Why does pepe get deleted on this board but actual spam

>>1559958
its almost like this is a japanese hobbyist website

>>1559959
It's not though. You can read the purpose of the front page.

>>1559958
The janitor/mod is blatantly biased. there's nothing more to it. Garbage is garbage, even if it's the wrappers of your favorite snack food.

>>1559958
Because the spin-off weebs like to cry and immediately report everything they don't like. The mods eventually get tired of the whiny faggots and delete pepe flooding, so that the cry babies will shut up.
Mass reporting was also the reason why this board got frozen for a month.
>>1559959
You know that /b/ was the first board created and that it was already bigger than /a/ in 2007?
And we all know that the weebs here are not from /jp/ and not from /a/.

>>1559967
>Because the spin-off weebs like to cry and immediately report everything they don't like. The mods eventually get tired of the whiny faggots and delete pepe flooding, so that the cry babies will shut up.
Why not just ban them?

File: btfo.jpg (31KB, 813x281px)

31KB, 813x281px

>>1559958
>>1559961
>>1559963
>>1559967
>>1559968
you sound buttdevastated

>>1559961
Yeah... I see a category called "Japanese culture" but nothing of American culture, European culture, African culture, etc.
Really makes me wonder if 4chan treats Japanese culture specially!
>>1559971
This. They are just mad mods aren't on their side. MODS=GODS is the truth since the beginning of this site.

>>1559973
>4chan is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images.
This means not just weebs.
>There are boards dedicated to a variety of topics, from Japanese animation and culture to videogames, music, and photography.
This means other things besides jap culture.
>Users do not need to register an account before participating in the community. Feel free to click on a board below that interests you and jump right in!
This means everyone you hate has a right to be here.

>>1559978
You did not refute my argument you know. You are just pulling out your own bullshit.

>>1559981
Not only did I prove you wrong, I showed how out of touch you are with reality around you to believe the things you do.

File: orly.jpg (10KB, 235x215px)

10KB, 235x215px

>>1559984

>>1559983
My argument proved yours wrong. I showed how out of touch you are with reality around you to believe the things you do.

>>1559988
Ahh yes, repetition is the most sincere form of flattery.

>>1559990
You are just mad that I used your own weapon against you. Keep telling yourself that.
You even feel the need to post >>1559992 to unleash your wreaths.

>>1559993
No, it is you in fact that are mad that your own argument got used against you. You then claimed victory by repeating your already discredited argument. Even if this was a site exclusively for anime and discussion of japanese culture as you claim (which it isn't), it still wouldn't have anything to do with your weeb shitposting in the OP pic.

>>1559971
> post that was part of the chad flood

>>1559988
So you want to tell us that the description on 4chan.org is wrong?

>>1559995
>No, it is you in fact that are mad that your own argument got used against you.
Where?
>You then claimed victory by repeating your already discredited argument.
You didn't point how my argument was wrong. You claimed your own.
>Even if this was a site exclusively for anime and discussion of japanese culture as you claim
>exclusively
I didn't claim that.
Can't defeat my argument so pull out strawman, huh?

>>1559998
So you agree that 4chan is not exclusively for anime.
Then what was your fucking point?

>>1559998
Who do you think you are kidding? The purpose of 4chan that's on the front page contradicts your personal idea that this is an anime website. It's funny how it doesn't say that anywhere on there.

inb4 4 year old moot screenshots

>>1559999
>>1560000
nice digits my dudes

>>1559999
Can't even read my post:
>Really makes me wonder if 4chan treats Japanese culture specially!
>>1560000
>personal idea
>I see a category called "Japanese culture" but nothing of American culture, European culture, African culture, etc.
This is fact.

File: 1465676458740.png (237KB, 750x432px)

237KB, 750x432px

>>1559995
>>1559999
>>1560000
Shut up and get banned again, retards:

http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/810702/#810945
http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/864972/#864972
http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1377744/#1377744
http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1501060/#1501060

It really amazes me how you still keep trying to have these retarded arguments here after you got BTFO so much by the mods.

>>1560003
>but nothing of American culture, European culture, African culture, etc
You idiot, what do you think every board that isn't a weeb board is? Those ARE the American/Euro/African/Brazilian culture boards. For fucks sake, have you ever even been to a board outside of /jp/ or /qa/? If only you knew what a minority on the site you and your kind are now.

