/v/ - Video Games

>wanting shadow bumplocks

>>15027204

Oh and it also makes it much easier for metafags to sperg out. As long as the information remains available in the board log we don't need an additional icon: anyone smart enough to use the information can find it.

>>15027209

They aren't shadow bumplocks: the information is right here for anyone to see https://sys.8ch.net/log.php?page=1&board=v Only newfags are unable to find this link and frankly they're the most likely to abuse the information.

>>15027215

Again the information is still available to anyone who wants it.

Oldfag here.

Why not just go back to the good old days of imageboards?

No bumplocks, no catalogs, no captcha, have to use noko to even get back to your own thread, etc.

Let the chaos reign.

>>15027219

Yours is the same mentality of the massive EULAs nobody reads or the Terms of Service that hide the information in plain sight knowing nobody wants to look for it and want transparent information.

Leave it as it is

>>15027231

That's a false analogy. The board log is extremely clear to anyone. EULAs and ToS agreements are intentionally bloated as fuck. If the average anon is too stupid to simply bookmark a single link we've fallen too far.

>>15027226

Not practical in this day and age because of shills and normalfags.

>>15027234

This also. The symbol is an anchor but the action is bumplocking. I'll also accept autosaging even though it's not strictly speaking correct.

>>15027251

>>15027231

Or look what I'm getting at is that an open bumplock icon signals that there's no point bothering to post in the thread since it will die and functions as a de facto lock. If vols want to kill the thread that way they may as well lock or delete it. Additionally metafags abuse the fact anyone can see the icon to stir up shit from the newer/stupider section of the userbase. If the information was in the log anyone intelligent could still find it easily but the newfags and retards would be much harder to rile up since they couldn't just glance at the catalog for it.

We don't always have public ban messages for much the same reason that doing it would cause spergouts and give metafags ammo. Why is it the case for bans but not for bumplocks?

>>15027271

Lets just stop bumplocking anything.

If people want to talk about something, they should be able to.

>>15027251

>Not practical in this day and age because of shills and normalfags.

>muh shills

>muh normalfags

Darwinism baby. The strongest survive and keep the weakest like shills and normalfags away. That's why there's always been a strong culture of posting gore and sometimes some faggot will go crazy and post CP of babies getting pooped on or something.

No way fag. At least seeing what is bumplocked is an improvement over the mods selectively choosing what gets bumplocked and no one ever knowing.

>>15027283

No that way lies /tv/. The vols by and large do a good job on /v/ I'm bringing it up because mark claimed it was a trial period and we've never come back to review the effects of the visible bumplock.

>>15027300

>At least seeing what is bumplocked is an improvement over the mods selectively choosing what gets bumplocked and no one ever knowing.

IT'S IN THE FUCKING BOARD LOG YOU NEWFAG FUCK

Even if it wasn't literally a single post in the thread saying 'test' or 'bump' would let you work it out. The only people a visible symbol benefits are the retards too stupid to be trusted with the information.

>>15027290

Gore and general edgyness kept out the newfags or forced them to lurk when there weren't many newfags and there weren't organized attempts to agenda-push. Now we have huge waves of newfags and paid shills all over the place. I wish we could go back to the old system but it simply is not practical.

Sounds like some leddit tier shadow banning thing. Go shoot yourself.

>>15027346

pewter at it again I see

>>15027346

If you or anyone one of you attempt to hide anything from anons I will come do you myself.

>>15027359

>all the mods have cryptic pokememe names

Consistent cryptic names though. They only need identities for accountability if it wasn't for that they wouldn't need names at all but if they need them it's better for them to have names that preserve anonymity. In an ideal world Mark wouldn't be known to use by his real identity either.

>>15027354

I don't want to derail us into that topic. I'm just asking that we review the policy change that mark made with some actual feedback for once. I've given my opinion on it, an alternative and my reasoning. People can disagree with me if they like but if reviews of changes are promised we should actually follow through otherwise why bother discussing them in the first place?

>>15027346

I can agree that is superior, but I simply do not believe taking away the symbol will have any large impact on the actions of newfags and shitposters.

>>15027359

And you've got a retarded name b7b8f8. It's just a UID that's all that matters.

>>15027331

You're bonkers to compare it to shadow banning since the effect is obvious with a bumplock, and /v/ is slow enough that even if it is it's up for at least a day.

