Can /v/ mods/janitors fuck off?

>>396745
Have you ever considered suicide?

ecelebs are for manchildren

how does it feel to be a tasteless pawn eating proverbial shit from the hands of shills and sleazy marketers?

>>396755
The problem is deleting, e.g., Giant Bomb threads where there are no links posted. It's vidya, just like other journalism and review threads.

>>396758
was*

File: 1438934025985.png (132KB, 396x385px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 396x385px

>>396745
>Just want to talk about a fun game
>Anon says, "SHILL SHILL SHILL"

Why is it so hard to talk about video games?

>>396775
Because this is an anonymous website. People cannot be trusted with anonymity.

>>396776
Do you remember when /v/ used to be /b/-2.0? Constant off-topic garbage left and right.. Now /v/ is cured now it's a PUNISHMENT to talk about video games. I know this because I've been here since 2006. Lots have changed.

File: 1418537541420.jpg (132KB, 891x670px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 891x670px

You can't seriously defend a thread starting with a fucking image of Mario tossing a Wii U into a trash can. Not even ironically.

>>396782
>as if it should get deleted

>>396745
>Mods delete two obvious trolling threads
Not seeing the problem.

>BUT THEY HAD THE POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP INTO VIDYA DISCUSSION!!!!
You could use that to excuse any old shit.

>>396835
That's the point. There's no reason to delete OPs that are literally asking about video games. "The X of vidya" is literally fine.

Console fags BTFO

B T F O
T
F
O

>those are games culture
Behold, the mosy gaggy statement of 2015
I hope you trip and fall into a woodchipper you subhuman faggot
I would jack off to the sound of you screaming in agony under the worst torture medieval witchhunters could invent
YOU are the reason /v/ hasnt been worth browsing since fucking 2009

>>396905
>This upset
>over ecelebs
Yet, having nothing better to say than flaming is better?

File: jonstewart8028.png (119KB, 207x271px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 207x271px

>Threads that could develop in to vidya discussion
yeah, and a supermodel could come to my house and beg to be my sex slave

>>396975
Nah. That example thread becomes vidya with just about every post. Something that didn't save was a post starting to talk about Rocksmith in reply to the rhythm comment.

>>396745
>git gud
Lel

Chilling in this harmless thread having fun. Janitor comes around and deletes it.

>>>/v/321868353

>>397036
Here:
http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/321868353/

Literally video games.

>Threads that could develop in to vidya discussion get deleted.
How about making threads that are vidya discussion without having the make them develop?

>>397057
Except, the example threads are already as on topic as any eceleb thread is. Those, for example, aren't about "video games", but journalism sites like Giant Bomb have huge exhibitions on providing game awards -- and they're all literally discussing vidya, even though the OP "isn't about a game".

Get it?

>>396745
We are currently discussing a solution to these issues in this thread >>396591

>>397084
Except, that's worthless.

>>396745
Fucking, just make a sticky with a list of things that are or aren't OK.

>>397086
Why is it worthless? Cause you say so?

>>397088
It's the party making the claim that it's helpful.

Yet, more splits don't actually fix "a lack of consistent moderation / disagreement over what is and isn't board related" on the industry/culture board. There's already a place to discuss "just video games", >>>/vg/

>>397091
>There's already a place to discuss "just video games"

Uhh, no, that's a place for generals. I guess the idea was to discuss just the video games originally, but generals work more as a way to create a community and OC. Granted, that's not what generals should be, but it is what it is.

>>397088
>>397091
Also, all of these problems are fixed by just having consistent standards for what should be deleted.

Protip: it should be minimal. Unless it can be explicitly stated that a thread has nothing to do with video games, there's literally no reason to delete it. Obviously, if eceleb threads aren't to be deleted, neither should be "what is the X of video games". This is the sort of standards that are required by moderation to develop a decent board meta. What do you imagine mods "just fucking guessing" does to posters investing in the board and threads?

>>397093
Uhh, yes. Increasing that board's traffic would benefit both the games there and their discussion. If that's popular enough and threads can't stay up, those games don't deserve to be there.

>>397099
>all of these problems are fixed by just having consistent standards for what should be deleted.

Yes. If you include "video game culture" as part of what's allowed to be posted in /v/ but then delete industry discussion threads, isn't that a blurred line on what's allowed or not? Either delete that part from the rules (huge backlash) or move it somewhere (slightly less huge backlash, lesser of two evils)

>>397102
>If you include "video game culture" as part of what's allowed to be posted in /v/ but then delete industry discussion threads, isn't that a blurred line on what's allowed or not?
What's stating that deleting industry discussion should be? /v/ has battlestation and PC component discussion just fine.

>>397103
>has battlestation and PC
>industry

???

>>397105
What industry threads are getting deleted, then?

>>397107
Threads about Game developers and shipping cancelings, even when there;s news about both.

>>397108
Improbable.

Just make /vi/ and /vc/. Problem solved, and the mods can stop being faggots.

>>397109
It did happen. Don't you remember the deleted Kojima threads?

>>397110
It still doesn't fix the whole issue: moderation consistency. It also causes problems, especially lower traffic. /v/ seems to have hugely low posting counts after US bedtime.

>>397115
Maybe they were getting spammed, as news threads tend to do.

>>396745
>http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/320947936

Obvious console war baiting.

>http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/321826634

PC vs. console baiting, especially with that image.

>http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/321831842/#321831842

Off topic / not vidya. That thread didn't even make sense.


The moderations seem appropriate in this case, although you probably shouldn't have gotten anything more than a warning unless you have an extensive history of shitposting.

>If the board is reporting what they don't like instead of what's off topic, that's literally Reddit.

