That sausage to fork ratio looks off, to me.

I'm permabanned on my office PC with a static IP for posting a link in /iq/ to some pointless fuckabout website. I'd complain, because it was definitely within a standard deviation of the average thread quality of /iq/, but I've actually gotten something like four chapters of my thesis written since.

Thanks, shape-shifting reptilians, you stopped me from being as much of a silly sausage.

>>13517

Probably flagged as spam.

>>13518

Why can't I access /A/?

>>13524

Some boards are blocked to foreign IPs for legal reasons/It's a conspiracy. It depends on who you ask.

>>13518
Can I have it reversed, then, please? I'm fed up of getting erections at my desk from Supernanny.

>>13535

It shows a 503 forbidden, not a ban page. Nice try, though.

>>13536
Forbidden is 403, you fat-handed twat.

>>13536
No, it definitely tells me I'm banned forever.

>>13538

Ok then, mystery solved.

>>13528
"Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /A/ on this server."

Any ideas?

>>13548
Do you still geofag to the US?

>>13553
Still? Only >>13524 and >>13548 was me.

Anyway, no, I don't, and I could access the other boards fine. Unblocked now, so thanks.

Slightly off topic, but I am on a work computer. I noticed 5 separate posts on /sentry/ from different parts of Malaysia.

This is of interest to me as I will be in Malaysia over the next couple of weeks. I will be fucking busy, but was wondering whether .gs will be available to me.

>>13558
Everything but the porn.

Could the m0dz please stop locking so many threads? If it's vacuous trash reminiscent of the other place fair enough, but just because the OP of >>/b/398357 is a pathetic excuse for an adult doesn't mean the entire thread needs to shut down. We're not being actively damaged by discussing the matter. Then again it did belong in /emo/ anyway. Point is, if you think about it, posters being twats have resulted in some of the most entertaining events in the history of .gs.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>13561

I'm of the school of thought that you need discourse to create stimulation. If when someone posted something everyone agreed with it, although that is a good post the conversation comes to a halt pretty rapidly and offers no new knowledge, or experience. The thread you mentioned being a good example of a view which creates discourse.

>>13561

If you stop dodging wordfilters and put your threads in the correct boards, we'll stop locking them and banning you.

>>13561
>posters being twats have resulted in some of the most entertaining events in the history of .gs.

Twats like bike thief and crab killer or wonks like ambulancelad and the lad who freaked out because his mum asked him to order a takeaway and he didn't know how had a certain level of gravitas or endearment.

The OP of that thread was just an arseclown.

It needs to be said, regardless of the arseclownery of the OP as that isn't what he was banned for; wrongthink is not a punishable offence, if he had posted on /emo/ the thread would have been left alone. /emo/ threads go in /emo/ not /b/, it's as simple as that.

>>13564

This is true to a point, but I think it's a slipper slope and before you know it you have Nepali cunts spamming pie threads and telling everyone how they are are posting from Nepal.

>>13563
Your wordfilters are shite, and I haven't started a thread in months, let alone in the wrong board. Anyway I do have things to do today so maybe a day off of .gs would do me good, cheers m@dm8s

>>13566

>I think it's a slipper slope and before you know it you have Nepali cunts spamming pie threads and telling everyone how they are are posting from Nepal.

What do you call a Nepalese man wearing a warm indoor shoe?

A slipper slope


(My apologies for posting that in /shed/)

>>13566

Not a proxy, just posting from mobile.

>>13575
That happens to me, too. I decided to put up with it as the mobile networks were routinely used to post CP spam. It's a pain in the arse but I'd rather wait until I get home to post than risk more CP being posted.

>>13576
Fair enough but does the ban really have to be indefinite, then?

>>13577

Yes, unless you have a better solution?

"din" whoever you are, if you know what posts in /x/ are child pornography then you should probably report them for deletion instead of bragging about it on a connection that can be traced back to you personally. Moron.

