/r9k/ Mod Deleting and Postblocking at Random

>>418758
You violated a global rule you fucking idiot. You deserve to be blocked.

>>418759
AFTER 5 THREADS about said janitor were deleted and pointed it out.

>>418758
~grabs him by the throat~ get ready for the hammer kiddo

>>418765
what should i do in my final moments?

>>418761
You are complaining about the lack of moderation. This is a violation of Global Rule 8. Again, you deserve to be blocked.

File: 1447159974740.png (2MB, 1520x6898px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1520x6898px

He selectively deletes posts he doesn't while still leaving up the thread

If this isn't him flaunting what little power he has I don't know what it is.

>>418771
You.
Are.
Violating.
Global.
Rule.
8.

Why are you too fucking stupid to understand this?

>>418773
sup janny

File: 1438712409093.jpg (36KB, 508x643px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 508x643px

>>418773
fembot threads don't violate the rules more than any other threads on /r9k/, yet they are deleted while other threads stay up

racebait threads don't violate the rules more than any other threads on /r9k/, yet they are deleted while other threads stay up

gay/tranny threads don't violate the rules more than any other threads on /r9k/, yet they are deleted while other threads stay up

If he's going to delete those threads he might as well nuke the entire board.

>>418759
>>418768
>>418773
I agree.

OP, you're a fucking spastic autist who can't form a single coherent thought. It would be in your best interest to kill yourself immediately, as a favor to your family and humanity.

You know why you were banned. Don't play dumb. Frankly, I'm tired of this new trend where idiots with their heads stuck up their asses get banned for obvious reasons and then come to /qa/ to shitpost about it. Good job. You were a faggot, you got banned accordingly. Do you want a trophy?

>>418801
If the fat fuck janitor wasn't deleting perfectly rule-obeying threads that he just happen to not like we wouldn't have to resort to this shit.

>>418807
If you weren't a fuckboy and your daddy didn't beat your underage self on a regular basis, we wouldn't have this problem either. Again, killing yourself is highly recommended. You broke the rules. You got blocked. Cry some more.

>>418814
I didn't break the fucking rules until the mods deleted a perfectly fine thread though you worthless pile of shit. Look at >>418771, the OP was also complaining about 4chan yet the thread was still up. He's not doing his "job" properly.

I have another question in regards to /r9k/ moderation and post deletion. Why are all threads related to gay feels always deleted? It doesn't break any rules, yet they're consistently pruned.

>>418814
>>418801
>>418768
>>418773
Hi janitor from /r9k/

>>418776
That doesn't change the fact that you're spamming HE DOES IT FOR FREE DELETE MY POST PLEASE. The janitor may be corrupt, but he was right for banning you.

>>419735
It's hilarious, we're complaining about one thing yet you keep moving the goalpost to another. Just shut the fuck up fampai.

>>419751
>fampai
Wow, as if your deleted posts weren't cringey enough.
Anyways, what was the original point that you proved wrong that we posted. All I see are posts where everyone agrees that you're fucking stupid being called the janitor.

>>419732
>janitor
>from r9k

First of all, that's not how janitors work you fucking newfag. Second, me, janitor? No.

File: 1438767909533.jpg (12KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x225px

>>419754
Yes, it fucking is. Janitors are responsible for single boards, mods are global.

>>419753
>no argument
>samefag accusation
There's more than one person here who thinks you're full of shit. How about you address the fact that you aren't doing your fucking job properly? For what reason did you you keep the thread up but while deleting the replies that weren't kissing your ass? The OP was breaking rule 8 too.

If I haven't made everything clear for your broken brain yet, my own complaint isn't about the ban, since I can evade anytime those don't upset me; my complaint is about the deletion of perfectly fine threads and the blatant display of power/power tripping.

>>418776
all those types of threads are literally the worst threads that arcanine ever had. very very low quality, and always were. by saying 'he might as well nuke the board' you're somehow implying that those are quality threads, that those are threads that should be kept up, or that they make up what you see at all valuable in the board? are you, in fact, implying any of that? because all of that is ridiculous.

>>419782
He most likely kept the thread up as a honeypot to ban everyone who complains about him. Which is a questionable method but technically fine.

>>419783
Who are you to say that they're low quality and don't belong? They have a consistent interest and userbase posting in them without breaking any rules. If you don't like the threads, then just hide them, but there's no need for constant pruning.

>>419786
Not him but obviously the janitor thinks the same. And after all, it's the janitors decision if these threads should be kept or not.
If you don't like it, you can always leave.

