"Let's make baker admin without considering critical viewpoints of the admin especially on court record!"

>This is what is going on right now. We should be digging on what comes from this, and BO is triggered by the idea of truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=829ZZFxvMUw

If you cannot stand to hear a view that is contrary to that one that has been accepted by you, then I feel bad for you, son. Surely you would agree that this kind of digging must take place upon the suggestion of integration into the process, right?

Should we never question the new hire? I know what BO thinks about it. >>15468518

Does this really make sense?

Hell, he even uses the wrong meme to imply I'm talking about hotwheels and not 2ch, he can't even consider the critical viewpoint, when it matters most.

>>15484718

"I am performing timing analysis, critical voice occurs at the same time as other problems we have, therefore ignore facts and evidence voice raises and call voice negative and ignore."

It's a simulacrum in simula of reasoned thought. I agree with you that you desperately require work on temporarily suspending your emotional core lest you erroneously fail to hear evidence and truth. Let me know when you want to address the points with counterpoints or refutations, but until that, it stands that you're acting ridiculous in truth.

Furthermore, the longer it goes on with NO ONE considering the evidence, the more likely I consider staff dupes of a con, of one form or another. Do you not know Anon is more important than any 'falling inline' staff position?

The more triggered by the notion that is proven by japan's court records that Jim stole 2ch and stole the money for the subcontractor hosting, the more suspect it appears that he has just pulled off another theft of a movement. Make sure you do not bite the hand that feeds you, but we Anon are watching closely.

>>15485241

Think about what that means for a second. You're willing to excuse his behavior because the possibility that CIA style behavior is behind it? You realize how silly that is to excuse even granting the possibility?

Not only that, but the notion falls apart that Japan stole it from us by nature of us stealing from them first. Are you aware of chan history at all?

>>15485325

It's because it has parallels to current day actions is why, and not the only time either, not the only staff either. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to leekspin on it again. If you take up the position of apathy to any misbehavior is to fall prey to it. Again, though, you're willing to excuse theft? Leave 10% for the Big Guy.

>>15485386

>In which he explains how criminals continue being criminals committing more crimes because he thinks God isn't watching, despite what I think of it. Deus vult fiat justitia ruat cælum.

>>15485440

>"fruits of their labor"

Such as quickly siezeing this current board incarnation.

>>15485439

See above for current relevance.

Have you not seen the actual takeover started with Jim's ok?

>>15485459

The mistake you're making is assuming that it is solitary and a mistake. Firstly it in itself is two actions, and I haven't mentioned the supporting facts because I assumed that investigators would dig into the links provided. FYI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=829ZZFxvMUw

Don't get triggered, just the facts.

>>15485484

Warning of what?

>>15485519

Ok, I will not be a broken record.

>>15486354

>Sounds serious. Think you guise better get off this platfrom immediately so you don't get in trouble. Won't tell anyone you were here.

Ridicule, as if my purpose was to warn you off the boards. My only purpose is illustrating your and by extension BV crew's reaction to hearing truth. It is plain to everyone witnessing.

Compromised and no one made a counterpoint other than "'We' should accept it because fuck japs", which is a pitiful argument on the likes of which would allow compromised USA sale to highest bidder, or greatest criminal.

Claim the moral high ground? When reality proves it out that you are yourself compromised? Operating under the pretense that the current formation is the only way in which work is to get done. No one came up with a solution, or an alternative, because everyone treats this problem as if it's above their pay grade, even you BO. You think you are powerless to change your superiors, therefore to even question his intentions with evidence that is factually true is beyond your sight lines.

You have more to say about this than you know, and that goes with with every BV too. Because in order to assert a moral good, no matter how hard it is, or how many disagree on emotional basis, sometimes you have to upend the established order who are willingly blind to their participation in a corrupt enterprise that has been subverted.

Is your unquestionable faith in an erroneous human or to principles that are philosophically true and good? You cannot say that I am lying, not a single one even tried. Why is that?