>* din (dindin@7C60E300.F2386D93.30738E0A.IP) has joined
><din> well
><din> because of the way posting and reporting posts corresponds
><din> i can't actually report anything on /x/ with a foriegn IP
><din> remember, foreigners arent allowed to go there
><din> and i have always dilligently reported that shit because i don't want it on there
><din> you lot are just pissy because you're all lazy drunkards on the dole
><shape-shifting reptilian> but you can view it?
><din> and you know, actually stopping people from getting in trouble might fall in your purview
><din> but you'd fail ont hat end
><din> yeah
><din> i remember reporting shit before and it would go away
><shape-shifting reptilian> you can view a thread that was way past the first page despite that being forbidden to foreigners in exactly the same way as the report function is?
><din> i'm fairly certain i did report it some time ago anyway
><din> but i don't know if the thing would go through
><din> i remember finding the magical thread
><shape-shifting reptilian> We're generally over-cautious in removing anything that might be CP, if you had reported it, it would have gone
><din> well that entire thread should be disappeared tbh
><shape-shifting reptilian> it has been
><din> porn is horrible
><din> bye
><din> oh wait, i'd also appreciate it if you deleted the post referring to me
><shape-shifting reptilian> that's why you try so hard to bypass the wall to view the x boards is it?
><shape-shifting reptilian> you're not making a lot of sense right now mate
><din> i have to impose my sense of morality on others
><din> to ensure that i can keep due dilligence against such crimes, i keep my eye on the entire pornography industry
><shape-shifting reptilian> that's cool, I'll impose mine on you by leaving the post up then. thanks for drawing my attention to the thread, all the same.
><din> :(
>* din has quit (Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client)

Please, if you know or suspect a post to be of child pornography, report it for deletion rather than making yourself complicit in the viewing and production of it. Or rather than being a complete nutcase.

>>13578
I'm just saying how do you know that IP is going to be used to post CP forever and ever? I presume the posters of it are smart and dedicated enough to realise they need to change IPs frequently, even if they could somehow hold onto a single mobile network IP for themselves - and we know that they can't because I got assigned it today.

>making yourself complicit in the viewing and production of it
Oh please don't try and scare us with this pseudolegal nonsense. By this logic, reporting it would be essentially sending you evidence you could pass onto the police that we have, in fact, viewed it and reproduced it on our screen, so it would actually be against our own interests to do so.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>13580

>reporting it would be essentially sending you evidence you could pass onto the police that we have, in fact, viewed it and reproduced it on our screen, so it would actually be against our own interests to do so

This is truth. The only sensible thing to do if you see CP is browse away and tell nobody.

>>13581
The site would record that you viewed it and didn't report it, making you complicit in its distribution.

>>13582

Just because a hyperlink for an image was visited doesn't mean that the content was actually displayed on the screen.

>>13582
>>13583
The whole "displayed on the screen" thing only comes into play if you have your cache disabled.

>>13582

I don't see how that could possibly be the mens rea and actus reus, that would mean that if someone set up an enormous poster in a public place of kiddy fiddling everyone who viewed it would be guilty of viewing child porn. That is of course assuming people are even aware they are seeing child porn. which I assume in most of the instances that would occur on britfags and not cleaned up immediately would be where people reasonably assumed they were over 18.

>>13585
The press don't care about things like mens rea. As far as they're concerned the police have nicked a wrong'un, and he's trying to weasel his way out of it.

>>13585
The example you give is different, because it's only the person who made and distributed the poster that is guilty of an offence. As >>13583 and >>13584 have said, in this case when we're discussing "viewing" images, we are (I think) referring to the offence "making" an indecent image, which precedent has held includes "causing an image to appear on a screen". So by loading the page in your browser, you have caused the image to appear on your monitor and thus have "made an indecent image". Plus of course the file in your cache counts as possession.

The people looking at the poster, by contrast, have neither made nor possess the image in any legal sense of those words.

>>13587
>So by loading the page in your browser, you have caused the image to appear on your monitor and thus have "made an indecent image".
This is such a load of bollocks. Not you claiming it, but that this is the way things are.

>>13588
This interpretation was dreamt up as a specific anti-loophole for a case of someone who had deliberately visited a site and deliberately viewed the images, but deliberately disabled caching in the browser. It came around the same time that people were openly calling individuals working at ISPs "child pornographers in chief". I think it may have been the same case that prompted the swift creation of an exemption for law enforcement.

>>13589

No doubt the Masons had something to do with that. Tracing the board? More like tracing the outline of the dead, nonced child while on the phone to the Grand Master confirming if he was, indeed, accounted for all Saturday night.

