The ban of caption threads on /d/

You should really go on IRC, and contact the mods

Never bothered learning how to use IRC, desu. Never had a reason to.

>>1404725
>the images are /d/ content so they're on topic,

Cheking out the ban page, the images posted in those bans seem to be /h/ content. Assuming the /d/ relation is in the captions, I guess the mods don't consider that good enough.

It may also have to do with such threads inviting ERP with is a violation of rule 6 (unless you are on /jp/=

File: qa_instructions_v3.png (694KB, 1280x1480px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 1280x1480px

>/d/ here - could we get some answers from the janitors/mods

You won't get any answers from them here. This is not /q/.

>>1404735
There was an user from /co/ who got answers once, let me search for the thread

>>1404736
Exactly what I mean

>>1404736
found it
https://yuki.la/qa/1171503

>>1404733
For one or two maybe, but looking through the archive a lot of the images that have been banned are clearly /d/ - I'm seeing breast expansion, futa, monstergirls, etc all getting banned.

>>1404746
The nature of that thread was very different from yours. There's pretty much zero chance you'll get a response from them.

>>1404725

>>1404746
>b-b-but mods does not post in /qa/, g-go back there

>>1406282
Reminder that the mods ban people for metabitching here because of GR8:

http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1404686/#q1404686
http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1404739/#q1404739

>>1404746
>>>/pol/113951835 >>>/pol/114123243 >>>/pol/114130315 >>>/pol/114130877
>>>/pol/114133184 >>>/pol/115277767 >>>/pol/115677344 >>>/pol/116204660
>>>/pol/116206073 >>>/pol/116206497 >>>/pol/116206674 >>>/pol/116207089
>>>/pol/121602927 >>>/pol/125366944 >>>/pol/125744920 >>>/pol/125749815
>>>/pol/125750676 >>>/pol/125751130 >>>/pol/125751372 >>>/pol/125751429
>>>/pol/125754289 >>>/pol/125757009 >>>/pol/125941498 >>>/pol/126631229
>>>/pol/126658591 >>>/pol/126672040 >>>/pol/127361489 >>>/pol/127363363
>>>/pol/127747546 >>>/pol/128329801 >>>/pol/128630201

Another caption thread was deleted and another like dozen /d/ posters banned. Always seems to happen around the same time of day - presumably the same mod/janitor each time.

This is getting ridiculous.

>>1406329
Dude, use the IRC or feedback page. You won't get a response from them here and they may not even read your post.

It's really weird since lower quality threads are allowed such as the censorship threads.

>>1404725
Any luck getting in contact with anyone who knows what's going on?

>>1404725
Download the IRC client, hexchat and go onto their channel to talk about this. They might listen if you go there and then /d/ might be able to have a caption thread survive a full 24 hours without being nuked by the mod and provoking posters on /d/ to keep making threads out of defiance due to the mod's extremely questionable actions.

File: c725fabb244ce35470ccd4019bea320d.jpg (493KB, 763x1080px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 763x1080px

>>1404725
Bumping because I want to know what a caption thread is?

>>1407798
It's like taking a picture and adding some lewd text to add a backstory
Like this I think(Disgusting 3D)
>>>/gif/10758436

File: caption - c725fabb244ce35470ccd4019bea320d.jpg (790KB, 763x1080px) Image search: [Google]

790KB, 763x1080px

>>1407803
Got it.

>>>/d/7485191
This is getting crazy at this point he's not even deleting the thread just leaving it up like a trophy of his power.

>>1407817
Lol, putting this in the happenings thread

File: [Asenshi] Little Witch Academia - 20 [7A6AC5B6].mkv_snapshot_14.29_[2017.06.01_18.14.57].jpg (101KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1280x720px

>>1407808
N-not allowed!

I'd like to know as well, but only care enough to post here and not on irc or in feedback.

File: 1497801971422.jpg (287KB, 1477x891px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1477x891px

>>1407798
Images with stories added to them.

File: 1496571339195.png (482KB, 720x544px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 720x544px

Please help us /qa/ friends

File: 1496518427189.jpg (1MB, 1200x1288px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1288px

>>1408077
Helping..

To the people saying Mods don't reply here. The truth is that most of us have seen at least once mods acting on it and even replying to such threads. I remember once Hiro himself replying about the malicious ads thing tp one of these threads. I understand that some people want to keep these threads away but not sure if lying is the way to go.

>>1408442
They (and hiro) gave up on you retards. The mods only respond to mistaken bans and technical issues.

Any luck with the IRC and/or feedback? Cause I'd really like to get captions back on /d/ without the mod /janitor nuking it for no reason on a daily basis. Especially since the caption thread that was forced into /trash/ moves at the speed of a glacier compared to /d/ and only gets saved from page 10 by the occasional post which usually doesn't even have an image attached. Then, whenever there is an image attached it's usually a request rather than a caption.

>>1408442
They respond very very rarely, and only about technical issues like /f/ fucking itself or ads being bad. In OP's case it's better to use IRC.

File: why captions are banned.png (29KB, 821x545px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 821x545px

Anyway, I went on IRC because I felt bad for OP and this is what I got.

>>1408467
ok well what about the other threads that are way lower quality like censorship threads?

>>1408442
It's not lying to say that humans have two legs because of some soldier who lost a leg to a landmine. Mod responses are by far the exception, not the rule, and users are far more likely to get a mod response posting on the board where the problem is than /qa/. For example:
>>>/pol/113951835 >>>/pol/114123243 >>>/pol/114130315 >>>/pol/114130877
>>>/pol/114133184 >>>/pol/115277767 >>>/pol/115677344 >>>/pol/116204660
>>>/pol/116206073 >>>/pol/116206497 >>>/pol/116206674 >>>/pol/116207089
>>>/pol/121602927 >>>/pol/125366944 >>>/pol/125744920 >>>/pol/125749815
>>>/pol/125750676 >>>/pol/125751130 >>>/pol/125751372 >>>/pol/125751429
>>>/pol/125754289 >>>/pol/125757009 >>>/pol/125941498 >>>/pol/126631229
>>>/pol/126658591 >>>/pol/126672040 >>>/pol/127361489 >>>/pol/127363363
>>>/pol/127747546 >>>/pol/128329801 >>>/pol/128630201
That's just this year, and after removing a lot of templates and copypasta. The number of mod posts on /qa/ are nothing compared to that.

>>1408470
You should ask that mod on IRC, I don't really browse /d/ and I dunno what questions about the board I should ask.
Use the instructions in here >>1404735

>>1408477
Note that asking on the original board risks a ban (although there have also been bans for complaining on /qa/, see https://bans.4tan.org/?board=qa). As can be seen from >>1408467 and many other examples, IRC is a good way to get responses, if not necessarily the response you like. But there's nothing you can do about that last part.

>>1408467
sooooo then why is it allowed on /aco/? Someone should tell nana there's a thing called double standard.

>>1408478
>using shitty rules made by raiders from a shitty /jp/ spin off
Yeah nice try /ota/

>>1408467
>bad fanfics on images is not allowed
>bad fanfic general is allowed

>>1408486
What do you have against people contacting the mods?

>>1408485
>Someone should tell nana there's a thing called double standard.
You can do it yourself, see >>1404735.
From my experience the mods don't care much about being inconsistent, though. Especially since some of it is due to content that they might delete not being reported. Worst case, pointing out inconsistencies in order to get X unbanned just gets Y banned.

