File: 1518139827234.jpg (26.76 KB, 397x418, YkeMNPh.jpg)
No. 5090
File: 1518184444964.jpg (53.95 KB, 600x600, cow-facepalm-udderly-dissappoi…)
>>5088Thank you. In that case I mean the 11th.
No. 5095
File: 1518289184442.png (15.86 KB, 540x105, announcement.png)
>>5091Is anyone else experiencing this? It should show up correctly.
No. 5105
>>5103If there's anything you want to be discussed, just post it in here and we'll bring it up.
Everyone please read the original post before you ask questions that are answered in it.
No. 5118
File: 1518609752810.jpg (17.46 KB, 240x240, 1450282872879.jpg)
>>5117wow. never would have thought.
just a little concerned townhall will be filled with nothing but angry momo anons screaming about watermarked images. not all of us are interested in moo.surely there are legitimate other concerns and such that anons would like to approach
No. 5139
>>5134I agree. I originally thought it was a neat idea but it just diverts potential milk away from here. I'd rather just be without lolcow if the site is down, and deal with the chance milk isn't instantly archived during downtimes.
The only negative I can see is an influx of retards being forced to return from temp, so mods would have to be ready to ban until they conform. (I'd say reconform but I don't think most temp regulars ever adjusted to board culture to begin with).
In that sense, I'm torn between it being a containment chamber or not. But the attention whoring cowtipping will likely simmer down if they don't have an audience/echo chamber for it. Keeping tempcow for those people feels like moot reviving r9k for the incels: a mistake. I know I won't be able to attend any townhalls so hopefully this can still be relayed by one of us.
No. 5140
>>5086one of my biggest complaints, is that you guys don't really seem to take your roles seriously, ffs this whole saging nonsense? Seriously, this could've all been if avoided if you just properly stated what should and shouldn't be saged and ban/delete posts/users that didn't fucking fall in line with it, instead of pull some grade school shit "c'mon guys that's not what we're supposed to do!"
now everyone's terrified of going the way of the anisa and momo threads (autosage for life, and being dumped to snow)
I'm having serious doubts you guys know what direction you feel this community should be going
No. 5141
>>5140I definitely feel rules and punishment should be more actively and publicly relayed. For everything, not just the momocunt incident. It'd help reign in newfags who don't lurk before posting. Lots of people learn better by reading other people's mistakes too, and will be spiteful or angry if they're continually punished without understanding why. Perhaps the mods give more detailed reasoning with the bans, but of the few times I've been warned or banned I often don't even remember or know what it was for. Or once, for example, I was banned for infighting. I knew better and deserved it, but the only reason I even knew which post(s) I'd been banned for was because I'd commented literally nothing else for weeks. I could go back and see the (user was put out to pasture). A newfag or someone with many posts needs more information than that. I don't mean a paragraph I get mods gave lives and are volunteers, but a link back to the offending posts would make sense? Or even just a generic copy+paste clarifying the broken rules.
Community enforcement is banned as it becomes minimodding, so unspoken rules get iffy. It also makes it hard to understand if a mod is in the wrong, which is something we should be able to easily define and understand so their mistakes can be corrected and their farmhanding better by result.
I'm sure the staff have talked a lot amongst themselves about these things but I'd like to hear their perspectives too, what they're dealing with and what isn't working etc. That way the community can be more understanding or even offer potential solutions admin can then consider if desired. You never know what you haven't thought of or what angle could be approached…
No. 5148
>>5147Except No? That's not true at all. In fact, for a long time with original admin the only way to have your identity revealed was by doing things like threatening the site/admin or trying to trick farmhands into shit. We've even been told in the past cows wouldn't be automatically outed just for self posting.
There's threads too like mira's or shiena's where their self posting is well known, blatant and in endless supply but they are not outed (despite more or less outing themselves via their own tard tendencies).
What lolcow have you been visiting?
No. 5151
>>5150Talking about yourself in third person gets you outed. I can think of a whole bunch of people who were, even if it's not with a banner graphic like Kiki.
- Mira posting hasn't been marked, but confirmed during Townhalls
- same as above for Titanic Sinclair
- TheJosh
- Angel the munchie
- half a dozen people in Patreonfag thread
Too lazy to dig deeper but that's just off the top of my head from the last year.