>>1560004
What's really amazing is how every time someone gets banned for trolling you incorporate the incident into your false narrative about how they supposedly got banned for proving you wrong.

>>1560005
>Those ARE the American/Euro/African/Brazilian culture boards.
Name a board for each one of them to support you claim.

>>1560007
Are you really trying to say that boards like /pol/ and /tv/, which combined far outnumber the users on every weeb board, are japanese culture and not american/euro culture?

>>1560008
Are you really trying to say that boards like /pol/ and /tv/, which combined far outnumber the users on every weeb board, are japanese culture
Another strawman. Point out where I claimed them to be Japanese culture board.
>and not american/euro culture?
American, European, Brazilian culture are different. Is /pol/ an American, European, or Brazilian culture board?
None of them. Because politics from any country have their place on /pol/.

>>1560009
Here
>>1559973
You said you don't see any boards for American culture and that's just ridiculous. You're either blind or stupid, so which one is it?

>>1560010
There are boards *specifically* for Japanese culture. That's what I claim.
Where is the board *specifically* for American culture?

File: 1499539270980.png (12KB, 512x380px)

12KB, 512x380px

>>1560006
The mods are on our side, not yours. Last ban proves it.

Back to /mlpol/ now, subhuman.

>>1560011
So what? What do you think that indicates? I fail to see how because one board is called /jp/ that it means the whole site conforms to your flawed idea of this being an "anime site". Are you still seriously going to pretend as though every other non-weeb board on this site has more to do with Jap culture than American/Euro ? Do you honestly think most people come here to discuss anime and jap culture? Let me laugh even harder.

>>1560012
>our
Who is "our"? The weeb mafia?

>>1560014
>I fail to see how because one board is called /jp/ that it means the whole site conforms to your flawed idea of this being an "anime site".
Where did I say 4chan is an "anime site"?
>Are you still seriously going to pretend as though every other non-weeb board on this site has more to do with Jap culture than American/Euro ?
Where did I claim that Japanese culture are special on non-weeb boards?
>Do you honestly think most people come here to discuss anime and jap culture?
Where did I claim that?
THREE strawman arguments. Great.

>>1560017
You did it here >>1559973,, here >>1559981, and here >>1559993.

The only thing confirmed here today for me is that you are as crazy and deluded as I thought you were. The OP question was already answered here >>1559967 . You're just proving him right more and more with every post.

>>1560014
Whatever you like to call it, horsefucker. You can keep waging your imaginary autistic war here as long as you want, but expect more bans like those I linked if you do. The message is clear.

Man these Facebook frogs sure are dense.

>>1560022
I thought I was a furry now. Get your adhoms straight. I expect better from you.

>>1560021
>You did it here >>1559973 #,, here >>1559981 #, and here >>1559993 #.
I didn't. Point out HOW my posts are interpreted that I did that, or it didn't happen.

>>1560028
Oh it did happen, but even if I did what you ask you would ask for more evidence. That's all you've got because you've been proven wrong and don't have another argument.

>>1560030
>That's all you've got because you've been proven wrong
I postsed an argument. I didn't try to disprove >>1559978 wrong. In fact I totally agree with >>1559978. I pointed out that your claim didn't prove mine wrong. I posted >>1559988 ironically to point out you didn't prove me wrong.

>>1559978
>This means everyone you hate has a right to be here.

https://www.4chan.org/rules
>Remember: The use of 4chan is a privilege, not a right. The 4chan moderation team reserves the right to revoke access and remove content for any reason without notice.

>>1560038
Why don't you go whine about it in one of your 25 spam threads. It will probably make you feel better.

Here is a good candidate
>>1559662

>>1560043
>>1560043
>Why don't you go whine about it in one of your 25 spam threads. It will probably make you feel better.
Because I'm not one of them. There are boards for weebs (which is a fact), and there are boards for all kinds of culture (also a fact).

File: 1446520868473.jpg (8KB, 298x206px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 298x206px

>>1560042
lol you nitpicker

Stop replying to these threads, these people don't actually care and just want to spam the board. there is nothing to be gained or any way to reason, it's merely feeding them.

>>1560087
There's the schizo, right on cue.

bumping this good thread

File: 1498502010808.gif (134KB, 340x340px)

134KB, 340x340px

I love how mad people get over not being able to spam this board. The best part is, since they're unable to do it without a mobile ISP, all their attempts are fully manual. Imagine some angry kid furiously tapping away at his smartphone's screen for an hour straight.

