|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:8chan/Archive1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is an archive page, last updated 29 September 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (back)
4chan[edit]
It's worth noting that while a link to 4chan exists, it redirects to Anonymous. So, why does this chan site warrant an article, but the original does not?--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Because I bothered writing it. Feel free to write a proper missional article for 4chan - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Sources[edit]
These sources were posted in the main article, but were not linked to any information currently contained within it. Reposting them here so that others can build off of them. -Shtrominer (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Sexism And Misogyny In Video Game Culture", Huffpost Live (video)
- "Q&A with Fredrick Brennan of 8chan," Know Your Meme
- Adrian Chen, "Gamergate Supporters Partied at a Strip Club This Weekend", New York
8chan in the news[edit]
And of course it's because of swatting. And the thread is still alive. Good job, Hotwheels! Typhoon (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit]
Move the dirt on Brennan to another page, Jesus Christ. — Unsigned, by: 75.1.49.43 / talk / contribs
- It's his one claim to fame, so this is his page too! Isn't he lucky - David Gerard (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
"pissed at us"[edit]
Gamergate whines about RW a bit, but does that count as "8chan" per se? - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest a trip to /pol/, or whatever the 8chan equivalent is. Or just running the standard "links to RW" Google search.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've got ""rationalwiki" -site:rationalwiki" on a Google Alert, something from there angry at us comes up almost every day. FuzzyCatPotato of the Forbidden Lock shuckers (talk/stalk) 16:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
No mention of Smiley?[edit]
You know, that strange guy who's in charge of /fringe/ who thinks he's a actual Wizard who can do spells and crap.--Madman (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)The Madman
lolicon[edit]
Is that child porn without (actual) children?--Arisboch (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- wp:Lolicon. Drawn erotic or pornographic depictions of pre-pubescent girls. And now my name is on some list.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- 8chan does have a history of using it as a euphemism for the real stuff, though. Narky Sawtooth
(Floof!~) 18:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- That is of course something completely different. Does the anti-child porn law say anything about drawn stuff?--Arisboch (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I was pointing that out for the sake of preventing confusion anywhere 8channers use the word. Also, it varies by area. I'm pretty sure it's illegal in Canada, by state in the United States. In the case of 8chan, they're hosted where it is legal. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 18:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I was pointing that out for the sake of preventing confusion anywhere 8channers use the word. Also, it varies by area. I'm pretty sure it's illegal in Canada, by state in the United States. In the case of 8chan, they're hosted where it is legal. Narky Sawtooth
- That is of course something completely different. Does the anti-child porn law say anything about drawn stuff?--Arisboch (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- 8chan does have a history of using it as a euphemism for the real stuff, though. Narky Sawtooth
Recent Edit Warring & Article Misinformation[edit]
Narky Sawtooth, can you please explain how recent developments from 13 May 2016 somehow magically were present in counter-productive edits from over a year ago and why the article deserved having a edit warring when your original reason clearly isn't entirely true? Even if the developments were from a year ago in older edits, I don't see how they would even then be counter-productive to the article at all, if anything you keep reverting the article so that it contains false defamation and generalizations of the site and its community that lack evidence to support them otherwise and degrade the quality of the article, which you would have understood if you simply read http://pastebin.com/DipC4bcj (which is sourced from http://archive.is/Kb6B0). —Roricon (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your removals of, eg, "Fans of 8chan blamed anyone except themselves.<ref>https://i.imgur.com/e37Nmdp.png https://i.imgur.com/1nRNmGS.png</ref>" or "and the even worse '''/polpol/'''." were unnecessary. Whitewashing 8chan ain't necessary. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 11:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- The posts of 5 users doesn't represent an entire community of fans and a dead and irrelevant politics board doesn't belong on the page, especially when the website's 2nd largest board isn't. Nice buzzword though. —Roricon (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- If users don't represent their community, who does? Anarchic chanculture and all, kid.