Maybe Shiena wasn't outed because nobody outside of a few vendettafags actually care. Either way, if you want someone outed, you gotta make staff aware, but they probably won't bother for a random nobody whose thread is dead anyway.
No. 5152
File: 1519093227180.png (254.06 KB, 571x275, ruined.png)
May we please get some real answers regarding the Momokun thread? The question of Moo was completely brushed aside during the townhall. Why is Moo still in /snow/ when she's producing way more milk than people like Raven or Vicky? We usually get to vote on cow placement during townhalls and that didn't happen this time.
No. 5155
>>5153>legendary cows>vickyPick one. She did one milky thing and the udder's been completely dry since. Behaviour's also been completely fine for several threads, vs Kiki and Vicky's which are constantly full of nitpicking and stale trash. Onion thread also constantly has cowtipping, like with that Olive Garden video, and no one cares.
>>5154Because that's exactly how Luna and Moo both got promoted to /pt/ in the first place. They were voted in. I was there. Why even bother having a townhall if nothing's properly addressed?
No. 5157
Missed Townhall and would also like to see a summary of what was discussed/decided if one has been compiled, like
>>5149.
Something I want to voice in general: It bothers me that fucktardery in threads can sometimes end up getting topics banned across the board. I don't understand the purpose of that. In fact, it seems a perfect opportunity for those who want certain topics banned to shitpost in order to make it happen.
I feel 90% of our issues could be fixed with more consistent and transparent moderation.
If people don't sage or are infighting or whatever else, ban them with a reason why posted (always redtext, not just sometimes). Some threads are moderated more than others and it doesn't seem to be proportionate to the popularity of the topics. Too much moderation happens behind the scenes and if no reasons are posted, it doesn't help the farm learn from experience and thus improve.
No. 5160
>>5153>cowtippingi’m still trying to figure out where this even happened
was it the shitty art that was posted and went absolutely no where and was never seen off lolcow? the photoshops that also went absolutely no where?
No. 5166
>>5165agreed
>>5164grow up. it doesnt matter what fucking board her thread is on. you still have a place to sperg about her weight, receipts and bad photoshop jobs. stop being an ungrateful toddler
No. 5167
>>5163How the fuck is this suggestion in any way self-defeating? You make no sense.
Some posts in here are way OTT on the hostility. This is a place to raise issues, is it not? Farmers should not be jumped on for asking for clarify from staff. I think redtext on all bans would show consistency, transparency and help to demonstrate clear rules to the community and let newfags/lurkers others learn by seeing what is okay and not.
No. 5169
>>5168My linking was wrong, but they're:
>>>/snow/485645Anakin's sperg out.
Then
>>>/snow/501167and
>>>/snow/501197Respectively.
To me, the fact that anons even suggested this is the issue since we don't now how many petty twitter followers are lurking and they might actually do it. And where did they get that idea and image? Here.
Momo's threads have attracted a lot of non-channers to Lolcow with no experience with chan culture and it shows. This is probably why Momo threads are in snow, as damage control.
No. 5172
>>5086Do anons generally agree that if you do not like a particular thread you can ignore or hide it?
Then why did anons vote over 4 to 1 in favor of shutting down the munchie threads?
No. 5178
>>5172I do not want the munchie threads to be shut down, as they bring to light the milk that people need to see, but also have solid rules in place that prevent doxxing and discussion of underage cows, which is needed. Other sites do not appear to have this.
I would be happy to apply to be a farmhand to help mitigate the derailing and the vendettas.
No. 5179
>>5178Same. I really really do not want the munchie threads to go. I've seen a lot of rule breaking in other threads, I legit don't think it's
that much worse in munchies. Please just scroll by if you hate it.
No. 5184
During the meeting, the primary criticism was that the munchie threads are full of sick people calling out other sick people seemingly in a hypocritical contest of one-upmanship.
Many threads in /snow/ and /pt/ have their own subculture within the greater board culture by virtue of the subject or topic and its subculture (eg. anons living in Japan calling out weebs, former drug addict anons calling out Luna), and anons write posts drawing from their own experiences within those subcultures.
