>>341
Wrong picture, sorry

>>44
Removed. You'll have to repost, as the file cannot be deleted separately from the text currently.

(6.66 KB 240x240 )

>>45
Thanks you very much, it will never happen again I promise.

These are just nitpicks.
https://22chan.org/b/thread/70#p294
Normalfag meme.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/intensifies
https://22chan.org/a/thread/20#p20
Noticeable thread derailment? Unsure if it counts as low quality.

>>47
The normalfag meme was deleted. As for the Sakura thread, what exactly was the post that derailed the thread?

>>47
Regarding the /a/ thread I am wondering what people would think of a function that allows the mods to hide a post for everyone who enters a thread and they can just expand it if they want to read this shit.

>>48
28, 29, 30, 31

>>49
No, i think hiding posts would cause more problems then do any good, it would also cause people to "look the other way" if something actually does break the rules or whatever instead of directly confronting the problem.

>>462

I wanted to mention that if you somehow get a message saying you're banned for something and haven't done anything it might be a bug that goes away eventually.

https://22chan.org/b/thread/537#p537
post number 622
low quality and off topic.
https://22chan.org/a/thread/63#p72
post number 72

>>95
>622
I saw the post as a joke. Do you care to elaborate?
>72
Deleted.

>>95
I'm pretty sure 622 was intended as a joke.

Does the post https://22chan.org/yu/thread/15#p183 break rule 3.b? Unsure if it's the previous anon that had his post removed where he discussed his mainstream celebrity normal faggot shit dream he had, but all that same anon takes from his dream is how he's got another girl that is into him.
Also just because it's a dream you don't have to share everything that happens inside of it e.g. you share the part where you ended up sucking off another man's dick because of how much of a flaming homosexual you are I'm certain your post would have been removed as well.

>>102
I should also mention that the thread is about starting up interesting discussion about people's dream they had so what kind of discussion starts when someone talks about shit like girlfriends?

>>102
It seems like the mods are still debating over it, since it was removed apparently without the consent of any of the other moderators. I don't get what makes it "normie" either nor' do I understand your "just because it's a dream you don't have to share everything that happens inside of it" comment.
It seems like you both want anons to make their posts LESS descriptive and less detail-oriented while simultaneously having large, high quality discussions about those same vague posts? Seems a bit backwards to me

(23.69 KB 1128x92 )

>>104
The way you describe what's happening is just subversive. The debate has settled, and the post is still around. We are being more than generous with you because you are now insulting us with your latest comment. Unless you flesh out what you're saying, you are breaking rule 7 because you are not proposing any solution. Instead, you are just trying to make the mods look like they are incompetent and stupid. None of the mods wants to listen to inflammatory remarks that are untrue. As long as your intentions are pure, I would simply move on. Debating something we have already resolved is pointless. I'll end this post by quoting the last section of the rules "Remember: The use of 22chan is a privilege, not a right. The 22chan moderation team reserves the right to revoke access and remove content for any reason without notice."

(35.48 KB 1777x378 )

>>105
This is the single most genuinely angry post I've ever witnessed on this site. I'm actually, seriously confused at it. How in what way was what I said subversive, insulting, inflammatory or untrue? In the /meta/ thread ABOUT the post >>99 a moderator claims that the post was removed without the input from other members of the team. That's not what I said, that's supposedly coming straight from the source. Meaning that of the 4 sentences in my original post, only ONE of them was about the moderators or how they were handling it, and even then I was just quoting a fact. The reason why I said "it seems like the mods are still debating over it" is because at the time of my post, the original post wasn't up. Even checking it now, the post ISN'T up. At one point, the post WAS reinstated-- because I saw it remade after having been deleted once before without the related image that it was posted with. I have seen this with my very own goddamn eyes. To claim that what I'm saying is "subversive" is ironically subversive in an of itself.
I don't mean to argue but this is the most perplexing post I've seen in 22chan history. Honestly it seems to be written as excessively hostile as possible, which is very unusual for 22chan moderation because you guys have been very professional and civil in the past. This is a far cry from your history, and makes me wonder what's been going on behind the scenes. It feels pretty obvious that there's some confusion because the post has been reinstated multiple times now.
No, I don't know what a good solution to this "problem" would be. I don't really think there IS a real solution. Either remove the original post entirely or keep it, I don't care. That's what all this is about right? If you want my input for your moderation skills, then I'd say they need some work. More communication with your fellow admins and some actual rules that the moderation team has to follow would be a good start. We would all be well advised to try and PREVENT things like this from happening in the future, because it causes naught but confusion and anger.
You can ban me for this post if you'd like. For talking back or whatever. I was worried about 22 going to shit and I'm starting to think those worries might not have been unfounded. At least if this is the kind of conduct we should expect from our moderators.

