File: 1549754396510.jpg (101.31 KB, 850x476, znBZH50.jpg)
Please post all general issues and complaints here. If you want mods to do something, or have some issue with or suggestion for site content, you should use this thread.>>>/meta/6821
should only be used for technical issues and suggestions (can't load site, site slow, bugs, site feature requests). This thread is for non-technical issues.
File: 1549819901754.png (233.04 KB, 1321x331, screenshot.png)
I was kinda following this in the Azealia thread and the last Complaints thread, but this is just really confusing as a user, can you offer some clarity here?
nta but Why was this person banned (pic related)? I thought "hi cow" was against the rules too but I checked because of what this anon said and everything (regarding rules) was correct? So…you're banning the users that actually know your rules now instead of the user who is trying to enforce rules that don't technically exist or deciding what people get to talk about in that thread? If there's a reason other than that an explanation would be helpful because this makes mods look terrible tbh.
So, saw that in the AB thread, and then saw (what I assume was the same anon sperging about "hi cow" doesn't get redtexted or something in the last complaints thread) and mod said:
>We do not redtext everything, we do ban them though.
So then how is it a bannable offense if it's still not in the rules? Even after the rules were updated as recently as "January 22, 2019" according to the page? If you're banning people for it I guess I just don't understand why you still haven't added it to the rules or why it's not stated anywhere?
So then I guess my other question is are we not allowed to discuss the possibility that a cow is a farmer at all? Even if no one is "hi cow"-ing? Cause half of that thread (and past Celebricow threads) is talking about how Azealia is probably a farmer, and there's plenty of examples to allow for speculation. Is that still considered "hi cow" if we're not specifically accusing any user of being her? Just discussing the probability based on her actions?
Honestly not trying to argue or anything I'm just really trying to follow the logic here and understand the rules. Also cause Azealia is one of my favorite cows and but because of this I'm not sure what we're allowed to talk about anymore. Cause like I said just as someone seeing the situation from the outside it looks like:
>user a mini-mods thread, says they're breaking rules that don't actually exist (without reading any of the thread it seems like?)
>user b tells them the rules, says to read the thread (in a bitchy way, tbf)
>user a goes and whines in the complaints thread about "hi cow"
>user b permabanned…because….? person a threw a tantrum?
Anyways, any clarity would be helpful, thanks mod-senpai!!
obviously not a farmhand, but i think a lot of them are tired of seeing infighting and general autism relating to what is being perceived as "mini-modding"
i saw the post you're referencing and thought it was warranted simply because of the unnecessary sperg-out
This is one of the most autistic posts I have ever read on this site and I was here during Kikis sperg. Wow.
Just…wow. got any official diagnosis, buddy? If not I recommend getting it officially diagnosed, I bet you qualify for a tugboat.
File: 1549844089047.gif (1.59 MB, 332x332, F11vuyrf0_540.gif)
I guess so, but then why not ban all parties in that case? They were both being obnoxious and shitty, so if both were banned that would make sense to me. I guess I just don't understand anons that go into a thread to be mad at people for discussing the subject of the thread. If that's not mini-modding or derailing then what is? Like, if one anon goes into a thread and picks a fight by basically saying anyone who believes x thing is "fucking retarded"….how is that "infighting"? Isn't that just 1 person starting shit with the rest of the thread?
I've seen a lot of confusing bans that don't seem to follow any rules (or logic), I just picked that one cause it seems like a good example. (Also because it was so clear that that one anon was the one sperging in the last thread about "hi cow"). >>8783
….asking for clarification on users being banned over rules that don't exist is "one of the most autistic posts you have ever read"? You must not read much friend.
>>8785>if one anon goes into a thread and picks a fight by basically saying anyone who believes x thing is "fucking retarded"….how is that "infighting"? Isn't that just 1 person starting shit with the rest of the thread?
infighting by virtue of seeking so start a fight on the site lol
>>8786>It's instigating infighting by virtue of seeking so start a fight on the site lol
Are you having a stroke anon? What's happening here?>>8787
you're literally quoting the exact post I said didn't make any sense in the first place >>8777
File: 1549849640843.jpg (29.23 KB, 293x339, 1532766331086.jpg)
>>8788>how is that "infighting"? Isn't that just 1 person starting shit with the rest of the thread?