>>419787
>if you don't like just leave
No. Janitors are supposed to serve the community, not impose their agenda on boards.
If the userbase doesn't like the moderation, it's the janitor that should be replaced, not them.

>>419791
From what I've seen he doesn't enforce his own agenda - he enforces the rules. You were spamming and got banned. You deserved it.

>>419782
>samefag accusation
Is correct, although it wasn't an accusation, it was more of an assumption, seeing how there are clearly multiple people disagreeing with 'you guys' and everyone on your side has the exact same writing style, plus the fact that there are 11 posters, but enough of that.
>no argument
You accused me of moving the goalposts, and I asked you to point out where. How am I supposed to formulate a proper counter-argument if I don't even know what yours is to begin with?
>If I haven't made everything clear for your broken brain yet, my own complaint isn't about the ban, since I can evade anytime those don't upset me; my complaint is about the deletion of perfectly fine threads and the blatant display of power/power tripping
Funny, the OP quite literally says 'deleting and postblocking at random', with the attached picture being of the block, so it certainty seems like you set this up to be about the ban.
>>419783
What do you expect from a person who unironically used fampai and complained about mods deleting /v/ culture?

>>419793
I'm not OP, why are you trying to discredit everyone and label them as one person. They are forcing their agenda and multiple people regularly complain about it.
Pruning threads that don't break any rules just because the janitor doesn't personally like them is an abuse of the station.

>>419786
I'm not saying they don't 'belong' per se-- arcanine doesn't technically have any set topic, so technically everything, every thread ever made, 'belongs', but that doesn't mean I can't have an educated, informed, and well-reasoned opinion as to those threads being universally shit.

>>419799
That's perfectly fine, but when you try to enforce that opinion into pruning threads that don't break any rules, it becomes a problem.

>>419798
>label them as one person.
fyi that's a shitpost tactic. it's very often used on /a/, and various other boards. easily riles up the opposition.

>>419801
>>>/global/rules/6
They do break a rule. Yes, it involves an opinion. That's one of the janitor's jobs.

>>419805
That's where you have to go back to the community. If the janitor's opinions of the rule aren't in line with the community, then there's a problem. The userbase is supposed to be allowed to generate and post content that see as quality and worth discussing. Janitors are supposed to regulate within that sphere instead of relying solely on their opinions.

File: 1433286704588.jpg (91KB, 510x1499px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 510x1499px

>>419783
>using quality as an argument
>on /r9k/
Just delete the whole fucking board if that's your argument. Those threads have just as much right to be there as the ones that stay up.

>>419796
Does convincing yourself I'm samefagging help you sleep at night?

>You accused me of moving the goalposts, and I asked you to point out where
>>419735 here.

>the OP quite literally says
And the OP wasn't me. >>418771 is me. Sleep tight.

>complained about mods deleting /v/ culture
I don't even play vidya, let alone go on /v/. Nothing says "I have no actual argument" more than nitpicking words like "fampai" and samefag accusations in order to dismiss the rest of what I said. Have a nice day janny.

>>419791
Fucking this.

>>419793
What part of >>418771 and >>418776 were "rule enforcement" to you?

>>419785
His job is to maintain the quality of the boards, inciting people to shitpost is the complete opposite of that.

Just delete the fuck board.

>>419810
Let me propose a hypothetical.
It's late, really late, you know, during that time when even /r9k/ slows to a crawl. There's one lively group that's still up though. The shitposters. The shitposters are inevitably bored, so I say, "hey, let's go post the poop copypasta on r9k". Within an hour well over half of the threads are the poop copypasta. Since it's late, and there's so many of us, we make up the majority, and thus, we, the majority of r9k, want the poop threads to stay, despite them drowning out all the other threads.

Or to give you a more realistic example;
Baneposting. It's banned on /tv/. A lot want it, a lot don't. I haven't browsed /r9k/ in about a year, but when I used to browse, the fembot threads were always huge shitfests. Even if the majority wanted them, there was never any actual discussion, or anything even resembling discussion, as all someone had to do was say "ugh, it's so hard getting laid as a female, it's just as hard as it is for guys", then suddenly there are 30-40 REEEEEs, and the thread derails. You could make a case that it falls under bait.
>>419815
YOU were the one who moved the goalposts by making it about corruption, when as I said before, the emphasis in the OP was about the ban. I said the corruption doesn't cancel out the ban (the original point).