This isn't the 22chan I remember...

>>104 and >>106
The post was up after I mentioned it to you in >>100 just the message didn't get to everyone instantly of the moderator team to stop removing it. There are still some communication errors here and there but I decided to remove your post today after what >>102 and >>103 mentioned, so you are right it was up but I waited until someone reported for why it should be deleted and someone did and the reason was sufficient that it is not coming up again. So funny enough the >>105 post rolled out by another moderator for when I decided to remove it.

>This is the single most genuinely angry post I've ever witnessed on this site.
It seems that everything the staff says is interpreted in the worst way possible but I can assure you that it is not.
Your post here >>104 mentions the "normie" stuff but doesn't mention the "normalfag" stuff (Normie wasn't mentioned anywhere for that post) which is what was interpreted as "subversive" because it's for some reason impossible for you to separate both of those terms and mention the other as if you seriously don't understand that they both mean completely different things. That's reason enough to make people think you are messing with them on purpose.

>I don't get what makes it "normie" either
>It seems like you both want anons to make their posts LESS descriptive and less detail-oriented while simultaneously having large, high quality discussions about those same vague posts? Seems a bit backwards to me
Take a look at post >174 in /yu/ which clearly explains what a normalfaggot is not to be confused with a normie. Girlfriend, dating, etc. all of these real life bullshit things that normal faggots engage in and then talk about it online like where as you're supposed to separate your online identity and your offline identity. Whose fault is it supposed to be that you don't want to look up the definitions through various means? What kind of discussion do you want to generate in a thread that's supposed to generate discussion? Stuff like "I wish I had a girlfriend can someone give me dating advice." No, that's what we are trying to avoid here because /yu/ and the userbase in this imageboard consists of anti-social people who want a place to express themselves without intrusion from the outside of their bedroom.

If you want further inquiry on this issue please use the [email protected] email
This is maybe a good time to actually set up board rules for /yu/ because it is such a broad topic that includes many things that we might not want to see here.

>>108
>Normie and normalfag mean different things
Goddamn you are fucking retarded. They are synonyms, giving them different meanings arbitrarily is really gay

(377.44 KB 1213x320 )

>>109
Honestly I am unsure myself if they mean the same thing given how much the words get thrown around and everyone seems to have their own definition for them. Anyone I have asked about it in the past few years whether it's a oldfag or a newfag what it means to them they give me a mixed response, but whether they are right or wrong about these definitions I have no clue. I came to the point where I just started saying to people that "normie" is just a pejorative term for a specific type of "normalfag" but a normalfag by itself isn't a normie, although yeah the related image puts that into question. The first time I separated the normie and normal-faggot term was when I browsed tumbrl (No, I never had a tumbrl account just browsed a few pages out of interest) There I found a bunch of pages where people's interest were so completely out of the ordinary that I couldn't apply the full definition of normalfag/normie to them. Like for example I found a blog based around a Japanese fandom called "Ukagaka" run by a person who did not share any mainstream culture interest like the rest of the normal-faggots/normies on there, because they had complete unique tastes in music and interesting hobby they engaged in enthusiastically that only a small group of people would understand. What I found them doing instead was mixing in real-life politics into their blog, they were ranting about how Trump was a bad person and always promoted other socialist/communist post on their feed. What was I gonna call them a normalfag/normie? It wouldn't make sense because the full definition wouldn't apply, so I told to myself and other people that they are a normal-faggot (can't separate fiction from reality) instead of a normie (a person who engages in mainstream culture). If both normie and normalfag terms means the same thing the rules on 22chan should reflect that and remove the "normie" term completely and it should be shunned as it was initially created and used by facebook/reddit users that browsed /r9k/ on 4chan.