Medfagging and, to a certain degree, blogposting have their places in the context of exposing munchie lies. Some threads in /ot/ welcome blogposting as integral to discussing the topic or exist solely for the purposes of blogposting. If blogposting is the issue, perhaps the solution is to move the munchie threads to /ot/?
Additionally, "blogposting" versus "medfagging" needs to be defined. Blogposts have been flagged as medfagging, while anons in the thread use medfagging to describe posts made by people who are medical providers or medical students.
Moving the threads to /ot/ would also be the solution if the reason so many anons dislike seeing the munchie threads in /snow/ is that function of the threads has expanded beyond simply calling out munchies. These threads are the only active online documentation of MBI behavior. Also, these threads provide a safe, anonymous space for former followers who have been negatively affected by the munchies' behavior. Their behavior damages the emotional and physical health of their followers by causing them to doubt their own illnesses and treatments. Their misrepresentation of the illnesses they do not have influences health care providers, insurance companies, and charities and skews statistics and research of rare illnesses.
Finally, other cows exhibit munchie behavior as a symptom of their personality disorders. The boards will suffer overall without the munchie threads to explain MBI.
No. 5187
File: 1519176834049.png (1.45 MB, 2560x1440, Screenshot_20180220-192515.png)
Danis new vlog has so much milk..i skipped around watching and didn't make it to when she talks about her temple appt..but she no doubt is exaggerating and manipulating them just to be able to say "emergency appt" online.
At least twice she talks about her exercise and then does this sush sign and says "don't tell my therapist."
The second time is this screen shot and she expresses this more. Like she could have just asked lolcow to talk about her with how subtle this was.
She's pacing her apartment for the start of the video.
Her exercise restriction went out the window. She's claimed restriction since she was in treatment as most are but took it further so she could appear like she really did damage from her anorexia. I bet she is regretting malingering the restricition now that she wants to exercise to loose weight so she can try to get that tube.
Fingers crossed they do morr motility testing and hopefully get them done without her knowing days-weeks ahead. It would be amazing if they did them the day of the appointment. .one can hope lol.
She talks about her courses again. I'm going to die if she thinks it's state recognized and useable for anything more than personal knowledge (more like more knowledge to fake a little more accurate)
No. 5188
>>5157Definitely agree that people have an opportunity to shitpost in order to squash a thread. Way back when aminyan and other singing weebs were relevant an aminyan wk kept instigating fighting and instead of banning them the thread got put on autosage to die.
That's what I don't understand for the momo threads. Is it just too much of an effort to ban people like the keychain anon and anakin anons with redtext to warn? Shit even that anon that sperged the fuck out over the marmar nickname should've been banned right away but the entire thread got in trouble for it. Those anons stand out like sore thumbs and constantly post so it should be easy to pinpoint.
No. 5192
>>5189I got a ban of unknown length (longer than 24 hrs, not permabanned) for what one farmhand perceived as against the rules discussion of a minor - even though the person was 17, perfectly within the rules, and self posting copiously to try and get discussion of herself banned. I get that it's generally bad form to discuss bans but when the admins are banning shit that
does not break the rules, what are you meant to do? I wasn't redtexted so there was no indication that my posts led to a temp ban.
Seems to me that modding of the munchie threads has been incredibly inconsistent and needs a lot of clarifying. Farmhands keep mixing up medfagging and blogging, where the former is sometimes useful and annoying when it's extra, and the latter usually just as shitty as in other threads.
Put us in OT if you want.
No. 5196
>>5167nice reading comprehension, anon.
note that I highlighted what is happening, rather than your suggestion? if you read what I wrote, you'd see I was agreeing with you that not red-texting all bans is … self-defeating bullshit.
No. 5198
>>5196>>5158 is not the same anon as
>>5167.
I am
>>5158.
Nice assuming that I posted
>>5167, anon.
No. 5201
>>5200By saying that I meant that I've been through many town halls and its always just people bitching about threads they don't like, but rarely do they ever demonstrate why they are bad for the boards. Maybe the ana-chan thread was a cause for concern but other than that???
At some point just get over it. It just feels like nitpicking. Arguing over whether this thread belongs here or there or whatever, it's gotten ridiculous.