>>15027379

>but I simply do not believe taking away the symbol will have any large impact on the actions of newfags and shitposters.

There are two points remember:

1. Visible bumplocks act as a signal to abandon the thread and are equivalent to killing it with a lock or deletion

2. Visibile bumplocks make it easier for metafags to persuade newfags to sperg out with them.

Now you might not think 2. is important or likely to change but 1. certainly will. I should have made my OP clearer but I didn't think it through properly at first.

>>15027385

>You're bonkers to compare it to shadow banning since the effect is obvious with a bumplock, and /v/ is slow enough that even if it is it's up for at least a day.

It takes on average two days for a thread to fall off the catalog but that's mypoint: when it's up for an entire day with a visible bumplock symbol it's effectively a locked thread since nobody wants to waste effort making new points in a doomed thread. It just kills all discussion and any potential to turn a thread around.

>>15027393

>>15027385

And again it isn't a shadow bumplock since you can check the board log or literally just try and bump and look at what page it's on. The point is the visible symbol prevents people even opening the thread. It's a giant glowing 'don't waste your time' message.

>>15027403

>>15027393

One or two days is long enough for a typical bumplocked thread to go about whatever shit it was doing. Seriously, look at what gets the treatment some time. Most of them deserve deletion.

>>15027415

>One or two days is long enough for a typical bumplocked thread to go about whatever shit it was doing.

Yes which is why bumplocking is often better than deletion or locking but the problem is a visible bumplock symbol just has everyone abandon the thread instead of wrapping things up. I'm not arguing against bumplocking I'm saying a visible symbol is de facto equivalent to locking the thread and gives metafags extra ammo they don't need.

>Seriously, look at what gets the treatment some time. Most of them deserve deletion.

If they deserve deletion they should be deleted. We don't need nonsense half-measures.

>>15027214

But they are shadow bumplocks, as one needs to go out of their way to discover if the thread is bumplocked, which is identical to how shadowbans function on reddit.

You wouldn't happen to be a redditor, would you?

>>15027454

>But they are shadow bumplocks,

It's not a shadow bumplock if the information is freely and easily available and you're too lazy or stupid to find it. The term has a highly specific meaning.

>as one needs to go out of their way to discover if the thread is bumplocked,

You need to visit the board log to see if posts have been deleted anyway and to check who bumplocked it something you should be doing if it's at all questionable.

>which is identical to how shadowbans function on reddit.

Please point me to the public reddit moderation logs.

>>15027458

That's fine by me since retards won't be using that script and it won't kill threads. In fact if you make that script add the ability to hover over the symbol and see which vol bumplocked it too.

>>15027475

>It's not a shadow bumplock if the information is freely and easily available and you're too lazy or stupid to find it

Yes it is, because having to manually go and check in the fucking board log is the same as having to go and manually check one of the shadowban test utilities. We had invisible anchors, it didn't help, the board has been dogshit since mid 2015, and you're a reddit rapefugee and need to neck yourself.

>>15027477

Why don't you try actually answering my arguments instead of blindly stating the same thing as everyone else? I agree transparency is good but we already have that with the board log and this visible symbol has caused issues.

Or again why do we have visible bumplock symbols but not a standing policy of public ban messages? I've asked mark before in a meta thread why we don't have public ban messages and he said it causes derails and spergouts so why does the logic apply to one situation and not the other?

>>15027484

>Yes it is, because having to manually go and check in the fucking board log is the same as having to go and manually check one of the shadowban test utilities

If you're too lazy to open a simple page and look at it every now and then you're part of the problem.

>We had invisible anchors, it didn't help

And now we have visible anchors and it's worse.

>board has been dogshit since mid 2015

And how does that have any relevance to invisible anchors? Are you saying invisible anchors are responsible for the decline in quality?

>>15027500

>w-we need less mod transparency!

Seriously, kill yourself leftykike. No one who cares about this board would argue for that. When someone is shitposting, instead of deleting all of their posts and banning them, ban them and redtext their post stating the rules that were broken. Also, get rid of the minute/hour bans for serious shitposting, start banning them for fucking days/weeks.

>>15027500

It's convenient, it's useful. I couldn't care less what some shitposters think, they aren't going to dictate board features.

