How exactly did we artificially inflate his warning level?
Pretty sure that's a low IQ way of saying you gave him a warning.
According to his ban message it sounds like you guys meet up in your secret comfy discord room and legit conspire like a group of star of david people on who you wanna ban next
"FiveFourManlet,
You have a received a 30% warning from knajjd for the post Roof collapses on normies at a party....:
Shut the fuck up you stupid dread hair-ed monkey nigger
Additional comments: mindless personal attack. all of the last three warnings are for targeted attacks. the mod team has decided to send off a permaban with this."
Another recent example is VST, despite carefully timing his warnings you guys just randomly decided to inflate his warning level and call it a perma
Now dont get me wrong these larpers and fakecels deserve to be banned and I couldnt care less but at least be consistent and ban weed then
And catfishman.
https://incels.is/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.incels.is%2Fattachments%2Fdiscord-screenshots-png.8757%2F&hash=30889bcc06baaea7c0dfd434701128a5
https://incels.is/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.incels.is%2Fattachments%2Fjfl-how-is-he-not-banned-png.9932%2F&hash=94a74dc05aa55bbe6213f3157c15a959
D
we discuss among each other before punishing "big time" users, we've always said so. he broke the rules, we saw it, we talked among ourselves and decided that he wasn't interested in reforming himself before deciding to send off a permanent ban for his infraction (30% on 70% equals 100%). how on Earth is this anything but acting responsibly?
It's the opposite - when someone is approaching the % necessary for a permanent ban and commits an infraction, and is on top of that a veteran member of the site, the mod team discusses the issue so that it is decided as impartially as possible. In other words, we check in with the group to make sure that we aren't being biased in our decisions individually. Say I have a grudge against 5'4'', for example; instead of just issuing the warning/ban myself, I would confer with the rest of the team first. Personally I try to avoid moderating users I particularly don't like, because I know that I might be biased.
TL;DR: We don't get together and decide who to ban, it's when someone is about to get permanently banned that we get together to discuss it.
The case of VST is a simple one. Because he abused the system, we changed how we handle his warnings from the way we handle most warnings (case-by-case basis) to what I would call the "frequent violator" model, which is that every successive infraction of the same type carries with it a heavier penalty, which makes sense and is used in many situations IRL. In other words, if he brags and got 10-30% over and over and over again, he could just keep bragging forever. When we recognize this pattern, we start increasing the amount of % he gets for bragging each time he does it - 30% for his 6th offense, 40% for the 7th, 50% for the 8th, so on and so forth. We only use this when a member simply refuses to follow the rules, over a long period of time.
Anyway, saying that it's "random" is a poorly thought-out perspective. Obviously you aren't expected to be privy to each user's warning and ban history, their reported and deleted posts, etc. so maybe from your position of blindness, some of our actions may seem arbitrary. However, you should also consider the fact that we have much more information available than you do, and that if our actions were truly "random" then there would be many more users who are getting warned/banned. The reality of the matter is that there is only a very small percentage of the userbase which earns warnings and bans.
5' 4" was a pure fakecel. Bon voyage.
Rip manlet 4ever
How do i know if i get a warning? 
"Carefully timed warnings" lol wut? We warned him when he broke rules. Same with everyone else.
And when it comes to VST, in hindsight, we were extremely lenient on him. Hell, this is the guy who blatantly bragged about grabbing a girls ass and how she called him afterwards....and he only got a 20 percent warning for it. So don't act like he's a good boy that the evil mods conspired to get rid of for no good reason.
VST was the one who was engaging in "careful timing". He would brag (or otherwise troll) until his warning level got high, then lay low for a month until the warnings expired then go back to bragging/trolling.
How do i know if i get a warning?
You will automatically get a PM from the mod that warned you that will tell you the post you were warned for and how severe the warning was. I just checked, and wow, you have quite a number of warnings....
specifically, zero.
