[ 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)

Hellweek is currently active! Read the thread

File: 1689324517799.jpg (68.64 KB, 640x491, harvest moon cow.jpg)

No. 59950

Previous thread >>>/meta/57065

No. 60020

Jannies there is uncensored child porn and necrophilia all over meta and the front page I can’t scroll up to report it without seeing it

No. 60031

Please get the biased mod in /w/ under control. Why is anyone disagreeing with the resident WK getting a ban (like the mild disagreement >>>/w/303108) while they are free to praise the cow or try to infight with other farmers? None of these posts below (not mine) are nitpicking:
>>>/w/303131
>>>/w/303203
>>>/w/303213
This excessive moderation is not the same as other threads on LC. She's a model and influencer but it's not allowed to discuss her appearance or lip color? Crazy. Nitpicking would be something wholly unrelated to her career or life, or excessive dissection of some aspect of her face. These posts are just opinions that some mod decided they didn't like.

No. 60033

>>60031
No, that's a good moderation.only become that and it's been 2 threads already now with nitpicking her face, her clothes, her kid might have medical issues, this is the 4th time Megan has been posted to compare to Taylor. If anons can't post milk, even something saged that is interesting, they should get bans for it. It's okay if a thread is slow and unfortunately, Taylor hasn't been milky in years. A few anons keep thinking the bumped thread means milk, but it's always some trash nitpicks like 'why did they forget their wifi was turned off totally lolcow material for being adults and turning off something they won't use for 2 years'. Doesn't hurt to wait for updates, but if every thread of hers is mostly filled with this, why even have her own thread anymore when most of it has devolved into this type of nitpicking? Defeats the purpose of a thread for a cow.

No. 60034

Male racebaiting in mtf thread again.

No. 60035

>>60031
Oh, I thought I was the only one who found these bans out of place and excessive. Sure, there's not much milk, but discussing Taylor in Taylor's thread should be allowed.

No. 60036

>>60033
>If anons can't post milk, even something saged that is interesting, they should get bans for it.
You defending her and trying to infight should be banned by this logic. I can barely make it through your long rambling word slush. You actually know how many times M3g4n has been posted? lmao.
>Taylor hasn't been milky in years
Untrue. It's slow but there has been enough.
>nitpicking her face, her clothes
commenting on a model/influencer's appearance is only ok if it's positive?
>why did they forget their wifi was turned off
they didn't forget, reread.

Please define what you think nitpicking is.

No. 60037

Would anyone be interested in having a thread on Stephen Hilton? (Or where the best place would be to post about him)
I genuinely thought his maga esque vids were a joke but apparently not. He has gone from being just Stephen in Laura Clerys vids to a raving lunatic. I’d say probably snow, but not really sure he is worthy of a whole thread.

No. 60038

>>60031
I wish nitpicking was moderated like this in other threads

No. 60040

>>60036
I don't know what you're on, but not even defending her. I'm talking about post quality.

No. 60041

>>60038
It should be. It is in Venus, was in Belle's too before it got shut down. The mod has been pretty good over the past year, since that's when the complaints about too much modding, was happening. I think some of the mods are catching on to what a dumpster fire /w/ is in regards to exactly the type of vendetta and shitposters it has. The lolita and gyaru threads are pretty cluttered too, but seems to be modded nicely as well. I honestly don't see the problem anons are having with following rules under 7.

No. 60042

>>60031
This has been an issue for so long but if you DARE speak up on it the mods posting as anons will come to meta to defend their actions and praise themselves for their great moderation over there. I think the wk that camps out in /w/ is a mod posting without their mod trip code on, baiting users with infighting to ban them. They clearly have a soft spot for a few of the cows on that board and end up mini modding/milk policing with their mod trip code off and claiming everything is a nitpick. I've never seen blatant whiteknighting for cows allowed to go on for so long like this. For some reason they act like /w/ is a super serious and strict board when it's always existed to contain some of the autism from spilling onto the better boards.

No. 60043

>>60040
>Please define what you think nitpicking is.

No. 60045

>>60043
Pls Nonna we are talking about POST QUALITY on the WEEB CONTAINMENT BOARD of lolcow. It's clearly the most important board and furthermore its super serious business to help backseat moderate my favorite cows boards and a THANKLESS JOB but someone has to do it! Can't have you guys enjoying the discussion about cows on LOLCOW. Never. Preposterous. The entire group of users here, everyone but the milk guru obviously (duh), NEEDS to learn what IS and ISNT quality milk. This is SERIOUS!!!!!! You're all just jealous bitches who can't post and want to nitpick these innocent beautiful people. Maybe learn how to use a gossip cow board before hitting new reply DUh everyone but the mods and the mini mod milk guru is so dumb and doesn't know how to use the site GOD! NEWFAGS!

No. 60046

>>60045
>>60043
>>60042
What terrible bait

No. 60047

File: 1689381301229.png (371.79 KB, 738x1506, Screenshot_20230715-022159.png)

>>60042
It's not a bad theory, idk what I really believe tbh, but these "Taylor hasn't been milky in years" spergs (I think there are at least two) have been dedicated. good example here from last year (also before and after that post) >>>/w/201804
Note that those three pointless photos after this post were posted by the same person within 9 minutes, two of them are straight-up bait. None of this shitposting earned a ban, not even the idiots congratulating Taylor directly on lolcow, possibly the most braindead thing ever. If you want to see more, just use google to search LC for "hasn't been milky" and Taylor or Tay. You'll get a number of similarly worded posts, some posted directly after something milky happens.

Whatever, I've said my piece. They'll try to get the thread locked. Best thing to do in the thread is ignore all bait and retardation (anything excessively pro or anti-taylor). Bit shit that this is what it's come to. But it's good to document this in meta so people at least see it.

No. 60048

>>60047

Yes the whiteknight on /w/ infights with users in order to accuse them of nitpicking/to ban them and they also make a shit ton of low quality bait posts to clog the thread/bury actual milk discussion and have an excuse to come here immedietly after posting said bait and say the thread needs to be locked. They are so predictable and obvious it might as well be personality fagging at this point

No. 60051

the tradthot thread on /snow/ is like 100% derail about feminism and race at this point

No. 60052

It's 24/7 racial discussion in the tradthots thread. Everytime.

No. 60053

>>60048
Posting just to complain about a lip color doesn't sound like you're being baited

No. 60054

>>60047
I'm apparently one of these wks for saying things like don't medfag the baby and those posts reek of fake wking the same way anons were baiting in the Jvlog thread, at the same time, about how beautful Sharla is. If you can't discern fake wk bait from real wking, idk what to tell you anon. These are terrible examples. Show recent wking.

No. 60055

What I'm gathering is that anons can't even say they are happy for a cow having a baby because thats whiteknighting? I don't think anyone has any idea what whiteknighting is.

No. 60056

>>60054
>>60055
being deliberately obtuse, I see.

No. 60058

>>60056
If you're going to argue against an anon's take and not just spit facts and just to go on and on about how you like the cow and they can do no wrong, that is whiteknighting. Being neutral or not seeing a big deal in something is just an opinion. If you're going to post something nitpicking lipstick and an anon says they don't think it's bad because based on her skin it looks good, then you ree about their take, you should be banned.

No. 60059

>>60058
To clarify, if you're going to post a photo and an anon has an opinion that's not whiteknighting, going out of your way to complain that you don't like their take is pretty derailing, that results in infighting usually. They are allowed to have opinions. If an anon is going to post a photo of Taylor announcing she is pregnant, and anons want to say that's awesome for the cow, that's not whiteknighting. They are just commenting on what is being posted, especially since she did struggle to get pregnant. If anons are going to reply that the anon shouldn't congratulate them about it or say it's good she finally got pregnant and instead should hate her because she's clearly going to be a terrible mom, that anon is unhinged and they are tinfoiling. You don't have to argue with every opinion of an OP post. If you look at the thread, that's where so many of the redtexts are coming from.

No. 60061

>>60048
You're never going to let this go are you, retard.

No. 60070

some retard is advertising to try and get responses for their femcel online communities study
>>>/ot/1634142

No. 60071

>>60070
Whoever this is was spamming it in /meta/ months ago too. It's clearly all bait, not even a real study.

No. 60072

>>60071
sounds sketchy, I hope nobody clicked the link

No. 60074

>>60058
Disagreeing politely while agreeing with another anon isn't reeing. Can you see my post history, anon? Since you're replying to me and discussing the only post of mine that got a bullshit ban recently. >>>/w/303108 But how could you know that? That's reeing? Posting that it was probably a partnership?
>>60059
none of this is relevant, bc that was not the problem with posting congratulations directly to the cow (Congratulations Taylor!! like it's her fanpage) in the thread and then spamming bait like "Do you think Taylor replaced Rosie with another dog" and "we all know she was eating dangerous stuff during pregnancy" and absolute dumb shit. But I see that your understanding of "nitpicking" is this post here >>59753 where you ordain that no one may disagree with you or fans of the cow
>nitpicking another anon's opinion that they liked the color isn't an opinion. Using a whole post to complain that someone liked a color or trying to argue why it's bad, is nitpicking.
You are flat wrong here. Nitpicking is an offense pertaining solely to the cow. Nitpicking some meaningless part of their life or face or whatever for posts and posts. The word you want here for this fake offense you're describing is "infighting" - fighting with another anon.
Again, that's not what my banned post was doing, nor the others who got banned. The boring derail started by a Wk about aging is far more disruptive than any of this. The thread is on a gossip board. Anons are allowed to express different negative opinions without copping redtext bans. I have yet to see one "the baby is so cute" "taylor is so pretty" "omg congratulations" post get a ban, so there's no reason to ban posters saying something mildly negative as "nitpicking." This is an absolute failure of moderation.

I could say more about how dumb this topic is but why give you more to deliberately misread and exaggerate?

No. 60075

Unsaged male sperging in tradthot thread.

No. 60085

>>60074
You really need to calm down. Lolcow isn't this important, anon. It's bans on a gossip site from nitpicking lipsticks and her face. Get over it.

No. 60088

>>60085
If that unimportant, maybe people shouldn't be banned either? How come wks running rumpant and filling up the thread with shittakes get nothing, but others get banned for disagreeing about a lipstick shade?

No. 60091

Cp in /m/

No. 60092

>>60088
Post recent whiteknights so anons even know what you're talking about? If anons report your posts and you get banned, don't get mad. Mods aren't headhunting anons and baiting them to make posts.

Also the anon got banned for nitpicking an anon's take about not minding the color and thinking it looks good on her skin tone. Complaining that they are wrong is stupid. You're not going to change their mind. If anons want to discuss it, then discuss it. Discussing not liking someone's take that is something other than OP, get banned.

No. 60095

>>60092
that wasn't a nitpick of anyone's take, wtf. It's not possible to nitpick another anon's opinion - that's not a thing.
>Complaining that they are wrong is stupid. You're not going to change their mind. If anons want to discuss it, then discuss it. Discussing not liking someone's take that is something other than OP, get banned.
Wtf even is this logic? The post you're referring to agreed with the initial post about the color, not the second one, and so the farmer deserved to be banned? There was additional info given about the cow working for the brand before, along with screenshot of her promotion. There was literally 0 nitpicking in this post you find so offensive.

No. 60096

>>60095
All this over lipstick and not liking the color on Taylor kek

No. 60103


No. 60104

Sorry haven't been following anything on /meta/ recently, dunno if it's my browser or what, when I want to delete a post it has a "please fill out"pop up for the "reason" field. I just put something random and it deletes but wonder if this is the site or just my cringe browser

No. 60106

File: 1689461165785.jpg (5.12 MB, 4556x5485, 1689460794125.jpg)

Nta, but the thing with the bans is that the anon that replied first is disagreeing with OP who started the discussion and it's not labeled as "nitpicking", but when another anon replied to that comment agreeing with OP and adding context about the lipstick being sponsored (so it could've been not her choice all together, but sent by the brand to promote) it's suddenly an offensive "nitpick". The following comment also didn't get a ban despite talking about the damn lip colour. Either someone keeps reporting comments that disagree with her and mods blindly ban or mods just go around randomly banning anons that discuss a topic for more than two replies.

Whatever, all we ask is consistency and logic with bans. And once again, define nitpick, because to me this looks like a (dumb) discussion and not a nitpick.

No. 60111

>>60106
Your posts are about lipstick and her looking like a doll, which has been posted more than 3 times. Deal with your shit bans and learn2post. Thank God posts like these are being more moderated. No one cares she's a model, but nitpicking is nitpicking.

No. 60112

>>60106
shady af, the shrill modlover in here does not make this look any better.
>>60111
the praising and defending via misinformation posts were also about her lip colour and face. There's no reason for a mod to step in. The conversation would have ended naturally like in other cow threads but the mod seems to want to control it or punish posters who post things she does not agree with. also you're acting combative in here for no reason.

No. 60114

>>60106
God the Taylor thread attracts the most obvious retards
>>60112
>shady af
Case in point

No. 60115

>>60112
No1currs

No. 60116

>>60106
Probably because it was an opinion on the image post. Then anon complained about their take and said they were wrong because they personally don't think it looks good. No one asked for anons opinion on an anons opinion. Let people have opinions on OP without worrying they have to deal with anons bitching about their takes. This isn't about the photo added after with the shit about promo. That has nothing to do with the ban most likely.

Also anons know she does promo and gets PR. We don't need to know every time she gets something and anons hate it. It's not milk unless it's drama or funny and anon personally hating a lip color is neither. Especially when some anons don't agree, so how is it funny at all? Most of her stuff recently isn't even lolcow material and you need to get over it. Take the bans, stop this conspiracy about mods being after you, and go to sleep.

No. 60118

There's one anon in the tradthots threa who ends every sentence with "Kek", who is replying to themselves and vendettaposting

No. 60119

>>60118
yep and she posts the same greentext summary, fanarts and random non milk screencaps of lauren chen. when asked about the autism she says "but lauren is clearly a tradthot !" missing the point that none of what she posts is outrageous or funny.
it's so weird and uncanny at this point i'm beginning to think it's fucking feds. that or she's actually 11.

No. 60128

>>60118
>>60119
No rules are being broken, shes a tradcow being posted in the appropriate thread. Hide the thread if it triggers you.

No. 60130

The cp posting tranny is currently racebaiting in the tradthot thread.

No. 60133

>>60128
failure to integrate, vendetta and sockpuppeting is clearly against the rules nexfriend. and i'm sick of her shitting up the tradthot thread by herself, it's not even enjoyable anymore

No. 60137

>>60130
it appears he's in the general meta discussion thread too

No. 60141

Did some angry scrotes hack the site???? When I tried posting here, I was being redirected to a different address and everything was inverted.

No. 60142

>>60141
Did you get banned? Don't banned people sometimes get redirected to farmcow.lol?

No. 60145

>>60142
No. I'm pretty sure I didn't.

No. 60149

>>60141
that happens when you get banned

No. 60151

A mod needs to go scorched earth in the tradthot thread. Moid posting, nonstop infighting, calling women cumrags and kids "cum pets", morons who won't stop taking the bait.

No. 60153

>>60151
I have been reporting since the last thread and nothing's been done, so many of the posts are obviously made by men(likely troons) It's honestly a decent thread idea but its been ruined by moid infestation.

No. 60154

>>60153
The troon boogeymanning is so dumb. There's plenty of female anons who like shitposting and egging anons on like this.

No. 60155

>>60151
It needs to be put on autosage at least temporarily. Or moved to the hidden board. Idk. It's full of trolls.

No. 60157

>>60155
Some anons were discussing moving them to the hidden board in the hellweek thread, but anons sperged the hell out about it. Might be the ones actively helping derail in the thread.

No. 60160

>>60154
But we know that the tradthot thread is infested with moids, it was recently mentioned on 4chan, omegachan, and soyjakparty so obviously scrotes and troons from there would go shit up the thread

No. 60164

Some pedo moid is calling children "cum pets" in the tradthot thread

No. 60165

The tradthot thread should be locked for a while to clear out all of the incel tier trash. It's a total shitshow

No. 60166

Retarded clearly a moid is having spergfest in shaynas thread about teenagers girls getting breast reductions for back problems in Shaynas thread.

No. 60167

>>60165
feels like it's being completely neglected by farmhands.

No. 60169

>>60160
Plenty of women shitpost there

No. 60170

drop a nuke on the shayna thread please delete some of that shit i literally had to read so much random sperg paragraphs to get to anything even loosely related to shaynatan

No. 60171

another retard posted their tits, or a moid edited a picture of a woman posting her tits in shay's thread. It's very clear it's direct and on purpose trolling going on in certain threads. It's clearly coming from some moid site.

No. 60172

>>60167
There's a few redtexts but they're just drowning in a sea of sperg. It should just be locked. Speaking of
>>60170
I remember that one obsessive asshole who was all over meta and ot reeing about 'the shaynatorium' until the dumbass staff caved in and made the private board. Which doesn't get used anyway. It was meant to be a solution to this shit. Why does it exist if not to contain those freaks. Lock the regular threads and herd them into that board. Please.

No. 60173

I stg pushing the troon threads into 2x and shaytards into shay would instantly clean up the rest of the boards by like 80%

No. 60174

anyone else think its best to delete the tit pic from the shayna thread? not to respect that farmer, fuck her, she ruined the whole thing. but its already attracting scrote comments its just disgusting and its gonna attract gross moids that already lurk shaynas and mariahs threads for shitty paywalled nudes

No. 60175

>>60174
the cerebin claimed they were going to delete those from now on after the rancefag incident. but i guess only if the poster claims to be in a manic state kek

No. 60176

File: 1689553419486.png (72.19 KB, 731x210, 1689552807645.png)

i censored it for the reasons in my original post >>60174 but moids have already reposted it to 4chan and they always come running like cockroaches for this bpd shit.

No. 60177

Should be law that every Shayna thread get autosaged. Don't worry, it's not like there's any milk, and the shaytards constantly press F5.

No. 60178

>>60171
There's been plenty of baiting farmers who aren't scrotes. They think it's funny when anons want moderation, so they spergout extremely.

No. 60180

That tit pic anon in the Shayna thread is ban evading and posted her vagina.

No. 60183

>>60169
There's a big difference between regular lc shitposting and moid/troon baiting and misogyny

No. 60185

>>60180
why is it so easy for people to ban evade? the girl who posted her tits kept coming back after she was banned and then it ended up with her posting a really funky looking vagina.

No. 60186

>>60183
There are girls like wetchan in the Shayna threads who are just as deranged as any moid.

No. 60188

TITPOSTER IS THREATENING TO POST THE LAVA ROCK AGAIN

No. 60189

File: 1689567848722.png (242.41 KB, 1034x357, embarrassing.png)

The Shayna thread needs to but SHUT DOWN or at LEAST put on permanent autosage. She is purposely posting her vulva again and attracting 4chan moids here. I'm done sticking up for the shaytards.

No. 60193

>>60189
I'm a shaytard, but the thread needs moderation, and needs to get rid of titposter. Why do farmers keep responding to it?

No. 60194

There is some mix upp error between deleting and reporting currently. I now have to enter a reason for deleting my posts.

No. 60195

>>60194
i noticed that today too and im so retarded i thought it was a new cool feature

No. 60196

>>60195
I really don't think admin logs deletes and care about reasons, I delete posts when I see a typo or want to add more and I think the majority of deletes are the same.

No. 60198

For the love of god can we please get some moderation in the Shayna thread. The tit/vag poster is still in there bragging how she got away with it and they’re using multiple VPNs to ban evade and act like other people to cause chaos. I don’t understand why mods can’t stop her.

No. 60199

Male reeing about childless women and husbandofags in unpopular opinions thread.

No. 60200

>>60199
>if someone disagrees with me, they are a scrote

No. 60201

Admins, the tardthot is utterly infested with baiting moids.

No. 60208

File: 1689601143573.png (429.61 KB, 864x1578, Screenshot_20230716-160918~4.p…)

public service announcement:
If you raise issues about the moderation of /w/ in /meta/, you'll get a retaliatory ban for a post made 4 days ago which contains no "complains." Obviously the mod had to find my last post in that particular thread to do this, no matter that it was 4 days ago. I post regularly in a number of different threads and this is the only one where I've been banned for nothing. In fact, I can think of maybe 5 or 6 short bans total I've received in 6 years on this site that were not related to the moderation of Taylor's thread for the past two years or so.

No. 60211

>>60201
forreal. I came to read tradthot milk not moids derailing about race or whatever the fuck is going on in there

No. 60213

>>60211
from what It seems, there are lurking RW troll moids and lurking left-wing troll moids, basically fighting amongst themselves

No. 60214

>>60213
Now Blaine is also there

No. 60217

>>60214
is he that one troon who was spamming Grell and Bill Cypher gifs like a two years ago, and sometimes baits in the MTF thread?

No. 60218

>>60217
Nta but yes

No. 60219

>>60218
Thanks, he was just in the MTF thread the other day talking about how actually real feminists support troons and don't mind them.

No. 60220

Is there a thread that talks about how creepy ddlg and women infantilizing themselves is?

No. 60223

>>60208
You're so annoying. The whole bottom post is complaining. Take that shit to meta.

No. 60224

>>60151
I feel like that that anon in particular keeps shitting up a good chunk of the tardthot thread singlehandedly. I don't want to tinfoil too hard but their typing style is pretty recognisable if I am right. I know that a lot of anons call any anons they disagree with a moid but that way of speaking is seriously moid-tier.
There's a lot of complaints about the tardthot thread, what are the mods thinking of doing with it?

No. 60231

>>60224
who are you talking about? the one who keeps on insulting young children?

No. 60232

>>60224
I get a particularly suspicious vibe from the anon who keeps malding over non-milky pictures of lauren chen.
>She's just mad AOC is better looking than her with huge milkers
just doesn't strike me as something a woman would type tbh

No. 60234

>>60232
Seriously, that thread is so scrote-y. "Huge milkers," "Big titted bimbos," "Blonde teen boobie girls," like wtf.

No. 60237

>>60232
that sentence makes my skin crawl. ew.

No. 60239

>>60031
I haven’t posted on that thread in a year at least but yeah seems bizarre to consider talking about her obvious fillers and random work as “nitpicking”. Her botching herself is milky.

No. 60240

>>60239
Doesn't change the fact it's nitpicking, come back when she gets real plastic surgery. No1currs about botox so hard to post about it every other month with a jumpscare caption.

No. 60244

>>60240
stop caping for her and infighting in meta, it's really embarrassing

No. 60245

>>60240
I guess you moved to camp here from the taylor thread, no1currs anon. You're the one mods should be banning, so don't bring your wk shit here, too, we're sick of you in the taylor thread already.

No. 60246

>>60232
>She's just mad AOC is better looking than her with huge milkers
are you telling me they haven't been red-texted for this?

No. 60248

>>60245
Your typing style is so obvious, mad ass mod

No. 60249

>>60245
I think pointing out the bottom of the post is complaining, which is reports can be sent at any time by anyone, is why it got reported. Just because it wasn't reported earlier doesn't mean it didn't deserve a report or might deserve a report. It's up the mod at the end of it.

No. 60250

>>60249
idk who you meant to reply to but the bottom of >>60208 says it is a preemptive explanation against an accusation of nitpicking with citations to admin posts. Since posters were being randomly banned over disagreeing with someone at the time, it was a reasonable thing to add.

Ironically
>taking it to meta
produced the ban.
So I recommend not raising issues in meta about /w/ moderation, it's a lose-lose situation.

No. 60252

WTF is going on with the misogyny in the tard thread? its worse then even shaytards

No. 60253

>>60239
You're not allowed to talk about anyone's appearances anymore (other than shayna)

No. 60254

>>60208
That was 100% nitpicking and retarded af. And the ban was a short one. It's not a vendetta when you're that fucking stupid, anon.

No. 60255

pretty sure this is sainte the ban evading pedotroon cow talking about himself in third person in the lolita thread
>>>/w/303529

No. 60256

>>60250
Maybe don't do that and derail about admin posts as if you personally get a free pass to shit up threads. Her thread is shit, needs moderation, same with Venus.

No. 60257

>>60254
Kek apparently some mod boogeyman is not allowing nitpicking, a rule for /w/, but specifically targeting anon. Also how many times do we need anons to say "her content is stale" like in >>60208 but then defend the post that "its milk because she should be producing better content!"? Same with her appearance. She's getting older, has a kid, she isn't getting massive surgeries or much botox tbh, she looks the same as 2 years ago. How many times do anons need to post a jumpscare spoiled image to compain about botox? It's not milk to assume she got more filler just because you saw a new screencap you think makes her look terrible. The whole thread is using the one time admin said they can nitpick her fringe to try to get away with all sorts of nitpicking. They try to hide it by not bumping the thread.

The Taylor posters have been doing it to that thread for over a year now. Still no substance, no milk. Just complaining about her taking care of her baby and tinfoiling about his care. Or nitpicking her face. I know she used to be a model, but it's been years, anons need to let that go. She's just an influencer now. Just because she shows her face, doesn't mean
>commenting on a model/influencer's appearance is only ok if it's positive?
>>>60036

No one even said anything positive. So, no, because then every thread has the chance to because a nitpicking thread by that logic. Every cow uses their face. That's how we have an active site. If admin wants the mods to moderate it more closely, then anons need to deal with it. The thread is so shit, looking at the thread and every ban makes sense.

Coming to /meta/ isn't getting them banned. Being retards who disregard post quality because they want their mini group of friends to reply when the post is getting them banned.

