Unrelated Edit: To the anon who appealed the permaban, if you see a "blacklisted" permaban it means that ASN has been used to spam the board with advertisements from a blacklisted website in the past. ASN permabans will be lifted on a per appeal basis unless the appeals process is abused (in which case they will appear as "blacklisted 2" and expect your appeal to be denied).
First, thank you for your post. This thread is mainly for answering these kinds of questions, but other posts such as >>38126
are left up since if a meta thread were to ban dissent it would defeat the entire purpose of it existing. With that out of the way...
>I don't understand shooting yourself in the foot just to prove you like muh freeze peach to some fag who wants to ruin things and will readily use your own principles against you.
It's not a particularly ideologically driven reason if that is your main concern. I'm going to be brutally honest with you; At least 1/3rd of /k/'s unique IP addresses are just me using a VPN between my phone and my desktop. The webring isn't particularly active and I don't have much faith for its restoration. /k/ only has maybe 5-10 unique users at any given time. As I have mentioned in the past in >>32527
>I have always been of the opinion that imageboards are places for the free exchange of ideas and that ideas should stand on their own merits through argumentation and bullying whenever possible
I don't particularly care about identityfagging since any newtype can quickly identify most of the anons and attach a pseudonym to them anyways. The fate of an identityfag is for the identity to eventually bite them in the ass when they do something stupid. If they had remained anonymous they would never have to worry about that and if they go back to being anonymous they will not have to worry about that. Identities are cancerous and against the spirit of anonymity, but they are not against the spirit of imageboards necessarily. Mentally I automatically filter out the name field when reading a post. In previous examples in other threads, I allowed meta discussion in regards to identityfags to remain up so as not to seem to have any particular bias in their favor, but that was apparently a bad faith maneuver. As pointed out by >>38268
I am open to criticism and working out a better system, but I also have one foot out the door as board ownership will be transferred at the end of August anyways so I don't want to set a new precedent that could become a hassle for the new Board Owner, as identityfags are prone to do when having an autistic fit over not getting their way.
>They know what they're doing, you know what they're doing, the faggot vols know what they're doing
Believe it or not they are easier to tard wrangle in this manner (especially when using a static IP) and they would just find a different way to "subvert the board" if I did start to ban them. Especially that
one who is still asshurt that the site owner won't oust me for banning him. If they are using the threads as intended and contributing an argument or commentary to the thread, then I don't really care about them being a cock-sucking faggot (whether figurative in the case of LinkAnon or apparently literal in the case of the /christian/ vol who posts here). I would judge a post on the merits of whether it is on-topic to the thread rather than on how hard anon sucks cock and leave personal opinions about their cock-suckery to the filtering capabilities of the website and to the personal tastes of anon. That was one of the main reasons IDs were enabled in the first place and why forced anonymity isn't active. I do hold identityfags to a higher standard and if they do go off-topic or break the rules they will be dealt with more harshly so report them if they are doing so. I'd like to reinforce the point that if they are going to identityfag they must take the bad attention/responsibilities of doing so with the "good" attention of being an identityfag and making their faggotry known to others. I have admittedly been too lax in this regard and will go about cleaning the threads up while being stricter in the future. Especially in regards to meta discussion outside this thread.
tl;dr since that's a wall of text:
>Making sure it's a level playing field and everyone is playing the same game with the same rules is moderation's responsibilities
>Filtering people being faggots is anon's responsibility and why we have IDs
>Identityfags will be treated more harshly should they choose to violate the rules knowingly or unknowingly because they are held to a higher standard due to attaching an identity to their posts
>Further metaposting about this outside of meta/100rads will be met with extreme prejudice
>The board has too few users as it is to be going around purging faggots for mild shittery
>I don't want to set new precedents right before a new BO comes in since it would create unnecessary drama for him
>If there is a general consensus with a philosophical justification/"legal precedent" behind it that isn't a purge and satisfies most parties, then I'm open to suggestions
I'll go through and do some late-summer cleaning to get back to that common law premise I set out to accomplish back in April.
EDIT: Did some mild cleaning to get the point across. Rule 1 will be enforced more heavily this month in regards to off-topic and the like to show a good faith effort to maintain a minimum standard of quality.
Edited last time by Reuenthal on 07/31/2022 (Sun) 07:39:04.