You can reply to everyone in this thread, but in the end you're just one anon and your opinion weighs accordingly.

>>15027500

>everyone says the same thing

>"nuh uh! I'm right!"

>>15027521

>When someone is shitposting, instead of deleting all of their posts and banning them, ban them and redtext their post stating the rules that were broken.

Public ban messages tend to lead to derailing the thread. It would at least be consistent with a visible bumplock symbol.

>Also, get rid of the minute/hour bans for serious shitposting, start banning them for fucking days/weeks.

Here I fully agree with you. The minimum ban length for any sort of ban that isn't something minor like 'calm down' or 'spoil your lewds' should be 4-5 days instead of 2-6 hours.

>>15027522

>You can reply to everyone in this thread, but in the end you're just one anon and your opinion weighs accordingly.

We aren't a democracy, what matters is the quality of opinion. I'd also just be happy with a discussion since mark promised we could review changes to the board's settings and policy. Transparent moderation is meaningless if all feedback is ignored.

>>15027523

Again reply to my actual points or fuck off.

>>15027538

>Public ban messages tend to lead to derailing the thread

If the thread gets derailed, have one of the hotpockets put on their capcode and remind everyone to either stay on topic or take any complaints to the designated meta thread. I don't think that's too much to ask.

>>15027549

That doesn't work. All you get is a sudden influx of shitposting towards the mod.

>>15027549

>have one of the hotpockets put on their capcode and remind everyone to either stay on topic or take any complaints to the designated meta thread.

Which turns the thread they're posting in into a de facto meta thread as well. That's actually worse than just using a public ban message.

>>15027549

That just derails things even more. Allow me to show you.

>>15027563

Strictly speaking it wouldn't derail this thread since it's already entirely ignoring any of my points.

>>15027538

>faggots see the anchor and abandon the thread entirely before it's even off the second page

I do not agree with this, threads can easily continue once bumplocked for a while and past page 2. They'll eventually sink and lose attention but that's regardless of the bumplock symbol.

This is a quality of life feature people like and have been asking Mark to enable for a good while. I don't see the harm in it and do not find it justified that it should be disabled.

>>>15027572

>I do not agree with this, threads can easily continue once bumplocked for a while and past page 2.

This has not been the case since the visible symbol was added. Where before bumplocked threads would still invite discussion they now just die off unless perhaps they're a meta thread which will always attract attention for obvious reasons. There's also still the second issue of metafags abusing it to stir up drama.

>They'll eventually sink and lose attention but that's regardless of the bumplock symbol.

Well obviously they'll sink either way but the symbol outright kills the thread near-instantly.

>This is a quality of life feature people like and have been asking Mark to enable for a good while.

I was one of those asking Mark, I did not realize it would have a negative effect. Changes can have unintended consequences which is why they should be reviewed.

>>15027580

For this anon >>15027572

>>15027560

>>15027562

>>15027566

Give one more warning and then start handing out vacations if they continue to chimp out with no effort of even tangentially attempting to stay on topic. Inconsistent moderation worse than both lax and imkikey-tier moderation, and that's what we have right now.

Why not kick it up a few notches for a month and see what happens to the board quality? Obviously the current system is pleasing nobody.

>>15027580

It's boiling down to anecdotal evidence, there'd need to be a longer term analysis with archives to illustrate that point.

Again I don't want to lose it on behalf of possible shitposters.

I don't know why this meta thread isn't bumplocked either, vol is here.

>>15027603

>Give one more warning and then start handing out vacations if they continue to chimp out with no effort of even tangentially attempting to stay on topic

Which runs the risk of banning everyone who's discussing shit in the thread.

>Inconsistent moderation worse than both lax and imkikey-tier moderation, and that's what we have right now.

Again I agree. That's my point on why it's accepted that public ban messages cause spergouts but not public bumplock symbols: it's inconsistent.

>Why not kick it up a few notches for a month and see what happens to the board quality? Obviously the current system is pleasing nobody.

I'd also be fine with this. Increased ban lengths for shitposting offenses and a greater willingness to hand out bans to newfags fresh off the boat with cuckchan. My only request is that the change to a harder moderation policy is publicly announced in a single meta thread and we come back and review it a few months later: once again transparent moderation is of little use when feedback is routinely ignored and changes in policy are never reviewed.

