Ban the /k/ mod

Firstly, that's a warn, not a ban, this tells me you are either new and can't tell the difference or that you are being purposely deceiving and that we shouldn't trust what you say.

Secondly, what makes you believe you are entitled to discuss gun politics despite the sticky >>>/k/27429060 (which probably has been here longer than you) explicitly forbids it?

Finally, under what standard do you think the discussion of the adequacy of the secretary of defense of the US (a political designation by definition) does not qualify as gun politics and how that same standard be applied to gun control (which is also considered off-topic by administration)?

>>868539
>Firstly, that's a warn, not a ban

Warnings are listed under bans and the /k/ mod has a reputation of abusing the ban system (doesn't like a thread, three day ban to prevent any rebuttal, non k thread such as "hey guys how do I arm up my communist militia (while banning the nationalists who do the same, although I don't endorse either political ideology but there is no consistency with moderation) or hey guys surplus uniforms thread" (a /fa/ subject) cross dresser here, pay me attention I'll hold a gun to make it relevant) allowed.

>>868539
>SECDEF
>Is now gun politics
>A military authority figure that implements tactics,weapons is a fucking marine 4 star general has noting to do with gun control cannot be discussed on the weapons board
>Resorts to inane assumptions

Look mod, I know you hate being called out on your bullshit and are used to just throwing three day bans so you can evade any type of rebuttals or accountability but General Mathis a veteran of the US military (a MILITARY topic) entering the position of Secretary of Defense (again a MILITARY topic) is a k-weapons subject. You're wrong. Same thing with legalizing suppressors or expanding firearms rights.

>Finally, under what standard do you think the discussion of the adequacy of the secretary of defense of the US (a political designation by definition) does not qualify as gun politics and how that same standard be applied to gun control (which is also considered off-topic by administration)?

Oh I don't don't know all the military applications and affects on one of these most influential militaries in the world? It's a /k/ subject and if you are the /k/ mod (as I suspect as no one in the /k/ community has anything nice to say about them, compared to other boards) you need to be fired as you are unfit and derelict in your duties.

So again, ban the /k/ mod. Don't just replace him but ban him as a consequence of his terrible job and set an example for any successors.

>>868539
>SecDef isn't allowed to be discussed because it isn't related to guns and is closer to gun politics
>Allows /msg/ to host what is effective a /fa/ thread on /k/ multiple times a day without reprieve
Sure is a weird set of rules you've chosen to enforce.

The SecDef has a lot of pull when it comes to more than just "political" decisions (ex. controls budget, standardization, doctrine, new equipment, etc.) so I'd say it's more than worthy discussing the reasons he was appointed (you know, being a good soldier, which is definitely /k/ related) and what he might do (like maybe forcing the Marines to do something not stupid) even if you don't want to shove in the MAGA memes.

Please explain to me how the SecDef is too political but the daily threads about why we should shitcan the government boondoggle that is the F-35 isn't, or maybe why Milsurp General is allowed to continue despite literally being a fashion show of older military clothing worn by hipsters in public rather than an actual discussion about military surplus equipment (which now has its own general) or the actual implementation of gear in the real world as well as usage of proper camouflage (which can be found in Gear Queer General).

What a fucked up standard we've got here, folks.

>its okay to post furry porn but do NOT talk about politics!

>>868578
> you need to be fired
>So again, ban the /k/ mod. Don't just replace him but ban him as a consequence of his terrible job and set an example for any successors.

Kek, are you even aware how the moderation on this site even works? This isn't fucking reddit, the powers that be aren't accountable to anyone, you naive fuck.

>>868617
Not an augment, /k/ mod.

>>868618
I'm not even arguing in his favour ( I don't even fucking go to /k/), but you really are fucking delusional if you think the mods are accountable to anyone. Sure they'll correct their behavior if the entire board throws a shitfit, like it happened on /a/ during that whole nipplemod thing, but most of the time they do whatever the fuck they please.

I'm just laughing at you thinking that the mods are actually "employed" and that they can get fired. They're the de facto owners of this site.

>>868615
Don't forget:

>Threads starting with "le Drumpf XD isn't going to repeal gun control laws"- 200+ replies, archived

>Pre election- hey guys I like guns but Hillary is the only candidate worth supporting. We can't let le Drumpf XD with the nuclear codes- 200+ replies, archived

>Guys guys Gary Johnson is our guy!- 200+ replies, archived

>Hey guys Trump Jr. has a video where he discusses how silencers should be deregulated- BAN-3 DAYS NO REBUTTAL ALLOWED, TAKE THAT FAGGOT FOR POSTING SOMETHING INDIRECTLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE CANDIDATE I CAN'T TOLERATE!

/k/ mod needs to be banned for his selective moderation and failure to enforce rules without a bias. Users have been wise to his bullshit.

This is also why some people don't buy 4chan passes. Why pay for shit moderation? Hear that Hiroyuki Nishimura
, your shitty /k/ mod is costing you money.

Seriously we need a new mod. Whoever is doing it sucks at life and hands out bans for unwarranted reasons. Out of all the boards I visit its the only one I get three day bans from and its always reasons like OP.

>>868578
>Warnings are listed under bans
But you weren't banned

>the /k/ mod
Mods are global, there's no way for you to tell which mod is doing what even if only one of them concerns himself about /k/ (when Hiro posts, he usually does it here, but you don't see me claiming he is /qa/'s mod).

>A military authority figure that implements tactics,weapons is a fucking marine 4 star general has noting to do with gun control cannot be discussed on
As pointed out before, he is a politically appointed CIVILIAN authority, you explicitly intended to discuss the adequacy of a political designation, not the military career of a 4 star general. It's the same difference as asking how US should have invaded Iraq and asking if Bush was the right man to lead the invasion.

>Resorts to inane assumptions
Assuming ignorance due to unfamiliarity with rules is probably what got you warned instead of banned. It seems clear now you harbor ill-will.

>General Mathis a veteran of the US military (a MILITARY topic)
He might also be an otaku, that doesn't make him /jp/ related unless discussing him in an otaku related context. You can check the archives for all the threads that mentioned Mattis before his designation that weren't deleted (for example, this one http://desuarchive.org/k/thread/23547148), there's not many as it seems you only became interested when he became a POLITICAL hot topic.

>Oh I don't don't know all the military applications and affects on one of these most influential militaries in the world?
You are not expected to know them but to simply discuss them, and you can do it without having to mention Mattis or his designation same as you can discuss the efficacy of drone strikes without having to question US foreign policy or mention Obama. To begin with, speculation about future policy is not the same as discussing the effects thereof.

>So again, ban the /k/ mod.
Again, read the sticky, use common sense, not your personal interpretation of what rules are.

>>868615
The president has more pull, but you are not allowed to discuss his adecuacy for the office. The secretary of defense is no different from any other secretrary. Does /n/ felt the need to discuss the reasons behind Anthony Foxx's appointment? Does /ck/ or /an/ discussed the merits of Tom Vilsack? Does /biz/ pondered what Jack Lew or Penny Pritzker might have done? All discussions about policy (even gun control, which is much more directly related with the primary topic of the board) belong to the same place, that is /pol/.

You can check by yourself the kind of threads that are being deleted on a daily basis on /k/

http://desuarchive.org/k/search/deleted/deleted/type/op/

Granted, it is certainly not sufficient, but don't expect consistency when all rule-breaking threads are not consistently being reported and given our limited human resources

>>868847
So we aren't allowed to discuss whether or not he is doing a good job as the Secretary of Defense on a board slated to talk about weapons and the military? Sounds fucking stupid to me. He's a bureaucrat, not an elected government official. The Secretary of Defense's job correlates to the board itself. If you seriously believe the President has more pull when it comes to adopting a weapon or something of like like then maybe you should use his pull to pull your head out of your ass.

I don't know about /n/ because I think /n/ is a retarded board. However, I do believe that if his appointment has the possibility of adversely affecting their lifestyle then yes, I do indeed believe that they should have the ability to discuss policies he might implement and how they might adjust their lifestyle to his policies. Are these boards not here for discussion?

I have clearly reported rule breaking threads on a daily basis. Every time I see MILSURP GENERAL posted I report it because it's a fucking spam thread that belongs on /fa/. Mods and janitors are constantly in the thread and allow the thread to go on. Mods and janitors also constantly allow the threads full of F-35 government hate to go on, which falls directly onto the category of what you are banning Mattis discussion for.

How about rather than make excuses for your shortcomings, you actually do what the position appointed to you allows you to do? Moderate evenly across the board or not at all, because right now what you're doing is fucking pathetic.

>Mods are global
There are dedicated mods for the more trafficed boards such as /a/,/jp/ or /b/. Some of the less trafficed boards have global mods

>>868845
>As pointed out before, he is a politically appointed CIVILIAN authority, you explicitly intended to discuss the adequacy of a political designation, not the military career of a 4 star general. It's the same difference as asking how US should have invaded Iraq and asking if Bush was the right man to lead the invasion.

Wrong. If any what you said as correct we couldn't discuss in detail Hitler's actions in WW2 or other military leaders that were also heads of state as they shared political and military authorities. Asking if Bush articulated the right strategy in Gulf II is a /k/ subject, asking if he did a good job during Hurricane Katrina is not.

>Assuming ignorance due to unfamiliarity with rules is probably what got you warned instead of banned. It seems clear now you harbor ill-will.

What does the banned page read? Banned. Ill will? Over discussing Mathis? Perhaps in your infantile mind. I wanted to discuss his military record and qualications for SECDEF. Pretty /k/ weapons

>He might also be an otaku, that doesn't make him /jp/ related unless discussing him in an otaku related context.

Except the OP image is in a /k/ context. Mattis's military record and the opinion of Marines (a /k/ subject if you didn't know) are /k/-weapons. If Mattis was a weeaboo and I opened a thread on /jp/ about his taste in favorite anime girls would be /jp/- Otaku Culture and not /pol/-politically incorrect.


>Again, read the sticky

Read them yourself as you seem to be the one unable to interpret them.

/k/ mod needs to go. A life time ban from the board that he abused with his authority is suitable in this situation. Not that he would be missed as he was a cancer on the users of /k/ and only selectively enforced rules when he wanted. Again this is why people don't buy 4chan passes.

>>868907
>a board slated to talk about weapons and the military?
/k/ is for weapons and military EQUIPMENT

>>868926
Then why is /MEG/ allowed? Would love to know the answer to that.

>>868845
Let's cut with the bullshit. Mad Dog Mattis is a /k/ as any famous military figure and you're deleting threads because he's a Trump appointee and anything related to Trump triggers your pussyfart SJW head. Fucking neck yourself faggot. We had threads on Canada's MoD and other European figureheads with no deletions. You fucked up and you know it.