You asked how the situation you described is infighting so I tried to explain why picking a fight in a thread is violating the no infighting rule even if nobody has responded to it yet.
File: 1549855681979.png (323.66 KB, 1394x625, screenshot.png)
Right…but the anon who started shit isn't the one that got banned, the anon that apparently followed the rules was, that's why I'm asking for more clarity here because it doesn't make any sense. Honest to god, can you not read? Why are you so personally offended by me asking a question here?>>8792
Mods already approved the thread, so take it up with them if you're that upset. Already said I'm not that anon but judging by the established pattern, I'll end up getting banned too for asking a question in the complaints/issues thread, and the anons inciting the infighting and starting shit will not get banned. Because that seems to be the logic here.
Can we just stop with this already? Honestly this is why people think Azealia is a farmer, if you say anything about her anywhere spergs come out of the woodwork to scream about how she's not a cow or derail everything. I just came to this thread to ask for some clarification on rules in general, and you turned into an Azealia thing. Christ.
Mods, can you please just answer my question so I can leave? That's all I came here for, just some clarification.
File: 1549857889304.jpg (35.59 KB, 865x332, 9ZYMwsC.jpg)
We're still working with the old rules so I'm unsure about where the confusion is. Here is a sneak peak of the new condensed global rules. >>8793
>Right…but the anon who started shit isn't the one that got banned, the anon that apparently followed the rules was
You have no way of knowing that. Sometimes the more mass reported post get red texted so users know it was dealt with.
>>8795>Sometimes the more mass reported post get red texted so users know it was dealt with.
Right, but what was being dealt with here exactly? That's what I'm asking for clarification on, just in general. What rule was broken here, so we can know not to do it in the future. Again, it's not just that thread, that just seemed like the most glaring example of it.
>You have no way of knowing that.
Right, I don't know that because there's no way for me to know that with the way the information is presented…which is why I'm here in this thread, asking for more clarification. But instead of answering any of my actual question you just picked out one random sentence that had very little to do with it. I still have any way of knowing that, because you haven't answered anything?
I appreciate you getting back to me Mod-sama and I'm really not trying to be combative or anything….but do you see how this is confusing for other users? Publicly displaying a ban on a comment that's literally quoting the correct use of your own rules, contrasted with no acknowledgement of the user who actually broke/is writing their own definition of the rules?
Can you just offer some more clarity on the rules here, since it seems like you the anon who directly quoted the rules was incorrect? Like on mini-modding or "hi cow" etc.
I was the anon who asked why redtext isn't for every ban in the previous thread.
The answer seems to be that there is no fucking reason for who gets redtext. It's arbitrary.
Happy to see new, succinct rules! I wonder if the phrase 'posters with a phallus' is going to trigger
Q: What is considered infighting?>>8761
Can we define when exactly an argument turns into an infight thus making it bannable?
Because I get real sick of seeing a discussion where things start out reasonable/civil and then someone starts slinging personal attacks, and then things snowball from there.
I do feel like there's always one or more people more in the wrong than people who didn't really start it. Although I realize arguing is unproductive on either side and I'm guilty, I just hope this sort of rule is weighted.
Is there going to be an expanded version? There's a lot of "this isn't <thing>" and confusion over terms like cowtipping lately.>>8796
The post you're (still) going on about was pretty obviously infighting and sperging. It shouldn't need any clarification, let alone this ongoing discussion.
Anyway, can someone please clean up the Miranda thread? It's been a swamp of Shut up, Miranda, ranting and useless commentary / shitposting for at least two threads now.
File: 1549866427011.gif (1.98 MB, 480x270, vine.gif)
Glad to see I'm not the only one who's confused by this all the time and could use some more explanation. I feel like 85% of bans I see make zero sense and just look like mods are banning whoever they feel like for no discernible reason (because we can't see who's samefagging or whatever), but knowing that not all bans are redtexted just makes it even more confusing. The rules are all numbered, would it really be that difficult to just put the number of the rule broken instead of just a catch-all "(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)"?>>8796>>8777
this makes less than zero sense, if that's possible. I always considered mini-modding to be anyone who says what can or can't be discussed in a thread, is that not correct? I see users all the time act like their opinion is the law on what constitutes nitpicking or what's worth talking about, and there's never any consequence to it at all (that we can see) even though it's super disruptive and derails conversation and leads to infighting.
