have to prove that. So far it's all fake e-personal handing off to another fake e-persona

That may be how it HAS to be, due to practical reasons, but that means you cannot trust them. And yes, I do believe they are controlled by the enemy. It's three layers obscured though

And I just got banned again after basically deciding to play their game and making two shitposts (with OC). Apparently those shitposts were against whatever faction of /int/ shitposters controls /pol/

I know you're reading it (pol)/vol/, and that you consider me a cow. So I'm not going to feed you more publicly. Read this and know it isn't over yet, I do not appreciate people taking advantage of other well meaning folk as you do every single day on /pol/. So I will not give you any more fun but that doesn't mean this is over

>>16062

You are taking pol too seriously. If you need numbers go spam the whole internet.

Otherwise this board is great with the low regular user count it has.

>>16057

Frankly I'm shocked that a science thread was stickied. When I first saw that I thought i went on the wrong board.

As far as your ownership hypothesis is concerned, ownership probably hasn't changed since /pol/ has been ran the same way for a while now. To be frank though does it matter? If we were to figure out the truth it wouldn't change anything, /pol/ would still be pretty much shit, and all we would know is the truth. There would be no meaning to it since there's nothing to do about it, let them drown in their own shit.

>>16069

I'm not a very big fan of the SpaceElevator threads, they are full of pie in the sky "science" news that promises the world but never goes anywhere.

I'm noticing that all of the top boards are seeing a major decline in quality, and an increase in those kinds of shill/troll encounters that are basically designed to make you rage-quit. Very sad to see the state of /tech/ recently. It lagged behind /pol/ in seeing the decline, but it's very pronounced the past month.

I'm going to be trying some of the smaller boards, hitting a dozen of them a day to make up for the fact that they are all slow as fuck. But I have a feeling that some outside group is trying to ruin this place, and is making progress due to the hands-off "heh pill" "just ignore them" moderation style that seems to be written in stone for most top boards.

If there's one thing I've learned "just ignore them" doesn't work. There's such a thing as sockpuppeting a thread to death

A few boards I started checking out today:

/killcen/

/realnews/

Not sold on either but /killcen/ in particular has some good content

>>16133

All the main boards are reverting to their 4chan forms. I mean look at /g/ it's full of mainly shilling. It was bound to happen at some point, certain groups infiltrating this site. With GG our position was broadcasted everywhere. Sure the site needs visitors for revenue and to keep running, but the amount of money you get from a view is low in general, but the more people you add to traffic can make costs rise faster than how much money you make. Then you have things like DDOS and all the other outages, errors, and transfers, I doubt 8ch is making money. There's no way to make money off a chan with page views alone.

Well they just had a general science news thread which was nice, I don't think there's been a space elevator thread in months. The problem with those threads though is that we lack the materials capable of actually performing the task. Anything before that is conjecture. But, at some point we'll need a space elevator because it brings the cost of bring things up to LEO way way down. That means anything dealing with space will be more reasonable. But, there's a million things to be done before that.

>>16138

Space Elevator is the name of the anon who does the news posts.

To be honest i don't mind the threads. I don't think they should be stickied, but they are not used to shill, just as a news source.

>>16217

>spamming a dead board

k

So… when will the mods clear the spammers?

>>15969

Hey buddy, when are you all gonna show up to work? I'm not gonna have to claim this board, am I?

>>16222

>>16223

It is a shame. Things were looking better too.

>>16225

The power of a man with a VPN. I've been too busy to make any posts lately but what a sad state of affairs I've come back to. I don't know what the BO or the mods have been up to.

Maybe it's time to move elsewhere, what we had was nice. Though if the spammer is gone it'd just be a matter of moving the good threads back to the top. At least we didn't go out with a whisper.

>>16227

>Maybe it's time to move elsewhere, what we had was nice

I think the non-existent moderation has been going on too long as well, so I made a new board.

>>>/politiks/

Board settings that I feel are an improvement over /polpol/: Forced Anon (with IDs of course), Allow posters to see when a thread is bumplocked, Public bans and a full log with usernames, 5 images per post, and visible, clear rules.

>>16228

Much appreciated anon.

Good job with the board settings too.

>>16228

Well at least the board is clear now, and there's a Korea thread. As long as another spammer doesn't show up this would be a good board to have for some general discussion, but we'll see. With the current state of affairs 4/pol/ is in better shape than 8/pol/. I haven't bothered to see some of the other major boards, but they also work differently too.

>>16234

>Well at least the board is clear now, and there's a Korea thread.

To be honest, I think something suspicious is going on, considering the vols and owner disappeared for days until I started shilling the board on the main index and yet the board ahs never been up for claim.