>>15027617

>It's boiling down to anecdotal evidence, there'd need to be a longer term analysis with archives to illustrate that point.

For that we'd need data of the period before the visible bumplocks as well or a period where we disable it again and gather data then and someone with sufficient autism to compile it all. I'd be interested in seeing the results of that.

>Again I don't want to lose it on behalf of possible shitposters.

Well the second of my points, that metafags abuse it, could be resolved by harsher moderation. It wouldn't solve my first complaint about it killing the threads but dealing with one of the two is still a huge improvement. I'm all for vols cracking down on shitposting faster and harder at least for a trial period.

>I don't know why this meta thread isn't bumplocked either, vol is here.

Perhaps he has a sense of irony?

>>15027635

>>15027619

>>15027617

Or to summarize it all in one post: it seems clear that faggots don't agree with me on it killing threads and I'll grant maybe it's mostly anecdotal or a gut feeling but at least try and observe it over the next few weeks and see if you see the same pattern. I'm more interested in us having a review and debate actual debate note just flinging rhetoric at each other of any changes to the board than in my specific opinions being consensus or acted upon.

However my second point about it leading to an increase in metafaggotry and shitposting does seem to have more resonance, even if the solution to that is just to ban the faggots involved more quickly and for longer periods that's an improvement to the current situation. Also the idea of a formal trial period of harder moderation with a review after it ends was a good suggestion and we could discuss that instead if it's more likely to be productive. I just want some actual discussion about meta issues for a change instead of mark entering a thread, doing nothing or more rarely something he'd already decided upon and then us never getting anywhere.

>>15027619

>>15027635

>>15027657

Good points, I'm sorry for calling you a redditor anon.

>>15027685

Don't worry I understand your jumping to that conclusion. I myself am complaining about the metafags who just sperg out constantly. We have so many people out to just shit on mark and the vols instead of make legitimate complaints and suggestions it's easy to get defensive and assume anyone suggesting things has an ulterior motive. The other reason I'd like explicit review-of-policy sessions with actual results is it'd be easier to then delete all non-scheduled metafaggotry. Once people know they'll get a chance to speak and get answers to their suggestions say once a month then anyone starting non-urgent metadrama outside of that can be written off as a faggot.

>>15027657

I find the complaining about metafags while being one a bit funny. Meta will be meta, it should be confined to meta threads but it should be acceptable outside it at least briefly, for instance if vols or Mark fucks up a thread it'll naturally have people shitting on him there justifiably. Meta should only be deleted when uncalled for, or when it's spam.

But speaking of gut feeling, your mannerly and persistent arguing, the fact that this thread still isn't bumplocked despite mod activity, and the fact that a vol dropped in to conveniently back up your point, I get the feeling you're not just an anon. Not that I have any proof.

>>15027716

>I find the complaining about metafags while being one a bit funny

There are metafags who want to genuinely improve the board and yes I realize I'm autistic about it but that's how I am and then there are metafags just here to stir up shit and cause drama. Maybe we need a different term for the latter but they are a problem that needs to be dealt with.

>Meta will be meta, it should be confined to meta threads

Pointless when meta threads never discuss anything or provide results. Currently /v/ has open moderation but no way to turn the information from that open moderation into actual changes when there are serious structural issues. Even basic things like following up on a new policy when mark says we'll do it as a test isn't happening which means changes are made on a whim and never revisited.

>but it should be acceptable outside it at least briefly, for instance if vols or Mark fucks up a thread it'll naturally have people shitting on him there justifiably

Very true. I hadn't considered that at all and that's my bad: there has to be a place for bringing up meta issues that need to be resolved quickly.

>But speaking of gut feeling, your mannerly and persistent arguing, the fact that this thread still isn't bumplocked despite mod activity, and the fact that a vol dropped in to conveniently back up your point, I get the feeling you're not just an anon. Not that I have any proof.

I'm an anon albeit an autistic one. If I was a vol and wanted to suggest this I could have just made an official meta thread could I not?

>>15027731

Mark is nothing like imkampfy was. The latter was malicious where mark just sometimes makes the wrong call but genuinely does want what's best for /v/. Don't compare them.

>>15027204

No, Mark.

>>15027566

It's even worse when I do it.