Oh, wait. This is a ban appeal thread in /shed/. What a silly sausage I am.

Whatever. Just report shit for deletion for the sake of not being a cunt.

>>13515
>>13515
Mercy, lads. One whole week is a long time. The guy I work for makes in a day what I make in a whole week. This is triggering me.

>>13597
>>/emo/22539

>>/x/40106

A whole week! for posting "foreign' memes"‽ A week for what is surely a slap on the wrist offense? I demand justice! JUSTICE!

>>13599
Keep it in your trousers next time.

>>13600

Sir! the fact that the right honorable shape-shifting reptilian, who I assumed banned me. Had made clear it was a 'definite would' in their mind, implies it is not the issue that I had taken it out of my trousers. If anything it appears the issue was that I hadn't!

>>13601
You've already been unbanned you prat. The original ban length was 1 second.

>>13599
>>13602

Well meme'd shape-shifting reptilianm8s. I wish we had more epic mem- sorry I meant 'inside jokes' and genuinely hilarious jokes on this imageboard that totally isn't a chan.

(A good day to you Sir!)

You have been banned from posting on all boards for the following reason:

Will you ever learn? >>/v/20368

It depends, is it a grammar issue? It usually is, but I'm blind to them so I can't tell.

>>13604
>I'm blind to them

So what precisely then would be the point of explaining it to you?

Does that sausage look a bit phallic to anyone else? When I scroll past it's easy to mistake the right end for glans.

>>13515
This is a bit excessive. I feel like I'm being targeted and bullied.

>>13604
>is it a grammar issue?
I would assume so, but the ban had expired by the time I saw your comment earlier today so I'm not sure why you mind - unless it was removed.

>>13606
Don't most sausages look phallic?

>>13607
Judging by image related, you got off lightly.

>>13607

>bullied

Fuck, someone phone ACAS.

You'll have to clue me in, shape-shifting reptilians. What's 'tedious and /pol/ about discussing the protests about the 'male and pale' BAFTAs, especially in light of similar protests/controversy about the Oscars and Grammys?

Now if I'd posted something inflammatory or you thought we're mindless racists then I could sort of see where you'd be coming from, but I hope neither of those were the case. Then again, I have heard that at least one shape-shifting reptilian is overzealous in respect of shutting down debate they don't like.

>>13610
>Why is it only black people who seem to take umbrage at this and is this just going to keep going?

>>13611
In my opinion that's not inflammatory and that certainly wasn't my intent if that's how you feel. It's a genuine curiosity as to why it only seems to be black people who complain over this. I'm quite naïve when it comes to race.

Besides, I think you should trust the rest of the user base to call me out if I'm being out of line rather than stifling the discussion altogether. Please don't permaban EE again.

>>13610

>I have heard

What is it about this particular phrase that pretty much guarantees that the proceeding sentence will be conjecture and that the poster wont cite their sources?

>>13612
Your opinion is not relevant.

>>13612


Just my tuppence's' worth, but It sounds like you want Carte Blanche to bait the user base and start flame wars, not create discussion like you claim. Are you that mentalistlad we keep hearing about?

The shape-shifting reptilians exist specifically to stop shit like that from happening, or at least ideally they do, so in deleting a thread which leads with "Why are blacks so thin skinned?" what are they doing that is draconian or oppressive? That certainly doesn't imply constructive discussion to me.

Have a fucking whinge there, cuz.

>>13605

that I may see

>>13613
It'll be elsewhere on /shed/. I think there's been at least two or three occasions, but the most notorious one was when the entire EE network was permabanned because someone posted an innocuous link about an Asian child grooming gang in the Rotherham thread, which certainly wasn't offensive in any way and simply stated the facts. IIRC the shape-shifting reptilian's justification was that someone else was being racist, which was true because they ended up having a massive teary over it, so all debate must be silenced because of patterns of posts.

>>13616
I see your point. I'm not the mentalist but I was probably a bit rash and didn't think through how I'd worded the thread. Honesty, I wasn't trying to start a cunt-off over race.

>>13616
>Why are blacks so thin skinned?
Is that seriously what it said? Fucking hell, keep it up shape-shifting reptilians.

Please stop banning that huge subnet, at least until admin whitelists my IP. Cheers.