Basically "fighting" in threads should only ever be people's opinions on the subject. The rules should be so clear that there should be no room for users to constantly fight about their own interpretation of them in threads. If a thread is already in motion with active participants or mods have specifically approved a subject, comments like >>8792
or anything similar should be bannable. If you don't like a thread or don't think a cow deserves one, then don't look at it. Just move on from that shit, this shouldn't still be happening.
>>8796>I still have any way of knowing that, because you haven't answered anything?
No, you actually still have no way of knowing. For the record you were being an extreme minimod to the point where you were derailing the thread. It wasn't even one person responding to you, it was multiple anons. If you're here to ask me if I spanked the other anons instead of reflecting on your own ban then you've come to the wrong place.>>8802
I would think slinging personal attacks randomly is infighting. However I think the person instigating should face the hardest ban, not the anons responding unless it's gotten way out of hand.>>8806
The put of of pasture message should be used when the ban reason is obvious, like male posting or an obvious samefag or spergchan. >>8797
Pretty much but it really depends on how many anons have reported the post and whether or not the post can serve as an example of frowned upon behavior.
Right, but remember the context is infighting which is different from a debate on a real topic. Intellectual discourse within the thread's framework is kosher as far as I've seen.
If you're debating something OT or flaming back and forth you are part of the problem too so how "firm" you are doesn't really matter since LC isn't debate club. You should be dropping it instead of trying to win.
>>8808>For the record you were being an extreme minimod to the point where you were derailing the thread. It wasn't even one person responding to you, it was multiple anons.
Wait, what now? Your replying to my post, I'm >>8777
who was trying to understand the ban logic here, but I'm not the OP of the post I was asking about…which I think is who you're trying to address here? I have no idea what any of this means or who you're talking about. Who was being a mini-mod? Who was derailing the thread? There's only 5 posts in that entire "infighting" interaction, who was being responded to by multiple anons? What are you talking about?
>If you're here to ask me if I spanked the other anons instead of reflecting on your own ban then you've come to the wrong place.
Again, not that anon and I literally never asked that, I just asked for clarification on what rule was broken there to earn a ban, because it's unclear
>The put of of pasture message should be used when the ban reason is obvious, like male posting or an obvious samefag or spergchan.
Except nobody can see any of that info except mods? How is it "obvious" to the rest of the site's users? Again, there's only 5 posts in what appears to be a multiple-person interaction, so what exactly counts as being a spergchan and who's the "obvious samefag" in that situation?
>No, you actually still have no way of knowing.
What does this even mean?
Seriously? Is this the new farmhand tactic? Ban people for no clear reason, start fights with users who ask for clarity and accuse them of being samefag (despite being able to see IP info, etc) because info that no one but farmhands can see is "obvious"? Literally all I was looking for was "they were banned because of rule #x" but you just made it 100x worse and more unclear. I've been on this site for years and that was some of the worst sperging I've ever seen.
This is amazing.>Get banned for being an autistic spaz>Go on /meta/ pretending it's not your post>wHy DiD tHiS aNoN gEt BaNnEd? ToTaLlY wAsNt Me>Why was this anon banned omg no reason for it>Multiple people explain why >Buut whyyy?>Continue on insisting you were dindu>BUT DID THE OTHER SIDE GET BAAANNEED TOOO
You clearly didn't get banned for long enough.
Btw, I think diagnostic response is a month so I reckon a two month ban would get you enough time for therapy AND a diagnosis?? Just throwing that out there.
The majority of bans look like a mod picked a word from the rules and slapped it into a post they didnt like.>>8807
Dont be disingenuous please, the majority of bans dont make sense and its pretty obvious.
Also, very rich of you to tell the other anon to integrate when the mods stick out as very new to imageboards.
File: 1549889973322.png (139.25 KB, 686x416, pnp.png)
Why was this anon banned in the PNP thread? >>>/snow/753018
The post is saged and doesn't seem to break any rules? It's a screenshot of that t-shirt design she stole from Lolcow (and pretended it was her idea), so IMO it's relevant.
Well sis that's why I'm asking for clarification of what constitutes infighting, because there's never been a set definition. I'm saying lots of arguing starts as debate but some anons turn into an infight so where's the line. It made sense back before we had general boards because nobody wanted to browse dedicated lolcow or snowflake threads and have to scroll through a million replies of ot arguing.