I fucking hate invisible bumplocks

This way keeps the mods honest especially when they bumplock a perfectly fine thread because of bullshit reasons like 2 or more autists shitposting and derailing

>>15027767

>>15027768

>4 seconds between these posts

Mark you have amazing timing. The spammer is back.

>>15027768

Also mark can you provide answers to the points in the thread? That's both my point and that other anon who suggested trialling harder moderation. At the very least try increasing ban length.

>>15027790

I've never seen evidence of mark actively trying to hurt /v/ and in fact his actions, while often wrong, do have the best intentions at heart. Take for example the overuse of delete all by IP one of the few times anons giving feedback was acted upon and that's helped the board quite a bit.

>>15027754

>Mark is nothing like imkampfy was. The latter was malicious where mark just sometimes makes the wrong call but genuinely does want what's best for /v/. Don't compare them.

wew my gut feeling just increased

>mark comes in to (1) like other vol and thread still isn't bumplocked

really makes me think

>>15027789

increasing ban lenghts is useless, do you think people actually waits for bans to end?

It would be better to increase the vol team numbers and have them increase the deletion of shitposts.

>>15027789

I usually like to go to bed around this time, but I guess I can answer a few.

>>15027204

I think for the most part it doesn't make a difference, it's just more transparency and it tells people what threads are good and what threads are shit. I still delete them if I'm around, but it has its uses

>>15027226

>oldfag here

Kill yourself

>>15027789

>>15027806

Besides, anyone can ban evade very easily. We only care when some retard tries to bitch about said ban in an unrelated thread.

>>15027806

I think outside of the tiny handful of shitposters who abuse VPNs, most just go back to cuckchan when they get banned and vice versa. If the post warrants a ban, make that ban fucking sting. If someone can completely shit up a thread and then get a 30 minute to 1 hour break, only to come back and do it again, how is that going to be any kind of deterrent? Why bother at all?

Is there a single oldfag left that is actually happy with the current state of the board? What do we have to lose by trying something different? It's already /v/ - random and has been for years.

>>15027816

>and I'm not willing to debate this

Then shut the fuck up and go back to reddit, you giant nigger faggot.

>>15027826

>It's already /v/ - random

Are you retarded or just delusional. There are video game threads all over the place. Just because you don't liker something doesn't mean its not allowed.

>>15027806

>increasing ban lenghts is useless, do you think people actually waits for bans to end?

Again two points. Firstly cuckchanners and other assorted newfags often don't have a VPN so banning is actually effective on them ban evasion is not as common as it seems there's just a vocal minority who have the capability. Other people do ban evade that's true but if someone is banned and then never tries to post again before they're unbanned they'll never see the ban message. This was brought up in another meta thread a few weeks back but right now it's possible for someone to miss they were banned entirely.

>>15027812

>>15027817

I can see my suggestion is too controversial and fine, I can live with it as long as you've at least considered it. What about the suggestion we trial a harder period of moderation? I mean even if people ban evade you can change the conditions for which you hand out bans and deletions. /v/ as been faster since E3 but we've also had a lot more newfags showing up and we need to beat them into shape or force them to fuck off.

>>15027816

Say what you like Codemonkey will not be removing mark and that's a good thing.

>>15027454

>But they are shadow bumplocks

No, they're not.

The board log is right there newfag

>>15027827

>if you don't like me you're from reddit

Grow the fuck up and learn how to deal with people not liking you in a way that isn't juvenile.

>>15027835

cuckchanners probably pay for VPNs

>>15027843

Only when you go back to KFC

>>15027851

>Mark starts sperging out at people who compare him to imkamphy

>gets told to grow the fuck up

>"Oy vey! Stop making this about me"

You're the one making this about you, you ridiculous faggot.

>>15027826

No one's ever happy with the board, are they? You can't fix community problems with rule changes anyhow, only slightly remedy but then harm something else.

Remember to stay classy Mark because these goons just want some juicy screen-caps for their spam pictures

>>15027835

I've tried it before and I got push back both externally and internally.

>>15027833

Jesus christ. There went the slim hope I had of us going back to 2014 full/v/. I appreciate you being completely up front about that, really.

>>15027839

I already addressed that. Don't tell me you're just reading posts at random typing up a response without context.