- Why not mention polpol? Nice meta-buzzword, though. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 11:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Because the board only had a very short lived popularity lifespan, and it is currently dead and irrelevant. Also it most certainly doesn't deserve a spot of being a notable board when /v/, the website's second largest board, doesn't even have a spot. The removal of it from the article is in line with the removal of irrelevant boards that was done by David Gerard. —Roricon (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- The posts of 5 users doesn't represent an entire community of fans and a dead and irrelevant politics board doesn't belong on the page, especially when the website's 2nd largest board isn't. Nice buzzword though. —Roricon (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
There, your pastebin happily integrated. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 11:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- You still need to remove parts like "photographs of barely-clothed children in sexual poses." as this is no longer the case anymore, which you would recognize if read that pastebin link, or if you kept up with any of the current affairs in which all the non-drawn image pedophilia-related boards were all nuked by the new owner and the users of those boards migrated to librechan.net. Also my other edits of the article still seem pretty deserving, unless you can now prove it otherwise. —Roricon (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem like you are going to respond, so I guess I will just edit it out myself in a week's time after the edit warring is over, unless you can explain to me why that edit was also reverted. —Roricon (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- The acres of borderline child porn was one of the things 8chan was most notable for, even if they claim that totally doesn't happen any more - David Gerard (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not exactly just a claim though. Every single non-drawn image pedophilia-related boards got destroyed after Jim and Ron Watkins took over the site, namely boards like /hebe/ and /cutegirls/. If you go to librechan.net, you will see that all of the users from those boards have migrated there now. Your point that 8chan was notable for it is correct, however the article presents it in a way that suggests that the content is allowed and the enforcement of deletion of the content is still loose, which is false defamation of the site. —Roricon (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- "unless you can now prove it otherwise" Doing so would take about 30 seconds of browsing /b/, where there are threads specifically about posting sexually suggestive pictures of minors (real, not anime), usually under titles like "Post Random Pictures", which seems to be the new "Cheese Pizza" shibboleth. One can only guess what can be found in the hundreds of other boards on the site. Petey Plane (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Did just as you said and I only found a single instance of a thread like this and there was no sexually suggestive pictures of minors in the thread. Even if there was to be a thread/posts, if you were to report it, statistics of global removals show that it would be deleted within a day, which is considerably fast when the standard by many child protection agencies is set to a week. I don't see how you seriously expect a global moderation team of like 10 people to be able to monitor content across over 10000 boards unless you report it. Also, they now employ a bot that is able to automatically delete some of the content when reported, making the removal instant (read: http://archive.is/HP77p). —Roricon (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Given 8chan's history, any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion that i did about the intent of that "Post Random Pictures" thread. You're deluded if you think there is an innocent reason for a thread almost exclusively filled with pictures of small children on 8chan, where threads dedicated to the illustrated depiction of child rape remain some of the most popular, but to be fair, the page has been updated with a more accurate description. See A whole bunch of.... Petey Plane (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Present to me an example of a thread which contains pictures of small children in sexual positions. I will then report those posts, and if it doesn't get a response within a week/when the posts get naturally deleted, then you would actually have a case. I browsed the /b/ catalog earlier and found no evidence of this, as I said previously, so I can't exactly blindly agree with you here. Illustrated depictions and real images aren't even comparable. Real images contain exploitation of minors, while no-one is harmed with depictions. It's like saying that watching a video of underage cartoon character getting murdered is as bad as a video of a real life child getting brutally murdered. The article still contains inaccurate descriptions of the content that 8chan allows, which is false defamation and misleading to readers, hence why I called for its removal. —Roricon (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- You completely ignored my argument. Please tell me why a thread full of pictures of small children, many depicting them doing stuff like eating ice cream, would appear in /b/. And in no place did i indicate that "lolicon" and actual child porn are morally/ethically equal. I was merely pointing out that 8chan has a long history of child pornography, and it's illustrated depiction is still very popular on the site. Given that fact (and it is a fact that artistic depictions of child rape are popular there), it makes any thread dedicated to posting images of small children suspect. Because i don't personally have the stomach or time to do a deep dive into the nether regions of 8chan, i'm only assuming that more can be found in less public boards. Petey Plane (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't. Again, I failed to see an thread where this is the case. Also, what's your point exactly anyway, in the article it says that children are in sexual poses, not eating ice cream, so even if there was a thread, it wouldn't change my point. You're assumption that the posts are suspect for sexual purposes has no evidence to back it up what-so-ever, and is based on the amount of lolicon content on the site, hence why I made the comparison earlier, but seemingly you thought that was irrelevant for whatever reason. Of course there's probably more on less public boards, but as I explained earlier, unless you report the posts there is no practical way of the moderation team to delete the content. However, I'm also sure that there is thousands or even millions of real child pornography pictures that get uploaded to internet services like Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, yet http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_networking_websites has no mention of it at all, probably because unless it suits their