Spam flood and bot monitoring thread. Feel free to contribute

Reminder to report and ignore shitposting.

a spam flood monitoring thread spamming the catalogue

>>1390255
>>1390179

File: 1497073049487.jpg (124KB, 1441x335px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1441x335px

>>1390252
Pic related is spam. This thread is not.

>>1390266
>>1377688

Jesus, take the wheel.

File: 1474302966334.jpg (58KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x500px

Welcome to the shitposting general - /spg/!
OP is a faggot edition

Last thread:
>>1374236 (Cross-thread)

Useful links:
www.reddit.com
>>>/trash/
>>>/j/
>>>/random threads/
www.youporn.com/gaypornwithsexon

Thread pastebin: (read this before posting)
http://pastebin.com/uNiD7KzH (embed)

Happenings:
- OP is still forcing this thread
- weebs >>>/out/

File: 1438905615312.jpg (25KB, 480x261px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x261px

I'm looking forward to having this thread included among the evidence in a new thread. In the meantime while the spambot is occupied with this thread,...

U FRUSTRATED U FRUSTRATED BRO U SO MAD WHY ARE YOU SO MAAAAD I CAN POST ANYTHING I WANT THAT IS HOW IT SAYS IN THE RULES I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR FAGGOTRY RULES Y SO MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD CONGRATS MAN XD U FRUSTRATED U FRUSTRATED BRO U SO MAD WHY ARE YOU SO MAAAAD I CAN POST ANYTHING I WANT THAT IS HOW IT SAYS IN THE RULES i doNT CARE ABOUT YOUR FAGGOTRY RULES Y SO MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD

>>1390282
weebs bfto

>>1390250
white and based

>>1390289
badass as fuc

GET IN HERE
https://strawpoll.com/r2grwrg

GET IN HERE
https://strawpoll.com/r2grwrg

GET IN HERE
https://strawpoll.com/r2grwrg

GET IN HERE
https://strawpoll.com/r2grwrg

GET IN HERE
https://strawpoll.com/r2grwrg

GET IN HERE
https://strawpoll.com/r2grwrg

GET IN HERE
https://strawpoll.com/r2grwrg

GET IN HERE
https://strawpoll.com/r2grwrg

GET IN HERE
https://strawpoll.com/r2grwrg

GET IN HERE
https://strawpoll.com/r2grwrg

GET IN HERE
https://strawpoll.com/r2grwrg

what a fantastic thread so far

File: file.png (410KB, 1895x305px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1895x305px

Spammer bumping all frog threads again.

>>1390321
frogposter announcing spam wave ITT:
>>1390282

thx op i cum at cat and she hiss me

File: 1474700840178.png (113KB, 806x434px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 806x434px

REMINDER

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-11 13-15-13.png (834KB, 1883x655px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 1883x655px

>>1390321
it continues

File: file.png (431KB, 1909x351px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1909x351px

>>1390321
no content threads on page 9 about to be bumped en masse

File: file.png (460KB, 1886x326px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 1886x326px

>>1390321
>>1390360
and here he is starting to bump them

>>1390250
white
based

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-11 13-21-57.png (891KB, 1889x644px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 1889x644px

>>1390321
>>1390360
and a few not on page 9, but his MO is to bump them all

Someone really doesn't want people to discuss this.

>>1390396
Discuss what?

>>1390396
The type of someone that actually saves banana images. My first thought is buttblasted weeaboo.

>>1390401
The behaviors of the spammers and bumpers on all sides.

File: file.png (43KB, 165x270px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 165x270px

>>1390388
He seems to have taken a break this time. Now somebody has made a really obvious bait thread which if history repeats itself the OP will link in /ptg/. Most of them know it's bait by know.

>>1390408
I tried to discuss that in the last thread but no one responded to me, they just said I was feigning ignorance, called me a boogeyman and refused to back up their claims.

>>1390416
Probably the same people trying to derail this thread too.

>>1390424
No, probably the person who made this thread.

>>1390433
You're saying the OP is spamming his own thread?

File: file.png (11KB, 493x108px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 493x108px

>>1390412
And of course his usual link in /ptg/.
>>>/pol/129502286

>>1390072
I didn't say anything about spamming this thread.

Wrong link, but reply to that post if you want discussion.

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-11 13-43-39.png (1MB, 1879x836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1879x836px

>>1390321
>>1390412
And now he is back to bumping frogs again.

File: file.png (29KB, 179x170px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 179x170px

>>1390472
now a shitty bait thread

File: 1254976087412.jpg (381KB, 1407x819px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1407x819px

I like how this thread is being saged and spammed at the same time. Really indicative of something.

>>1390451
>>1390416
Firstly there is this problem:
>>1374309
>>1374317

Second, this:
>>1375714
>>1379864
>>1379873
>>1380241
>>1381608
>>1381613
>>1381631
and
>>1389889
also >>1375242 describes the problem

Thirdly, >>1389889
http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1374236/#1388491_1
http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1374236/#q1390210_1

That is just the effect aspect of this occupation. The cause is the want for a 2d/Random board.
https://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1355796/#1355941

These are your 3 items. Don't make me have to link every archived instance of the names of the spinoffs in the archive to meet some unjustifiably higher than normal standard of proof.

>>1390556
inb4 "that isn't proof show me the real proof"

sigh, this shite is still going on?

>>1390556
I am going to assume that you are intending to reply to >>1390061 since you mention "3 items". None of the posts that you linked show or prove that "spinoffs" are organizing a raid, all those post show is that a person or small group of people are at worst spamming this board with "weeb" images and at best the board as a collective has decided to use "weeb" threads to slide off unwanted threads. None of those linked posts even mention inviting let alone calling for raids from members of "spinoffs". Linking posts from /qa/ will do little to show any proof of a "spinoff" raid, you will need to show links from the "spinoffs" themselves that call for raids. If you are unable to provide spinoff links then all you can prove is that some poster(s) who uses /qa/ wants to raid/spam /qa/.
Onto a different topic, potentially you where not even going to respond to any questions levied against you because they "feigned ignorance/spoonfeeding" (>>1390069) and presumably you also cited Wikipedia to support you (>>1390079). Now when reading the Wikipedia article the fallacy brought up would require the perpetrator to "assert that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)". The posters you replied to did not even assert that your claims where false but rather that you should be more specific on what your proof for your claims are (>>1390066 >>1390064). I feel quite certain that you are going to claim that all of or some of the posts I presumed where you are in fact someone impersonating you so of course you have done no wrong but still the questions >>1390066 >>1390064 are legitimate and deserve a reply so that your proof can be verified as supporting you're claims.

>>1390610
DesuArchive is the spinoff.

>>1390610
They do prove what you say they don't. They just don't name any spinoff in particular. You would be hard pressed to find a culprit other than those spinoffs. The simple process of elimination would be good enough for any district attorney and it should be good enough now.

"The group" is large enough to have a detrimental effect on the board, as outlined in #1. Further, the group has outliers within in that don't mind spam flooding as demonstrated in #2. Because I'm not going to spend hours trawling through posts on some spinoff or archive site where they mention /qa/ does not mean I am wrong. The specificity has been given again and again in the previous thread if you were inclined to actually read it, signal to noise ratio not withstanding.

File: 1477509798731.png (312KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 512x512px

r8 my new oc

>>1390630
Please ignore this retard.

File: 1447244699434.png (254KB, 545x397px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 545x397px

>>1390630
It was two paragraphs with unbroken sentences. That isn't reddit spacing. Every sentence would be double spaced if it was reddit spacing.