I'll leave the board around for a while in case this happens again, and the Redpills of Zion updates will continue there because it's just easier to do so with mod powers.

>>16234

>>16235

And I got a ban for "bad advertising, bad post quality"; make of that what you will.

>>16235

The whole of 8ch is suspicious ever since CrippleKike did his one day coup, lifted all bans and enforced his lolbergtarian shitposing paradise rules.

I like how you've set up the threads. Will definitely keep an eye on the board along with this one.

>>16246

The only advantage to his laissez-faire style is that we can form our own little communities and dictate our own rules. If the were 4chan we'd be round up by the troika and shot.

>>16283

Yeah it's true he did intervene on several occasions not just with /pol/, but the fact is unless he alters the site massively it isn't going to effect the smaller boards.

But there's something even more worrying. It was a couple of weeks ago when the whole site was down but he released a tweet saying if the big sites are doing censorship how long until the small sites have to do it to stay relevant. It looks like he deleted the tweet, and it isn't on any archives of the page.

With the size of the user base of 8chan if he were to change the board creation system 8chan would effectively shut down. There's going to be more users overall in the bottom 4000 than in the top 5.

The question is if this is really a repeat of moot, look how he started out. Being an internet rockstar can get to you head, it's a question of a matter of when the cripple falls as it is in human nature to do so.

For right now it looks like he wants to be paid for the lulz, but he can easily use that as an excuse to consolidate the boards and disable board creation. It's almost been a year, we'll have to see how things play out.

>>16286

I'm going to say something controversial: I feel bad for hotwheels.

I think he genuinely believed in free speech and freedom of expression, but then came the corrupt mods, and boards like /int/ and /intl/. I think he's just giving up because he's just sick of everything.

>>16292

>I think he's just giving up because he's just sick of everything.

In that respect, much of /pol/ would agree with him. What are the chances of freeing the world of international jewry? Very slim, if at all.

Of course you will still try, but will fail.

Wheels is in this position. He's trying his hardest, but he just can't make it. He's fighting too much, with too few resources.

I fear for when he reaches the end of his sanity and just "lets it all burn".

>>16292

I can agree with this, I never really trusted this site fully but I can see now that there's just a relentless group of people attacking him and the site. If I was in his wheels, I'd be tired of it too. I hope he holds on though but it seems clear he's losing interest somewhat

What is this board supposed to be for?

A no shitpost /pol/?

How is the 'no shills allowed' rule enforced?

>>16335

It was originally intended to be the backup /pol/ for 8/pol/ which was the fall back /pol/ for 4/pol/.

8/pol/ didn't fail in the sense that it didn't collapse. However, anyone disaffected by how the moderation is being handled alongside the quality of content ended up here or on smaller boards like this. So as of right now this board doesn't have an identity, and the protection against shilling is it's small size and generally more knowledgable user-base.

>>16339

I was about to write this…

Why does this board have public logs disabled?

>>16340

Well you answer the next question that comes up.

>>16360

I don't think anyone would mind if the Iran deal and Syria happening threads would be un-stickied

>>16400

It depends what the lurkers are interested in. There needs to be a thread where they can bring something to the table. We don't have a science thread so maybe that would bring more people to the table, we don't have to go full space elevator though. Some people are just going to lurk though.

>>16407

we still have a science thread, but its buried somewhere in page 3 or 4, it even was stickied a few weeks ago.

well I guess you're right lurkers will lurk, I can't even blame them, there's a lot of quality discussions, infographics and hundreds of links to read.

>>16409

The interbreeding thread?

The board needs a serious consolidation of topics and anything below the 5th page is basically dead.

I don't know what would spark the interest of more anons and that's sort of the point. Maybe we need more creativity threads? Writing, arts, etc. We've been getting more event threads, we have technical threads and esoteric threads. At some point a person isn't going to respond though for whatever reason.

>>16410

sorry it was in page 2, but its this one - >>6667

We've got a pretty good think tank here, but we need to find a solution that would interest more people, but I've got no ideas for new threads.

>>16411

The problem with that thread is that it never evolved past the main topic. OP was quickly proven wrong, and that's that. There's a bit of other science stuff mixed in. And yeah Einstein stole a lot of stuff at the same time people didn't actually publish stuff.

It's hard to make a thread with audience interactivity. There's a million things we can do, it's just about the one that will actually lead to responses.

>>16400

/polpol/ will always have a big proportion of lurkers who like to read the threads but don't have anything constructive to contribute, and chose not to deteriorate the discussion. People self moderate their fun/shitposting on here, because that is the nature of people that still lurk this board. The cancer has already migrated back.