No. 5203
>>5201Critics of the munchie threads said that they are no better than the anachan threads were, and that they need to be shut down just as the anachan thread was.
The issue may be that admin and mods are being overwhelmed by reports of blogposting, and shutting down the threads is an easy way to deal with it. If this is the case, they should be upfront. The pressure on mods would be alleviated if all posts which incur bans are flagged to demonstrate what is not acceptable so that all anons can learn from the bans.
No. 5204
>>5203But the concern with ana-chan threads was essentially with ana-chan themselves polluting the boards, I don't see any such concern with medfags who keep to themselves.
It just feels like some anons expect this place to be like their curated FB feed or something. I don't "get" many threads but I just ignore them.
No. 5205
>>5204I recall one of the critiques being, "The anons calling out munchies are just munchies themselves." Such an indictment of the entire thread could only be made out of ignorance of the thread's subculture which includes shutting down the very few munchies in our midst; munchies are afraid to be called out by us. In that regard we are able to do a fairly good job of self-modding with practically no infighting.
Some critics lumped the Kelly thread in with the munchie threads which is now grossly inaccurate for obvious reasons.
No. 5211
>>5141Yes,
please give us something we can work with. Be transparent so we can learn from our own mistakes
and those of others.
One of the complaints I've heard is that people in those threads are not integrated in imageboard culture very well. That might be true, but culture is never a fixed state. It changes with the people. New people will find the threads
like they are now, and will integrate to the culture
there is now. I don't think you can blame us for having a bit of our own subculture; that simply comes with the territory. I imagine every thread has it to some degree.
If however we are taking things too far and rules are being broken, PLEASE just tell us. Redtext posts that are over the line, issue warnings, tell us WHY certain postings are against the rules. It's not that we don't WANT to follow the rules, it's simply that we don't always know how to interpret them because the moderating is not very transparent.
So if you have to move us, do so. Enforce rules, issue warnings, and
explain what is going wrong. If people don't
want to follow the rules, then by all means, ban them. But if it's simply a question of not
interpreting them right, then help us understand them. If this places too much strain on the mods, I'm sure some of us would be happy to lend a hand. We can make this work. But please don't shut us down simply because some people don't like newfags or because a few people are misbehaving.
No. 5213
>>5211Yes!
So now that Jaquie is locked, do we move her to the Munchie thread? Or are you killing that too? Do you want us to go to KiwiFarms, because a lot of people preferred lolcow to KF?
Are we just supposed to let her win and continue to lie out of her ass with no place to call her out?
Can we move her board to OT?
Tell us what you want us to do! Many people who contribute to that board weren’t even at the Towbhall to vote!
No. 5214
>>5211Unfortunately munchie threads are filled with self posting and blogging (medfagging) and this behavior has not improved in the slightest. An extreme case of this would be kelly. It's counterproductive to give a group of attention seekers the attention they want. They are the nu-anachans.
>>5212As of right now yes, this was decided at last sundays townhall with a poll.
> Is Jaquie a banned subject board-wide, i.e. can we post about her in the general munchie thread, or is it allowed to move this thread/open a new thread about her in OT? You can post about her in the general munchie thread for now but once that thread fills up then there will be no more munchie threads board wide. Not even in /ot/
>3. If the thread is definitively being closed down, can we get a few days so we can at least use the thread to see if e.g. we can organise ourselves somewhere else?You can go ahead and do that in munchie general.
>>5213There was a townhall announcement put up for the past two weeks. Anyone could have had the chance to put in their vote.
Once the munchie general thread in /snow/ fills up, there will be no more munchie threads on here whatsoever.
No. 5215
>>5208So now the fact that we petition to keep the thread open is a sign that it shouldn't be? We aren't allowed to like a thread that we've been posting in for months now?
Also, I don't think people have ever told each other that it's okay to blog. Some people have been saying that blogging-by-comparison,
to a certain extent can have a place in these kinds of threads. Or that it's sometimes hard to strike the right balance, e.g. when you know something a munchie claims is bullshit,
only because you have the disorder they are claiming.