>>868926
/MEG/-Allowed No Equipment mentioned, ALLOWED
Star wars meme thread- >>>/k/32207050 sci fi shit, ALLOWED
Political comics- >>>/k/32207698 13 hours up ALLOWED
Half life 2, /v/ shit >>>/k/32204661 20 hours up ALLOWED
CC thread- >>>/k/32211208 2 hours up ALLOWED
"Shill thread"- >>>/k/32212380 30 min up ALLOWED
States thread- >>>/k/32203786 23 hours ALLOWED
The young Turds- >>>/k/32207589 14 hours up ALLOWED
Fight me thread- >>>/k/32210518 3 hours up ALLOWED
Buy stuff from my store (nugget enterprises) >>>/k/32202359 23 hours up ALLOWED

Fuck off, bullshiter. No of this is weapons and equipment but gets a free pass. SECDEF? Why would we ever discuss the secretary of defense how unheard of!

File: lopez.jpg (19KB, 900x658px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 900x658px

Why is it that faggots complaining about bans ALWAYS, 100% NO EXCEPTION, are newfags who think boards have individual moderators?

>>868907
To begin with, he hasn't done anything yet, you are allowed to discuss his job (same as discussing the Iraq Invasion was in a way discussing Bush's job), but not the political motivations behind his individual designation or bigger policy issues (his reelection or war on terror, for example). The only military issues relevant for /k/ are the ones directly related to its operations (deployment, tactics, weaponry and equipment, personal experiences), not things such as budget, don't ask don't tell, or if you like secretary on defense. Unlike regular members of the civil service he doesn't have to be appointed for his merits or for what it says on his resume, all he needs is Trump's (and Congress') trust to be qualified for the job, it's an eminently political designation. There's a number of other cabinet members whose job closely correlates with their board's topic but for some reason only /k/ feels the need to bring him up and now out of all times (there were very few mentions when he was still a general), that has more to do with /k/'s users being more correlated with politics than the impossibility of discussing weapons without bringing up to the secretary of defense to the debate or that of any particular country (You don't see people bringing up the secdef equivalent of China or Russia, do you? There's no good reason to let Americans, even if they are a majority, to monopolize the board with their political topics). Similarly, you could say lobby groups, the military advisers or the military personnel has ultimately more pull than the secdef when it comes to adopting a new weapon assuming he doesn't make arbitrary decisions. I also fail to see how discussing the secdef's appointment is equivalent to discussing the particularities of future armament, that which is within /k/'s scope of discussion, not the politicking or gossip behind it (and I don't believe you can provide a good source on Mattis opinion about any gun in particular, I challenge you) .

>>868963
Epic paragraph, bro.

>>868539
>secretary of defense has anything to do with gun control
wat

>>868845
Hold right here you retard. He is part of the military. The top command of the military is, in the US, civilian, by design. You are being a complete jackass if you are using this inherent safeguard in the system to argue you can not discuss the top command of the military (the president is the absolute top, by the way, and so any thread about trump in relation to the military would also be perfectly on topic) on a military board just because they happen to not hold a commission.

>>868963
He's done a lot of shit as a general which is why people have high hopes for him to do things as SecDef. Once again, is it not a good idea to brainstorm what he might do? Seems like general forecasting so something called for.

>lobby groups, military advisers, and military personnel have more pull
In what fucking world? Have you ever actually talked to anyone who served in the military? Nobody I've ever talked to has said "yeah, my feedback was totally appreciated and used!"

Challenge me on whatever you want, you still haven't answered my question about /MEG/, /MSG/ or any of the other cancerous threads, so why would I respond to your challenges?

>>868907
/k/ is not a lifestyle board, it's a board for the discussion of weaponry (including military equipment) and the things you do with it (operations). If it has a possibility of affecting your lifestyle it goes on /pol/ (don't ask don't tell, for example), if it affects (not "possibly could affect through the election of this guy") your operations, it is /k/. If this is not enough for you, go to /pol/ where you can discuss a broad range of issues with like minded people (pro-gun despite most of them owning none, pro-trump despite some of them not being old enough to vote) or operatorchan.

Moderation is currently cracking /a/'s generals (it took them several years to do so) maybe you can get them interested in doing the same on /k/ (try using feedback or IRC). There's no way for you to know who is a mod or a janitor in any thread or why some shitposts linger and others don't (it's likely because they either go unnoticed or unreported). There are no double standards, just priorities (deleting anime threads, for example, takes precedence over deleting tangentially /k/ related threads which might or might not be shitposts) and limited human resources.

Moderators are not board specific, if you think you can do better try applying for janitorship.

>>868972
It was a A maiore ad minus logic formulation

>>869001
We tired feedback threads on /k/. The /k/ mod deletes them dispute approval from Hiroshimoot.

>>868951
not deleted =/= allowed

have you reported all those?

>>869023
No because I'm not a nofun cocksucker such as yourself or the faggot /k/ mod.

>>868972
Again, by that logic (as you say so yourself) so is the president and that's most certainly not on-topic for /k/ because it gives you carte blanche to shitpost about politics which is the whole point of the no-politics board rule. You know what else is weapons related? Gun regulation, but you are not allowed to discuss it either as per board rules, the place for all political discussions is /pol/. Use common sense, if rules prevent you from discussing politics on /k/ why bring up a political topic? If you want to discuss the military why make it politics related?

>>869012
I meant this feecback

http://www.4chan.org/feedback

And yes, mods do read it, they just don't have to reply to it

>>869028
>Still trying to justify his bullshit
>We need to ban certain things because they might lead into a conversation regarding politics
>You don't understand my selective censorship is to help you!

You need to be removed from authority. And perhaps banned for life from 4chan. Like all people who abuse their power you've convinced yourself your unethical behavior is a good thing. It's been like this for awhile, only this time the forum is out of /k/ so you can't just delete any post calling you out for it.

>>869001
/MEG/ is not any form of operation and /MSG/ doesn't involve the discussion of equipment, just older field/dress uniforms as casual clothing/hanger riders. Mattis will most definitely change the way operations are held and was known for being unruly. He, like McMaster and Petraeus, were known for not playing the petty politics game or splicing words but instead doing their jobs and improving the QoL for soldiers both on and off the battlefield.

It doesn't matter if I know who is a mod or a janitor, they are both required AS PER THE RULES to keep in contact with each other through IRC. They are strictly forbidden from acting alone and must give reports at least occasionally enough to let mods know what is happening. There have been more than enough massive shitpost sprees in non-board related /k/ threads that have been decimated by mods/janitors and it has been done frequently enough that at least someone somewhere in the ranks knows about it and the horrible mess than is the non-/k/ related thread.

I did apply for a janitorial role but wasn't accepted. I will continue to apply in the future because I want /k/ to get the attention it deserves in areas. /k/ is a big enough board that it should be checked on more often by moderators yet it somehow slips under the radar for shit like /spee/ and /tv/. /a/ might be a priority, but no priority takes the entire moderation and janitorial staff years to fix. If that's the case, they/you are bad.

>>868984
OP's thread was not about brainstorming ideas about what Mattis might do (if he asked for more budget, does that make budget discussions /k/ related? I think not) but explicitly asking if he was fit for the office. Policy forecasting sound more /pol/ related than /k/, unless you are forecasting how a war with China would go, which falls under a what if scenario more than a reasonable prediction.

>I've ever talked to has said "yeah, my feedback was totally appreciated and used!"
Why are you submitting feedback by posting on /qa/ then?

>Challenge me on whatever you want, you still haven't answered my question about /MEG/, /MSG/ or any of the other cancerous threads, so why would I respond to your challenges?
I already did, I'm sorry if you don't find my answers satisfactory but I'm in no obligation to respond for your perceived inconsistencies in moderation.

>>868513

Fuck off, /k/ is one of the last remaining high quality boards on 4chan with a close, supportive community full of good people. The mods and janitors have done good work there last few years as opposed to most of the boards

>>869062
>perceived inconsistencies

Keep telling yourself that. You may think you're in the right, but I assure you you're by yourself in that opinion. The CoD fanfiction wikia mod team does a better job than you. At this point there are some on /k/ that think you purposely fuck up as much as you can to sabotage /k/ and at this point I'm beginning to think they may be on to something.

>>869044
The ban is on politics, on /k/, you are free to discuss politics on /pol/, you are not allowed to decide what political discussion belongs and which one doesn't on /k/, that is a privilege reserved for administration and enforced by moderation. The rules that were put in place are a direct result of your past handling of those threads as a board, needless to say, they always end up being about politics. This is the single most relevant fact to the discussion.

File: b8.jpg (42KB, 547x523px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 547x523px

>>869069
Mod pls

>>869073
>The Secretary of Defense is all politics and zero any thing to do with the Department of Defense,of which he is in charge of and contains the US military and weapons.

You're really proving how stupid you are and how unfit you are for any authority over /k/ the weapons board.

>>869055
When operations change, then you discuss how they changed/are changing and how is that beneficial or not. Considering that has few to do with politics I doubt as many people will be interested as they are now.

Mods are not required to give reports about what they ignore or oversee, /k/ is just one board out of 71 boards, there's no conspiracy let certain shitposts slide. Look at /qa/ for example, Hiro posts here yet nobody assumes he is the /qa/ mod or blames him for the DAILY spam we have (stick around until late if you want to see it).

What I meant by prioritize deleting anime threads I was not speaking of /a/ but the ones in /k/, blatantly off-topic stuff takes priority given the limited human resources. /sp/ and /tv/ (particularly the latter) have way more problematic users (when was the last time you saw cp on /k/?)

>>869076
Again, why do you think discussing the nomination of the Secretary of defense (which still hasn't done anything yet) is not politics related (nowhere did I say it was not military related) and therefore not /pol/ material? Are you discussing weapons, tactics, equipment (keyword being discussing, not speculating about) or simply expecting a circlejerk about how liberals dislike him and why he is so cool?

>>868513
I dont own a gun, so i have the ability to think.
This belongs in /pol/. The Secretary of defense isnt a gun.
Problem solved.

>>869070
Company is not what makes an opinion correct or wrong. The "CoD fanfiction wikia" has 109 users (if judging by a poll started on January 2015 and still in the front page), 4chan has millions (mods are site-wide, not board specific)

>>869094
You must have some type of mental retardation as I keep telling you it is the position that commands the US military or General Mattis himself, a 4 Star General and his qualification to be appointed the position. Did 4chan put up a mentally challenged person to moderate /k/? Or is this more about how you can't admit you were wrong? Stop telling us to go to /pol/. I didn't ask if Mattis will kill niggers or if Mattis is a Jew or if Mattis thinks the earth is flat I asked exactly what was posted in the OP image. Reread the image that was posted in the OP if you are confused or have your attendant read it and explain it to you if you can't understand.

