People posting in threads they don't care about to make irrelevant points.

Nova

1c. It's okay if a thread goes off-topic naturally, but do not derail it intentionally, even if you don't like the topic.

2. Discussing, debating, arguing, and disagreeing are all allowed. However, when doing these things, target the opinions and arguments, not the persons you're talking to. Insults, mockery, needlessly rude or inflammatory posts, or other irrelevant material may be edited, blanked, locked, or deleted.

4a. Do not start or continue dramafests. If you have problems with other users, talk to moderators or to the users in question privately. Abuse, harrassment, and trolling (intentionally posting stuff to annoy people) are not allowed. Do not derail discussions with drama.

But most importantly:

4c. If you don't like a thread, and have nothing meaningful to add to it, don't post in it.

MillerCross

While it's cool and all, I don't see much ground of discussion here that wouldn't work better in the suggestions thread.

Vorpy

So the meaningless opposition to this thread via image dumping in an attempt to stop progression of said topic was...successful?

I didn't know if somebody didn't like a thread, and dumped a ton of images into it in an attempt to get it locked, would actually work if you tried hard enough.

:<

I are sad.

Gelzo

Maybe we should start banning people.

MillerCross

^ I've been wanting to say no to that...but I guess we can't ignore that anymore, now could we?

Vivi

Or maybe not care about these things so much. Thread wasn't going anywhere anyway. Also, absolutely every post has to be meaningful? Who is the judge of what is meaningful?

Vorpy

Hell, it took me AND Bob to get Chagen's sympathy trolling thread killed after 4 or so fucking pages of maximum shitposting, but evilneko killed a pretty civil thread in less than one. Holy fuck.

MillerCross

The point isn't meaningfulnes, it is non-annoyingness.

Would you like it if I spammed the shit out of every thread you made just because it didn''t go anywhere

Also, I think we were having an interesting discussion about complexity in fiction.

^ Well, it's because the times, they are-changing.

Vivi

I helped a bit with that one Vorpy. Also it was two threads.

Nova

While it's cool and all, I don't see much ground of discussion here that wouldn't work better in the suggestions thread.

I was making a point. It's already in the rules.

-sigh-

I guess I should start to look at banning people.

Vorpy

Which one did I forget?

Vivi

He made a thread about wanting sympathy, we shitposted, then he made another wanting sympathy and being sad cause we ignored him and shitposted. We shitposted in that one too.

Vivi

Or you could not lock so many threads Cygan. I think you do that too much.

MillerCross

I think tempbans would be preferable. Banning someone and not giving them the ability to appeal/get better is just...well, I'm not behind the idea.

@Cygan: Which is why I suggested moving the discussion to the suggestion thread as the topic is the rules.

^ Yeah, but how does that help the place to be a better discussion place instead of a shithole?

Nova

You people need to make up your minds.

"You need to lock more threads."

I lock threads.

"You need to lock less threads."

-sigh-

Nova

We do not have the ability to tempban, Juan. Only ban, I am sorry.

Vivi

I agree with Juan actually.

┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻

Yeah, but how does that help the place to be a better discussion place instead of a shithole?

Well, there's always OTC for tha-

*sees IJBMs about OTC*

...er, nevermind.

MillerCross

I believe the lock was, while aburpt, the best solution available, none of the posters were willing to take the thread seriously, so why bother with it?

which is another problem, we have categories, yet we shit on threads that don't belong in the shitposting category like nobody's business.

We do not have the ability to tempban, Juan. Only ban, I am sorry.

A ban can't be removed? In no way at all?

Central Avenue

You could always manually tempban someone. "I'll ban you for now but lift the ban in a week" kinda thing.

Gelzo

The thing is, while temp-banning would probably be helpful as a deterrent and a short break from annoying behavior from whatever users are temp-banned, it's not going to be a permanent solution to the users that show no signs of improving their behavior.

Oh, so I guess it isn't a possibility, then.

Vorpy

4chan uses tempbans to let me know to come back later when I am not being a fucktard.

Vorpy

And then there is the whole "Hey they are banned lets talk shit about them before their ban lifts" attitude that is conveyed.

MillerCross

It's a warning deal, Gelzo. If the lowest measure of punishment doesn't convince a person to change their ways, then we bring the big guns. But I don't see the point in banning people completely. Because, let's face it, if we banned completely every single person who has broken the rules constantly here, we would only have the mods and around 5 posters left.

^Then we ban the guys who do that to. BAN EVERYTHING

Vivi

How do you know know one was willing to take it seriously? Just before the lock happened, Vorpy apologized, I was about to. (Not sure about evilneko) Same with the E3 thread. Just before the lock, Juan made a post about getting things back to video games. My next post was going to agree and start a conversation about the new PSP. But locked.

Nova

We could, but I am not sure if you can read messages while banned.

Gelzo

^^^Certainly not all the mods, either.

I think a three strikes rule- with warnings beforehand- might be nice?

MillerCross

Except that the staff is forgiven to keep the place in order and they don't break the rules anymore. While most people keep breaking them.

No, seriously, check all the threads started today. Now look how many of them have at least one mod/concerned user come in and quote the rules. The number is high. Too high.

Mods should only be there occassionally. We shouldn't be calling their attention so much.

Nova

Well, we try not to break the rules. We are only human.

I've set myself a rule that I can't post if something has irritated me, specifically to stop me breaking them.

I think a three strikes rule- with warnings beforehand- might be nice?

This may actually be good. I discussed this with the other mods before, but they weren't sure. Does anyone have any reasons for opposing this?

Vorpy

So far, at the moderator's call I have:

• Stopped forcefully derailing threads I hate with overkilling page spanning imagespam.
• Stopped forcefully derailing threads by people I hate and trying to invoke others to hate them more than I do.
• Stopped threatening other users and sending them hate-filled messages.
• Stopped generating hellishly large speeches on why people I dislike are stupid and should kill themselves.
• Stopped mentioning the ignore extension.
• Stopped posting one-word unrelated posts.
• Stopped using the word "pseudofaggot", "fake asexual", "sexually repressed nerd" and "otaku filth".
• Stopped making rape jokes.
• Stopped Yo Mama derails.
• Stopped using the "FUCK the SHIT out of her" meme.

MillerCross

Stopped using the "FUCK the SHIT out of her" meme.

Really? That seems rather dumb. Also, I agree with the three strike rule. But what would count as a strike?