agenda, editors on here realize that it's not fair to blame a website for what the users post, especially when, like 8chan, it is disallowed content. —Roricon (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, you did not. But, i think arguing with someone whose own username (and therefor i assume the user themselves) promotes the sexualization of children may be a lost cause. Petey Plane (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- "I don't have any actual arguments, so I'm going to insult your character instead." - You —Roricon (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- You ignoring my arguments does not change the fact that i made them. 8chan and its users have been, and continue to be, one of the most prominent sites on the internet that advocates for the sexual abuse of children. Your equivocation doesn't change that easily verifiable fact. Petey Plane (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I rebutted all of your previous arguments. Explain how 8chan itself promotes sexual abuse of children, when CP deletion has always been enforced. Majority of 8chan users I would say directly oppose pedophilia, if you claim to be a pedophile on the most popular boards you are immediately ostracized by many others, especially on /pol/. Most of the users also defended the actions of the new owner when he nuked all of the jailbait boards, hence why the migration point for those boards went to a website called librechan.net, and basically the entire userbase there is them. Also to top it all off, /hebe/, the largest jailbait board before the purge, never surpassed 300 active users, meaning that the actual pedophile userbase is a fraction of the entire community. I wouldn't have expected you to know this however, since seemingly most people on here don't like to leave their little echo chambers. If you think my claims are simply equivocations, then I would like to see you provide evidence that the 8chan administration or a large portion of the userbase actually support pedophilia. —Roricon (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- You ignoring my arguments does not change the fact that i made them. 8chan and its users have been, and continue to be, one of the most prominent sites on the internet that advocates for the sexual abuse of children. Your equivocation doesn't change that easily verifiable fact. Petey Plane (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- "I don't have any actual arguments, so I'm going to insult your character instead." - You —Roricon (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, you did not. But, i think arguing with someone whose own username (and therefor i assume the user themselves) promotes the sexualization of children may be a lost cause. Petey Plane (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't. Again, I failed to see an thread where this is the case. Also, what's your point exactly anyway, in the article it says that children are in sexual poses, not eating ice cream, so even if there was a thread, it wouldn't change my point. You're assumption that the posts are suspect for sexual purposes has no evidence to back it up what-so-ever, and is based on the amount of lolicon content on the site, hence why I made the comparison earlier, but seemingly you thought that was irrelevant for whatever reason. Of course there's probably more on less public boards, but as I explained earlier, unless you report the posts there is no practical way of the moderation team to delete the content. However, I'm also sure that there is thousands or even millions of real child pornography pictures that get uploaded to internet services like Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, yet http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_networking_websites has no mention of it at all, probably because unless it suits their agenda, editors on here realize that it's not fair to blame a website for what the users post, especially when, like 8chan, it is disallowed content. —Roricon (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- You completely ignored my argument. Please tell me why a thread full of pictures of small children, many depicting them doing stuff like eating ice cream, would appear in /b/. And in no place did i indicate that "lolicon" and actual child porn are morally/ethically equal. I was merely pointing out that 8chan has a long history of child pornography, and it's illustrated depiction is still very popular on the site. Given that fact (and it is a fact that artistic depictions of child rape are popular there), it makes any thread dedicated to posting images of small children suspect. Because i don't personally have the stomach or time to do a deep dive into the nether regions of 8chan, i'm only assuming that more can be found in less public boards. Petey Plane (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Present to me an example of a thread which contains pictures of small children in sexual positions. I will then report those posts, and if it doesn't get a response within a week/when the posts get naturally deleted, then you would actually have a case. I browsed the /b/ catalog earlier and found no evidence of this, as I said previously, so I can't exactly blindly agree with you here. Illustrated depictions and real images aren't even comparable. Real images contain exploitation of minors, while no-one is harmed with depictions. It's like saying that watching a video of underage cartoon character getting murdered is as bad as a video of a real life child getting brutally murdered. The article still contains inaccurate descriptions of the content that 8chan allows, which is false defamation and misleading to readers, hence why I called for its removal. —Roricon (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Given 8chan's history, any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion that i did about the intent of that "Post Random Pictures" thread. You're deluded if you think there is an innocent reason for a thread almost exclusively filled with pictures of small children on 8chan, where threads dedicated to the illustrated depiction of child rape remain some of the most popular, but to be fair, the page has been updated with a more accurate description. See A whole bunch of.... Petey Plane (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Did just as you said and I only found a single instance of a thread like this and there was no sexually suggestive pictures of minors in the thread. Even if there was to be a thread/posts, if you were to report it, statistics of global removals show that it would be deleted within a day, which is considerably fast when the standard by many child protection agencies is set to a week. I don't see how you seriously expect a global moderation team of like 10 people to be able to monitor content across over 10000 boards unless you report it. Also, they now employ a bot that is able to automatically delete some of the content when reported, making the removal instant (read: http://archive.is/HP77p). —Roricon (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- The acres of borderline child porn was one of the things 8chan was most notable for, even if they claim that totally doesn't happen any more - David Gerard (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