>>1408489
Christ what is the mod's deal with captions? Now he's purposely acting like a brat

/q/ threads really are /Q_Q/

>>1408492
And yet they wonder why the userbase of 4chan fucking hates them, or why a rouge janitor purposefully leaked two years of janitor IRC logs to expose them.

>>>/aco/1475115

Oh look, the little dipshit didn't like it when he got called out for his double standard. Nice try you dumbass mod

>>1408504
Q_Q

>>1408504
$yentexting
$kys
get a load of this homo

>>1408508
Who are you paying?

>>1408503
so basically
>>1408492
was right?

File: pavel.png (199KB, 733x441px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 733x441px

>>1408509
Nothing, I paid nothing!

>>1408511
The censorship thread still exists and it's full of captions.

>>1408514
watch it get banned/warned/whatever

>>1408489
>>1408500
>>1408503
This kind of bullshit definitely makes me fucking hate them alright. Especially since the anti caption thing seems like a pretty recent unwritten decision and rule that they asspulled since they have been going on completely untouched up until a few months ago.

>>1408516
Nah.

>>1408511
Just confirmed it. This nana guy has to be a new mod.

>>1408467
Someone should go back in and ask about the damage control they did on /aco/ about this.

W/e, your anger is getting played on by trolls right now.
The information to speak to the mods is right there. If you want to fight them take it to their face and not behind their backs on /qa/.

>>1408522
I just read that IRC log. If Nana ever made that statement publicly, then I'm the King of Spain.
>>1408524
They should. Then they should post the mod tripping over their own bullshit trying to justify themselves.

>>1408529
Why don't you do it big guy? Are you a man or a pussy?

>>1408532
Why don't you do it big guy?

>>1408526
So lets get on it then. Point out why nana is a dipshit trying to cover his tracks.
>>1408529
If anything, knowing the mods, they'll try and either ignore you or ban you from the IRC

>>1408533
Why don't YOU do it big guy?

>>1408536
Why dont YOU do it then, big guy?

File: 1472350318017.jpg (79KB, 716x768px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 716x768px

Big guys?

>>1408534
>>1404735
There you go. I'm in the chat.

File: bane original.jpg (5KB, 233x250px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 233x250px

>>1408541
4u

Was getting caught part of this mod's plan?

Of coursh!

File: mlp.png (98KB, 1277x705px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1277x705px

>>1408467
>Poor quality fanfiction isn't allowed.
I can't wait for /mlp/ to get deleted then

>>1408564
The mod's response is going to be pretty interesting if not insanely hypocritical when it comes up.

File: 1201388620388.jpg (8KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x200px

>>1408467
>"They are of low quality"
>"Attaching poorly written fanfics to images is not what qualifies as GOOD CONTENT"
>And caption threads have been deleted from all boards since forever.
Nana seems pretty opinionated. From what I have seen, a lot of those threads had multiple paragraphs with good grammar, punctuation, and structure, which is not an easy thing to do while remaining sexy. Meanwhile, /gif/, and /hc/ have their fair share of sissy hypnosis, cuckoldry, interracial, and x-change caption threads, but they never get deleted. The quality of these captions aren't exactly stellar as well; only the x-change thread stands out in verbosity.

>>>/gif/10723173
Sissy caption thread. Up for 12 days.
>>>/gif/10767383
Continuation of the sissy caption thread. 4 days
>>>/gif/10660272
x-change thread, but they actually put some effort into their captions. Up for 23 days.
>>>/hc/1182364
Interracial caption thread. Up for 6 days

Meanwhile, actually locked censor threads
>>>/d/7490420
OP banned, and thread locked within the hour. Speedy.
>>>/aco/1475115
OP warned, and thread locked after 8 days.

Does Nana simply not have the power to ban posters on these boards, and lock these threads? Because, they have been continuing for a long time uninhibited much to Nana's claim that caption threads are deleted on "ALL boards" "since forever"

There is clearly an audience for these manner of threads, and they are not breaking any rules. Global Rule 6 should be enforced on a case by case basis, and not just umbrella banning something a mod personally doesn't approve of. Writing is a legitimate form of original content, and effort that shouldn't be looked down upon in such a way.

>>1408604
Much like what happened to /aco/ in this thread, now that it has been brought up they will probably get deleted

>>1408607
A statement should be made regarding this on respective boards then, because many, many innocent people are going to get banned, and continue getting banned because it's not particularly clear that captions constitute low quality content. If a thread goes for 23 days without being deleted, then there are two scenarios here:

One: Mods are aware, but choose to let it live.
Two: Mods are unaware, and the thread has managed to avoid being reported, or spotted by a mod once in the entire life span of said thread.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that an interracial caption thread has yet to receive a single errant report or two.

>>1408604
This is absolutely brilliant. I have to commend you for putting this kind of research into this post of yours. I have a feeling Nana is going to try some handwaving for this post here if they don't do what >>1408607 mentioned.

Honestly, when I was lurking around the caption threads on /d/ this past week, I could have left at any time when they started getting locked, but I didn't and I stopped lurking in order to contribute and point out the mod's weird actions. But the moment that the mass ban happened on /d/ and I got caught up in it when I decided to share some captions from my stash, I refused to just walk away. Especially when Rule 6 was the only justification for the ban and there were threads that violated Rule 6 based on their interpretation present on /d/ that were left completely intact.

>>1408604
It doesn't help that I want to practice writing some short smut for fun and the caption threads getting nuked on a regular basis doesn't do me any favors.

If dudes are going to contact the mods please use fucking /queue you homos, it's disturbing the chat otherwise

>>1408626
oops I meant /query

>>1408613
I'd go with option 1. Caption threads on /d/ get locked within less than an hour usually. If they're lucky, they actually survive a full hour before the lock. Yet, >>>/d/7455500 survived 18 days so far, completely untouched.

Lol, you're not getting you're threads back.
Get over it or go elsewhere. Mods decide how things work.

>>1408635
Stop deleting our threads, nana.

File: 1497911687100.jpg (30KB, 600x646px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x646px

>>1408467

Wew muh dickgirl degeneracy threads have to be 100% high quality - comedy gold.

Do you retards think a single mod decided to delete your threads? Is begging on /qa/ the only thing you can do?

>>1408635
Please learn how to use grammar properly before you post.

>>1408646
>Do you retards think a single mod decided to delete your threads?

Yes

>Is begging on /qa/ the only thing you can do?

No. Eventually, someone's going to pop back into IRC.

>>1408648
Why don't you just post them on a booru?
If caption threads are quality contributions then one of them will accept it.

>>1408646
I don't really care whether they stay or go, but I would like inconsistencies to be corrected.

File: 32.png (166KB, 806x646px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 806x646px

Here's what happened

>>1408653
Oh wow.

That's full fucking damage control.

>>1408652
Why are you bringing it up here then?
You're only going to get /qa/ posters scape goated for your vendetta.
Don't drag others down with your vengeance.

>>1408653
You sound like an asshole.

>>1408604
Can anyone go into IRC and present all of this?

After this:
>>1408653

I want to see the shit storm from it.

>>1408653
permaban Jwatsmith

>>1408653
Absolutely amazing. I'm not surprised that I was right about the handwaving attempt.

>>1408667
What would that accomplish besides creating an even bigger shitstorm?

>>1408653
Ehh. Whatever, at least /trash/ still exists.

>>1408680
do it

>>1408701
If you haven't figured it out, I'm not the mod who tried to do some damage control when they were called out on their ineptitude. I couldn't ban Jwatsmith even if I wanted to. And I don't want to, even if I could do it.

