/meta/ - Meta

Oh they're gone (for now). Disregard this. Merci Mods.

It's one guy ( >>>/wiz/216071 ) who is quickly running out of proxies. He stopped avatarfagging a while back but then after a short 1 day ban he turned from "Defender of Wizards" to telling all wizards to kill ourselves. Then he admitted and proved that he was part of that particularly gay discord server / clique / thing so I went back and deleted close to 900 of his posts. School is starting back up so he won't have any time to spam hard soon.

>>64911
Admin, I can't email you.

>>64912
The email is ayydmin@proton.me. It seems to be receiving emails fine. The old address (admin@wizchan.org) was destroyed in a cyber-raid.

>>64913
Any chance you will ever get around to changing the contact portion of the FAQ and other parts of the site?
For example I am almost certain the address on the banned page for direct email of appeals is also non-functional.

>>64909
how can a link and a pic of loli can change your youtube recommendations???

>>64913
Do you know the mods are making up their own rules on the spot and then banning people and deleting stuff that is in no way against the rules?

>>65063
I know I am.

>>65065
Arbitrary and fickle moderation is the second quickest way to kill a online community.

I mean you could do what you want, but eventually you will be doing it alone at this rate.
Is there actually a real reason you can't/won't change the rules page if you actually want to change the rules?
Or should I just assume the worst?

>>65066
Spam and attacks against the community from outsiders are the absolute quickest way to kill an online community. It's our ability to identify these outsiders and not waste time explaining to them why they're banned for the hundredth time that allows us to stay online.

The rules exist to guide genuine posters towards making fruitful contributions and promoting an atmosphere of respect. The people we've been banning for reasons such as "outsider" and "nigger" aren't genuine posters. We have no good reason to accommodate their attention deficit by changing even a single line of the site's HTML in honor of their spam. As soon as we identify a poster as someone who is or at some point was trying to upset the wizard community as a whole, every post we can connect to that user gets deleted. No reason needed, no reason given.

>>65204
I understand the need to protect the community, but I disagree with the approach of banning users and deleting posts without explanation. This can create a chilling effect, where people are afraid to engage for fear of being wrongfully silenced. Banning users based on labels like "outsider" or "nigger" seems overly broad and risks excluding people who could eventually contribute positively. It's important to differentiate between malicious behavior and simple misunderstanding. A more transparent, educational approach could help maintain the community's integrity without shutting down potential growth or discussion.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>65205
It is not *users* who we are banning for these arbitrary, undefined reasons. Very, very rarely does a post get deleted without at least being served a warning message for the listed rule infraction. Even when someone breaks a core rule we tend to keep the post up with a public ban message so that new users can get a clearer sense of what does and doesn't fly. The only posts we're deleting without specifying a reason for are those made by the small handful of repeat offenders who are already serving permanent bans, such as >>65063 who's IP range had to be banned because it has been used to make hundreds of rule violations and flooded on more than one occasion.

>>65205
>one post by this IP
Do you actually believe you can fool my pattern recognition? You think I'm not autistically glued to a screen 24/7 and thus I'm able to recognize your bullshit from miles away? You deserve to get called a nigger faggot over and over. The only reason I'm replying to such pathetic bait and fueling is because I don't want lurkers to believe the lies that you and a couple of thirdie shitskins have been spreading about the site for years.

>>65204
I was mostly complaining about deleting post and banning people for stuff like pretending rule 7 means all depiction of females are banned despite that not being what the rule says or the original intent behind it.
Or the total ban on even talking about vtubers regardless of context just because the mod personally doesn't like them.

Stuff like that.
I know full well the people who get banned for stuff like "nigger" are chronic trolls.

It's just, if you want all depictions of meatbag succubi to be banned then make it a official rule rather that pretend rule 7 means what it doesn't. Posting a video of a fully cloathed succubus falling down and laughing at her stupidity isn't fawning over her or lust provoking.
Posting music on /b/ that happens to be made by succubi but nothing about the post is sexual or fawning isn't a violation of rule 7 in word or spirit, yet bans have been issued for it.
Even in the political thread recently, any post that had a picture of female politicians, despite being old ugly hags being discussed purely for political reasons, were deleted for the non-existent rule of posting 3d succubi.
If your want vtuber related stuff banned then make it a written rule rather than making up nonsense to try to push it into a existing rule when it simply doesn't fit in context.
Etc.

It isn't like changing html is herculean if you really wish for such rules.

>>65211
Clarifying Rule 7 stuff is reasonable. In a lot of cases the first violations were the only violations. I haven't had to ban for female vtubers since the very day it was arbitrarily declared that they were 3DPD. I'll refresh the rules and GPGs soon.

>>65213
GPGs?
What do you mean by that?

>>65206
>>65208
>>65213
You guys are straight up niggers.