Spouting "gb2reddit" at anyone who disagrees with you instantly destroys any credibility you may have.

/v/ does occasionally have bullshit moderation, but you have to grant the mods some leeway considering the sheer volume of shitposting they have to deal with on a daily basis, some cases more subtle than others. They're bound to misjudge.

And saying it's possible to have a serious discussion about video games on /v/ is laughable. /v/ is the very definition of a containment board. If you're serious about this, then you need to migrate over to a more on-topic board, such as >>>/vg/ or >>>/vr/

>>397130
>>http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/320947936
>Obvious console war baiting.
It has nothing to do with console banter at all. The 3DS is fucking obsolete, and it was before it was produced. The PS4 contrast is just to have an anchor for what defines a decent system.

>>http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/321826634
>PC vs. console baiting, especially with that image.
It's basically fucking semantics. /v/ is primarily PC. What the fuck relevance is a little humor picture and a literally decent OP question?

>>http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/321831842/#321831842
>Off topic / not vidya. That thread didn't even make sense.
Do games have lifting? Then, couldn't the discussion of improving those game mechanics come from that thread? Oh, well what about improving accuracy as is mentioned in first set of replies?

Fucking standards -- git gud. If there's no place for the thread, it'll get pushed off. If there's no vidya discussion, then it can be deleted. As of that thread's deletion, it is neither of those categories.

>>If the board is reporting what they don't like instead of what's off topic, that's literally Reddit.
>Spouting "gb2reddit" at anyone who disagrees with you instantly destroys any credibility you may have.
Maybe English isn't your first language.

>/v/ does occasionally have bullshit moderation, but you have to grant the mods some leeway considering the sheer volume of shitposting they have to deal with on a daily basis
Nah, they literally ban IPs for similar posts. Even you say that would be unnecessary.

Also, as stated, the board's quality is their duty. If they can't figure out to be lenient on the board, what room do they have to claim there's too much to delete.

Your last paragraph really does show your standards. It's also wholly off topic, and quite anecdotally.

File: v.png (641KB, 698x527px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 698x527px

>>397140

*ahem*

http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/321954057/

>>397470
*punches you in the throat*

http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/322059114/

File: ZSS.jpg (98KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 700x700px

http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/322351837/

What is a video game board that can't discuss platforms?

Just got back from being banned for posting a vidya OP but with a SFW lifting girl, AMA.

Why the fuck are they banning for pictures?

>>401144
Probably because that lifting girl wasn't related to the thread.

>>401175
So?

>>401176
So you have to post images related to the board you sheshul guy.

>>401181
Unless there's a claim to them deleting every off-topic image on the board, you don't have a point.

>>401206
They're against the rules for being offtopic so they can delete them if they want. You may have just made a shitty thread we don't know.

>>401214
>moderation seems inconsistent
OK. That's the problem and reason for this thread.

If they can't be consistent, there's no reason for them to ban instead of warn. They're so fucking trigger happy, and it's beta at best.

The real issue is the opposite - when there are threads that start off on-topic, but always devolve into nonsense after a short while with very few on-topic replies in-between. Mods and janitors don't give a damn about a thread if the OP looks legit and the rest of the thread is trash.
"OP checks out? It's clear." This needs to stop.

>>401238
Why? It's a forum, not a test chamber.

>>401241
Off-topic discussion is the root of stupidity on /v/.

>>401243
Nah, because that doesn't account for awful opinions, low standards, or the low level of posting that is /v/ culture.

Name/codefags can't show consistent quality without off-topic "filtered" comments and other tripe. What's more probable, post quality on a forum where there can be esteem or on a forum with culturally forced anonymity? That's just an example.

>>401245
>awful opinions
I'm not talking about opinions.
>low standards
That's what I'm talking about. I'm saying that there are a lot of threads that start off with an on-topic looking OP, and they devolve into something that isn't actually about video games. Delete the thread if it goes off-topic and stays that way for a little while. How few janitors can actually be on at a time? And how do they miss these 200+ post threads that have been up for many hours and where most of the discussion isn't even about video games?

>>401253
>Root of stupidity
>not talking about opinions and behavior

>>401266
I guess on second thought that opinions can actually be retarded. Still, I just wish that large threads that aren't on-topic and have been up for hours would actually get deleted. If you leave those threads up it only encourages more people to post off-topic things on the board. If there's no punishment, then why bother staying on-topic when you can act like an idiot for easy replies?

>>401269
Probably because mods ban for literally no reason. If they didn't do that, maybe the vocal minority that also slip bans wouldn't be all upset about getting banned for their thread going off topic or from the picture that was relevant to the topic, just not explicitly taken from a video game -- AKA, they'd give a shit about the board quality.

It's challenging to play the strengths of the board where moderation is so whimsy. Girls show more consistency.

It becomes about pushing the moderation to just allow that single thread, and they do. Until they stop being ass holes, they're probably going to keep finding the same level of volatility they put out.

>>401273
>Probably because mods ban for literally no reason
This is false. If it were true, I would have been banned multiple times by now, instead of not at all.

>>396745
Buzzwordy, antagonistic-flamebait meant not to create content through positive language but rather incite a flamewar by daring the opposition to prove the OP wrong.

File: hit list.jpg (55KB, 1143x521px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1143x521px

Any thread that starts with a picture, any picture, containing either of these two actors, on /v/, should be an instant and complete ban.

>>401569
>every discussion with depth or intensity is a flame war
Literally 12. Prove me wrong.

http://arch.b4k.co/v/thread/322763765/

Why are Nintendo fans so thin skinned

>>402747
How bored?