>>1408710
Come on

>>1408715
You're drunk. Go home.

>>1408651
Your logic is retarded. Why even browse /d/ (or any other porn board) when you can just use a booru? It's almost like discussion and content creation are the important factor here.

Im going to take this opportunity to talk about another /d/ issue

scat, it needs to be allowed in its own threads at least.

>>1408723
Go ahead. Yell at the brick wall for a bit.
Your contributions aren't wanted on /d/ because the mods say they shouldn't be on /d/.
You have either /trash/ or the many booru's available.

>>1408719
Hmph.

Well, looks like I'll be reporting caption threads on all boards from now on.

>>1408736
Read >>1408723
As for /trash/, it moves at the speed of a glacier and it's full of furshit along with things that have absolutely no properly established board. The /d/ captions at least do have material suited to the board in question.

Also, despite what the mods say and do, they are not above criticism. As >>1408604 posted, there are multiple threads of similar content on other boards that are completely untouched and as >>1408503
posted, the /aco/ thread didn't get touched until someone called the mod out on their hypocrisy and the mod tried to save face.

>>1408785
lol, who cares about you?

>>1408785
He's baiting you. Don't give him a (you)

No I'm saying it for his own good.
You can try to fight the mods all you want.
Act like the /jp/ teenbros and fight the mods, but unless you've got the influence of /pol/ they will not cave.
They'll just make things worse and worse for your board until it's unusable.

>>1408792
Totally should have seen that coming. Well, back to the topic of how inept this mod is for deleting captions on /d/ then.

>>1408793
Sounds like a win in my book.

>>1408812
Is this a call to raid then?

>>1408793
Burning /d/ to the ground would be the perfect catalyst to open Pandora's Box upon 4chan. I would miss /d/ greatly, but that kind of chaos would be quite the show.

>>1408815
Raiding is a crime, and crime is for niggers.

>>1408467
Some of them are really good though. There was an anon here some years before that made extremely well-made hypno/JOF captions.

>>1408822
Don't forget Elzi! She was great with captions.

Can anyone tell me what exactly the mods classify as "low-quality" content?

>>1408467
>Attaching poorly written fanfics to images is not qualifies as good content.
Quick, someone tell /jp/ about this one.

>>1408824
Seriously, this mod may not know what they are talking about.

>>1406299
Reminder that this weeb always misinterprets what the mods say

>>1408826
This is one of the main problems I have with the whole situation. Nowhere is it properly defined as to what exactly constitutes "low-quality" content. As it stands we're left with an incredibly vague definition that altogether leaves too much room for interpretation.

You could spin up that "one permitted metathread" if you think that you wouldn't get banned for that one.

>>1408653
>Leave feedback
how do?

>>1408852
https://www.4chan.org/feedback

>>1408857
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Isn't that a thing only 4chan pass users can utilize, or am I thinking of something else?

The caption thread that was forced into /trash/ just died.

>>1408862
you're thinking of >>>/vip/

This situation reminds me how much these mods are being paid

>>1409019
Why does this mod hate caption threads so much?

File: tenor.gif (1MB, 498x280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 498x280px

>>1409043
Do you really need to ask that question?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (40KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1280x720px

Well, I was holding out hope that this was one mod acting like an idiot, and the team is not sub-Stanry Roo level, but clearly that was too much to ask.

Considering that It's /d/ we're talking about, the moderator in question is probably getting off on this.

>>1408467
Makes sense to me, most of those things are just shitty stories that are hardly related to the original picture. Generally with incredibly poor English. They're also almost always about the same thing., and most of the time they hardly seem /d/ related.

>>1410007
Nice try, mods.

>>1410007
If we can have 500 post threads on /d/ for handholding or putting little black bars over uncensored pics, I don't think shitty fanfic captions is crossing some kind of line in the sand of quality.

There's a running general that exists for no other reason than to archive people's shitty fanfic, for christ's sake.

>>1410023
Yeah, I'd really love to hear the mods' explanation as to why other low quality threads like Censorship & Denial are allowed while Caption threads are not.

>>1410023
Well, I don't like that censorship one either because it changes images to be objectively less arousing. But I don't think they're as low quality as captions in general.
Nothing against handholding.

File: 1496326646255[1].jpg (564KB, 868x1228px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 868x1228px

>>1410300
So, you're telling me that you find this to be higher quality...

File: 6e8ccca100a680de875fa2c1a5c60673a4e08010.png (868KB, 1439x713px) Image search: [Google]

868KB, 1439x713px

>>1410383
Than this?

>>1410386
we all know it's nothing to do with quality, the mod has a personal grudge against captions and his mod buddies are going along with it

>>1410383
I thought it was just black bars and shit, if they're adding captions as well then they're probably as bad as captions. This one in particular seems rather bad yeah.
>>1410386
This is a good example of just fucking up the original picture's context though. I also personally don't like huge stories next to pictures, but that's just me. This one seems like one of the better ones.
I'd just say both threads are shit.

>>1410415
>This one in particular seems rather bad yeah.
he didn't even cherry pick that one, it's the op and there are far worse ones inside the thread.

File: 1496326731085[1].jpg (254KB, 1000x759px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1000x759px

>>1410415
>I thought it was just black bars and shit,

That particular image is the OP of the current censorship thread.

It's representative of the majority.

Pic related is the one directly under it in the thread.

>if they're adding captions as well then they're probably as bad as captions

So, if they're adding more than just black bars to an image it's worse? As in: an image with just black bars added would be of higher quality?

>This is a good example of just fucking up the original picture's context though.

What is the context of the original picture? What does the caption do to take that away?

>I also personally don't like huge stories next to pictures

As you admit, that's down to personal taste. I enjoy reading while I wank. That particular caption is one of my favorites.

There's also a caption that I'm trying to hunt down where a guy has found an alien girl with what looks like a predator mouth (She's otherwise attractive.) If anyone has that one, it'd be a good example to post.

>>1410432
>So, if they're adding more than just black bars to an image it's worse? As in: an image with just black bars added would be of higher quality?
If the text is of that quality, yes. In my opinion of course.

>What is the context of the original picture?
You can just google that if you really want to know, I don't see how it's relevant.

>What does the caption do to take that away?
I never said it takes it away, but it does fuck it up. It just being present next to an established story picture means that the outcome is worse than if a picture without story was used.
By the way, a period is enough to indicate the end of a sentence. You don't need a newline after every sentence.

The censored thread was just moved to /trash/

>>>/trash/10017724

You guys should host one of those "approved metathreads" about threads for accompanying images with stories.

>>1410501
last time we had one of those it got deleted

>>1410432
That's a terrible translation, it's not even close to what she said...

>>1410520
Make clear that it's a thread for sounding out the board opinion rather than just naming/blaming mods and throwing a shitfit. Query a mod politely about whether one metathread is allowed if it gets deleted.

I mean, it is just throwing a shitfit, but a little plausible deniability never hurts. If that doesn't work, you can... I guess you can either whine in feedback or raise the white flag.

>>1410300
In what world is adding black bars to an image "higher quality" content than adding text to an image?

>>1410495
Oh for the love god. Now you know the mods are doing this shit to fuck with us. They're watching this thread

>>1410548
Can't wait for them to get around to removing the CYOA thread, edit thread, voice thread, and hand holding thread next.

>>1410561
what about the draw threads?
there's a ton of low quality western art in them.

>>1410561

Don't forget the drawthreads!