No. 60259

Can someone permaban / at least temp ban the retard who sounds like trumpchan in celebricows and other threads who keeps bitching about THE LEFT please

No. 60260

>>60259
Pretty sure it's the same one who was baiting in tinfoil as well. Making everything about politics by posting obvious bait makes you sound like a brain dead zero IQ moid, you can't even post anything relevant to the threads… please shut the fuck up or go back to whatever containment zone from whence you came

No. 60261

>>60256
>>60257
All those words and anger to defend some cow. Why are you so personally invested? Everyone on this site talks about how cows look. It's not a forbidden topic. Plenty of positive or even fangirl comments in the thread, none get banned, but you're still foaming at the mouth that someone dares to say the moderation is nothing like the rest of this site. Nor am I alone in saying it.

Protip: you can reply to more than one farmer in a single post instead of samefagging as you often do.

No. 60262

>>60261
Saying nitpicking shits up a thread has nothing to do with defending a cow.

No. 60263

/ot/s being buried by the world's slowest macro

No. 60266

lots of weird spam in /ot/

No. 60267

Spam in /ot/. I think they're trying to make posting unavailable from spamming again but it's not working very well.

No. 60268

>>60263
>>60266
>>60267
it's in /pt/ as well

No. 60270

>>>/ot/1637397 Sadsack posting low-effort spam while wanting cerbmin's attention.

No. 60273

misogynistic /pol/tard in the rita thread schizoposting and posting banned memes >>>/snow/1867722

No. 60274

>>60273
Incel in the blackpill thread as well.

No. 60275

>>60274
The incel that's calling every woman pigs, the one that's calling every woman whores/dicksuckers and the one saying rape is natural and makes men superior while pregnancy makes women inferior, there are at least a few incels and none of them get banned. I wish they'd ban the blackpill threads at this point if they can't ban vpnfags.

No. 60276

>>60274
>>60275
He's been there for a week now, its very obvious that he just wants to insult women.

No. 60278

>>60276
Yeah he's been posting in 2X ever since it was first made public, I think anons think it's a woman and try to help her but at this point we should only ignore and report itm

No. 60279

>>60278
I suspect with how many likely reports he's gotten he's probably been banned but using a VPN.

No. 60282

>>60273
It's probably rita herself

No. 60284

>>60279
Either there's another moid baiting now or it's the same one samefagging and using a different typing style

No. 60286

>>60282
cerbmin and (maybe) a farmhand can check if that's actually her, but i personally doubt it. she doesn't say "unalive," and as far as i know she hates pooner memes.

No. 60299

There's some a-loging eugenics-chan in the tardthot thread posting an average women with a disabled child as bait >>>/snow/1867874

No. 60300

>>60284
I suspect hes samefagging, he always posts multiple posts at the same time one after another to make it seem like it's more than one anon that's agreeing with his views. Either way, mods should do sth about it or ban blackpill shit, he's the one making the threads.

No. 60304

>>60300
I don't think it should be banned because it's essentially pessimistic feminism the thread, but that one poster who keeps seething about pigs and whores deserves full exile kek.

No. 60305

Not trying to be rude but this website needs to be merged over into some other kind of more secure webpage where you’re able to effectively ban people. Scrotes and psychopathic troons are able to freak out all day and night here because you can just clear your cache and cookies and then be unbanned, even if you’re permabanned. Or you can just log into a different google profile. Like this is really an aughts esque chatroom by all means kek

No. 60310

Schizo troll calling kids "cum pets" is back on tradthot thread now calling them vagina turds.

No. 60313

Tranny samefagging an infight with itself in tradthot thread to try and get it locked.

No. 60314

>>60299
It’s the tranny, he’s been sperging to try and get the thread locked all week. He’s sperged about the thread saying the same shit before in tradthots #7 . ‪Here’s the post explaining it >>>/snow/1868016 and here’s his last sperg out where he seethed about the same thing including reeing about eugenics >>>/snow/1693071 . He’s been going the whole week samefagging and infighting himself and reeing that women who don’t want kids are aydens to try and conflate himself and real women and even posting coping wheatfield pictures in the same thread. He’s posted the thread on /fit on 4fag and posts about trying to derail to get the thread lock because he blames being unable to secure a trad wife for his transitioning.‬ He just switches vpn when banned to come back to sperg about the same things to himself.

No. 60315

>>60314
Samefag, mods can always check post history in the thread he’s spamming and the frequency to try and determine if it’s an actual regular thread poster, or turn off vpn posting even if temporarily.

No. 60316

>>60314
The best part is real proponents of eugenics would have erridicated the fail male given the chance. I think the irnoy is lost on him.

No. 60317

>>60314
what tardwife would want a balding, pedophilic troon with half his head shaved off with the other half being dangerhair, fake blond and spiked with grease holding it in place, acne scars that would make a woman with the worst PCOS or HRT habits feel inatantly better about herself, and the most obviously male-framed glasses framing his horse mouth and ogre nose so garish he compares himself to other pedophiles to feel better about himself? not even tardwives would be that desperate. if he's trying to skinwalk as a tard wife he's failing miserably. to anyone with cataracts he might come off as some emo demon thing but everyone else sees him as a ghoulish scrote so ugly he's better off detrooning and looking like a rare effeminate fag incel rather than a morbidly obese one

No. 60323

>>60317
None. Men are just entitled retards and feel like the bottom barrel pornsick cp spammer trannies deserve a virgin tradwife servant who pretends to like whatever they want and isn't a person of their own because men declare that's what they want.

No. 60324

>>60304
The issue is he got banned several times yet keeps ban evading and making new threads. He used to spam the same stuff on ot and such too but I think he gets banned easier there so he now sticks to 2X only.

No. 60327

Can we get a moderation post in the Confessions thread to stay on topic? Or quietly move the mundane shit and the vent posts to their respective threads. Maybe the threadpic is too funny and people are forgetting what the thread is for, but it has drifted off the rails.

No. 60331

nonstop misogynist posting in /2x/'s black pill thread. I reported posts but I think s/he's ban evading.

No. 60332

Can mods ban the retards who can't stop replying to posts in the Get it off your chest thread.

No. 60342

>>60327
?? wut? literally every post there is on-topic

No. 60343

File: 1689896014494.jpg (326.57 KB, 1488x1957, image.jpg)

>>60342
You can't be serious. here is a sample in no particular order. the last one is borderline I guess

No. 60345

File: 1689919651705.png (2.31 KB, 396x53, glitch.PNG)

Is the little report and delete thing at the bottom of the page showing up like this for anyone else? Reporting cause I'm assuming it's a glitch

No. 60346

>>60345
Pretty sure it's related to the way that field is now mandatory even when deleting your own posts which got anons pretty frustrated so now at least it's pre-completed so they won't get that error about not being able to delete without a reason anymore. that field is most likely the same for both deletes and reports and admins implemented this so anons now have to at least provide a solid reason for reporting posts. I guess they had a problem with anons just reporting posts they do not like/agree with without a proper reason? hopefully it is just that…

No. 60347

File: 1689921762287.png (23.8 KB, 490x285, beforeafter.png)

>>60345
It seems admins were doing some html changes and they accidentally deleted a part of the input field so it ended up absorbing the submit report button into itself.

No. 60348

>>60347
Wow these developer admins sure are pros

No. 60349

File: 1689925722272.jpeg (136.12 KB, 1242x411, E919DB48-67DA-49B5-959C-7BB1F8…)

>>60347
Did the next button always look like this? I never noticed how this bottom navigation clipped in mobile. Same with cc, 4chan does it differently that I think might be a better look for mobile.

No. 60350

Suggesting a rule that bans overly-misogynistic stuff. A lot of misogynistic posts are made by men anyways so there wouldn't be any losses.

No. 60351

>>60349
It still looks normal for me.

No. 60353

Is it possible to autosage the 6year old Yurunyan thread some vendettachan keeps spamming on snow? The temp bans are obviously not working.

No. 60354

>>60349
Do you have an iPhone? It might be that

No. 60356

>>60350
Agreed. The black pill thread is the worst for this but it’s been leaking into other threads. It’s one thing to feel bleak about the future success of feminism and another to repeat word for word misogynist talking points about how women are naturally dumb and submissive and having sex degrades them. It also tends to derail conversations like fujosperging and bi/lesbian drama.

No. 60358

>>60350
agreed. it's making this place veer into being like any other hell hole online.

No. 60359

for some reason /shay/ is now using the light pink background from the girltalk theme (instead of its usual dusty drab pink) and now the text is very hard to read.

No. 60364

Anons need to be permabanned for bringing up the dead cow in the Venus thread. It's been said several times, anon is posting knowing full well it is Venus's thread just to have a reason to post this. I don't doubt this is one of the previously banned users too who posts this shit about a dead cow. >>>/w/303841

/w/ has some real vendettafags, ngl.

No. 60374

Infighting/derailment in radfem thread.

No. 60380

>>60356
>having sex degrades them
I agree with the first points as outright misogyny with no explanation but this is an opinion that is shared with many women and is part of the purpose of the blackpill thread to begin with, to share these opinions that buck the libfem norm. Calling for the rape of women is misogyny but being critical about degradation and speaking about how degrading sex is isn't. If you don't like it you can hide the thread. Most threads derail over time exponentially anyway and it's up to farm hands to step in if they consider infighting bad enough to warrant a red text.

No. 60381

Extremely obvious racists in the amerifag thread and also antisemitism in the caps thread for no reason. Follow your leader and cyanide pill, /pol/ scum

No. 60382

Can mods PLEASE strike the tard who won't shut the fuck up in get it off your chest again! She's in there having literal conversations, how hard is it to not reply to a post

No. 60383

there appears to be some retarded scrote necroing just to spam links to those shitty feminists owned compilations in the sexism and videogames thread
>>>/m/310300

No. 60384

is there a ban error going on in lc rn? i just got a ban warning from a year ago??? i was a newfag back then so i didnt know much i didnt think farmhands would bother with it or is to redtext the posts? so it warns me automatically?

No. 60385

>>60384
You may have a dynamic IP and it just changed to an IP that got a ban

No. 60387

Loose moid in the difficulty relating to other women thread in /g/, along with anon(s) responding to him.

No. 60394

Someone needs to take their meds in the vent thread

No. 60396

Looks like Trumpanon/Boomerchan is back in the celebricow thread, with the "/DONE" and "TMZ" sperging and "AGREED" and other similar comments

No. 60397

There's moids larping as misogynistic women in the vent thread

No. 60399

This thread is just going to breed more infighting on an already infight-ridden site and board
>>>/ot/1644711

No. 60402

I can't resize the quick reply box anymore.

No. 60403

>>60399
Plus it's a redundant version of the anti-yume thread anyway.

No. 60404

>>60403
It's locked now. The baiting op couldn't even bother to link to other threads properly.

No. 60405

>>60404
Staff allows the retarded anti-fujo thread stay up despite it being just Paki-chan and two other schizos posting out of context screenshots from the fujo thread that they purposefully baited and misogynist scrotes blogposting about fujos being ugly fat gaydens because they can't fuck them yet locked this one in an hour just like they did with the yumejo cringe one, loving the consistency.

No. 60406

File: 1690360139701.png (79.43 KB, 1215x862, yurunyan.png)

>>60353
they're still going, but at least they seem to have learned to sage now.

No. 60407

They're still baiting with retarded shit in the vent thread >>>/ot/1644930

No. 60408

>>60405
nta but I would also like for the fujocringe thread to be locked too. In those 3 threads it's mostly infight and some weird schizos. The screencaps as they are used there should be banned, anyone can bait in a thread and provide "milk" for the other.

No. 60409

>>60405
Probably because the fujo cringe threads aren't against fujos in general but about posting cringe, and that first one was started years ago. I agree that they have been derailed though.

No. 60410

>>60405
The anti fujo thread was originally about actually cringy fujos from other websites until certain posters enraged by the bunker spams and pakichan came along. I agree that it also should be closed, posting about other posters on lc is pretty much infighting kek.

No. 60411

>>60407
idk that post they responded to sounded more like bait imo. like "yeah my dad's abusive but at least he's rich"

No. 60412

>>60404
welp guess not anymore. why'd it get unlocked?

No. 60413

Bunch of kids shitposting, hi cowing themselves and replying they aren't posting ITT and then just a bunch of random photos with no milk added with just constant nitpicking. Might want to just look at the past 10 hours of posts and see how it's mostly non-contribution and anons replying to each other that they aren't cows.

>>>/w/297880

No. 60415

File: 1690392443141.jpg (34.21 KB, 368x372, c87a851102e119c2679959b9c54d89…)

The Luna style on here would be awesome if it were actually usable. Who thought making the text for links and thread numbers dark blue in front of a dark blue background was a good idea? Also I get the boxes around the posts being translucent so we can actually see Luna, but it's a massive ass pain trying to read replies to something while the words in the post behind it are also visible

No. 60416

>>60399
Samefag, but I also want to say that it was absolutely retarded for OP to make the pic rance when we know she's constantly around to fight with other anons and jannies have told us not to interact with her

No. 60417

File: 1690395228336.gif (2.21 MB, 1165x1200, luna theme.gif)

>>60415
Thought that was a bug for me since I use dark mode. I think maybe using her eye colour would be easier on the eyes.

No. 60418

can a janny please redtext when bait gets posted in the luna slater thread? otherwise it always gets replies which makes them keep coming back

No. 60420

>>60417
MUCH better

No. 60422

File: 1690409081462.png (16.61 KB, 702x271, ban.PNG)

I can't believe I got a warning for this kek. Why would that even go in /meta/ when it's not a complaint about the site, I just used them as an example.

No. 60424

>>60410
Shouldn't the "lolcow's caps" thread be banned too then with that logic? A better solution would just be to put something about strictly posting cringe only, or in-fighting not being allowed inside of the thread description. It's a lot of people coming in to start infights, which can be avoided if they just didn't open the threads.

No. 60425

>>60424
>which can be avoided if they just didn't open the threads.
nta but shouldn't this apply to the OP of the anti-husbando thread too? the only reason that thread existed was to complain about other posters who usually stay in their own thread or aren't even around anymore. it was infight bait from the very start.

No. 60427

>>60424
nta but the lolcow caps are usually funny and not meant to create huge discussions.
>It's a lot of people coming in to start infights, which can be avoided if they just didn't open the threads.
That applies to every possible thread possible in here. I go to the fujo cringe expecting actual cringe, but it was just infight and schizo takes. The first 2 threads were taken by an autistic discussion over yumes and fujos too.

No. 60428

>>60427
Then discussion in those threads should be banned, right?
>>60425
It should, but they said the reason it was locked was because it was encouraging shotafags to post in it. I get why you'd want either thread removed, but infights really only start because some anons don't know how to keep to themselves.

No. 60430

>>60422
Mod is mad about getting "sub-posted"? Come on. This isn't Twitter. You weren't even complaining about the site.

No. 60432

>>60426
Probably one of the husbandofag jannies keep locking the thread because she's butthurt and husbandohater janny unlocked it, kek. I literally don't understand why they locked the thread sayings it's "encouraging shotafags" janny should've just said that she's upset people are making fun of husbandofags because she's one.

No. 60435

File: 1690457437058.png (410.71 KB, 842x1244, Screenshot_20230727-081123.png)

Posting 2 critical comments from the cow's instagram ad isn't derailing. Later it's stated that these two comments have the most likes out of all the comments on the ad. They are legitimate and relevant to discussion.

No. 60437

>>60424
This isn't what I meant, there's a difference between posting funny caps of the website and between trying to antagonize a group of our own posters.

No. 60439

>>60432
It seemed like a bait thread that was created to bring out certain banned postersrancefag. Which it succesfully did until it was locked again.

No. 60472

>>60435
This is political derailing

No. 60475

>>60472
there's nothing derailing about it. these comments pointed out the irony of the ad. It's a big deal to work for a company that freezes assets of Hong Kong refugees just because China says so. Don't tell me lolcow wants to protect China's reputation now.

No. 60480

>>60475
The thread isn't there to discuss HK political discourse. Yes, it is derailing. There's no reason to bring it up every time there's a new comment on it and when she's done this for several years now. It's just a reason to fill the thread and this isn't pol.

No. 60482

Male bait poster and people falling for it in >>>/ot/1646705

No. 60491

>>60480
it's a brand-new collaboration and she hasn't done this kind of controversial work for years. If you're not a mod, then maybe stop giving BS reasons about it. By your logic, in other threads we can never talk about influencers promoting controversial people like Jeffree Star or Doe Deere, never talk about political affiliations, or corrupt charities. All of this is perfectly acceptable in other threads.

No. 60492

>>60491
Anons reply has nothing to do about Taylor and all about China. Adding in comments doesn't suddenly make it on topic.

No. 60493

>>60492
>adding in comments
crazy the lengths you'll go

No. 60497

Farmhands, can you please tell us the reasoning for the Blackpill thread to stay up? If you're locking husbandofag cringe thread immediately for infighting but allowing what's basically "Misogyny General" to go on for multiple threads there's really no logic in that. It's not only a containment thread for a-logging about women that I could hide but a breeding ground, since it started gaining traction other threads have been poisoned with the "blackpill" rhetoric which is just rebranded terminal NLOGism in the end. There's no intelligent discussion, just endless schizo posting about how women are whores and normies just don't understand their super advanced nihilistic feminism. Honest question, please tell me where the line is drawn here.

No. 60499

Incel beastiality-porn-watching scrote reeing about women fucking animals in dog hate thread.

No. 60501

>>60497
Probably because it's on a hidden board but that's just my guess

No. 60505

>>60497
It does seem to attract a bunch of LARPing NLOG edgelords trying hard to outdo each other in how "pure" their ideals are compared to other women, but I don't think it's going anywhere. I do think that sort of obnoxiousness leaking out into unrelated threads should earn a redtext ban, though.

No. 60509

My phone is pretty shitty and old so I'm guessing it's the reason but is anyone else experiencing these issues?
>click on post link in a reply and it scrolls up to a random place instead of going to the post linked
>when I click on spoilers, the square turns grey and the photo loads with low opacity and I have to long click-view image in new tab in order to see it
>webm's take 5+ minutes to load every time, regardless of file size
>individually clicking on photos to enlarge inline takes like 3+ minutes but if I click "expand all images," all images expand relatively quickly

No. 60511

File: 1690576813827.png (47.22 KB, 275x266, 1648077370808.png)

>>60497
Poor /hiddenboard/-tan doesn't deserve to be represented by such crazy anons

No. 60512

>>60509
Its the site, not your device. This has been an ongoing issue and I think they are still trying to find a way to fix it. It could be that when you do all images, because you might have visited that page before or it's been in the background, that those images have loaded faster than new ones. Also videos seem to be like this for all types.

No. 60514

>>60509
Yeah, it's just the site. Lolcow is elderly. We have to wait for admins to do a complete site overhaul.

No. 60515

>>60509
>>60514

It’s not that the sites old maybe they don’t know how to fix it?? Since I can’t see the backend of the site I’m not sure how it’s laid out.

1. I haven’t noticed this on my end. My guess is the math to determine where you must be directed is incorrect. I have noticed that if you touch another post_id after already been directed to one it won’t take you to that post.

2. I haven’t looked at the source code yet but I would think that the image is probably being hidden in this css BEHIND the spoiler image and when it disappears the code change the css so that the image shows clearly is gone.

4. I would think that the fetch request/js rendering for all the images for a thread in the db hasn’t been touched so it works fine. There is a thumbnail and a larger image. Whatever is causing the latency issue has to deal with getting a single image/larger image request. One fix to this could be they could load all the images of the thread on render and then switch between showing the larger/smaller one. There could also be an issue with the bucket but that wouldn’t make sense since you can get all images to expand at once.

I’ll look at the code more when I have the chance but the way websites work hasn’t changed since they’ve been made.

No. 60516

>>60512
>>60514
>>60515
Thanks for the informative replies! Hopefully it gets fixed but I love it here so much I'll deal with it for the forseeable future

No. 60521

How do you anons pronounce Cerbim? I'm trying to figure out which pronunciation to read it in. Was going to ask in Meta General, but it's full.

Sair-Bim or Sir-Bim?

No. 60522

>>60521
…do you mean Cerbmin?

No. 60523

>>60522
Autocorrect, but yeah.

No. 60524

>>60521
It's "cerb" from Cerberus, the Greek mythological three headed dog that lives in the underworld. It's pronounced serb-min.

No. 60525

>>60524
That's what i thought, minus the Cerberus part, thank you

No. 60526

There is a typo in the rules. In fact, it's been there for a very long time. Sometimes I re-read the rules just to make sure it's still there and silently seethe.

No. 60527

>>60524
serbiamin

>>60526
where

No. 60528

File: 1690663096386.png (69.99 KB, 1230x748, code.png)

>>60515
Hello! I'm back and looked into the web code that renders the images.
Basically what it's doing is switching the image being shown. It looks like it's already switching between images. It uses data inside the tags to switch between them.
The issue with this is that the function loops through all of the <a> tags the thread could have, as well as changing the attributes of it. The code is slightly hard to read but believe this code runs anytime you want to enlarge a photo. It finds the photo you clicked on and then adds the code to change the html elements of the page.

Excessive DOM manipulation like this is really taxing on websites with lots of traffic. Esp. since a lolcow thread can have up to 1200 photos. If you are trying to open many photos at once it probably is having a hard time with it.

It's really hard to pin point a solution here since this wasn't a problem years ago, if the server is less robust then that could def. be a factor.

I would say an easy solution is to limit the amount of posts per thread.
Maybe instead of looping through you can try and find it by the id? That way you aren't having to loop through all the anchor tags.
You can also try implementing an infinite scroll thaat way the images that are being loaded are limited and gives the site time to load them.
Current solution would be to just right-click + inspect the element you want and then go directly to the src which would lead you to where the photo is stored in the server.

Is this how all image board engines work by the way? If so that's so shitty lol.

I also looked into all the google scripts on the header. They're all incrypted but the id of the gtm container is there. You can't really look at anything unless you're authorized so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .(¯\_(ツ)_/¯)

No. 60529

Tranny/someone is spamming his/tyeur paid articles in /2X/ blackpill and fighting with other anons.

No. 60530

>>60528
No1currs, unless you can actually access the site on the backend, you won't see the actual why. Why do scrotes think they are smart lol

No. 60532

general /meta/ is locked so if i have milk on a pushing 30's did faking tif ween of a tif cow and it's on tumblr and doesn't necessarily involve the cow, does it go in tumblr hate or a cow's thread?

No. 60533

>>60530
Where did that poster said they are a man?

No. 60534

>>60533
Nta but just a while ago there was some moid in here trying to give unwarranted advice to admins about how to change the site so it's a fair assumption. Plus the emoticon he/she used at the end of their post is indicative of someone who doesn't use the site regularly.

No. 60543

Can doghate-fags please just be banned so they can only use the doghate thread? Otherwise it literally defeats the purpose of it being a containment thread. I'm so tired of seeing it all over /ot/ and you know anons are only doing it to bait.

No. 60550

>>60532
if it's not enough for a full thread your best bet is probably personal lolcows >>>/snow/1656175

No. 60551

>>60530
Why does me having access to the backend matter? Why does that restrict me from looking into the front end? Bottlenecking can be common when you have a lot of data and need to re-render constantly. The browser is trying to figure out what the site should look like. Unwarranted? It’s been like this months I couldn’t take it anymore and had to look into it myself.

No. 60552

Replying from the Meta thread bc I am not making another and it’s relevant…
>>60518
For me, I think it’s also just the general decline of what the internet used to be (I’m an oldfag, and I’m also old lol) I am very aware of how young a lot of anons are here, and it does feel like this place has now got so many different micro cultures within different boards that the place is almost unmanageable. People nowadays get so angry over anyone who thinks differently to them. They always have to one up whoever they’re arguing with; whether that be SJW type stuff, general insults etc.
It’s what happened to PULL, and I guess everywhere else.
The internet just isn’t what it used to be.

No. 60553

Can someone please come collect the retards shitting up the vent thread with bait and infighting. When will the summerfags go back, they're making threads unbearable with their grade school mean girl routine

No. 60554

>>60553
I think the summerfags will go back when their schooling starts in the fall or when their summerjobs/holiday finish

No. 60556

File: 1690733218983.jpg (104.82 KB, 720x515, post.jpg)

I already appealed, but literally wtf is this ban? Another anon asked why jannies banned someone for emoji when there was no emoji and I was just telling them that they remove emojis from posts. Why would that ever deserve a 3 day ban and why would I report someone for that?
And yes I'm ban evading with my phone data because this is so dumb.

No. 60557

>>60556
The stupid janny thought you were telling them to "remove the emoji-anon" so the anon posting the emojis

No. 60558

>>60557
They need to learn how to read the full context of posts before banning someone. But even then, they would really ban someone for 3 days for that?

No. 60559

>>60553
Kek, that thread's been a shithole for days now.
>>60552
>People nowadays get so angry over anyone who thinks differently to them. They always have to one up whoever they’re arguing with; whether that be SJW type stuff, general insults etc.
Someone please end our suffering.

No. 60560

>>60556
Kek wtf, I was just passing by when I saw your post and instantly knew what you meant. Did they think the "anon" was for flair?
Let us know if/when you've been unbanned, nonna.

No. 60561

>>60556
3 days for this? Jesus christ, and meanwhile all the stupid racebait thrives in /ot/.

No. 60562

>>60561
Fr why aren't mods redtexting bait or racebait shit in ot? Anons keep replying to them because they're not getting redtexted.

