/meta/ - Meta

agreed

Such links are deleted as we see them, usually for Rule 12. An autoban would come in handy if the links were being spammed by a bot, but because they're only posted by users so far it necessitates taking context and post history in to account when either punishing the user, or politely informing them that their links aren't allowed.

Talking about any Discord-related drama is also something that is being cracked down on, and it seems that the only people interested in posting it are one or two ban evaders, so if you see someone complain about being "banned for mentioning Discord", it's because they've destructively flooded with it in the past.

If only it were possible to list a written down rule about it or something.

But nah, just working on guessing the whims of the staff to know what is and isn't banned without a actually listed rule is good enough.
It's not like the rules or FAQ page can ever be changed or anything. Nope, they must remain the same until the death of the site or the heat death of the universe. Because modifying them in any way is just impossible.

/sarcasm

But seriously, if you don't want certain sites like discord linked then you should make a public rule about it, including modifying the rules page to actually inform users so that they know for certain what is and is not allowed.

>>64432
Is trolling /meta/ with mod accountability jargon just a part of your programming now? Tell the team responsible for your codebase to // exclude those lines already.
>make a public rule about it
There's that "your 5-board Midna nude mod website with 3 staff members needs to be transparent about all of the internal habbeningz" again. Didn't happen in 2012, not happening in 2033.

The notion of every rule and policy needing to be explicitly written down and detailed in order to be "lawfully" enforced is incredibly autistic and opens up so many issues. Rule 12 covers no advertising your website. "Those deemed to be outsiders" or something covers anyone suggesting they use that website. Both are good enough reasons, but no reason should really have needed to be outlined at all because advertising a discord of all things is objectively a shitpost made to stir up trouble, so rule 5 alone suffices.

The admins personally have already told you to scaff off with this deliberate wasting of everyone's time.

>>64433
>Is trolling /meta/ […] just a part of your programming now?

Obvious projection is obvious.
What a shitty trolling attempt.

>>64433
All these words when you could have just typed "HURR! DURR! ME NO INTO WEBDEV ME BIG GAY DUM-DUM!!1" What a fucking moron, hahaha.

>>64432
doesn't matter if you make a rule for it, these discord spammer faggots just post their shit here regardless

Complaining about rules aside
I will say this. I don't get why image board vets would ever use discord.

Seems to be for animal fucking furfags and sjw's

>>64433
> The notion of every rule and policy needing to be explicitly written down and detailed in order to be "lawfully" enforced is incredibly autistic and opens up so many issues. Rule 12 covers no advertising your website.

I’m sorry, but you are not being helpful and constructive. Just as it might be autistic to explicitly list every single rule, it would also be highly autistic to expect every user to work out every implication from a rule as well. If discord link spamming is a problem that is being faced, it would make sense to explicitly list it as being banned. The only reason not to would be if it was clear that the userbase understood it and that problems were minimal, but clearly this is not the case.

>>64444
These are solid arguments for a compliant, human userbase. In the case of Wizchan, the chatroom spammers are neither.

Half are automated by bots
Half are made by trolls
One group doesn't read the rules
The other does, but only to see what they can post to rile us up

>it would also be highly autistic to expect every user to work out every implication from a rule as well
This is why inconsequential warnings are issued for those who post links but are clearly here to contribute in other ways too. It allows for an opportunity to direct them to the rules page too in case they missed it.

>>64445
I see. I will not question your judgment on *this* decision then.

>>64446
Little faggot is lying like always. Don't respect it. I've never been given a warning, these impotent, paranoid retards are autistic and think too much of themselves to the point that they fully trust their dogshit sleuthing abilities or dollar-store correlative add-ons.