Also don't use JewJewGoy, it's run by a kike that sells all of your information. Use something like startpage or ixquick instead, those at least record nothing from you and use google's search engine by proxy. Even CuckCuckGoy admits that if you want real privacy you should use those instead of that search engine.

>>16414

>/polpol/ will always have a big proportion of lurkers who like to read the threads but don't have anything constructive to contribute, and chose not to deteriorate the discussion.

Indeed, this is why I lurk. We came here to escape mindless shitposting, so why create it?

>>16414

>Also don't use JewJewGoy, it's run by a kike that sells all of your information. Use something like startpage or ixquick instead, those at least record nothing from you and use google's search engine by proxy. Even CuckCuckGoy admits that if you want real privacy you should use those instead of that search engine.

thanks gonna use startpage from now on

The board title needs to be renamed to 'Political Discussion'

this is a board for all political discussion not just 'politically incorrect' (I hope)

there's no reason to disable the board log that I can think of

what's the difference between this and >>>/midpol/ ?

Is this a place for all political discussion or just the 'politically incorrect'?

>>16437

This place was designed to be what /pol/ should have been. It is a place for all political discussion, provided you have the facts to back it up.

>>16437

>>16436

>>16426

If I may ask, what's going on with /pol/ to cause the influx of people?

>>16439

I'm not sure, I mean, /pol/ is shitty but not much more than "normal"

It's welcome though

I do see a lot of obvious shill threads on /pol/ but that's been the normal state for awhile

>>16441

I said it wasn't much worse than normal but I've been a bit more busy in meatspace lately. Come back and actually check, it has literal porn threads that are identified as generic porn threads.

That's not even the only example right now, seems like the overton window or whatever just shifted there. Another step

>>16451 (edit)

>moderation is biased towards certain kinds of shitposting

*certain kinds of shitposting but not others

The sad thing is, it's unlikely that alternate boards can get enough traction to make it. I've stuck around here on and off hoping and praying but in the end the management of the site and the top boards has pissed me off so much that I'm leaving completely.

Good bye /polpol/, you gave me hope for a long time but I'm better off leaving the site as a whole.

>>16457

Sorry to hear that anon,

But have a great life and God Bless

well, that's not good >>16472

so what do anons?

hey tor anon, the one that always posts in Redpills of Zion thread, maybe you should claim.

>>16478

Fuck.

>>16479

sorry, been busy lately and unable to access old computer on which the admin login info was saved so i couldnt get in, all sorted now.

>>16481

see >>16427 and >>16426

the reason I ask for >>16426 is that there are people on /pol/ that actually believe it's a political incorrectness board not a politics one and I don't want that to happen here

>>16489

I can't remember the last time we've had pollticaly correct disscusions.

>>15977

That's precisely why Hotdud's 'non-intervention' policy is utterly meaningless. /pol/ is too big to fail, regardless of moderation. They know this, that's why they are running-amok.

Hotwheels is weak and a coward.

>>16493

that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be welcome

>>16496

yes, it does. Just because /pol/ is moderated by shit doesn't mean we have fucking politically correct feels. Fuck off back to /leftypol/.

>>16499

Jesus Christ…

why does every fucking politics board on this site have to be a hugbox for particular opinions

where can I find a general politics board that isn't full of shitposting like 4/pol/?

>>16502

you just repeated what was said in >>16500

and anyway, just because there is a consensus it doesn't mean the forum shouldn't be for all political opinions

>>16510

>just because there is a consensus it doesn't mean the forum shouldn't be for all political opinions

just because a forum is open to all opinions doesn't mean they have to be treated equally.

You post about nigger-loving, anti-white garbage, then you'll be ridiculed like the scumbag you are.

>you just repeated what was said in

no, you just have trouble thinking. People who try to use 'hugbox' as a legitimate argument should be permanently banned. That is nothing but a shill divide and conquer tactic. That's what my post is about, moron.

>>16520

if a forum is open to all opinions that are about politics then it ought to have a name that reflects that

>in before it's about political incorrectness not politics

why shouldn't it be about all politics

also see >>16438, replies to thread >>14580

>doesn't mean they have to be treated equally.

you mean by the moderation or by the users?

if you mean by the moderation: why?

if you mean by the users: of course

>You post about nigger-loving, anti-white garbage, then you'll be ridiculed like the scumbag you are.

okay but bear in mind that ridicule without argument is shitposting

Warning: Identity Spoiler

also I'm going to say that ID: 8b5727 and ID: e5c537 are both me in different locations so people don't think I'm a shill and to make things less confusing

oops!

meant to say 77e815 instead of 8b5727

>>16500

If u want normal political discussions, just create a thread and we'll see, if it catches on, all of us could consider changing the name to Political discussions.