No. 60563

there's been someone posting pol:ttier shit in several image threads (maps and charts, funny pics, general image) in /m/ for a while now, but they"re full on posting nazi shit now >>>/m/311049

No. 60564

>>60556
They get the ban, they know what they were banned for. Newfags don't need explanations and you need to stop interacting with obvious idiots. These threads are not chatrooms.

No. 60565

>>60564
>These threads are not chatrooms.
ntayrt but it was in an /ot/ thread…the whole board is a chatroom kek

No. 60566

sorry in advance for the dumb question, but the general meta discussion thread is locked now so I'm not sure where else to post this.

can anyone explain why /pt/ is so dead now? I know it's gotten to be a slower board ever since /snow/ was created, but there seems to be hardly any discussion there at all. is it because of the stricter posting rules or just general disinterest in the cows that are allowed on /pt/? is it just a board culture issue?

most replies are days between each other, and a thread that was last replied to 15 days ago is still on the front page.

seems like other boards are pretty active so I don't think it's that lolcow in general is dead. though of course I could be wrong about that as well.

No. 60567

>>60560
I just got unbanned, I think my appeal went through.
>>60564
This was in /ot/ so yeah it is a chatroom, and I wasn't telling someone why they got banned. You and whichever mod banned me have the same level of reading comprehension.

No. 60568

>>60566
I think it's just because there's not as many cows (although the cows there are considering our best) and the cows who are there are older cows that may not interest newer users, so all the anons there are anons who have been following them for a long time. We've lost a lot of older users so you can kinda put 2 and 2 together.

No. 60570

>>60568
I think there are more cows online in general but cancel culture kind of makes the site unnecessary now. As long as there is an approved reason, public bullying online is acceptable. Cows here don't have to do "offensive" things, they can be cringe, and it's not socially acceptable to make fun of cringe anymore unless an accepted reason is tacked on to it. The site has become taboo, even though cancel culture is the same thing with justification.

No. 60571

>>60566
Because the cows there are old, inactive etc.

No. 60575

File: 1690755159720.png (44.86 KB, 886x828, lcban.png)

I rarely post but I've been on lolcow from the beginning, since it all started back on /cgl/ before gossip was banned on /cgl/.

I made this post in the goddamn VENT THREAD on OT, to vent about something that legitimately annoys the shit out of me. How the hell was it baiting? Because I mentioned pedophiles? Sure, that was extreme, but I wanted to display a very blunt and obvious point on how that idea DOESN'T always apply.

I never returned to the thread to see if the post caused some retarded shit storm that would provoke the ban, but what the hell. How pozzed has a 4chan-birthed gossip board become that this warrants a ban?

I can understand if I was posting off topic in something, BUT IT WAS THE FUCKING VENT THREAD IN OT, OF WHICH I WAS VENTING!

I didn't call anyone a pedophile, I didn't say anything racist, I didn't say anything sexist.

What the hell gives, mods?

I know my ban has since expired so this isn't about that. I legitimately want to know if saying something like I did in my post is too truly 'risque' for an off-topic vent thread, and if so, I will peacefully leave. This is obviously a different site from how I've known it throughout the years and the userbase and 'culture' has changed so drastically that I apparently can no longer integrate.

No. 60579

>>60575
that typing style gives you away lol
>>60562
replying to bait is against the rules anyway. anons should know better

No. 60580

>>60575
This is when I say this is probably an anon (you) who purposely reddit spaces just to piss off anons and pretend they don't know any better. You deserved the ban.

No. 60581

>>60579
Unironically don't know who you think I am unless you're talking about the same thing as:
>>60580
Why the fuck does no one know what actual reddit spacing is? That's classic 4chan post spacing and anyone who was actually around in the /cgl/ days should know the difference.

No. 60582

>>60581
Please realize that it is a generalized typing critique. This is obviously not just a reddit spacing thing, but freaking out about it is embarrassing. That type of style is for unintegrated anons and just like >>60579 says, it gives you, or any anon for that matter, away of being unintegrated.

No. 60583

>>60582
That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. That's literally classic 4chan posting style, the style this board was based on. Are you telling me you think I was banned for being… too much of an oldfag?

This is next level pants on head retardation.

You'll all shit yourselves when you look through old threads on LC or archived threads of 4chan, if grammatically correct spacing is "lacking integration" to you.

And if I can't "freak out" in a vent thread, nor complain in a complaint thread, then what the hell is the point of them?

I've seriously, no lifely, been lurking LC this entire time, at least once per month at the longest gaps, and this is the most unfounded 'rule' of 'integration' I could ever imagine. Who even are you people who came up with this nonsense, lmao?

No. 60584

>>60583
With all the bans the mod said you have, I'm surprised they even had an expiration on your last ban when you act like this.

No. 60585

>>60584
If that wasn't some IP-mix up garbage, those bans were for things like calling out a troon-lover for WKing troons. I have no regrets there, I'd happily get perma'd for that for an eternity.

No. 60586

>>60585
Other bans I vividly recall include things like reporting myself when I knew I was even just mildly, situationally breaking the rules, and getting ban messages about the mods of the time giving a slap on the wrist while agreeing with my side of things. Guess that's too much to consider when faced with malicious paragraph spaces though, oh no!

No. 60587

>>60586
Ah, wait, I thought of another. The old Admin twice 'banned' me (instant expiration) to reply to my posts without having to reply publicly. I've had mods do that previously as well, to speak without riling up the other users in the thread. Did those also contribute to the crimes of my classic post formatting?

I truly wish to know. With how spaced out my post history is (all puns intended), I want to know in what time span that mod was judging me with. Will all long term users now be punished for the most ridiculous things because some new janny gets trigger itchy on the hammer? Does the ban history count include the times at which LC had, had mods that were not kept to reasonable standards, often banning users just for disagreeing with their personal opinions or hurting their feelings? What about when we had some severely ESL mods that completely misinterpreted anons' posts and banned them wrongfully? How far back is it considered?

I know for a fact I haven't posted with enough frequency to have an extensive ban history within a reasonable timeline, so I'd love full clarification on the crazy amount of bans I've apparently racked up, that somehow justify oldfag formatting into 'lack of integration'.

No. 60588

Poop-fag is back and the Iron Mouse thread is only all redtexts, no milk at all. Admin and mods might want to look into locking it. It's just used for either SJWs or shitposting.

>>>/w/304516

No. 60589

>>60583
your posts are very clockable from bioh the typing style (especially the use of the return key) and the verbose, self-righteous sceeds about how you did nothing wrong ever and are the victim of terrible injustice. you're obnoxious, anyone can see why you keep getting banned

No. 60592

>>60575
>you have this many bans yet still haven't integrated
I mean janny is right, you're obviously doing this on purpose to get hatred or bans to complain here. This isn't healthy, you should stop.

No. 60593

>>60588
They pussied out and deleted their original post, but don't worry. They came back with this. >>>/w/304517

No. 60595

>>60580
>>60582
>>60589
Nta, but reddit spacing isn't a bannable offense anymore >>>/meta/60076
What's more annoying than anon is you spergs replying to her nonstop instead of just letting her have the post complaining about the ban. Now your petty "oldfag" proving ground bullshit has dragged this out because you're incapable of not responding to everything. I wish you all got slapped with bans for baiting her and infighting.

No. 60596

>>60595
No one is "oldfag" or "petty" for telling a baiter they deserved the ban. The only reason anon posted in the way she did is because she wants her posts to be recognizable(which breaks a rule) and get negative attention from anons to infight with them.

No. 60597

>>60595
i didn't say reddit spacing was bannable i said it made her posts easy to identify
>just let her complain
look she's a bait poster who's whinging all over /meta/ day in and day out, we're allowed to tell her she's annoying

No. 60598

>>60587
I could clock your posts even without the spacing because you always post like an upset facebook complainer. I'm also from the pre-gossip ban /cgl/ era and have no issues with understanding the requirement. You're just doing it on purpose because you're not satisfied with the reasoning. You know exactly what you're being asked, you apparently have many bans about it and refuse to stop. That's literally refusing to integrate no matter how you want to spin it.

No. 60599

can you please do something about the casual nazi posting in the national perso,ification thread? they aren't even on topic it's jsut a thinly veiled excuse for some sperg to post their stash >>>/m/311934

No. 60604

>>60596
>>60597
>>60598
I legitimately have no idea what in the actual fuck you people are talking about, holy shit. I do not have multiple bans for spacing, have never even heard of someone being banned for spacing, and have never baited someone with spacing.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen, what in the hell.

Unironically look back through cgl archives, it has always been a common way of post formatting:
>https://desuarchive.org/cgl/search/filter/image/order/asc/page/4/


I feel like I'm in upside down reverso clown world listening to you people, this is asinine. Mods should be perfectly capable of recognizing I'm not whatever poster you're all schizoing out over.

No. 60605

>>60598
If you're from that time and not chock full of shit you should know
This


Is


Reddit


Spacing

Because back in the day when people whined about Redditors not integrating to 4chan, Reddit's formatting required two full lines of spacing to make a new paragraph. The concept of just using grammatically correct spacing has been how people on 4chan/related image boards have always formatted.

Is this some kind of massive LC wide trolling garbage? I'm honestly baffled.

No. 60606

>>60605
Your spacing isn't grammatically correct, integrate and move on.

No. 60607

>>60606
This is still the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Literal newfags rewriting what normal posting is because they misinterpreted how to 'integrate' themselves.

I will move on, this is clown world joke tier crap. Enjoy your new Twitter user culture enforcement, or whatever this is, because it sure as shit isn't what lolcow was any time recently, yet alone historically.(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)

No. 60611

>>60607
Why was this user banned?

No. 60612

>>60611
also wondering that. It's not a crime to complain or even rage about a rule in /meta/ I think. I don't really care about spacing admittedly

No. 60613

>>60611
Mods feelings were hurt, I guess

No. 60614

>>60612
It's not even a rule anymore >>>/meta/60076

No. 60619

>>60611
Because they're only posting using that style to cause fights and they also caused fights in several threads in ot and meta so mod was probably annoyed. I think this ban was well deserved.

No. 60620

>>60613
I definitely believe there is a mod who has it out for this user now kek. Look at her original post in this thread. Banned for venting in the vent thread, and reddit spacing isn't even an excuse bc it's been pointed out twice now that "reddit spacing" isn't a bannable offense.
I bet the people accusing her of baiting (who are definitely not starting an infight over her post despite admitting they thought she was bait!) were the shithead jannies, or their friends. I have literally never seen this user baiting "with their typing style" in /meta/ like they're crying about.

No. 60621

>>60620
I agree, and it's ridiculous to ban someone for genuinely posting in /meta/, period. I've noticed that bringing something up in /meta/ (respectfully) has triggered some mod in the past though. That mod will go find a post I made days ago and issue some BS ban for it. There's a whole pattern where janny or janny's friend posts ragey word salad reeing about "anons this" and "anons that" and how great the mods are. Hasn't happened in a month or so, maybe this benign post will trigger it though.

No. 60622

>>60620
>>60621
I'm going to have to agree this looks like a mod vendetta. Admin, if it's not against the rules to reddit-space, why has this Anon been banned twice for it? Bad look.

No. 60623

>>60622
>>60621
>>60620
Not sure if samefagging, but literally go to 4chan and add your extra spaces if you're so obsessed with it. This is banned outside of the vent thread too. Like other anons said, this anon is purposely posting in a manner to make people mad. Obnoxious typing styles are always banned, with out without the reddit spacing rule. That's always been implemented. Newfags need to leave.

No. 60624

>>60606
Is """spacing""" in the room with us right now anon?

No. 60625

File: 1690850037811.jpg (146.74 KB, 1080x654, Screenshot_20230731_173552_Chr…)

>>60624
Learn2integrate, these rules were around before the spacing thing. Anon falls under this rule.

No. 60626

>>60623
it's been said twice spacing is not grounds for a ban and has been considered normal in the past. are you the mod who got """baited""" by nonitas spacing or???

No. 60627

>>60625
reaching for straws to justify your vendetta huh

No. 60628

>>60625
Oh come on, there are multiple anons who do line breaks. It's like anons who type in all lowercase (which is arguably even more distinct). It just isn't that big a deal, which is why they changed their policy on spacing bans after Hellweek. Where is this idea that anon does it to cause arguments coming from?

No. 60629

>>60628
I want to know how these nonnas know she was supposedly banned for baiting by using spacing all over kek

No. 60631

>>60626
You literally can't read.

No. 60632

>>60629
No one said that. Anon is purposely being a retard about that specific ban and is samefagging to complain and acting like other anons are upset about the ban too. You need to go outside.

No. 60634

>>60632
Read >>60619
I don't think nonna's typing stands out to the extent of being ban worthy. Even if you do, why shouldn't she be allowed to complain about that here? Not sharing your opinion /=/ samefagging.

No. 60635

>>60631
which one was the thread you read?
>nonna posts in the meta complaints thread
>other nonnas claim nonna is doing this intentionally to bait
>nonnas continue to reply to nonna
>nonnas are breaking rules by replying to bait and should be banned
or
>nonna posts in the meta complaints thread
>nonna claims to be confused about her ban
>nonna gets upset with the reason for the ban
>nonna complains about the reason, giving reasons why she disagrees with it
>nonna is banned again
>other nonnas question this because the lack of transparency makes it look fishy
only thing I've seen anyone able to point out as baiting or unique typing style is nonna's spacing. we already went over that spacing isn't a bannable offense. the rules quoted specify not typing LiKe ThIs, in all caps, no emojis, no excessive punctuation, no signatures, no avatar or namefagging, you know the drill. it doesn't include anything I saw nonna say or do. finding someone's complaining annoying wasn't grounds for a ban last time I checked? double return keying in nonna's original post wasn't grounds either, according to admin?

No. 60636

>>60632
well I posted that the ban is retarded and it's obvious the banned anon isn't replying anymore, so where's the samefagging?

No. 60637

This is hilarious. Farmhand was totally in the wrong and anons are here all night preforming Olympian mental gymnastics to defend them. Never change, /meta/

No. 60638

>>60624
The sperg was insisting that she types like this to be grammatically correct, which was not, that's all I pointed out. Your reading comprehension isn't in the room with us right now, that's for sure.

No. 60639

>>60638
nice attempt at back pedaling, sweaty. we both know what you were talking about when you told her to integrate. you're doing nothing but patting your own behind for trying to bait that anon into more sperging.

No. 60640

>>60614
>>60613
>>60635
>>60637
>>60634
>>60629
>>60627
>>60626
>>60624
>>60622
>>60639
This is why. You know what's being asked of you, but you seem to be doing this on principle to keep stirring shit. Your ban evasion and constant samefagging don't help. Stop playing dumb and trolling.

No. 60641

Why tf can’t I see the lolcow caps thread? It’s in the catalogue but when I click on it (on mobile) it’s so slow to load. Then i when I press the next and back buttons at the bottom of the boards the thread isn’t even there. Is this a glitch?

No. 60642

>>60640
>Word for word rehash of the anon posts that were jumping to impossible conclusions which conveniently WK'd jannys side
Thanks for confirming your vendetta

No. 60643

>>60640
Anons are never slick with their samefagging.

No. 60644

File: 1690884204982.jpg (31.85 KB, 683x1024, homemade-strawberry-milk-for-o…)

>>60643
It worked considering the janny came out of the woodwork to call me out for it and still offered absolutely zero good reason for my ban, other than that they "feel" I'm trolling by formatting my post in a way that has been around forever.
I really was confused about the ban and until now, never even knew there was a period of time double spacing wasn't allowed. Nothing I've said about being an oldfag was false and my sperg rage was genuine confusion and anger at something I still think is sincerely stupid. I do plan to quit using this site permanently, though, so no one need worry there. I wasn't being inauthentic about not knowing what ridiculous ban history or range the janny was judging me with, either. I was never banned for that before. Why some vague ban message and a ban involving a relatively new and quickly removed rule should have meant I "knew what was expected of me" is still beyond me. Also no idea wtf that anon saying I caused fights all over the place was going on about, because like I said, I barely post. Hell, it's been over a week since the original ban took place. I'm actually more impressed at the next level schizo the mod has, to think I waited that out just to come post here about it, I guess?

Thanks to the anons who authentically did disagree with this. I'm sorry for samefagging itt for only that reason. As for the janny: I hope you stub all of your toes and the queen never bends her behind in your direction, you wretch.

Adios, farmers. It's been a great many years.

No. 60651

>>60644
Anons explained.

No. 60656

>>60614
I also saw admin saying that it's up to jannies whether or not they want to ban for reddit spacing, which is dumb imo. Rules are already inconsistent enough.

No. 60657

>>60275
Is this incel the same one that derailed the manifesto-chan thread? Wish he'd shut the fuck up already. I wanted to read funny pinkpilled takes but all his derailing completely fucked up the board.

No. 60659

>>60656
You weren't banned for "reddit spacing".

No. 60660

>>60659
I'm nta dummy. I wasn't even talking about that ban specifically, if you can figure out how to read.

No. 60668

>>60644
thank god, you sound fucking insufferable. nothing of value was lost

No. 60673

There is a couple of newfag handmaidens in the Altcows thread that stick out like a sore thumb complaining about anons not caping for a troon. I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually only one person. The thread has been posted in one of the cow's private discord for fans and that could be the reason.

No. 60684

Pretty sure this anon is underage, no one usually spaces out links like this and spells out "dot com" otherwise >>>/ot/1651753

No. 60685

File: 1690992792603.png (23.89 KB, 687x188, dot com results.png)

>>60684
>Pretty sure this anon is underage
>no one usually spaces out links like this and spells out "dot com" otherwise
How is that a way to gauge the age of an anon? There’s definitely other instances of posts like this, just look at picrel

No. 60686

>>60684
I've seen that all over the web. It's not an indication of someone's age at all.

No. 60687

>>60685
This isn't tumblr.

No. 60688

>>60687
What?

No. 60689

>>60688
it gives off the vibes of anons censoring like when they type out p*rn. just comes off as being underage because they can't even do the bare minimum.

No. 60690

>>60689
I think you're reading too much into it

No. 60691

>>60684
>>60689
People do that when they don't want to directly link to a site. Are you new?

No. 60693

>>60689
>>60684
Fuck are you talking about

No. 60694

The /w/ janny is crazy. This isn't my post and is nothing I commented on: >>>/w/304638 It's not nitpicking to say a cow made her hair look shitty by cutting it herself when she has more money than she knows what to do with. Furthermore, the post it replies to says it looks fine tied back but might not when loose: so the post just confirms it looks fairly objectively shit when loose. This is a beauty influencer and ex-model. Her appearance is 95% of her content. How is this a nitpick?

Meanwhile, we have bonehead anons who ask people to upload social media content bc they won't go to IG and watch it: >>>/w/304601 This is spoonfeeding and could be ban-worthy.

You just never know what will catch a ban in Taylor's thread. Here are some recently banned legitimate posts that the /w/ janny thought would hurt Taytay's feefees too much:
>>>/w/304133 (not derail)
>>>/w/303108 (noting a sponsorship she didn't declare)
>>>/w/303131 (a legitimate opinion)
>>>/w/303152 (reasonable guess)
>>>/w/303164 (defending posting media : banned for "complains")
>>>/w/303213 (not nitpicking)
>>>/w/303203 (not nitpicking)

basically any negative discussion of Taylor, however tiny, risks a ban in that thread. Cut it out. This discussion would be completely normal and fine in any other thread. This is the only thread moderated like the janny is Taylor's fanclub president.

No. 60695

>>60694
The /w/ jannie is insane and did this to belles thread until it was locked. I believe the /w/ jannie posts anonymously on that board and baits/ingights with users then bans them(mentol ilness luv)

No. 60697

>>60694
All those bans are needed and I'm surprised complaining about her cutting her bangs wasnt nitpick banned too. You just genuinely refuse2integrate. And the other samefags in that thread.

No. 60698

>>60697
Let's take a look at shaynas thread though. All of her recent threads are just nitpicking. No consistency and /w/ is modded too strictly for a containment board

No. 60699

>>60698
She isn't shay and that thread is shit too. Taylor is also on /w/, where nitpicking had been moderated heavier due to spergs and it's anons like >>60694 who are at fault. You guys ruined the Belle and Jvlog threads and literally keep doing the same shit but in other threads. Anons are begging to be banned at this point and they deserve it. If you want to get away with nitpicking maybe go hang out in the shay thread. You'll just nitpick her tits though, so much for milk.

No. 60700

>>60699
Enjoy your echochamber where nobody is allowed to talk about cows if it's not shayna or a handful of the other cows the mods also like to shit on from snow. /w/ is not allowed unless you have something positive to say.
Anons have to Police themselves in /w/ like you would on PULL kek

No. 60701

File: 1691024138085.png (36.84 KB, 1168x235, ban.PNG)

I don't understand the point of no1curr bans in /ot/

No. 60704

Male posting in tradthots thread.

No. 60705

>>60700
It's not even one anon who has called out the shitty posts. Take your meds and take your bans for once.

No. 60706

Romanianon is ban evading in the vent thread.

No. 60707

>>60701
Reeks of selfposting and blogposting, anon refers to 'us' when taking about the dancers. Literally no1currs. Lolcow isn't your personal army or dump for blogposting if it's not in the right thread. /ot/ all has rules and that thread is not for selfposting blostposters.

No. 60708

>>60707
Anon, they mean "us" as in anon and her coworkers at her office job. It says it in the post. Anyway, I think the celebcow thread just needs to be moved back to /snow/ if it's going to be subject to milk board rules. It's just irritating that anons keep getting banned in that thread for stuff that would usually be permissible in off topic boards, and jannies don't ever give any heads up before they decide that something is a bannable offense in that thread. Anons can't read staffs mind. It just should be moved to /snow/ again.

No. 60711

>>60699
>anons like >>60694
kek just one of those posts is mine. Try to bait harder. When your content is "cutting my own hair" people are allowed to say it looks shit. That is not a nitpick, it's the entire content she produces. It deserves to get brought up in /meta/ that a janny wants to ban any negative opinion of Taylor's content while permitting posts expressing positive opinions or straight-up WKing. Just let people say her content is sometimes retarded, her self-cut hair looks shitty and she should stop inflating her face, I promise Taylor's charmed life will go on without a hitch. This kind of insane banning for one specific thread does not make any sense on lolcow.

No. 60712

>>60708
They went on a whole thing about their own personal crap.

No. 60713

>>60712
nta but literally every /ot/ thread is like that. that's why it's called off-topic

No. 60716

File: 1691051441954.gif (1.18 MB, 399x430, ew.gif)

i want taking the moral high ground on /snow/ and /pt/ to be a bannable offense."omg shitting on a woman's appearance is sooo misogynistic and unnecessary", defending trannies, acting like the website is there to ~expose and bring justice~. it's beyond cringe and i wish PULL was still up as a containment zone.
it'd be a really nice complementary rule to extreme a-log schizo nonnas who want to see the cows suffer.

No. 60717

>>60706
now she's trying to take it to other threads like get it off your chest. why tf isn't she permabanned

No. 60722

>>60716
Posts already get banned for whiteknighting and moralfagging all the time, did you report?

No. 60723

>>60716
You're stupid if you think supporting men in dresses is the same as making fun of prostitute anons for mocking prostitute cows. Most anons who shit on sexworker cows later get revealed to be other milky sexworkers.

No. 60724

>>60694
I think anons should stop bringing mod criticism here, because it gives them another reason to show up in the thread and start banning people left and right. It's pointless to try and reason with them. I've been reporting the wks and infights, but all they ban is random posts deemed "nitpicking".

No. 60725

>>60723
>Most anons who shit on sexworker cows later get revealed to be other milky sexworkers.
I can remember a few, but most? I want to see your statistics anon

No. 60730

File: 1691077433590.png (45.89 KB, 810x214, Screenshot_20230803-141450.png)

I agree with >>60724 but now we have this message from the janny in Taylor's thread: >>>/w/304699
No explanation or anything about why this thread has special insane rules for discussion. So since this is /meta/, would the Admin or the janny like to explain why it is apparently "nitpicking" to discuss the beauty and fashion content of a beauty/fashion influencer? Or the sponsorships she has? What is off-limits, and why is it ok to gush over the cow but not to say "that doesn't look good"?

No. 60731

>>60724
Are the wks in the room with you right now? Non-criticism isn't wking.

No. 60732

>>60725
Nta, but a good example is Sabrina Nicole posting about Momokun and getting caught. This was years ago though. Idk about other sexworkers.

No. 60739

File: 1691083746883.png (132.28 KB, 1440x835, farmhand1.png)

What's going on here, I've never seen this type of farmhand comment except in rare instances (like serious cow selfposting breaches) why are they saying "stop nitpicking already"
>Anons were discussing corset construction in relation to Sarah selling courses on how to (poorly) construct a corset, it is relevant to the topic
>the Taylor nitpicking was a few posts up (about her bangs) and the topic had changed by the time the Farmhand commented

No. 60740

File: 1691083771027.png (112.78 KB, 1440x732, farmhand2.png)


No. 60741

File: 1691084214048.png (911.2 KB, 1038x2149, corsets.png)

>>60740
This is on the Taylor R and Sarah Spaceman threads on /w btw like imo this falls under discussing the cow

No. 60742

File: 1691084243090.png (450.11 KB, 1156x2171, taylorr.png)


No. 60743

>>60713
/ot/ threads still have subjects, they are just not main boards and are like browsing 4chan's /b/ if you need an equivalent. Just because its in /ot/ doesn't mean anon can blogpost and sperg about their own personal life that has nothing to do with the celebricows thread just because they are posting on /ot/. I don't understand how some anons literally can't grasp basic posting like this.