>>15027869

I'm going over the thread.

Also 2014 was more /v/ - random than it is today, fucking newfags trying to act like oldfags is the biggest joke.

>>15027860

this, remember to stay crotey totey

>>15027844

You'd be very surprised. The number of VPN users on /v/ is actually quite small relative to the userbase it's just that they're much more likely to sperg when banned so they're very visible. A lot of people also just use a phone to ban evade the lazy way to complain about a ban which still means a ban is effective. Finally a lot of the users who changes IDs have to get a new IP by resetting their router which at the very least is a pain in the ass.

>>15027854

>you call them out on their bullshit, make them singled out and leave. learning to identify normalfags is pretty easy. in fact, so easy that them doing what normalfags do should be a bannable offense.

This might get rid of the newfags but it will never get rid of the shills and agenda-pushers because they're paid to do it or at the very least have political convictions that will keep them coming back. No amount of hostile atmosphere will persuade them not to come back because they're fully aware people disagree with them: the very reason they're here is to try and change that.

>>15027863

Try it again but explain to everyone it's a trial period and while it isn't permanent you aren't going to call it off early if people complain. Everyone hates change initially but once you get over that initial resistance people will be able to give harder moderation a chance. Also don't discount the fact that pushback might have been partly shills and newfags upset at being caught.

>>15027868

>gets called a faggot on an imageboard

>claims ad hominem

>calls people that don't like him redditors

>somehow isn't ad hominem

Nice double standard, faggot.

>>15027874

>2014 was more /v/ - random than it is today

If my suspicions weren't confirmed before, they certainly are now, I think it's about time I take another year long break and see how things shake out. I'm not even mad nor surprised at what you've become, I'm just disappointed.

>>15027879

>but it will never get rid of the shills and agenda-pushers because they're paid to do it or at the very least have political convictions that will keep them coming back.

There's got to be a way to fix that.

all I can think of is banning obvious shills.

this could easily be done by observing behaviors and writing styles shills have.

usually it falls in what I described in my post.

>>15027879

Nah, I can usually tell the difference between actual anons and some newfags trying to push their way in.

>>15027879

That's me explaining to that anon to debate him in the halls of debate

>>15027874

>fucking newfags trying to act like oldfags is the biggest joke

I know, right? You'd be the most notable example of that.

>>15027856

As far as christkillers go, though, Mark’s basically the opposite of imkikey.

>>15027905

>help us hide better

NECK YOURSELF, SPAMMER.

>>15027905

>please share your secrets so i can change my techniques to better hide my shitposting

not today, schlomo

>>15027890

It really was though, you're wearing nostalgia goggles if you thought 2014 wasn't a mess in October. Here's an archive proving my point.

https://archive.fo/zfv08

>>15027900

I never claimed to be an oldfag, I'm an eternal newfag from 2010 who started in around 2008 - 2009.

>>15027879

>The number of VPN users on /v/ is actually quite small relative to the userbase

That's a metric that no Board Owner has access to. Even Codemonkey would have a difficult time spotting VPNs on any given board because there's nothing that identifies their IP addresses as being one given by a VPN.

You're quite literally making shit up now. Sad.

>>15027897

Ban and delete their stuff on sight and quickly. Make it unprofitable for whoever is paying the paid shills and highly demoralizing for the ones acting on conviction since their work is removed near-instantly. Tactical use of word filters might help but that can always be avoided and may hurt innocent anons. Marketers aren't deterred by anons calling them faggots because there's no such thing as bad publicity: if 100 people who wouldn't have heard about the game at all hear bad things about it instead there's still 100 potential new customers right there. This is how marketing works. You must deny them a platform entirely.

>>15027899

I still think anons would be receptive to a trial period if you announced it publicly so everyone knew you hadn't gone crazy. Be open and tell everyone we're going to try it temporarily and then come back and review it. Also even if you're still not going for this what about increasing ban lengths? Seriously not everyone evades bans and the current ones are far too short to matter.

>>15027922

Well the bans we usually give out are meant to be time outs, the bigger ones go from 6 hours to 12 hours, sometimes 1-2 days.