>>869069
McKill yourself mod. No it hasn't. How about doing your job and actually deleting off topic threads and leaving actually on topic threads alone?

/k/ mod team appears to be a bunch of Redditors and pro-Hillary types.

The first offensive is already punishable by permanent ban.

>>869106
Once again, the president is the commander in chief but you are not allowed to discuss him. Why? Because it is a politically charged topic. Why are you not allowed to discuss gun control despite it deals with guns? Because it is a politically charged topic Why are you not allowed to discuss politically charged topics despite being related (if only tangentially) to weapons and/or military? Because there's a board for that and it's called /pol/.

It's not that hard to understand.

>but I don't like /pol/
Then you can understand why politically charged topics were banned from /k/ in the first place, they attract /pol/, or imo, they bring out the /pol/ side of /k/ users. That's unfair for people expecting to find discussion about guns in the gun board, specially for the ones that are not interested in US politics (I don't see you opening similar threads to discuss the appointment of the secdef equivalents in China or Russia considering how overnight it has become impossible to talk about military without mentioning Mattis).

Unfortunately /k/ has proven time and time again to be incapable of adequately handling this kind of topics without deviating into /pol/-lite. This is a known fact, not up for discussion. That's why you are getting warned for starting a military related politically charged topic, don't do it again please or do it elsewhere (there's operatorchan if you don't like /pol/). 4chan is in no obligation to accommodate your every discussion related needs.

>>869135
OP was warned not banned, you are supposed to take a lesson from that, not bitch about it on /qa/

>>869062
I'm talking about the military when I say feedback, moron. The point is that ground troops have absolutely no feedback when it comes to what is and isn't useful which is why most military branches are still issuing groin protectors, neck guards, and shoulder pauldrons that are immediately taken off by any soldier wearing them. It's also why UCP was adopted as a camouflage pattern in the first place.

You didn't answer with any actual response that outlines why /MEG/ gets to stay but this place gets to go.

>>869088
I don't believe there's a conspiracy, I believe there's an inconsistency. I don't think you're doing it on purpose, I just think that the moderation team is clearly understaffed or poorly put together if it cannot do it's job to keep boards clear of blatant shitposting. /ak/ threads are on topic but are filled with off topic shit, I won't deny that, but at the same time you're saying that thinly-veiled shitposts are kept more often than blatant shitposts due to resources but at the same time you have two blatantly off topic threads (/MSG/ and /ak/) but the difference is one thread is full of tripfagging offenders who are easily banned and stopped/relegated to another board while the other requires persistent moderation due to anons without names posting off topic stuff that's mixed in with on-topic stuff, making it require more effort to get to the meat.

As for CP on /k/, I can tell you I know it wasn't terribly long ago. A few weeks at most, though I do understand that Poland CP fag is more of a problem there.

File: mattis and k.png (279KB, 802x555px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 802x555px

>>869137
>Once again, the president is the commander in chief but you are not allowed to discuss him. Why? Because it is a politically charged topic.

No, POTUS is banned when you want him banned. When a thread exists about how "Obama really didn't want to take your guns" it gets to stay up until it archives. If President Elect Trump discusses how he wants to change a firearms law for the benefit of gun owners it is a /k/ weapons subject as it directly affects members of /k/.

>But did you report it?

Unlike you and like most of /k/ I'm not offended by people discussing someone that triggers me, as long as it pertains to /k/.

>Then you can understand why politically charged topics were banned from /k/ in the first place

This is inane. Discussion of videogames and censorship are not forbidden from /v/ and /vg/ dispite being rooted in politics. Discussion of loli hentai and it's legality is allowed on /a/ and /jp/. As already noted by other posters what is going on is Mattis is picked by a President elect that triggers you and hurts your feelings so anything that can be remotely related to it will be censored by you.

>Unfortunately /k/ has proven time and time again to be incapable of adequately handling this kind of topics without deviating into /pol/-lite.

Opinion.

>This is a known fact

Again, Opinion.

>do it elsewhere

Go somewhere else is not an argument. Man up or step down from moderating /k/ as it's going to be a long 4 years if we can't discuss anything about SECDEF Mattis, any General or military veteran appointed by Donald Trump, or anyone in the military doing anything remotely related to President elect Trump. Perhaps you need to go somewhere else as your image of what /k/ should be isn't consistent with the users of /k/, who are more important than you or any other moderator.

>>869069
>The mods and janitors have done good work
Then why are the patchfags allowed to advertise their warez in violation of rule 11?

>>868923
You pretended not to discuss Mattis' actions but your expectations of what those actions would be. When he does something you are allowed to discuss it, as long as that something is sufficiently /k/ related and not abstract political bs.

Ill-will towards moderation, and yes, ban page reads banned. You only want to discuss his military record in light of his recent nomination, the whole point of your thread was determining if he was fit to assume a politically designated office.

Being tangentially /k/ related (secdef→military→military equipment/operations, only the latter being proper /k/) is not enough, it can't be politics related (don't ask don't tell was also military related yet obviously banned for being /pol/). Anime tastes belongs to /a/, not /jp/

Again, read the sticky, no politics means that, no buts.

Mods are global, not board specific.

>>869186
and also threads of "k-related [X]"

Vidya threads do not belong. Fashion threads do not belong unless they are regarding "gear".

>>869069
You're a funny guy.

>>869167
There are no outlines whatsoever regarding any particular thread on /k/, if you think /MEG/ should be banned then send feedback explaining why, mods are not necessarily versed on the particularities of a specific thread (even recurring ones), again, 71 boards, /k/ is just one of them. Another example, it took moderation 4 years to start deleting certain generals on /a/, a board that supposedly gets a significant attention from their part

>>869186
>why are the patchfags allowed to advertise their warez in violation of rule 11?
Here's an example: >>>/k/32204300
1st line:
>Buy, trade, Create, Sell and get inna Christmas mood.
>Buy
>Sell
next:
>>WHERE CAN I FIND [patch]??
>Look here at the list of stores http://pastebin.com/cXZTGafD
Open up the pastebin link, and we have a list of patch stores. It's Nugget Enterprises and the rest of the gang. The same Nugget Enterprises that has gotten in trouble in the past for making threads like this to sell patches. Tell these homos to purchase an ad like an adult

>>869167
>As for CP on /k/, I can tell you I know it wasn't terribly long ago. A few weeks at most, though I do understand that Poland CP fag is more of a problem there.
You should try checking /tv/, there's the good stuff, they even have webms

>>869168
Actually, gun control topics (in theory) are banned, independently under what administration did they happen (Trump's doesn't even start yet). In reality a lot of them manage to sip through, but there's no discernible bias in their deletion or lack thereof. Anyone can check the archives, so there's no point on having a "your word against mine"

>But did you report it?
Who are you quoting? Anyway, you don't get to decide what pertains to /k/, rules do and gun politics, military politics or any kind of politics do not pertain to /k/. Again, not that hard to understand

>Discussion of videogames and censorship are not forbidden from /v/
Why would anyone ban videogames from /v/? GG was banned though, it being a political video game related matter (and by moot himself nonetheless). Moderation has recently started to crack down sad panda (hentai discussion) threads on /a/ and /jp/ doesn't really discuss it. I'm not even American so I'm not sure how this is supposed to trigger me

>Opinion
Fact

>Again, Opinion
Again fact, I dare you to point me to a single thread on /k/ that dealt with a politician (because that's what Mattis is now) with a sizeable post number that didn't derail into politics

>it's going to be a long 4 years if we can't discuss anything about SECDEF Mattis, any General or military veteran
You are free to discuss generals currently serving (or former generals as long as you are discussing their careers as such) but I don't believe many people will find that interesting because the bait of your thread was its political tinge

>Perhaps you need to go somewhere else as your image of what /k/ should be isn't consistent with the users of /k/, who are more important than you or any other moderator
Rules are there to ensure no particular group turns /k/ into a board more concerned with the discussion of American gun politics and American military policy than a weapons boards per se. If you are more interested in mixing them up then /k/ is not for you.

>>869229
>Again fact, I dare you to point me to a single thread on /k/ that dealt with a politician (because that's what Mattis is now)

Can't without your censorship so I guess all we can do is take your word which has time after time been proven to be as worthless as the service you provide as a moderator. And no we (as several posters have stated) know you're wrong. Moderators work for the users, Moderators are not put in place to ban things they don't like and interpret rules to remove subjects and topics that upset you. There may be racists on /k/ or people that hold different opinions than you or me but that doesn't mean we now get to redefine what is /k/ like a respected General that's earned the respect of his peers (a skill that will forever escape you) because you don't like it.

>Rules are there to ensure no particular group turns /k/ into a board more concerned with the discussion of American gun politics and American military policy than a weapons boards per se. If you are more interested in the latter than the former or think we should mix them then go somewhere else.

There are global rules and what you decide to be rules that you decide when you will enforce them and who will get a pass. Rather than help /k/ as you think you are doing, you are now pretending anything related to the department of defense must be banned until Donald Trump leaves office. You are already driving /k/ into shit with your blatant refusal to use an objective lens and now pretending subjects like the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense are now forbidden from /k/. Your authority needs to be stripped before you can do further damage for the benefit of the /k/ userbase. You may think you're doing this for our benefit but in reality you're worse than any keyboard national socialist. /k/ will not last 4 years with you preventing any discussion of events revolving around the Trump Administration and the US military.

>>868513
this, i got banned for being sexy and turning the mod gay

>>869295
>Implying the mod wasn't always a faggot

>>869295
kek

>>869069
>/k/ is one of the last remaining high quality boards on 4chan with a close, supportive community full of good people.
True
>The mods and janitors have done good work there last few years as opposed to most of the boards
WRONG

>>869259
>Can't without your censorship
There's third-party archives you know? There's more than plenty to choose from, take your time.

>And no we (as several posters have stated) know you're wrong
I count two ITT, one of which is you, the other one didn't challenge that statement

>Moderators work for the users
Moderators ARE users, and they "work" for 4chan LLC, there are no contracts signed with "Anonymous user". All users, including staff (except Hiro maybe), are expected to abide by the rules. Posting is a privilege not a right.

>respected General that's earned the respect of his peers (a skill that will forever escape you) because you don't like it.
Tell that to all the people complaining about the generals of their board on /qa/. It's not a good idea to let users decide what's on-topic and what is not. For example, there was a time on /a/ self-appointed moderators would spam threads discussing anime they didn't like, something similar happened on /v/ with dubspam, resulting in moot disabling dubs on /v/. If you are looking for community enforced/agreed-upon rules by the mods of your preference, then go to 8ch.

>There are global rules
I'm speaking of board specific rules, again, I suggest you read /k/'s sticky which is not something a mod randomly came up with but the end result of careful deliberation by decision makers. It's not the first sticky of its kind, there were several prior warnings through the years.