Can't have any OC creation at all, remember what happened to /tg/?

OC is bad, this is a website that is simply a very slow booru with no archive. There can be no fun or original content created on this site, because that triggers the mods autism.

>>1410562
>>1410564
Also the erotic fiction thread.

>>>/d/7467513
hey look an entire general dedicated to bad fanfics, better delete it mods.

>>1410572
Let me one-up you

>>>/mlp/
hey look an entire board dedicated to bad fanfics, better delete it mods

File: logo-large[1].png (3KB, 284x115px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 284x115px

Shitty /d/ threads master list:

>>>/d/7486130

This is a thread dedicated completely to editing an existing image. (Edits are apparently against rule 6)

>>>/d/7490827

This is a thread simply for girls with long hair. This belongs in /e/, not /d/.

>>>/d/7443279

This is the hand holding thread. It was made as a joke, but seeing as how the mods would like /d/ to be so seriously monitored now, it should be moved to /trash/.

>>>/d/7473923

This is a thread for creative writing. The scenario is what would the world be like if your fetish became a disease.

Seeing as how images are an afterthought in this thread, and not even remotely the focus, it should be moved to /trash/ under the new interpretations of rule 6.

>>>/d/7473122

This is a tread dedicated to people writing scripts, and other people reading said scripts for a recording. Under the new interpretation of rule 6, it should be moved to /trash/.

>>>/d/7487963

This is the CYOA thread. It is a thread dedicated to many images plastered together with text added. Under the new interpretation of rule 6, it should be moved to /trash/.

>>>/d/7475473

This is the globalized fetish thread. Just like the above example, it is a thread dedicated solely to OC writing and writing prompts with images being an afterthought.

Under the new interpretation of rule 6, it should be moved to /trash/.

>>>/d/7480115

This is the draw thread. It is almost all requests with almost no request ever getting fulfilled, and even if one were to be fulfilled, it would just be an edit to an existing image.

Under the new interpretation of rule 6, it should be moved to /trash/.

>>1410596
If people are making threads that don't belong on your board, just report them.

>>1410666

They do.

Just like caption threads do.

We're only saying they should go now because apparently anything OC or that in any way alters the context of any image ever is now, according to the mods, a violation of GR6.

All because they can't dare admit one of their own is a powertripping cunt and deal with him, and instead they need to ruin multiple threads across at least 4 boards instead.

>>1410691

(In case you don't realize it, this is sarcasm. All the threads mentioned belong on /d/)

>>1410596
you should make a feedback post

>>1410698

Well, except the long hair thread.

Unless it's hair-tentacles and hairjobs and whatnot.

It's not like this is new. The /d/ mod has been sperging out for a long time, banning thins they don't like. /d/ used to have a few nice fetish quests before they got banned out of the blue. """Western""" art got banned with /aco/. Now they're just banning whatever else fits what they want.

>>1411046
I don't understand why, though. It's one thread. If you don't like it, just don't participate. It's not that fucking hard.

>>1410542
It's like you're unfamiliar with the concept of making an image worse by adding things. I consider bad text a detriment, not an addition. At least black bars is still mostly the same image without that much changed. But this is not really relevant since it's apparently not just black bars.

>>1411260
In what world are black bars over an image less intrusive than captions next to an image?

>>1411365
I don't know, why are you asking me? I never said anything about intrusiveness.
Again, consider that adding things (to the side) makes the end result worse. Simple example, a picture of tits and a picture of tits with literal shit next to it. To non-scat fetishists the one without shit would be better. Some people dislike low quality writing that distracts from the image as well.

Also, please don't try and derail the thread further. I'm not going to discuss the relation between black bars and text any more because that's not what the thread is about. It's about caption threads and if they're against the rules, other threads shouldn't hold relation to that anyway. Just consider if caption threads are low quality by itself, don't judge by saying the other threads are high quality just because they're not deleted, because there could be a bunch of reasons why those aren't deleted.

Wow. I took a short break from /d/ and the mod manages to slowly ruin /d/ even more. I'm not even the least bit surprised.

>>>/d/7493863
>>>/d/7493853
>>>/d/7493849
>>>/d/7493845
>>>/d/7493843

Someone went full autism.

>>1404735
>You won't get any answers from them here. This is not /q/.
And what happens when they ban you from the IRC?

>>1408519
>This kind of bullshit definitely makes me fucking hate them alright. Especially since the anti caption thing seems like a pretty recent unwritten decision and rule that they asspulled since they have been going on completely untouched up until a few months ago.
Indeed, they get to be entirely arbitrary in their abuse of power, and no one can actually hold them accountable because the moderation staff is only beholden to itself...

A certain other chan of a supposedly infinite nature at least alleviates this somewhat by making it so each Board has it's own "Owner" acting as its Administrator, and they can then appoint Moderators as they see fit.
Thus, no one asshole has the ability to ban you from THE ENTIRE SITE, just any Board he happened to gain mod powers on.
>>1408534
>If anything, knowing the mods, they'll try and either ignore you or ban you from the IRC
Yep...

>>1408834
>This is one of the main problems I have with the whole situation. Nowhere is it properly defined as to what exactly constitutes "low-quality" content. As it stands we're left with an incredibly vague definition that altogether leaves too much room for interpretation.
Because they wouldn't be able to abuse Global 6 so readily!
>>1410564
>Can't have any OC creation at all, remember what happened to /tg/?
Yes, I remember well...

I would suggest fleeing to that other chan, as Chrow is fucking awesome.

Even more threads and posters getting banned - it's not even limited to the caption threads anymore. It's the same story on /aco/.

Mods are going full-retard.

>>1412025
Oh joy. What did they do now?

muh porn

>>1412025
What the fuck is going on? And why are the mods so desperate to cover for this faggot?

>>1411657
There you go, you pointed out the inconsistency in moderation so they axed it all.

>>1411657
what did they delete?

>>1412034
Issued a bunch of bans for random shit on /aco/ and /d/, moved several threads to /trash/ and killed a few more altogether.

Just got finished with a 24-hour ban for posting a picture of mewberty Star in a Star vs Evil porn thread. Mod claimed it violated global rule 3.

>>1412053
Caption thread fags complained that the cencorship threads were getting a free pass so they killed cencorship threads as well.

>>1412056
censorship threads were full of captions so it makes sense

>>1412055
Great. At this rate they might as well just cut to the chase and fire the first shots that really start off a war between the mods/janitors and the posters by just mass banning /aco/ and /d/ users at random, then just destroying the boards entirely. Then, when people in the chat start asking for answers, just sidestep the issue like they did in the IRC screenshot.

>>1412094
is there any way to contact hiro?

>>1412055
Also, how the hell does Mewberty Star violate Global Rule 3?

>>1412095
Tweet at him and link him this thread

File: 343tfy.jpg (164KB, 711x400px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 711x400px

So basically what I'm getting from the first couple posts of this thread is that porn addicts who have literally no life have such a problem with internet moderators (whom also have no life), that they seek them out on these semi-private chat rooms to ask about why they can't enjoy their porn addiction.

Then when they get tip-toed around the mods they get all passive aggressive and presumably go jerk their dinkleberry to some anime chick, and let the shame completely take over them, whilst they wonder what went so wrong that they will never get into heaven or have any meaning to their lives, then in about 30 years they die of whatever illness or suicide, and get reincarnated as a gift from god, and then proceed to squander that gift by repeating their mistakes from their previous lives, and thus return to a never ending cycle of loser and shame.

Kill yourselves.