However, there's always been a free for all attitude when it comes to arguing on ot though, and the rules for what is permissed have always flexed depending on the moderation team. So that's why I'm bringing it up to maybe add something into the rules since 'infighting' was specifically mentioned. That way there's no more arbitrary interpretations.
am i in the minority agreeing here?
i rarely see bans that don't make sense besides the little issues we were having with the new farmhands a couple weeks back.
hell, i've caught a few bans in the last week or so i can't really argue with.
sometimes you just have to take your L and wait out the ban.
everyone has a right to appeal too.
I'm not being disingenuous in the slightest. Like >>8819
I generally have no trouble understanding the context of a redtext I see in a thread. I've only been banned unfairly once on this board and it was not under this new team nor under the first admin. If the staff and other experienced users can see the context, then the problem is you.
a picture of her wearing a t shirt everyone's already discussed is not milk and not worthy of being posted
the pnp thread is under strict moderation because it was highly contested that it even be brought back
so post better content or deal with the bans and possibly see the threads closed down again
NTA but redtext not giving a reason is the reason you guys are having this argument now right? Admin claims it happens when the ban reason is "clear" but it's evidently not because there are anons who don't think so.
I called out weeb insecurity when /w/ was made, now gonna call out unnecessary infighting bait on the redtext being temperamental. Declare a number of reports for redtext to appear, and always give an actual reason for the ban in the redtext. End of the stupid vague arguments I am so sick of reading in these threads.
Nta but nah. I've been coming here for years and some shit is just mysterious because mods, etc. don't explain bans as they occur. It seems flippant sometimes, even. I'm so sick of the LuRk MoRe attitude. It reeks of falsely inflated ego. Stop.>>8826>Declare a number of reports for redtext to appear, and always give an actual reason for the ban in the redtext. End of the stupid vague arguments I am so sick of reading in these threads.
It's really very simple. Idk why the mods are making this so convoluted and retarded.
i'm not one of the anons arguing about it, i'm one that doesn't give a fuck about micromanaging the mods and admin as far as bans are concerned
most of the (put out to pasture) redtexts i see are pretty obvious to me idk
File: 1549916192918.png (111.11 KB, 720x720, IMG_20190211_121549.png)
I see you farmhand!!
Tysm for considering the will of us plebs!!
Obvious rule breaking can just have the [USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE] redtext as far as I'm concerned. But seeing as this is an anonymous board, it's not always apparent when someone is excessively posting in succession (just one example). I don't understand why calling out users publicly and elaborating on bans is such a big deal to you. It will actually help integration. Don't we all want better posts?
Admin and mods don't have to do anything they don't agree with. I'm just gonna leave this at that.
File: 1549946570877.png (84.21 KB, 800x460, Screenshot_2019-02-11-20-40-20…)
This type of shit needs to stop, ie. derailing to infight after the offending anon has been redtexted.>>>/pt/128373
File: 1549948483979.png (29.21 KB, 901x577, fuckingstupid.png)
this was pretty fucking stupid and i don't even care if i get banned for evading.
/ot/ is supposed to be a lax board.
Admin, your email address in ban notices needs to be updated!>>8839
Also, this thread should perhaps be locked since she is imprisoned. Even KF locked their thread on her.
Imagine giving a 2 day ban for someone's hurt feels. FFS infighting is arguing
and how the hell can you ban someone's opinion as trolling if they've only written one post. Her post after that before
she got banned was fine. I was happy in the townhall, but I hope these aren't the changes we'll be seeing.
Yep, no contribution. Like how is she even in this thread complaining.
Seems like she thinks /ot/ has less rules or something.
>>8854>Seems like she thinks /ot/ has less rules or something.
have less rules, asshat. Admin even stated that /ot/ and /g/ are getting a new set of rules. They have never really had the same rules anyway.
no it's a place to bitch about a 30 minute ban that already expired or red text. that said, I disagree with >>8844
Yeah, that was the first thing I did before asking. The rules page only has specific rules for /pt/ and /snow/. >>8862
Thanks for the heads up! Appreciate it.
Was the redtext for this image?http://archive.fo/LkNI1
There is no personal information on her LinkedIn page, and the information that is there she posted herself.
