[ 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 is back! Read about the how and why we were offline 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 ]