>pretending subjects like the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense are now forbidden from /k/.
No politics means no politics, not "the /k/ related politics I approve of" which is what you seem to understand by "no politics". You are welcome to talk about the DOD o SOD in a weapons and military equipment context.

>/k/ will not last 4 years with you preventing any discussion of events revolving around the Trump Administration and the US military.
Something tells me you weren't here for the last 4 years, or the 4 years before them

This 2k character limit is really stifling

>>869391
>>869235
So what are you going to do about patchfag threads? Is /k/ just a canvas for advertizers to paint?

>>869397
I never said I was a mod, I'm simply an old /k/ user

>>869401
>Only person to defend shit moderator
>I'm totally not the mod guys I'm so just a /k/ user

False. /k/ never had a good moderator since 2010 when the little turd nugget auto banned the words "jew" and "nigger".

>>869405
>I'm totally not the mod guys I'm so just a /k/ user
You do realize that on the off chance you're wrong (which I'm pretty sure you are given that everybody who comes to /qa/ thinks they're arguing with masquerading mods) all you're doing is making the actual moderators think you're a conspiratorial retard not remotely worth listening to.

>>869405
I remember that, it was a glorious day, specially when Boof was publicly banned for his "nigger-rigged" thread. Having to resort to ban words such as jew or nigger (something only the admin can do) on the WEAPONS board should be indicative of the true nature of /k/ and the reason why you can't be trusted to discuss politics, we don't need another /pol/.

>>869405
>/k/ never had a good moderator since 2010
2010 is when /k/ started being seriusly moderated

>>869204
If there are 71 boards and the mods cannot keep up with each board, then there are not enough mods.

>>869415
There are 105 volunteers, about 2/3 are janitors

>>869412
that's the point

File: 1475640418290.png (315KB, 600x836px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 600x836px

>Make a slightly related topic to the board.
>rest of thread develops into /pol/
That's the modus operandi of /pol/ in other boards, im glad that the mods are finally doing their work, i hope they do the same in all boards

>>868513
>implying they closed the thread and banned you for creating a thread about Mattis
>and not for trying to create another thread all about how he's going to kick out the gays and minorities
>and thus start a 3rd or 4th giant shitposting thread

>>869001
>Moderation is currently cracking /a/'s generals (it took them several years to do so) maybe you can get them interested in doing the same on /k/ (try using feedback or IRC).
Jeez does /k/ ever need that, the generals are an enormous blight upon the board.

File: 1457708373197.jpg (163KB, 820x360px)

163KB, 820x360px

>>869423
I love these Yotubato! edits.

>>869527
>the generals are an enormous blight upon the board
That is their consistent property, site wide.

File: 1457708437300.jpg (323KB, 818x1200px)

323KB, 818x1200px

>>869535

File: 1457708632147.jpg (406KB, 600x2528px)

406KB, 600x2528px

>>869539

File: 1457708840958.jpg (374KB, 808x767px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 808x767px

>>869542

File: 1429824720368.jpg (508KB, 850x1200px)

508KB, 850x1200px

>>869544

File: 29352.png (35KB, 172x195px)

35KB, 172x195px

>>869391
>>respected General that's earned the respect of his peers (a skill that will forever escape you) because you don't like it.
>Tell that to all the people complaining about the generals of their board on /qa/. It's not a good idea to let users decide what's on-topic and what is not. For example, there was a time on /a/ self-appointed moderators would spam threads discussing anime they didn't like, something similar happened on /v/ with dubspam, resulting in moot disabling dubs on /v/. If you are looking for community enforced/agreed-upon rules by the mods of your preference, then go to 8ch.
You might want to go back and reread what you quoted and then responded to.

>>869554
>>869544
>>869542
>>869539
>>869535
MORE

>>869622
This, MOAR

File: 1331365843585.jpg (120KB, 500x371px)

120KB, 500x371px

>>869069

>>869419
Not good enough, apparently.

>>869391
So I guess Oppenheimer threads discussing nuclear policy are bannable now?

You are destroying that board.

>>870812
They are better suited for /his/ if their only relation to weapons is just mentioning there are nukes, the current foreign policy of any particular country is better suited for /int/ or /pol/. How would you feel if every anon from every country that posts on /k/ decided to start a daily thread about his country's defense policy, past and present? Because that'd be perfectly fine if we were to abide by the kind of standard people like you would like to see implemented. As pointed out before, /k/ doesn't have to be everything for everyone, it is the weapons board, learn to use the other boards.

>>870840
A-are you serious?

Woah.

>>870840
Terrible.
Get Opp back to /k/

>>870840
This is why /k/ sucks.

>>870840
>current foreign policy
>the same as strategic nuclear policy

Proof our mods are women studies majors.

>>870868
>>870869
>>870870
samefag

File: nope.png (7KB, 360x136px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 360x136px

>>870878
woops.

>>870840
Oppenheimer's threads are the best content I've ever seen on /k/.

>>870890
Then they should be the best content you have seen on /his/.
Feel free to read them there.

>>870893
How are nukes and their usage, which differs by country, not /k/?

File: 1477706016912.jpg (2MB, 3888x2592px)

2MB, 3888x2592px

>>870840
Fuck.
You.

>>870897
Because its a policy issue. And thats politics, not weapons. I don't even think it should be on /his/ either.
/pol/ is its rightful home.

>>870877
Military tactics and operations (including nuclear strategy) threads are ok, then again, if you derail it them into a geopolitics thread those posts and perhaps the entire thread will likely be deleted, depending on the extent of its derailment

>>870899
Weapons policy belongs on /k/.
>>870900
Horseshit.

>>870900
>nuclear strategy
That is Nuclear policy you infant.
Hence it needs to be in /pol/

>>870903
So the discussion of the use of any weapon on a national level belongs on /pol/? Discussion of the descision on a country's service rifle belongs on /pol/?

>>870840
>mods using the >muh children meme to ban scary defense policy threads
>how would you feel if your baby thread was killed by a scary defense policy thread
this is irony

>>870900
>Military tactics and operations (including nuclear strategy) threads are ok
>Threads involving nuclear strategy aren't

Nuclear policy dictates strategy you raging fucking autist. You can't have the latter without the former. Gas yourself.

>>870902
>Weapons policy belongs on /k/.
Not necessarily, otherwise there would be an explicit board rule against discussing gun control, which is a form of gun policy.

>Horseshit.
Can you link me to an "Oppenheimer" thread (preferably one from the archive) to see what they are really about?

>>870905
Is it a policy question, yes.

Should country A change their rifle is /pol/

What do you think about this new rifle from County A is /k/

>>870910
>would
* wouldn't

>>870911
A is utterly /k/
"The famas needs replaced" is /k/

>>870911
A policy dictated by design and use of a weapon.
see
>>870909

>>870910
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/25864630

>>870840

how does talking about strategic nuclear weapons policy count as foreign policy but talking about carrier force projection policy and Freedom of navigation patrols doesn't?

are you going to ban talking about any millitary operation past or present because they are implementations of foreign policy?

Weapon use shouldn't be discussed on /k/
Only the weapons themselves can be discussed
Weapons used for sporting should go to /asp/
Weapons used in conflict go to /pol/ or /his/
Weapons used to hunting need to go to /out/

>>870908
who are you quoting?

>>870909
>Nuclear policy
You mean things like the New START? Those are outright /pol/.

Threads like, how could Iran or NK were able to make nukes? What are their tactical capabilities? are /k/ as long as you are able to keep it to the technical. You don't have to go on a rant about Steve Jobs or Bill gates company policy to explain what are the specs of an iphone or why you don't like windows 10.

>>870929
Fuck off with your shit analogies, they have no place in this discussion

>>870840

Is this a joke?

How the hell is discussion of weapons and their use policy more humanities than weapons?

>>870929
>New START
This is a vital part of nuclear strategy and effects what type of weapons you can deploy or should develop.

>>870929
So to properly discuss usage of nukes you would create a thread on /pol/ at the same time have a thread on /k/ and cross link between them?

This is retarded. Shit like "France passes law that limits how big their nukes could be, what do you think they'll come up with?" is very /k/.

>>870911
That's because of shit like this you get bullied in school anon.

Stop taking your frustration out on 4chan, it's annoying.

>>868615
>>868907
/arg/ here. Milsurp general has been trying to trash our reputation a lot recently. Someone really needs to put those fuckers back in line.

>>870910
>Can you link me to an "Oppenheimer" thread
His last official thread.

https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/31445287

>>870840
>nukes and their uses are not weapons

WEW LADDY.

File: shillalert.png (11KB, 487x248px)

11KB, 487x248px

Milsurp General confirmed for dishonest shill tactics.

Pic related. One of their shills forgot to take off his trip when posting from a phone. They've been samefagging on different devices to make the illusion of widespread support from anons. Something tells me this shill in particular has a script considering how regular the post intervals are.

>>870934
Policy is more /pol/ than it is /k/, take into consideration you are not allowed to discuss gun control despite it is intimately related to weapons, what makes you think discussing things only tangentially related to weaponry/military equipment are fine by default? If anything it is tolerated as long as it doesn't derail into full blown politics. Depending on its focus nukes can be discussed in a number of boards (/k/ for strategy, /pol/ for policy, /int/ for both, /his/ from a historical perspective)

>>868907
>sees thread about clothing, plate carriers, helmets, etc. All military equipment.
>sees thread about clothing, plate carriers, helmets, etc. All military equipment.
>Reports one as spam

What's the difference? One is about surplused equipment, the other about new-manufacture equipment.

There are bad tripfags, annoying tripfags, useful tripfags, totally benign tripfags, summer tripfags, funny tripfags, and shitposting tripfags.

And then there's you.

Superiority-complex having, "daddy never beat me enough to make me realize my opinion never mattered" faggot, "I'm a shiposter who's genuinely too stupid to realize I'm shitposting" acting, neckbeard grooming, cuckhold-loving, self-important "I tripfag and have been doing so for a little bit so I act like I'm an old fag who knows what the community wants and I know the root of all evil and the mods are cucks and don't know" acting tripfag.

A category all for your self, so go have yourself the ultimate "(You)" loving wank and drown in your own cum when you finish.

>inb4 heh heh you're one of the gearfag/milsurp fags, you're only proving me right

Make points and prove yourself right for once. Other people's points that you just regurgitate aren't points.

>>870956
stfu this is a republican funded lie engineered to smear Hillary Clinton's name

>>869055
Are you saying the clohing that militaries wear isn't "military equipment"?

>>870960
So if he does another thread, he would have to refuse to answer some questions, or like to threads on all those different boards to answer them there?

Are you fucking kidding me?

>>870956
lol nice try conspiraweenie

>>870840
Opp is the best poster on /k/.