>>1390618
>You would be hard pressed to find a culprit other than those spinoffs.
Considering that 4chan is a site founded for "weebs" it would be far more likely that memebers of the site that like anime are posting anime on the site's boards than it is that a spinoff user base of the site is posting on on of the site's board.
>Because I'm not going to spend hours trawling through posts on some spinoff or archive site where they mention /qa/ does not mean I am wrong.
It also doesn't mean you are right and your claims are no better than me asserting that everyone who uses this board is a mod.
>The specificity has been given again and again in the previous thread
No it has not that is why >>1390066 >>1390064 asked for you to be more specific about some of your proof that you claim supports your claims.
>if you were inclined to actually read it,
I don't support being lazy, and Ialso do not support asking others to do more than I would as you say "I'm not going to spend hours trawling through posts on some spinoff or archive site where they mention /qa/". Now I do realize that this doesn't mean you will not trawl through archives or "spinoffs" but it is slight implied that you won't.

>>1390630
Here is a pro-tip for you: If you want to try to fit in by calling out reddit spacing, at least learn beforehand what reddit spacing is.

>>1390644
>Considering that 4chan is a site founded for "weebs" it would be far more likely that memebers of the site that like anime are posting anime on the site's boards than it is that a spinoff user base of the site is posting on on of the site's board.
I will buy that some of them are disaffected former regular posters of /jp/ and /a/ but most will be happy to tell you they don't post there often if at all because of the janitors and/or various other reasons.
>No it has not
Yes it has, read the start of the thread. Or are you trying to imply that the butthurt weeb reaction deleted posts to the allegations there are just a coincidence or false flagger? The rest of your post is you whining about laziness where you are operating like this is all in a vacuum and nobody knows what has been happening for the last few months. I'm not the one who instigates this drama nor am I an active participant, although I make no attempt to hide my contempt for the weeb occupation. My only wish is to document it and theorize about it. I'm sorry you didn't witness what happens to the happening threads when they start but it doesn't mean it didn't happen simply because I can't post a screenshot. How's that for a triple negative?

>>1390660
I do not see how the start of this thread or the last thread show how the happening thread is spammed by "weebs" specifically or how they give a link to the straw poll showing /qa/ has ten users, as was asked of you by >>1390066 >>1390064.
Just because you say "weebs" are ruining the happening threads doesn't mean they are, you need to give proof that this group you call "weebs" are behind the way happening threads start. I have seen how they start and the phrase "reminder to report and ignore shitposting" is from a /vg/ general that has far more to do with /pol/ than /a/ or /jp/.
On a more personal note, you have no need to distance yourself from drama lovers or instigators if you are part of niether. Any attempt to do so will be seen by your "enemies" as proof of you being one of the two. You are actually an active participant though by simply posting on the board where the spammers are spamming as you prompt them to react.

>>1390683
It either is the weebs or it's a false flagger that has saved hundreds of particular anime images (i.e. the question mark poster in >>1381613). I never said the straw poll had ten users, you are obsessed with it. The strawpoll had 15 as I remember it. Th meme started out being 10 answering the strawpoll but was later expanded to 15 when more users answered it. I don't have a link and I'm not looking for one. I was there.

Also I never said anything the "Report and ignore shitposting" poster. I think you think I'm one of your boogeymen which is why you keep strawmanning me with whatever you think is confirmed by these weirdly specific posts about the strawpoll and the happenings thread. Which is fine, because like I said, the only reason for this thread is for me and anyone else who wants to document the ongoing board drama. When it dies I'll make another one for the time being. I don't plan on it being a permanent general so don't start whining.

>>1390699
So now how does being a weeb or falseflagger show that this raiding/spamming is coming from "spinoffs"?
It has taken you 4hrs + to respond to >>1390064 and not even directly. Even then the only response you've given him was a more detailed explanation of your version of /qa/ 10 and saying that you know so because you were there. Not really better than me saying I know how /b/ circa 2006 was because I was there.
You may have never said anything about the "Report and ignore shitposting" poster but you did tell people to "just look at the beginning posts [of the happenings thread] in the current one" (>>1390063) and guess what the beginning of the duplicate threads has? https://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1382334/#1382334
https://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1382304/#1382304
Also the post happened at the beginning of this very thread (>>1390250)! You want to prove that some group is raiding/spamming this board yet dismiss some lead as to who this group is, if it exists, as me strawmanning you! The "reminder to report and ignore shitposting" phrase only helps your goal of documentation (just look at it's prevalence https://desuarchive.org/qa/search/text/%20report%20and%20ignore%20shitposting.%20/) I have also not accused you of being some boogeyman yet here you doing that to me in order to presumably discredit challenges to your claims.
>When it dies I'll make another one for the time being. I don't plan on it being a permanent general so don't start whining.
Why did you make this thread immediately after the last one reached the bump limit even though after 3hrs+ it's on the 10th page? You could have made it now instead of right after the last one reached the bump limit and still be doing it for "documentation of drama" as you say. Your thread documenting drama does not need to always be on on the catalog it can be not present for a day or two and still completely fulfill it's purpose.

>>1390731
So now how does being a weeb or falseflagger show that this raiding/spamming is coming from "spinoffs"?
I don't even know how to respond to this non-sequitor of a question. Where else could they be coming from, thin air? What are you trying to say, they are coming from /jp/? They aren't. They say so themselves. What now?

I don't care about the "Report and ignore shitsposting" poster. I don't think he's a problem or related to the spammers. I can only assume you keep bringing it up as some kind of diversionary tactic.
>You want to prove that some group is raiding/spamming this board yet dismiss some lead as to who this group is,
I have provided proof for any reasonable person to make his own judgements. You are the one who keeps saying I'm here trying to prove something when it's you who keeps requiring extraordinary proof of common sense things anyone can see by looking at the catalog.
>Why did you make this thread immediately after the last one reached the bump limit even though after 3hrs+ it's on the 10th page?
I made this thread when I read
http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1374236/#q1390210_1
I didn't wait until it hit the bump limit because it was being spam flooded, it was already over.

File: Screenshot from 2017-06-11 16-55-47.png (1MB, 1899x647px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1899x647px

Yet another shitflood from the frogposter.

>>1390781
15 frog threads, 11 or 12 of which are total shitposting

22 total weeb threads, 15 of which are total shitposting

Which is worse? i say they are the same.

>>1390784
I say they are different, the frog threads are worse because the images aren't cute.

>>1390784
I don't see a lot of "total shitposting" in that image except the frogs. Point out what you think is "total shitposting".

>>1390784
Frogposting obviously promoting spite. There's no good future for Pepe with these kind of threads.

>>1390772
>Where else could they be coming from, thin air?
They could be coming from a fox news comment section or MAL. Who knows where falseflaggers and "weebs come from. You seem to think one who is a falsflagger or a "weeb" is from the "spinoffs". The question was not a non-sequitur as >>1390061 the person you presumably responded to in >>1390556 was talking about proving that the raiding/spamming is coming from "the aforementioned sites". This established for me a goal of getting definitive proof from you that "spinoffs" are raiding/spamming this board and all you've "shown" is that "weebs" and falsflaggers are spamming the board.
>You are the one who keeps saying I'm here trying to prove something when it's you who keeps requiring extraordinary proof of common sense things anyone can see by looking at the catalog
>>1390026 is not proof of some off site group raiding this board but rather of people on this board either baselessly claiming there is one or talking about off site communities that are related to some communities on 4chan. Something like the post I linked is in no way common sense proof but rather something more akin to common speculation.
>I didn't wait until it hit the bump limit because it was being spam flooded, it was already over.
Being flooded does not mean that a thread is over, you can still discuss topics in the thread until it falls off the catalog, instead of doing that you decided to make a new thread and avoid whatever was being posted in the old one despite it being either on topic or documentation of drama that you seem to want to do. The old thread was over when you posted this one.