^^^^ This , Those who break the rules must suffer the consequences
Free my niggaz @notafed and @Insalsa
Im a good boy
@Total Imbecile - The real question here is why you haven't been banned for that annoying obnoxious chad avatar. If anybody on this site I would think was a larper all the while, doing slick indirect trolling, ITS YOU. Chad avatars are just a slick way for larpers to rub it in our faces under the guise of "le ironic avatar".
Not to mention you are a low effort poster
Not to mention you are a low effort poster
Because its not against the rules? I just got warned btw and the mods had to dig up something from weeks ago because Im actually legit
Also Im a higher effort poster than most of the prominent posters here, Ritalin being the best example, 10k+ posts of pure gifs, memes and quoting others, at least I can produce a sentence that reflects my original opinion, that alone makes me higher effort than at least 50% of the users
U
We can report stuff from weeks ago? I always thought after a couple days it would be tasteless to do so. I wonder what the maximum timeframe we can report is?
I guess, technically there is no statute of limitations on your posts
JFL if you are not reporting things that you see from 2017
This post was a special case. Won't go into details but rest assured that it was an exception to the common practice.
T
Do you consider my avi to be Chad?
@chudur-budur banned? Why???
why are @Solitarian_Walker and @SOMCEL banned?
I think SOMCEL asked to be banned.
Its not sarcasm, I fully understand that its a special case and think I even understand the why, would it be worth it pming you for an elab?
Did anyone had photos of 5'4"?
D
Didnt save but yeah I've seen him.
Great face but a childs frsme and a turbo manlet
Solitarian_Walker - Temp banned for 2 days due to warning level reaching 70 percent. Most recent warning was for racebaiting. (Has been warned for this several times before)
SOMCEL - Requested permaban.
Copeeeeee
I think face matters above all else but height is a dealbreaker for a lot of women.
Unless you’re Tom Cruise or Lionel Messi then it won’t matter at all because $$$.
Is @chudur-budur perm?
JFL if you actually believe this. Face can only save manlets if they have a 11/10 face. You have to be Chad tier in all other aspects as a manlet to even get a girl to look at you.
im glad fivefour is gone
ptu
ptu
T
Wow is this the first time @chudur-budur has been banned?
No, man.
RIP FIVEFOURMANLET
80% of the time, he spammed to post max, but the other 20%, he provided quality and well thought out content
80% of the time, he spammed to post max, but the other 20%, he provided quality and well thought out content
Yes, I don't know who the hell this "gambler" gut is (if I'm remembering correctly) but that shit isn't "ironically funny", a chad avatar is nothing but an annoyance, I literlaly just came home from my job, saw a chad and stacey feeling eachother up in the open, and then I have to log in here to see chad's smug face again, could you guys keep your fucking masochism to yourself and just make your computer screen saver chad, the rest of us don't want to see that shit.
No, Total Imbecile is correct.
If you are 5' 4" but your face is 7/10 and you are WHITE, you can pick up HOT GIRLS unless you live in a country where the average male height is 5' 10". OFC you must be NT and functional in society.
I can proof you all, just PM me those who are interested.
Thats exactly why i believe FiveFour is a troll and fakecel.
If you are 5' 4" but your face is 7/10 and you are WHITE, you can pick up HOT GIRLS unless you live in a country where the average male height is 5' 10". OFC you must be NT and functional in society.
I can proof you all, just PM me those who are interested.
Thats exactly why i believe FiveFour is a troll and fakecel.
You have to have a better face than 7/10 if you are that short though. I'd say at least an 8/10 tbh tbh.
Being white has very little to do with it, if anything black manlets would do better
Proof me btw, Im interested
Gotta take a shower now, tomorrow (today) i PM you
And no black manlets could NEVER score the girl that the manlet chadlite scored at 5" 4'
Don't bother wasting time arguing with him on it, he's low IQ and really, really is invested in a theory i've disprove of his.
RIP, one of the few perma banned users that I liked.
Fallen manlet brother
100% yes !!!
When's @chudur-budur back?
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
- Horatio Prime Kanga
- Jailbaitmaxxer
- Starfish Vs Koala
- light
- yourbod_ymychoicel