>>1560229
How is that relevant to the spam in the OP pic?

>>1560233
I'm not going to spoonfeed you, faggot.

>>1560237
You can't because it isn't relevant.

>>1560240
Nice thinly veiled spoonfeeding request.

>>1560245
I think >>1560043 was meant for you.

>>1560247
That's impossible because I found this thread 15 minutes ago.

le mods are on our side lol le frogs go back to le mlpol lol

>>1559958
Stupid frogposter.

>>1561069
Nice bump.

>>1561071
Suck my cock dude.

>>1561072
Just stop bumping shit threads.

>>1561073
Make me, faggot.

>>1561076
I can't force you, I'm merely asking you to stop.

>>1561077
Ask the bot runner to stop using his bot to bump 100x more shit threads than the most relentless spammer could even if he spent all day doing it.

>>1561082
So because others bump garbage threads that makes you bump garbage threads as well? I don't follow.

>>1561083
I'm not the person who's bumping these threads, but any resistance to the bot-running backseat mod is welcome even if it's spam, so I'm glad to see it in all its forms.

>>1561084
So to fight spam we need even more spam? I'm not sure I understand how it's supported to be helping or negating the effects of the bots. The threads that the bots bump won't get knocked out anyway, the only effect it's having is keeping up more threads that shoul've died alive. It's not like threads are dying too fast due to botspamming, as /qa/ is still extremely slow and keeping alive more shit threads means that more botbumps will result as the board will get more cluttered and threads will be requiered to be bumped more often.

It's counterproductive if anything.

>>1561086
>So to fight spam we need even more spam?
No. He should spam out of spite, because he's sick of seeing a backseat mod claim complete ownership of the board, and to break up the autistic circlejerk that the bot runner is trying to achieve.

>>1561087
So you think that people should post garbage because other people are posting garbage as well? That's not helping at all and making things even worse, spiriling out of control.

Also what the end goal for the board is then? The so called backseat mods apparently at least try to create a circlejerk on the board, but what is the different side's trying to achieve? The only goal and motivation so far is just to try spite someone else.

>>1561089
>So you think that people should post garbage because other people are posting garbage as well?
Yes. The alternative is to lay down and die. Think of it like this: imagine a town with two tribes: reds and blues. The town has a well in the town square and for some reason you need a ticket to go to the well. Tickets are distributed seemingly at random but people come up with all sorts of stupid tricks to try and get more tickets, but they still end up in the hands of both tribes.

But then, one day, somebody installs a machine that manipulates the system so that the red tribe gets all the tickets. Forever. Having more numbers, all sorts of the old stupid tricks, none of it works. Resistance to the machine is futile. What should the blue tribe do here?

They should poison the well.

>>1561091
What if the blue tribe consists of people who don't actually need or want water and only intend to render it unusable for other people, and the red tribe once tried deactivating the machine to see if it would provoke a change in the blue tribe's behavior but it didn't because they don't actually have any interest in the well?

Alternative to counter-spamming board you actually don't care about and have no use for apart from counter-spamming is to leave it alone and not post at all, especially after mods decide to delete the spam threads that you post and counter-spam.

Also I don't understand how the anology is supposed to apply to this situation. You should probably elaborate on that.

>>1561096
>What if the blue tribe consists of people who don't actually need or want water
You're a fucking joke. But let's humor you for just one second. Even IF the blue tribe didn't want water there was a green tribe, once a upon a time, who also gets no water. Or maybe the red tribe GRACIOUSLY distributes 5% of tickets to green tribe members and expects them to suck their dicks for the privilege.

>>1561097
>after mods decide to delete the spam threads that you post and counter-spam.
Resistance to biased moderation is obedience to God.

>>1561098
So, are you to actually respond to more of my points/questions or endlessly cherrypick one thing?

>>1561101
>So, are you to actually respond to more of my points/questions or endlessly cherrypick one thing?
Are we supposed to suck your dick for deactivating the machine? No. Fuck off.

>>1561102
What? I don't follow how would that be a response to anything I have written previously. I thought you actually wanted to discuss the topic at hand regarding the spam and justifications for it, but I suppose you're here to actually post trash.