A screencap of her LinkedIn page was posted on GG via Imgur. It was removed almost immediately from Imgur, presumably because she lodged a complaint. Then the lolcow.farm link was posted. The GG mods have not redacted it, and their policy regarding doxing is far more strict than ours.
File: 1550105348926.jpeg (161.1 KB, 944x638, 647DFE6E-CD36-4F59-8530-9AE774…)
I kept trying to post on snow, multiple times, and every time I couldn’t because of someone else’s ban notice. It’s not my post. I don’t even post in jill’s thread and I’m not an anachan. I assume it’s from ip cycling, since it’s happened before to many anons. So I was like whatevs, since it said it would expire as soon as it I saw it. But now anytime I try to post in snow this ban shows up (which I appealed) and won’t let any of my posts go through. It’s kinda annoying.
>pic related is before and after appealing ban(infighting)
Yikes. Does that mean there are farmers close to you that are constantly shitposting or something? You live in an unlucky area lol.>>8834
I don't really get the issue with mods redtexting. It makes the moderation visible to everyone and is usually humorous. It helps out everyone who sees it, not just the farmer who got banned.(so this is why most boards don't do this)
>this is an infighting example
are not part of that thread.
I think the mod was just trying to show what infighting bans WOULD look like (ie back to back redtexts) not that those posts were actually infighting. But I could be completely wrong.>>8890
Yeah they always make me chuckle when I see them.
File: 1550210693947.png (42.79 KB, 653x179, dont type.PNG)
just curious, i've seen this type of thing getting banned before, but when people are posting like this referencing the meme, should they really be banned?
Express yourself in a way that doesn't make you stand out from other anonymous users. This means avoiding:
emojis or emoticons
a lot of punctuation??????!!!!!
other obnoxiusoius typign sTYLES
Emojis are banned too even when people use them to reference memes.
The anon wasn't banned for long but this is a textbook example of an obnoxious typing style.
File: 1550226089321.jpg (51.34 KB, 530x548, 34d.jpg)
But admin it's a meme.
I feel like the new farmhands are noobs and we're going to have to deal with retarded bans from here on out. Admin seems to stand behind them, so gotta accept it and move on I suppose.
Also I'll never understand how they Shay thread is allowed, especially in the face of the PNP thread ban/perma-sage. I've accepted that rule enforcement here isn't objective anymore. It blows, but whatever I guess.
File: 1550251582614.png (10.03 KB, 264x40, Screen Shot 39.png)
Been starting more clear and descriptive red-texts pop up in /snow/, just wanted to say it's not going unnoticed and it's nice to see our requests for more clarity be acknowledged. Even this >>8895
is so much more helpful for following the admins' thought process. It just makes it so much more cut and dry, and takes the "emotion" out of it. For what it's worth if this pattern continues, I just posting the rule number is clear enough. I don't think you should ever have to repost the whole rule for someone (that's just more work for yall), even just a point in the right direction is a 100x more helpful.>>8888>It helps out everyone who sees it, not just the farmer who got banned.
Just seconding this notion in general. This kind of >>8834
elitist bullshit attitude is just stupid and the cause of so much infighting all over the site. There's literally no possible way clarity could make the site worse unless you're triggered
by the color red. Can you imagine
how much less derailing/infighting there would be if you just subtracted the amount of anons throwing tantrums and stomping their feet calling everyone retarded or autist because they had to read one extra line of text? Obviously sometimes idiots/newfags do pop up in threads and then its very clearly warranted, but the amount of fighting over rule interpretation/acceptable site behavior has gotten excessive. It's an anonymous gossip website, not an elite club you can only be in if you know some secret set of rules and behaviors that don't align with any rules or board culture info posted.
Anyways, just wanted to say we appreciate it!
File: 1550276861399.jpg (27.07 KB, 500x330, yndnxyf597c21.jpg)
how much longer til we get news on that leech kelly jean's threads? it's been months and nobody has said anything.
It actually doesn't make a difference. Farmers still report the same posts even when we do redtext for that exact reason. (and there's usually never report reasons either)>>8913
This isn't a bug, the only time window to delete posts is the first 30 minutes.>>8898>>8906
I know it's a meme but this isn't twitter. Second of all, I placed the ban myself because obnoxious typing styles violate imageboard culture and show a lack of integration.>>8907
I think you guys just got used to being able to nitpick moo's facial cleanser choices and obesity without repercussions. If you disagree with a ban, appeal it. Crazy nitpicks are being moderated and it should
be noticeable. Actually upholding the rule against nitpicking isn't a newfag thing to do.