No. 60744

>>60742
>>60741
Please learn what nitpicking is and why the mod most likely posted those. The corset thing turned into infighting because anon was nitpicking their opinion on what a proper corest is when other anons pointed out other types of corsets exist. Also Taylor's whole thread is a massive derail and nitpick. There's been no milk since the Men's Club thing really. Just a bunch of things anons personally don't like and lacks any drama/milk.

No. 60745

>>60744
> Taylor's whole thread is a massive derail and nitpick
I think she is one, if not the least deserving of a thread here. it is all nitpick and reminds me of the gurugossiper threads with no milk just.. nitpicking

No. 60747

>>60745
There's just nothing to even read.

No. 60748

>>60743
And I don't understand how you can't grasp that in no other /ot/ thread would blogposting get you banned (it's not even a part of the rules for that board) so it's dumb for staff to unexpectedly ban anons for that stuff as if anyone is supposed to automatically know that an /ot/ thread follows /snow/ rules. They did the same thing months ago when they started banning anons for not saging with no warning, despite the fact that celebcow has been around for a few years and no one had to sage.

No. 60749

>>60745
then don't read it if you feel that way. I don't read threads I don't care about.

No. 60750

>>60744
>The corset thing turned into infighting because anon was nitpicking their opinion on what a proper corest is

AGAIN. You cannot "nitpick another anon's opinion" - that is not nitpicking. Are you actually retarded? You can INFIGHT if you drag something out, but if disagreeing or correcting an anon is "nitpicking" then hoo boy better lock every fucking thread on here. You cannot nitpick an opinion. You may disagree with an opinion and have good or bad reasons for doing so. Jesus Christ.

No. 60751

>>60748
Not all bans are redtext and this is why they should be, so if someone if derailing in a subject that has nothing to do with their personal life and experience, which in this case it didn't, then all other anons will see it.

No. 60752

>>60751
I think you're missing the point anon.

No. 60753

>>60752
So the solution is to let them blogpost in non-blogpost threads? What solution are you looking for exactly, for moderation purposes in /ot/ threads? If anons started derailing about non-art in the art thread, they would get a ban too. Threads have subjects for a reason, being in /ot/ doesn't mean you can post whatever you want in any /ot/ thread you want.

No. 60754

>>60749
Because people come to this site to see milk and drama on a cow and when the thread is shit like the Taylor thread, it sucks. Anons have an interest and clearly hiding saged posts doesn't help in that thread because you still get dumb posts that are unsaged and still not milk. The whole thing should be nuked honestly. Maybe when it's full we can have the mods refuse to let her have a thread like a few other cows until they have a legit reason they can bring to /meta/ to prove there's milk to start a whole thread up, but considering the far in between of where milk is involved in Taylor, there wouldn't be a reason for a new thread. There are so many threads of her's that have been filled in the past year because anons want to complain that they hate this haircut and her chopstick usage and "why has she reposted all this stuff" as if that's not going to tinfoil and derail so hard like it did. It's not funny, it's repetitive and nitpicking.

You basically isolate interested users by posting low-quality posts. It's not that anons don't want to read it, it's that it's unreadable due to how terrible the posters are in that thread.

No. 60755

>>60754
ah the milk police. what's milk then? Taylor and her husband deserve a thread as much as a number of other /w/ cows. Take your meds.

No. 60757

>>60753
If you could learn how to read you would understand what the issue is and the solutions I gave. It's jannies randomly deciding that stuff that would usually be fine in the Celebcow thread (and in /ot/ threads in general) is no longer permissible. Just from a poster perspective, it's annoying to be banned for something that you thought was fine and that typically no one would get banned for. It's fine if they want to ban for blogposting, but don't just randomly start doing it. /ot/ is an off-topic board where blogposting isn't a big deal. It's like making an infight board but then mods decide they want to start handing in infight bans in one thread. It's also just like, exactly which specific cow board rules are we supposed to follow in that thread? Give anons a warning before handing out bans (this could easily be done by a farmhand making a post as a heads up, and adding the rule to the OP or to the rules page) or move the thread to /snow/ where anons already know not to do certain things because they are board-wide rules. I honestly think the Celebcow thread just should be moved to /snow/ since it's a milk thread, especially if it's being expected to follow /snow/ rules.

I've explained it pretty plain and simple multiple times, so if you still can't understand then whatever. I'm just posting for admins, so they can consider moving the thread to /snow/.

No. 60758

>>60755
You completely ignored the point.

No. 60760

>>60757
They have to start somewhere, anon. When do you expect moderation change to start? Just like in the vent thread you aren't supposed to reply to the vents. Certain threads have different rules, even in /ot/. As a milky thread, I also think it should be moved to /snow/, but overall /ot/ isn't just a free-for-all like a lot of anons wish it was

No. 60763

>>60760
>They have to start somewhere, anon. When do you expect moderation change to start
I literally said in my post how they can start in a way that's more fair to posters.
>Just like in the vent thread you aren't supposed to reply to the vents
You're talking about the Get It Off Your Chest Thread, where it has said in the thread OP since it was created to not reply to posts. Actually, jannies didn't even start giving out "vain bitch" bans until recently. I'm pretty sure it took like 2 or 3 threads for them to start banning for that.
>Certain threads have different rules
And those rules are usually outlined in the OP from the start of those threads, it's not something that you just suddenly get banned for.

No. 60764

ITT: Anons who can't just take their bans and somehow the mods are after them. All these bans honestly make sense, I don't get the deal.

No. 60765

>>60754
If you so wish to see ~drama~ go to the threads that you like, dear "isolated, interested" milk sommelier. No one's forcing you or anyone else to read a thread you don't like. Sure, the Taylor thread is stale, but as long as people want to discuss her, they can. Who are you to dictate your preferences for a discussion? Just read threads that are milky enough for you. Majority of the posts in the thread are saged, so I don't see what's the problem in the first place. There are so many train wreck threads that discuss bullshit, but you don't see me complaining about their existence. Do why should I (and others) get banned for expressing an opinion on a cow in a saged post?
As I long time lurker I honestly don't understand where this hyperfixation on an "insignificant" cow thread comes from. This kind of discussions were not banned previously, unless someone was clearly baiting or bulshitting.

Anyway, I agree with the anon above. Complaints should no longer be posted in meta or jannie goes into vendetta mode.

No. 60766

>>60765
Completely missing the point again.

No. 60767

Scrote in tradthot thread racebaiting about black people.

No. 60768

>>60767
Samefag, I assume it was the same scrote banned two hours before ban evading.

No. 60769

>>60742 >>60741

You cannot convince me the person in here bitching at users about non existent nitpicking all the time isnt also this mod

No. 60770

File: 1691099978335.png (72.02 KB, 783x306, Screenshot_20230804-000121.png)

>>60769
Careful, nonna. You see what happened here >>60695

No. 60771

>>60758
>>60766
You replied to two different anons. What is your point? You want the thread deleted? Why?

No. 60772

>>60771
Because it's not milky enough, ah, sorry that's the official explanation. Because Taylor is a saint and no one should speak ill of her. Unless it's high quality milk, of course - which is not defined, sadly. Jannie will come for my soul, but I'm starting to believe she's friends with the cow, if not a delulu fan.

No. 60773

>>60767
Different anon, he's still at it. Now he's saying the "nonwhite" anons are violent retards that are blaming men for their own crimes, lmao. It's definitely a scrote that's mad and tries(and fails) to blame random women for his own group's statistics.

No. 60774

>>60770
So deserved, kek, the fuck you think would happe trying to tell anons they can't trust the mods and are posting just to get people banned? Pills. You have some?

No. 60775

>>60774
The mods have proven not to be trust worthy. This is the complaints thread if people want to complain about the shitty echochamber pull 2.0 moderation team, they can. Besides why would anyone trust moderators on a gossip imageboard? Especially when they act the way they do.

No. 60776

>>60770
/w/ janny was based if this is true. You guys kept photoshopping belles asshole and pussy to make it look like wider and post normal pictures of her instead of discussing actual stuff she did wrong. It was obvious there were a few moids and fellow butthurt sexworkers spamming the thread with pornsick shit and reading through it was literal torture

Inb4 anon accuses me of being /w/ janny

No. 60778

>>60776
Nobody did that, anons were even wrongfully banned because the wk kept reeeeing and accusing posters of shooping her cooch. The wk even said her butt wart was fake like its not available online forever. Anons had to prove it wasn't shopped by posting the link to the leak sites straight from her OF multiple times. There was the wk who shopped her and Venus face to get the threads locked like once or twice though.

No. 60779

>>60778
Stop pretending it didn't happen. The same posters edited Venus's belly too. You guys are unhinged.

No. 60780

>>60779
I'm not going to infight with you when her nasty pussy pics are on the leak sites straight from the cows OF, but keep pushing your narrative like you do on every other /w/ thread you don't like

No. 60782

Would it be possible to add support for WEBP images and gifs anytime soon? It sucks to have to convert all of them to pngs when WEBPs are everywhere now.

No. 60783

>>60776
if what is true? Anyway I posted the screencap and have never posted in Belle's thread and possibly never in Venus's either, so idk what your issue is. Editgate was annoying and I don't think it was perpetrated by any normal female users of this site. Meaning, the perpetrators were either women with a weird agenda (getting the thread closed) or men trolling. This is not typical behavior for anons on LC and you know that very well. We have other SW threads and that stuff doesn't occur.

It's ludicrous to not be able to discuss moderation in /meta/ without risking a ban, and the moderation of /w/ and now /ot/ is not consistent with the rules or the rest of LC.

No. 60784

>>60780
Anons literally made before and after edits to prove retards were editing the photos. Its all over her threads and your bait is trash.

No. 60786

>>60783
There still exists the jvlog idiot trying to doxx chris and sharla and they were doing belle at the same time and we got mod confirmation several times it was the same shitposters. You're not slick. Take your band and just shut up. No one believes its anons editing shit to get threads closed. Its unhinged female posters with scrote mentality that wasted time editing assholes and fake herpes. It's all in the threads. I don't know why you're trying to even gaslight. You guys were retarded in the Sky thread too and I guarantee some are a part of the Sayafox, Nicole Eevee, and Anima threads as well.

But yeah, it's all the mean mods fault you and anons get slapped constantly with bans, sure. You guys whining about not being able to nitpick is tiring and the "don'tread then" mentality doesn't solve the non-milk shitposting problem. Anons have been laughing at you spergs offsite for months, jsyk. Way more cow behavior in unhinged anons who need to edit, doxx, and nitpick like scrotes. Honestly, does it feel good to have Belle's vag saved all over your phones as women feel good? Get help and I hope you guys keep getting bans, it's all you know how to do since you can't integrate and follow posting rules. All these replies are pure bait, but also just shows how mentality ill you posters are in the /w/ threads because you get in trouble for nitpicking so much after being told to stop for over a year now.

No. 60791

>>60786
>every anon I disagree with is the same anon
You sound just as unhinged as the anons who shit up /w/
>Anons have been laughing at you spergs offsite for months, jsyk.
I'll ignore the zoomer tier abbreviation and focus on the implication you think people on an anonymous imageboad care about what you and your friends laugh at on discord.

No. 60792

>>60786
Like most users aren't posting and nitpicking nudes in shaynas thread kek. Anyway belle has herpes and admitted it you're the same wk anon who camps in /w/ and defends the mod there all the time. Last time someone brought up belles herpes you were reeeeing and screeching about it like it's not a well documented fact. Samefagging yourself here in meta doesn't change history. All of her nasty herpes and nasty pussy and wart pics are all posted on her official OF page and other official social media profiles. There's no need to argue with you when the proof is out there. It's weird you're trying to rewrite history like this, what's in it for you?
>>60791
>I'll ignore the zoomer tier abbreviation and focus on the implication you think people on an anonymous imageboad care about what you and your friends laugh at on discord.
Kek the remaining few anons left see right through their shit

No. 60793

Farmhands could you please make it clear what racebaiting means? There has been a schizo poster active for days accusing everyone who says anything negative about Islam (you know, a religion) or muslims of being the same person and racebaiting and discriminating against muslims. Is this kind of baiting behaviour by accusing others of baiting allowed?

No. 60794

>>60786
>Get help and I hope you guys keep getting bans, it's all you know how to do since you can't integrate and follow posting rules
Said the ban evading poster who can't stop infighting kek.

No. 60795

>>60778
Girl don't pretend your fellow moid posters and prostitutes didn't photoshop her cunt so you'd feel better about your own body. You guys deserved it for enabling the pornsick anons to shit up the thread with pictures of belle edited in a way that depicted that she was "ruined" or "had a roastbeef"

No. 60797

>>60793
How many times have you and your clique posted about this topic in the last few week? Complaining about jews and muslims isn't exactly a healthy hobby. Consider going outside.

No. 60798

>>60795
You just love infighting and derailing and sperging about belles pussy you fucking weirdo. Tym. Like it's been mentioned and beaten to death, her ugly puss puss is leaked from her OF on leak sites. All anyone has to do is google it to see how pathetic and weird youre acting kek.Stop sperging about a cows pussy it's off topic we are talking about the retarded moderation try to stay on topic(ban evading Belle sperg)

No. 60799

>>60797
This must be the anon I was talking about because she makes things up about what others have said and suddenly she has added jews to the mix as well. God.

No. 60800

>>60799
Go outside

No. 60804

>>60798
Based janny.

No. 60812

Racebaiter in the tradthots thread is still going.

No. 60813

>>60798
Kek, literally making the mods job so easy

No. 60817

>>60812
Can mods ban racebaiters and redtext them more harshly? They've been derailing several threads in /snow/ and some don't get redtexted although I'm assuming they're getting banned

No. 60818

Pedoshit in /ot/

No. 60835

Wait I'm confused..how is >>60798 a belle sperg for trying to shut down this anon >>60776 who firstly brought it up and started sperging? Starting to believe the rumors that mods bait and ban regular users(ban evasion)

No. 60837

>>60817
seconded

No. 60838

>>60817
thirded

No. 60839

File: 1691211055435.jpg (107.49 KB, 874x351, Racebaitt.jpg)

Why isn't this racebait in ot banned?

No. 60840

browser keeps crashing every time i try to attach a file, i thought this was just firefox being weird but i tested it on chrome and the same thing happened. idk

No. 60843

Romanianon derailing/infighting unpopular opinions thread.

No. 60844

>>59950
Belle Delphine vendettachan is completely losing it in the "what do you really think of cows?" thread.

No. 60845

>>60844
Going on about how belle is a pedo and makes child porn. Jfc.

No. 60846

>>60844
Maybe stop baiting then, you're both insufferable and derailing the thread and I'd argue you are doing it even worse than the bellespergs, so I don't understand why only one gets banned.

No. 60847

>>60846
Samefag but please disregard that, I just saw both got banned. Too bad both seem to ban evade.

No. 60848

>>60846
Nta but what bait?

No. 60849

Please take care of the derailing in the Amerifag thread already. It's been going on for like 2 days, it always takes a millennia for infights and derails to be stopped.

No. 60850

Mods could you kindly move all the posts in the Amerifag general #5 thread about gynecological exams and pap smears to the healthcare thread on 2X and issue warnings to everyone derailing? it's getting really off topic. I assume you can move posts although it's not often suggested I think it's a nice moderation tool, sorry if I'm wrong and lolcow backend doesn't allow it. At least a moderation note directing people to the correct thread please.
Have a nice weekend thanks

No. 60851

>>60844
Don't reply to it. It'll only lose interest then, it's ban evading so mods banning it doesn't stop much. Reporting and ignoring is the best course of action.

No. 60852

>>60850
I'm sorry, but are you that sperg insisting pap smears are torture and all doctors are creeps who just want to fondle a woman's cervix?
Women's reproductive health shouldn't be exiled to 2X because you're a moid who thinks pap smears can be "self administered". Just give it up already.

No. 60853

>>60851
I haven't replied. why would I do that? I observed the train wreck and was honestly at a loss where to even start reporting so I came here because it's out of hand.

No. 60854

>>60851
oh wait sorry you weren't replying to me. oops my bad.
>>60852
no I haven't made a single post in the discussion, and if you have you should stop because you're only feeding the fire.

No. 60856

>>60852
>Making a complaint about my derailing means you're the same anon I was arguing with!!!!1!!
Some of you are just annoying and the infight should end already

No. 60859

please ban and redtext hi cow: >>>/w/304772
Clear rule violation, already reported

No. 60861

>>60859
I reported it too. Could be the mod isn't awake yet. Ngl, the way it's placed seems like clear bait, probably a setup to test the mod's "fairness".

No. 60862

>>60859
I reported it an hour after it was posted, but there are crickets from mods. This is what I mean when I say they don't ban people when it's warranted, but will show up with guns for a "nitpick".

No. 60863

>>60862
It's the weekend. The /ot/ and /meta/ mods aren't the same mods.
>This is what I mean when I say they don't ban people when it's warranted, but will show up with guns for a "nitpick"
If this isn't some ridiculous bait because you guys keep getting nitpick bans. The absurdly huge amount of mental illness coming from the Taylor posters is so fun to watch when they get the bans they deserve.

No. 60864

File: 1691261538497.png (12.39 KB, 768x324, straightbait.png)

The anons who nitpick and get banned all the time are just baiting mods, they did this before, it's not normal posters.

No. 60865

someone advertising sketchy links in /ot/

No. 60866

weird fetish stuff on /pt/, already reported but dang are y'all really wanting for jannies this badly?

No. 60867

>>60864
I don't understand what the image you posted has to do with nitpicking.

No. 60868

>>60867
It's from the Taylor thread. Anons previously baited with the kiki shtick.

No. 60869

troon chimping out and posting fetish porn + spamming on Ritard's thread because she said she's anti DIY and actually female >>>/snow/1778636

No. 60870

>>60868
You're not making any sense
Anyway it's hi cow, it should be banned. There's no discussion to be had.

No. 60871

There an anon going crazy in the real opinions thread about belle, they won't stop demanding everyone agree she's a pedo and its causing infighting now

No. 60872

>>60871
isn't the point of that thread to let people have opinions, so just don't reply to that poster's opinions maybe

No. 60873

>>60872
Yet multiple anons are telling them to knock it off. It's entered bait and infighting territory and less about an opinion, especially when it's factually wrong like Belle being a pedo when she isn't. Is summer almost over?

No. 60874

>>60873
Like it's not just you samefagging yourself kek OK. That's the opinions on cows thread so what's the issue? Why is there a sudden influx of anons back to back in a short time span, all so Gung ho to defend "ddlg and cnc play" out of the blue? That shit is disgusting.

No. 60876

>>60874
I guarantee a lot of users have tabs open for threads they lurk in.

No. 60879

>>60873
if you think so, then report and stop replying. It's not that hard. I don't care if Belle is or isn't a pedo, nor are there any "facts" one way or another unless you are her, so report and move on with life.

No. 60880

can a farmhand please take a look at the recent posts in the crystal cafe bunker thread? it seems to be taken over by baiting (or maybe a genuine schizo?)
>>>/ot/1529567

No. 60881

>>60880
Yeah guys come clean up for Uncle Sam pls

No. 60884

>>60879
Anons getting upset over shit in /ot/ like in the confession, vent or unpopular opinions thread is such cancer. How hard is it to not interact with opinions that get you worked up?

No. 60886

>>>/ot/1655876
You whores moid having lc live rent free in his head

No. 60888

Nitpicking a child just to have a reason to nitpick a child. This is less about Taylor and more of anon just wanting a reason to post non-milk about her kid, again, can anons stop posting the baby when taylor isn't involved? The thread isn't for the baby. It needs to be a rule that hes not posted without milk being involved or something, this is the only thread I see where anons purposely post minors when its not milk. >>>/w/304830

No. 60891

File: 1691343023103.png (137.83 KB, 863x622, Screenshot_20230806-192741.png)

>>60888
You're crazy, kids are posted in other threads too. I don't agree with this post but the same exact photos are on her IG. The post is talking about Taylor, not "nitpicking the kid" anyway. It's a silly post, I agree, but do we need THREE non-con posts after it?! Just report it. Why is this group of fans allowed to shit up the thread further?
>>>/w/304832
If you think it is banworthy, report it and let a mod decide. Don't spam the thread.

No. 60892

>>60891
No one likes these types of shitty posts on Taylor's thread, especially when it's nitpicking like this. In general, anons should just stop posting her kid unless it's real, unsagable milk. There's so many pointless posts surrounding the kid and it's so stale to keep nitpicking things regarding her son.

No. 60893

anyone else having some issue posting images?

No. 60894

>>60892
then report it. I don't think it is nitpicking the child but I also don't think the pic needed to het posted. Just report and don't spam the thread, is my point.

No. 60895

>>60894
I did. I came here. Stop assuming there's some samefag conspiracy going on. These threads have always called out retarded posters. That post is no exception. It's not minimodding and it's clear anons are done with the terrible quality that they are now calling it out ITT.

No. 60896

>>60895
I didn't say it was minimodding or a conspiracy. I said it's shitting up the thread uselessly. I reported the kid post and the shitty non-con whiny posts after it.

No. 60897

Can an admin get rid of the weird foot pic in the Pixielocks thread

No. 60898

>>60897
Ana chan is back >>>/w/304862

No. 60899

Seriously, any chance that non-childfree trolls can be banned from the childfree thread? Especially when their thread has in OP text that we aren't welcome there (as if we'd want to go and read about what color shit their baby crapped out that day.) Thanks so much

No. 60900

>>60852
You could have googled it and not embarrassed yourself instead of spending 2 days seething
https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/blog/self-test-makes-cervical-screening-pap-smear-even-easier

No. 60901

Romani-chan in unpopular opinions thread again, prepare for another massive derail/infight.

No. 60902

>>60901
romanianon is annoying af.

No. 60903

>>60896
Based

No. 60904

Male posting about his masturbation habits >>>/g/343604

No. 60929

File: 1691427866858.png (30.76 KB, 1303x334, Loleven.png)

Can someone collect the newfag shroom tard in vent, she's been replying to people about how stupid they are about shrooms all morning. Won't just leave and make a thread about it. Picrel is her being an idiot

No. 60935

>>60904
He's back >>>/g/343665

No. 60937

I doubt anyone can reasonably do anything about it, but I find the tradthots on the site to be infuriating. Maybe they're kiwi refugees or something. I can't think of any rules they break, so I'll just ignore them. Sometimes they seem a little baity, but again, can't really report them. Dunno. They're just annoying.

No. 60940

File: 1691493795529.jpg (614.76 KB, 928x1403, Sperg.jpg)

>>60935
Pornsick moid is now posting in 2X about us being spineless whores who enjoy porn (projection)

No. 60942

>>60940
He's back again in >>>/g/343790

No. 60943

Anons are seriously posting non-milk again after mods said to stop nitpicking. >>>/w/305246 Anon not believing she knew French isn't her being milky, its just an anon being retarded

No. 60944

>>60943
>>>/w/305258
These anons have got to be doing this in purpose, that kid is twice the age allowed to sit in the front, that's not their toddler.

No. 60947

>get put out of pasture
>yeah ok I deserved it
>mods delete post made on another board that was on topic

Wtf what is the point of doing this?

No. 60950

>>60940
It's almost impressive how it sounds like a combination of the worst spergs. The repetitiveness of romanianon and the "y'all/ppl/me when:/weirdo" twitter lingo of one of the /ot/ infighters. I wonder if it's really a moid or someone with some kind of 24/7 bpd episode.

No. 60953

>>60947
>mods delete post made on another board that was on topic
I hope farmhands won't start utilizing crystal.cafe mod tactics on here, I hate when innocuous posts get deleted just because that anon got banned for something else

No. 60956

>>60950
I was thinking that too. It's like romanianon meets pakichan.

No. 60966

File: 1691625676989.png (354.92 KB, 864x1649, Screenshot_20230808-190154~2.p…)

More shit from the /w/ janny. Posting something about a lazy moid never cooking for his family = "no one cares" on my ban page, "nitpicking" in the thread. Newsflash, janny, Tom is named in the OP and it's allowed to post about him; he and his "culture" are discussed constantly by Taylor now, including his cooking utensils. Furthermore decide what rule you think I violated, since even I don't know how this counts as "no one cares" or "nitpicking" (I hope Cerbmin takes action soon for your shit modding.) A 24h ban for… posting a question answered by the cow. What an offense.

Nice to see you or your lackey in here screaming about perceived offenses by "anons" against Taylor. Can you please go run her fanclub somewhere else?

No. 60970

>>60966
Anons have made this same nitpicking comment dozens of times. It's not funny anymore, even with a new image. Plus it's almost 4 months old. No one is a lacky, these posts are just shit. Has nothing to do with censoring discussions about Tom.

No. 60974

>>60953
Happened to me in the burritomin into shaymin era. It's when that tranny was samefagging while cycling IPs and I guess I accidentally responded in one of my posts. Got a tranny ban message and my post history from that day deleted. The retarded farmhand who did it said what I posted was "tranny adjacent" which was just me making one post to tell newfags to stop larping as radfems in the Felice fawn thread and allow the moid (her ex boyfriend) to provide the milk before marking their territory. I haven't coped any retarded bans since Cerbmin have taken the reigns though.

No. 60976

>>60966
I don't even follow Taylor's threads and even I can tell this is nitpicking.