File: 1497225438296.png (1MB, 1899x647px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1899x647px

>>1390790

>>1390801
I see mostly good threads there. With dozens to hundreds of organic responses with people answering the questions, sharing images, and enjoying themselves. Which you compare to posting a frog along with a dumb cop movie trope copypasted from /tv/ which is bumped by the OP a dozen times. I can't take you seriously.

>>1390801
I don't understand your criteria.

>>1390795
Frogposting would not be to that level if the rest of the board wasn't filled with even higher levels of 2D shitposting. It's reactionary.

>>1390799
Just stop, kiddo, I'm not trying to nor am I going to convince you of anything. The claims aren't baseless and the proof is there for anyone to read it and decide for themselves. It isn't just speculation when right now there are threads like >>1380855 barely out of the catalog. Again you're acting like there is some great yearning absence of proof when we all just lived through it. It's still going now. I'm certain it's only a matter of hours until the next spam flood by some pissed off group. Documenting all these things and the spam floods is point of this, the previous, and any future threads about this I make.

>>1390811
You're leaving out all the deleted bumps and the hours long chasms between posts because the threads don't get any replies. The only difference is that the frogposters don't bother deleting their bumps.

File: it doesn't mean what you think it does.jpg (55KB, 500x432px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x432px

>>1390772
>non sequitur of a question
Pic related. If anything it's your claim that the 2D shitposting is primarily, if not solely, generated by posters who main a spinoff. It may or may not be true, but circumstantial temporal evidence is not sufficient proof of a claim.

>>1390821
>The only difference is that the frogposters don't bother deleting their bumps.
No, the difference is that there are dozens to hundreds of real replies in addition to the bumps. Whereas most the frog threads only have a dozen or so bumps, period.

>hours long chasms between posts
/qa/ threads take 8-18 hours to fall off page 10 when it's not getting spammed. People should absolutely bump good threads in response to shitfloods.

>>1390821
>threads like >>1380855
The bumpbot isn't some kind of secret.

>>1390821
>It's reactionary.
There's your problem.

https://pastebin.com/H2hvU7bW

>>1390828
>, but circumstantial temporal evidence is not sufficient proof of a claim.
You're quibbling over where they came from when I'm trying to simply acknowledge their existence. You're not trying to dispute that there is in fact a faction of shitposting weebs here separate from the s4s shitposters, correct?

Again I ask, who else has the motive and the opportunity? Further, who else refers to themselves as "We" in posts like >>1379890?

>>1390831
"Good threads" are subjective. What one person considers good enough to bump another gets pissed off at seeing it bumped.

>>1390841
Agreed. It's all of our problem whether we can acknowledge that or not.

>>1390266
>>1390278
>>1390283
>>1390314
>>1390412
>>1390556
>>1390610
>>1390623
>>1390644
>>1390660
>>1390683
>>1390699
>>1390731
>>1390772
>>1390799
>>1390811
>>1390828
>>1390847
is this a copypasta?????? ? ? ? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

>>1390821
And here comes the ad homs. Why call me names when you simply answer questions with proper sources? The only proof you give is posts made on this board and the board's archive that show some users of this board spam the the board. There is no proof that some off site group is spamming/raiding with what you've called "weeb" threads, which one can only assume are the circled threads in >>139080.
> Documenting all these things and the spam floods is point of this, the previous, and any future threads about this I make.
You are willing to put effort into documenting drama that is done for you by the archives yet not make "than 310 posts in 10 threads to organize and properly lay out the relevant content in each of the relevant threads" (>>1390053) which would give some insight into the drama that is occurring. I really don't see how posting screenshots of the catalog helps more than an archive site does.

>>1390851
>>>139080.
should be >>1390053

>>1390851
>There is no proof that some off site group is spamming/raiding with what you've called "weeb" threads
Except my own memory of what the board was like before this, correct. Good thing for me I'm not the only one complaining about it. Want links?

>I really don't see how posting screenshots of the catalog helps more than an archive site does
Why do you even care? Just hide the thread if it bothers you so much. You're acting strangely defensive for possibly nefarious reasons.

>>1390847
Sure it's subjective. But you not liking a thread doesn't make it spam.

>>1390864
Yes of course if your idea of /qa/ is 2D/Random

>>1390865
Don't tell me that tell >>1387444

>>1390863
>Good thing for me I'm not the only one complaining about it. Want links?
I don't think you understand anonymous imageboards if you think that proves anything.

e r i c thread my mat e r i c

>>1390869
Those threads are spam. There is no content, no discussion, they were all made in a very short period of time probably by the same person, and nobody is enjoying them except perhaps the OP who believes he is annoying others. But even he may not be enjoying them, he may just be mad. I don't know, I'm not in his head.

>>1390870
I know it does prove something but I'm sorry you don't get it. Others don't have a problem understanding. If you have that much of a problem with it just add it to your no doubt already large hidden thread list.

>>1390878
You don't get it. How do we know the threads you link aren't you? Are you going to link some Facebook pages?

>>1390875
If those threads are spam then what is >>1390622 and the other 30 or 40 equally inane weeb threads? And don't tell me cute, that isn't valid.

>>1390884
>>1390885
OWNED

>>1390882
Are you trying to paint me as one of the boogeymen? I don't go to any spinoffs, or facebook, twitter, or reddit. I spend 20 hours a day on 4chan, mostly on /qa/. What now?

>>1390863
I don't want links of others complaining I want links that these "spinoffs" are raiding/spamming /qa/
I was just giving you my two cents on how effective your documentation of drama is going. So far nothing insightful or new has come from it and all these claims you make about being neutral or there is some off site "weeb" group ruining /qa/ don't seem true. You have also been for the past few posts trying to bait me into a name calling contest, which is suggestive of not wanting to properly respond to my posts for some reason.

>>1390885
You linked one thread. Spamming is posting multiple threads. I don't know if that was part of a spam wave from what you told me. >>1390781 is a spam wave and it is a spam wave of frogs. The other threads in the picture are not "the same" as >>1390784 claims. If you are not arguing that anymore, I will accept your concession and continue documenting spam.

File: aaaa aaa aa aaaaa aaaaa aaa aaa aaaaaa.jpg (30KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1280x720px

ROLLING STAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRT!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pls6OyJpCWg

>>1390895
>So far nothing insightful or new has come from it
That's a nice opinion you have there but why don't you let people interested in the thread topic make that judgement. This thread is already going way too fast. I think the point now is more to keep me arguing with you to help fill it up on top of the nascent casual spamming going on.

I'll wait until the next spam flood and stop responding now. Eat shit, spammers and haters.

>>1390894
At this point, I'm painting you as someone with a lack of reading comprehension.

>>1390900
Sorry but this is just stupid. There are 4 or 5 different spam floods documented in that thread.


Now here comes the denial and the accusations. I'm out.

The infinite possibilities each day holds should stagger the mind. The sheer number of experiences I could have is uncountable, breathtaking, and I'm sitting here. We live trapped in loops. Reliving a few days over and over, and we envision only a handful of paths laid out ahead of us. We see the same things each day, we respond the same way, we think the same thoughts, each day a slight variation on the last. We act like if we just get through today, tomorrow our dreams will come back to us.