As I can't edit the article still, Sandflapjack the recent edit you did includes a source which predates the change done by Jim and Ron Watkins, and uses evidence from a board which was targeted for cleansing directly by the new admin, meaning that he has certainly deserves more credit than just "allegedly". It seems like you are trying to get every single piece of dirt on 8chan's name that you can for whatever reason, even when the new owners are trying to make steps towards improving the issues that the website has. I also would like to add that it's perhaps a good idea to gather information from places other than bias and unreliable hit piece Medium articles. —Roricon (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Cool story bro, as they say on the chans - David Gerard (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Don't remove snark. See the SPOV. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not removing the snark because it's snark, I'm removing it because it doesn't follow a scientific point of view, as the snark-related claims in the article lack evidence to back them up. That would like me going to the article on social justice warriors and writing "But we all totally know that SJWs don't brutally rape and murder children." and thinking that would be acceptable just because it contains snark. That's simply crass. —Roricon (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Sandflapjack (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ror: wow, amazing, so neutral [1] Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- The word "hopefully" carries the same sentiment that no action has yet been taken. If you read through my previous posts on this talk page, Ron and Jim Watkins purged just about all the borderline real life child pornography on the site, hence why I mentioned that if you go to the website "librechan.net", you will see that the pedophile userbase has moved there. —Roricon (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your argument, Sandflapjack. —Roricon (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your welcome Lolicon-but-in-a-racist-Japanese-accent-like-seriously-you-88-tattooed-fuck Sandflapjack (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, I'm actually half Japanese Sandflapjack, and that's how you write lolicon in romaji. If anything you are the one being racist by saying that I have to be a 1488'er to respect and follow my own culture. —Roricon (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- My favorite part was "we're not pedophiles because we only look at cartoons of underage girls, not real underage girls!" Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- My favourite part was your baseless assumption. I am a legitimate pedophile and not just a lolicon. Thanks for your pathetic attempt at trying to belittle me though.—Roricon (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for clarifying that. Please leave ASAP. Petey Plane (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why would want me to leave, exactly? Is it because you are being intolerant for who I am personally, rather than the content I bring to the site? —Roricon (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm really really really sorry about being intolerant of adults who want to have sex with children. Petey Plane (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why would want me to leave, exactly? Is it because you are being intolerant for who I am personally, rather than the content I bring to the site? —Roricon (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for clarifying that. Please leave ASAP. Petey Plane (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- My favourite part was your baseless assumption. I am a legitimate pedophile and not just a lolicon. Thanks for your pathetic attempt at trying to belittle me though.—Roricon (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Roricon" is legit romaji of the Japanese word "lolicon".--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 22:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 22:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your welcome Lolicon-but-in-a-racist-Japanese-accent-like-seriously-you-88-tattooed-fuck Sandflapjack (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Ror: wow, amazing, so neutral [1] Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not. The legit romaji would be "roriKon".66.87.115.39 (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
/sjw/[edit]
Norman stop adding this fucking section to the page. This one random self-declared strawman who owns a board on a website anyone can fucking make a board on allowing people to indiscriminately yell at him is of zero overall importance to 8chan as a whole. Learn to contribute better fucking material or convince me and everyone else here otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I already gave you reasons why it's important. You chose to ignore them, and I'm not willing to repeat them. --Norman (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Your reasons are shit. What does yelling at a self-declared strawman have to do with anything?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- So you can't claim to be an SJW without being a self-declared strawman? Is that what you're trying to say? Besides, whatever you're trying to achieve by cursing like a highschooler who thinks he's a sailor: It's not working. You just sound like a highschooler throwing a temper tantrum. I mean, every single one of your sentences in this discussion contains "fucking". Not sure who decided you'd make for a good mod. --Norman (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- No I'm calling the person who owns /sjw/ a self-declared strawman based on your description of the board. Also your deletion of shit that made real news is cute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I merely acted on your principles: Delete fucking everything, because why the hell not. And now, can you please tell me what a self-declared strawman is? From the strawman-article: A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position. It's pretty clear from this definition that one isn't a strawman just because he happens to have opinions other people have too. Your pseudointellectual bullshit makes about as much sense as... well, everything you say, really. --Norman (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- No. I deleted the section you added because this week old board of a bunch of people being angry at someone who eliminates their anonymity and claims to be the SJW scourge is of no importance to anyone who gives a fuck about 8chan. Meanwhile, you deleted a paragraph that has an actual media source behind it which shows that the real world cares about that one particular topic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- How exactly has nolongersilenced eliminated their anonymity? What are you even talking about?