As I've said in
>>5211, the moderating is simply not always clear. When people have been banned for a certain post but the post is still up and not redtexted, no one will know that this kind of posting will get you banned. So if you're trying to integrate into the culture, you can't. Even if you've been lurking for weeks or even months. Because you assume that the postings you read are part of that culture, without ever knowing that a ban was issued for the posts you are reading. It's not that we don't
want to adhere to board culture, it's just that you can't grasp the culture if there's no clarity about what is or is not acceptable.
No. 5216
>>5214How were people supposed to know that there was going to be a vote to specifically target the Munchie boards?
We knew it was a possible topic, not a for sure do-or-die thing.
So are we just supposed to make our own website kek?
No. 5218
>>5215lolcow.farm/info
>sometimes hard to strike the right balance, e.g. when you know something a munchie claims is bullshit, only because you have the disorder they are claiming.Yeah, writing 2 paragraphs about it is in fact blogging and it falls under the category of medfagging.
>>>/snow/505391>>>/snow/497108>>>/snow/496697examples of banworthy posts
No. 5219
>>5218But I just wish someone this was somewhere in the rules. I was banned recently for what I now believe was too long a post. Though I didn't understand it at the time. Because the rules don't state anything about post length, I always assumed that blogposting merely meant sharing too much from personal experience and discussing things (about yourself or your perspective) that simply aren't relevant. Because that is what the rules say.
I really believe if the moderating would be more transparant, the majority of anons frequenting the Jaquie thread WILL adapt. I just feel like that we were never given that chance.
>>5217True, of course. But it's just easier to find each other if there's a place to communicate. I
really thought that we would get at least some kind of notice that it would soon be closed.
We can of course use the munchie threads to see e.g. if there's enough interest to start our own board, but I think that would be quite annoying to read for others. Couldn't you just open the thread up for e.g. 72 more hours? What's the harm in that?
(BTW, yes, if I had known there would be a vote about these threads I might have turned up if the timing wasn't too crazy with time zones etc.)
No. 5220
>>5219>>5217Moderation and Admins have explained over and over that not all bans can be public because often times, repeat offenses lead to a ban and by marking all violations of that user, anonymity would be compromised.
If your own experience is the only way you can explain why a Munchie's symptoms are bullshit, then that's anecdotal and not a valid source. It's your word against theirs. There is so much selfposting in these threads that they're basically an extension of the Munchie community itself - baseless slinging of buzzwords and diagnoses with zero proof.
Just make your own forum on any free provider. Maybe without anonymity it'll work out better.
No. 5221
>>5218I want to say that I know that being moderators is a difficult job, and I commend you guys for doing your best. I just wanted to give you guys a few pointers that may help in the future.
>Yeah, writing 2 paragraphs about it is in fact blogging and it falls under the category of medfagging. I understand where you guys are coming from. But, the main reason you guys are being bitched at is because of the lack of transparency. I want to look at the definition of blogposting that is on the rules page.
>3.1 Do not blogpost. Blogposting means sharing your personal experience, perspective, or anecdote in a way that’s not directly relevant to the discussion.Nowhere, in the above statement, does it imply or explicitly state that typing 2 paragraphs or more is considered blogposting. If length is an issue, this should have been placed in the rules so there is no confusion.
I wanted to give some advice for this. Have you guys ever considered imposing character limits for posts? This could help deter people from blog posting and make people think about the quality of their post before posting it.
Again, I'm only saying this to help and there is no intention for disrespect. I think you guys are doing a great job. I know all too well how difficult moderating a page could be. Please keep up the good work and strive to improve on transparency, please.
No. 5222
>>5221Yep, it's unfortunate because a lot of the medfagging posts do relate to how the cow in question is lying. If it's a paragraph long post, I get it, but there are circumstances where I've seen a post that is only a couple sentences get a ban because it was noted as medfagging even though it was talking about something a cow specifically mentioned.
I get it, though, because the final nail in the coffin hit just last night when someone who did have a personal vendetta against Jaquie showed up and then the entire thread derailed.
I respect the decision. Thank you, mods, for everything you do.
No. 5226
File: 1519237068913.png (47.62 KB, 794x250, Screenshot 2018-02-21 at 10.17…)
No. 5229
>>5223Seriously and that's why I didn't even bother attending town hall this time , it's always just a big circle jerk.