>>15027899

>Nah, I can usually tell the difference between actual anons and some newfags trying to push their way in

You obviously can't. Do you remember what you said to me a couple years back in a meta thread when I had brought up problems with the moderation and what /pol/ had been becoming at the time? You said that the board is, and I quote "nothing without the users" and that it's important for BOs to respect them. You said that you would never let that happen here, and that board quality was important to you.

Yet here we are, with you throwing that out the window and genuinely sperging the fuck out to the point that you're multi-replying to single posts because you still had more venom after you clicked 'new reply'. I've always been nice to you over the years, but you're showing yourself to be a real piece of fucking shit here.

I don't care who's an oldfag or a newfag. I simply refuse to accept any form of "shadow" effect, whether banning or bumplocking. Leave the anchor on.

>>15027933

I DO respect the users, I still do. I have set goals and visions for the board for the board, and board quality in general is usually top notch. Aside from the occasional console war faggotry and goons, I heavily enjoy using this image board and I heavily respect both my team mates and the anons who come to this board every day. This board is nothing without the users, however at the end of the day this is a video games board. Not the /v/ - random board it was in 2014, I've learned things and I've experienced things.

also

>Do you remember what you said to me

Of course I don't, I don't remember who you even are, the only person with an identity here should be me. And even then I should only have an identity when it comes to meta shit, the other shit is just the occasional shitpost to let anons have fun and bully me.

>>15027939

>Implying I'm even remotely mad

I'm just calling you out on being a bitch nigga, even I can banter on occasion. I'm no one special.

>>15027965

Do you feel it now anon?

>>15027968

I fucking hate Summer

>>15027976

Rules do apply to me though, I banned myself a few times in the past.

>>15027986

>Rules do apply to me though, I banned myself a few times in the past.

yeah but they don't apply to me ever, so really it never applies

>>15027916

>That's a metric that no Board Owner has access to.

>You're quite literally making shit up now. Sad.

In which case Mark cannot state with any certainty that they're extremely common can he? If there's no way at all to know how many VPN users we are all working blind and stating bans are ineffective because everyone has a VPN is equally as unjustified as saying there are very few VPNs so bans work well. Since we can't be sure and it's the case that the vast, vast majority of the human population doesn't use VPNs the burden of proof would lie on you. As for my evidence for there being very few VPN users on /v/ and 8chan in general:

1. Most people in the world are too retarded to use a VPN.

2. Codemonkey regularly warns people to use VPNs meaning he likely suspects most people don't.

3. Boards with flags exist and have both the ratio of Americans:Europeans you'd expect and have people able to speak the languages of their flags reliably. Granted they could just use a VPN with their country's IP but that's not always available since VPN providers favor certain countries for legal reasons.

4. Many anons come back to the same thread for days to weeks with the same ID. To do this with a VPN they'd have to have access firstly to a VPN provider that uses static IPs and lets you pick them and they'd have to write down which IP they were using and ensure they used that one every day. What are the odds of /v/ having a significant number of VPN users and those users being autistic enough to ensure their IP does not change simply to guarantee their IDs remain the same?

5. How often do we see two anons accidentally using the same VPN and thus getting the same ID in a thread? I think I've seen it happen exactly once and given that most VPN users use the big providers nordVPN on 8chan since they've advertised here it should be much more common if there are a large number of VPN users unless they all use different providers or different servers.

>Even Codemonkey would have a difficult time spotting VPNs on any given board because there's nothing that identifies their IP addresses as being one given by a VPN.

There are ways to either get existing lists of known VPN IPs and sites like cuckchan for example use those to ban the bigger ones and the free ones but they're not perfect yes. You can even use methods to detect 'suspicious' traffic and blacklist the relevant IPs if you want and even if you didn't blacklist them you could guess roughly. However Codemonkey will not do this because 8chan is openly pro-VPN and that's good.

Also Codemonkey has in fact openly stated that /leftypol/ makes heavy use of bots and VPNs to boost its active ISP count so clearly he has some method of at least guessing as to their numbers. For example a lot of IPs from specific countries where VPNs are commonly based is a giveaway if there was a huge increase in posts from the Netherlands or Sweden particularly on an imageboard like 8chan with a largely American population you'd know something is up. There are plenty of ways to guess at this if you're the site's admin.

>>15027927

Time outs are fine at the length they currently are no complaints there. With bans for actual shitting up of the board 6-12 hours or 1-2 days is not long enough.