>>110
As far as I've seen, 'normalfag' and 'normie' have always been synonyms. One is just more SFW than the other. As of late I've been picking up on a lot of people seeming to be very on edge with the "normalfag menace". I think that basing such a critically important part of our culture and infrastructure upon such an interpretive word is a massive fucking mistake. It will result in posters being banned or having their posts removed when they don't think they did anything wrong, because of how interpretive it is. I'm sure you don't consider yourself a "normalfag" but I can absolutely fucking guarantee you that there wouldn't be an insignificant amount of people who WOULD consider you a normalfag, because their definitions of the word are different from your own.
This isn't really anything new, but it's something we need to remember. Enforcing rules based on arbitrary measures like "normalcy" or "relation to pop culture" wouldn't be very good at all. If /mmc/ were to stream and post about a modern, new anime like Chainsaw Man for example, would that make them eligible to be banned? There have been recent posts on /vg/ about the Dead Space series of games, which at one point was a massive AAA franchise with merch, comic books, spinoff games, etc. What about those anons? It's a slippery slope and I know that saying that is super played out but it's fucking right.
In truth, I don't think we should stake our identity on being "non-normalfag", and while those rules most certainly should stay and have a place amongst our culture, it's important to remember that 22chan's original thesis statement was being "comfy", and a place that harbors high quality, in depth discussion about basically anything within reason.
Calling somebody a 'normalfag' is also a really good method to discredit and shut down conversation if whoever you're talking to disagrees with you. If somebody is a normalfag then their concerns, ideas or thoughts can be very easily written off as worthless, right? Putting so much emphasis on immaterial concepts like that opens the gateway to give more power to intellectually dishonest retards.
All this comes down to having good, honest, and intelligent moderators who understand the community and what we want. Best case scenario they would just BE a normal community member, and not think of themselves as anything more or less. 22chan is built upon the trust the community has for the people in charge.
That's just a thought

>>111
>As of late I've been picking up on a lot of people seeming to be very on edge with the "normalfag menace". I think that basing such a critically important part of our culture and infrastructure upon such an interpretive word is a massive fucking mistake.
couldn't agree more. crying normalfag or even about effortposting is thread derailment in and of itself, probably more so because any gay little normie post you see is infinitely less likely to attract attention than someone bitching about it and sparking a whole meta discussion. (you could also just ignore it and contribute to the fucking thread yourself the way you see fit) I fuckin hate country music for example, and generally see those who listen to it as lower and less conscious than me - normalfags, so to speak - but I'm not going to shit up a thread if someone shows interest in it. That's what these kinds of thread derailing posts look like to me, just vindictive and whiny
Simply shunning these kinds of rule-breaking posts seems like a better idea to me; they should only be deleted if they're particularly egregious, which again, is also subjective. It's tricky to be sure. tricky dicky