>>1561098
Maybe the green tribe is not a separate tribe, but rather the real blue tribe, and it's getting talked by malicious outsiders pretending to be part of the blue tribe into doing all sorts of dumb shit.

>>1561103
>I thought you actually wanted to discuss the topic at hand regarding the spam and justifications for it, but I suppose you're here to actually post trash.
I assumed you were >>1561096, who wrote a sentence about how he so very fucking graciously temporarily deactivated the bot to see if the spam, saw that it didn't, and turned it right back on, now with added moral superiority.

Poisoning the well is its own reward. The blue tribe doesn't need to justify itself to red tribe shitters.

>>1561105
"Tribes", collectively, don't do shit. All dumb shit, whether bot spam or bot running, comes from one or two individuals. 99% of red tribe didn't install any sort of system at all, but too fucking bad. They're happily reaping its rewards anyway.

>>1561106
Nah, I'm not the guy who runs the bot. I'm glad he was naive enough to actually listen to this kind of bullshit, though, because it helped show just how much those noble rebels (and maybe a couple retards who were dumb enough to fall for their rhetoric, I guess?) enjoy and care about /qa/ and where their priorities are.

>>1561108
I'm not here to tell the bot runner to stop. He happy camps out with delusional conspiracy theorists and rabid shitposters. I'm here to encourage spammers to not feel the slightest bit of remorse if they want to engage in scorched earth warfare against people who have cheated at the game.

>just how much those noble rebels (and maybe a couple retards who were dumb enough to fall for their rhetoric, I guess?) enjoy and care about /qa/
I used to enjoy and care about /qa/. It has been leveled. The last enjoyment left to me is watching you circlejerking shitters moan and bitch that people don't just roll over and die to your bot.

>>1561106
No, I'm the person endlessly inquiring as to what the justification behind the counterspam is and getting little to no answers to my questions, guareanteed, they might be multiple, thus it might be reasonable to not answer them all at once, however, the amount of significant questions being unanswered raises rapidly.

I'll try to actually point of what I'd like responded to from my previous posts.

>>1561089
>Also what the end goal for the board is then? The so called backseat mods apparently at least try to create a circlejerk on the board, but what is the different side's trying to achieve? The only goal and motivation so far is just to try spite someone else.

That is important because if there is no goal to the spam apart from being spiteful, then there is really no justification for the spite, since there is nothing to be spiteful about, you're just being annoyed at some people having good time without you being damaged in any fashion.

>>1561097
>Alternative to counter-spamming board you actually don't care about and have no use for apart from counter-spamming is to leave it alone and not post at all.

Why spam if there is nothing you actually want to do apart from dispute other's threads and then getting annoyed when mods delete those posts?

>Also I don't understand how the anology is supposed to apply to this situation. You should probably elaborate on that.

I trully don't understand what you're trying to express by that, I tried to analyze it, however, I always just stumble upon something that doesn't make sense to me, so I want to see the rationale, so I know what I'm responding to as opposed to just shotgunning and arguing about something that isn't relevant.

>>1561110
>I'm here to encourage spammers to not feel the slightest bit of remorse if they want to engage in scorched earth warfare against people who have cheated at the game.
They don't need to be told that because that's what they're here for anyway. It's too bad you don't care, but fortunately, there are enough people who do to render their arduous, manual work effectively moot.

Also, should you really be calling others delusional when you assume everyone who's sympathetic toward the bot is its owner?

>>1561111
>That is important because if there is no goal to the spam apart from being spiteful, then there is really no justification for the spite, since there is nothing to be spiteful about, you're just being annoyed at some people having good time without you being damaged in any fashion.
My spite - personally - not that you care - comes from the fact that /qa/ has been basically destroyed as a meta board for knowledgeable individuals invested in their boards to discuss anything. Visit the thread where asan used his capcode to discuss with users or where /a/ appealed hiro to have his firing reversed. /qa/ look anything like that to you? Even remotely? A secondary source of spite is that the lot of "you" are miserable shitters who, faced with any sort of criticism, immediately drop default to accusations of being some sort of false-flagging /mlpol/ack frogposting discord shitter. I really liked "/qa/ has always been exactly like this and everyone who noticed the demographic change is a false-flagging shitter" guy. That guy was a real fucking gem.

The guy ACTUALLY mass-manufacturing shit threads? I have no idea what he wants. Maybe he wants to kill all weebs. I don't really care.