Yes. Consume. Consume until you die, accomplishing nothing. I will tread over your archaic ideals on the path to the future. Consume. Consumption is the only thing you will ever know, you pointless machine.

>>1390911
>There are 4 or 5 different spam floods documented in that thread.
No thread linked to in that post documented any spam floods. Maybe you are thinking of the previous thread.

In any case, I accept your concession. In this thread we have documented two spam waves, both composed of frogs.

I'm a mutant that has "complications" and several issues that are completely unique to me. At least according to recorded incidents. My case is in textbooks and shit and I'm researched and studied by doctors all the fuck over. I'm probably going to be the "prototype" for several things that you've only heard of in story books. These could either kill me or give me a quality of life higher than any normal human could achieve because of my physiology.
Right now my body is physically weak. Specifically connective tissue. Bones, cartilage, etc. Hurts to move, blink, walk, breathe, anything. No one knows it because I live a basically normal life because my body has adjusted. I feel pain in bizarre ways. If something hurts too much, I literally just turn it off and I don't feel pain anymore. My dream isn't "to live past 30" or anything weak like that. My dream is to leave my mark on history by any means. I figure just riding on the coat-tails of my physiology would be cheating, I figured I'd go into engineering, research aeronautics. New aircraft, space travel, etc. Anything like that seems good.

tl;dr Mutant boy, going to be a cyborg. Death is likely, but I'll survive with COURAGE AND HOTBLOOD. Wants to build things that fly. Is going to motherfucking make it happen.

I'm now wondering if any of you fuckers are going to recognize me from this. Personally I mean.

They live meaningless lives. They waste their precious days over nothing. No matter how old they get, they'll continue to say "My real life hasn't started yet. The real me is still asleep, that's why my life is such garbage." They continue to tell themselves that. They continue to tell themselves that. And They age then die. And on their death beds, they will finally realize. The life they lived was the real thing. People don't live provisional lives nor do they die provisional deaths. That's a simple fact! The problem is...whether they realize that simple fact.

dweems. I dweem of something new every day, and I've been like that since childhood. I change dweems more often than I change socks. Which isn't much for an anonymous, but still. I suppose what I'm doing is like reel-fishing in the Baltic Sea. Cast. Reel. Change spots and repeat, knowing that when you finally pull something outta there, you're lucky if it's just a soviet-era nuke sub. But as with fishing, the main thing isn't what you catch, it's enjoying the tedium. I live an idle, although poor and ronery life, but I suppose getting dubs on /qa/ is just the same as sitting at the seaside and watching the clouds float by. Very obnoxious clouds, though, the kind who squirt acid rains with great precision and even more murderous intent.

>>1390905
So just because I doubt that the proof you are giving supports your claim means that I am not a person interested in the topic or deserving to make a judgement on this thread and the last one's topic? There you go accusing me of having an ulterior like last post. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am here on some mission against you.
>I'll wait until the next spam flood and stop responding now. Eat shit, spammers and haters.
You did the exact same thing last thread when things were happening to your thread that you disagree with. Why? People seem to want explanations from you and you always come up short and only half answer or dodge the question.

A start of a new spam wave?
>>1391026

>>1391055
so are you just going to ignore >>1390935?

>>1391055
I am your ally now after that thread, bronyboy. Let's kill off everything. I want to see the board turn into a real dumpster now.

>>1391188
How assravaged are you?

...

oh cool someone is shitposting with /pol/ shit

http://i.imgur.com/WyCsVUF.png

It's a dual spam wave

>>1391888
He's a redditor.

If I posted on some other imagehosting site I probably wouldn't have gotten a single (You)

What are some good imagehosting sites that is not reddit?

Drumpf sucks

>>1391927
No, I just love baiting idiots

/qa/ must be something special in inspire such obsession in these 8gag kids. It's not trolling when you're bumping your own threads to keep them alive and devoting hours each day, for MONTHS, to doing it.
Damn we're good.

>(You)
Yep, it's a redditor.

lmao, a reply is still a (You) even if you don't reply directly. Remember that I win in every situation.

It gives me the same satisfaction ;)

>>1391919
>>1391942
>>1391948
>>1391949
>>1391959
>>1391961
epic /qa/ subversive bro detected
you keep holding back those (You)s
you're a legend

>>1391965
epic /qa/ subversive bro detected
you keep holding back those (You)s
you're a legend

>>1391968
epic /qa/ subversive bro detected
you keep holding back those (You)s
you're a legend

inb4 new thread

>>1391971
I saw you posting this several times, I think you are projecting, did you create memes for 40 years and are now just realizing how horrible that was and want to warn others by sending bitter mocking replies? but maybe I'm wrong.

>>1391970
It's not a general so there won't be a new thread.

>>1391977
ur a fag

>>1391988
shut up, nerd

>>1391993
Who are you quoting?

>>1392001
Where and when did he say that? Can you provide a source?

>>1392010
Sorry but I think you're lying, that post came from a new IP and you're claiming it was you? That would mean you're using more than one IP. Why? What are you hiding? Also, how did you know what he was going to say?

>>1392029
Do you really expect me to believe that?

>>1392039
fuck off op

>>1392050
Why do you think I asked? Of course. So are you gonna answer me or not?

what the h*ck

It's a shame mods won't communicate with us besides just handing out bans. Oh well faggots will be faggots.

>>1391977
There will definitely be a new thread.

File: 2017-06-12-09-28-39.jpg (358KB, 1576x652px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1576x652px

New flood. This has been going on for at least an hour.

File: drumpf.png (185KB, 301x325px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 301x325px

>>1392109
Drumpf BTFO

>>1392109
Is it lefty/pol/ doing this?

based 8gag subversives

File: 2017-06-12-10-14-29.jpg (146KB, 1179x302px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1179x302px

The politics guys are still at it but at a much slower rate.

Can someone with authority tell this nerd /qa/ is not /pol/?

File: 2017-06-12-10-56-45.jpg (152KB, 1467x301px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1467x301px

And it's over, for now. We now return you to your regularly scheduled shitposts.

File: 2017-06-12-11-11-56.jpg (129KB, 1421x274px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1421x274px

>>1392227
Not over, some of the weebs are now competing with the lefty/pol/ poster.

Can't tell if its a genuine /leftypol/ raid or 8gag falseflag.

File: 2017-06-12-11-21-26.jpg (313KB, 956x713px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 956x713px

>>1392262
It might just be a ploy to get certain posts out of the catalog and into the archive. It's anybody's guess.

The frogpost bumpers are back.
I'm not sure how they are related to the leftypol posts.

You tired of argueing with posters that use this board? This kind of thing happened yesterday and the 5 days prior and you didn't "document" it nearly as throughly as you are now. Why the change of pace? If I recall correctly you implied that you spend a very large amount of time on this board.

based bot bros botting up this thread

>>1392305
Yes, you are very tiresome. This kind of thing did not happen yesterday or the 5 days prior. There were more spam floods then and less factions involved then. You are welcome to criticize but I'm not going to play the boogeyman game with you today. You already know I consider the weeb posts like >>1392311 to be as bad as the frogposts like >>1387425 and even worse is the leftypol false flagging. My only purpose here in these thread(S) is to document and call them out, as I have.