Do you think it's not at issue as a meta about this board to talk about the takeover of this board? Sure is a lot of talk in the negative sense elsewhere, so why not? Do you think it's off topic when I have kept an order on a directly on-topic topic? I was prepared to leave it at that, but you responded to claimed filtered, BO. Why have you not yet responded to claims? Are you aware that that is tacit admissal? Is it wrong to reply to you now, on topic?

>>15502011

I am in the right thread for this topic, it is meta this board about this board, directly tied to administration of this board. Thank you however for steering attempt.

>>15502152

I'd like you to read back in this thread and the previous meta thread in order to receive the evidence I have already supplied multiple times. I appreciate your offer to go and supply proof yet again but I do not appreciate the insinuation that I have not yet done so already multiple times. My ID is plain, seek and ye shall find.

>>15508949

I'd like to report a rules failure for the board vs the site as a whole. There is a compromising relationship between BO and site Admin such that BO can request Admin breaks his own rules.

>>15510129

Furthermore, my warnings were apropos and timely. Now that Jim has directly intervened in board politics, this is directly relevant to admin issues. Now I am for sure not spamming. See how this works? BO's spam claims are null and void wrt my posts.

What was the term used? Don't bite the hand that feeds?

>>15526233

>If you were serious you would delete the hivemind board

Neo-Fascist says what?

>>15526078

The BO cries out in pain as he censors anon.

>>15529307

>JW made that clear in a recent email. So can be deleted.

So I'm right that you and JW have a compromising relationship. The only word you can argue on is whether it's compromising. Who gave the order for the code red?

>>15529446

>have you been censored, anon? Or are we having a discussion here?

I do not require personal experience to call out censorship as was under discussion in the post I linked. Click on through for the invite to discuss in meta, and you'll see what I think of censorship.

>>15530491

Whatever /COMMS/ you might be using at the same time, huh? Irony is a hell of a drug.

>>15530491

>except private messages and other joint servers, irc or whatever other comms they might be using at the same time.

Did you forget that you are talking offsite with JW? He got your email? Emailed you back huh?

WHY are you EMAILING JW and THEN TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE COMMS IF THAT MEANS YOU GLOW? You think you're exempt from it!? YOU ADMITTED IT! Yet you would rather theorize that actually no, your victims are the ones what do it?

>>15530576

Ah, so that's why you approached JW to get unbanned first thing and then become BO. Your selfless egolessness.

I would like to report yet again that BO and JW are talking privately about offboard members and coordinating an attack on them, as I attested to before that they have a compromising relationship that directly affects the meta of this site.

The fact that he is theorizing as if this is a glow activity means that even he thinks his own actions as BO makes himself glow. Do you guys not see this yet? Are you not blinded by hate to understand why I am reporting this is an issue that must be handled? Think mirror.

>>15530794

"We won, now serve us"

Do you not remember Q? This is not a game.

>>15531469

Ah so I directed my message to the wrong Anon, I suppose I should say BO when talking about BO about activities that concern BO and is proven to happen in this very thread to Anon, and hope to God Anon realizes what he's talking about is far more accurately BO.

>>15531542

non grill, my apologies about that mistake.

I'd like to report an increasing number of anons asking JW to obliterate a board on this board and because of the BO/JW relationship yet again JW might do it even though it will not solve anything but to disperse loud refugees into other boards.

Hilarious because they think destroying claims for the sake of a token crossboard warfare gesture is worth doing when it doesn't solve what they think.

>>15531874

This is where we are, you think because you have problems that it justifies any solution you can reach other than Jim learning to program a solution himself, and that's why I am sure JW might follow the fool's route. Do you not see the future paths from now?

>>15532198

You have not countered any point. They stand unargued and tacitly admitted to.

"Any contrary opinion is a psyop, now come discuss the ways I'm going to do exactly what you think and accept it plebian"

If I were to want this board to end, I would tell you to do exactly what I am warning against. BO, you are a simpleton who cannot apply logic. You do not see that I'm telling you exactly what will happen if you continue to resort to JW to solve the problem in the only way you have all thought of currently.

