D
Brutal. How did mods expose him? Did he accidentally use his account without his VPN/proxy? Was there an IP match of an old user?
I really want to know who it was ngl
Bane perma'd?! Holy shit.
He makes almost 3,000 posts in 2 weeks only to see his time here come to a shuddering halt...brutal.
He makes almost 3,000 posts in 2 weeks only to see his time here come to a shuddering halt...brutal.
What alt was he, he reminded me so much of sniffles from last January, both postmaxxed so hard to break the system, both had different funny gif avis that they switched from, both were alts that eventually got caught
D
What was Sniffles original account?
@Saint Michael
Sniffles is now unbanned. He postmaxxed even harder than Bane - he had over 1,300 posts by his fifth day.
Beyond over for postmaxxercels. Anything to escape greyceldom i guess
@Galleo
D
Over for 3rd personcels
P
Truecel trait: getting banned from chads.co
D
Jesus fucking Christ based members being banned left and right.
Brutal
E
@Convergence what happened?
P
What happened to you last time lol
Holy shit. 2020cels dropping like flies.
E
I was banned for a few days
D
D
Jesus Christ!
D
He wasn't based he was pretty damn annoying tbh.
a moment of silence for the fallen greycels
P
"Galleo is a catch" bee-yoo-ti-ful,
. He sounded like some edgy 15 year old imitating ER
D
Yeah that and him constantly talking in 3rd person was annoying as fuck. Sometimes his posts legit make me want to tear my eyes out from the cringe"Galleo is a catch" bee-yoo-ti-ful,
"Galleo is a catch" bee-yoo-ti-ful,
D
D
Thanks god that Galleo is banned i hate how he talked in third person
HATE THIS VAI REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
T
it's over....
How do Incels contact other Incels if they’re banned. Bane of Arthropods was my first Video Gamecel friend.
At night clubs with Stacy (in Minecraft)
His avi is so addictive
Nooo, based @Galleo is gone
B
That'll leave the forum with.... what, 5 people posting?
Better it be that way
B
Based and banhammerpilled.
Last edited:
why was @Galleo banned?
Bragging and his title under his username basically explains it all
P
What did he brag about? Did he have an experience with a foid or did he just say he's a supreme gentleman wannabe?
Very well said, man.
I doubt he's bragging.
It's this, I even dug up an IT post that has a screenshot of his title:
If the mods did ban him for having "The Beautiful Officer" as his title, either they didn't catch the reference. Or perhaps they banned him and changed it, so they have an excuse
. But I'm not going to point fingers.
The only baseless assertion here is that it is somehow our responsibility to explain bans and warnings to you. This is simply not the case, and that is what I am addressing - that your claim that we are "abdicating responsibility" is baseless, because we don't have that responsibility in the first place. Your analogy simply doesn't work. Here's a better one:
I'm walking my dog in the park. At one point it sees another dog and it lunges towards that dog, forcing me to restrain it with a leash. "Bad dog!" I say. You overhear this, but don't see what led me to say "bad dog" to my dog, so you come and say "Hey, why did you call your dog a bad dog? I'm sure that your dog isn't a bad dog, don't talk to him like that." Am I responsible for answering your question? Or is what I say to my dog not your business and I can choose to disclose whatever I want about the event that transpired?
This is what I mean. You're just an uninvolved party to the situation. You are not entitled to an answer, and my not providing one is not an abdication of responsibility. This conversation is me trying to demonstrate to you that just because you feel entitled to something, doesn't make it someone else's responsibility to acquiesce your requests.
Without examples provided it's impossible to continue this line of discussion.
Let's revisit how you open your "complaint." The very first thing you claim is that we are "abdicating responsibility" which is far from the case, as demonstrated above. This is exactly what I mean by "accusatory." There are ways of providing feedback without making assumptions or accusations. For example, you could have said "I think that moderators should provide reasons for the bans/warnings when asked, because of x, y, and z," and that would have been a perfectly fine conversation starter. However, it's quite obvious from your previous "complaints" and especially how easily you descended into full on REEEEE mode that civil discourse was never your intention, even though you "pat yourself on the back" for it repeatedly. Just because you don't use "bad" words when expressing your inculpatory and sensationalized arguments doesn't make the arguments good ones or productive ones. You just want to stir shit up while making your anti-establishmentarian discontent evident; if you actually wanted a constructive discussion, you would have approached the topic more along the lines of what I described above.