File: 1475842705455.png (216KB, 804x732px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 804x732px

>>1392349
butthurt Drumpf supporter detected

>>1392376
I'm sorry but you just aren't very convincing. Real leftypol would be talking about Marx and the proletariat and stuff. You are much too fixated on pepe as a symbol, among other things.

>>1392349
The only difference I see between now and the past week is your threads being spammed and some bait directed at /pol/ is being posted. Why are you increasing your "documentation" rate now if there is less "spam floods"? Knowing what faction is posting is very difficult all you can show is that a certain type of thread is being made and posted in. I have doubts you do this just for documenting as the external archive sites let you know when a thread was created and what posts were posted in that thread when, even showing deleted posts. There isn't one advantage I can think of your documentation method has to the archive sites. You also didn't even "document" the posts that where spammed in this thread or anything related to it, you simply said that you leave the thread when it's being spammed. Nothing other that your own sense of accomplishment and attention from spammers seems to come from these threads. Why not discuss ways to stop the spam or deduce who is doing the spam? Why focus on making easily faked screencaps and adding your own baised commentary to it while always bumping the thread regardless of where it's at on the catalog?
I am asking you all these questions because I too am interested in the topic but so far the only person you seems to care is a guy that complain to what seem to be the spammers and bot owner about how spam and bots ruin the board and you who posts silly screencaps coupled with claims supported by circumstantial eveidence.

>>1392390
>your threads being spammed
What threads and what spam? There have been a total of two threads about this I made. Someone else tried to make another one a few hours ago with the same OP image earlier before the spam was deleted but that wasn't me and the thread got deleted anyway. Mods left this one because it's legitimate.
>Why not discuss ways to stop the spam or deduce who is doing the spam? Why focus on making easily faked screencaps and adding your own baised commentary to it while always bumping the thread regardless of where it's at on the catalog?
Why don't you make a thread about that then if you care so much?
>easily faked screencaps and biased commentary
Oh piss off. You would be able to see the fake attempts in photoshop if they were there. I knew you only wanted to try demonize and delegitimize as much as possible, in my opinion because you probably are mad that I'm treating the weeb shitposting as just as bad as the frog shitposting. I shouldn't have even responded.

File: 2017-06-12-13-04-09.png (342KB, 1355x432px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1355x432px

>>1392408
>What threads and what spam?
I meant to refer to this thread being spammed in.
>Why don't you make a thread about that then if you care so much?
The topic is very narrow and would easily overlap with this thread so I would see it better to post in this one than make another.
> You would be able to see the fake attempts in photoshop if they were there.
It took me a whole minute to take this screencap of the threads at the top of the catalog by using the snipping tool every windows machine has to only get the picture I want without even cropping or using a photo editor. I could of even just hide all the threads I wanted to take a cap of and then switched over to showing hidden threads and taken the snip of those threads instead.

>>1392408
>I'm treating the weeb shitposting as just as bad as the frog shitposting
Wow, it's almost as if treating threads you don't like the same as blatant spam is inherently dishonest.

>>1392437
The problem with your little theory, detective, is that other people besides me were there observing as it happened and remember those posts in the catalog at the same time. These things I'm posting aren't just made up. It's always back to the "vacuum of information" bit with you people where you try and pretend like nobody else but me is observing these things happen so surely I must be the only one posting about it so I'm faking it all, right? In reality I'm not even the only person(s) to post screencaps in these threads or to call out the rigging going on around here.

>>1392441
>threads I don't like
If that's all they were then they wouldn't be so universally hated by everyone else who isn't a shitposter, Anon. I'm not alone in this and it isn't as uncommon an opinion as you are making it out to be.

>>1392475
We already had this argument earlier in the thread. You have been complaining about threads that are clearly getting organic replies with people enjoying themselves.
>by everyone else who isn't a shitposter
Nice weasel.

>>1392480
You seem to think getting organic replies somehow justifies and legitimizes a shitposting thread. I hesitate to use the word off topic on this board but it's the closest thing to that a thread can be on a board without a topic.

I don't expect you to agree, I already know we have vastly different ideas for what this board should be. I believe you are entitled to your opinion but I'm also entitled to mine that you're wrong.

File: 2017-06-12-13-27-38.jpg (268KB, 1413x458px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1413x458px

So anyway, these were all made in the last 45 minutes. Looks like asukaspammer or some copycat is coming on duty.

>>1392497
At least he's doing something about the spam instead of just whining about it.

>>1392504
That's like giving a person AIDS to fight off the cancer.

Another row in 10 minutes. I think it's interesting how the leftypol casual spammer's script is still going.

File: 2017-06-12-13-35-51.jpg (119KB, 1423x260px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1423x260px

>>1392528
forgot pic

I'm willing to bet Asukaspammer will stop the moment all the frogs are gone from the catalog.

>>1392541
Seems to have stopped for now. There are three frog threads left but they would have to bump many anime threads to get those to page 10.

File: 2017-06-12-13-48-34.jpg (94KB, 1404x203px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1404x203px

>>1392579
nope back, all this in the last 10 mins.

Mods are slowly deleting it all now. I think we lost a couple of pages. Now it will be interesting to see who rushes to fill it up as fast as possible.

>>1392615
They didn't delete the /pol/ spam. >>1392412 was posted only an hour ago and it's already on page 6. The bumpbots are on full force right now.

File: 1456783484566.jpg (110KB, 849x485px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 849x485px

>>1392615
>Mods are slowly deleting it all now
???
Nice of you to bring the catchall thread about me back, really should kept the one going since I first began way back when though.

Asukaspam removed, Drumpf spam remains, >>1390663 remains.

This really is a work-safe /b/. Got a feeling like I never ever ever felt before.

>>1392628
The last thread got spammed. So did this one in the beginning.
>1456783484566.jpg
If I were you I'd rename this immediately.

File: 1457383649485.jpg (691KB, 1280x1441px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1280x1441px

>>1392634
Why rename it?
There was a thread away back when I started that tried to keep discussion about me to one thread. Sounds like a good idea if you have to talk about spammers at all.

>>1392628
>>1392639
When are you going to read Asuka's VN?

>>1392639
The thread isn't only about Asukaspammer and it isn't about only spam flooding. I'm sorry to compromise your inflated sense of self-importance but you aren't the only spam flooder here, darling. You're just one with an easily deduced agenda, unlike some others.

http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1392230/
http://bans.4tan.org/?board=qa

File: Aokana_EP03_K.mov_snapshot_14.50_2016.01.18_18.45.50.jpg (126KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1920x1080px

>>1392641
When I learn enough Japanese ;_;
Only started after I saw Aokana so I got a while to go.
>>1392643
Oh, ok well it's whatever.

Thread theme:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=823&v=DJVI2K6a2jE

>>1392648
I don't know what is going on here
>>1392644
>>1392647
>>1392650
>>1392652
but someone is obviously overcome with butthurt.

The catalog is full again. Posting frequency is slowly increasing.

Anti-trump posters have returned and were having a sage/age skirmish at the top of the catalog with the weebs. The weebs have emerged victorius, the anti-trump faction seems to have given up.

No sign of frogposters. It should be noted that it took over 3 hours for this thread to get to page 9. All is quiet on the western front for now.

>>1393210
>anti-trump posters
>frogposters

Same. Fucking. Group. Of. People.

>>1393235
LMAO I love how it's all ib mike but you fucking idiots fail to recognize that
fucking BASED #trumpkins #resist

>>1393235
>Group
How many do you think, Anon? 2? 5? more?

>>1393240
That's pretty obvious by now, but people smart enough to know how to estimate how many trolls it takes to do something aren't going to be the people screaming about the trolls nonstop.