What are the mods criteria for detecting shills?

I am ashamed of what /pol/ has come to. A literal hugbox where you can't disagree with anyone ever without being called a shill. Quality discussion is dead.

With friends like these, who needs the JIDF?

>>16576

>With friends like these, who needs the JIDF?

Indeed, we are our worst enemy. The best bet would be to post what you want to discuss. Contributions make a board. There rare many more of us here than you think, we all just lurk.

>>16577

You mean posting it here? I'd do that gladly but I don't think this board is active enough, considering how most threads get like 1 reply a week.

board owner still active for this?

Just stopping in.

Hope this place stays semi active, we need a place to run to in case /pol/ goes to shit.

I think it's here and the guy that runs /pdfs/ is also cool

hey vol, could you delete most of the threads complaining about /pol/? so this plague could be contained in one thread

>>16726

>>16728

>"non-biased" moderation

>"free speech"

No thanks, free speech in practice means letting every retard from /pol/, /leftypol/ , and /liberty/ run wild since deleting even the most egregious shitpost curtails speech.

As for non-biased moderation, that's very obviously a reference to imkampfy (supposedly) trying to do his "job" properly by keeping the worst retards out of /pol/ - that, and given that bias is impossible to remove, "non-biased moderation" means non-NS (or insert ideology here) moderation. The userbase has been broadly in favour of the somewhat fascistic moderation here, and I for one do not want to see it changed to accommodate a bunch of theoretical immigrants who are more interested in their feels than in quality discussion.

If you think you can have laissez-faire moderation and quality discussion, then you should compare /a/ and /v/, or even 2015 and 2014 /pol/.

>>16730

Nowhere in >>16726 does it say anything about wanting laissez-faire moderation and free speech

I just want the moderation to not use opinions expressed as an indicator of the quality of a post

I also want more transparency

>bias is impossible to remove

explain more

>>16730

>imkampfy

>[doing] his "job" properly

he seems to be leaving up shitposting that agrees with him (or it could be other mods): >>>/polmeta/8895

>>16731

>Nowhere in >>16726 does it say anything about wanting laissez-faire moderation and free speech

Wanting the board to be a "shitpost-free" /politics/ is asking exactly that though.

>I just want the moderation to not use opinions expressed as an indicator of the quality of a post

This has never happened, except maybe when the owner decided "better to be safe than sorry" back in March/April and went on a banning spree to keep the shitposters out. But I still never saw any political bans.

>I also want more transparency

I doubt you're alone there. This place is nice and all, but we're still nearly a year without codified rules, public logs and regular meta threads.

>explain more

Isn't it a pretty natural assumption. A paranoid moderator could easily see jokes as "evidence of infiltrators" or shitposts depending on his point of view. Sure you can get some rules, consult with the community to form and update them, and even fastidiously bind yourself to them, but at some point you need to exercise discretion - maybe some shitposter found a chink in the rules or whatever - and how you exercise that discretion is going to be coloured by whatever ideology you hold, e.g. a Commie might find "follow your leader"-type things funny and give tem some leeway or a Fascist might allow lolberg counter-arguments that consist of "Libertarianism is 99.99% Jewish so I don't have to actually debate you" etc.

>>16732

>he seems to be leaving up shitposting that agrees with him (or it could be other mods)

Honestly, I haven't been over there since I took a look after the place imploded in March/April. I got it all second- and third-hand so all I know that imkampfy is legendarily ban-happy.

>>16733

low quality posts can be easily filtered and hidden. Getting mods to do that for you is a slippery slope.

>>16745

>low quality posts can be easily filtered and hidden. Getting mods to do that for you is a slippery slope.

Wow, you don't have an argument so you say "slippery slope". 4chan is a testament to "hide and filter" not working because most people would rather take the bait (which creates a shitposting/rage culture like /pol/), and even if you filter someone, all a shitposter needs to keep going is one response.

As shown on /a/ and here, heavy moderation works fine so long as the moderators are in touch with the community. Take your cancer elsewhere.

Anyone else want more transparency in the moderation?

Any reason why not?

We need to know the mods aren't misbehaving (I.e. deletions and bans for opinion), sure we still need to trust the site and therefore HW and NT tech but in this case we trust less people

I'd say mods who don't have opinions on politics (except that shitposting should be censored, obviously we want that here) would be much less likely to exhibit bias

>>16775

check out >>>/politics/

We seriously need codified rules and transparency.

Hello mods are you there?

We could use a /pol/ that understands that the news is literally created, or lies

>>16896

And that's not within the realm of supernatural that news is created like any other media