Now for the second part of your post;
You're really overreacting over the samefag 'accusations'. I'm not trying to discredit you at all by saying "LOOK AT HIM HE LIES AND PRETENDS HE'S TWO PEOPLE DON'T TRUST HIM". which is what generally, accusing one of a samefag is. I'm simply treating the two people in this thread as one for the sake of replying, because I personally assumed (and reasonably so) that you were both one person.

And for the third part, I was discussing with a third party why you think shitty posts are shitty. I wasn't using that as a counter. I didn't say your point was invalid because you said fampai.

>>419826
>YOU were the one who moved the goalposts by making it about corruption, when as I said before
Holy shit, you do realize you have to ALREADY in an argument in order to actually move a goalpost, right? Who was I replying to in >>418771? Fucking moron, I'm not going to read the rest of your garbage post.

>>419826
Your hypothetical is flawed because it's focusing on a set time frame rather than the community as a whole. If only a bunch of shit posters are up, they represent the majority at that time, but they aren't representative of the board as a whole.
Things change over time and board culture can as well. I'ts important for moderation to adapt to this and make an attempt to recognize what the community wants.

>>419828
So just to be clear, judging you from afar based off of a sentence isn't allowed whatsoever, but discrediting an entire post because of one is. We're on the same page here, right?

That aside, the post you replied to, was a post calling you out for moving the goalposts, which you still did in that post, so I was completely justified in doing that.

>>419832
I'll wait for you to admit your stupidity first.

>>419829
Be honest with me, are fembot threads nowadays not exactly what I described? Because if they aren't then shit, you're right, I'm sorry. But I HIGHLY doubt that's the case, because with all due respect, the people flooding /r9k/ when I left are the same kind that recently flooded /pol/, which is why now all you have to do is post a screenshot of an irrelevant tumblr blog with only three followers and say /POL/ BTFO to get 400 replies.
>>419833
No.

>>419837
How are fembot threads breaking the rules more than any other threads on /r9k/?

>No.
Not admitting it isn't going to make you any smarter.

>>419837
Fembot threads can very frequently go to shit, but the reaction of moderation is what's messed up. Instead of deleting the shit posts within a thread that doesn't break any rules, they just end up deleting the threads instead. I'm all for deleting low quality posts that don't pertain to the thread. However, just blanket pruning threads is lazy and dumb.

>>419841
I've already discussed that.
>>419845
I see your reasoning. It could still be classified as bait though, which is farfetched, but can be used as justification.

>>419815
>Just delete the whole fucking board
I would not mind that.

>>419847
>>I've already discussed that.
You didn't point our how they're breaking the rules at all though you fucking imbecile. Hint: "I don't like them" is not a proper reason.

>>419848
One day.

>>419849
See >>419826 and >>419847

>>419841
They're bait >>> Global rule 3.
They derail into shitposting >>> Global rule 6.

>>419850
>It could still be classified as bait though, which is farfetched, but can be used as justification.
See >>419845
You're going round in circles.

>>419852
Well then who should be the decision maker if it's borderline rule breaking? The person who was hired to deal with rule breaking, the janitor.

>>419851
>They're bait
>something that I don't like == bait
How about no?

>They derail into shitposting >>> Global rule 6.
See >>419845

>>419854
It's not "borderline" rule breaking. It's completely within the rules. Just Ddelete all the obvious robot shitposts meant to get a rise out of actual female posters that go along the lines of "lol I only fucked 3 chads today so lonely". This isn't fucking difficult to understand.

>>419854
It should be the janitor. However, when that person consistently makes questionable decisions such as banning threads that don't break the rules, it should be evaluated and dealt with accordingly.

>>419855
>something that I don't like == bait
A thread is bait if it's meant to fuck with people and get replies. If I post on /pol/ "Hillary Clinton is the best choice for President, prove me wrong", I could easily get banned for baiting, even if I'm trying to have an actual discussion.

>>419857
But that involves work anon, and this is the janitor we're talking about. If he's busy (which he probably is, because /r9k/) then he doesn't have time to babysit individual threads, see my example above.
>>419859
That's been discussed.

>>419862
While it's been discussed, I still don't see any sound reasoning for blanket pruning threads. Even the argument of the janitor is busy becomes null when you have a surplus of users wanting to be janitors and doing so at not cost to the admin.

>>419862
>A thread is bait if it's meant to fuck with people and get replies.
>fuck with people
I'll let you in on a lil secret: men are 10x bigger attention whores than you accuse females of being. Even though they make much more of an effort to get attention, they still can't do it as well as a female who isn't even trying to.