>>1393255
Either him or the instigatorbro who flipped out earlier ITT.

I'm just going to leave these interesting threads here for posterity.
>>1391026
>>1392825

>>1393240
You greatly overestimate the amount of care /qa/ has with your identities. Namely that it cares at all besides "8gag".
Besides, sometimes the threads get 2-3 bumps within a minute and you guys are always here to talk about yourselves like this post I'm replying to.

>>1393320
Please don't associate me with that poster. I have nothing to do with his agenda.

>>1393331
Sure.

Someone is bumping all the anti-trump threads very rapidly. It might be someone else trying to rearrange the catalog or it might not.

>>1393331
8gag is 8gag. None of you activist children belong here.

>>1393462
It's called spam and 8gag does that bumping because the threads are ignored.

>>1393471
What if I'm not 8gag though?

>>1393478
"Posts I don't like = 8gag" is their motto.

>>1393487
Nice job forgetting the difference between spam and posts somebody doesn't like again. You would fit in at freech if you weren't what they call a "rulecuck".

>>1393494
You know that literally anyone can come and spam shit? It's not rocket science.

File: WHC-logo-px200.png (14KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 200x200px

>>1393487

>>1393478
Theoretical questions serve no purpose but to derail a conversation. You're close enough to them to know them by name which means you're part of that retard circus.

>>1393498
More misdirection that that nothing to do with the current situation.

>>1393498
Yeah, I know. The spam might or might not be 8gag this time, that wasn't the part of the comment I was addressing.

>>1393507
You called the spam 8gag and I told you that it could be anyone and not 8gag. Why do you have to attribute this boogeyman to everything? There is literally no proof that this is 8gag and they love taking credit for shit like this. This is probably one guy and that isn't affiliated with anyone and just spams his shit for whatever reason.

Which on is Lee and which is Andy?
>>1392889

>>1393529
I'm pretty sure Andy is also the one called Catholic Anon.

>>1393519
Ok, I should've said political shitposting(+frogposting) always 8gag or /mlpol/

>>1393528
Day 1: spam from 8gag
day 2: spam from 8gag
day 3: spam from 8gag
...
day 55: spam from 8gag
...
day 102: spam from 8gag
...
day 145 (today) You: maybe it's not 8gag guys.

and it's not one person, unless he has three machines with separate IP addresses and he sometimes uses them to all bump one thread at the same time which is extremely counter-productive. Today they are mimicking their late 2016 behavior.

>>1393534
Correct.

File: also proxies.png (25KB, 744x1052px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 744x1052px

>>1393550
>unless he has three machines with separate IP addresses

>>1393569
Not him but proxies don't work, and a phone would only provide one extra ip if it isn't ragebanned.

>>1393550
hey
are you >>1393486
if so how the f**k do you know about napvlv, wtf was the board name or discord invite posted here

File: 1407747015038.jpg (278KB, 819x957px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 819x957px

>tfw no cellphone

>>1393569
Read the sentence again. Why would a person make a setup to bump the same thread 3 times at once (within a minute) with 3 machines instead of 3 separate threads?

>>1393601
Nothing you wrote in that post was correct. You are absolutely incompetent at spamming. F-, good for you, continue to be an upstanding non-shitposting contributor.

>>1393624
That's a good way of seeing it.

>>1393622
To make it look like there is more interest in the thread than there really is.

>>1393622
To make it look like there is more interest in the thread than there really is.

>>1393622
To make it look like there is more interest in the thread than there really is.

>>1393629
That's true, but three "bumps" in a row within a minute aren't convincing anyone. Those threads are dead on arrival.

>>1393634
It's entirely possible that the person who knows how to spam is not the best at sociology or empathy.

>>1393624
I'm not the spammer, buddy.

>>1393636
Seems like a stupid explanation.

There is barely a difference between a bumpbot bumping a shitposting thread and an autist bumping an off-board agenda thread..

>>1393550
Excellent observation.

>>1393644
The difference is that everyone but you is enjoying the "shitposting" thread which in fact has lots of discussion and/or image sharing.

>>1393657
The average shitposting thread on /qa/:
>>1393436
Really intellectually stimulating content there. Also so glad you alone get to decide what is fun and what is shit.

>>1393663
Your post:
>a bumpbot bumping a shitposting thread

File: bamboo-silver-gilt-wall-mirror-o.jpg (41KB, 710x639px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 710x639px

>>1393663
>you alone get to decide what is fun and what is shit.

What the fuck is going on in this thread?

>>1393675
whining containment

>>1393663
I have never seen the bumpbot bump that freak's threads. In fact, he spammed his shitty threads back in the day.

>>1393664
I'm sorry but you're crazy if you think the amount of bumpbot posts in a so called "fun" shitposting thread like http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1369025/#1369025 which wouldn't have lasted a day without a bumpbot validates your point.

You have absolutely no right to complain.

>>1393679
*steals her umbrella*

>>1393682
Nothing wrong with that thread. Plenty of content. And it would absolutely have lasted as long as it did in the absense of both the bumpbot and spam.

All I'm seeing from you is "waah I don't like it". Well, tough.

>>1393682
It isn't only the bumpbot it's retards ghostbumping threads with 0 discussiong

>>1393688
If there is nothing wrong with that thread then there is nothing wrong with any thread on /qa/, including frogposting.

One man's spam is another man's quality content.

>>1393690
Threads used to last 15~ hours without a bump before the spammers came back again. Fuck off.

>>1393690
That isn't any better or worse than a bumpbot bumping a shit thread. It's the same thing done with the same outcome.

File: SAC-Logo-702x450-546x350.jpg (40KB, 546x350px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 546x350px

>>1393693

>>1393693
What is wrong with the thread other than you personally not liking it? The frog spam threads (there is nothing wrong with frogs in and of themselves) contained no content other than the bumps.

File: 231925-061217screenshot-desuarchive.org.jpg (219KB, 949x1032px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 949x1032px

>>1393688
> as it did in the absense of both the bumpbot and spam.

No it would not. There are several times when it would have died.

>>1393695
And that shit was happening even then. Threads also used to last much longer before the 1m get.
>>1393698
Yeah, I'm just stating that the bumpbot isn't the only problem.

>>1393706
It's spam as much as the frog spam. It has nothing to do with what I don't like, it has more to do with your agenda to turn this board into 2DRandom and discourage meta posting as much as you can.

Quit trying to act neutral already.

>>1393713
I don't see any.

File: screenshot-boards.4chan.org-2017-05-19-13-19-05.jpg (50KB, 351x306px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 351x306px

>>1393721

>>1393718
>It has nothing to do with what I don't like, it has to do with me not liking 2DRandom.
bravo

>>1393725
Oh we're back to playing retarded again. I love this tactic so much.

>>1393728
No it has to do with this not being your personal 2Drandom board. Whether I like it or not isn't going to change that. It's objectively not.

>>1393728
Are you retarded?

File: headerhealth.jpg (67KB, 876x203px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 876x203px

>>1393706

>>1393730
Largest gap is less than 13 hours, and some of those bumps are probably manual anyway.

>>1393713
>>1393730
The largest gap between posts is ~12hrs which is far less than the 18/15hrs that this board naturally had before April.

>>1393734
2Drandom threads are allowed regardless of whether you like them.

>>1393739
You do realzie that for the past 5 days there have been spam floods just about every single day, right? A thread could have gone from pg 1 to 10 in an hour or just a few at most. And you're telling me 13 hours without content is enough? Or are you telling me the spam flooders were protecting that shitpost thread simply because it was anime related shitposting?