>>870970
>was

>>870956
hahaha

>>870962
Look at the difference in attitude, behavior, intentions, and general knowledge between surplusshit general and the legitimate gear thread. One has actual firearms owners, the other has literal nogunz kids, hipsters, and other /fa/ garbage that have long overstayed their welcome. The average surplus /fa/ggot doesn't even want to try to get a gun.

Oh, and have a little integrity and put your trip back on.

>>870936
If judging by the threads I was linked to, they are rarely mentioned

File: einstein retarded.jpg (55KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x600px

>>870840
That is perhaps the worst analogy I've ever read, and it's completely wrong. I would actually love /k/ discussions about defense policy. Furthermore, nuclear weapons are absolutely unique in the entire history of mankind in that their use is 95% politics and grand strategy The mere threat of their usage shaped world politics from 1945 onwards. Testing, design, development, procurement, strategy, politics, and so on are an INTEGRAL PART of any discussion about nukes, because otherwise we're reduced to a bunch of autistic screeching about what a big boom that was.

>>870977
Then you should just read his name on the archive because he talks about them quite a bit.

>>870960

Because you utter melt. You can say that for any, any weapon. I'm serious, every weapon has strategy, policy and a historical background to it.

Why are nuclear weapons treated any differently? You know there's other strategic weapons as well correct? Does this mean I now have to go to /pol/ to discuss cyber security policy when the best people to discuss that issue are on /g/? Does this now mean I also have to vist /his/ for historical cyber attacks and policy?

What is the point of all this? What does it exactly achieve? How does this exactly fix our boards?

>>870966
But they're talking about clothing that they, non military faggots, are wearing.

>>870902
>Weapons policy belongs on /k/.
Fuck off idiot, that's politics and belongs on the board for politics and other stupid shit like that. The board is for bang sticks and stabby sticks, not politics.

>>870977
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/31445287/#q31445643

https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/31190674/#q31197215

https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/31190674/#q31196422

https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/31190674/#31190991

https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/30755382/#q30769739

All of these have questions about policy.

>>870989
This. As a servicemember, it makes me sick to see entitled millenial shits wearing something so casually that not only did they never earn, but was also paid for in blood by my brothers in uniform.

>>870939
>"France passes law that limits how big their nukes could be, what do you think they'll come up with?"
What is there for /k/ to discuss? Assuming that by big you don't mean physical size but yield (which are not necessarily correlated), you can either focus on why is that a good or bad decision, which is outright politics, how would it affect the geopolitical landscape, which is also politics, or how would that affect their deployment, military strategy, and whatnot. Only the latter is /k/. It ultimately depends on how you handle the topic.

>>870944
Show literally one example. Guys on both the milsurp weapons and milsurp equipment threads have both AR and ak platform guns.

>talking shit about "us"
>"us"
You don't count, clearly noguns. Any actual frequent poster would know damn well that we get along fine. Most of "your" (In quotation marks, because remember, you're a noguns, and noguns = no AR) major tripfags have come to the camo/milsurp threads before. Where do you think that faggot with the M90 camo painted rifle went to get the pattern, and suggestions for colors?

>>870976
>be you
>think two different groups with knowledge about completely separate topics means they're both retarded
>think this, and complain about it, but still have zero knowledge about either topic

Man, I wish I could be as empty headed as you. Ignorance is bliss

>>870840

Please remove this idiot from its mod position NOW

>>870944
argie?

>>871000
>credibility comes from a "major tripfag" visiting

No actually major tripfag would even look at your general's picture.

But it does show something if you think some nobody visiting you from /arg/ is a good thing: you admit your thread is inferior to /arg/.

Good that you can see the truth and find your place. Now stay in it.

>>870999
>focus on why is that a good or bad decision,
Which effects their deployment strategy. What targets can they hit, what targets should they be able to hit.

>which is outright politics,
No, thats strategy.

>how would it affect the geopolitical landscape, which is also politics,
the numbers of active nuclear weapons is a vital part of preparing your own attack plans.
Thats Military strategy.

>or how would that affect their deployment, military strategy,
Agreed. Military strategy is /k/.

The issue is that you think those are all separate.

>>870999
How many nukes they have would affect what they would target, how big would affect how they are used. Policy dictates strategy, you can't have one without the other.

>>870998
Nigger, chances are you are a millenial.
Also, "servicemember" is really just a euphemism for hired murderer. You're fucking scum who butcher people and call it "duty". Cowardly piece of shit.

>>871011
.t proud free thinking liberal

>>870999

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? I suggest to you to pick up a book before you continue this silly shit.

>>871011
nice projection coward. Can't wait until our right wing death squads Make America Great Again and reeducate your pussy lib ass.

>>871011
baitey-ist bait Ive ever seen.

>>870920
>>870920
>>870950
Based on a cursory reading they seem on-topic for /k/

>Oppenheimer
That guy has been there for ages, was he also the guy from the radio threads? I don't recall his name

>>871024
LMJ?

Are you kidding me? No.

>>871016
aka typical surplusshit general poster

>>871024
>Based on a cursory reading they seem on-topic for /k/
See
>>870995

That will change your mind.

>>871017
I doubt you ever read a book on guns yet you post on /k/

>>871026
Ah yes, that's the guy that was banned

File: 1480812174981.jpg (2MB, 3500x2455px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3500x2455px

>>870925
>Weapon use shouldn't be discussed on /k/

Is this really what you people think? No sport shooting discussions, no projectile ballistics (because that's use), no fucking safety instruction.

Might as well be a damn encyclopedia or manufacturer's catalog.

>>871024
>Based on a cursory reading they seem on-topic for /k/

Like as if you can judge that. You can't even tell the difference between policy and strategy.

And hang on, if they were so "off-topic" why was this never made an issue until now?

>>871032

Even if you were correct, that still doesn't change anything since I'm not dictating what is "gun and gun related".

>>870995
Yes, I don't like the fact that it is a recurrent AMA, which are ultimately about the poster in question

>>871041
>I'm not dictating what is "gun and gun related".
Neither am I, again, point is, it can be gun related, but if it is also politics related (and if it derails into politics), it goes on /pol/.

>>871043

Not necessary, you see discussion and debate between the anons.

> don't like the fact

Ah, I see. So you're opinion is now 4chan's rules set. Since you don't like something it must be against the rules regardless of precedent.

>>871007
>"You admit it!!!1!1!1 Your a shitty thread, and I proved it! Now stop liking what I dont!1!!!!!"

Quality shitpost; it really is.

Visits from people who frequent or trip on other friends isn't a "good thing" nor is it a "bad thing"

It's just a thing. You're welcome to keep obsessing over who visits who, but it will keep happening, just like it's been happening for years. Our tripfags post in many other threads, and occasionally might ask for help or suggestions, and tripfags from many other threads, including your beloved /arg/, post in different threads, and occasionally might ask for help or suggestions. I know thats a wild concept, and you're running out of points to make, so I'll leave you with this nugget.

It's an image board. People post on it. They might post in one place, and then they might post in another. People from that place will post somewhere else too. It's just what happens.

>>871047

Yes you are, you've clearly demonstrated to us that you do not have a clue about the subject(s) that you wish to enforce the rules on.

Is there a reason why you don't put your mod tag on and make this official?

>>871043
>ultimately about the poster in question
Did you read them?

>>871053
They don't so we won't have irrefutable proof they're the absolute retard we've all been saying they are.

>>870944
Nigger you guys trashed your own reputation.

>>871048
Not liking something is not reason enough to ban it contrary to popular belief

>>871058
Yes, I acknowledged they were on-topic

>>871066

Apparently according yourself it is.

>>871068
So how were they about the poster, rather than nuclear weapons?

>>871053
I don't have to be an expert on ponies to know you can't post them on any board other than /mlp/, I don't have to be a weapons expert to know politics is not meant to be discussed on /k/, even if they are gun related, it's a very simple rule, same as GR15, but you are as stubborn as a brony in your refusal to understand that

>>871071
Asuka or Rei is the quintessentially AMA question on 4chan

>>871082
>state passes laws that restrict what guns you can have
>threads pop up asking what is legal
>this is now a pol topic

You're an idiot.

>>871085
So because of a question someone in the thread asked, you don't like the purpose of the thread?

>>870840
>They are better suited for /his/ if their only relation to weapons is just mentioning there are nukes,

I really hope you start to apply this kind of logic to all of /k/ then instead of purposefully nitpicking, you can start with patch threads that are nothing but advertising at this point. Some consistency would be greatly appreciated.

>>871082

You are comparing oranges and apples. Policy is not necessarily politics and strategy is not necessarily policy.

Neither you do need to be an expert to understand the difference.

Again, do I now need to discuss enterprise cyber security policy on /pol/ and /his/ instead of /g/?

>>871086
All gun control threads are /pol/.

Again, read the sticky. >>>/k/27429070

Why do even need to ask /k/ what is legal and what is not if you already know new legislation was passed? Do you need to be spoonfed?. Gun control threads are rarely if ever informative because their participants are already informed people looking for a place to vent their frustration with the government, liberals, jews, niggers, etc, That is /pol/

>>871082
NUCLEAR STRATEGY IS DIRECTLY CORRELATED WITH NUKES. BY BANNING THE DISCUSSION OF NUCLEAR STRATEGY YOU ARE LIMITING THE RANGE OF DISCUSSION TO "either read through nuclear blast effects 101 from 40 year old surplus military documents or get fucked in the ass by muhammad in guantanamo for looking at classified material"

>>871099
Because that shit is sometimes clear as mud, and after it is figured out sources are scarce. /k/ is the best place to figure this out, and for you to figure out what to do in light of it.

>bashing muh minorities and ray-cism is /pol/

You must be new here.

>>871092
That kind of question makes me think it is an AMA, I don't like AMAs, much less recurrent ones. Again, that's only my opinion.

>>871099

Because people come here for discussion and wish to discuss firearms on a firearms board.

>Gun control threads are rarely if ever informative because their participants are already informed people looking for a place to vent their frustration with the government, liberals, jews, niggers, etc, That is /pol/

This your problem. Not ours. It is your job to clean up OUR threads when people shitpost.

>>870962
Fucking #rekt

>>871106
So, let me get this straight.

Guy makes thread to talk about nuclear weapons.

Thats ok.

But as soon as someone asks him a question, that is used in AMA type threads, the thread instantly changes to something you don't like?

>>871094
Try reporting them, then again, 71 boards, it's hard to keep track of every possible form of covert advertisement, it's easier to filter spammed urls

>>871113

If that's the case, why has no action been taken against the Canadian who shills his website "future-battles.com"? He's been doing it for years.

>>871097
Same as a pony, I can tell politics when I see them, anyone can, the fact you they might be relevant to the discussion doesn't make them not politics. It really depends on the context of the discussion. You can discuss cyber security policy on /g/, the blanket ban on politics is /k/ only because they are the board most susceptible to /pol/ bs and that's not moderation fault.