>I trully don't understand what you're trying to express by that
It's an allegory. I'm not going to dissect it.

>>1561112
Honestly? If they were really remorseless, they'd spam your "nice threads." I have no idea what the fuck they mean to achieve by making their own.

>>1561113
I accept your claim that you are not the bot owner. I did talk with him in /meta/ about it so I know he does defend it.

>>1561114
You can still discuss plenty of meta here as I do from time to time, most of what gets spammed are type of threads where someone comes in with their deserved ban out of context and then complain about why they got banned when they clearly were posting trash. Or something like why they can't post request threads on /a/, filename threads on /v/, braaap on /pol/ or blacked on /tv/.

If you link me me meta threads that got spammed unjustifyingly I might change my mind, however, from what I've seen pretty much all of it is perfectly reasonable.

And if you actually don't want to explain the allegory or why it is supposed to be relevant, then why bother posting it to begin with?

>>1561116
>You can still discuss plenty of meta here as I do from time to time
In order to have a conversation you need a large pool of conversational partners to draw from. Technically you only need one person, but that's like trying to find a needle in a stack. There need to be a lot of needles or you are wasting your time. This large pool of conversation partners - casual /qa/ meta browsers - is gone. There are plenty of shit meta threads. There are plenty of shit EVERY threads. Between every good thread is 99% shit threads that establish the atmosphere of the board. If you merged two boards, and then deleted all the "shit" threads for one topic, that entire topic would disappear.

>Or something like why they can't post request threads on /a/
This is a legitimate question. Recommendations are accepted topics of discussion on something like 90% of 4chan boards, including /a/ sister board such as /jp/ and /u/. /a/ is one of few cases where this is not true - and I don't really disagree with the /a/ policy - but it's still a legitimate question. The notion that one bot runner has decided that he gets to sink threads that don't meet his arbitrary standards is horseshit.

>And if you actually don't want to explain the allegory or why it is supposed to be relevant, then why bother posting it to begin with?
I had great faith in your interpretive powers. That faith has been dispelled. You can chalk it up to me being a bad storyteller if you want.

>>1561114
I personally talked to A-san on IRC shortly before he was removed from the moderation team, and then in a /jp/ metathread that was derailed into /a/ general discussion, and a few days later in the thread you mention. That was one of the worst periods in this board's history. No, /qa/ doesn't look like that anymore - for one, it's missing all the retards who feel validated by each other in using this board as a platform to stir moderator controversy and attempt to push unilateral changes to site policy. I don't know if this is a case of selective memory or if you genuinely believe that's okay, but it is in fact not, and scum like https://archive.fo/B58z3 has no place here or anywhere on this site.

>>1561118
>/jp/ metathread that was derailed into /a/ general discussion
Other way around. He was actually planning to do something about /jp/ at the time, although we'll never know what it was.

>it's missing all the retards who feel validated by each other in using this board as a platform to stir moderator controversy and attempt to push unilateral changes to site policy.
It's missing these because it's missing all metadiscussion. People who attempt to push unilateral changes to site policy are just people with retarded opinions who are usually rightly ignored or occasionally told off by people who aren't retards. It's also missing the only place on 4chan where an individual can have coherent discussion with non-dedicated shitposters about 4chan other than ``hiro approved metathreads'' which are if anything even more shit.

Militant 4+2 shills and leak discussion was always banned on /qa/.

>>1561117
So you're spiteful against spammers because old /qa/ is gone and you want it back? It appears that therefore you think that those two are connected and most likely that the latter cause the fomer. How is that so? Did the influx of different threads just scare meta people off? Because as I already wrote you can still discuss the meta and you didn't really try to contest that at all, also as far as I recall the board has been spammed even before the current influx of posts happened, so are these people to blame as well? Didn't the previous spammers maybe chase off metaposters?

I don't really think it justifies being spiteful against botters that well as they didn't really force anyone to leave and they just dispersed naturally. Also if you want the meta back, then just create good meta threads wirh good discussion, unless they get spammed or deleted (which I doubt they will), you can actually try to influence the board culture into being more meta.

You can also pose a proper question as to why /a/ doesn't actually allow request threads and maybe get some responses going and I think it's been done in the past. The issue is that it usually is more along the lines of someone coming complaining about ban when their thread was something like "I just got a chrunchyroll premium, what anime should I watch?", but that's kind of redundant to the point.