No. 60979

>>60976
I've lost count how many times they come here and blame the mods for their nitpicking

No. 60981

>>60970
>>60976
>>60979
Nta, but can you guys explain what nitpicking is to you? I never post in cow threads, just read them, and this seems like discussing posts and lies. I feel like what goes on in the Shayna threads is nitpicking, and I almost never see anons catch a bans for that.

No. 60987

>>60981
No one needs to explain it over and over and over. The thread is very clear on what nitpicking is.

No. 60989

/ot/ jannies, please do a bit better with actually containing doghate and cathate in their respective threads. No one wants to see that and it just causes infighting. I think everyone would appreciate it.

No. 60992

>>60987
Actually, multiple anons have asked for a definition and no mod or admin ever replies. It's allowed to discuss cows in other threads so it's strange how this one cow gets special treatment.

No. 60994

>>60992
Right? >>60987 is clearly a janny, they don't even try to hide it anymore kek

No. 60995

>>60992
Nta, but nitpicking is nitpicking. It's about time it's enforced on /w/ heavily. Complaining about cooking skill for the 100th time isn't funny or new anymore.

No. 60999

>>60992
It's in the rules..

No. 61002

>>60999
No, it's not. It just says that nitpicking will get you banned, but there's no definition as to what a nitpick is. Jannies could use half the energy they use to shit up the thread defending themselves and explain what is and is not "nitpicking". Then everyone will shut up. It looks like there's a janny allocated specifically to Taylor's shit thread to stop any discussion by handing out bans, even if days have passed and the said discussion has already died out naturally.

No. 61003

>>60992
Because Taylor was lucky enough to have a fan become a Janny lol

No. 61004

>>61003
I swear you bitches have been saying taytay or belle have friends in staff for years across multiple admins

get a grip

No. 61005

Would it be too much to implement an ability to spoiler a pic after you make a post, much like how you can delete a pic after you've made a post without actually deleting the entire post? I know adminas are working on the new site but it would be highly appreciated and very useful in the meantime.

No. 61006

>>61005
You can report it as 'forgot to spoil' and a mod might do it for you and not issue you the ban, but you could also just delete it yourself and redo it all with the spoil.

No. 61009

>>60981
It used to be excessive nitpicking of a cow's appearance (going on about how big their noses are, or "nasolabial folds", saying they're obese when they are clearly thin etc.) but nowadays it's pretty much everything the one calling the nitpick isn't interested in.

No. 61010

>>61009
>but nowadays it's pretty much everything the one calling the nitpick isn't interested in
Not commenting on the Taylor situation but this is pretty accurate kek

No. 61011

File: 1691764349239.jpg (208.3 KB, 1841x906, cuntorator.jpg)

meanwhile, in the Onision thread..

No. 61012

>>61011
All those bans are valid

No. 61013

>>61010
Repetative comments about the same thing, like Tom's cooking skills, is nitpicking. It's not a hard concept, these supposed oldfag anons in Taylor's thread have said they've been on the site for years a few times they've sperged in meta, yet can't understand what nitpicking is? Sure, Jan.

No. 61014

The lolita thread has self posters saying they want to kill and torture other lolitas >>>/w/305513

No. 61015

There's an anon defending Nazis in the MTF thread >>>/snow/1879703 Based on the lack of sageing I do wonder if it's a troon who wandered in to derail. I'm the one who pointed it out originally, but I think we should try to avoid Nazi shit and I assumed original nona just did not realize.

No. 61016

could mod please consider banning use of "pooner"
it's a 4chan moid red flag and it's annoying to see it in the ftm threads
>>61011
>uses a soyjack
>"cunt"
>whinging about justified bans
>mad enough to spend time making an autistic collage about it
y chromosome detected. rope

No. 61017

>>61016
he posted the same photo (and filename) before and got redtexted. lol

No. 61021

>>61011
Based farmhands, kys xy defect

No. 61022

>>61013
that was definitely the only time anyone talked about Tom cooking lmao. You're crazy. He doesn't cook so no one even mentioned it until now.

No. 61023

>>61022
How about another good example too, the complaining about "they can't communicate" when they obviously can. The nitpicking about there being a language barrier is coming off as racist at this point.

No. 61024

>>61016
Someone, I'm guessing >>61016 posted your post and the other reply to it on /lgbt/ so it looks like there is a troon stalking this thread kek. There were terfs in the comments defending banning pooner misogyny and they got so mad they started being more misogynistic

No. 61027

please do somehing about this edgelord moid >>>/ot/1661532 >>>/ot/1661585

No. 61028

>>61027
Did you seriously come running to cry on /meta/ to everyone instead of just reporting the post and moving on. Nta but you are being really weird about this. I hope you get smacked for infighting.

No. 61029

Hi mods, just want to say the Onison thread is unreadable due to over-modding. I dont read it often and due to every post being flagged I now have to read them all to see what's worthwhile - completely defeats purpose of modding if everything is flagged

No. 61030

>>61029
Samefag, to add that one of my favourite parts of lolcow is the bans being handed out liberally which keeps it clean compared to other places, but onion thread is way too much

No. 61031

>>61029
Posting nonsense also shits up a thread. It's rather there be visible redtexts showing what not to do vs nothing labeled and anons think everything is okay to talk about.

No. 61032

>>61028
i did report the post and i didn't reeply to the moid. more than one person can think calling a rape victim a rapesock is gross.

No. 61033

>>61032
You want me to be male because I said rapesock? I have posted a lot of the content in that thread complaining about femicide. Has the site really been taken over by newfags? Wtf grow up

No. 61034

>>61033
defending your use of heinously misogynistic terms while posting "triggered feminist" memes is pretty damn scrotey ngl

No. 61037

>>61034
NTA. Her use of "rapesock" wasn't used as an insult, it was used to highlight how horrific what happened was.

No. 61038

>>61034
The memes and the behavior after that were sus. I genuinely don't believe that's a woman.

No. 61039

>>61021
Isn't it ironic that without a man, your father, you wouldn't be here?

Strange "defect", weird kitchen you're in too. Keep coping and seething, hon.

No. 61040

>>61034
>>61037
also I adore how you keep accusing eachother of being "scrotes" (stupid femcel phrase btw), bummer ain't it that you can't ever be sure on here.
How may "womyn" you guys think are actually men posing at that? They could very well even be in your moderation team.
Cope, seethe and dilate, ladies.(tinfoiling, derailing, infighting, maleposting)

No. 61041

Could we get bans back for not including a screencap when linking something? You know why.

No. 61042

>>61037
If that is the case then ‘she’ could have simply said: ‘It’s fucked up that she got raped’ instead of using a sexually demeaning term to describe a rape victim.

No. 61043

>>61037
>he said blabla
And you believed his excuse. Most of the time on this site, nonas pointed out when men tried to find loopholes to insult women, for example, saying "terf" but referring to all owmen. Things like that. This situation is not much different. He saw his chance to call a woman "rapesock" and took it.

No. 61044

>>61037
The behavior afterwards, like sending "triggered feminist" memes and calling anons "rapesock chan" for disliking it made that defense seem a little less credible to be honest.

No. 61047

>>61040
How did you find this website? Why are you posting in ot and defending Indian men and calling other anons femcels when they say they don't find Indian men attractive??? Wtf.

No. 61049

>>61047
It's a triggered moid. The post above the quoted one is also his.

No. 61053

File: 1691866191108.png (147.49 KB, 828x284, Screenshot 2023-08-12 at 14.47…)

Hey, not my post but I did notice this (almost reported it out of habit tbh). I don't think this should have a redtext, it looks more like they accidentally typed "E" in the subject field.
the post was annoying and not much of a vent but that's a separate issue, I don't think she was trying to name herself. unless I'm missing something?
>>>/ot/1662289

No. 61054

>>61053
damn, first redtext i've seen in /ot/ since 2 weeks ago. is this how to summon mods?

No. 61055

>>61054
idk. They also typed "Sa" in the email field, clearly trying to sage which isn't required for a vent so maybe they are a newfag (or maybe drunk or smoked too much weed, you know how /ot/ is…) I don't really care that they caught a ban but I don't think they were namefagging

No. 61056

File: 1691869459607.jpeg (744.1 KB, 965x1553, IMG_9788.jpeg)

>>59950
Why the fuck was this redtexted the thread asked for info and not everyone is a damn furry are mods trying to keep anons from informing others on the way shit works? This is ridiculous

No. 61057

>>61053
Maybe it’s automated? As in whenever someone puts something in the name field that isn’t Sage you just get an auto ban. The ban reason does seem weird and you’d think they would address the complaints here first.

No. 61058

>>61056
What thread is this? Furry is a very niche community and knowing the behind the scenes from someone into it is pretty useful information, imo.

No. 61059

>>61058
The stefany Lauren thread in /m/
Most anons don't know shit about the furry community this was helpful info now that she's pretending she's a fursuit maker and it's worth it to know she's likely going to scam

No. 61068

>>61059
>/m/
In /w/

No. 61070

>>61056
my bad! this was my ban and it was a mistake, I banned too quickly based on the reports without properly examining the context. the ban is now removed!

No. 61072

>>61070
>just straight up owning it
huh
neat

No. 61074

>>61070
Damn sorry for coming in so rough admin thanks for the fix and have a good day

No. 61075

File: 1691876380195.gif (52.85 KB, 220x165, IMG_5498.gif)

>>61056
>>61057
>>61058
>>61059
i appreciate you all

>>61070
pic related

No. 61076

>>61057
They do? I've never known lolcow to have any auto bans

No. 61077

>>61047
>>61049
what the hell are you talking about indian men? i literally don't give a shit who you find attractive. i'm here to complain about the shit Onision thread mod.
Given how you guys are femcels I can't even imagine how butt ugly you must be, and how horrible your personalities are. if you can't get laid while being a woman there truly is no hope left, its even worse than being a guy incel. i've seen butt ugly fat chicks get cock all the time, so obviously it must be all you, that little femcel problem you guys have. when i think of what you guys must look like i think female quasimodo meets rosie o'donnell meets fat oprah winfrey meets the personality of aileen wuornos.
how am i doing? ballpark?(this post is a triggered moid from the onision thread, please report them and move on, don't even respond)

No. 61080

we need a janny in the tradthot thread again

No. 61081

>>61080
please report the posts and be descriptive in the description.

No. 61084

I think mods should make it a thing to delete really distasteful moid posts instead of just doing red text. In the fetish thread in /g/ there is a really disgusting rapey moid post that honestly blows any weird any other anon has made out of the water and it's making anons upset. Why not delete it?

No. 61085

>>61084
you gotta share the post, dawg, name and shame please

No. 61086

>>61085
nvm I found it ew

No. 61087

hot damn, new Farmhand is killing it this evening; thank you for your service, team

No. 61090

Just want to say that I love the mods for /w/ recently. They leave up redtexts and they aren't putting up with anons saging posts just to break nitpicking and non-milk social media rules anymore (7). It's okay that a lot of these older cows no longer have big milk. The heavy moderation had to start somewhere and I'm glad since the beginning of summer its gotten so much better with certain thread closures like vendetta threads for nobody cosplayers and random thots. If a cow is milky only 2 times a year, thats okay. Most of them, besides Venus, no longer act like teens. Also the constant lamenting about why someone is a cow in threads is really old. Can that stop at some point? We don't need anons posting the bio in replies about milk from 6 years ago or more (Dakota threadl.

No. 61091

>>61084
Thank you farm hands for deleting the post!

No. 61092

Moid still lurking in /g/ making posts announcing himself and with gross reaction images, likely the one who posted the rape fantasy earlier. Can farmhands please keep an eye on him and cull his posts as he makes them? No one needs to see his shit stains on our threads. Some of his posts:
>>>/g/344352
>>>/g/344354
>>>/g/344345

No. 61093

>>61092
more of his nonsense, he's trying to use our slang now
>>>/g/344360
and this is probably him too, my spidey sense is tingling
>>>/g/344351

No. 61098

>>61092
>>61093
He's moving into /ot/, where anons are taking the bait like morons
>>>/ot/1663028
>>>/ot/1663023
>>>/ot/1663019

No. 61101

File: 1691916542421.png (206.44 KB, 864x1060, Screenshot_20230811-224456~2.p…)

So now it's 'nitpicking' (red text in thread) or 'no one cares still' (whatever that means) to discuss a cow's photograph and how the photoediting was done, with nothing negative about the cow at all. That's really weird. I said she's thin twice, that wasn't sufficient? There's a clear agenda now to get Kota's thread locked despite the completely innocuous posts about her. There are certain threads in /w/ where posting anything but praise risks copping a ban. This ban was for two days, too.

No. 61102

Please ban the obvious male from the BP thread.

No. 61107

>>61090
Ew. Is this your way of gaining karma points? Open a fanclub for the mods and praise them there (for literally doing their job).

No. 61108

>>61107
Nta, but you seem to have a problem with the mods. What is it?

No. 61113

>>61108
No problem with mods per se, but anons praising them to high heavens all over the thread for doing the bare minimum in some threads and overdoing it in others.

No. 61115

>>61101
Nitpicking her thinness. Tinfoil her arms are edited to hide how fat you think they are. Bring good milk, not dissecting boring, not heavily edited photos. Your vendetta is showing.

No. 61116

>>61107
Literally other anons thanked them.
>>61087
>>61091
Also praised the mods. This isn't new and nothing said was even wrong. You have your panties bunched up way too hard. If you hate the mods, then don't come to the site, but getting mad about anons thanking the volunteers who don't get paid, but keep retards like >>61040 in line, should be your last gripe. No1currs that you don't think they should be thanked, but you don't need to have a meltdown over it any time someone does.

>>61110

I hope all the onion posts keep getting redtexts until you guys know how to actually stay on topic. Anons literally don't know how to not act like spamming scrotes and its so embarrassing. Anons complain troons kill the site, yet regular farmers can't even follow the rules and actively degrade so many threads because they think its funny to act like scrotes. Low effort posting should always be banned.

No. 61119

File: 1691942358377.jpg (290.21 KB, 1600x1062, suicide-rope-dpc.jpg)

>>61118

No. 61120

>>61115
I literally said she was thin twice, I've never said Dakota was fat ever (not in the past, not now). I was critical of the photoediting. This is ridiculous modding. The pic is edited, and I think it does her a disservice as a model. It's so weird that you take a completely neutral post and assume some vendetta.

No. 61121

>>61101
It's clear they are discouraging the use of /w/ because they want to completely get rid of it entirely when they switch over to whatever gay platform they decide to use, they will claim that nobody uses it anymore anyways even though anytime you do you get heavily modded for no reason. It's obvious

No. 61124

>>61118
And what exactly isn't she doing for you? Seems like the redtexts are there, aren't they? Take some meds.

>>61120
You're nitpicking the photography when she herself isn't heavily edited in these. Going on about weird shadows when the flowers are at uneven hights, saturation is lowered, blues are upped.. Like, do you even know anything about photo editing? You are nitpicking. The photo isn't milk. Your critique isn't milk because she's a model and deserves her whole presence to be nitpicked at all times for the sake of discussion.

No. 61126

>>61119
Looks like you don't understand the rules, you're not allowed to just respond with a picture.
>>61124
Well yeah, now that I slapped her around a bit she finally is.
You're welcome.

No. 61127

>>61121
Waiting for the anon to come in, if they aren't ban evading already, and complain about "how is this a nitpick, mods are against me" conspiracy sperg again. No one is trying to secretly get rid of /w/. The post quality overall in multiple threads is garbage and admitting to that isn't some way to try and get threads taken down.
>>>/w/305286

No. 61129

Could the farmhands kindly unlock Lucinda's thread, please? She has returned.

No. 61130

>>61129
What's the milk?

No. 61131

>>61124
>isn't milk
it was a saged discussion post not even negative about Dakota, how about you chill? I honestly never thought I'd see the day when lolcow would ban someone for talking about how a photo looks in a saged post. I'm not responding to the rest of your bait.

No. 61132

>>61127
I don't really follow Taylor's thread, but I've been seeing it mentioned here quite often - weird. If anything, the post you linked should be banned for infighting, not nitpicking. From what I see, anon was making a point against another anon's post defending the cow over a nitpick.
Not sure how Taylor's thread looks usually, but it seems like it either gets a tons of reports or is monitored closely for some reason. Either way, anons should stop bringing every ban here. This time it was not even the anon who got banned, so totally unnecessary.

No. 61134

>>61131
Saging doesn't save you from being allowed to nitpick. Stop nitpicking about photoshop you can't even prove. Post interesting discussion points, not bitching about skinny arms being hidden in desaturated photos. You retards on /w/ can never take your nitpicking bans and shut up. Saging doesn't mean you can derail and nitpick.

No. 61136

Ban evading newfag posting proof of their own evasion >>>/to/1664047

No. 61137


No. 61155

File: 1692024924562.jpg (20.12 KB, 388x210, Screenshot 2023-08-14 075155.j…)

jannies loosen up… its a quote from a popular movie

No. 61156

>>61155
And anons wonder why threads fill so fast on certain cows. Nah, good ban. This isn't twitter.

No. 61157

>>61156
no fun allowed. only milk and serious shayna discussion.

No. 61172

>>61155
ridiculous ban for a meme quote. wtf, this isn't peer-reviewed journal of milk, we're allowed to have fun.

No. 61175

>>61157
Yeah, that's the point of redtexts. It's about time they put their foot down on Shay's thread. I barely go there, but when I have it's a fucking trash heap and the same discussion as 3 years ago with the added same nitpicks. She hasn't been interesting in so long, anons just like cropping her photos and adding reaction images like the banned post. If anons want to act like scrotes and trash up the site, maybe they should try a different site.

No. 61176

>>61172
>>61157
>wE'rE aLlOwEd To HaVe FuN
The cow boards aren't "for having fun", they are for milk and cow discussion. The post was stupid and it shits up the thread. Go to /shay/ for shitposting.
And btw bone rattling is bone rattling even if you hide it behind a "funnie meme", anachan

No. 61180

>>61175
>>61176
kek nona
>its about time they put their foot down in the shayna clifford thread. it should be serious discussions only. cow boards arent for having fun.
do you see how ridiculous you sound?

No. 61184

>>61176
boo u whore

No. 61186

>>61180
I am >>61176, >>61175 is a different person. Anons are literally complaining about being banned for shitposting in a thread that isn't for shitposting, and then complaining and calling us ridiculous when we explain you're breaking rules.
Smells like newfag in here.

No. 61188

Kind of stupid that I was banned for “racebaiting” whole talking about our immigration problem in the Canadian thread even though I didn’t mention any race at all. Personally find it a little weird if jannies immediately equate immigrants to one singular race.

No. 61189

>>61176
why hey there Debbie Downer!
I bet you get invited for every party, right?

No. 61190

>>61188
Especially when it comes to Canada. That's why you should never accept Americans as mods - too ignorant, too convinced of the superiority of 'the American way'. The cultural imperialism has had one major source for decades - the US. 'Certain types' of 'culture warriors' (you know who I mean) have not backtracked this policy - they've doubled down on it.

No. 61193


No. 61198

>>61190
ah yes because the US is famously so immigrant friendly. lol

No. 61201

>>61198
No but I understand what she’s saying—our immigration problem is much worse than most Americans realize.

No. 61204

>>61201
canada as a whole is much worse than most americans realize.

No. 61208

>>61198
The US is the most immigrant-friendly nation on Earth. You can never be deported, nobody does background checks, there are amnesties every couple of years, once you are in - you're can stay forever.

No. 61219

Why the fuck are there so many newfags in /ot/ lately? I am not hallucinating, right? First the sperg complaining about toxic yaoi ships and calling it raping the characters, there is also the retard that keeps comparing anons shitposting about murdering moids to horrorcows and taking teh internet too seriously, now there is yet another one calling people that play dating sims losers. They always call women that are into nerdy hobbies/dare to not that the internet losers too, and compare them to lolcows. It's weird.

No. 61224

>>61208
just straight up lies and delusions kek

No. 61225

>>61223
nta but we still do, even

No. 61236

>>61208
i am an immigrant to the united states so have firsthand experience with the process, what you are saying is not true.

No. 61237

>>61219
Just because someone disagrees with you or thinks you're a loser doesn't mean they're a newfag. This website has all types of anons and assuming everyone you disagree with is a retarded newfag isn't smart

No. 61238

>>61188
You probably got bannrd because there's a Canadian anon who loses her shit whenever immigration is brought up, last time she spoke about how asian immigrant babies are evil because their mothers didn't let anon pet them

No. 61239

>>61219
I've seen it too. It must be the TikTok or Twitter fags. Maybe not all of them but some of those posters really sound like they're lost.

No. 61243

>>61219
It is so unbearable. And /ot/ mod is either absent or wildly incompetent so it all gets ignored. /ot/ mod, if you're out there and actually doing something about our reports, please redtext everything. Because it is so bad lately.

No. 61244

>>61243
>please, mods, redtext all the people whose opinions I don't like!
You aren't the Queen of France. How many whining posts have you written about that conversation between this /meta/ thread and the other one? Not to mention in the /ot/ thread you posted at least 8 times strawmanning the people who disagreed with you and begging for the mods to redtext/ban them. You're more annoying than anyone else. You can't use the mods to force other people to like you.

You've written more posts complaining about losing an argument than that original poster wrote in total.

No. 61245

>>61244
>everyone annoyed at unbanned newfaggotry same person
Why are you such a newfag?

No. 61248

>>61245
Why are you spending your summer infighting on here? Don't you have something more fun to do?

No. 61249

>>61248
Why are you? It's weird that there's always someone camping out in meta to screech at anyone who dares to critique their precious moderation team

No. 61250

>>61249
I'm also critiquing them and I also believe the ot mod is having a powertrip but she probably enjoys anons seething here. Just ignore the retarded mod

No. 61251

>>61244
nayrt no one's camping out in /meta/, we come here because that's what jannies always tell us to do

No. 61252

male namefagging, hi cowing, and defending his tradthot wife in 2X's pick me thread
>>>/2X/18955

No. 61254

>>61251
That's my point. Anons are told to go to /meta/ with their issues and when they do, a certain anon like this >>61244 shows up yo defend the mods like crazy in an attempt to shut your discussion/issue down.

No. 61255

>>61252
I like how Rita/whiteglove responded when her name was mentioned, she just can't help it.

No. 61256

>>61244
Bitch, shut up and stop accusing everybody of samefagging. I was on your side until I saw you responded to ME. I'm the one who was reporting anons screeching in /ot/ and /meta/, and complimented the mods for cleaning up the threads. The reality of the situation is that we have one shitty /ot/ mod who is often absent. You're shitting up the thread and fighting with people just to argue, take your meds.

No. 61257

>>61237
There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and acting like a complete lost retard who cannot take a joke and calls women with nerdy hobbies losers in fucking lolcow out of all places.

No. 61260

Fujo-sperging should be a bannable offense outside its designated thread. It's getting fucking ridiculous

No. 61261

>>61260
Agreed, came here just to say this. Just like when we had the shota polls, can we make a poll to put in a rule to control fujosperging. No matter what thread it's mentioned in, it always causes infights.

No. 61262

>>61260
>>61261
Thirded. Constant fighting about fujoshit has ruined threads

No. 61263

Thanks for removing the weird pics in the shay thread. It felt like a moid was posting his weird fetish collection

No. 61264

>>61263
Sorry samefag I reported the post (it’s spoiled) but she/he is still posting weird hardcore nsfl porn.

No. 61265

>>>/snow/1882483
anon posted hand

No. 61271

>>61257
Playing games to pretend you have a bf isn't a hobby. I've been around for 5 years so I'm not that old but I can still state my opinion.

No. 61274

>>61262
>>61261
>>61260
I loved the fandom psychology threads, it's absolutely retarded to close them because of a fujo infight that should have been taken care of earlier by punishing both sides. The exact type of infight happened on numerous threads now, and they didn't get closed.
I definitely support making the fujo infights bannable on sight outside of the stupid fujocoomer thread because it's ruining good threads.

No. 61276

>>61274
The retarded fujocringe thread should be closed, too. All it does is give people a reason to bait.

No. 61277

>>61276
I'm all for it, but considering the moderation seems to favor fujosperg-chans by letting them bait and repeat the same shit ad nauseum in 100 threads I can't see it happening. A poll would be cool.

No. 61283

sage isn't sticking for me and i'm on mobile is this a new issue?

No. 61284

>>61283
By "sticking", do you mean you have to enter "sage" again even though you've saged before?
I'm also on mobile, and I've noticed if I stay in the thread, sage sticks, but if I open a new thread or close a tab, I have to enter it again. Maybe that's how mobile does.

No. 61285

Can a mod come wrangle the tard who won't stop sperging about fujos? She's infighting in the dumbass shit thread and accusing other anons of being "the fujo going ballistic" when someone asked what she was talking about
>>>/ot/1666900
>>>/ot/1666934
>>>/ot/1666937
>>>/ot/1666942
From how much she complains in /meta/ about the mods favoring everybody but her, I'm assuming she's also samefagging in the thread, but I wouldn't know. I wasn't even involved in whatever she was talking about, damn.

No. 61286

>>61285
took care of it

No. 61289

Can someone take care of the frazetta sped in artist salt. She keeps fighting with literally everyone and derailing it's been like this for over a day now

No. 61292

i chucked in a report for it but yeah like prev anon said, nikocado's black-hole sized anus is on there for some kind of shock value bullshit

No. 61297

File: 1692294351917.jpg (345.95 KB, 1079x1008, catbucketsoflove.jpg)

>>61286
Thanks for the quick hand last night!