>>15027984

Yeah, it was pretty bad compared to nowadays. We were still figuring out the direction we wanted to go in and shit.

I remember blue wanting to make the board into /b/, while I wanted more of a mix.

>>15027960

>I DO respect the users, I still do

>I've learned things

>and board quality in general is usually top notch

What a fucking joke.

>>15027992

Hi (((Codemonkey)))

>>15027910

>cards against humanity thread

>e-celeb thread

>ANOTHER CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY THREAD

Jesus Christ

>>15027997

You're the one wanting to go back to 2014, perhaps cuckchan is more your speed.

>>15027993

You can definitely tell one poster being an idiot across multiple IPs, as you'd get with VPNs, Tor, or rebooting your router. Realistically, there's nothing you can do about it either except for mods to be quick, make CAPTCHA more annoying, or implement some sort of login system which is anathema to imageboard design.

>>15028013

Yeah, I don't really have a grudge against him. but it was for the best that he left.

>>15028015

I'm on to you (((Rosenberg)))

>>15027910

>can't remember how long ive been here yet threads look familiar

Keep your brains healthy, anons. Eat your greens and take your vitamins. Don't let the NEET consume your sanity any more than it already has.

>>15028026

I'm not the one pushing for (((invisible bumplocks))) to make it easier and more discreet to silence any discussion you don't like.

>>15027993

>>15027916

And I'm obviously not suggesting this but if /v/ ever turned on flags maybe for April Fools one year? we could be even more certain since a ton of suspicious flags would show up VPN users very quickly.

>>15028018

I agree we can't stop the VPNfags what I'm arguing is that they're much rarer than is sometimes claimed and we shouldn't use the idea of common VPNfags to say bans are ineffective. Most people who ID hop do it by rebooting their router with is a pain in the ass, is often subject to range banning and can have a very limited pool of IPs in some instances. Also not everyone will be able to get a new IP by rebooting their router that depends on their ISP and the contract they have with them.

>>15028037

post the jesus comic

>>15028049

thank you

>>15028054

>Forgot shadow bumplocks, is there anyway to reintroduce ban messages without inciting the same faggotry that it causes? Perhaps banning fake ban messages, but that doesn't sound like a good plan either.

I don't think there is sadly.

>thread bumplocked

>dies

See I told you :^).

>>15028098

h

Fuck off shitmouth.

Visible bumplocks are necessary.

Posting in a visbly bumplocked thread

I prefer having it on.

>>15028944

Yes? Why wouldn't you be allowed?

>>15029045

Because of the fear of being deleted :^)

>>>/metav/5703

Also take a look at the catalog there. There's about 5 different threads with the same topic as the thread I made.

>>15029061

Free speech being abused to shit up a board is an inevitability and saying excessive shitposting shouldn't be removed is naive. Look at /a/, it's perfect.

>>15029084

It's not naive at all.

/a/ is a somewhat slower board than /v/, so the shitposting there is rather tolerable and the necessity for pruning is minimal.

Here however, shitposting is way more common and rampant due to how active it is.

Now when /a/ has a shitpost deleted, it's simple enough. It's just one or two posts from a couple different users. In /v/, it's a bit more complicated. There might be 5 or 6 people shitposting at once, dubsposting or whatever– generally just trying to make the thread shitty.

But, when all of those people's shitposts are sloughed off at once, it's really fucking noticeable. People coming into the thread will see pruned posts from everyone else telling the shitposters to fuck off, and believe that they themselves can't disagree with the topic at hand or risk being banned.

Further, mods and volunteers will make too wide of a sweep when deleting posts, catching normal discussion along with the shitposts.

There's a solution to it however, and it's simple.

Just filter posts by ID, and filter all replies to that post.

>That's not a solution for the mods

Fugging duh, It isn't. The solution is that the mods just stop deleting shitposts so that people who want to be dicks can be dicks.

Otherwise, you paint the moderation as some overbearing faggots that want to control the agenda.

>>15029101

Anime is for girls.

>>15029120

>/a/ is a somewhat slower board than /v/, so the shitposting there is rather tolerable and the necessity for pruning is minimal.

It's precisely because they're so hard on shitposting that it's slow and higher quality. A popular board will lose quality always.

>>15028053

Fuck me daddy