If I wanted QR gone, I would be in here telling you to do the worst thing for longevity. You can't see it, so you're going to do it and I will yet again have predicted and forewarned you not to do it.

>>15532641

Who are you, and what is your personal citation worth and how much weight is it comparatively to the facts of the situation? Hmm.

>>15532658

No, actually, being you made an argument on authority, as opposed to reasoning with facts. I know you wish they were equal, but consider how stupid I would be required to accept equality of argumentation upon that premise. You may be a sock puppet even, not that I'm saying that you are, but that must be considered in totality. What happened to counter arguments based on reason?

>>15532707

The other board is not the last bastion. You've already globally banned the user, but how does that turn out? Do you really think an alternative place to exist is your final solution? No, you'd be saying to everyone on the board to come here and have a grudge more than already exists.

>>15532848

No, actually, the argument is based on what enforcement can be brought to bear upon your ideological bent. You already have globally banned him and yet he is there. I understand the notion of talking about ideology, but apply the same results to the previous and future proposed action and guess what? Similar results. This is logical, before even bringing up streisand effects.

>>15532890

You have a hard time of proving your simple argument given that it already is not how reality is. Don't blame me, that's just how it goes. Methinks you need to work on your argument some more since what is actually being argued is what enforcement to bring to bear to the situation by BO and apparently JW. It isn't my fault that the situation is a hairy mess, either.

>>15534179

Ah, yes, that was the intent than rather a solution that finally solves whereas solutions attempted haven't worked and neither would proposed solutions that are under consideration. No, really, I'm talking about a political meme and not anything real (sarcasm here, just so the autistic know). Don't get distracted by tangential ideas or you'll end up discussing murder about real people through no fault of mine. NOTE: This would be a welcome distraction to denigrate this board, if that were my goal. Never was.

Don't let BO automatically (without thought, see) cast aspersions on my character. The only argument he raised was his initial question "If JW is bad, why are you here?" as if people cannot change over time with new inputs into their system. Nor can they discover irrefutable proofs which the best responder merely relied on a shared frame of context of racism to excuse theft in an "it's complicated maybe". I have been here for days and as far as I can tell there have been no attempts to explain behaviors, nor yet anyone who has confronted with the evidence and wanted truth. BO will hate it but you will see that I was absolutely right in my estimations, but will he then consider it not a psyop if so? Will he do the opposite only if he is so opposed to my words? Why is he so opposed to begin with? It's because I happened at the same time and I maligned his feeder. But why has no one called me a liar?

Two meta pages, and not a single one? Why is that?

>>15535254

It's called kvetching, and when BO does it to Jim hard enough, Jim will likely follow through without a thought, so Jim would have you believe.

>>15534955

>Your inquiries are tiresome and will not be responded to. Go find someone else to annoy.

I expected no less, BO. Tiresome truths get in the way a lot. How is it tiresome to immediately be filtered though? Are you that sensitive that you never want to hear a critical viewpoint? Especially criticisms that are true? Is it tiresome to have someone below you in hierarchy who sees errors and gives you opportunity after opportunity to correct those errors? Someone who you are forced to agree with in time by speaking sense?

>>15535713

Regarding this

>>15534955

BO, see the post above, what are you going to do about the way you have handled the transition thus far? A definite plan of action will let BV's know what the long term goal is and what to expect for the future. Or do you want people not knowing what to expect complaining and not being heard?

>>15535800

I rescind my point and allow yours to stand on its own with fully intending to query BO about OSS. Or are you complaining without seeking meta direction? My mistake, friend.

>>15537823

It's called posting.

>>15538785

Nope, because spamming does not deny anyone else the service. So it isn't a form of a denial of service. Spamming is a distinction that has more to do with the mindset of administration, which if you went back and looked at what started it all it might surprise you what's happening now.