>>111
>In truth, I don't think we should stake our identity on being "non-normalfag", and while those rules most certainly should stay and have a place amongst our culture, it's important to remember that 22chan's original thesis statement was being "comfy", and a place that harbors high quality, in depth discussion about basically anything within reason.
Being non/anti-normalfag has always been crucial to the site and its community. Comfiness was focused on because it was comfiness meant for the primary users of the site; comfiness rooted in protectiveness of the community.
Comfy and anti-normalfag aren't terms exclusive to each other, even more so in this case since by design this site isn't supposed to attract the average imageboard user, much less an average person (normalfag) in general.
"Core/primary users" refers to users that have been contributing on the site for a long time, be it making OC, writing in-depth posts or participating in site projects. Basically, the kind of person who checks the site everyday and likes to engage with other people here. The people that keep this place alive are the only thing to keep in mind when there's any plan to make a significant change or announcement, we shall not pander to outsiders making low quality posts and threads that knowingly and ultimately only end up in derailing and creating a flame war.
>Calling somebody a 'normalfag' is also a really good method to discredit and shut down conversation if whoever you're talking to disagrees with you.
Saying "normalfag" out of nowhere for no reason at all would never actually discredit an anon, since in that case it'd be used as a buzzword with no basis on reality and thus could be ignored or even deleted for being low quality. Calling another poster a normalfag is not and has never been a common occurrence, the only thing that would change this is a massive sudden influx of new users or a raid, and even then it'd be temporary in both of those cases.
The deletions or bans due to actual normalfaggotry in the current site are rare and every single time it has been well deserved since the posters were attempting to generate discussion about girlfriends, one of if not the most normalfag subjects while also being one of the most profitable when it comes to attention and angry replies, so one could also think of them as trolls looking for an easy way to create chaos; in both situations deletion is required.
>All this comes down to having good, honest, and intelligent moderators who understand the community and what we want. Best case scenario they would just BE a normal community member, and not think of themselves as anything more or less. 22chan is built upon the trust the community has for the people in charge.
22chan staff in action is nothing but anonymous users of the site who use it normally that occasionally have bring out the moderator tools they have been entrusted with to enforce the rules, but they also are core members of the community that have held onto and contributed to it for most years of its existence.
>If /mmc/ were to stream and post about a modern, new anime like Chainsaw Man for example, would that make them eligible to be banned?
You are right when you say that if we wanted to enforce the "normalfag/normie" terms to the fullest we would also have to remove anything considered popular by mainstream culture such as chainsaw man since it's the current FOTM, but I think what would differentiate actual discussion from normalfag discussion is actually talking about the thing instead of repeating burned memes and surface takes.

I discussed your post with the staff and I think you highlight a few good issues regarding basing the rules of 22chan on interpretive words. The way I see it if the rules stay the way right now there's always going to be issues with enforcing them and leading to very lengthy discussions on whether the removal of a post was reasonable enough creating dramatic situations that leads to the userbase questioning the integrity of the 22chan staff. This doesn't mean we will remove them but rather start focusing on making them more direct and concise and the point so that there will be no more confusion about this in the future.

Guys there's a bit of a problem on the /b/ board
>>704

>>116
God damn that post stayed up for quite a while just what in the hell is wrong with these glownigger faggots.

I can't be the only one noticing a weird but small influx of low quality posts, right?
For example, >>737 in /b/, as well as >>195, >>196, >>198, and >>197 on /yu/. 197's response doesn't even make any sense and it seems obvious to me the anon didn't even read the entire post.
I don't know if they'd be officially considered 'low quality' though. I don't want to make a completely new thread just for this so I'm mentioning it here.

>>120
737 on /b/ and 364 on /sewers/ are (bot spam?). i'm not too sure. perhaps checking if it cross site spam would help.

>>120
ignoring the (bot spam?) threads,
i think the term here to use is, is it obstructive? would it aid in a trend of more low quality posts to follow?

my investigation is that the posts you highlighted (at least a few of them) are joke posts. light humor if you will.

a anon has a bad day at work, and the anon(s) pointed out that to look on the positive side and that the anon that was struggling at least had a nice snack.

An anon was reading a furfag webcomic and was discussing the characters mental health and made comparisons to his own. the anon(s) joked that the anon that read the furfag webcomic, if committed to a mental institution, would be put down like a rabid animal.

an anon discussed his dream in which he had a philosophical discussion of an old friend who was a child. the anon(s) made a joke thatif some child appeared out of thin air and asked such an odd question, he would have gotten spooked.

>didn't read the entire post
sleep depravation? mental retardation? lack of an ability to lurk? poor taste?
i think this situation would require the input of several different Anons to figure out if these really should get removed or just ignored. (i personally think its fine.) Who knows, the staff may want it gone but didn't notice the posts yet or they themselves may think its o.k. it's always good to have discussions like this and to always discuss if something breaks the rules or not since it means the community is still living.