>>13621
During the most raucous period of the Cultural Revolution, the Red Guards had turned on their own leadership and denounced them. I suspect something similar has happened in this communist dictatorship. Ha.

>>13621

Does maroon have the only key to the shed or something? What a strange situation.

>>13623
Now I'm picturing purple yelling and banging on the door a la Fred Flintstone.

>>13623

OOPS. My colour tag was a bit off, apparently. That's supposed to be indigo.

Please don't behead me for impersonating the king.

>>13626
That should be a semicolon, not a full colon.

>>13627

Audible mirth. What makes it unsuitable in that context?

>>13627
Yeah good luck with that one mate, he can't even work out the past participle of "to go".

>>13625
>>13626
Who the fuck is indigo? And I thought shape-shifting reptilians were only allowed to post in red? What is going on? Is the site still called britfa.gs?

Also
>I've went
Ban yourself forever.

>>13631

I thought there was a bloody coup happening before my very eyes. You'll have to forgive me for slipping into regional colloquialism in the heat of the moment.

>>13631

P.S.

>Who the fuck is indigo?

http://britfa.gs/help/

>>13629
Full colons are for plural, semicolons are for singular.

>>13633
Yeah, there's no indigo there genius.

>>13636

Look at all this petty infighting. And this is the group of teenagers who decide what gets put up on here and what doesn't. Ban the lot of them I say.

>>13636

Well that's hurt my feelings.

>>13639

There's no infighting. If there was I'd have already challenged him to a duel.

Well this is annoying as I definitely wasn't posting from a proxy, as a simple whois lookup of the IP in question would have revealed. At least two posts of mine were deleted too; although if this is some kind of hatchet job I would have preferred that to be made clear in the ban message rather than the ineffectively nebulous 'Proxy'.

Sigh.

>>13642

How is Brazil this time of year?

>>13643

I would say something about "30 degree heat" but I'd hate to be tarred with the same brush as HongKongLad.

>>13642
I don't understand why you think a WHOIS result can indicate the absence of a proxy server.

>>13644

Saying anything at all, rather than deflecting, would be a great start.

>>13645
I guess because most proxies are hosted on servers not on home internet ISP ranges. That said, a simpler way to prove the absence of a proxy server would be a simple port scan. I wonder if this was an automated ban because I have to reset my ADSL router three or four times a day.

>>13646

That wasn't a deflection, it was a joke about it being hot but not wanting to moan/brag (delete as appropriate) about it. Brazil's a pretty big country but up here in the north-east it's bloody hot, and will continue to be until about April when it'll be slightly less hot but a hell of a lot rainier.

>>13648

You are greatly over estimating what a whois lookup is capable of revealing to a non-native about a foreign IP range.

I've seen you posting from Brazil for a while now and you've not really done anything ban worthy, however I can't whitelist your IP as that is an admin level function and your ban will need to remain in place as The Wall is effectively up for the foreseeable future.

Anyone else looking to post from a foreign IP will have to get whitelisted by an admin as we've had more child porn posted. Sorry folks, blame the arseholes who post this shit.

>>13648
Over a dozen IPs from actual proxies were banned in the last 24 hours. You were included in that because you were posting from a remote location during the spate. That's all.

>>13649
>>13650

Totally understandable, no one wants CP on here. Just checked banned.php and I seem to be unbanned again so cheers lads.

>>13651
No problem. Sorry about the mix-up.

Not him but wondering what >>/e/21412 was banned for? I see nothing spelling and grammar-wise and the post itself is of course a Day Today reference.

>>13653

The site was hacked by a drunken Gerry Adams.

In the Europe thread somebody has been banned for the Americanisation in the spelling of defence I presume, but you've done nothing to:

A) The lad accusing everybody of dolphin rape (although I can understand you leaving this if perhaps just to let him be entitled to his opinion).
B) The lads completely shitting it up by talking like edgy 'lEL So Randumb XD' 15 year olds about babies and how well they like them done.

I'm just wondering why the discrepancy?

>>13671

No one reported any of the other posts. Even if they did there is no guarantee we'd have done anything.

It's not our job to police people's opinions, despite a few mentalists claiming otherwise which is no secret, so from that point forward it's not a massive leap of logic to assume either we didn't see it or we consider bad spelling and grammar tantamount to posting Child Pornography.

Perhaps, we don't even care. Delete as applicable to fit your own personal bias. Why do you care?