No. 61298

>>61289
I wish people would stop responding to infighting baits and just report them because all it does is snowball conversations. I've had to ban both people who were arguing with each other then reporting each other. Just in the future, don't even respond to baits and infighting just straight up report them and be descriptive on the reason.

No. 61300

>>61298
nta, but you right and I'm sorry I made shit worse when I did
it is pointless to engage, I know that, and I won't anymore; I get frustrated because I can't get rid of them, I can only guess that's why most people do it probably

No. 61301

>>61300
don't feel too bad about it. It's frustrating when we can't do mod actions right away when it's happening and people are heated. But trust me, we go through every single report. It might not be instant or even within that hour or two but it DOES get handled.

No. 61302

I think someone's baiting in the celebricows thread about a recent topic. It seems like almost every time Sam Taylor-Johnson's relationship is mentioned it triggers infighting with someone who starts acting as if anyone who dares to speak against her aren't also upset about the scrotes who go after young women. Whoever it is, is now making assumptions involving Johnny Depp and I'm sick of the infighting about it

No. 61303

>>61301
I guess at this point I'm shooting the shit with you kek, but I'm nostalgic, and I remember how frustrating it was when like, you don't have authorization on a board that's getting spammed, but you're online, so you just have to sit there and watch it like, welp
I know you guys are hard at work, it really shows. I think long-timers can tell there's a new shift beginning
I think a lot of users don't realize how much of an issue timezones cause a small, mostly single-language staff

No. 61304

>>61302
Thread is currently being watched and a warning was posted.
>>61303
We appreciate the comments. It can be frustrating for sure but our team is growing and becoming well rounded in terms of timezones so hopefully it'll only get better.

No. 61305

>>61304
Thank you for the prompt action! I'll admit I participated in responding to the anon since the baseless assumptions were aggravating, I'm grateful it can be stopped now.

No. 61310

File: 1692324916257.png (11.62 KB, 1813x94, lol.png)

??? I would like an explanation for this?

No. 61311

>>61310
Maybe the all caps lol did you not get a ban warning or anything ?

No. 61313

>>61310
I did not get a ban warning or maybe I did but since I am using a different device (and IP) I never got it, could be the caps, however I was simply "yelling" into the Stupid Question thread for an answer of a song.

No. 61316

The tradthots thread on /snow/. Need I say more? I see more posts from seething radfems that are generally angry at the entire world that women choose to have children with all or with men (even saying women mutilate their bodies with children) than actual discussion about cows. It's turned into another thread where the regulars are cows.

No. 61317

>>61310
Your ban message was
>STOP POSTING IN CAPSLOCK AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

No. 61318

A newfag named Reagan made a thread in /g/ >>>/g/345207

No. 61320

Either a troll thread or just a dumb newfag that made a thread about being intersex in /snow/ >>>/snow/1883692

No. 61323

MAP flat poster on /m/

No. 61324

now he's on snow

No. 61326

>>61323
using the term "map" obfuscates the gravity of this shit: some retard is spamming pedo soyjak trash

No. 61331

File: 1692377276710.png (272.38 KB, 752x909, Jannie Can U Hear Me.png)

One of the Shayna farmhands requested we pass this example of their shit modding along to /meta/ on their behalf. Any senior mods who know what they're doing able to shadow them until they get a hang of things?

No. 61333

>>61331
Stop crying because you got told off. Shayna mod is right, that thread is full of derailing. "But that was the scrote who caned Shayna, it's on topic!!" Okay and he was already ID'd and discussed upthread, we don't need to keep coming back to him just to talk about how much you don't like him. This is a /snow/ thread, not a chatroom.
Thank you, mod, you were right. This thread needs more quality control and you're delivering.

No. 61334

>>61331
prob wouldnt have gotten redtexted if you left out your caption
jannies dont like words like 'i' or displaying any emotion. integrate or keep getting redtexted i guess

No. 61335

>>61333
The over enthusiastic mod needs to learn to understand context. The point was his reply to Shayna's comment in which he was tagged. Not his ID. Also, Shay mod should know about the importance of The Lone Star Party.

No. 61336

File: 1692383348144.png (135.97 KB, 2794x450, 6f9ef376-86b0-4ea9-ab4d-8fe437…)

Lolcowsisters… how do we come back from this?(shit-tier bait)

No. 61338

>>61335
Then maybe her caption should have said something about that instead of just seething.

No. 61340

>>61331
im on your side nona. the shay mod is banhappy.
theres an asslicker in here who hates fun and will defend any ban no matter how retarded it is

No. 61341

>>61340
Or maybe you should learn how to follow the rules, and go to /ot/, /shay/, and other non-cow boards for "fun". I can tell you're the other "no fun allowed" sperg who also got banned for not knowing when to knock it off.

No. 61342

>>61341
you’re a genuine retard

No. 61343

>>61338
It was obvious to anyone reading the thread. Maybe the mods should start actually reading the threads they moderate?

No. 61344

>>61335
Nta, but he's already been talked about. There's no reason to keep bringing him up when he isn't milky anymore. This is just a reason, obviously, for anons to post shit about him and spam his images. Don't pretend mods are dumb enough to not see the obvious baitposting and shitposting. Take your bans and stop shitting up threads.

No. 61345

>>61343
it's clear at least a couple just ban anything they don't personally like or their friend(s) don't personally like. I've seen some bizarre red texts lately, often even if the post might warrant a ban, the redtext is flat wrong as to why.

And god this "no fun on cow boards" is the latest nail in the coffin here. That banner of Kiki with bugs crawling over her bald head? Was first an animation posted in her thread. on a cow board. All the proof of Stefany's Photoshop and the collages of her face would cop bans today. For what? Who knows, jannies would find a way.

The one place I see decent modding is in Pixielocks' thread, which had been taken over by blogging medfagging posters. So thanks for that I guess. The rest I don't thank you for, it feels like you don't want people to post at all, weird attitude to have on an imageboard.

No. 61346

>>61345
Can you post these bizarre redtexts you are seeing?
Tbh the culture of lc has changed over time, whether anons like it or not. We have a banner thread to post in now. I think mods are doing their best to clean things up from summerfags and shaymin. Personally, I've seen a marked improvement in moderation over the past week.

No. 61348

>>61344
He is currently interacting with Shayna. He wants to have another session with her. Are you a janny or white knighting a janny? I didn't post that screenshot. I'm here to comment a bizarre redtext. How about you take the L.

No. 61349

File: 1692395263432.png (213.8 KB, 864x1014, Screenshot_20230818-234859.png)

>>61346
sure, here's one. The ban should be for not sageing. Bumping a thread after three days isn't necromancy.

No. 61350

>>61331
lmfao and shayna is literally in the photograph

No. 61351

File: 1692395632223.png (290.51 KB, 716x1228, Screenshot_20230808-102730.png)

>>61346
regardless animations and jokes in the form of art were always acceptable in cow threads as long as they weren't annoying. The pics of Aly_realrecover with croissants photoshopped everywhere were genuinely hilarious in a way I can't even explain.

Anyway here the janny messed up, but this "missing the point" anon pops up in other threads. Interesting that other people get days of bans but this weirdo gets 6 hours, tops, for her derails.

Unfortunately the two that came to mind are in Kota's thread but there are others. These aren't my bans or arguments either.

No. 61353

File: 1692396143394.png (636.54 KB, 864x1627, Screenshot_20230819-000035.png)

>>61346
some judgment should have been usef here because this anon is paying for the patreon streams and recapping them for people who don't want to listen to Jill for half an hour or more. This is useful and informative milk, doesn't need to be punished with a ban for not sageing, but whatever. It just seems like some mods don't even read the threads or context. especially in /w/ but it's starting to pop up in /snow/ and is a huge issue in /ot/. I saw some racebait ban recently that wasn't deserved at all. Can't remember where but it was speaking negatively about having to endure racist n-word jokes by moids while streaming.

No. 61354

>>61333
>>61344
All you are doing is proving you are just as inept to comment on the situation as the braindead shaymod who is too lazy to even read the thread they’re in charge of monitoring. This was new milk. Shayna got caned and things went too far, the bruises this man inflicted (and is proud of) caused Shayna and her friend to lose work at the con and now she cant post on OF until the bruises are gone. Shayna had tagged him on a picture of her bruises saying “shout out to @scrote i guess”. And then this >>61331 nonnie gets banned just for posting his response back to Shayna (which hadnt been posted yet) with the reasoning being “off topic/derailing” Huh?! Its milk because the scrote doesnt give a shit he inflicted pain that had serious repercussions on two women who trusted him, he isn’t showing any remorse in tweet which is milk, and he is also implying Shayna may be going to the Lone Star Spanking Party - which was one the hugest sources of milk last year for the Shayna threads as its where she met her ex Shane who ruined her life for several months. That mod either really sucks at their job or had a vendetta against the poster. Not a justified ban at all and them not defending it proves that. No one cares about the reasoning of some asslicker thinks they know how the mods thinks, especially one who doesnt even understand the context and relevancy either, and hates clearly just hates fun >>61341 kek. If want us to have thick skin and just “be told off” than so should mods when they’re clearly in the wrong. whats the point of “take it /meta/“ when nothing happens when you do? several people clearly agree the modding in the shayna thread needs work.

>>61338
If seeing moid hate and scrote bashing upsets you than im afraid youre in the wrong place. the snake eye’d fuck doesnt give a shit he took advantage of two women and now theyre out of work. the hate was justified based on what he said in his tweet.

No. 61355

>>61349
This was my ban, the full ban message is
>reviving the thread just to make an obvious statement that's been done for years
Threads about legacy cows are often filled up by newfags who only recently found the thread, repeating the same old obvious statements we've been circling through for over half a decade. Bumping with no milk when the thread isn't even currently active is necromancy.
>The ban should be for not sageing.
Even if saged the post would have been a non-contribution.

No. 61356

Can mods do something about the tards who won't stop fighting in unpopular opinions over a post they didn't even bother reading correctly
>>>/ot/1669142
>>>/ot/1669145
Nowhere was it specifically said that the "misogyny" comes from rap music. The op was comparing the double standards of callout culture; outwardly misogynistic lyrics vs the nword being used casually in music. Fucking spergs

No. 61357

>>61356
And now the racebaiters are awake kek this was bound to happen with that post

No. 61358

Scrote in Shoe thread crying about posters.

No. 61361

>>61276
>5 year going thread should be banned
No, blend better.

No. 61362

>>61355
I agree but I wouldn't exactly define 3 days ago as an inactive thread, maybe a week or two.

No. 61363

>>61345
I report in those threads too, anon, and I am not a janny friend. Take your meds.

No. 61366

>>61345
>no fun on cow boards" is the latest nail in the coffin here
Only because there's no interesting threads posted anymore. If we had quality lolcows to draw more anons to the site the increased moderation wouldn't matter, people would just integrate instead of fucking off somewhere else. Unfortunately (with a few exceptions) there's not much reason to visit this this place anymore. For example /w/ was absolutely rife with newfaggotry before the increased moderation and now it's almost completely dead instead of having less posts of a higher quality.

No. 61368

>>61366
Also those cows on /w/ don't do much. Random posts about a cows appearance isn't milky. Newfags need to leave if they can't handle new mideration. Remember last summer when /w/ was a disaster because anons vendettas had ridiculously infested the site? I'd rather it be slower with quality posts. Its okay that cows on w don't get many updates because most of them don't even have lolcow activity anymore. They are boring.

No. 61371

>>61368
The moderation is shit and makes no sense

No. 61372

>>61368
keep up, it isn't just /w/, and did you really just samefag 4 times in a row?

>>61355
The thread was already "revived" when Dakota started posting again and farmers discussed it. So then ban for unsaged non-con, but banning for necromancy makes zero sense. I wouldn't even say a couple weeks is necromancy, more like months. Some cows don't have as much content rn but once they do post again, it's not a crime to post about it in their thread.

True necromancy and vendetta can be found in Yumi King's thread, which literally shits on a mom who isn't doing cringe videos anymore or exploiting her kid's face, but those misogynists never get banned for anything. Why not? I know I am not the only person who reports weird aggro vendetta there.

No. 61373

>>61372
>why not?
You gotta be shitting me lmao

No. 61375

Possible underage newfag posted a vendetta thread in /ot/ about her married dad's ex girlfriend. >>>/ot/1669412

No. 61376

>>61361
Nta but if the fujo cringe thread kept the same spirit it had for the first 3-4 years of it's existence I'd have zero problems with it, it was a great and silly thread up until a certain point imo. Right now it attracts a cancerous audience.

No. 61377

>>61376
Hoes mad

No. 61378

Soyjack thread in /ot/ >>>/ot/1669492

No. 61381

>>61260
I agree.

No. 61382

Clean this up >>>/ot/1669492

No. 61388

>>61368
I just used /w/ as an example anon, I'm not advocating for letting them run rampant, but outlining the unfortunate reality staff are met with when enforcing the rules nowadays. I'm not commenting on the general discussion atm either which way but pointing out if there were noteworthy, active, weeb cows posted there, the board would be healthy regardless of increased moderation. That was my point if it wasn't already obvious.

No. 61396

Autist neet, likely a tranny, derailing tradthot thread.

No. 61397

>>61396
Samefag, I assume it is the same guy who always tries to derail the thread to have it banned and seethes about women who don't want kids and career women >>>/snow/1861214

No. 61398

>>61396
Considering the wojack post being the same as the one in the image thread in /m/ I wonder if he’s the one that keeps posting racebait and unfunny moid memes
>>>/m/316086
>>>/m/314259
>>>/m/315853
>>>/m/314257
>>>/m/314258

No. 61399

>>61398
It's possible.

No. 61400

>>61397
Samefag again, but he also brought up AI the last time he derailed >>>/snow/1861706 and claimed that anons were coping >>>/snow/1860886 (his post was removed so heres referencing it) and pretended to be a fujoshi >>>/snow/1861707 kek. He literally posts the same retarded bait every time. Why does he think it isn't noticeable?

No. 61401

>>61400
It also started sperging about men being inventors kek >>>/snow/1861899

No. 61402

>>61398
Ew yeah I thought those were weird. Funny how you can smell male retardation not even a mile away

No. 61405

the tradthot threads are dogshit and are barely watched by jannys
there's always some retarded off topic infighting and non milk nitpick posts whats even the point of that thread tbh

No. 61412

The tranny is ban evading in the tradthot thread and now seething about the jews calling them "Shekelstein" >>>/snow/1884876 and shit.

No. 61413

File: 1692511896507.png (177.55 KB, 1949x1196, schooling.PNG)

>>61412
Samefag but it really highlights how delusional men are that they hate women being independent so much they will samefag for 7 hours straight reeing about women in the workforce and women in education being bad to try and get a thread banned because they can't compete and women with independence have the option to avoid incel trannies. Stay malding faggots.

No. 61422

Someone is spamming the same gross pic of their (don’t hate me) very ugly vagina in the /shay/ board threads. I know it’s a stupid hidden board but it’s prob that gross gore posting or lavarock anon baiting and I’m tired I just wanna have fun in the dumb shay threads reeee kek

No. 61423

>>61422
an actual anon is?

No. 61424

>>61423
Not sure if it’s the unhinged “wetchan” poster or some moid using a girl’s pic but it looks like the same person who posted “their” vag last month or whatever. It was in 3 or 4 threads spoilered with no caption.

No. 61425

>>61424
Samefag, just checked and now they’re posting it with no spoiler. It’s gross and weird and I hate whoever is doing it.

No. 61428

>>61425
There was that recent cringy shay poster who was posting the weird bdsm porn and going "erm why do you guys always think its moidz I'm one of you", could be her kek.

No. 61429

>>61428
The one who posted hand? Kek

No. 61430

>>61428
Yeah that’s exactly who I think it is. The one who posted that nasty shit and tried to act like it was on topic and that we are all retards for not appreciating her posts.

No. 61431

File: 1692552141477.png (80.64 KB, 2356x383, Screenshot 2023-08-21 032003.p…)

Noticed a few of these retarded ban messages in the luna thread but this one stood out.
>ban message responds to the bait
>bans someone else because 'obvious bait'
inb4 someone thinks I'm either of these anons.

No. 61432

>>61366
/w/ was always a weird choice if not just a mistake. If it was merged back into /snow/, nothing would be lost. Anons who questioned it back when it was first suggested were right, it didn't have enough activity to keep it going.

No. 61433

>>61431
A mod responding to obvious bait is the most retarded thing I’ve seen.

No. 61435

>>61433
Wait for wk anons to ride in with a frothing mouth to defend jannie-chan lol. It feels like mods stopped reading the threads before banning a post. Too many weird bans lately.

No. 61439

>>61431
This farmhand had better handed herself a 6 hour ban for taking the bait after this kek

No. 61440

Board where men are allowed to post when?(moid)

No. 61441

>>61435
Sounds like anons want "no fun allowed" from mods. You get what you give.

No. 61442

>>61440
Why?

No. 61443

>>59950
incel scrots, failed male trannies returned to tradthots thread

No. 61445

Suggestion: Make the report box bigger, sometimes multiple rules are being broken and I can't say them all because the text gets cut off.

No. 61446

Hi cowing any anons they don't like in the Dakota thread >>>/w/306031

No. 61447

Scrote reeing about childfree women in ftm thread >>>/snow/1885531

No. 61450

>>61446
it's not hi cow to say you suspect Ostrengas, tbh. They were here before.

No. 61452

>>61446
Why do you even care anon, the Ostrengas were proific selfposters? That anon isn't singling anyone out specifically and saged their opinion. Idk if its intentional, but complaining here over such innocuous shit is just feeding into (what you perceive to be) that anon's delusion.

No. 61453

>>61441
get over it anon jfc theres a difference between having fun and making jokes while staying relevant to the thread topic of discussion and taking obvious bait.

No. 61454

Same tard is spamming all the /shay/ threads with the weird ugly vag pic and trying to start idiotic fights. It’s prob a moid or tranny, I refuse to believe a woman is this pathetic but then again idk. I’m sick of seeing the ugly gross pic can they be perma-banned ugh sorry for sperging

No. 61455

>>61452
No one is self posting in that thread. In turn that then becomes tinfoil rather than hi cowing.

No. 61456

>>61454
Knowing how female farmers would edit Belle's vagina, you have a lot of trust in how far farmers will go to make fun of a cow.

No. 61457

>>61456
Kek ok u got a point there.

No. 61458

>>61457
Can't imagine editing photos of a cows genitals. The nonnie who's doing it should be embarrassed. I'm actually shocked how anons refuse to believe they participate in scrote-tier behavior.

No. 61459

>>61455
it's really not tinfoil to speculate that Ostrengas want to shut down Ostrenga threads. You clearly weren't here when Kiki was trying to achieve that.

No. 61460

>>61445
I've noticed the report box at the bottom of the page, for some reason accepts a lot less text than the report box on posts

No. 61462

The dumbass shit thread is kind of a mess right now: strange spam about a twitch chat/some streamer/video game (?), someone posting lol over and over, infighting about having children.

No. 61463

>>61459
Yet the context is anons saying she's boring and all the bans are due to nitpicking or fighting. Not really their MO. Yeah, its shit tinfoil.

No. 61464

>>61462
Yes, that and the same childfree/mother infight is happening in the FTM thread, it's obviously bait and people are falling for it.

No. 61465

dumbass shit thread be wilin, probs a moid. sorry for entertaining it I drank too much dumb bitch juice (at birth until now) sorry farmhands and nonas xx love u

No. 61466

>>61462
Thanks for the cleanup jannies

No. 61467

>>61466
shit that was quick, thank you farmhands

No. 61468

>>61463
lmao go read the spergchan archives, exactly their MO

No. 61469

>>61468
Asserting it makes it less believable, considering the same anons have come from the Taylor threads from how they complain about the bans, same blaming mods attitude. It's not the family. This bait is worthless.

No. 61471

kpop containment thread needs to return now that choa chan has been nuked

No. 61472

>>61471
Wtf no.

No. 61473

>>61469
Many people think Dakota, a cow from the very beginning of this imageboard, deserves a thread especially since she is posting more now. This is not a controversial or niche opinion.

No. 61475

>>61471
Just because your site full of underage retards exploded due to retardation doesn’t mean we have to host you here.

No. 61478

>>61469
Bait is subjective. You could argue the anons complaining every time she's discussed in her own thread, (especially given the history), are also baiting and causing infighting which is just as worthless. Btw it's ridiculous to assume every anon that doesn't share your opinion is the same, or from a specific thread ect.

No. 61479

>>61475
Seconding this. We need to stop hosting kiwifags and kpoppies here. They always shit up every other thread on this godforsaken website, and worse, they tend to linger and infest our community in the process. We need to let them know they're not welcome here.

No. 61481


No. 61482

>>61479
Kiwifags have been infesting recently and you can tell when they post.

No. 61484

Derailing + bait reeing about women not wanting kids in ftm thread.

No. 61485

>>61473
No one said she doesn't. Anons have said when the thread fills its not worth it. Half the thread is lamenting ffs. That's also against the rules.

No. 61486

>>61471
don't you guys already have a new one? heoulkek.cafe or however it's spelled

No. 61487

Please cull the rape fetish posts in /ot/ they read like moid bait

No. 61488

>>61487
it's called shitposting nona. why is it now suddenly a problem but not all the other times similar posts were made in previous dumbass threads, previous vent threads, etc

No. 61489

>>61488
Nta but because since anons are tired of it. Not wanting the site cleaned up is such a red flag.

No. 61490

>>61489
If everything got banned just because someone was tired of it the whole site would be empty, it's not breaking any rules. It's called the dumbass shit thread for a reason. I'm tired of seeing relationships rants outside the vent thread, why don't we clean up those too?

No. 61491

>>61490
Newfags are insufferable, not being able to scroll past something in /ot/ that doesn't appeal to you is "such a red flag" kek.

No. 61493

>>61441
lmao way to prove them right.
>>61468
For real. It's been an open secret since the spergchan reveal that whenever keeks or koots threads get attention, the ostrengas come back and try to derail it. Starting to wonder about the anon arguing it's def not them.
>>61491
tbf /ot/ has a history of terminal cancer

No. 61496

some retard moid in /shay/ is posting unsaged unspoilered nsfw to ever thread. he seems to be camping the board and reposting pics

No. 61498

Explain yourself, mods. Reading the title of the thread is too hard for you?
>>>/m/316252

No. 61499

>>61485
>Anons have said when the thread fills its not worth it. Half the thread is lamenting ffs. That's also against the rules.
Hi! YOU saying Dakota shouldn't have a new thread after the current one is filled isn't "anons." It's literally just you. hth

No. 61500

>>61499
Summerfag, please take a seat.

No. 61502

>>61498
The TIF/fujo art styles get brought up/pointed out frequently, I'm also not sure why that post counts as derailment.

No. 61503

>>61498
Mods should make “low quality post” or “manure post” red text for these bans. It’s not necessarily derailing but it’s a worthless, waste of space kind of post.

No. 61504

>>61503
>it’s a worthless, waste of space kind of post.
Nta but I don't see how it's that either when the post she responded to said "this type of style, i don't know how to describe it", so the reply is basically saying what the art style is.

No. 61505

>>61503
It's an /m/ thread and it's literally related to the post it's replying to.

No. 61506

>>61503
Are you a summerfag or how else have you never seen a "non-contribution" ban?

No. 61507

>>61506
Nta but I've only seen them in cow threads. In boards like /m/ no one really cared until recently.

No. 61509

>>61507
M isn't immune.

No. 61511

And now the dakota thread is devoled intomassive lamenting, derailing about oldmilk, and reposting old photos. We have old threads for all this.

No. 61512

>>61511
no one is lamenting, why do you care about an Ostrenga thread anyway?

No. 61514

>>61506
nta but there are plenty of replies all over the boards that are just "kek" "agree" "based" etc yet are not banned even if they're actual non-contributions

No. 61516

>>61514
yeah I agree with this, it's so poorly defined and enforced that the bans often don't mean anything at all.

No. 61517

People weightsperging and infighting in celebricows thread. Starting to wonder if any LDR discussion should even be allowedm because it almost always results in sperging

No. 61518

>>61514
Not all bans are redtexts. Also if anons don't report all posts they see, it most likely won't get banned. Replying to anons as if they are in a chatroom has always been non-contribution bans.

No. 61520

>>61518
>Replying to anons as if they are in a chatroom has always been non-contribution bans.
Not in /m/, /ot/, or /g/ no

No. 61521

>>61520
If it's been an ongoing issue that its been filling up threads on those boards uselessly and quickly, then yes. Probably cracking down on it then.

No. 61523

>>61521
>Probably cracking down on it
Good.

No. 61526

Hey, can a janny come ban the retard who is spamming dumbass shit with copypasted messages from a stream?
>>>/ot/1673775
>>>/ot/1673792
>>>/ot/1673804
They've been deleting a lot of them, too. I guess it could be a creative writing exercise, but they're coming in too fast. It feels like a bot is in the thread talking over anons.

No. 61527

>>61525
Seconding this. Non contribution bans make sense in the main boards but not in the off topic ones. Especially because there's a bunch of noncontributory posts in those boards so there's no way that rule could be enforced fairly. Idk what's with this trend of trying to turn the off topic boards into cow boards.

No. 61534

>>61518
>not all bans are redtexted
It's an absolutely idiotic moderation policy that cerbmin should abolish already.