>>871113
That'd be a great suggest if reporting gets acted on with any regularity. See >>868951 for an example of shit that went on so long that it archived.

Trying to ban Nuke threads and shit like a SecDef appointment is the height of nitpicking when compared to the blatantly off topic and complete shitposting that's routinely allowed through inaction. You have to really stretch it to claim that things that directly impact militaries like a MoD appointment or Nuclear policy that directly governs usage aren't /k/ but are /pol/ instead while there's open apathy to other bullshit that gets posted. It comes off as you trying to create a rationale for your deeds after the fact.

>>871099
Oh, please fuck off back to wherever you came from. This has bugged me since that damn sticky showed up, and you're its poster child.

One of the first threads I saw going on to /k/ for some reason was all about gun control. I still have the images and arguments from it, because it managed to really crack my armor and actually fucking consider any argument against gun control, and now I'm the most hardline Second Amendment proponent I know.

Those threads propagated great discussion and direct understanding of the nuances of a very complex, arbitrary, harsh system, and rallied people behind a cause with reasoned rhetoric. Now people are having to duck under small questions and hope they don't get banned, and there's more shitflinging and unsure thoughts than before.

And why? Was it a problem? Did people complain? Did people hate it?

No. It was a unilateral decision made by a nameless mod with no accountability that changed the board overnight. Now you're the very model of that thought, proposing that discussing basic military strategy is off limits and any political discussion directly related to owning firearms legislation is /pol/.

You have an image of this all that tells me you weren't paying fucking attention and you have no understanding of the culture of the board, or what people fucking want there. Your job, if you are a mod, is clean up trolls and rule violations, not infringe upon what people actually want to discuss.

Your presence is not enjoyed. It is not wanted, it is not welcome, it is tolerated because we have no voice, because the resounding rejection of your prerogative, such as this entire thread, is entirely ignored. You might think otherwise, you might think you've done the board good, but nobody there would say you're welcome if asked.

In short, get fucked.

Oh, by the way, you're real hard on "politics" and "strategy" and the like, but I hear nary a peep on our daily anime threads or anything of the sort. Funny how that works.

>>871113
I am one of the many who regularly report patch threads.

For all the good it does.

>>871103
I said nuclear strategy was ok, as long as it doesn't derail into full blown politics

>>871105
By mud you clearly meant the skin of inferior races, sieg heil my /kkk/omrade

>>871125
It comes off as more than rationalization, it comes off like a direct fucking attempt to craft narrative and stifle discussion. If that isn't the intent, then tough luck, because that's about the only rational way to interpret /ak/, path threads and the like being allowed but GOD FUCKING FORBID you actually talk about military politics or the like.

>>871126
>but I hear nary a peep on our daily anime threads or anything of the sort. Funny how that works.
>>871129 here, I also regularly report /ak/ threads because they are just posts of anime girls that often are furry without any kind of /k/ relation to them, and discussion of waifus. Yet the /ak/ posters claim that they've had the /k/ mod say they are related material.

Funny that we can have a constant general of /a/ in the board that is somehow relevant but discussing SecDef Mattis or nuclear launch policy is somehow unacceptable.

>>871110
>Guy makes thread to discuss weapons
>Turns into an AMA
>Becomes a recurrent AMA

I like the first, I'm neutral to the second and dislike the third

>>871124
>Same as a pony, I can tell politics when I see them, anyone can, the fact you they might be relevant to the discussion doesn't make them not politics.

There is a difference between tangentially mentioning something and having an entirely discussion dictated around it.

>You can discuss cyber security policy on /g/, the blanket ban on politics is /k/ only because they are the board most susceptible to /pol/ bs and that's not moderation fault.

Right, but /int/ and /his/ aren't? Or any other board that can lead into politics, like all of them. This is your problem being unable to enforce the rules, not ours.

>>871133
Gotta gas 'em all :^)

>>871136
>>871138
Shit moderation replaced with even shittier moderation. I'm convinced at this point the mod is some nogun that is trying to stifle discussion about weapons on /k/ by applying existing rules where they shouldn't be. He is taking the letter of the law without considering the spirit in which it was written, and he's becoming a massive faggot for it.

>>871130
mate, inevitably it IS going to derail into full blown politics.

if you're talking about tanks you can easily discuss their operational qualities, tactics and so on without actually bringing politics into it. for example, you can make up a scenario for a battle in a town or something and use that. it's entirely possible. same with planes, guns, etc.

but nukes... there's so many factors involved, most of which ARE political (there's a reason MAD is a thing) that make it practically impossible to talk about it without bringing politics in.

>>871140
it's not so much an AMA as just asking someone who knows what he's on about questions. being against that is more or less the same as getting angry at a military pilot in a planes thread, or a marine in a USMC thread.

what would you rather prefer, a bunch of unnamed shitposters throwing around opinions with complete authority, or a few genuinely knowledgeable people talking about their craft? i automatically give some weight to the word of oppenheimer, same with all other experts in their field.

>>871140
>AMA
But the only criteria is that someone asked him a question that is asked in AMA type threads?

Otherwise its fine?

So this guy has knowledge that he wants to share with the board, but he can only do it once?

Why does that make any sense?

>>871115
Report the spam you see, send feedback through the feedback page, have you even seen /qa/, we get spammed on a daily basis, not with ads but with anime. Mods are not omniscient.

>>871147
Better yet, does someone asking a shitposting questions like "do you like cut or uncut dicks?" suddenly make it an AMA? What a retarded notion that somehow people asking troll questions makes something an AMA.

>>871138

I'm not the mod, but they have been given explicit permission and /ak/ gets to exist because of historical precedent. Whilst you may not like it, they're part of the original community.

>>871148

I have continuity reported them and explain in posts why.

>>871145
They always have come off that way since we got the second sticky. Like I said, if it isn't the intent it's absolutely the interpretation, and more or less the effect. It's fucking infuriating.

I mean, it really is just against the basic spirit of /k/, isn't it? That's why it's so infuriating. While I appreciate and am fine with the Euros and the noguns and the like, they're there from a place of love. It's a majority American board, with a subject almost entirely allowed by a political provision ensuring the right to bear arms.

A provision, I might add, borne of frustration from outside, governing bodies coming in and ruling without input, transparency, or any representation. So it's no wonder it's so fucking frustrating when an outside, governing body that doesn't understand the board comes in and rules without input, transparency, or representation.

It's melodramatic, but that's the heart of the issue. It's like the old "board culture" arguments all over again.

>>871146
>inevitably it IS going to derail into full blown politics.
When they do they'll be deleted (the relevant posts or the entire thread, depending on the extent of the derailment) assuming they are reported or if there is a janitor watching and ultimately they'll be banned if you persist in discussing politics inside them.

>>871147
He can do whatever he wants as long as he is not breaking any rule, that doesn't mean I have to like what he is doing.

>>871154
>Historical precedent
>Original community

Oh, so gun control threads, military politics, and all that sort of thing weren't intrinsic to the board? They didn't contribute to a huge amount of discussion and content? They definitely only popped up in the last year or two and had to be unilaterally quashed by new rules, right?

Please, kindly fuck off.

>>871154
Through the feedback page? I think Hiro and a couple of senior mods are the only ones that can ban urls though

>>871158
>hey nuclear weapons expert, tell me about [nuke]
>oh x y z blah blah blah
>neat so what does x do, and is y related to that?
>yeah, it actually came from an old study around 19xx
>so what was the intent of x?
>it was to y
>and why was y seen as important?
>well [political figure] wanted z and y was the best way to do it so x was invented
>what? why did [political figure] want z?
>because-
>topic deleted and expert banned

i see this place is on the up and up

>>871157
Moderation must find a balance that works with the users. With weapons anywhere politics gets involved almost immediately, and you can't really stop it. With how they will apply the rules now it's going to move more and more to stifling anything /k/ related until they can kill the board.

>>871162
Mods are just picking what they like and throwing out what they don't. New jannies/mods do not like /k/ so they are shitting on it. They are also removing the bait/shitpost threads which curries favor with the userbase so they don't mind so much that actual content gets removed.

>>871162

Listen buddy, I'm not in support of those things either. I have been persistence through this thread arguing for nuclear threads

I just offered you an explanation, I'm on your side in this debatable, so don't attack me.

>>871162
>>871167

In addition, yes /ak/ has only had a recent revival, but it still has exist as a thing for a very long time.

>>871167
>debatable

*debacle

>>871165
By politics I mean /pol/ like politics, usually dealing with current political figures which usually the subject of more partisan debate, of course you can discuss Alexander the Great or Napoleon if it comes up when discussing I dunno, army tactics? I still think that'd be best discussed on /his/

>>871172
well ok, what if, for example, Mattis started throwing nuclear subs and so on around for diplomatic purposes, and someone was curious about the effect of this on china?

are we just supposed to not talk about that?

besides, are you even a mod?

File: 391568_d1cd472c99.jpg (14KB, 229x306px)

14KB, 229x306px

>tfw there's literally 'canada general' on /k/

I agree with the guy saying these things can stay when there's a basis in militaria, history, weapon related law or strategy discussion, while keeping our defense/global security related topics.

Otherwise nuke it all and we'll only have post your arsenal, what should my first handgun be, and lol9mm threads; but you'd really be killing the soul of the board there.

>>871170
Nah, I understand, sorry. It's all muddy around here and it's an infuriating topic.

Frankly, I'd be okay with /ak/ and vidya threads and the like if we still got Oppenheimer threads and gun control discussion and the like. It's the uneven moderation that is presented as entirely rational, even work that's entirely wrong.

That's all I want. Even, transparent, fair moderation with reason and user input and support behind it.

Hell, isn't that the entire point of /qa/? And yet, through so, so many threads of huge backlash and dissatisfaction, it seems not a single word has been heard or accounted for.

>>871175

In all likeliness, he's not a mod and I'm sure many posts in this thread are trolls. Even so, I'm sure the mods have seen our butt-ravage at the idea of other boards exclusively having "our" threads.

>>871143
>There is a difference between tangentially mentioning something and having an entirely discussion dictated around it.
Are you using my own buzzwords against me? I agree nonetheless.

>Right, but /int/ and /his/ aren't?
Well yes they are, but /k/ was so before those boards existed, to a certain extent, it could even be said it was /n/ before /n/. First come, first served I guess. /int/ simply wouldn't exist if the "please be respectful" part was enforced, /k/ can do without politics for the most part. You can discuss politics in /his/, just not in a /pol/ way.

>>871180

That's okay my dude, but all agreed on every point.

>>871183
>Are you using my own buzzwords against me? I agree nonetheless.

What buzzwords?

