>>13496986

>>13496981

I do actually appreciate your effort. Just so you are aware I will usually take action when a post contains only useless screeching.

I will ban and delete a post that says things like kys, faggot, reddit, sage, report*, etc; if the post does not also make some coherent argument or statement that is at least somewhat on topic, this could be something on point communicated through an image. It's not that these phrases are verboden per say, but we don't need threads filling up with people just flinging mud back and forth without actually discussing anything.

I am a little more strict on people who announce reports. *

>>13506276

Don't know why your post poofed. I did deal with many of the posts you pointed out. My guess is you sperged out with that IP to get it deleted by some other mod precisely because you wanted the last one deleted.

As I stated before:

<I do actually appreciate your effort. Just so you are aware I will usually take action when a post contains only useless screeching.

<I will ban and delete a post that says things like kys, faggot, reddit, sage, report*, etc; if the post does not also make some coherent argument or statement that is at least somewhat on topic, this could be something on point communicated through an image. It's not that these phrases are verboden per say, but we don't need threads filling up with people just flinging mud back and forth without actually discussing anything.

I am a little more strict on people who announce reports. *

I will go through these posts again, probably tomorrow evening although I think the vast majority are ones remaining pass mustard as I already banned and deleted the ones that did not. Each time you post this the only ones left after I sift through them are more and more passable.

I don't know what US code you're referring to but its rather easy to google that kind of shit.

>You must now ban these users and remove all of their posts.

That's not how this works, and you need to deal with it.

>You have now twice removed this post (against the rules) without dealing with any of the posts or users in question.

I quite clearly did handle a goodly number of the posts you were kvetching about, as you are removed this from this round.

>In before “No one reported these things,” because they did. In before “We didn’t see the reports,” because you did. In before “We can’t be on all the time,” because that’s not an excuse and doesn’t matter, since that’s why the report queue exists.

I don't give a fuck if you believe it or not but the report queue is partially broken. I have seen all the reports randomly vanish when I was rather confident I was the only mod active.

>you don’t get to ban people who say sage … Is saying “reported” … “kill yourself” against the rules? If not, you don’t get to ban people who say reported.

Saying nothing but 'sage', 'bump', or 'reported' is off topic and spam because I decided it was; I will ban for it when I see it. If the post adds nothing to the conversation and is only there to shit the thread up don't be surprised if it is removed. If the post otherwise makes a coherent argument or statement that is on topic I will probably not take action against it even if it contains one of those statements. I do get to do this, because I applied for the position, was accepted and have not fucked up badly enough to be removed from it. So quite clearly I can ban for these things as I frequently exercise that ability. I think your hang up is that your conflating ability and authority. I'm assuming you don't believe I'm authorized use my discretion in carrying out my duties as a mod, you are free to try to contact Ron or Jim or kvetch on >>>/sudo/ but I suspect it won't amount to much. I believe my actions are fully in my purview as a mod.

I believe I am the only mod who will still try to actively engage because I do think it's beneficial to be as transparent as practical. I don't want moderation to be some interpersonal black box that strikes for no apparent or consistent reason, I know it has a strong tendency to become this. I don't always agree with the actions taken by other mods, I frequently accept ban appeals if I did not think the ban was justified. We don't have an effective way to respond to ban appeals if the poster poses questions so I come here to engage.

Now I don't think (you) are arguing in good faith, and I'm sure you will do what ever you can to take from what I say and try to make it out in the worst possible light. I just want to say that I'm only here to serve the fourteen words as best I can.

Deleted the original response and reposing because the poster I was replying to got himself B&D+'d by another mod (pv9) and I don't want there to be the perception that I am moderating to win arguments or anything of the sort

>>13509360

I cant tell, we do have a ban log that shows which mod did a ban but it only goes back the past handfull of banns, and that is not on the list. Ask again if you see one happening, I'd be interested to see who it was. We do have global doing some modding here every now and then. Not that it really matters that much, rule 1 applies regardless.

>>13509360

>>13509642

>Oh good, ONE of you finally fucking admits that codemonkey told you not to talk to the userbase. And yet we're supposed to trust a single one of you, or him most of all.

I was never told I could not interact with the users as a mod. So far as I know none of us have ever been told this but some interpreted that as the case.