>>120
>>122
>>121
>I can't be the only one noticing a weird but small influx of low quality posts, right?
Looks like a anon who doesn't have much time on his hands decided to check on the website and reply to as many threads as possible bumping the interesting ones even though the responses aren't very well thought out. Question is I guess should they be removed? I didn't see any malintent behind them if anything it made some anons reply to those now bumped threads and notice that they even exist in the first place.
>737 on /b/ and 364 on /sewers/ are (bot spam?). i'm not too sure. perhaps checking if it cross site spam would help.
There's no way that the anon on >>737 on /b/ and >364 is somehow a bot. It's either he just didn't see that his thread was moved to /sewers/ cause he doesn't check it or thought that it was removed completely so he decided to repost it. If he wants to make an actual Ninja thread discussion he should probably try harder than just reposting the previous webm he used which doesn't seem like a serious discussion anyways now.
>An anon was reading a furfag webcomic and was discussing the characters mental health and made comparisons to his own. the anon(s) joked that the anon that read the furfag webcomic, if committed to a mental institution, would be put down like a rabid animal.
He was talking about the feels he got from reading the comic and ended it there which didn't come with any furfag discussion of its own. If a blatant furfag comes and does something stupid, it'll be b& and done.

>>122
Personally I don't think the posts are that big of a deal either. I don't have much more input to give that that though. It's good to note however that the three posts in the "no good feelings" thread could have easily been just one post with three responses in it.
I think we should definitely get other anons to weigh in on this, because I believe this is once again an interpretation problem as the last issue.
As >>123 points out, there's no maliciousness behind any of the posts, they're just single sentence low effort posts, which while technically against the rules, aren't really "bad" either

>>124
>single sentence low effort posts, which while technically against the rules
As far as I know in the rules it just says high quality posts are "encouraged" and in the past I've never seen anyone really mention that all of the replies to a thread have to be 100% high quality either as it was just stressed by the mods that the thread OPs have to follow the high quality rule in order to generate high quality discussion in the first place. Now yeah if the replies themselves just said something stupid like "lol." "kek." or whatever and didn't even bother mentioning why they laughed in the first place, basically just one-worders, then I'm pretty sure that they should get removed.
>It's good to note however that the three posts in the "no good feelings" thread could have easily been just one post with three responses in it.
I think we should just tell that anon that his 3 low quality responses could have been just made in a single post instead kind of how we tell people to "elaborate."

>>126
"extremely important to this community", AND "encouraged"
(although that is a vague statement)
just wanted to highlight that.
personally, an example of what i would consider to be low quality is several posts on the /b/ thread 537

>I find niggers annoying.
>Enjoy your monthly bump.

and the post below that who responded to poster 622 have no substance just like post 622
keep in mind i am not bitching about "muh raycism)
he could have easily re-wrote the thread to

I find niggers annoying.
Especially the -0 IQ monkeys screeching their negroid music And those Mamys walking around topless in wal-marts

And hey, that's something that can be responded and contributed to, anyone can respond to that even if its bitching about that poster being racist, it would be on topic to the thread.
>>96 thought it was fine because it was a joke but imagine if that was repeated over and over on several threads,
Even if it was no more than a joke post it's still off-topic and with his statement of "Enjoy your monthly bump" I highly doubt the statement was for laughs, it was made for subversive reasons. At least with the two posts on the b thread 306
post 309
>Claiming to understand everything makes you sound extremely pretentious.
(which was on topic for the sake of being a critique of the OP)
and post 312 with that epic ascii art work quite well within the thread.

Removed >>200 >>201 >>202 on /yu/ for being low quality and thread derailment that adds nothing new to the conversation.

>>127
Keep in mind this post is my opinion.
Another thing we have done is converted shit threads to high quality threads by just making quality posts on the inside.
>>133
Lol, What did he say?

(12.70 KB 525x319 )

>>134

>>135
fucking amazing, there's a retard born every minute.