And I already encountered one person some time ago responding to me with allegory and then refusing to discuss it. I just don't get it, the only thing I'm trying to do is to understand the allegory, so I want to analyze it and ask questions about it, but the respose I get it just that it's not something you analyze, that I should get it and that I'm stupid for not getting it, which is fine to do, but if I'm so stupid at least show me why I'm so stupid.

>>1561118
>Same case on /qa/. Its a bunch of /jp/ spinoffs, mostly ota.ch and our /jp/ here trying to make their own precious 2D/Random board they've so badly wanted. The mods seem them as a way to silence all meta talk.
>08/17/17
i cri evry tiem

>>1561121
>Other way around.
It was about /jp/ generals, specifically the Monster Girl one, but the OP also mentioned the Daily Japanese Thread that had been removed from /a/ a week or two earlier.
>It's missing these because it's missing all metadiscussion.
>all
Not true.
>People who attempt to push unilateral changes to site policy are just people with retarded opinions who are usually rightly ignored or occasionally told off by people who aren't retards.
And yet A-san was fired over a /qa/ warning. And yet some guy managed to get (You) removed by posting the same thread everyday until it caught Hiro's attention (admittedly, he was justified...) And yet "delete /pol/" threads used to reach bump limit (with actual, genuine posts, not spam.) And yet /qa/ was chock-full of brigading, some of it from other sites even. Sounds like ignoring them wasn't working very well.
>Militant 4+2 shills and leak discussion was always banned on /qa/.
And yet they're still here; in fact, the "leaks" (actually just a conversation with a regular IRC user, but hey, who cares about that as long as it supports my narrative, right?) from that threads were first posted on /qa/: http://desuarchive.org/qa/thread/1523915/#1526984
They eventually spread to /pol/, where they received a manager capcode response.

I like how the conversation has been shifted to the point where the spam in the OP pic isn't spam anymore. Good job on that damage control there, guys.

Goddamn, weebs got triggered hard by this thread.

>>1561134
it has anime in the op meaning it belongs to us weebs and is more than welcome

>>1561134
Is this your first time seeing people discuss something on 4chan without posting /v/ reaction faces?

>>1561135
>us weebs
It's weebspam, not anime. The anime is on >>>/a/ and other boards, not here. Here it's just shitposting. You and "us weebs" should go back to your spinoff where you belong.

>>1561129

>>1561129
>And yet A-san was fired over a /qa/ warning
We can blame external factors for what brought things to that situation but ultimately only asan can be responsible for his own actions. If it were not for /qa/ he might have issued the warnings in /pol/. It's hard to say what might have happened.

>And yet some guy managed to get (You) removed by posting the same thread everyday until it caught Hiro's attention (admittedly, he was justified...)
What /qa/ gives with one hand, it takes away with the other.

>And yet /qa/ was chock-full of brigading, some of it from other sites even. Sounds like ignoring them wasn't working very well.
Most of this was sound and fury, signifying nothing. They never actually got anything done because presumably the few times hiro was retarded enough to ask his mods "is this allegation true" somebody presumably told him "no." It was also one of the few places that complete idiots could get truth instead of whatever their idiotic friends had been feeding them, and for new retarded users to learn a little bit of history, even if the education of retards isn't high on anyone's priority list.

As for conspiratorial idiots, that kind of idiocy is bad anywhere on 4chan, but it's just as retarded on /pol/ as on /qa/, with less people to correct them. Across-the-board condemnation of something because retards abuse it is sad.

>>1561126
>they didn't really force anyone to leave and they just dispersed naturally.
People who are harassed enough are not "forced" to leave, but they often do. It's why all the boards do it to people they don't like, even if nobody told to kys ever actually khs. A bot simply applies that pressure more evenly and consistently without possibility of resistance.

>I'm so stupid at least show me why I'm so stupid.
Control of a board is like a game. You spam people's dumb threads with copypasta and make more of your own threads and bump your threads and sage other people's threads. Handing over control to a bot is cheating. It's not a game anymore. Anyone still trying to play the game should just flip the table and burn down the gameroom.

>>1561137
Seething

>>1561143
You're goddamned right I'm seething. You would be too if you were in my shoes dealing with idiots like yourself.

>>1561144
Seething

>>1561147
Yes, I am seething.