But whatever it's not my website, I just think the munchie thread was harmless.
No. 5231
>>5220
>There is so much selfposting in these threads that they're basically an extension of the Munchie community itselfYou have a poor understanding of what a munchie is.
Additionally, critics of the threads are conflating blogposting with medfagging. Anons in the thread use medfagging to describe posts made by people who are medical providers or medical students. When the rule is taken at face value, medfagging is allowed.
(samefagging) No. 5232
>>5230Please tell me you are smarter than this. Do you even know what /ot/ means?
Off Topic
It is not a board for drama.
No. 5233
>>5136>Suddenly the thread is lively again, with neatly organized transcripts.Except it isn't. Since temp's been down we have been missing summaries from both Sam's and Onion's streams.
Sam's fundraiser video can be posted but not discussed.
People can make jokes and not get banned while others will get banned for making jokes.
Some shitpost pictures are allowed and others are not.
If temp is permanently removed fine, but if users are banned because they are discussing and making fun of these morons then eventually people wont't bring any new milk at all.
No. 5243
>>5238Admin runs the site as a volunteer and, up til now, pays for it themselves. They also have to manage a team of volunteers to moderate the boards.
Idk why traffic keeps coming up as though it is a blessing to admin in some way. As the nitpicky arguments in comments above prove (it's technically not blogging! / technically not a rule!) you all seem to be collectively unaware of how much extra work you bring to the volunteers here. Arguments are still being made for why blogging in munchie threads has more value than anywhere else on the board.
I was unhappy when original admin locked the Aly threads, but I had to accept the majority wanted it gone because of the effects those thread communities were having on the board. Now look where we are, she's back on the site after a long break.
Time to put your grown-up pants on about this. I elected not to cast a vote, but others did and you have to listen to them.
No. 5245
>>5232Yes, I am well aware of what "OT" stands for. I suggested that the munchie threads be moved to OT because blogposting is acceptable there.
>It is not a board for drama.Are you describing the munchie threads as drama? I am genuinely asking sans snark.
No. 5246
>>5244She's the administrator. It's her site. She could nuke it all and you wouldn't have any right to cry either. You're being a terrible guest. Accept that your threads aren't welcome anymore and move on.
>>5238It's traffic that isn't desired. Raids bring traffic to the site too, but just like Munchie threads, they bring an audience that doesn't want or know how to play by the rules.
The more you people post in here, the more blatantly obvious it is that you have no idea what this site is actually about. You're really better off making your own site. I hope Farmhands stop responding to you. These threads are not a right.
No. 5248
>>5245That poses the real question here.
Do you enjoy the munchie threads for the milk OR do you enjoy the munchie threads because of the blogging?
You're seriously going to say you just realized /snow/ is a drama board?
Admins decision is final and the majority of farmers agree.
No. 5255
>>5251moo thread has issues but it's not anywhere on the level of munchie threads and not in a good way
munchie thread is complete garbage and I wouldn't ever compare it to the moo thread no matter how much nitpicking it has. At least moo threads aren't 80% blogging
No. 5262
>>5248Why are they mutually exclusive? The blogposting (by people with the illnesses) and medfagging (by medical providers) puts the milk into perspective and provides knowledge with which to identify munchies.
>You're seriously going to say you just realized /snow/ is a drama board?That is not what I said.
There is drama on every board. Several threads on OT regularly exhibit infighting and ad hominem attacks, the likes of which do not occur on the munchie threads.
>Admins decision is final and the majority of farmers agree.I was in the townhall chat from the beginning but I did not get to vote because the link scrolled by too fast. IIRC the vote was 27 to 6 but there were around 80 farmers in attendance. The number of farmers who voted was not even the majority of the anons who attended. If my figures are wildly incorrect, please post applicable screenshots of the chat in the interest of full disclosure.
>>5259
>people voted to remove themSee above.
No. 5264
>>5259because that user necro'd a jaqi thread here
>>>/snow/510607when they already posted the links in the current munchie general thread
No. 5273
>>5245That's a horroble idea. Mods, please never move them to /ot/. I don't want a bunch of retards to shit up that board, I like that board ówò It's one of the only reasons why I still come on here.