If you want to talk of a denial of service, deleting old bread posts and backfilling with anything different is an actual denial of service attack against anon.

>>15539084

Exactly why this entire show is going to result in retarded choices wrt the force to bear by BO/JW coop. Please tell me you see further than what I've encountered here so far.

>>15539163

You're gonna need more proof than 'he did a coup', considering he acted with the blessing of the two previous BO's. Do you understand that to argue against that is to argue against this current BO's behaviors as well?

>>15539123

The only way I see Jim's potential future actions is to attempt to set up a situation wherein he can attempt litigation. He's used that path before, but not in US courts. Discovery would be really interesting if so, in US courts. This is why the keyword "commercial spam" was used at the time erroneously. BO's plan seems to not extend beyond comms with Jim and occasionally sperging out on hivemind.

It's been a long time, and I wonder if you've done your research on these personas. Have you talked to previous employees? Usually I wouldn't bother discussing in detail other than raising my suspicions, but since then they have been confirmed and I consider Jim doubly directly relevant to this board's meta.

>>15539163

Also, have you looked at the definition of the term you used? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

It's interesting because it is much more applicable to recent history than where you said. Isn't that curious that you would invert the meaning of the word itself?

>>15539864

>What if this idea applied to ALL name-fagging? Just auto convert every single name fag to No-Name.

No, BO, don't do that.

>>15541711

Until another bright idea comes along like "hey lets not have a transition plan in place for the second board in as many weeks."

You're all acted like jilted wives after years of not controlling the board, you experience a taste of it, and you reign supreme with the most power you can imagine in your mind. Does anyone consider any fault on their own actions? BO had to get ok'd by Jim to start this coup, but you'd rather be faultless in it, taking for granted reality because you think you're spotless without sin? You were just waiting to coup, and that's a fact. But why is there no transition plan to deal with this? I mean, you knew this was going to happen, right?

>>15541916

>>15541775

Unspoken in all of this is the assumption that you have divine right as conferred by JW. This is why I started discussing JW, because we were going to get to this point. What you all have ignored in posts I have made is an absolute morality judgement. No one calls me a liar when I make those arguments, but what does that make you? Complicit in his schemes. Seriously, that's a large view of what's happening. Hierarchy is established and no one questions upward. There has been multiple chances but still no one has been honest with themselves for the sake of the newly acquired positioning.

You'll also not that I have ignored arguments that will not bear fruit. I cannot count how many times you have all used the words "but OSS is spamming" because I do not care to argue against or for the point because that is handled, supposedly now but even before it was a waste of time. Are you so trusting in the tools Jim didn't make? Did you know that Jim has not solved a critical problem that makes this entire argument chain a giant waste of time until he decides to change the operation of the site or finds a creative problem to circumvent. Oldfags know where it's going to go with regard to capabilities. Which among you is the new engineer hire? Watch your back, because there's a reason you is no other one, friend.

When considering the problem of what to do, repeating the mantra will assuredly accomplish assuaging anxieties until reality destroys the validity. "We're here, he's not" is the latest incarnation. Do you actually believe that? You'd be a fool to.

Plenty of "I hate bans but I'm quivering right now in ban lust" posts.

>>15547574

You know it isn't stopping there, though. You know it has already gone further, and "nuke it from orbit" and "kill /hivemind/" and "all cronies".

You know it is already beyond. Don't play pretend with me.

>>15547909

See the lust I am talking about?

Ok, I made another mistake. I should have called it blood lust instead of the minor ban lust. Way more accurate.

>>15548050

Yet again, emotion takes people away from considering what would happen if their advice was taken. It's just another bad choice. You do not need to convince me your actions are justified when I'm describing what they are matter of factly. It doesn't make my words untrue. Think about the arguments and what you're saying "Yeah but we have reasons for it". I never claimed you didn't! What I claimed instead is that it is a bad choice because what will happen is a streisand effect. "leave no quarter" results in close proximity. Really? Bad choice.

