[ Rules ] [ ot / g / m ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Server Status ]

/meta/ - site discussion

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File(20 MB max)
Video
Password (For post deletion)
The site has moved to the new server! If you notice any issues, report them here

File: 1645668653648.gif (2.86 MB, 275x264, 1645111353105.gif)

No. 30039

Risking a ban to ask this question, should mods start banning the anons who accuse others of being "x" other anon? Example:

>Omg you said this word! You must be x!
>Stop saying (thing I don't like) you must be ____-chan!
>Only ___anon would say that!

I often see these accusations without any basis or proof, and I also see a lot of anons complaining about this calling it annoying. Should mods start enforcing a rule about this? It would honestly prevent so many unnecessary infights with very stubborn anons. This rule would be very similar to how people think x cow is in the thread (omg Lucinda is that you?) Etc.(complaints thread)

No. 30042

>>30039
Yeah

No. 30043

idk but starting to redtext hi cow and hi scrote again would he a start, idk why mods stopped

No. 30044

My honest opinion: yes it should

No. 30045

Yes

No. 30051

Yes. I hope mods see this

No. 30057

Yes please

No. 30058

I think it depends on the context and how often the anon does that. A ban would be too much, maybe a warning?

No. 30065

>>30043
there are many "hi cows" and the posts made by scrotes are generally deleted

No. 30074

Yes. It’s annoying when some retard starts tagging multiple anons claiming it’s a single anon. Some people just have very similar typing styles. It’s annoying as hell getting dragged into arguments or berated because a retard thinks you’re another anon. Banning would lessen the infighting.

No. 30075

>This rule would be very similar to how people think x cow is in the thread (omg Lucinda is that you?)
Really bad example


Delete Post [ ]
[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules ] [ ot / g / m ] [ pt / snow / w ] [ meta ] [ Server Status ]