I'll give you a minute to apply this notion to the fembot threads.

>and get replies
Every fucking thread on the internet is for the sake of getting replies. Did you think your post through?

>>419862
>then he doesn't have time to babysit individual threads
See >>418771

>>419864
Maybe there are lots of people who want to be janitors. But they're just not fit for the position and aren't "good" enough.

>>419866
Several anons in this thread already seem to have a contention that the one already in place isn't good enough.

>>419864
>Even the argument of the janitor is busy becomes null when you have a surplus of users wanting to be janitors and doing so at not cost to the admin
There's a reason they were turned down, I'm sure. There were 2700 janitor applications last round, and there's still moderation problems.
>>419865
It doesn't have to purposely be bait.
>See >>418771
You got me there.

>>419864
>you have a surplus of users wanting to be janitors
he received 2000+ applications and had to go through everyone individually. i'd wager none of the people who applied are janitors right now, but might be in a month or two.

>>419868
Because he deleted their shit threads and now they're butt hurt, that's why.

>>419870
No, they are. We got a new janny about a month after acceptances went out.

>>419872
oh they are?

cool.

>>419869
>>419870
It's hard to say. It would be nice if there was more transparency to the system in whole.

>>419871
Debasing the discussion to just saying people are butthurt is just another form of shitposting.

>>419783
>arcanine
>>>/8gag/

>>419868
There is a new janitor on /r9k/, yes, that is obvious. While you don't like his work, lots of other people obviously do. I have seen lots of people liking the new janitor and praising him for his strict enforcement.
That said, new janitors are being monitored by the mods. They are watching the new janitors to see if they do their job good. And since he's still here, the mods are obviously okay with how he handles things. That makes any further discussion obsolete as you can't change it. It's obviously meant to be like this.

Just make better threads next time.

>>419877
>I have seen lots of people
>he says this, on an anonymous forum
How do you know they're not the hot pocket connoisseur samefagging?

>>419877
You can literally back up 0% of what you said.

>>419877
Discussion is never obsolete. It is only logical to assess things, make evaluations and discuss it with your peers. Any good owner knows this because the last thing that you want to do is alienate or drive away users.

>>419878
Why would they do that? For what purpose? That gains them literally nothing as they don't owe the userbase anything.

>>419880
Yes, I can. If you're aiming at the monitoring part, look at the janitor application page. There it's said that new janitors are being watched to ensure that they're moderating their assigned boards well.

File: 1424752770262.jpg (30KB, 508x512px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 508x512px

>>419885
>Why would they do that? For what purpose? That gains them literally nothing as they don't owe the userbase anything.
Sup cab

File: 1373770573828.jpg (61KB, 351x506px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 351x506px

/pol/ tried to warn you

you looked away

>>419886
Back to shitposting, I see. And you still wonder why you got banned?

>>419889
>I'm totally not the janitor, I swear!

>>419876
that's a cute name I saw for r9k a while ago on /lit/, I think. I use it now and then, when I'm in the mood to spell the boards out, like 'esforest' and 'teevee'

File: 1432459294604.png (1MB, 961x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 961x720px

>drug threads get deleted
>insecam threads were getting deleted
>a gamergate thread was deleted. Didn't know they were still this butthurt

None of those are against the rules on /r9k/. Hell even the fembot threads, which I don't even like, don't even deserve to be deleted as they don't break the rules either.

Can you stop deleting shit that you simply don't agree with and stick to deleting stuff that actually is supposed to be.

>>419897
no

The entirety of /r9k/ is garbage and should be deleted.

>>419897
>>drug threads get deleted
dude weed lmao
>>insecam threads were getting deleted
eww you creepy bastard
>>a gamergate thread was deleted. Didn't know they were still this butthurt
why do you still care goobernazi

>>419909
sup janny

File: 1443817005228.png (101KB, 1585x1527px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1585x1527px

>>419885
>There it's said that
It is also said that /r9k/ is a board for original content

>>419921
naw i'm just messin

how are you today by the way

>>419888
>/pol/ would want stale racebait and femanon threads up on /r9k/
How to spot someone who started browsing /pol/ after the fappening: the post

>>419897
>drug threads get deleted
"You will not upload, post, discuss, request, or link to anything that violates local or United States law." Daily reminder that the penalty for marijuana is death according to federal law,
>insecam threads were getting deleted
"All camwhore threads belong on >>>/soc/"
>a gamergate thread was deleted. Didn't know they were still this butthurt
And Gamergate, is you guessed it, against the rules.