>>1561141
>If it were not for /qa/ he might have issued the warnings in /pol/. It's hard to say what might have happened.
That's irrelevant, though. What happened is that he gave a custom warning that was meant as clarification, on an unlisted board that had already fulfilled its purpose, and got canned for it. You know how "/qa/ is not a real board"? Well, apparently it was at the time.
>They never actually got anything done
They managed to attract plenty of similar retards. Hard to take a fucking hint if everyone around you is doing the same thing, no?
>Across-the-board condemnation of something because retards abuse it is sad.
What am I supposed to be condemning here? Because it's certainly not "meta discussion".

Also, spoonfeeding newfags is by no means a good thing.

>>1561138
There's a reason why I asked for meta threads that are spammed, the accepable ones are rarely spammed from what I've seen, so the claim that the bots made people leave wouldn't work well, because the bots didn't interact with meta almost at all.

I mean you can certainly argue that bots didn't help, but actually trying to say and perhaps even imply that they're the reason they left and meta is dead is rather overreaching, especially considering how slow this board is, meaning that any thread that gets even low amount of traction has opportunity to stay, unless some other spammer actually comes in and creates loads of threads, but that's not the kind of spammers we're actually discussing.

To your analogy, I don't think think that you should burn down anything ever, if some kind of game is rigged somewhere, then you should probably try to discuss the problem with some kind of higher-up or someone that can solve it, if they're on in the game then you should probably try to go even higher, something like an overreaching organizatrion that is there to enforce the rule, alternatively you can try to play the game somewhere else, maybe you can try to play different game or with different people, maybe you can also call out the person rigging the game, I don't think others would allow someone to rig the game as they'd also get into disadvantage, so they'd just banish the person.

The actual issue that is that doesn't really apply that well to /qa/ at least in the current state. You can still play the game you want to play (meta) in the same place (/qa/), the problem you have is that there aren't many people that want to play with you, thus you blame the other people playing different games that it's their fault that no one wants to play with you anymore. Also topics aren't the same as all games. Most games that would get played are possibly card games that have pretty high replayability, with meta you just discuss something and move on, thus people not discussing.

>>1561159
You're operating under several false premises, the biggest among them being that meta is dead on this board, metaposters don't come here anymore, and that 'rigging the game' is going to stop crossboarders from coming here to whine about meta problems to interact with the metaposters..

>>1561152
>Well, apparently it was at the time.
I sympathize with asan but I still think what he did was dumb. The only real excuse there is that nobody made it clear to him that he wasn't allowed to do such things, maybe because he skipped "neo-4chan mod orientation" by virtue as being old as shit. It was dumb any way you slice it.

>Hard to take a fucking hint if everyone around you is doing the same thing, no?
The same thing happens everywhere else. As retarded as /qa/ is, it is probably still one of the less retarded places you can have the discussion.
>What am I supposed to be condemning here? Because it's certainly not "meta discussion".
I suppose you were condemning entire period in /qa/ where said discussion was at its highest.

>>1561159
Decent metadiscussions were slid off the front page (even if not deliberately) and drowned in pointless shit threads "from all sides." This is a continuous pressure on the board that causes it to cease to exist. The bumps they received after hitting page 10 only made them into farcical Potemkin villages: sad imitations of an actual threads with actual posters.

>then you should probably try to discuss the problem with some kind of higher-up or someone that can solve it
Mods would not solve the problem even if they could.
>The actual issue that is that doesn't really apply that well to /qa/ at least in the current state.
The "actual issue" is less relevant now, but I still consider /qa/ the ruins of a community.

>>1561171
What? Did I do those things? I don't think that meta is dead on this board, I think it's quite viable, it's just not that prevelant, because much of it has been discussed already and there isn't that much traction for it nowadays. And I don't think think rigging the game would stop metaposters, it's quite common opinion that /qa/ is the metaboard and there are still people often coming regarding their issues with moderation, so I don't expect that to go anytime soon even if people were to spam every meta thread.

>>1561172
Front page isn't that relevant in the age of catalog and if meta were active enough it would be pretty easy to have meta threads on /qa/'s front page constantly, there just isn't much meta to discuss I feel, I'm pretty certain there'll be active meta threads once something huge happenes again.

Mods actually do step in and actually actively delete the so called anti-spam threads and posts, instead of the spam thread that are left alive, that's the big difference.