File: 3c01dca06f2734737efa28568ee87e03.png (1MB, 735x980px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 735x980px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7NKbQ5mXcQ

New thread with a caption image as the OP just opened.

Lets see how this one holds up.

>>>/d/7494291

>>1412112
There's so many deleted images on /d/ right now, mods are just deleting whatever they don't like now.

>>1412112
Deleted now

>>1412213
Holy hell man. What is this guy's problem?

>>1412213
>Long hair thread still up

What the fuck?

So, it doesn't matter what the community wants, just what some faggot, butthurt piece of shit fag mod who visits the fucking board once a year THINKS the board should be, EAT MY SHIT YOU FUCKING STUPID FAG MODS

>>1412708
Hear hear, Anon!

File: ThonKang.png (6KB, 99x103px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 99x103px

>>1412213
>leftmost
Isn't this a caption?

Actually, do you think >>1404735 could be considered a caption?

I have so many ideas right now. I feel like a Vietnamese farmer.

Any further updates on the ongoing mess?

Why are the Wasoru faggots still here? You got your sire back so leave

>>1413572
Why are you obsessed with them? What does this thread have to do with them?

>>1413385
Not much - I suspect most of the people who've been banned for making captions threads are still banned, and the ones who aren't are too afraid of being banned to try making caption threads again.

Let that be a lesson to you - intimidation and fear always get results.

>>1410548
But Anonymous, mods NEVER come to /qa/, so you're just wasting your time with this thread!

>>1413385
None of these messes ever get updates. The mods decide something, the users complain about it, and nothing happens.

Either make a thread in /d/ trying to discuss it or give up.

>>1413867
And by that I mean a thread for "what /d/ thinks of banning the caption thread", not "the caption thread", because theoretically you can have the former even when you're not allowed to have the latter.

>>1413875
i would make it but i dont want to get banned

>>1413875
That just seems completely bizarre. Also, knowing the mod that seems intent on driving /d/ into the ground, >>1413897
is justified in their fear because there's a good chance the mod may retaliate, even if no clear rules were broken.

>>1408467
This seems arbitrary and pretty unnecessary.

Captions threads tend to, at the very least, generate original content, which is something 90% of threads on porn boards fail to do. I'm not sure what content is being pushed off of /d/ that the concerned mods would like represented, either.

I don't even browse /d/, but imo 4chan moderators should try to make conservative decisions, enforcing rules to protect communities on 4chan rather than get rid of ones they don't like.

>>1413799
As much as I wish that wasn't the case and as much as I hate the mods for being above any kind of accountability, I am forced to agree.

>>1413911
Just label it "/d/ metathread" instead. As I understand, that's still allowed. If you get banned for it you can try to appeal it in IRC.

>>1413911
So its evident here that

1. Nana is most likely a new mod and is probably the one that's doing all this.

AND

2. yournamehere is covering up for him and might actually be helping him out

File: 1fc89396b1ab0f4624fb5fdb2e65a12c.png (29KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x500px

That's so retarded you might actually be right...

Is what I would say if I had no cognitive abilities.

Is this thread autosaging?

>>1414262
Nope. We're on page 1.

>>1414275
Great scot you're right!

>>1414262
the /d/ meta thread is

>>1414661
Wow. The mod (and his sycophants?) can't put forth a decent argument or do anything other than hide behind Global Rule 6, so he just autosages the metathread on /d/. Classy. Just fucking classy. This is exactly why we even have this problem, cause the mod just cant help himself and proceeds to abuse his power to do some stupid shit.

For your reading pleasure before it's gone >>>/d/7496576

>>1414679
Are you angry?

>>1414980
No. Just disappointed.

Overall, I'm perplexed as to why the mod would even bother to autosage the metathread.

>>1415236
Complete lack of checks and balances combined with no consequences.

And, the /d/ metathread is now on page 10 thanks to the mod autosaging it. Get those closing remarks in!

>>1415666
This is just crazy. They don't even try and hide it.

I don't understand what we could do to combat this.

>>1415666
I just noticed my post number. That didn't help in the slightest. It practically reflects the situation right now.

>>1415738
>I don't understand what we could do to combat this.
You "combat" this the same way you do any other time. You use the feedback form. All you can do is voice to the mods that you disagree that the threads are low quality. Any "combat" is against the rules, and really fucking annoying if it happens on boards like /d/.

>>1415928
People tried submitting feedback and tried going directly to talk to the mods through the IRC and so far it seems the response has been "fuck off, we don't like _____ so it's getting banned"

>>1415941
>"fuck off, we don't like _____ so it's getting banned"
yep pretty much, they compared posting captions on /d/ to posting porn on /v/ and posting cp on /b/.

>>1415941
Tough shit then. Still the only thing you can do, being vocal on the channels meant for it.

>>1415951
We need mod acountability and some form of checks and balances here. It's absolutely ridiculous that mods can just close threads and ban people with little explanation and then resort to statements like that when people call them out on their actions.

>>1415954
Nobody cares, idiot. This is not /q/. You're lucky this thread didn't get deleted for breaking GR8.

>>1415954
>We need mod acountability and some form of checks and balances here. It's absolutely ridiculous that mods can just close threads and ban people with little explanation and then resort to statements like that when people call them out on their actions.
Indeed, too bad we won't get any because the Mods won't risk loosing their power...

>>1415957
You cared enough to post apparently.

>>1415957
Also last time I checked, there is a "q" in /qa/

>>1415957
Everyone cares you idiot

you might be fine with getting shit all over by mods over in Reddit but over here we care about abusive mods, there is simply no justifiable excuse for their actions, one mod simply doesn't like it so he won't allow it, if a mod didn't like fat or fart threads and deleted them on site you'd probably still suck his cock, go be a faggot somewhere else

last time janitors got added/mods got promoted, there was a total dummy new mod who went nuclear on the giantess thread like 5 times before mysteriously stopping. maybe he got demodded or sobered up or something.

File: 1498258616367.png (2KB, 696x19px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 696x19px

no fiction on /d/ any more

>>1416337
>>>/d/7498247

The /d/ metathread just got deleted. Why? I honestly don't know.

>>1416352
It was taking too long to fall off the board just by being autosaged for Nana's tastes.

>>1416352
Just tried to update. It said that it either got pruned or deleted.

>>1416352
It was autosaged. A mod didn't delete it, they just didn't allow it to be bumped, so it slowly moved to page 10 and then fell off.

>>1416355
Wouldn't be surprised if Nana or whoever the hell is in charge over there did that because they couldn't put up a decent argument supporting their actions.

>>1416357
Nothing bumped it off the board though, it wasn't even the last thread in the catalog.

>>1416366
You're right. It wasn't. There were at least 5 threads between it and the end of page 10.

Some people decided to try going to /trash/. Personally, I will not be following them. Even though the OP of the thread requested no furry stuff for now, the fact that the statement even needed to be a thing and the "for now" part don't bode well in my opinion.

>>1416406
The thread in trash already isn't going well, there's bestiality and aco content. It's better to just let them die.

>>1416461
Just took a peek. Why did I do that? You told me what was in store yet I did it anyway. Damnit. It hasn't gone into furshit yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did despite the OP's request. Oh well, unless they go back to /d/ and the mod stops their shitty ways, I might deal with The Ocho.

>>1416337
So what are they going to do with /mlp/? Someone bring that up to them.

>>1416473
Anon, haven't you realized it yet? The double standards. Flaming hypocrisy. A complete lack of justification for their actions. The hot pockets.