>Well yes they are, but /k/ was so before those boards existed, to a certain extent, it could even be said it was /n/ before /n/. First come, first served I guess. /int/ simply wouldn't exist if the "please be respectful" part was enforced, /k/ can do without politics for the most part. You can discuss politics in /his/, just not in a /pol/ way.

I don't follow the logic. If /k/ has exist before any of those boards, surely it stands to reason that /k/ has been discussing nuclear war and anything tangentially related to it. Doesn't that mean /k/ gets precedent to it, since /k/ disputed it has never been disputed until now?

>>868513
>realistic mil-sim games
So fucking airshit games is now allowed on /k/?

>>871108
>This your problem. Not ours. It is your job to clean up OUR threads when people shitpost.
That's your mom's job, mods job is to enforce rules, gun control threads are against a board specific rule

>>871183
>In a /pol/ way

There it is! There it is again, for the hundredth time, showing that someone's talking about something they have absolutely no understanding of whatsoever.

/k/'s discussions were about nuance, as well as overarching situations and especially philosophical principles as they relate to the politics. Hell, even some competent discussions of geopolitics.

Yes, people often berated liberals, and once in a while someone would mention a riot and call someone a "nigger." And yes, people would often post about and monitor active shooter situations, because for the next six months, people of our proclivities would have to be on guard as the media would never shut the fuck up about trying to take our rights and livelihoods away from us over those incidents.

So, the solution to a problem nobody thought existed as defined by moderators who nobody asked for "help" was to throw us to the wolves. Because surely, our level-headed, yet passionate discussion of relevant politics clearly all belongs in a place where we get none of that, because it's all stifled and lost between the banter of national identities and it all being the Jew's fault.

Great situation we've got here. Totally equivalent. We've surely always done things exactly as they appear on /pol/, yup.

>>871187

Only until recent, because the mods weren't able to correct control the rule breaking population.

>>871185
>Since /k/ disputed it has never been disputed until now?

Especially considering the massive reaction from its users was nearly exclusively "What? Why?", rather than glowing endorsement. It's actually quite the opposite, clearly.

>>871187
As said a thousand times, and already said to your very post, a board specific rule that has existed only for just recently a single year of its existence, with no user input, with massive user backlash. Not a real steady stance, there.

>>870979
It is not an analogy, it is a question, that nobody responded btw

>The mere threat of their usage shaped world politics from 1945 onwards
/k/ is not the place to discuss world politics, technology also affects weaponry but you don't see the people in /g/ having to bring up how the military was the main customer of the semiconductor industry during its early stage or what chips were in which missiles, because they have enough common sense to tell that is /k/ despite also being tech on its own right

>>871154
>/ak/ gets to exist because of historical precedent.

So then gun control threads, nuclear threads and dragon dildos are all undeniably /k/ material then by that definition. Thanks for clearing things up.

>>870987
>Does this mean I now have to go to /pol/ to discuss cyber security policy when the best people to discuss that issue are on /g/?
The blanket ban on politics is only for /k/ (and that's user's fault), other boards can discuss politics if they are related to their topic, but if you discuss them in a /pol/ way on any board (other than /pol/ and /b/) you will be banned.

>>871201

Yes, had you followed the reply chain you'd see that I'm in favour for it.

>>871203
I never said you were. I'm using the logic you said was given to you.

>>871190
They still aren't, but it makes their job easier to have clear regulations so you don't get to bitch about it being a grey area such as nuke threads

>>871202
>/pol/ way

See >>871189

Define a /pol/ way and describe exactly the reason that doesn't get historical precedence like /ak/, exactly why they get to go against what the users clearly want if they posted it so much, and why they get restricted when you say it's fine on literally every other board.

>>871208

They aren't clear regulations. There's no exact moderation definition of "politics", it's entirely guesswork on the part of the user to know what you cannot exactly post.

>>871185
>Doesn't that mean /k/ gets precedent to it
No, on the contrary, believe it or not boards created to discuss a topic get the precedent, just like mlp for example, despite it being unequivocally a cartoon.

>>871194
>As said a thousand times, and already said to your very post, a board specific rule that has existed only for just recently a single year of its existence, with no user input, with massive user backlash. Not a real steady stance, there.
Nice opinion.

>>871202
> other boards can discuss politics if they are related to their topic

That's completely nonsense. i was banned from /v/ for posting about a news article article that claimed that the release of an update for No Man's Sky was an attempt to suppress information about voter fraud.

>>871216

/mlp/ was created for a very, very particular case. To entirely sanitise all the boards of any /mlp/ content. None of the other boards exist in such a way.

>>871215
There's no definition for weapons either, rules assume we are dealing with mentally mature +18 human beings that are not playing dumb to get away with discussing whatever they feel like but instead actually try to comply with them by using common sense, and when in doubt asking for feedback instead of shooting first and complaining later.

>>871224
The no politics rule for /k/ was created to sanitize /k/ from /pol/, maybe from themselves

>>871222
My mistake, I meant to say "board-related politics"

>>871214
>>871189
see >>869411

If you are new to /k/ you won't understand where I'm coming from

>>871236
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcWM_1hBu_c

File: k's moderation.png (108KB, 1088x325px)

108KB, 1088x325px

>>871221
Nice argument

>>871241
Nice thread 10/10

>>869411
>someone said the word nigger, and mentioned 'jew'! THIS PROVES THAT YOU CAN'T HANDLE ANYTHING RELATED TO POLITICS

That's some amazing logic on display alright.

>>871232
um senpai you mods have single-handedly destroyed /k/ with these bullshit rules.

the rules aren't the problem per se, the users you have brought in with the rules are the problem. do you really think that the users from 2011 /k/ or earlier wouldn't be able to distinguish between calling obama a nigger/asking for a race war and having a sophisticated political argument? either start banning people en masse in the hopes that good posters will come or prepare for /k/ to get even worse.

>>871232

Because the definition of a weapon is not as fluid as politics. And how can you argue use "common sense" one the one hand, but support a blank ban that explicitly no politics? That's entirely contrary with that rule. If the rules were, "You can discuss politics, but it must pertain to weapons and weapons only. Being sensible and using good discretion is required."

But no, no politics allowed. As it exactly states, no room for flexibility as you so suggest.

>>871234

It certainly has not done it's job, you can clearly still see your supposed "/pol/" population posting in the thread. All it simply does is suppress them into the background.

Again, that's just lazy and poor moderation. There was a failure to control a small sub-set of users who can't mind their cross-posting manners.

>>871245
It was not my call, it was moot's, which btw owned a gun at some point (I think it was some kind of handgun) and posted on /k/ (although not regularly).

>>871252
>It was not my call,

Irrelevant, you just said you supported it.

>which btw owned a gun at some point

Completely irrelevant.

>>871250
>thread

*threads

>>871249
>either start banning
/k/ has had what I'd like to call purges every now and then through the years, again, not the first sticky of its kind, you obviously weren't there to be able to tell the difference, the fact they were being serious or not it is also irrelevant, it was off-topic.

>>871261
and why are you not undergoing a purge right now?

in fact, step it up. purge /pol/ and /b/ as well. i don't know if you people simply don't have enough mods and janitors or what but /pol/ has been a festering pile of shit since January and /b/ has always been shit. i don't want you to stop purging until /pol/ resembles 4*2/pol/.

>>871261

A purge of what? You still get pseudo-politics threads and threads in general with """"/pol/ tier commentary"""".

>>871255
>Irrelevant, you just said you supported it.
Admin can do whatever he wants with his site, this is not a democracy.

You are not interested in exchanging opinions, you are interested in convincing someone (Hiro) to let you do something you are not currently allowed to do (discuss politics in /k/). If you think what the admin thinks is irrelevant you just gave up.

>>871266
>Admin can do whatever he wants with his site, this is not a democracy.

No one said otherwise you idiot. We're talking about how retarded it was and how YOU just flat out said you supported it and heavily implied that anyone that uses a word that hurts your fee fees shouldn't be allowed to speak about politics.

>>871265
>>871264
Hence the now and then, the time between those being measured in years

>>871268

Right, but you're implying with your le ebin old fig (duckroll amirite?) act that the current rules is a form of purge.

>>871267
I don't remember saying that, but yes racism is ban worthy as per GR3 (not because my feelings), you have /pol/ and /b/ if you want to call someone a nigger or or post about jewish conspiracies.

>>871270
No, this one is permanent. Shitposter crackdowns are sporadic, the sticky reminding you of the board specific rules will stay there until the day you learn them and accept them in your hearts, so it'll stay there for the foreseeable future

>>871273
>I don't remember saying that

>it was a glorious day, specially when Boof was publicly banned for his "nigger-rigged" thread. Having to resort to ban words such as jew or nigger (something only the admin can do) on the WEAPONS board should be indicative of the true nature of /k/ and the reason why you can't be trusted to discuss politics, we don't need another /pol/.

This is getting absurd. It's not even about the words it's the fact that you use them to try to justify why politics and by extreme stretch of the imagination why nuclear policy threads aren't allowed on /k/.

>>871250
>Because the definition of a weapon is not as fluid as politics.
Everything is fluid if you are creative enough

>And how can you argue use "common sense" one the one hand, but support a blank ban that explicitly no politics?
Common sense from users part, 4chan doesn't have to justify its policies, users have to accept them or move on (there's space for feedback and debate though). Assuming that you accept 4chan rules then use common sense when in doubt. If you are warned, then your common sense was wrong, learn from trial and error instead of persisting in the latter.

>>871250
>All it simply does is suppress them into the background.
That's good enough, point is to prevent from having yet another generation of posters that literally grows up to become entitled shitposters because nothing was done to remind them this place has rules. Sticky is a beginning, otherwise we'd be discussing "why my gun control thread was deleted" or "why can't I post about the flim flam zim zam it's totally /pol/, I mean /k/" like it happened on /q/.

>>869235
>GG was banned though, it being a political video game related matter (and by moot himself nonetheless).
Except GG was video game culture, which is clearly mentioned and is allowed via the rules of /v/. moot the cuck just wanted it gone because he was close to Zoe Quinn and Anita. Also his girlfriend was working for Gawker at the time.

>>871275
>you
>you
>you
>you

I know you're having me on, but eh.

Sorry, but take it easy with your own projection. Your talk of shitposter crackdowns requiring a sticking is nonsense. Where are these extra stickies for the boards that desperately need them for their crackdowns on "/pol/" shitposting? Where's /tv/, where's /g/'s? Where's /ck/'s? Or /int/'s? These boards require them much more than /k/ does.

>>871288
>Everything is fluid if you are creative enough

Sure, but we're presuming that everyone is being adult and that still certainly does not mean weapons are still on the same level of fluidity as politics is.

>Common sense from users part, 4chan doesn't have to justify its policies, users have to accept them or move on (there's space for feedback and debate though). Assuming that you accept 4chan rules then use common sense when in doubt. If you are warned, then your common sense was wrong, learn from trial and error instead of persisting in the latter.