>>1393751
>And it would absolutely have lasted as long as it did in the absense of both the bumpbot and spam.

>>1393743
I'm talking about a thread shitpost thread still in the catalog right now that shouldn't be but is because it was bumped by the bumpbot continuously. It wouldn't have that many three letter deleted posts on it if it hadn't.

>>1393760
>that shouldn't be
Why? Do you believe shitflooders have the right to slide threads with content off the board? Because that's what it seems you're saying.

File: 2017-06-08-13-27-30.jpg (209KB, 1470x555px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1470x555px

>>1393759
I don't understand how you can sit here and say that knowing that threads don't last 6 hours much less 12 when there are things like pic related around, which has happened every day now.

>>1393767
>thread with content
Because you consider shitpost threads like >>1393176 and >>1385024 to be good content threads worthy of bumpbotting when they are objectively as bad as frogposting or any other shitpost.

>>1393780
>threads don't last 6 hours much less 12 when there are things like pic related around
Now you're just not reading.

> >>1393176
no bumpbotting

>objectively as bad as frogposting
>objectively
What is this objective measure? Certainly not the amount of content in the threads, since there is a huge difference there.

>>1393727
holy shit that ownage

>>1393786
>> >>1393176
>no bumpbotting
Okay, it looks like someone manually bumped that thread as well as several other threads that probably didn't need/deserve it with the same Russian text. I agree that that should be discouraged.

File: question karen.png (602KB, 963x720px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 963x720px

Define shitposting?

>>1393802
anything and everything you post

>>1393802
Intent to cause harm through a post-based medium to those who may receive your post of which one is selfishly doing so for the sheer joy of such an act.

>>1393796
Maybe not that specific thread but there are still 40 others that do get bumped that shouldn't. It's like >>1391026 said. only 3 pages are allowed to be "trash" by his standards, right?

>>1393802
like >>1369025

>>1393816
>like >>1369025
Again, the only thing wrong with that thread is that you don't like it.

>>1393818
Wrong,, it's the other way around. The only thing right about that thread is that you like it.

>>1393821
It looks like there are multiple people enjoying that thread and sharing cute images of Cirno.

>>1393827
Again, the only difference between that and a good frogposting thread are any other good thread is that the frogs don't bother to conceal and delete their bumps. You have no right to complain about 10 /pol/ threads when there are 40 other 2D shitposting threads with you circlejerkers having "fun" posting pictures in them in the catalog. This board is supposed to be about more boards besides the anime ones, not a 2DRandom fill-in until Hiro gets off his ass and finally makes a board like that.

Not to mention that there are other boards that are specifically for posting cute pictures of Cirno like >>>/c/ and there is no need to have a 40 different cute character threads on this board.

>>1393849
>a good frogposting thread
There is nothing wrong with a *good* frogposting thread. We had a few frogposting threads with real content at least in the OP and one with some discussion in the thread, and a shit ton of abject spam.

File: 2017-06-13-00-15-00.jpg (319KB, 1443x567px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1443x567px

It's starting again. Every thread up to Kuroneko was made in the last 15 minutes.

>>1393859
Justified, although I don't think it needs to be every night.

>>1393855
Thank you for acknowledging that but you and I both know other weebs here won't. It isn't even about the frogs specifically, any good [s4s] thread would apply the same way compared to an [s4s] shitpost. The frogposts just trigger people the most it seems and spur them into taking action.

>>1393859
Next wave

>>1393862
How is it ever justified? What content was it that that was deemed unworthy? How can you not expect someone else to also do that to content you like which they don't for the same reason the spammer is?

File: 2017-06-13-00-24-48.jpg (283KB, 1448x558px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1448x558px

Here is the last 17 minutes

>>1393884
>What content was it that that was deemed unworthy?
A large number of threads which were being repeatedly bumped with no content were just killed.

>>1393888
seems like they are flushing out the /pol/ threads

>>1393891
>a large number of threads with content I don't like that couldn't possibly have been hidden or ignored just got killed but the 5x as large number of weeb shitpost threads stays because "fun".
This happens every day now.

>>1393884
>What content was it that that was deemed unworthy?
See for yourself >>1392126

>>1393904
I like how this guy self-appointed himself demi-mod of /qa/. Must be nice.

>>1393901
>a large number of threads with content I don't like
Wrong. No content other than a copypasta OP which was probably supposed to be incendiary but was failing badly and bumps.

>>1393904
>the guy doing most of it is a script kiddie
Curious. Where is this info from?

>>1393921
Must be a 8gagger insider.

>>1393917
Really? Because I see a few threads that had actual discussion in it like the weed thread for just one. Oh but too bad for those people they didn't use an anime OP image to get picked up by the weeb bumpbot when the spammers came so fuck him and all the other worthy threads, right?

Literally defending falseflag-spam.

File: 2017-06-13-00-40-46.jpg (281KB, 1422x489px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1422x489px

Last thread 15 minutes ago.

>>1393921
Must be the same guy who revealed inside info like napvlv >>1393486
Info must be legit since a 8gagger is pretty surprised about this
>>1393562

File: 2017-06-13-00-33-46.jpg (313KB, 941x610px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 941x610px

>>1393933
See the thread with the complaint about /v/ being overrun with /pol/? See the thread about /tv/? Those threads are the point of /qa/. Good job knocking those "false flag spam" threads as you call them off the board, champ. Sure you got your 10 /pol/ shitposting threads along with it. Too bad there is no excuse for your 40 weeb shitposting threads still in the catalog.

>>1393943
>Those threads are the point of /qa/
Says who?

>>1393947
That's the kind of thing you learn by lurking for years, Anon, it's not something that has to be said. Did you think those kinds of threads just magically started showing up here for no reason one day? Sometimes mods even move them here from other boards when they don't start them here.

>>1393962
>Not whining about bullshit....
Welp, you'd better tell the OP of >>1390716 and the other threads exactly like it.

>>1393967
That's a question thread. It's perfecly on topic

>>1393943
>See the thread with the complaint about /v/ being overrun with /pol/?
That was asking for mod help, so no, that's not the point of /qa/. Spammer should have bumped the weed thread, though. Where is the thread about /tv/?

>>1393968
In what universe is that on topic? It's a thinly veiled excuse to post a loli in a bathing suit wrapped in a question that would fit right in on [s4s] or maybe /a/ on a day when janitors weren't paying attention.

>>1393971
That's the point of /qa/ whether you like it or not. I didn't decide it and I'm not the one who keeps it that way. You can shitpost with anime until your keyboard breaks and your fingers bleed and you still won't get rid of the normalfag crossboarders coming to /qa/ to whine and moan and bitch and complain.

>>1393982
A mod moving a "whining about bullshit" to /qa/. Note the hostile deleted shitposts afterwards

http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1342967/#1343095

>>1393982
>That's the point of /qa/ whether you like it or not.
No. The point of /qa/ was to host the Q&As. After that, it had no official purpose. The mods only rarely respond to threads here, which is something they occasionally do on every other board. Bitching threads moved here by the mods are never replied to by the mods. They are moved in bad faith, and it would be more honest to delete them. Bitching threads that the mods reply to are left on their original boards. A recent example was the thread on /pol/ about a Seth Rich thread being deleted.

>>1393993
I remember that but that is far from the only example. I wish desuarchive or moe or somewhere could show which threads were moved by mods. They don't have to necessarily post in them to move them, sometimes they just do it. I remember an /a/ thread got moved recently too and the /a/utists were none too pleased about it.