- The question should not be whether the "real world" (whoever that is) cares about something, it should be whether they should care about something. You think any good journalist out in the real world acts on your principle that the public should only be informed about things it already cares about? Anyway, you've made your point clear. The second I see any news outlet mention /sjw/, the entire paragraph I'm written is back in. --Norman (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Tech raptor won't count and I can't think of any news agency that gives a shit about a bunch of people yelling at one dude who set up a website just so people can yell at him for being their bogeyman.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- "The question should not be whether the "real world" (whoever that is) cares about something, it should be whether they should care about something."
- And who's to be the UberDictator to determine about what the real world should and should not care about? You? Sounds like censorship to me. I thought you GGers were against censorship. And about ethics, since it would be unethical to determine what speech the real world should be allowed to care about.
- I'd also like to have an explanation as to why you think \baphomet\ doxxing a federal judge and trying to sell that information to the highest bidder is something that should be deleted. Biddix appears to be another Robert Beale waiting to happen. --Castaigne (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- No. I deleted the section you added because this week old board of a bunch of people being angry at someone who eliminates their anonymity and claims to be the SJW scourge is of no importance to anyone who gives a fuck about 8chan. Meanwhile, you deleted a paragraph that has an actual media source behind it which shows that the real world cares about that one particular topic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I merely acted on your principles: Delete fucking everything, because why the hell not. And now, can you please tell me what a self-declared strawman is? From the strawman-article: A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of an opponent's position. It's pretty clear from this definition that one isn't a strawman just because he happens to have opinions other people have too. Your pseudointellectual bullshit makes about as much sense as... well, everything you say, really. --Norman (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- No I'm calling the person who owns /sjw/ a self-declared strawman based on your description of the board. Also your deletion of shit that made real news is cute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- So you can't claim to be an SJW without being a self-declared strawman? Is that what you're trying to say? Besides, whatever you're trying to achieve by cursing like a highschooler who thinks he's a sailor: It's not working. You just sound like a highschooler throwing a temper tantrum. I mean, every single one of your sentences in this discussion contains "fucking". Not sure who decided you'd make for a good mod. --Norman (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Your reasons are shit. What does yelling at a self-declared strawman have to do with anything?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've messaged nls on reddit and they've confirmed they are the owner of sjw, if that helps.66.87.79.124 (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Proposed Overhaul[edit]
I'm considering covering the more notable boards in the style of our Reddit article, including /fringe/, /leftypol, the infamous /baph/, /mgtow/, /nambia/ and the new shiny /pol/. As thus, I am requesting we lock the page to auto-confirm as to prevent BON raids. --Madman (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman
| Gator enclosure |
|---|
|
- It's already locked to admin for one hour, I'll change it to autoconfirmed again. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done. You have 7 days, and then the hordes reappear. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's already locked to admin for one hour, I'll change it to autoconfirmed again. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate strikethrough[edit]
Why are the gamergate titles struck through? Were they hacked or banned? Aleksandra96 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- According to rumor I heard they were hacked or something like that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- The board owners let (in)famous trolling groups take over the boards and so the gators migrated. /gg/ was one of the first big hubs over there, It was replaced by /gamergate/ in December, and that one was taken over earlier this year and thoroughly destroyed. As /gamergate/ was sabotaged, they moved to /gamergatehq/ with some splinter factions going to /ggrevolt/ and a myriad of other replacement boards that were made. Lightning Dust (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- They were abandoned by rats on sinking ships after mod shifts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Abandon by rats on sinking ships. Aleksandra96 (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Did I stutter?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- You gave up on trying to make your shitposts coherent. Aleksandra96 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Did I stutter?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Abandon by rats on sinking ships. Aleksandra96 (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)