No. 61538

>>61534
If not that we need a public page with all the bans. Lolcow.farm/bans

No. 61540

>>61538
Plus a way to report the mods who think they can act god here and ban people they dislike or drooling retard mods who ban people for nothing without even looking up the thread like the tardmod here: >>>/meta/61498

No. 61543

File: 1692794536865.png (869.45 KB, 1326x1330, 084349.png)

>post links
is this mod on fucking crack?

No. 61546

>>61543
What the fuck is going on with the moderation lately

No. 61549

>>61546
They’re too busy taking bait on ot to read posts properly + severe schizophrenia

No. 61556

Can a janny please start redtexting obvious newfaggotry on the Art/Salt thread in /ot/? It's impossible to post anything negative about artists/trends anymore without some kiddie jumping out to say ''ummm ackshually there are children dying in africa you are just jealous xoxo'' even though the thread is made to discuss art bullshit. It's so annoying.

No. 61558

>>61549
Some insubordinate janny is using AI instead of reading posts.

No. 61559

>>61543
Without saying it, you basically a-logged. Saying cows need to be put down, the fuck is wrong with you?

No. 61560

>>61543
That post deserved to be banned for multiple reasons, not that hard to see

No. 61561

>>61556
Looks like genuine discussion and commentary to me, aside from a few posts crying about newfags ruining the thread (and not art).

No. 61563

>>61559
>>61560
not the poster, and the issue is the mod asking for links to reddit, which isn't something anyone does on an imageboard. not complaining about the ban specifically.

No. 61565

Can something be done about the ranceanon avatarfagging and sperging out in /ot/, the thread looks like it’s been getting derailed for hours with other anons goading it
>>>/ot/1675121

I swear if any of you ever join the BL discord if’s the anons they’re always causing shit here when they don’t get their way, it started after the shota ban drama happened.

No. 61567

>>61561
they are trying to moralfag about what you should or shouldnt post about

No. 61571

>>61563
Doesn't matter what the link is, anon. You need to post links too. No1currs if it is or isn't reddit. So many websites link reddit. This isn't going to suddenly cause a bunch of scrotes to come to the lolita thread. Sounds like the poster went out of their way to just post a nitpick and no milk at all. Couldn't even follow posting rules like saging.

No. 61580

>>61571
I've only seen a requirement to post links in the OP of cow threads. So if you post a screenshot, you're fine. It's an imageboard. Didn't you have a huge tantrum about reddit, scrotes, and the jvlog thread?

No. 61582

>>61580
It's always been required to post links to milk if it's outside and when anons don't post it like the comments they mentioned.

No. 61585

>>61582
It's honestly so cancerous when anons don't. It's like you're the one trying to discuss milk but posting and won't even link to it I don't understand.

No. 61588

>>61580
It's a general, of course links need to be posted when a new cow is introduced, who ever said we don't link to reddit? Did you miss all the threads where anons comb through reddit post histories of cows and link to their burner accs?

No. 61590

Any image I try to post keeps giving me "failed to resize" error and it's ruining muh posts, help

No. 61591

>>61580
Take your meds, more than one anon lurk on /w/. Posting links isn't new and is in the rules for continuing discussions.

No. 61599

Can a farmhand come take a look at the burgerfag thread on /ot/? There's a lot of weird covid conspiracy and antivax stuff. One poster was talking about how trauma unlocks a part of your brain that can see things others can't, and that's why schizos are basically prophetic. The tinfoilers have basically taken over the thread for the past two days and I think they should be redirected to… the tinfoil thread.

No. 61609

>>61599
>One poster was talking about how trauma unlocks a part of your brain that can see things others can't, and that's why schizos are basically prophetic.

HOLY KEK the delusion is thick with these schizoid conspiracyfags…

No. 61612

>>61599
>One poster was talking about how trauma unlocks a part of your brain that can see things others can't, and that's why schizos are basically prophetic
Today I've been ignoring the discussions in that thread, but holy shit I need to read this.

No. 61635

The britbong thread is full of poltards.

No. 61636

>>61599
Yes idk if they can do anything about it but the thread is completely overrun with 1 or 2 tinfoilers that will not stop talking about doom and gloom economy collapse covid vaccine cannibal pedo NWO shit, and they’re pissy that their posts don’t get enough replies when they just make the same talking points over and over again about horrible it is to exist (hint: no one wants to talk to you).

No. 61640

I don't know how I abused reports, but I appreciated the forced vacation.

No. 61641

>>61635
/ot/ is increasingly poltarded these days unfortunately

No. 61642

>>61640
You ban evaded anyway, so doesn't matter

No. 61643

Is there a tranny on the mod team? Have we been infiltrated? I think it's likely seeing bans like this:
>>>/m/317483

No. 61645

>>61643
Anon, please chill the fuck out. Sis has been used to refer to other FEMALE anons in otome/josei/bl threads on other image boards for some time now. It’s a joke. It doesn’t mean sissy or whatever trans phrases running rent free in your head.

No. 61650

>>61645
What other image boards? 4chan, which has gone full on tranny dick-sucking (you can get banned if you use the word 'tranny' or even mention 'tranny jannies'). I'm 100% sure anybody who uses 'sis' on 4chan is a tranny.

No. 61651

>>61650
I think you need to touch some grass if you’re spending so much time on 4chan and lolcow that a bunch of other posters in a thread for a female dominant hobby referring to themselves as sis or ____sisters is enough for you to have a meltdown about trannies.

No. 61654

>>61590
Can you please email one of the images you are trying to post to admin@lolcow.farm so we can use it to figure out the issue?

No. 61661

The host is being a piece of shit right now and idk why

No. 61662

>>61661
Samefag, it’s even worse when I’m literally making a thread rn and I don’t want it to get taken down.

No. 61666

I don't know why it even started in the first place but sperging about Sydney Sweeney's nipples are getting out of hand on Celebricows.

No. 61670

>>61666
what on earth is going on in that thread because it seems suspiciously scrote like in there.

No. 61673

Can a janny clear up what's appropriate behavior in the celebricows thread and whether the requests made in >>>/ot/1676491 and >>>/ot/1676827 were reasonable because to me like >>61670 said it sounds so scrote-y in there and it feels weird reading comments defending it.

No. 61693

File: 1693049328084.jpg (77.8 KB, 930x223, Screenshot_20230826_131742_Sam…)

>>61670
There's a huge amount of gay scrotoids in these threads, spewing gross misogynistic stuff and nitpicking womens bodies for hours on end.
They think they're ~one of the girls~ and could blend in perfectly but in reality :

> Boomer-tier dragqueen/twitter reaction gifs

> Yum ! [insert random scrote] is so twinky ! Someone know where I can find his nudes/dick pics ?
> Some celebriscrote is an abuser ? Who cares ? It's boooring!
Let's talk about neurolabial folds and refrigerator bodies! Now that's milk !
> Gurl ! Delulu! It's giving…ya'll, where's the tea ?
> Trump-Kun
> And, besides gay moids, who's that obsessed with LDR, Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift ?

And they're now leaking onto other threads (look up the last unpopular opinion one) and shitting up /ot with their idiotic takes.
They're no better than troons regarding the invasion of female spaces and I hate them.
Wish that thread were nuked, or put on autosage for quite some time.

No. 61704

>>61693
>Let's talk about neurolabial folds and refrigerator bodies
You think this is a gay moid thing? This is a lolcow thing.

No. 61705

Sorry for ban evading to post this (I swear usually I just wait it out and don't use a vpn often anyway) but I get automatically permabanned when I try to upload images to /ot/?

No. 61707

can we have like a dueling law regarding in fights. you both get two posts each to duel it out and anything after that gets a ban

No. 61709

>>61705
same autobans in shay thread

No. 61710

>>61705
same happened to me in the husbando thread, the fact that there was no reason given really shocked me kek glad it's probably hopefully? an error

No. 61713

>>61710
What was your post? Most bans are self explanatory and don't need to give a reason.

No. 61716

>>61705
>>61709
>>61710
ok so it probably is a bug at this point
>>61713
>Most bans are self-explanatory
how is a permaban with no reason given or supposed offending post linked self-explanatory? Personally I just wanted to post a funny picture of a gnome in the retarded shitposting /ot/ thread and I don't think the husbandofag anon intended to post anything rule breaking either.

No. 61718

>>61713
it was a photo related to shayna that didnt break any rules. it doesnt even give you a chance to post. if you hit “new reply” with a file attached you just get an alert saying you were banned then it goes to the regular page where it says its permanent and no reason is given. so its obviously an automated glitch where the mods arent involved or even aware. why dont you try an upload a safe image on this board if you are so confident its a user error kek

No. 61720

i dont use lolcow without a VPN (thats just dumb) so I cant test this theory but I’m wondering if cloudflare had some update and is just automatically banning any VPN users who attach an image.

No. 61721

The site said I'm banned for an unspecified reason, but when I tried to appeal it claimed I'm not banned and I'm apparently able to post still, and yet I get redirected to farmcow.lol when trying to access the site. Am I banned or not?

No. 61723

The glitch that was causing the autobanning as been fixed and every ban has been reversed. Apologies for the issue, it was caused by a bug in an anti-raid function that we use.

No. 61728

>>61720
This site is on thin ice for using Cuckflare. They can pull out the plug at any time, for no reason (other than 'hate'), like what happened to KF.

No. 61732

>>61705
Omg, thank you for posting this anon. I got a permaban with no reason after posting a gecko pic and then I realized that no one else was posting images for like 3 hours after so I thought I somehow broke the site. Glad it was just a glitch. In all my years of using this site I honestly thought we didn't have an auto bans.
>>61723
Thank you admins!

No. 61733

>>61732
>I honestly thought we didn't have an auto bans
I think this might be one of the more recent features introduced by cerbmin, someone correct me if I am wrong

No. 61734

>>61733
It could be, but now that I think about it, I remember now that a lot of anons used to get random bans with no explanation. The answer was always "you probably have a dynamic IP and it's someone elses ban" but maybe that was the autoban system and it just never worked well enough for us to notice that we have one.

No. 61735

>>61734
I know I have personally found the most random bans while traveling, many of them including the ban reason. I remember a moid permaban found in a Bulgarian hotel wi-fi for a post about "cum gargling whores".

No. 61736

>>61723
Thank you..

No. 61738

>>61705
>>61713
Same, I wanted to post a pic of young Orlando Bloom to compare it to the recent pic in celebricows and I got banned? I saged cause it wasn't milk and nothing I said was schitzo, so you can't come at me for that. This is the first time I got banned and I don't get why, so perhaps many of us are experiencing the wrath of the auto-ban. I would accept a fair ban gracefully, but this came out of left field.

No. 61740

>>61704
There's a very specific "energy" with regards to how gay men talk about women's bodies, its oddly condensing in a way

No. 61741

>>61707
based.

No. 61743

>>61735
Kek that reminds me of the ban I found in the wifi of an archeological dig site cabin in the mountains. It was for some girl who had been sperging in the anachan threads. Anons really come from all sorts of places.

No. 61744

>>61743
omg I am so curious where this was. I visit archeological sites but don't sperg in the proana threads (and never was in an archeo cabin either) but pleaaaase give me a general area, I am so curious

No. 61745

This was a troon post >>>/snow/1888836

No. 61760

>>61693
The obsessive sperging about nonmilk and womens bodies plus people looking to start fights or cause confusion keep ruining it. Even civil conversations and misunderstandings turn into shitshows. It's like people forget it's a milk thread. If anons could force themselves to keep their shit together when it comes to LDR, Florence Pugh, Sam Taylor-Johnson and now Sydney Sweeney threads wouldn't be anywhere as clogged and anons wouldn't feel the need to get involved in fights.

>>61707
I agree with this.

No. 61763

>>61740
Yeah I'm going to believe that's what happened for each time the thread got derailed and a farmhand had to step in

No. 61778

It should be a bannable offense for fujos to come into the fujocoomer thread and start infighting

No. 61780

File: 1693089884680.jpg (38.64 KB, 563x505, 1651781148461.jpg)

>>61723
That was quick, thanks!

No. 61782

>>61778
I agree

No. 61790

>>61744
South Eastern USA, the common name of the dig site rhymes with "the 'Dairy' site" which, kek, is more than a little ironic.

No. 61815

File: 1693097226590.jpg (177.36 KB, 674x1200, cows.jpg)

There used to be a thread on /meta/ that was only accessible for admin to post updates, >>>/meta/1014. This thread was specifically for rule changes, but could the current admins please consider bringing this back for any site updates or replies to anons they make? /meta/ is a mess and this would simply make communication a lot easier as it's incredibly easy to miss staff reports. Then anons can simply come to this thread if they have anything they want to say.

No. 61816

>>61815
Samefag, to be clear I don't mean bring that specific thread back, but just that type of thread lol. I worded it poorly but you get it.

No. 61851

Meta general is a fucking mess right now, almost everyone infighting with each other is functionally retarded and i'm not convinced that there aren't a few sockpuppets baiting and replying to each other in there too. I seriously think the thread should be locked for a few days or something until the raid or whatever the hell is going on blows over. It's not even funny at this point, just mindnumbing. I'd suggest some banning but I know they're probably ban evading and VPNing too. I miss the petty bitching about WKs and red text bans we had before. Anything is better than what it is now.

No. 61852

Blaine is self posting in the cc thread again.

No. 61853

>>61851
it's literally just one schizo, probably the tranny (he's been going nuclear on /g/ lately) or someone from kf, and one or two retards not familiar enough with meta schizo antics to know not to engage with it who are triggering an avalanche of schizo posts for every one response they give him. I hope farmhands ban the fuck out of the retards engaging when they wake up.

No. 61854

>>61851
Close the tab you terminally online loser

No. 61855

Why does it always have to end with Blaine with you people? That’s the real mind numbing shit. Spooky gets questioned and it just gets spammed right back to Blaine after they’ve exhausted every single option of it being one of the actual female farmhands they chased off

No. 61856

>>61853
That would explain some things. I'd never been online during peak schizoposting hours so to see it firsthand is jarring. I guess these are the posts that got removed that i'd been "missing out" on.

No. 61859

>>61856
ayrt. yeah, I was gonna call you a newfag for freaking out about it, but i didn't want to be unnecessarily mean kek. But yeah this is just something that he does every so often, posts hundreds of times trying to weave some convoluted conspiracy narrative that no one but him can understand no matter hoe much detail he writes about it kek. The general rule of thumb is if there's shit in meta that makes zero sense and makes you feel like you're having a stroke and the activity is minute by minute, just ignore it because it's the usual culprit having an episode that will be cleaned up in a matter of hours.

No. 61860

>>61856
If you pretend to be Blaine long enough to divert attention away from your own deranged tranny self, do you eventually become Blaine?

No. 61862

>>61859
It all made sense until you guys started pretending to be Blaine by writing incoherent shit in between threatening ex farmhands with stuff you thought was real personal information, despite them not being here. You’re the real schizos and Blaine is hanging out with some other faggots watching trannies buttfuck themselves over discord video or something last I heard. Come up with something new. Exhausting mfers

No. 61865

What's with the anon that's posting in both meta threads with all this bullshit about mods and other websites? This isn't what meta is for. Can't even read anything that's actually important like reports.

No. 61866

>>61865
anon… literally backread this thread by 3 posts for your answer.

No. 61867

>>61862
Couldn't have been more obvious. Ywnbaw

No. 61868

>>61859
he's been at it for over 24 hours straight and farmhands haven't done anything, usually when it's the schizo pedo troon or another demented kiwifarm retard they delete all the posts while banning. the crystal cafe thread on /ot/ is also filled with angry tardbabble from the same schizo and nothings been done there either. why are farmhands neglecting to take any action?

No. 61871

The site is still flipped for me…

No. 61873

>>61790
oh interesting! ok no I've never been there and don't know people there. But now I'm definitely gonna try posting on lolcow in random places because finding random bans sounds funny as hell.

No. 61874

Could we make a thread for dedicated discussion of the Lucy Letby case on /ot/?

No. 61876

>>61871
delete yer cookies

No. 61879

>>61876
ty nona!

No. 61902

>>61871
That tends to be because you're banned.

No. 61919

>>61876
>>61902
Different nonna but the sites still flipped for me? I got a banned warning as well yesterday, made an unban request and then it's still happening. I bet its some rogue tranny mod.

No. 61920

>>61919
>some rogue tranny mod
This is a joke, right?

No. 61921

>>61728
Why don't you fuck off back to kf then, scrote. Among other things, they were heavy on doxxing so it wasn't some random action by cloudflare. The real mystery is that they didn't face that pushback years ago.

No. 61937

>>61910
The flip trends to be a permaban, not a normal ban.

No. 61938

Anyone who was caught by the glitch yesterday and is seeing a flipped verison of the site needs to clear their cookies. If the problem persists email the admins on admin@lolcow.farm

No. 61972

Seriously, what is up with the anon(s) with a superiority complex in Celebricows? Is it just me or is there someone just trying to start fights with everybody and then backtracking to make them feel stupid?

No. 62039

>>61972
Same anon but I'm genuinely starting to think someone is getting off on picking fights with anons who aren't even trying to start anything. This >>>/ot/1680329 was in response to >>>/ot/1679550 calling them "aggressive" when they're the one being aggressive and calling anon a dumbass. The same crap that's been persisting itt for a while is bringing it down.

No. 62043

>>62039
This
/ot/ has been being used as an outrage mill for months now; not our normal shitkicking

No. 62046

>>62043
>not our normal shitkicking
I agree. Though where else is it happening in /ot/? I usually only regularly check on Celebricows on that board. There's always been sperging which is annoying in itself but I've noticed that lately, like in this most recent thread specifially, anons have been getting jumped on for even saying something this person (or these people?) seems to perceive as wrong or dumb and then having shit flipped on them and the whole thread gets derailed in the confusion. I just want to talk about milk in peace without having someone be an ass for no real reason

No. 62047

can you do something about the mass replier perpetually posting daily mail/daily mirror headlines and sperging about muh rapefugees in the britbong thread? Ty

No. 62049

>>62046
It's very noticeable in the vent, confession, and get-it-off-your-chest threads too

No. 62050

>>62049
It's making me wonder if it's all the same person/people

No. 62053

Please do some tidying up in the Amerifag thread. It's just been racebait and fighting over cities vs. the country for like a day or two. Not trying to stilt discussion, but like it's been going on for long enough and once an infight gets past 1-3 hours anons just start going in circles about nothing.

No. 62058

>>62046
>>62049
also in the dumbass shit threads (not super recently but about a week ago and in the last few threads), amerifag thread and unpopular opinions but tbf the later was always like that

No. 62060

>>62058
samefag, amerifag thread used to be chill and less racebaity in the beginning/first thread. unpopular opinions was always kind of a dumpster fire even years ago so idk if that counts kek.

No. 62061

>>62058
I'm not an oldfag, not really new either, but it feels like it's been getting worse on the /ot/ threads compared to any other period I've been around here for. I thought Trumpchan was one of the most annoying anons in Celebricows but it seems like whoever that was has disappeared and now the thread is just straight up anons being bitchy to each other for dumb reasons, even over misunderstandings. It sucks to hear it's happening in the other threads too, especially the ones where you shouldn't even expect infighting.

No. 62065

>>62049
Weren't they always like that? I don't use /ot/ much but I saw them mentioned a lot here over the years for getting unruly.

No. 62067

>>62061
You're not alone in thinking this I've been here for quite a while and it's been smelling like 4chan in there for a bit
>>62065
To an extent but it definitely feels worse lately.

No. 62068

>>62058
>also in the dumbass shit threads (not super recently but about a week ago and in the last few threads
samefag, welp looks like it's happening again. yeah it's definitely been worse recently, while it's not the first time infighting has happened in those threads, there's way more of it in like the past couple of months or so. in the dumbass shit threads it's been happening back-to-back like since thread #128 to now

No. 62069

>>62050
See I would normally think it was multiple tourists from a particular site/s that have a history with "gotis" just given the breadth alone, but I agree with you here.
Based on the cycle of hours per day that the, let's say unusually-inflammatory posts appear in bursts that suggest one person posting, depending on their timezone, before/after either work or bed, most likely
I've modded for more than a couple of sites over the last 15 years, so this is all just intuition, but I've had to sit on top of so many retarded faggots like this, and that's usually literally just how they spend their day every. single. day. That's why it's so hard to get rid of a determined shitposter; most likely, they genuinely care more about shitposting than their career, family, sleep, hygiene, even their own mental health
They are fucked in the head, it's extremely depressing when you can see who they are and how literally just all day, they sit on one, maybe two, websites desperately waiting for anyone to give them a crumb of attention
Don't get me wrong, I don't feel bad for them, I'm a fan of putting "kys" in ban messages, it's just mind boggling to bare witness to the real-time degradation of so many human beings who once had thoughts and dreams and mothers
sage for blog, I dunno, the moids are not alright

No. 62070

Maleposting in artist salt, calling cp hentai harmless, trying to 'no u' his way into a fight

No. 62071

>>62069
It's extremely reminiscent of Bl**ne not gonna lie

No. 62072

>>62071
I agree with that too; this one, though, bothers to blend in first and actually knows what upsets our userbase, which makes, my guess is "her" if I'm being completely honest, an actual threat potentially, instead of just the world's most annoying, boring fag

No. 62073

>>62069
>that's usually literally just how they spend their day every. single. day. That's why it's so hard to get rid of a determined shitposter
It's sad. I know at least some users spend a lot of time on here, but the few of those who spend it being unnecessarily bitchy to strangers only intending to have a level headed conversation says a lot about how they are as people. I wouldn't even consider it shitposting at that point, it's just pathetic misery trying to bring other users down.

>>62071
It's been making me consider that too. And to think I thought he'd stopped

No. 62074

Hi farmhands, if it's not too much trouble can someone look into the Amerifag thread in /ot/? There's been so much racebait over the last few days that it smells like kiwiscrote in there.

No. 62076

>>62073
His new brand seems to be accusing everyone of being 'the tranny' with aggressive alogging, but in scenarios that do not make sense at all. I happen to use the same vpn service he used during his peak so I have seen a lot of his bans. He never sages and talks in word salad and circles.

No. 62078

>>62076
I think that's exactly what I saw from him the last time I noticed his activity which I think was sometime between now and a year ago, but was accusing anons of being pedos iirc. I could be confused though.

No. 62080

Moid doesn't want to be here so can we do something about it? >>>/meta/62077

No. 62081

>>62076
That sounds like it could also possibly be trumpchan or even pakichan, but I suspect it's actually a new player this time all together
It's not uncommon to find many similarities between people like this, though; it takes a particular kind of mental illness to foster this kind of obsession, and when they end up on the same site, that means they have similar tastes and interests to boot

No. 62082

>>62081
Nicknaming them makes them want to come here more imo.

No. 62083

>>62082
I understand that, but for the time being, we're having a relevant discussion to the website, and it would be much sillier to try to dance around their nommers when we all know them anyway

No. 62084

>>62081
Trumpchan seemed particularly obsessed with celebricows and typing in a weirdly distinctive boomer-like way, I don't remember that person a-logging. Definitely some annoying word salad though

No. 62085

>>62084
I don't think it's anyone we've seen before anyway, I'm just using a couple of examples to demonstrate the many similarities thing

No. 62088

>>62085
Yeah there is something about whoever it is that I've only noticed recently. All I'm certain of is that with the posts I think are them, they know how to sage and like putting down anons and flipping shit on them while instigating the aggression. You might see it in some of the posts where there's been arguments, especially the redtexted posts for infighting

No. 62090

>>62061
For at least the past five years /ot/ has been cyclical. Infighting ramps up to a point where it becomes difficult to ignore. The admin and farmhands implement stricter moderation to deal with it. The problem abates so they back off. The infighting then ramps to previous levels and the cycle repeats. This isn't even the worst it's been. One of the previous admins locked /ot/ because the bait, trolling and infighting was so bad.

No. 62113

>>62090
This is just my opinion, but I remember that, and looking back on it now in 2023, that whole situation almost feels quaint
If only because it was at least our normal residents going insane/retarded, not a traitor who thinks she's stunting on us for moids, who still see her as one of us no matter how many tricks and dances she does for them

No. 62164

(most likely) moid larping as a lesbian keeps bringing up random discussion about men in threads like the tif thread or vent thread

Again.

No. 62214

Probably the ban evading sperg we have in meta >>>/w/306552

No. 62216

Infighting 'rapesock' scrote shitting up ftm thread >>>/snow/1890509

No. 62219

>>62216
Who is the "rapesock" scrote? That post didn't mention the word at all

No. 62224

Cp in the manga thread >>>/m/289577

No. 62225

>>62046
>anons have been getting jumped on for even saying something this person (or these people?) seems to perceive as wrong or dumb and then having shit flipped on them and the whole thread gets derailed in the confusion

>>62061
>now the thread is just straight up anons being bitchy to each other for dumb reasons, even over misunderstandings.

These are really good descriptions of the state of infighting in ot lately

No. 62229

File: 1693385997192.jpg (104.62 KB, 500x750, 44a78885df65d65186d8cf943de0d5…)

Hi Cerbmin, what is the time plan for moving to Lolcow 2.0? Curious how things are going with updating the site.

No. 62250

What's wrong with this person/people?
>>>/ot/1682677
>>>/ot/1682666
>>>/ot/1682680

No. 62253

>>62250
Oh good, you already posted them. They're shitting up multiple threads, I hope some farmhands take care of them soon (and anons stop taking the bait).

No. 62305

Do you think it would help if all genuine complaints and suggestions were unsaged and everything else was saged on meta?