They do it for free. They do it all for free. This is the only real power they may ever get to hold. So why not abuse it to their heart's content at our expense? What's the quality of /d/ and its posters compared to their power fetish?

>>1416473
Personally I'm still waiting for them to remove the erotic fiction thread, edit thread, and draw thread now. I'm actually kind of tempted to expedite the process by reporting them, but ultimately I won't do that because it's a dick move.

I hope this has been an informative lesson on how this site has no rules and moderators are just regular users with an account and some gimmicks.

And the /trash/ thread moves at the speed of a glacier towards its inevitable demise at page 10.

>>1416489
That's hardly news.

OP, there is no point is trying to open a dialogue with the mods. They do not care about your problems, and they're intentionally obscure and opaque so they don't have to answer to you and can run their board however they see fit.

Here's how you deal with power trip mods like /d/'s resident faggot, or any other shitmod on this site who decides he gets to make up his own rules/gets to torment a specific group of users:

>figure out what content the mod doesn't like and deletes
>amass as much of this content as you can
>get a dynamic IP (or a phone)
>post the content the mod hates
>if he deletes, repost, pretend nothing happened
>if he bans, evade the ban, repost (again, pretending nothing happened, don't even acknowledge his presence
>if he whines to programmers/admins to add filters targetting the content he doesn't like, evade those
>repeat until mod either takes the hint and fucks off, or he goes apeshit and escalates and likely does something that gets them demodded or removed from modding that board (thus solving your unwarranted content removal problem)
>most importantly, never acknowledge that the mod did anything, don't give them the reaction they are looking for

This kind of person you are dealing with is a type of bully, and bullies absolutely cannot deal with their victims ignoring them, or defying them. It drives them fucking nuts and it eats away at their ego so hard they either give up and seek someone else to bully, or they snap and *autistic screeching* ensues.

In all my years of discussion boarding this has always worked to get an abusive moderator to back off eventually when all other avenues have failed. 4chan is a different situation, since NONE of the staf care, so there's no point in seeking the 'peaceful way'. Be assertive. Remind the mods they serve you, the users, and that the rules aren't theirs to make. Take your board back and don't let an autsitic sperg fuck ruin your board like they have so many others.

Lol. Mods are global.

>>1417189
This one is clearly singling out /d/ if it is indeed the same mod (s) that have been shitting on/d/ since 5ever

The fact we can't tell who's doing what on what board by itself is more of problem than this, if you ask me.

This shit is purely malicious. The only people who have a problem with board relevant OC are the fat literally who hot pocket fucks who other wise want to have nothing to do with the board's wellbeing.

Where are these paragons of justice when some fuck keeps necrobumping all the dead futa threads from page 10? Or the fucks who got lost on their way /r/? Nowhere, and probably slapping their tiny dicks in each others mouths while boards go to shit and unmoderated for hours at a time

>>1417196
Then stop contributing to 4chan ltd and go back to making frogs.

>>1417189
Mods are global, but some of them only care about one/certain boards. They don't even have to look at other boards, since the reporting system will show them all reported posts in a vacuum.

>>1416406
>Some people decided to try going to /trash/.
Sorry friend, we've had caption threads for quite some time.
I don't think you'll be able to rid us of our furry userbase considering it's the only real place it's allowed.

/trash/ has also sped up considerably over its creation by tons of generals and other clusters of annoyance, to the point where it actually surpasses /d/ and /aco/ in speed.

I'm starting to worry if these mods are going to start targeting my trash can if this gets too out of hand.

>>1416461
>there's bestiality and aco content
>and aco content
Just like it was back on /d/? Lol, the irony here.

>>1417264
I'm fully aware of that. And I'm fully aware of the JOI threads there. It's more along the lines of the poster who tried to put a /d/ caption thread there and expected anything good to come of it.

Your board in general doesn't move at the speed of a glacier, and it probably would have been a more apt description if I said that the /d/ thread that tried to go there recieved new content very slowly/updated at the speed of a glacier as it was steadily pushed towards page 10.

As for mod intervention, I don't believe so unless people started openly violating the Global Rules that are enforced there on a constant basis. It's like worrying about mod intervention on a slightly tamer version of /b/.

I was on your side in the beginning but then you just started throwing people under a bus and made yourself look like a bunch of faggots

What is happening to the thread?

>>1417803
/pol/

>>1417914
It looks like someone just Ctrl+f'd an archive and dumped every post that had the word m.o.d.s in it.

>>1417914
spambot as per usual.

>>1417187
Hey this sounds like a pretty great idea

What in the world happened here? I left for a little while and suddenly some posters just got way off topic here regarding the issues on /d/. And then /pol/ showed up and started spamming? What is going on here?
Also, to get back on topic, any alternatives to /d/ and plans besides just standing up to the mods? Not that I have a problem with that.

>>1418124
I have to agree. Should have mentioned that in my post, >>1418182 here.

>>1417187
Yes, just make life worse for every other user.
Fuck you if you do this.

>>1418209
When the mods have proven that they don't care, and whenever someone chats them up on IRC, they tiptoe around the issues, give conflicting statements, and cover eachother's ass instead of providing answers and actually owning up to their fuckups, what other course of action is there?

>>1418219
Accepting that this is a new policy? Not being a dick? Not breaking multiple rules? Not pissing of users? Seriously, these guerilla tactics are fucking annoying, just go through the established routes like the feedback form to voice your concerns, I'm guessing only a handful of people did that.

>>1418235
People did. The IRC thread screenshots posted earlier were the end result. They answered practically nothing, their statements conflicted with their actions then they resumed to abuse their power on the board. If all that's going to happen is us getting brushed off, then what?

>>1418244
I'm implying that maybe you got brushed off because of valid reasons, like you being dicks, being in the minority, complaining about old rules, etc. I already answered your question if you assume your situation.

>>1418235
If this was a new policy, all they need to do was just make ONE DAMN STICKY SAYING SO. There's no sticky in sight. I checked multiple times. I checked the archives. Not there either. Checked the rules. Nothing clearly against caption threads there either.

>>1418252
Seems like this isn't a new policy though? Considering they've been deleting them years ago at least.

>>1418257
Years ago? I can pull some archives of caption threads from earlier this year that were completely untouched.

>>1417803
Botspam.

>>1418277
Okay? That doesn't mean that there are no threads that were deleted years ago. Just means that those were skipped for some reason.

>>1418297
kek

>>1418289
Then they're being inconsistient with their rules which weren't even openly established in the first place since this thread even exists. The fact that those threads were present and untouched prove that the mods are running fast and loose with whatever rules they want to enforce if those rules even exist at all and they need to be called out on it.

>>1418310
>Then they're being inconsistient with their rules
Sure, but that's always been the case. They've always been slow, or missing shit.

>their rules which weren't even openly established in the first place since this thread even exists.
It's right there on the rule page, but fair enough. Guess some people can't take a hint.

>The fact that those threads were present and untouched prove that the mods are running fast and loose with whatever rules they want to enforce if those rules even exist at all and they need to be called out on it.
No it doesn't. There are a fuckton of reasons for why they'd skip those threads.

>>1418313
Post the exact rule prohibiting captions then. And mind you, that isn't Rule 6.

>>1418316
>Post the exact rule prohibiting captions then.
Rule 6. And technically 3 because image macros, I think.

>And mind you, that isn't Rule 6.
Why not? Technically, rule 6 could apply to anything, and the mods made it clear that rule 6 applies to captions.