I was told not to cap code, rage ban(user was banned for this post), post users post history or attention whore as a mod in regular threads. That is different than posting as a mod in a thread to explain why it was locked etc, or discuss things as a mod in the meta thread both of which I was specifically told I could do. I was told not to edit posts because of some nebulous reason concerning liability, CM thinks as the board owner if we edit posts he becomes liable for all the speech in that post or some shit, I don't know that's the explanation he gave me. I used to edit OP's to make them less shit, to update them as news about the subject came out or to declare why the thread was locked or redirected etc.

I have, from time to time posted screen caps of ban appeals when I felt it would be useful to respond and I had no other way to do so. It's not the sort of thing I would do on demand so don't ask.

>>13508532

>>13509716

>show any proof of you actually being a mod in response to some other mod

>4. And you’ve now openly admitted to a) lying about supporting the fourteen words and b) SUPPORTING SOMETHING THAT GOT FOUR OTHER MODERATORS REMOVED.

I know PV2 has tried poorly to bait current mods into doing one of these things we were specifically asked not to do. He was quite salty that he was not allowed to abuse his mod position to push his black pilled do not vote ideology. I'm fine with him having that opinion (which I don't personally subscribe to) but he really spammed the ever lasting fuck out of it right before he was removed and even unbanned himself so he could keep spamming it, he's been salty ever sense.

The other mods that got removed got frustrated they could not more overtly ban wrong-think. (well except for one of them whom I suspect was a shitty informant)

I've held the position that if your a normie or even leftest here discussing shit in good faith you'll either quickly get red-pilled, get frustrated and leave or get frustrated and start breaking the rules (when I get to step in and try to force them to leave). I don't see the need to ban for wrongthink, I just need to mop up the shit and let the user base handle the red pilling. If some anon argues a coherent position in a non trolling way that is not typical /pol/ thinking I don't feel it's my place to step in and protect your vulnerable minds from heretical notions. I don't think it's good for us to have some mod enforced purity spiraling hug box, that might make natsoc extremists but it won't foster the creation of an ideology that is strong enough and appealing enough that it can become a seriously influential force in society which is what we need if we are going to succeed in any meaningful way to preserve the future for our children. Now when people are here to be disruptive and start trolling threads to derail them or even when they are even ironically posting as some faggot leftists just to harvest (you)'s I try to come up with an excuse to get rid of them or at least all there posts and make them switch IP's. I've never kept this ideology or methodology a secret, even from CM; it's what I told him I would do when I applied.

>>13510304

I can't fathom why you thought 8/pol/ was an appropriate venue for a low budget gay, snuff, furrie, ninjaturtle porno. I'm not saying the video wasn't humerus, and doesn't deserve it's place down some deep dark internet hole. We all shit from time to time, but if your a decent human your going to avoid taking a shit in the middle of a chapel, even if your not religious. /pol/ is not a porn board, it is generally not acceptable here and would normally be considered off topic and I give it a harsher ban than most other off topic content. Even 4/pol/ used to ban porn before the exodus.

It is unnecessary, degenerate and distracts from the purpose of the board.

There are limited exceptions where porn could legitimately be on topic for a specific discussion, in these instances I would ask that it be spoilered and the post include a brief text description of the content (not just spoilered for the shock value).

>>13510652

I did not leave the thread up. But I did sift through it for people to ban first.

>>13527789

So, I think its probably legal (but that could be argued, I'm no law expert, it's also been widely published with impunity).

It's on topic for that thread.

In it's current context at least it's more useful for our side than not.

I would never have possession of the picture myself. I probably would not want it on a site I ran.

I would think it funny as all hell if the feds prosecuted everyone who has that picture (along with the person who took it and the participants in it).

If some other mod wanted to take it down I would not argue there standing to do so.

>>13531083

The post your kvetching about is spam, I do remove it when I see it.

As for the rest; if only you knew how bad it really is.

I can only message CM if he has messaged me in the past week. He has messaged me twice this year. My only way to contact him most of the time is via admin@8ch.net or kvetching on >>>/sudo/ no joke this is shit. Quite littaraly 95% of the time I have no more access to him than you. You want him kvetched at, go do it yourself.

Secondly he would not be amenable to adding word filters, that is one of the things that got him pissed at imkiky for.

Thirdly the post your pissed at has no text in the text field. The only text is embedded in the image. Theatrically if CM tried to run OCR on every image and ban the offending ones it could get blocked for a while until they just started fucking with the text to the point where the OCR or the text filters fail.