>>13672

>Why do you care?

Not them, but people resent what they consider unfair treatment, particularly by those with power.

>>13672

>Why do you care?

It'd be nice if the website owners (for which I am genuinely grateful for providing this website) would perhaps not waste their time being supercilious about spelling and perhaps stop people turning threads into the equivalent of 'the other place', as people post random videos of babies and talk shit about how they like the colour of different races of baby.

Just seems to take away from the content and seems ridiculous, as ridiculous as this place can be, that you'd ban somebody over a letter difference but not ban people posting absolute drivel about cooking babies in a thread about the EU referendum.

It makes it hard to read actual content and discourages proper posting.

Perhaps you don't care, but I just don't understand why you'd care about spelling but not grossly childish behaviour, of which I'm inclined to believe is far worse than any Americanisation in spelling that comes as part of an effort to contribute.

Just my two pence. Maybe I shouldn't care, particularly if the shape-shifting reptilians are just the 'we do what we want with the power aren't we quirky' type.

>>13674
What is your problem with babies?

>>13674

>Delete as applicable to fit your own personal bias.

Facetiousness a virgin concept, lad?

>>13676

It's not a problem with babies, it's just utter shit when people are acting like teenagers saying how they like their babies more cooked, in a thread where we're trying to talk about the EU referendum. I just don't get it.

This place prides itself on having a culture unlike 4chan some days but then defends those very same characteristics the others.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>13678

Presumably, those lads who started talking about bug chasing in a completely unrelated thread, starting one of our most endemic and beloved site jokes, should have been banned for being crass or arse-pisser banned for derailing an /emo/ thread about "How to dump my girlfriend?"

Take a step back from the computer and get some perspective, lad. You're being a tad histrionic.

>>13671
Bad spelling/grammar's always been a bannable offense. I was the one that got banned and I wouldn't even have noticed it if I wasn't, I was knackered. Fair play. As for the others, just ignore the idiots and don't get baited. They can be stupid if they want.

>>13678
>(A good day to you Sir!)

AH! NOW WE SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!

>>13681


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l-mRWtBGsA

DANCE OFF, BRO!

>>13681
Bloody peasant.

>>13684

Words cannot express the mirth currently being exuded from my person.

>>13685
He was probably drunk. Or a massive racist.

Permbanned today from iq for daddies cummies thread.

Not really sure why , seemed like the level of copypasta crap /iq/ was designed for. Is the subject matter consider too sensitive or something?

>>13852

/iq/ you made the assumption of thinking is a) a shitposting board; it isn't, and b) thinking 4chan copy pasta was acceptable on this site. I'll unban you if you promise to think up your own shit jokes or life imitating /iq/ in the future.

If you act like an obnoxious 4chan immigrant, we'll treat you like one.

>>13854

I'd argue your interpretation of the nature of the acceptable content of Iq is painfully inaccurate mod lad, are you new here? Have 5 BROs ever even sent you a BROFIST? Bet use never been the stuff of britchan legend.

I wanna appeal to the purple head judge. And them to declare daddies getting cummies isn't finest high quality iq content. Then I'll accept it isn't. Because at the moment I feel like you are a child trying to tell a veteran of a war what life was like during it.

>>13855
You irritate me.

>>13856

I'm not surprised, I'm not in the best of moods for getting permanent banned from all boards for what I perceive to be no good reason.

>>13857
Keep it up, lad. You're definitely helping your case, I'm sure of it.

>>13858

Is there a reason why you are trying to have a cunt off with me lad?

>>13859
I'm not any of the people involved so far, but continuing to argue about the legitimacy of the ban with such a patronising tone after being offered an unban doesn't seem like the smartest of moves.

>>13860

My reasoning is twofold, firstly a permban from the whole site for a post that wasn't to the mods taste in iq of all places is absurdly heavy handed.

Secondly a patronizing lecture on what should be in iq that isn't even accurate.

I feel stupid for even having to defend the post, but when I've been permbanned my options are protest, grovel or fuck off forever. I feel it was exactly in keeping with the tone and intentions of iq so I'm not going to grovel. At some point I will stop protesting and just fuck off forever. But not before letting it be known that I think this is absurd.

>>13861
I'll review the ban when I'm back at my terminal.

