Why is shitposting allowed in this board?

define shitposting

>>7674663
define "define"

File: Untitled.png (703KB, 1051x815px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 1051x815px

Because mods can't tell the difference on this board. unless it's a picture of an illegal Qt. They know what that looks like for sure.

>>7674663
To talk without reason, to lie, to engage in off topic discussion, to abuse of rhetorics, to disregard science, to misuse words, to not read threads nor use the catalog, defines shitposting.

>>7674671
If mods know what basic shitposting in /sci/ looks like, and don't punish it or plain clean it, it's because they don't want to. Even if they can't identify more advanced shitposting, they can learn to identify it if they wanted to, and proceed to cleaning the board.

>>7674642
Mods avoid collateral damage. ie, their heuristics are based around more tightly clustered attributes that indicate with near certainty, that something is shitposting. Employing anything more aggressive correlates with an increase in likelihood of error.

tl;dr, they don't want to be fuckheads deleting legitimate threads and posts, and you probably don't either. There's also probably not a mod / janitor that frequents sci anyway. It's fine the way it is. Next time you see "consciousness" thread #20 billion, remember, it's par for the course when you have a self regulating community. And it speaks to the general population of the board. If you don't like it, leave.

File: Faraday-Millikan-Gale-1913.jpg (942KB, 1408x1880px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 1408x1880px

>>7674685
Of course, Sir. Thanks for saying it in a way that was less of a joke and more to the point.

Because when you heavily police a forum you lose the spirit. Who's to say that real discussion can't be created from an objectively shitty post?

>>7674686
This is where we define our axioms
wait what

>>7674642
Because shitposting is a science too.

File: F-15_takeoff.jpg (36KB, 525x342px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 525x342px

>>7674691
I don't care about the general population of the board more than I care about the legit scientists and thinkers here. I don't believe in democracy.

If mods can't differentiate between legitimateposts and shitposts, or if there are no mods who frequent sci, they have no interest in legitimateposts in the first place. So you made a easy to spot fallacy.

There is so much wrong in your post, it makes me think you have a mental issue.

>>7674766
None of that makes much sense.

What I said, in short, is that from what I've seen janitors and mods only care about enforcing a baseline set of standards (more or less the global rules). There also aren't any that frequent sci, as I've seen multiple instances where threads with a lot of activity have had porn just sit there for days. Probably no one reported it (because very few people care / bystander effect for those that do), and no mod was here to see it.

The only exception was a recent thread discussing relativity. That was deleted, I'm not sure why.

If you start differentiating between shitposts and legitimateposts it quickly becomes arbitrary. That's how people work. You don't want arbitrary having power over your environment, self regulation of the community is a better approach even if it's a losing battle.

>>7674765
Really, though, shitposting is more art than science.