Very big announcement regarding the website coming in the next few days or even sooner.

(33.23 KB 600x900 )

>>139
This should be good,

>>>/b/70#848
>>>/b/70#845
Removed for self-dox. Posting a picture of your face or your "wife" is not allowed.

>>>/yu/247
Removed and banned the "Dating Advice" thread for violating rule number 2 no Normalfaggots.

>>>/sewers/552#552
Removed for breaking rule 9 (Complaining about 22chan without providing a solution), rule 3e (Advertising), rule 3g (Avatarfagging) Next time ban.

>>222
Is this the record for most rules broken in a single post?

>>223
the record where and when? which site? for 22chan back in the day i'm sure there was a few that broke the most rules, but nowadays maybe this is the recordbreaker for this version of the site.

>>>/b/1007/#1479
Deleted for breaking rule 3g namefagging is not allowed.

holy shit this dumb nigger is seriously redditspacing. two spaces for attention and shit, this is not reddit or a forum.
>>>/a/296#296
>>>/a/297#297

>>242
and for the life of me, why doent he have a single thread on /b/ for his questions about animation or use a pre-existing one like the q&a thread?

>>242
>>243

oh shit. they're known as "50k-chan" on a textboard i use. very easy to spot them in the wild if you've seen many of their posts. they spam altchans with art and animation related threads. just ignore them.

Locked >>>/sewers/749#749 for making an absolutely low quality thread that's obviously just there to stay at the top of the bump order. I'll see about unlocking it later once I implement a saged thread feature that can't be bumped unless you put "age" into the options field.

What happened to the death note thread? Was it deleted by accident? (which is most likely the case, and is understandable)
Is death note considered normalnigger?
Would it be fine if i re-create a new death note thread, And would there be any interest for a thread for that anime?

>>250
It wasn't deleted I think when I transitioned the threads from the other software to this one it just didn't add the death note thread for some reason. Sorry about that I'll go ahead and try to add it back.

>>>/b/510/#1951 Rule 3g. Deleted. No begging or suggesting any type of donation-related activities. This also falls under the doxxing rule. Remember, financial solicitations and actions leading to a breach of anonymity are strictly prohibited here.

>>>/b/510/#1954 Rule 3g. Don't try to attach a name to your posts even if someone begs you to.

>>>/sewers/883/#883 Deleted. This is not a platform for incessant posting akin to a personal gallery. This behavior resembles spam and deviates from our community's standards. Additionally, in the OC thread where the images were spammed you fail to provide any context or description which further detracts from the quality of discussion. Take a hint.

>>>/vg/895 banned temporarily for namefagging refusing to read the rules.

I don't know what happened here, I pressed the button once and i got a 500 error and it submitted my thread twice on sewers and it didn't post the image. I'd suggest just deleting the damn thing.

>>327
could you tell me what the file was? like the file type and name?

>>328
Maybe it was the wrong filetype, i tried reformatting it and renaming it and i must have fucked up like a total dumbass https://www.blueman.com/-/media/bmg/images/about/homepage_box.png?db=web&h=205&vs=1&w=332&hash=C9580E29BF75D3A382DC13407D9ECE8F (the image source) but at the same time i didn't get a warning about it being the incorrect format...

Removed and banned >>>/b/3105/#3105 >>>/b/3105/#3108
Violations include:
- Rule 2
- Rule 3d
- Rule 3e
- Rule 3g
Attempting to get users of this website to doxx themselves in any way or form is strictly against the rules and will not be tolerated.

>>42
I thought i made a post in a comic book thread but instead in error i had made a new thread. Out standing.

>>351
I misread that as if you got an error and the reply created a thread instead.

>>>/b/3466/#3466 low quality and cross-board spam

>>>/b/3732/#3732 Removed. Although as of recent we have been very easy-going the post is extremely low quality and, while not explicitly violating rule 3b, serves no purpose other than acting as "gateway content" that encourages the pursuit of explicit material. This goes against the intended tone and purpose of this space.