You misread/misunderstand. I am sometimes unable to delete within 30 minutes. This has happened with both image posts without text, image posts with text, and text only comments.
Also, there have been a couple of instances where I posted a series of images, needed to delete three images, but was able to only delete two.
I first posted about it in >>>/meta/6610
. Other anons replied saying it happens to them on desktop.
At the time I asked if it was a browser issue because I had just updated Chrome. After that update my browser window reloads every time leave the tab and return to it.
Since then I have come to believe it is more than an issue related to the update. The error is intermittent and inconsistent. And I can close the tab completely and reopen the site and still delete my comment as I did with >>8817
I posted about it again in the last thread, and Admin did not reply.
"obnoxious typing styles violate imageboard culture and show a lack of integration."
lmao what the actual fuck … violates imageboard culture should be a meme unto itself, jfc. >>8939
I am so surprised this hasn't been abused a whole lot more. Is it still the same host?
all the redtext is because of the people itt insisting that every single minute ban needs a redtext
etc etc etc
File: 1550590583209.jpg (145.68 KB, 971x817, Into the trash it goes.jpg)
Maybe if you posted according to the rules, you would not get banned.
Let me guess you're one of the retards on RSN thread spamming or the nephew pedo fucker who wouldnt shut up about it? >banning nitpick on a website full of women
Oh wait nevermind, spotted the femcel.
File: 1550604231833.jpeg (340.92 KB, 1242x2208, 631F24B2-B40F-499B-9EC5-B0B53E…)
We have an alt-righter / male on the mod team.
Why would I be banned for saying this 3 DAYS ago unless there's a male/ female tradthot salty I said this about one of them?!
File: 1550604469083.png (311.02 KB, 1242x2208, 42CF3AC0-197F-4B04-8260-F5183E…)
Also I tried reporting this post for racebait in the Stell Bell thread but I couldn't becuase the dialog box came back as
Agreeing with them I see.
you can't report until your ban is expired, you hadn't tried to post yet so the ban hadn't cleared.
can you please learn how this site works before you come in bitching about nothing?
it is now 02/19/2019
…reread my post.
since you received the notification that you were banned and it is now lifted, you should be able to report.
if you tried to report before you tried to post and received your ban notif, that's probably why it didn't let you.
is it still not letting you report? doubtful.
Well I was able to report it now so mods were watching
or your ban expired.
it's okay to be wrong, you know?
>>8967>"true">Agreeing with them I see.
Lmao, I'm not even that tech savvy but I'd greater assume that's a script message or error.
Anon, you're a little too mad about this. Just a tad.
In October I discovered that Admin had moved her thread to https://lolcow.farm/practest/
by searching for "site:lolcow.farm kelly jean". When I asked about it here Admin did not reply and quickly removed the directory.
Now when I search the only pic I can find by key words is >>>/pt/82417https://lolcow.farm/pt/src/1429121380832.png
There may be more images in the old CGL threads.
DMCA complaints are required to list each individual file. Did she or her attorneys actually comb through the entire site for all of the images?
IIRC, Admin stated that her complaint regarded any unauthorized use of her image. This right is only granted with personality protection laws. Neither the US nor the UK (her country of residence) has such laws.
If her complaint is valid internationally then she will be able to have this archive removed http://archive.is/7F3Yn
File: 1550611285122.gif (366.02 KB, 267x200, giphy.gif)
IKR? They are bitching over literally nothing.
it's on par with everything else in /snow/ and /pt/ tho
when the milk is sparse the low blows come out
Yeah the new rules will be uploaded soon and I agree that we need better guidelines for threads. Too many subtle vendettas out there and being a camgirl or fat doesn't automatically make someone a cow.>>8991
Nitpicking is a huge issue because of this. Anons don't know how to take a break and insist on posting nitpicks for the next 2 threads.>>8992
That's where you're wrong anon. GC is for tranny sperging and the radfem thread is for radfems to fight about who's the most radfem of them all.>>8993
Discussion stays in /ot/.