That's a non-answer to the question. How can you ask for common sense (your best judgement) on a rule that has no flexibility for best judgement? And no, users don't have to accept the policies as we've seen countless times historically.

>>871289

That certainly isn't, because that isn't solving the problem. Those that will shitpost, will shitpost regardless. You still see politics threads on /k/ and they'll been some ridiculous anti-bong/europoor straight from /pol/ screencap thread. Do they get deleted? Nope, not a chance.

It is the moderations fault for allowing it to get to such a situation that you cannot discuss politics when (within reason, i.e.. common sense) it matches to the topic. You also assume that shitposters actually read the stickies and why would they? When legitimate posters don't.

The best way to purge the shitposters is to have legitimate discussions and have the community become sick of the shitposters, then have the mods crack down when the community supports by reporting.
1/2

>>871301
Otherwise you just encourage the us vs mods mindset as you crackdown on legitimate users.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Maybe someone else can argue the autism.

>>871287
Again, I don't see how what I said could be construed for a support of the use of wordfilters. I was merely referring to the crackdown of shitposters (although Boof was more like collateral damage). I mentioned the use of wordfilters because that's the ultimate measure taken, not a gratuitous one, which should be indicative of the extent of the problem, it wasn't just a bunch of posters, it was a majority of them that engaged into those kind of threads or exhibited /pol/-like behaviours. To a lesser degree, this attitudes persisted in time, that's the reason of the 2015 sticky. The point is, it was not a rash decision, watch it, you had 5 years to try and change, you leave mods no choice, you wouldn't listen, you reap what you sow, you had it coming, etc, etc. You should have considered all your shitposting might come to haunt you back when trying to discuss /k/ related topics that were also political in nature. It's your fault as a board.

>>871301
>Your talk of shitposter crackdowns requiring a sticking is nonsense
Nowhere did I implied the stickies were a necessity, /tv/ had a crackdown of circlejerking tripfags and waifufags led by invisibro back in 2012 (no sticky), /int/ used to have a different sticky and it also wordfiltered jews and niggers for a while (also several years ago), /pol/ is a board for shitposting, /ck/ I dunno, /g/ looks fine

>>871304
Oh so now youre gonna blame the users for your piss poor job of moderation? Are you a fucking idiot or something? Jesus Christ do you even think for a second why we hate you mods? We want you replaced by people who actually give a shit about this site. Instead you mods love to go ahead and break the rules moot set up because someone triggered you.

This is why people left for 8ch and never came back. Do you want more people to leave this site? Or are you just gonna be a little bitch like you are now?

>>871304
At this point you're purposely being disingenuious. You just used the rationale that having to apply a word filter means that a board cannot talk about a topic whether or not it's even related TO the word filter.

Going by your standards, then /v/ isn't[ allowed to talk about consoles because it had a word filter as well about consoles and their fanboys.

>>871309
I want you to reread what you just posted. And I want you to realize the state of /int/, /tv/, and /g/. AND I want you to tell me why those boards are fine the way they are.

>>871301
>Sure, but we're presuming that everyone is being adult and that still certainly does not mean weapons are still on the same level of fluidity as politics is.
I'm not, rules are.

>How can you ask for common sense (your best judgement) on a rule that has no flexibility for best judgement?
If it has no flexibility then you don't need common sense, if I tell you don't post then simply stop posting, no buts, then again, you might come up with: but you didn't say where, but you didn't say when to start, but you didn't say I couldn't use someone to post for me, that is being a child. That's how most people complaining behave

>And no, users don't have to accept the policies as we've seen countless times historically.
Then they shouldn't complain when they are banned or warned. They can though

>>871317
>you might come up with: but you didn't say where, but you didn't say when to start, but you didn't say I couldn't use someone to post for me, that is being a child. That's how most people complaining behave
Expect YOU HAVEN'T. You just made up some shit on the spot and then don't bother to tell us what you added. If anything YOU are the child here mod. A child who whines whenever people tell him he's wrong and rightfully call you out.

You know what just stop. You have not only embarrassed yourself, but you have proven once again why we hate you mods. I hope you're proud of yourself

>>871301
>>871303
>That certainly isn't, because that isn't solving the problem.
No problem is ever solved on 4chan, except the ones dealing with technical issues. It's a never-ending fight against shitposts, think of it as a trench war, some posters are bound to end in no man's land

>>871303
>sleeping at 7pm

Alternatively

>being an Yuropoor

>>871316
I never said they were fine, neither is /k/ for that matter. Hence the latest janitor apps

>>871319
That's because you mods don't do your jobs.

>>871318
You need a chill pill

>>871324
Ah yes the janitors. Remember when we had the last Janitor drive and almost nothing changed? The janitors you hire are either people who suck your cock in the IRC room or are actually Redditors who want to change the culture of this site delete things they don't like. Oh yes remember the time you mods actually let an underage kid become a Janitor?

>>871325
It's not like they are getting payed for it

>>871329
Apply if you think you think you can do better

File: IMG_20161205_193612.jpg (248KB, 1440x1039px)

248KB, 1440x1039px

>>871324
>I never said they were fine
>/g/ looks fine
You just said /g/ was fine despite the constant shitposting. So now youre flat out lying to us

>>871332
I did last drive and didn't get accepted, despite the fact that I said I was determined to actually fix /v/. Mods have always chosen the worst people to become janitors.

>>871315
/v/ isn't allowed to get dubs because they have proven to abuse them (and they are not even a function ffs), it's the same for /k/ and politics

>>871337
Just further proof moot became more incompetent over time.

>>871314
I actually encouraged people multiple times ITT to go to 8ch or operatorchan if they are dissatisfied with the rules or moderation, alternatively apply to become a janitor

>>871337
>dubs is the same as word filter meaning you can't talk about a topic at all

This conversation is going nowhere when you're this blatantly intellectually dishonest.

File: thanks sunshine.png (156KB, 950x434px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 950x434px

>taking 4chan moderation seriously
>ever
I've been banned countless times for posting things that don't break the rules in any way. This here is me being banned some time ago after posting a smug anime face.

>>871338
It's really hard to keep up with such reckless faggotry

>>871339
And guess what? Back in 2014 they did in droves. People are still leaving this place to go there. They actually have competent mods, which is more than I can say for you.

>>871340
It's the same principle (users abuse x, x is banned), I can offer another analogies but I think you won't like any of them

>>871344
Am I supposed to be concerned by this? Because you seem to be suggesting that.

>>871345
You used the analogy that because people said the word nigger and jew that politics is banned - despite the fact that neither of those words are political. So by that logic, words that were banned on /v/ like sonyfag, nintendrone, xbot should mean that something completely different should then not be allowed to be talked about.

How does that make any kind of sense to you? Just answer that alone instead of deflecting, projecting and going out of your way to dodge the discussion entirely like you have been doing.

>>871334
2 out of 3 (3 out of 4 if you include /k/), give me a break.

>>871354
>>871354
>>871354
>>871354
Please help bump this thread

>>871347
You should because it makes you look like a bunch of corrupt idiots who cant even do their jobs right.

>>871351
>You used the analogy that because people said the word nigger and jew that politics is banned
That wasn't an analogy, wordfilters are the end result of /k/ becoming too much like /pol/, /pol/ being banned on every board but /pol/ and /b/. Politics, as long as they are relevant to the boards topic are fine, except for /k/, because you end up becoming /pol/ (yes, so do other boards such as /tv/ or /int/) but unlike international relations or /tv/, discussion about weapons can be more easily separated from political discussion than say, the latest SNL sketch about Trump. Then there's grey areas like nukes, but that's not an everyday thread, as opposed to the daily threads dealing with gun control and outright politics that proliferated on /k/ in the middle of even more /pol/ish threads dealing with racial relations

>So by that logic, words that were banned on /v/ like sonyfag, nintendrone, xbot should mean that something completely different should then not be allowed to be talked about.
I think you meant sonygger, I found them amusing (the puns not the filters). And no, I don't go to /v/

>>871354
>>871354
>>871354
>>871354
Pls help

>>871372
I don't really care about how banned users that migrated to other chans feel about moderation, but now I know they are mirrin'

>>871387
>People leaving the site entirely because of your shit attitudes and work
>People leaving to places where they get what they want because you arbitrarily squashed them
>Your takeaway is jealousy

10/10 moderation staff folks

>>871361
>>871381
No, go away you troglodyte.

>mods and jannys so ineffective they don't even delete spam posted before their very eyes
KEK

/k/ should just be merged with /pol/ and /out/ completely.
It serves not purpose.

>>871398
No, /pol/ can eat dick, I come to /k/ for weapons, not /int/posting and Turner Diaries fanfiction.

>>871126
Do you know if that thread is still in the archive? They don't have threads before 2013 (or was it 2012?) though

>>871415
I don't think it is. It'd be before 2013, maybe even '12. If it was still '12 it was early, and I don't know which archive works anymore.

>>871418
Try desuarchive.org/k, it started archiving /k/ on July 2012

>>870944
I come from /arg/ and it's been up and down in terms of quality, but holy fuck Milsurp General is /fa/ ever since they lost all the good trips (Drake, NuggetCollector) to Reddit. MSG is cancer.

>>870962
/msg/ has nothing to do with plate carrier, clothing, or helmets in relation to usage though, they're purely about showing off old uniforms as fashion items. They don't give advice on pieces of old gear/military surplus gear that might be useful, they collect rare uniforms to show off to their online friends.

/GQ/ is all about the application of gear, the quality of gear, and the reviewing of gear. They've been quite a serious thread for a long time, whereas /msg/ has been quite a shit thread where the majority of people (tripfags included) don't even own firearms. A single tripfag owns like 80% of the guns seen in "proof" photos when proof is asked for firearms ownership in the threads. It's fucking pathetic, and they all have an excuse.

>Act like I'm an old fag who knows the community
You do realize I've been an anon on /k/ for about 7 years now and a tripfag for about 5 years, right? Guess that's not oldfag to everyone.

Who's points am I regurgitating? I would love to see you quote someone else's points and match them to mine.

>>870966
Clothing militaries wear isn't related to /k/ when they're no longer worn and they are only touted for their historic value (/his/), their fashionable appeal (/fa/) or their use in reenactments (/cgl/).

If it's not being used practically, it's not being used in a way that relates to /k/.

>>870840
Wow

>>871387
See >>871389

You just can't accept that theres another image board that actually has competent mods. I'm sorry you're so jealous

File: 1476842303472.jpg (33KB, 305x315px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 305x315px

>>871344
that was mostly autismgaters though. and 8gag's population has shriveled up since then

>>872278
>competent mods

Good
/pol/ has never been welcome on /k/ and never will be, go fuck yourselves faggots