/qa/ has changed, but it's on some level an empty board without topic, it was never /q/, posters can come and go and some posters decided to use this desolate place to turn it into something they actually do like. The fact is that some of them use bots to bump threads they like, however, I'm almost certain that they'd argue that they're merely protecting their own threads against the anti-spam. As misguided as they might be, they at least have a vision of an actual board they'd want to realize, instead of just spiteposting.

>>1561172
Sure, I know he was at fault. I still think it was unwarranted, that's all.
>I suppose you were condemning entire period in /qa/ where said discussion was at its highest.
I was condemning parts of it, not the entire period. That's just how it is with a board like /qa/. The lack of consistent moderation makes it impossible to pass blanket judgments.

>>1561182
>Did I do those things?
Sorry I just woke up and found 50 new posts ITT which try to codify silly concepts like weebspam not being spam and the comparatively few frogspam posts being the real problem somehow, and how this isn't the meta board anymore apparently because spammers won't leave. I don't agree with most of it and it irks me that you people are having this in-depth conversation based on so many false premises. .

>>1561182
>Front page isn't that relevant in the age of catalog
This is only true on topic boards with big strongholds of regular users who regularly use the catalog to zero in on the few threads that they care about. The front page still matters a lot when dealing with boards with large transient populations.

>Mods actually do step in and actually actively delete the so called anti-spam threads and posts.
Well, that's still useless to our prospective table-flippers.

>I'm almost certain that they'd argue that they're merely protecting their own threads against the anti-spam
The bot runner probably has the general goal of "improving the overall quality of /qa/." Actual anti-raid capacity only explains part of what it does.

>>1561185
>I still think it was unwarranted, that's all.
I imagine most people here did. I also posted in the aftermath thread and did not get from hiro the answer I would have liked, but it was consistent.

>I was condemning parts of it, not the entire period.
There was plenty of condemnable crap during that period and during the earlier ones too, grass is greener, etc. Those flagship threads I mentioned were just the ones that came to mind when I think about threads with a large numbers of anons - even misguided ones - discussing a community they value in some way or another.

>>1561194
Well, I feel like that front page doesn't really matter that much, but I don't think there's much to discuss there as that'd be more of an opinion against opinion, but feel free to argue.

I'd say that it's absolutely relevant to the scenarion of table flipping, if there is a person that actually organizes the game and makes the rules to the game and has power over who can play and who can't, then him making decisions does impact how the game is and should be played as long as the person organizes the game. You can make scenarios im which there isn't any overlord, however, then it would be less reflective as to how /qa/ actually operates.

There somehow comes the point of contension, because I would really like /qa/ to be a nice board for deep metadiscussion and original content and people actually having creative ideas, but it isn't, things have slowly fizzled away and other people came by with differing expectations and goals. Now some of these people had the idea of having a 2D/random take it easy kind of board with maybe some older culture as well, which I think is an okay usage of the board, you can still have almost all of your meta, but some of it just has a different bent overall, then they make bots so some threads won't get spamemd out of the board, since mass spamming has been quite frequent on /qa/.

It's not an ideal situation and many people might not like it, but at least it's a goal where there is something to be gained, some new space where some things like frogposting and greetexting is being denounced.

>>1561194
>The bot runner probably has the general goal of "improving the overall quality of /qa/."
Of all the arrogant things weebs do on this board, this attitude of "I am the perfect judge of what quality content is because lol anime website" is the worst. The bot runner thinks threads like >>1561128 are quality and will bump/make them ad nauseum with no consequences. But that's only the first phase, to be combined with image dumping in threads which weebs don't like and making 50 threads at a time about lolis or Saber riding a banana to slide content which triggers them off the board. And all this is to protect what, their 12-weeb circlejerk that belongs on a spinoff anyway?

Defense of things that are garbage to any knowledgeable, mature adult. Shoot, man. Some people must be living in a whole other world to believe the things they do. Reality really chafes their trousers.

Surprised at how much effort frogposting Redditors put into their angry complaints about /qa/.

>>1561318
Reddit has embraced anime as well. Does this mean all weebposters are from there (even though a number here seriously use r/animemes)?

Where did the non-anime posters come from?

>>1561364
Reddit.

>>1561364
Where did the weeb posters come from?

>>1561364
>>1561402
It's all proof that God exists. Atheists BTFO

>>1561406
Based.

/qa/ btfo