But, in short, I agree with you - we would all be better off if we didn't have to respond to your childish tantrums, so if you want to just stew in your self-righteous anger with some similarly-minded users somewhere, by all means.
Last edited:
Ignoring ScornedStoic's post, you're not, hell, we don't know if you even have to reply to this thread. No non-mod member knows what you need to do.
Which is why this is happening. People are noticing more bans are occurring. Now either this could be a cause of over-moderation, or this site is getting more users, which results in more bans.
This then results in more people questioning, and the questioning will continue. In my opinion, if a user is banned for a post, that post should be put on a pedestal, and that banned user should be mocked.
I hate to use this an example, but 4chins managed to sort this problem by creating a page that lists all warnings and bans. And if you hover your mouse, it will show those pedestalled posts: https://www.4chan.org/bans
In my opinion, if a user is banned over a post, show it, so we can mock it, and call them out on it.
(Yes, there are users who are banned over pm's, lying, being an ITspy, etc, but I don't have a solution for that, too lowiq for that.)
D
I would also like to know why some people get banned tbh, we share a lot of time with them and in any moment they get perma banned and we can't even know why
The first post in this thread outlines what are the "rules" so to speak.
Please note the absence of any clause necessitating that we explain bans. So, if it's not written, then I think the assumption is that we don't have to do it - so users should indeed be aware of what we need or don't need to do, as it is outlined here.
This has been suggested in the past, however this presents a number of issues depending on the content of the post. I'll provide a few examples of common ban reasons and why they are removed:
1. Person is banned for spamming. It would take too much effort to compile all of the evidence of them spamming one liners, and no one post is singularly responsible for their ban/warning due to the definition of spam.
2. Person is removed for bragging. I think it's quite obvious why we remove bragging posts and there are many reasons for doing so, but perhaps the most prominent is that it is often done in an attention-seeking manner and thus providing a pedestal for those posts would simply be giving the user what they wanted.
3. Illegal content. This one is also a no-brainer in my opinion, because illegal content jeopardizes both the user who made the post and the site as a whole.
4. NSFW content. Self-explanatory.
5. Consistent off-topic threads/posts. Similar to spam, there is no point in leaving threads that don't belong in the appropriate place up.
6. Targeted attack/flamewars/shitflinging contests. These may be enticing to read but they shit up the forum and contribute nothing of value, it's just two angry idiots keyboard warrioring at one another.
7. Gay content/tranny posts/etc. I think this one is self-explanatory as well.
That outlines the most prominent reasons that people get warned/banned, although similar logic applies to other reasons, for the most part: we don't want people to think "if I make this post, everyone is gonna see it and I am going to go out in a blaze of glory," or otherwise giving attention to attention whores.
The way I see it, here are the pros and cons of removing offending posts:
Pros: Doesn't feed attention to the attention whores, declutters the site from rule-breaking content, keeps ban reasons private so there are fewer witch hunts, discourages future behavior of similar nature.
Cons: Some people are curious about why someone else was banned and will have to ask about it in this thread, some people may be misled by the person who was warned/banned into believing the ban was frivolous or a form of persecution.
On the grand scale, I think the pros heavily outweigh the cons. I don't feel that unrelated users' curiosity is all that important to satisfy, and users are going to dislike, judge, and criticize the moderation team regardless of what we say or don't say anyway, so nothing lost nothing gained on that front.
There are no "rules" in the OP that specify what mod users need to do. We only know what non-mod users need to do, contact the banned. That was my point, if there was any misunderstanding, we have no idea what your job is, probably never will. Also a user could go silent, and we would never know why.
In my opinion, for 1, 2, 3(4chins removes the image and or post in the ban list), 4, 6, and 7, I can't see why we couldn't list that. Can see 5 is a bit tricky.
Anyway. I can agree, fuck attention whores.
Last edited:
The absence of rules for moderators in this thread is the indicator that we are not obligated to do anything, responsible for explaining anything, as I've been trying to explain thus far.
@A_Broken_Person ?
Similar threads
Emba
Toxic Femininity
North Dakota Judge Says Abortion Ban Unconstitutional Because Abortion Makes Women Happy
- Shaktiman
- The Lounge
Lurkercel_678
- THE TRUE CAMARO
- The Lounge
THE TRUE CAMARO
Blackpill Monk
Users who are viewing this thread
- tayhrdl