Those threads and the users in them would probably fit in better on PULL or something, losing them would be losing nothing of value.
No. 5274
>>5262>There is drama on every board. Several threads on OT regularly exhibit infighting and ad hominem attacks, the likes of which do not occur on the munchie threads.You idiot don't even understand what drama means in this context. Some threads are drama threads as in: they are gossip threads that are meant for discussion of dramatic online personalities. This is what is considered 'drama' on this site. /ot/ is not for these threads, it's merely for socializing and discussing interests, opinions and experiences, aka everything that is not allowed in the drama threads/boards (/pt/ and /snow/). You think 'drama' is people not getting along. But that's not 'drama' that is interesting to users who come to follow online personalities, it's just a side effect of having intense conversations (and in an anonymous internet environment to boot).
What you're talking about may be annoying and 'dramatic', but it's not gossip about known personalities, which is what 'drama' means on here. You're trying to get a thread moved that doesn't belong in that section, just so you can have an easier time breaking rules… instead of simply looking for a different site, any site, to have your blogging and commentary.
>>5269It's hilarious because KF is probably rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of a brand-new wave of incredibly naive, internet-illiterate idiots flooding their boards to be messed with. A new era of humiliation is upon them, new meat with zero sense or sensibility is the best thing that could happen to KiwiFarms.
No. 5276
Kind of glad the Munchaüsen threads are going, even though they used to be the ones I was most interested in - but they're not even about factitious disorder anymore. There's a lot of morbidly fascinating individuals with FD and MBP out there who do fucked up things to themselves or their children, and yet the whole thread currently is concentrated solely on Aubrey and on a couple of teenagers pretending to have EDS and how they post on IG talking about their symptoms, presumably contributed by other teens who are salty that person gets more attention than them. But if you try to post a person who actually has FD, who self injures in disturbing ways, actually puts up milky pictures, and bitches about their support staff, everyone starts crying and saying it's not fair to post them because they're actually ill…well yeah, they are ill, that's why it's interesting, they're an actual munchie.
No. 5278
>>5274Thank you for explaining the context of "drama". You could have done so without name-calling and snark; I did ask in earnestness.
As for your assumption that I want to "have an easier time breaking the rules", I personally have never posted about my illnesses in the munchie threads. But I have learned a lot from anons who do.
I hate to see the threads ousted from LC because I prefer the culture of this site over that of the others for the reasons you alluded to in the case of KF and the cliquey atmospheres of GG and PULL.
No. 5632
>>5555imo the farmhands are just straight-up out of control.
you guys need to nuke the team and cut your losses now like admin-sama did after the oneesan drama got too messy to handle. your janitors are drunk on power. this isn't hellweek. there's no need to ban an IP from all boards for making a single post in response to another person who's 'derailing' (and has been for multiple posts) by sperging out about their personal beliefs. ban the repeat offender, not the person who took the bait for a single post. and if you're a janitor, check with someone who can see the IPs before you jump to the conclusion that it's all the work of the same poster–and take every report with a grain of salt, because i remember seeing a bunch that were just immature anons who couldn't handle another person who disagreed with them and would claim it was 'derailing' to contest their opinions. i'm saying this as someone who has been around since lolcow's initial stages and was on staff before admin-sama ditched. your reputation is going downhill rapidly because the people who take care of the site are behaving like overzealous arbitrators when all they should be doing is correcting the behavior of posters who are
actually repeat offenders.
No. 5633
>>5632I'm not sure what post this is in response to but we are trained to do exactly what you're describing. Sometimes it may appear that a few bans are different posters. If you were penalized for something like that feel free to appeal. Sometimes we may also issue "warnings" to communicate with users.
Again, I completely agree that users shouldn't be banned for rule violations they aren't repeat offenders of.
No. 5680
>>5669But remember, anon, in the townhall chat Admin said that not all posts found in violation of the rules would be marked with red text. Whether your reports achieved anything is not for you to know.
Nevermind he fact that if all of the comments were marked we wouldn't be complaining that farmhands are ignoring our reports.
No. 5686
>>5684Not
>>5671 but you can look out for typing quirks, grammatical errors, emoticons and repeated phrases/ideas/themes in their comments.