>>1393993
>Note the hostile deleted shitposts afterwards
see
>>1343365

>>1393994
They don't have to be replied to to be addressed. See http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1351430/#q1351439
Mods do come here although I agree they don't say anything under their capcode. For all you know this thread is swarming with mods.

I can link threads too!
http://desuarchive.org/a/thread/156455555/#156457481

>>1394005
Are you now encouraging the use of /qa/ as a second report system? That wasn't even allowed on /q/, and for good reasons. It brings heightened visibility to trolls, and when the threads aren't against the rules, it lets people know how to bait without breaking the rules.

And just because a thread posted on /qa/ was deleted doesn't mean it was deleted because it was posted on /qa/.

>>1394020
I didn't say anything about reporting anything or /q/. This obviously isn't /q/ or there would be 10x as many namefags, among other things. My only point was the same one made in that thread in http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1351430/#q1351622
>Maybe mods really do browse this board...

>>1394051
It is obvious that guy reported the thread before posting it here. It's not particularly strong evidence. It could also have gotten additional reports from new users who don't understand that they are encouraging harmful behavior.

File: 2017-06-13-01-36-13.jpg (179KB, 1255x387px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1255x387px

What a coincidence all these seemingly unrelated threads could get made within the last 15 minutes.

>>1394074
It happens all the time, that was just one time I remembered that I could find in on desuarchive. I remember it happened with a /tv/ poster just the other day but I can't find his thread right now.

>>1394080
And what I said applies every time it happens.

>>1394075
lol
>>1394077

>>1394083
Yeah yeah, don't worry, nobody is rushing to use /qa/ as a second reporting system. Maybe a complaint box, but not reporting.

File: totally reliable and not easily faked.png (461KB, 1823x336px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 1823x336px

It's kind of odd that all these threads were made just in the last hour. You of course have no way of proving me wrong unless you use the archive which is all around better for what I am doing. Also I purposely exclude the entire catalog for some arbitrary reason even though it would be information that would make my amazing screenshots more informative than the archives.

>>1394080
it happened today i think

>>1394093
You can look on any archive site you like at when the threads were made, genius. It isn't hard to do. You can see the live ghost feed of /qa/ on desuarchive right now, or at the time of the specific posts like >>1374394, at any time.

>>1394104
That's my point why would you posting your screenshots with comments be any better than just having a thread with a link to the archive site? If people have to use the archive to verify your integrity then why not just head ver to the archive in the first place? It documents every post and the only thing it doesn't track is bump order. Your posts add nothing to this documentation of spam that the archives don't do already. If maybe you instead kept track of bump order on top of thread creation you could be useful.

>>1394112
Because if he kept track of bump order, he would end up documenting the original spam instead of the stuff done to counter it.

File: shin-megami-tensei-2-english.7.png (4KB, 256x224px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 256x224px

When this thread 404s I'll make another later in the morning when the next spam wave begins. It's been a pleasure arguing with you all for now.

in the meantime, are these [s4s] posters serious?

>>1394112
Relax, they're just screenshots. Like I said, they're easily verifiable. I honestly didn't assume it would even be questioned. Your defensiveness is questionable in that it seems like you're trying really hard to poke holes but I'll not accuse you of being one of my boogeymen just yet. See you tomorrow.

>>1394116
You won't accept that it's all spam but it is.

>>1394116
Again the archives do that as they show thread creation dates! You can simply look at what threads were created after the spam to see the stuff done to counter it. The problem here is that you don't see when posts are deleted but neither he nor the archives do that so again the archives do his job for him!

>>1394120
Oh, the counterspam is definitely spam. But to claim every thread you don't like is spam is nonsense.

>>1394119
I am really confused why you are going about this in such a sloppy way. You type as if you've put a lot of thought into deciding to make this spam monitoring general but you conduct your documentation in a very sloppy manner as if you never even thought about it.

>>1394123
we went through this earlier in the thread >>1392441
They are either all shitposting or they are all not shitposting. It doesn't matter whether I like them or not. It doesn't matter whether you think some are quality threads or not.

>>1394126
I think you're being hypercritical in attempt like I said earlier, to poke holes. If you don't like the posts then ignore the thread. It isn't for you anyway, it's for me and the people who care.

>>1394131
If a thread without substantial content is being kept alive, it is spam. If a thread has content and users enjoying that content, then it is not "shitposting", it is just a thread you don't like.

>>1394136
"Substantial content" is subjective and quantity shouldn't rule over your definition of quality.

>>1394131
You are just dismissing my criticisms as some personal attack against you and are just telling me to stop reply to you. I say that I am a person that cares and yet you are here saying this thread is not for me but for people who care. I also don't not see any post longer than a sentence that agrees with the way you are going about this. The thread seems to be about you.

>>1394141
>"Substantial content" is subjective
Not really, it's about intent. For many posts, the intent is merely bump the thread, and there is only a word or short phrase posted. When a thread contains only such posts, it has no substantial content, and is pure spam. It's very easy to tell the difference. At best you can argue that guessing the intent will be wrong in some cases, but you don't have to be 100% accurate to see when a thread is spam.

>>1394141
Out of these threads which are shitposting?
>>1201931
>>1361732
>>1377688
>>1393570
>>1321439
>>1378780
>>1389044
If I understand your definition right then all but two are shitposting.

>>1394143
It's because you are badgering me and questioning simple common practices like taking a screencap of what's in the /qa/ catalog. Of course I'm suspicious as fuck of you.

Like I said before, if you don't like the fact that I'm screencapping instead of posting a bunch of archive links then hide the thread, or better yet go make a separate thread like one you're describing. I'm not stopping you. I'll bet you won't because your only goal here seems from my perspective to be to attack me for making this thread in various ways.

>>1394146
None of those. What about the other 143 threads in the catalog? How many of those are frogposting or /pol//8gag false flags? maybe 5 at most? What is the rest?

>>1394146
If we're being objective about it, only >>1377688 is without substantial content, but I think most would give it a pass for being only one thread and /qa/ heritage. I'm >>1394136 rather than >>1394141.

>>1394150
>How many of those are frogposting or /pol//8gag false flags? maybe 5 at most?
It was a lot more than 5 before the counterspam cleared it out.

>>1394154
Not really, it certainly wasn't more than 20.

>>1394155
I count 23 among the recently archived (going from the beginning of tonight's counterspam).

>>1394158
So maybe 1/3rd or half as many total "quality" threads like >>1393641, got it.

>>1394150
>better yet go make a separate thread like one you're describing.
I won't do that but I will use the general you've made or this topic. No need to hide things I don't like simply because I don't like them.

File: 1487402827020.png (82KB, 574x363px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 574x363px

will /qa/ ever be saved?

>>1394161
There will always be bad threads. That thread isn't being kept on life support, though, in fact it was just recently created. It has little content, and I doubt people will be interested in adding more to it, although you never know, maybe it's somebody's fetish and they'll post lots of content. So it will fall into the archive. That's how 4chan is supposed to work, people contribute to threads they like which keeps the better ones alive and lets the shitty ones die.

>>1394166
/qa/ is doing fine.

File: 2017-06-13-02-44-42.jpg (191KB, 1478x309px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1478x309px

>>1394164
If I wake up in a few hours and see you've made a thread I will be very quick to congratulate you and join in the fun to argue my case. Until then, enjoy the wave of [s4s]ism washing over /qa/ in this last hour.