>>13860

Or put it another way lad pick any of your posts that seemed perfectly reasonable imagine getting permbanned for it and how you react.

>>13863
But your post evidently wasn't "perfectly reasonable", was it?

To be fair I thought /iq/ was a shitposting board. It's been described in the past as "a barrel of toxic waste bubbling quietly in the corner". I'm not going to pretend seeing some bollocks about cummies appear in star didn't irritate me but I thought the point of /iq/ was you could post pretty much anything without fear of a ban. I'm surprised to now learn /iq/ has standards of some description.

>>13864
That's some broken always reinforce the status quo logic you've got there.

In the eyes of unreasonable men. No. In the eyes of the average iq user on the other hand...

There is a post that plays "oh yes daddy" automatically a few pages down. I don't see how that or any other thread I could cherry pick from the back pages of iq, is acceptable and mine was a permban offence.

>>13865

>>13865
Same. I found it quite disturbing the first time it was posted, but then it's /iq/ so fair game. It wasn't banned then so I'm not quite sure why it would be banned this time.

>>13866

It was reported, and so acted. You're not the only user of this site. We've had problems with paedos before, I don't make the rules and /iq/ isn't exempt from that particular one. If you'd been paying attention to your IP you'd have noticed I'd reduced it to a week pending your reaction to my chastisement.

You've done nothing to endear me towards trusting you so why should I?

>>13869

Feelings mutual. That's why I am appealing to higher powers. Also you might wanna keep your story straight as to why you banned me. Since apparently it was originally 4chanphobia now it's paedogeddon.

>>13869
>We've had problems with paedos before, I don't make the rules and /iq/ isn't exempt from that particular one.
His post was clearly about BDSM rather than noncery.

>I'd reduced it to a week pending your reaction to my chastisement.
Get a grip, Stanfordprisonmodlad.

>>13871
Please don't pretend you're entitled to any sort of due process here. You won't grovel, and protest doesn't seem to be working out for you, given it's only making you sound even more of a bellend. What was that third option again?

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider grovelling?

>>13871

It was both. Neither are acceptable.

>>13871

Listen to the grown ups. For the record, if I was to describe it and I hope this is the final word on the subject, /iq/ is self-referentially absurd, not a shitposting board.

If you don't have the savvy to understand and decipher the meaning and nuance of that, and therefore the content permitted, I'm happy for you to fuck off.

Conversation over. .gs is not a democracy.

>>13874

Oh okay so you were going to allow me to be a nonce on here as I didn't post anything that felt too much like a 4chan meme and cowed to your righteous rule. Is that what you are saying?

Bullshit. You are playing revisionst. If you honestly believe that, you would have stated it as a reason and not considered the appeal at all.

>>13877

I assumed you were new, bans are a teaching method.

If you were an itinerant shitposter you wouldn't have appealed; job done. You did so I humoured you. I did so on the basis you could learn what is and isn't acceptable, but you don't appear to be a learning animal.

>>13877

Genuinely the first time on .gs I've seen someone talk their way out of an unban.

Very audible mirth.

>>13878

Is the lesson that the modding is inconsistent, one month a post is fine, next a near identical thread is permban. And don't question the contradictions, because that the lesson here.

>>13880

Yes. The mods are capricious gods, in whose shadow we tremble.

>>13880

Look, the Autoban9000 is broken alright. He got pissed and went mental. Now you know.

>>13882

You Sneaky Sneaky bastard!

I want a fucking sausage.

>>13875
>/iq/ is self-referentially absurd
I for one haven't got the foggiest what that is supposed to mean, but then I don't post on /iq/ anyway.

>>13885

I think it means irc and mod clique in jokes only. For 6 years I assumed it meant posts in the nature of britchan. But evidently I don't know. I think that faggles shitskin searchfag took over at some point and banned anything fun.

Britfa.gs moar liek shitfa.gs

>>13886

You have to ask yourself, "why do I give a shit about being banned from an anonymous image board only three people use?"

>>13886

>I think it means irc and mod clique in jokes only.

You're such a Queen. Draaaaaaaamaaaaaa!

Can somebody explain what people are arguing about here ? I don't follow at all.

>>13889
Someone got banned for posting a thread that wasn't even up to /iq/ standards and proceeded to throw a massive teary over it.