>>15548146

So much us vs them. "We good, they bad, we patriots, they losers". So much "our board, go find your own" when bo/bv changed in a coup less than a week or so ago when did 'go find your own board' apply then? For two years? More than two years? It seems to me that it's unequal in application. But that is to be expected because heaven forbid you find out there are patriots there with a more expounded system of morality. Boy that would be shocking, wouldn't it?

>>15548292

Have you ever digged into his past? I have. 2ch came from where? Public records? He is now applicable as a meta topic since he is directly involved in BO's administrative duties and email comms.

Are you suggesting that his servers cannot handle 10,000-100,000 database entries and ip filters? Are we running on a hamster wheel that cannot keep up? Boy that sob story sounds like bullshit and the only way it would be true is lack of programming directly in the implementation of that. I don't think that is true, but it may have originated from someone seeking excuses.

The problem is his choice in freedom of speech directly results in it. So the problem is that by limiting himself to an anonymous board he will have this catch-22. So what then is he to do? I cannot wait to see, personally. I know if I have a problem optimizing my own site, that's on my shoulders and no user would be expected to be at fault. That's a shitty design if so.

You must've missed the posts where Q clued us in when CIA joined the board and said to expect that the attacks would ramp up.

>>15548642

"might have had a tremendous amount of unecessary work generated by noname banning thousands of IPS

think maybe that generated a lot of reports (churn) (speaking from past experience in support queue)"

>>15548642

"Wut? No fairly sure that mashed potato comment is nothing at all like what anon said"

Have you looked at OpenIB? It's open source. Guess what, the reports amounts to what I said. Try again.

>>15548719

>anon was talking about the work generated by reports issued for bans and undoing them

Reports for bans are automated. Don't be silly. Another DB row for revocation requests? And a flunkie at a keyboard that can one a weekday fly through the revocation requests if any? The horror. So much work. 'My pinky hurts.' Such a sad life. How dare he use functionality on the board he was blessed to handle.

Is this the best you can do to conjure up pity for JW? You are aware he stole 1.5 million dollars to host a site he then stole the domain and thus ownership of, right? This is on public court documents in Japan. Are you sure that you wish to continue attempting to make me feel pity for the struggles an admin has even when it is plain to see not a problem for anyone competent to administrate or program themselves out of it even excusing thievery and conning?

You see that I again and provoking a response using the truth to yet again attempt to reach on a moral basis lest hierarchy captures you. Yet again none have said I am wrong. What does that make the BO's, BV's? It at first was considered duped, but maybe it is time to assuredly say complicit.

>>15548885

No, let me refresh you:

"might have had a tremendous amount of unecessary work generated by noname banning thousands of IPS

think maybe that generated a lot of reports (churn) (speaking from past experience in support queue)"

Tremendous amount of unnecessary work was the claim. I do not think it was tremendous. Unnecessary is debatable, and if it were unnecessary, why is it allowed by the admin who has programmer resources, right? Wasteful is your claim but I can see why you might say that. If it's wasteful, why don't the banned for years just stay banned and not fill revocation requests? Is that what you mean, or is that just more accurate than you intended to imply? You see that the frame of context assumes that you are right, but it cannot be assumed to be so in every case, right? So where do we draw a line? Nowhere because if JW has an issue with the usage of his tool, then he should (by proxy or not) alter the rules finally through programmed limits or implementation of policy within code. Because that is the arbiter of what is allowed.

>>15549094

You realize that is a quote, yes?

>>15549094

Ah, I see what you mean. You mean that I should discount all the evidence I know of and have expressed about this possibility and instead live in your context where things "might" be true and thus feel that the free services someone who provides and definitely can handle users onto his server should have pity from me. I understand now. Because I have an agenda which is truth and in this case firsthand knowledge of his website code?

I disagree, you might want to live in maybe, or you may not.

>>15549455

See notes here for relevant information:

>>15549526

>>15549661

Strange links are suspect surrounding these characters, Thomas and Defango. Not a joke, and not a game.