>>1418313
And what are some other reasons that mods can miss threads that you could easily find with one quick scroll through the catalog? Especically since they have be deleted in a matter of minutes as of late?

>>1418321
Not enough people for example.

>>1418319
And Rule 6 could apply to anything a mod wants it to apply to. I said clearly prohibiting captions, not a rule that can be interpreted in such a way that it can apply to whatever a mod deems to violate said rule.

>>1418325
>I said clearly prohibiting captions
No you didn't. Anyway, I don't think that exists, and it doesn't need to exist.

>>1418327
What the hell is this then?>>1418316
I even said "isn't rule 6" right there.

>>1418327
If it did exist, then this confusion and argument wouldn't be a thing and we wouldn't be here arguing about it because it would have been clearly established. So, it apparently does need to exist.

>>1418331
That's "exact rule prohibiting captions then", not "clearly prohibiting captions", there's a difference. Rule 6 is definitely prohibiting captions as well, you saying "isn't Rule 6" doesn't make it so.
>>1418334
This bullshit also wouldn't exist if you guys were a little bit perceptive and realize that getting threads deleted/banned for rule 6, probably means that captions fall under rule 6.

>>1418339
This bullshit wouldn't exist if rule 6 wasnt something that is so intentionally vague and open to personal interpretation that there is even a debate on the quality of the threads in the first place.

>>1418339
It's all subjective, you don't really have an argument here, one mod doesn't like particular thing so he doesn't allow them

>>1418345
Yes, but then they'd have to change the rules every time something slightly different but equally shitty comes along. This way works, if users aren't whiny babies.
>>1418346
>It's all subjective, you don't really have an argument here
You say this like it's logical one follows the other, but it definitely isn't.

>one mod doesn't like particular thing so he doesn't allow them
Evidently it isn't considering it's an established practice.

>>1418346
Yo, tag me out. I'm going out for ice cream!

File: 1481647298282.png (213KB, 400x480px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 400x480px

>>1418347
Just walk away, Jim

You're argument is based on the preconceived notion that captions are low quality, who decides that quality? If the mods decided the fat male thread was low quality and deleted it, would you be Okay with that? what about the edit thread? what about /efg/?

are you really okay with the mod trying to shape the board into what HE personally wants instead of the people who actually use it?

>>1418358
>who decides that quality?
Mods, probably based on a number of factors. Same as how they decide any rule, this wouldn't be better if the rule wasn't subjective (assuming users aren't whiny babies).

>If the mods decided the fat male thread was low quality and deleted it, would you be Okay with that? what about the edit thread? what about /efg/?
Yes, yes, and yes, even if if was something that I actually liked because I don't like those particular threads.

>>are you really okay with the mod trying to shape the board into what HE personally wants instead of the people who actually use it?
I think this is a wrong assumption. There is no reason to believe this is the action of a single mod, it's most likely the decision of a number of people, probably brought to action by outside actions like reports (the people who actually use it).

>>1418364
nah, no one reports those threads, mods delete them because they don't like them plain and simple.

also if you wanna suck the mods cock so bad you can go back to R*eddit

>>1418377
>nah, no one reports those threads
That's definitely a wrong assumption. You're fucking delusional if you think nobody hates those threads.

File: 1465310699985.jpg (147KB, 479x579px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 479x579px

>>1418378
dude, your arguments lost all validity the moment you said you'd be okay with the mod deleting anything he wanted if he thought it was low quality, you don't belong here

>>1418380
>your arguments lost all validity the moment you said you'd be okay with the mod deleting anything he wanted if he thought it was low quality
At least my arguments are based on actual facts instead of wild asspulls. It's pretty disturbing that you prefer to go full nuclear based on your own wrong reality and just dismiss any counterfact just because it doesn't line up with your opinion. Sounds like you're doing the exact thing you claim the mod's doing, albeit without the power.
Also, I think you're missing quite a bit of context to that claim you're making about me.

>>1418386
You said you'd be okay with the mod deleting fat threads and similar such threads if he thought it was low quality, even though they break no rules (like caption threads), you're a brown nosing little faggot my boy.

I'm not doing what the mod is doing, the mod wants to wipe out a large userbase and silence us without even putting up any significant arguments, I just want everyone to be able to enjoy their fetishes without abusive mods

>>1418407
>You said you'd be okay with the mod deleting fat threads and similar such threads if he thought it was low quality, even though they break no rules (like caption threads)
By definition, they'd be breaking the rules then. This is an impossible situation. And again, you're missing context.
>>1418407
>I'm not doing what the mod is doing, the mod wants to wipe out a large userbase and silence us without even putting up any significant arguments, I just want everyone to be able to enjoy their fetishes without abusive mods
Oh okay, I assumed you were >>1418358 who said >>1418358
>the mod trying to shape the board into what HE personally wants instead of the people who actually use it?
Sorry about that.

>>1418417
So if the mod THINKS that fat threads are low quality they would be okay to get axed?

What if he suddenly started think all futa was low quality and started deleting them on site?

why are you okay with that??

>>1418422
>So if the mod THINKS that fat threads are low quality they would be okay to get axed?
With the context that I included? Yes.

>What if he suddenly started think all futa was low quality and started deleting them on site?
Same.

>why are you okay with that??
Because it would probably represent a large number of user's view.

It tends to help that on forums I've been to that have rules agains low quality and low effort posts, they actually provide short and clear examples of what would go against that rule so you know the mods and admin aren't just picking things that they don't agree with or don't like.

>>1418427

I really don't have a response to this level of brown nosing faggotry, I would just like you to know that no one wants you here

>>1418434
Again with the wild asspull assumptions. But yeah, makes sense you'd eventually get tired of needing to read facts to be able to call somebody names and be a hypocrite.

>>1418439
What the hell context are you talking about you asspained autist faggot?

the only views the mod is representing are his own, retard, that's the whole problem

>>1418441
Okay, so you really did just ignore everything that I posted. Nice. I suggest you read my posts, specifically the ones that you keep referring back on.

>the only views the mod is representing are his own, retard, that's the whole problem
This is disproved already. So, it's a wild asspull assumption. I'm really getting tired of these.

>>1418447

>>If the mods decided the fat male thread was low quality and deleted it, would you be Okay with that? what about the edit thread? what about /efg/?
>Yes, yes, and yes, even if if was something that I actually liked because I don't like those particular threads.

That's you're context, you nigger, and the only thing that has been proven is that the mod is indeed acting toward his own personal interests and nobody elses

>>1418449
>That's you're context, you nigger,
No it's not.

>and the only thing that has been proven is that the mod is indeed acting toward his own personal interests and nobody elses
kek, no that's just your imagination based on wrong interpretations of probably IRC chat logs.

>>1418450
I have yet to see you post anything contrary to you just sucking mod cock, you stupid nigger

These threads are more than enough proof that the only interests the mod cares about are his own

>>1418453
>These threads are more than enough proof that the only interests the mod cares about are his own
I don't think so, I've seen enough people voice opinions that coincide with the ban decision.

>>1418456
I've seen more against it, I don't know how it is on R*ddit,but majority rules on 4chan

>>1418456
And the majority of this thread is agsinst the ban decision. In fact, you're pretty much the one of the few here who openly support it while the rest of the thread has either been against it, or just looking for answers that amounted to more than just getting the run around.