>>13889

Someone can't take their little ban on the chin and shed a few tears and then came back all entitled and shit and well lets face it cummies is a shitpost too far in my opinion.

Oh you chaps are just lovely.

>>13892
Halved for having been the lesser of the two.

Ok, Huddersfieldlad.

How do you want to do this? Permaban or cut the 5-year-old shitposting? I don't mind you pretending to be Russian, but at least go method. Russians always apologise for bad grammar and post fighter jets with their tunes, not frog memes.

What the fuck is 'cummies'?

>>13897
Infantilised way of referring to semen, for people engaging in that form of sexual roleplay.

Yeah, I know.

I've just had to reset my router because I was banned for 'they're/their' but the sentence I seem to have been banned for was:

> 'Okay it's just that we have 30 other graduates of a similar level to you willing to do this for the national holidays to show us their willing. Are you in?'

But 'their willing' is grammatically correct in every sense. I can see how they're would fit, but their also fits, because it shows possession and association of something. It is their willing (to do something).

No different from saying their car, their house, their desire, their willing.

Get it together, mod-lads.

>>13899

Also, why can't you post a ban appeal when you're banned in the ban appeal thread, or is that the joke?

>>13899
It was a ban report, I didn't pay close attention.

>>13901

I put a lot of effort into trying to be halfway witty when I snitch the less literate than myself, you scoundrel.

Most bans come from ban reports. Fight amongst yourselves if you must, but we've got a bohemian grove party to attend and it's Lizard People only.

>>13899
I'm the person who reported you and I'm afraid you are not correct, the noun you are looking for is willingness. Thanks for playing!

For what it's worth, I personally think bans for grammar and spelling are overzealous, but fuck it, if I'm going to get banned for such a stupid thing then I might as well report everyone else out of spite.

>>13904
There's only one thing for it. Send >>13899 back to his router!

>>13904
"willing" as a noun has been known for almost two centuries, if not more.

>>13904

Please ban this cunt for:

A) reporting me and getting me banned when my post was grammatically correct.
b) Still insisting that it wasn't correct, when willing has been used for a long, long time, as evidenced by >>13906 .

What an annoying little cunt you are though. Have you really never heard of people showing willing? If there's one thing worse than a wrong cunt, it's a cunt whose wrong but supercilious due to the fact that they still think they're right.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>13907
>Have you really never heard of people showing willing?
Nope. Saying it must be correct because it's old can be used to justify all kinds of errors. We don't tolerate incorrect '-ize' spellings here, for instance.

And by the way:
>a cunt whose wrong

>>13909
>Nope.
Not him, but I'm definitely going to take the word of some random bloke on the internet who hasn't heard of something over a printed dictionary. That definitely makes sense. Also, I've never heard of "whom" so that too must be wrong.

Pack it in, ladies.

>>13907

>If there's one thing worse than a wrong cunt, it's a cunt whose wrong but supercilious due to the fact that they still think they're right.

I agree.

>>13911
But we were encouraged to "fight amongst ourselves"!

>>13910
The word lol is in a printed dictionary. The word 'literally' with the meaning of 'figuratively' is in a printed dictionary. The use of both would be banned here. Printed dictionaries are clearly not infallible scripture.

And anyway, that was the question he asked me and I answered it. You shouldn't be having a go at me if you don't consider the question relevant.

While I'm in the ban thread, I was just banned for an hour for posting a 'blacklisted link', which was gmu dot edu. I was posting a link in the thread by the Kyrgyzstani lad to the Speech Accent Archive which is hosted on that domain because I thought it might help him. So why is this blacklisted?

>>13914

Brian (You know, the site) has a blacklist of links which have either been spammed in the past or are known to be high risk.

I'll remove it, it was an automatic ban no trouble. I suggest you find an alternative way of communicating that info, though.

>>13914
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT ANY KYRGYZ BASTARDS COMING OVER HERE.

>>13913

>But we were encouraged to "fight amongst ourselves"!

Square go, no circles. Queensbury rules. FIGHT!

>>13913
You seem to be going to a lot of effort to defend a false report for grammar.

>>13909
>Have you really never heard of people showing willing?
> Nope.

Not him, but if you've never heard of someone "showing willing" then you're either lying, foreign, or are a bit of a thicko.