No. 62307

The moid impersonation thread in ot really is not worth it if I have to scroll past an actual unbanned reply that says "Rape her". Ouroboros territory.

No. 62311

>>62307
I mean, sort of a dead dove situation there.

No. 62315

>>62307
tinfoil that the thread is full of men pretending to be us pretending to be them.

No. 62317

>>62315
I really don't think they're as self aware as the posts make them out to be kek
>>62307
You should probably hide the thread, nonna

No. 62320

>>62317
I think there are certain things that are a step too far. What will stop them from going in there and literally posting pro-rape if they see its unregulated? That's a loophole that shouldn't be left untended.

No. 62330

>>62320
>>62315
This and this. It was a bad idea, I'm sorry.

No. 62335

>>62307
At least the LARP is realistic.

No. 62361

Idk what new system the staff have but there been less cp and gore raids lately and it's been so nice.

No. 62364

>>62361
Admin mentioned an anti-raid feature that went a little haywire and autobanned a few nonnas who were posting images a couple days ago. I also posted a typo, and when I went to samefag a correction, I got stopped and told to wait a bit as spam protection. That second one might not be new, but I've never gotten that message before, so they may have adjusted the settings on it. It's been nice.

No. 62381

>>62361
it's been really nice, thank you mods. i love being able to use the site normally again instead of having to go straight to meta and check that there wasn't any spam being posted first.

No. 62382

>>62225
AYRT I hope it's still not happening in other threads. I was going to say the new Celebricows thread has been going okay so far, but of course someone just had to post racebait as recently as 40 minutes ago.

No. 62383

>>62335
It bridges a gap between satire and sincerity and creates an opportunity for men to post whatever there want in the thread

No. 62384

Can mods please check the post history of the anons deriding single mothers in the Unpopular Opinions thread on /ot/. I just don't believe it's a woman saying single mothers are "effectively gluttonous NEET pigs with an easy life" and other trash. The first instance was more innocuous and posted 11hrs ago
>>>/ot/1683524
The quoted post was 3hrs ago, reviving the "discussion" right after it died down
>>>/ot/1683883
It's either bait or scrote. Here are some other questionable posts
>>>/ot/1683533
>>>/ot/1683699
>>>/ot/1683715
>>>/ot/1684018
I don't want to report the posts in case these are actually bitter women, I don't want to get banned for report abuse over it kek

No. 62385

>>62384
Why do single mothers get special treatment on this site?
If people made the exact same posts, but about a different demographic (for example, sex workers) no one would bat an eye. Plus, you can't cry misogyny when you have 3 whole boards dedicated to shitting on women.

No. 62386

>>62385
I don't even know your name.

No. 62387

>>62385
>Plus, you can't cry misogyny when you have 3 whole boards dedicated to shitting on women.
Honestly I kind of agree with this. This is why it’s laughable when anons claim ”this has always been a feminist site!!”.

No. 62388

>>62385
Nta but calling an entire demographic of non-cow women of "gluttonous neet pigs" is obviously /pol/-tier bait and defending it makes you look retarded. It has nothing to do with a feminist narrative.

No. 62404

>>62388
An unpopular opinion was posted in the unpopular opinions thread. I don't agree with it either but if you can't cope with unpopular opinions, don't enter the thread.

No. 62412

>>62404
That doesn't mean it's a safe space for scrotes to vent their mommy issues.

No. 62423

can non-milk being posted (for no reason) be a bannable offense? idk if it is but someone posted old photos of cole sprouse's bare ass twice in celebricows for no reason. both posts are censored now but it gives the impression of a newfag

No. 62425

>>62423
I don't want to see anyone's bare ass but this question reeks of newfag. Threads do not exist solely for milk; non-milk is posted all the time. We wouldn't have any discussion or reminiscing or fun at all if posting non-milk is a bannable act, especially in /ot/. If it's unsaged in Celebricows, then report it, that is bannable in that thread.

No. 62428

>>62427
oh ok, sorry if I came across as aggressive, yeah I understand better what you meant now. At least it got censored bc of your reports!

No. 62429

>>62425
i'm not that new, i just wanted to be clear on how it should be specifically for celebricows (or similar milk threads) not the non-milk threads. especially when something like posting naked moid ass is posted out of the blue for shock value in comparison to sharing saged non-milk or opinions in the midst of discussion which i think is reasonable. i should have worded my question better sorry. i did report but both images have only been censored.

No. 62430

>>62428
it's okay nonna, i understand. sorry i edited and reposted after you already replied, i didn't see it until after. i was worried my second response was word salad kek

No. 62431

Bait/infighting in ftm thread.

No. 62432

>>62387
This assumes that posters who post in those threads are the same ones who post about being feminist which isn’t a provable case. Do you think the internet hates women? If not, it hosts websites that hates women so it does. Same logic.

No. 62433

>>62384
I assume it was the same scrote spamming the N word this morning thinking they blend in. Scrotes hate single mothers because they’re women who escape them or represent men who abandoned their families but want to deflect male degeneracy on to women.

No. 62434

>>62387
Samefag, not to mention the site has had feminist and outright manhate (based) threads for years. It’s not a feminist website, but it’s not a women hating one either, it’s neutral with a feminist leaning due to the users being women.
>>62412
Men hate women who can be free of them so much that they try and pin mens violence on them to try and shame/discourage them from leaving them at risk of their social reputation.

No. 62435

>>62434
Samefag as >>62432 kek.

No. 62437

>>62404
It's not about being able to handle said "opinon", and I'm not even the one who initially complained. The specific post I'm referring to is clearly bait to cause infighting it's cartoonishly vitriolic.

No. 62479

Porn in /ot/.

No. 62498

The criteria for bans by the new farmhands is pretty inconsistent. I’ll be browsing a thread and see an unsaged summary reply get redtexted when it’s a genuinely helpful post, then a nitpicky unsaged summary reply in a different thread gets left alone. I’ll see saged nitpicking in one thread get redtexted and then later in that same thread similar repetitive nitpicking gets left alone. People will also post the same thing over and over again, and sometimes it’ll get redtexted or removed entirely and sometimes it’s left up, even if the other exact same types of posts were removed.

No. 62499

>>62498
Post an example.

No. 62501

cp in book thread in /m/

No. 62502

>>62499
nta, but glancing at the shayna thread just now was a good example

No. 62503

reported already but there's a tranny in the lolita thread trying to bait/derail about a fictitious "trans genocide" and saying a woman with short hair is a troon/qweer
>>>/w/306894

No. 62504

>>62502
So post a sample, link a sample..

No. 62505

>>62503
now an unintegrated twitterfag has come to cape for stunning and brave genderspecials >>>/w/306902

No. 62506

>>62504
I don't have to provide you with anything; you clearly have the ability to read and use the site for yourself

No. 62507

>>62506
There so many threads and this is such a vague post. Also admin and farmhands have always asked that anons link to certain posts when it involves complaining in meta. Do your job as a farmer.

No. 62508

>>62505
kek farmhands please there's like some sort of tranny derailment war going on in the thread now, with troons larping that they're being killed in the streets and a baiting retard posting an anime character wearing a swastika armband.

No. 62509

I really wish lc had a thread watcher like the one on 4chanx… please lord

No. 62510

>>62508
all these hours later the tranny is still at it with the derailing and it appears he's now ban evading too
>>>/w/306939

No. 62518

>>62509
YES PLS!! also an /x/ board

No. 62525

Some newfag with a racebaity thread pic in /g/ >>>/g/347456

No. 62532

Bunch of derailing in the lolita thread, anons replying to bait too.

No. 62533

File: 1693892889355.jpg (567.73 KB, 1080x1715, Screenshot_20230904_224833_Chr…)

>>62532
>>>/w/306962 complaining about /w/ and anons, not on topic, just derailing to incite infighting
>>>/w/306952 doing the same
>>>/w/306964 doesn't know how to report and move on, not integrated
>>>/w/306986 moid reaction image, no actual substance given as a reply

No. 62536

>>62518
seconding this. name it /tin/ for added cowness (not my idea, stole it from nona)

No. 62539

>>62509
There's already a working fork of it somewhere idk if it was removed though

No. 62540

File: 1693921928777.png (49.52 KB, 910x770, overdramaticmod.png)

Sorry for ban evading but I just got a permanent ban for posting a snarky comment at one of the anons in celebricows. I get I should've ignored her and my comment borders on infighting but a lifetime ban over that? The mod didn't even say the reason was infighting she wrote "sperge" but my comment wasn't spergy and I never sperg in celebricows, I barely even infight. I appealed and I'm hoping to at least get my ban lowered, a permanent ban seems a bit much for being a bit snarky.

No. 62541

>>62540
She wrote sperge because she was making fun of your misspelling, that said the permanent ban must have been a mistake because wtf

No. 62542

>>62541
Oh kek, I just thought the plural of sperg would be sperges cause I was referring to multiple spergy anons. But yeah I figured at most I'd get a few days, I wasn't even using a vpn.

No. 62543

>>62542
>>62540
Samefag I'm unbanned, thank you janny and sorry for being a shit stirrer, it won't happen again

No. 62547

Cross-check the IPs, mods. Or else you're becoming the next /pol/.
>>>/ot/1516175

No. 62551

File: 1693949534742.jpeg (17.88 KB, 340x270, 885a74a15516c046c714328565ff50…)

gore in /ot/ bumping off front page

No. 62558

Can a farmhand confirm whether or not most of the Florence sperging in the ongoing Celebricows thread is largely due to one anon like someone in the thread claimed? There's someone who keeps getting defensive about it and claiming there's more than one person, but it's all sounding like one anon with a consistent typing style that's shitting up the thread with unprompted Florence comments. I don't even like her but it's getting unhinged.

No. 62565

Some weirdo in the cam girl thread has been sperging for a bit/trying to infight kek

No. 62670

fatsperging in celebricows. i guess when one sperg disappears someone else comes in to complain about something else that isn't milk.

No. 62671

>>62670
they're still going but have moved on to infighting and POST PICS. is it school holidays or something?

No. 62673

two annoying retards were having a massive weight sperg infight in celebricow

No. 62685

not trying to speak out of line, but why are people getting redtexted for trying to get anons to stop fighting? i would understand if admins were active during that period but when this happened in celebricows, it took maybe hours after the fight for someone to ban the anons going at it when i was hoping it would stop when it was still happening. i reported each participant and left a comment on here too. tbh i didn't even realize i was redtexted until i checked just now.

No. 62689

>>62685
same anon but also, if my ban was supposed to last longer, i'm not trying to ban evade, when i made the comment that got redtexted i was out and on my phone

No. 62692

>>62685
>>62689
You're interacting with fighting which usually leads to more fighting. That's why mods say to report and move on.

No. 62694

Can someone explain why Crystal cafe is having a meltdown and claiming Ashley Jankowski or whatever is a farmhand here?

No. 62696

>>62694
You could just read the two threads instead of asking to be spoon fed. You know, like how these websites are supposed to work?

No. 62697

>>62694
it's nothing don't worry about it

No. 62699

The anachan threads bring in insufferable people just like kpop shit did/would. That shit is like cancer infecting every part of the site.

No. 62700

>>62694
3c schizos get banned here so they samefag and ban evade there to try to convince everybody that some random woman's Pinterest having borzois means she is cerbmin

No. 62702

>>62701
The initials or was there something substantial?

No. 62709

>>62707
Ew this looks like a Blaine edit. Especially when he kept posting about his weird twitch podcast

No. 62710

>>62709
What makes it look like a Blaine edit? The grotesque cerberus in the background that was lifted from Ashley's own pictrest? It was one of many

No. 62711

>>62709
Kek what if it turns out the schizo was Bl*ine all along

No. 62712

>>62703
>>62704
This is the "proof"? I'm going to bed.

No. 62713

>>62712
It's not. You can read about it more on here, where posts about this don't get deleted
https://crystal.cafe/b/res/251577.html

No. 62714

>>62710
Idk if you were here when Blaine was spamming all day but his weird edits would look awful and cringey like this kek. The Cerberus adds to his “edgy” flair. I’d YOURE not him then lol

No. 62715

>>62714
*if you’re sorry idk why it typed like that.

No. 62716

>>62713
I'm waiting for the proof because I've read the thread and it's a lot of obvious samefagging without actual receipts. I'm not clicking links to sketchy websites either.

No. 62717

>>62716
what? what sketchy websites?

No. 62720

File: 1694137054399.png (194.56 KB, 698x554, 4kcezfmr06s41.png)

>>62699
Those users are here to stay so you might as well let us have our containment thread

No. 62721

can we reopen the tradthots thread yet

No. 62724

>>62717
When they link a 500 page kiwi splinter thread citing it as divine proof of something they can't be bothered to actually summarize and post definitive receipts of

No. 62725

>>62724
because none of it is meant to make any sense, just overload some retards with screenshots of essays and i guess expect them to believe it

No. 62727

>>62726
Nothing is going to happen, if there was any real proof it would have been posted by now.

No. 62730

>>62729
It's so funny how you can even get clocked by your edits. You will never be a woman and you will never be a farmer. You will always be an autistic pedophile moid.

No. 62732

>>62720
Sure but you could also stay in it and not gave huge weight sperg fights in other threads arguing whos the skinniest little ana queen uwu!!

No. 62733

>>62732
Apart from the ed thread they also shit up pro ana scumbags. But that thread has always been full of them lurking, waiting for an opportunity to blog about their super special inpatient stay under the guise of providing info about the cows kek… Though I think it's been better the past year or two due to decreased tolerance for that kind of posting

No. 62734

>>62732
Kek I never weight sperg anywhere, and I'm not an anachan I just find the anacows milky

No. 62735

This meta drama shit is so gay

No. 62736

>>62716
I was going to say the same thing. It's easy to disguise links, I wouldnt click on any either. The troll(s) ITT aren't trustworthy with their constant samefagging and of course they'd pull something like that. They are obsessed with knowing who is who.

No. 62738

>>62737
Former farmhands who were all in involved with a kpop splinter and are convinced that admins are some cow named Ashley because they say so and if they say it enough times it must be true kekk

No. 62740

>>62738
Not to mention they have a history of retarded tinfoiling

No. 62744

>>62743
You are schizo

No. 62746

Why is the complaints and suggestions thread currently focused on an entirely different site if Crystal Cafe is working why not post there wtf

No. 62747

>>62746
There is a thread on CC too but for some reason they feel the need to come here too. This person >>62743 has been shitting up this thread for days now and they cross-post on here and the CC lolcow hate thread, then hi cows anyone that calls out the autism kek

No. 62748

Is there a reason we need to incel general thread? personally dont think we need one. we all know incels suck and are shitty, almost every moid-adjacent thread we have includes a snippet of an incel. we don't need an entire thread dedicated to them, plus its honestly a shite thread.

No. 62749

Anon in art salt thread has been baiting for a full day about how it's ok to get off to gore, furry and loli/cp.

No. 62752

>>62749
They are just mad their gore of JJBA got reported and removed

No. 62754

okay idk whats going on with bans rn but im a random anon who got ip banned on my phone and computer for "unspecified reason" and would appreciate if the admin can answer my email to help me out. idk how it happened because i mainly post milk in the shay thread? thanks.

No. 62756

>>62754
Ban evading, from 2 spots. I doubt you are using a vpn on both. Post your ban page, anon. Show us there was no reason. Show us both bans. You need to email admin.

No. 62759

Male reeing about the term 'patriarchy' in post-left thread. I swear to god, that thread attracts so many dramatic retard failson posters kek.

No. 62762

Infighting about Sydney Sweeney and Aaron Taylor Johnson for the hundred millionth time in the Celebcow thread. Posting here instead of reporting since that's apparently bad now.

No. 62763

Can we like clean up the man desperate for attention in celebricows because im tired of seeing him going Buffalo Bill over Sydney Sweeneys boobs

No. 62766

>>62763
Anon there are like zero moderators. It's not going to be cleaned up for a while.

No. 62769

Instead of red texting the male spam in celebricows it would be best to delete it altogether a la B**ne, cut off the attention at the source

No. 62777

>>62769
There were a few people infighting and baiting and those bans have been handed out, alongside a farmhand post. Usually we redtext but if it's a constant spam we'll just ban and delete it. Please don't respond to them as they are just wanting attention and baiting, just report them and we'll get to it.

No. 62786

File: 1694226938608.png (38.06 KB, 968x441, jnhbgvcfdsfghjk.png)

>>62777
Your dumbass farmhand labeled my posts as samefags and ban evading, none of those were samefags and I hadn't recieved a ban yet so how was I ban evading posting on an unbanned IP? Retards

No. 62814

>leaving the nudes and where spergs up in celebricows thread
Why?.

No. 62815

>>62814
*whore

No. 62827

>>62786
Anyone can change their ip.

No. 62829

Tranny spam all over w

No. 62830

>>62827
I was posting on the same IP, there was no ban evasion until I posted the screenshot here to dispute it. The janny revoked the ban anyway so problem solved

No. 62848

Can another mod go through Get It Off Your Chest thread in /ot/. Maybe there's just a lot of samefagging, but some of these redtexts should not be vain bitch bans.

>>>/ot/1690513
This anon is clearly responding to the post above her (>>>/ot/1690457) without a reply quote so she doesn't get redtexted.
>>>/ot/1690616
This is op who got responded to, replying to the response. I don't know if she should get a vain bitch ban, maybe a derail.

>>>/ot/1690674
This anon is replying to a post (>>>/ot/1690620). She should have a vain bitch ban, but doesn't.
>>>/ot/1690682
This anon is op of the post that above anon responded to. Not a vain bitch, but definitely derailing.

>>>/ot/1690698
This anon was not banned for being a vain bitch.
>>>/ot/1691642
This anon needs to be banned for being a vain bitch.

No. 62895

File: 1694246315736.png (72.68 KB, 637x383, Screenshot_20230909-095921.png)

Not my post, but what a dumb ban. >>>/w/307292 All the videos Dakota posted on her tiktok had already been posted as webms or screenshotted in the thread. Providing a link in this context is fine because all the possible content has already been posted.

No. 62900

>>62895
Post caps of her cap which wasn't posted upthread with the video. No one wants to click links.

No. 62901

They're fighting in celebricows again

No. 62908

What happened to the moovie thread? Why was it deleted?

No. 62918

>>62908
It was just an accident. There is an explanation on the thread itself. I wasn't spamming though, to be clear.

No. 62920

can ghostmin please clean up the shitposting board in the doodle thread? (i deleted the example since i dont want the moids to have any exposure)

No. 62921

>>62920
You should post this in the actual doodle thread. Doodle board admins have nothing to do with the moderation on this site.

No. 62922

File: 1694286860474.png (50.47 KB, 707x395, what.png)

I wasn't replying to anything, I just wanted to get this off my chest because I didn't want to message the person I was talking about.
If you meant that I shouldn't have replied to the post upthread that also ended with ♥ - that was my post (check the IP and device before handing out a ban) and I didn't directly quote it or even meant to reply.
The redtexting in that thread is also a bit weird, not all response posts are redtexted properly.

No. 62923

>>62922
Jesus I am so sick of these weird bans.

No. 62924

>>62922
Thank you for the apology, please be more careful next time.

No. 62925

>>62922
So you admit you still replied upthread.

No. 62926

>>62900
>Post caps of her cap which wasn't posted
How do you post caps of a cap that wasn't posted?
>No one wants to click links.
Social media links are required in the OP. You know this, right? In this case the thread subject's TikTok account was created after the thread was made.

No. 62927

>>62922
these careless bans are so strangely worded too. "answer to other posts"?
>>62925
look, can you just use your trip already? No normal farmer replies like this in meta.

No. 62931

>>62925
That's not what she said but also you can't ban someone for replying to their own post, not even in that thread. Of course samefagging can get you banned, but I'm sure that's not what anon was trying to do from the looks of it.

No. 62932

Let me get this straight - a mod started deleting random spam supposedly, to the point that she deleted half a non-vpn using farmers post history including a popular pinned thread, but left up an entire trove of spam calling syndey Sweeney a whore rather than just deleting the entire string of sperg so it doesn't encourage them to come and do it again? Celebricows is going to continue to have bouts of men spamming if you don't cull their source of attention at the root. Wtf is happening to moderation, Blaine-tier spam should not be left up.

No. 62933

File: 1694304445571.jpeg (246.98 KB, 1252x1252, 20R4nlNg.jpeg)

>>62925
Can none of you read? That was her post

>>62922
The ban should have been for emoji usage, I don't think we've ever had a more retarded mod before, picrel

No. 62934

>>62933
That's the correct heart though.

No. 62935

>>62900
You can't read either. Please for the love of God tell me you aren't a janny. There was literally no reason for her to repost a webm from upthread when she was just sharing her tiktok for those that wanted to look. I swear to God some of you are either teenagers or huffing paint thinner.

No. 62937

>>62926
Anon could post her caption. It's not hard, anons need to do their job. Stop expecting others to click external links when screencaps are always supposed to be posted. Anon is a retarded newfag. Don't defend them.

No. 62940

>>62933
>Can none of you read? That was her post
Some anons will bootlick a janny until the cows come home kek

No. 62949

File: 1694339460762.png (3.1 KB, 215x48, Screenshot 2023-09-10 .png)

>>59950
fuckin retards. This was done away with (and is original board culture anyway)

No. 62950

>>62949
Kek, the mods are handing out some extra retarded bans lately

No. 62955

>>62949
did no one update them on the change?

No. 62957

>>62949
Can you post the post link?

No. 62964

can we redtext bpd, and narc

No. 62973

File: 1694387997873.jpg (224.45 KB, 923x933, 40230911032108.jpg)

wasn't this discussed a thousand times before? spacing is fine and part of the culture. jannies should take their meds.

No. 62974

>>62973
>>62972
This is such an embarrassing catch first off, kek. There was no reason to line break that much either.

No. 62976

>>62973
That's not even grammatically correct paragraph structure. I don't blame the farmhand for this one it's insufferable to look at.

No. 62978

>>62973
farmhands can't even follow their own rules. There's nothing bannable about the post. A post that isn't exactly how you would write it, or (gasp) a post you don't agree with does not equal a post deserving a ban.

No. 62979

>>62976
Oh, fuck off, Jannie. Are we banning on the basis of vibes now?

No. 62980

>>62979
How is that vibes? Read lolcow.farm/info integration.

No. 62981

>>62979
NTA, but take your pills. Calling anons who agree with bans doesn't make them farmhands.

No. 62984

>>62980
Nta but after hellweek ended the admin said there wouldn't be any more bans for "reddit spacing"

No. 62985

>>62984
That doesn't say "Reddit spacing". It's unintegrated spacing. Anons have been trying to this here and there in threads across a few boards since admin said that. It's obvious when you see it and farmhands most likely see the IP posting and can tell from past bans if they have a tendency to fuck around and find out as a lot of anons love messing with the farmhands to see what they can get away with. It's the heart emoji thing all over again. "But they said we could!" It's unintegrated when you aren't using the right one.

No. 62986

>>62981
I got called a farmhand for fighting with someone and them getting banned once kek.

No. 62987

Infight/derail in zoomer hate thread.

No. 62988

A ban for saying you want to watch someone roll Elon musk down a hill? Does that really have to be considered alogging? There wasn't really an implication of death there now was there janny

No. 62989

Some newfags bumped the onion thread

No. 62990

>>62988
Wishing harm on a cow, doesn't matter how you word it.

No. 62991

I beg you, redtext psychopath and privileged.

No. 62992

>>62990
rolling someone down a hill isn't that harmful, unfortunately

No. 62993

>>62990
Hard disagree. He would be buoyant and resistant.

No. 62995

Schizo is still posting in the cam girls thread

No. 62997

>>62988
definitely not a-logging, the man was chimping out about cage fighting Zuck, after all. Wanting to watch someone else roll him down a hill is like nothing. I've noticed a increase in redtexts defending Musk recently.

>>62981
>>62985
you really hate most farmers here, don't you? why are you even here?

No. 62999

>>62991
Based, needs to be done kek.

No. 63001

Are we allowed to post Lucinda/oswaldslunch in the proana thread? Her previous thread was closed but she's back online.

No. 63003

I literally don't understand the moderators at all. You guys let the zoomer thread get completely derailed for an entire day despite being active multiple times, and then your way of stopping it is not to actually ban anyone (or anyone but like one anon) but to just make a post? What? And anons can still get banned just for making a few mean or infight-y posts. Not saying they shouldn't but it's so inconsistent and backwards. Warning posts should be for short infights, bans should be issued for hours long infights that derail.

No. 63006

>>63003
The OP of the celebricows thread is also derailing it massively, including making wojak memes of people who dislike their over dramatic click bait thread description “Timothy heller caught self posting!” When all that happened was people bought up stale ass milk about her and Melanie Martinez. Pretty sure she’s the one that’s been derailing for days sperging about boob jobs and cumrags like a scrote.

No. 63008

>>63003
Probably let it go because it was kinda funny and ultra retarded. It’s not like the zoomer hate thread is a philosopher’s forum otherwise.

No. 63010

>>62997
The mods aren't defending Elon Musk. It's a-logging regardless.

No. 63012

>>63001
I don't know why mods still won't open it back up. Multiple anons have asked.

No. 63013

>>63001
>>63012
The thread has now been unlocked! For future reference, if the thread is ever locked again you can post about her in the general pro-ana thread.
>>>/snow/1775242

No. 63015

Retard butthurt that they got banned on 4chan and made a thread to post mootpics >>>/ot/1694709

No.