- No flanfly for /jp/
- (11:31:25) +AoC: Sange, they lost flanfly privileges last night
- (11:32:14) Sange: What happened?
- (11:34:00) +AoC: basically they had a really bad one and I questioned the whole concept
- (11:34:30) +AoC: then I remembered that I deleted flanfly back in 2010 anyway, so whatever, it won't be missed since it has reached new shitty levels
- (11:36:18) » Join: dongfix (~kjj@dong.engineer)
- (11:36:18) » ChanServ (+h) dongfix
- (11:37:26) Sange: Why delete Flanfly?
- (11:37:29) AstronautBear: i'd imagine you shoot children like you shoot anyone else.
- (11:37:52) Sange: Just leave it up until the smiling Flan pic is posted, then delete it
- (11:37:58) AstronautBear: it takes a twisted mind to shoot up somewhere, i don't think it's any different.
- (11:38:02) » Quit: +Kazisho (~milkshake@denn.hier.sind.die.Verdammten) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
- (11:42:22) Sange: I don't really feel like deleting Flanfly or Hoopdog, a case can be made for JBCS if it gets to a point where it's being posted daily, but otherwise I'd just leave it up
- (11:42:52) Sange: I consider them harmless board culture, and I'd rather not give in to the report abuser who keeps re-reporting said threads
- (11:43:46) +AoC: I stand for flanfly protection when there's people actually having fun
- (11:44:26) +AoC: at the moment it's just the same spam posted every night and I'm honestly tired of having a shitposter truce every night
- (11:44:29) Sange: If we started deleting Flanfly we would need to delete every other thread that stays up on the board purely for the "board culture" aspect
- (11:45:03) +AoC: that's a shortlist, and it's hoopdog/JBCS
- (11:45:03) Sange: I don't really like that decision because it does make the board look like a concentration camp
- (11:45:49) +AoC: yeah, it's not total policy just for last night because it was notably shitty instance of flanfly
- (11:47:01) Sange: The thing is, they will always complain about inconsistency if we delete a Flanfly thread and leave some other board culture thread up
- (11:47:27) Sange: So threads on the whole board start getting derailed from that point on
- (11:47:42) Sange: And we'd need to stay consistent with a decision
- (11:48:03) +AoC: I wish this was real...
- (11:48:12) +AoC: because they derail the thread regardless
- (11:48:32) +AoC: the current hoopdog thread is full of whining about the report queue being cleared
- (11:48:45) +AoC: they don't operate under the rules of logic
- (11:49:03) Sange: That person is the one who re-reports threads all day and also the multiple proxy abuser
- (11:49:21) Sange: Katsurugi confirmed it yesterday
- (11:51:04) Sange: I don't really care for Flanfly, I just really want to have consistent policies and not kill the board's fun. I don't see any problem with deleting an unusually bad Flanfly thread, but the board always starts to question whether there is some need moderation policy in effect after these events
- (11:51:24) Sange: new moderation policy*
- (11:52:32) +AoC: I'll agree on consistency, but nobody but the shitposters are finding the fun at this point
- (11:52:47) +AoC: even long running in-thread personas are dropping
- (11:53:29) +AoC: and if you ask me, the difference would be the fact that the other "board culture" threads aren't reposted every single day
- (11:53:51) Sange: /a/ has Sakura Fish, though
- (11:54:27) +AoC: I miss when it was "I'm the sexiest"...
- (11:54:33) Sange: As long it's just one thread, I don't see a problem
- (11:55:00) Sange: It'd be one if everyone wanted to start having their daily doses not deleted, but that doesn't seem to be the case
- (11:57:34) Sange: The last "ban Flanfly" /q/ thread got deleted, so I'd just completely ignore everything that happens inside those threads, personally
- (12:02:50) Sange: Either that or deleting everything "board culture", but I don't think that would be a popular decision
SHARE
TWEET
No flanfly for /jp/
a guest
Apr 19th, 2015
217
Never
RAW Paste Data