>>1418460
*Against

>>1418459
You're only considering the vocal part that posts on an unlisted board though, you (and I) can't judge if either side's the majority. In the worst case, 74 people shouldn't be able to decide a whole board's policy.
>>1418460
>And the majority of this thread is agsinst the ban decision.
Weird, a thread about the ban decision being shit is against the ban decision and doesn't seem to invite people not agreeing with the thread's topic? Obviously this is a biased sample.
>In fact, you're pretty much the one of the few here who openly support it while the rest of the thread has either been against it, or just looking for answers that amounted to more than just getting the run around.
If you round to the nearest decade or so, sure.

>>1418463

nah bro, I can guarantee you the amount against it far, far surpasses the amount sucking the mods cock

>>1418468
Wew lad, that's some cold hard facts right there.

>>1418470
take one dose a day for best effects, consult a doctor when the mod cum starts to leak from your asshole

>>1418463
And what makes you think that one single person should decide a board's policy?

>>1418474
I don't think that, except if it's the owner or something but that's irrelevant to this situation.

>>1418476
Seems pretty relevant to the situation here if you ask me.

>>1418481
You think Hiroshimoot/moot decided this? I definitely don't think so, which is why I think it's irrelevant. Mods aren't owners of the site by the way.

>>1418486
I think one mod decided this for /d/. Not Hiromoot. The owner part is irrelevant. The one person, in this case, the mod deciding a board's policy is the relevant part.

>>1418490

Mod's don't decide board policy, they ensure board policy is followed (which is not the case with the mods on /d/)

>>1418490
Then you misunderstood what I said in >>1418476

I said that I don't think that (one single person should decide a board's policy?), except if it's the owner or something (Hiroshimoot/moot) but that (except if it's the owner or something) is irrelevant.
>>1418495
I'd assume mods have some decision power in board policy, though I think not a single mod has the power to decide, and they probably use a bunch of user input to decide what the users want. I think this is what happened on /d/.

>>1418495
And because of that part in the parentheses, we're all here discussing issues about a mod on /d/ rather than just enjoying ourselves on/d/

>>1418506

Then they used zero user input

>>1418513
I fucking give up, I can't deal with these fucking asspulls anymore.

>>1418506

To be honest, mods don't even enforce board policy for anything, there are about 10 or so threads there with western images for the first image, even though that IS an explicit rule

they are fucking faggots, anyone who supports them is a fucking faggot

>>1418525
It's no bigger an asspull than the shit you're saying, retard, just accept the mods are fucking retarded

>>1418526
I think that's more a case of them missing it.
>>1418529
All my stuff is based on facts or sound logic. Or they're clearly marked as my opinions and not as facts.

>>1418535
nah, your stuff is based on bullshit

It's convenient how they "miss" those threads for months but caption threads are deleted in minutes

you are so full of shit it's almost unbelievable

>>1418593
Yeah, it can't be that they recently got new janitors or something that helps them with finding more rule breaking content. It has to be convenience, even though it was an established rule before that drought.
Your refutations suck.

>>1418601
That argument was already shown to be full of shit in a previous IRC chat someone had with a mod, keep digging though buddy, the fact remains there is clearly rule breaking stuff still up on /d/ even though captions, which I will remind you break no rules, still get deleted within minutes

>>1418601
And yet, a nazi thread with no /d/ content, but a decent amount of /pol/ content gets to stay for days while a caption thread gets deleted within less than a half hour. And that was recent. Excuse me if I think you're full of it. Doubly so because almost every time you post, you find new ways and reasons to defend the mods without question.

>>1418618
That wasn't really an argument, that was just me calling you a dipshit. The case remains that there are a multitude of possible reasons for why they suddenly started deleting them again. Stuff like new staff, people getting sick of it and reporting it, staff schedules being changed, feedback, etc.

>previous IRC chat someone had with a mod
Do you happen to have a link to that particular one? I stopped reading them after a bit because it was just people asking stupid questions.

>the fact remains there is clearly rule breaking stuff still up on /d/ even though captions, which I will remind you break no rules, still get deleted within minutes
Okay. This isn't an argument either, right? Because comparing threads like that is retarded.
>>1418620
>And yet, a nazi thread with no /d/ content
I considered that /d/, barely but still. Maybe that was just not reported enough.

>Doubly so because almost every time you post, you find new ways and reasons to defend the mods without question.
Mostly because people keep forgetting simple reasons for why mods do something.

>>1418636
YOU consider it /d/. A bunch of the posters on the thread and board didn't. And the mod didn't when he got around to it DAYS LATER.

>>1418648
Fair enough, I didn't read any of the replies in it and I can see why people wouldn't consider it /d/. I would've liked to have it stay, but I accept that it has no place there then.

>>1418651
Of course you accept it even though you like it, because you'll always accept what the mod does, without question.

>>1418636
I just want you to accept that within that "multitude of reasons" are reasons like the mod personally doesn't like them, abuse of power, etc

I'm done talking with you though, this isn't really going to accomplish anything chatting witha dumbfuck like you, we'll just do what we always do, wait until this blows over then go back to posting peacefully for months before some mod runs out of tendies and takes it out on the userbase

>>1418711
>I just want you to accept that within that "multitude of reasons" are reasons like the mod personally doesn't like them, abuse of power, etc
Considering the amount of evidence that points to this being extremely not likely, I won't.

>we'll just do what we always do, wait until this blows over then go back to posting peacefully for months before some mod runs out of tendies and takes it out on the userbase
At least it's not some bullshit "war" that some people have been suggesting.

the nazi thread is dead

>>1418718
>new staff
why are there still rule breaking pictures on /d/?
>people getting sick of it and reporting it
why are there still rule breaking pictures on /d/?
>staff schedules
why are there still rule breaking pictures on /d/?
>feedback
why are there still rule breaking pictures on /d/?

if any of that shit were true /d/ wouldnt be full of western shit you faggot, it's a mods personal tastes on the matter being reflected on the whole board

>>1418728
Please read the thread before jumping into a conversation, thanks !

>>1418734
You didn't answer my question fuckface, none of your posts do

>>1418738
I know I didn't answer your question, I'm just suggesting you read the thread before making stupid questions. It's not nice to jump into a conversation when most of the things were discussed already.
But yes, I did basically answer that though not that specifically of course. You'd know it if you actually read my posts before jumping into a conversation that you had nothing to do with.

File: 1465782411877.jpg (140KB, 1273x713px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1273x713px

>>1418757


you didn't answer that question once
suck more mod cock faggot

>>1418767
I probably answered it multiple times, yes.

>>1418773
you didnt at all though :-)

What I don't understand is the need to remove one single thread in the first place.

One thread that seemed to have a lot of traffic causes this much drama? It's one fucking thread, who gives a shit? If people are this up in arms about it, then it obviously has a place. Is it really causing a problem if it's content is contained in a single thread at pretty much all times?

Page 9 is upon us all. If you wish to continue, prepare for a new thread.

>>1418813
A single thread can definitely be an annoyance to users, or worse. Plenty of people get annoyed by singular threads.

>>1418813
No one knows why exactly, and the mod is pretty much nuking all caption threads without explanation. The mass ban on a bunch of caption thread posters earlier didn't help in the slightest and led to the creation of this thread because the only justification for the bans was an automated message citing a violation of Rule 6. A rule which can be left up to intrepretation, leading posters to point out the inconsistiencies between what the mod did and didn't delete based on his logic and Rule 6. Then there was the run around on IRC between a user and a mod, which didn't help at all.

TLDR version: Mod appears to abuse his power to enforce his own personal desires on /d/ and this thread is brought into existience as a response.