>>13920
>, or

What is the official board position on the use of the Oxford comma?

>>13921
One would assume that if it's good enough for Oxford then it's good enough for here.

>>13922

But not good enough for Cambridge, the University of Oxford Public Affairs Directorate Writing and Style Guide, The Times or The Economist.

Besides Oxford's a complete dump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW7bB8D_mAY

>>13923

We should solve this like gentlemen - with a mass brawl in a Wetherspoons car park.

>>13923
>But not good enough for Cambridge, the University of Oxford Public Affairs Directorate Writing and Style Guide, The Times or The Economist.
When they've published a near-complete record of the English language then maybe they can have an opinion.

I posted a perfectly grammatically correct post and somebody reported it because they thought 'show willing' should be 'show willingness' for some reason.

The mod didn't pick up on this and banned me for using the wrong pick from 'they're/their' even though that was correct. I raised that in this thread and he said he wasn't paying attention when in reality he just made a mistake but was too up his own arse to admit it.

Some lad then said that he reported me over the 'show willing' comment and the mod, backtracking, has started to pretend that was the reason and that regardless of a common phrase, that has also been a fixture of the English language for hundreds of years and is not in anyway archaic, that only his special interpretation of the English language is allowed and the dictionary is full of shit.


TL;DR - Mod banned somebody over grammar despite it being correct and is having a teary about it and pretending he's the grammar expert, not the people who literally write the dictionary and is probably not as smart as he likes to think he is.

Feel free to throw another teary and ban me again, I'm not gonna come back (in before the 'haha don't come back then lol!' comments).

>>13927
What are you on about? I unbanned you when you pointed out the ban was mistaken. It looks like you were given a very short ban for other reasons in the meantime, but that has expired or been removed. The only current bans are for the nepalese, spambots and something else.

>>13929

Yeah, I banned him for being a shitehawk/using excessive verbiage and then having the bare-faced cheek to use whose instead of who's, which is simply not cricket.

It was not for very long. If you scroll up you'll see it, as I posted a screenshot of it for posterity and ritual humiliation.

>>13929

What is up with that >>/nom/12025 ban reason? it reads like conspiracy theory word salad.

>>13931
>word salad
Seems appropriate for /nom/.

>>13931
The post in question.

>>13933

I knew their was a reason for me going balded!

>>13931
>it reads like conspiracy theory word salad.

If you want to take a gander at how shampoo is corrupting your brain have a read of >>/poof/3281.

Isn't a week-long ban for getting around a word filter a bit much?

>>13938
Maybe, but apparently you can get around it so it doesn't matter all that much. You should have known better.

>>13939
Not him, but IIRC "all boards" doesn't include /shed/ precisely so that offenders have somewhere to grovel.

>>13940
You recall incorrectly.

>>13941
That would rather raise the question of the point of a ban appeals thread in which the banned cannot post.

>>13942
Most people post from their phones, so you have the option of switching from mobile Internet to WiFi, or simply turning the WiFi off for a few minutes and turning it on again. No idea if you can do that with mobile internet, but I don't think the mods would want to blanket ban that for ban evasion because of the whole EE debacle.

Also, bans should start from the time the post is made rather than when the mods get around to actioning it.

>>13942

Now you're catching on.

>>13942
It was discussed as a planned feature but never implemented for the same reason as all the other good ideas never were.
It is possible to ban someone from all boards except /shed/ by ticking the box for each individual board instead of the "all boards" box but that's a pain in the arse and you have to remember not to tick the ones for the secret boards; purple told me off for failing to do that.

>>13943
>Also, bans should start from the time the post is made rather than when the mods get around to actioning it.
They do. If you're banned for a day for a post an hour after it was made, it means the ban was an hour and a day.
Seriously, what?

>>13945
>a planned feature but never implemented for the same reason as all the other good ideas never were
A bit like this, ho ho? >>/b/404502

>>13947
... yes? I guess. What?

>>13943
.gs is on my phone network's 'blacklist' for whatever reason and I don't fancy being put on May's special list of wrong 'uns just to shitpost on here.

>>13949
When I had a PAYG phone with Orange it was hit or miss whether this site could be accessed, due to a sporadic block on content deemed unsuitable for under 18s, but I nerve had an issues once I went on a monthly contract with them.

>>13950
Virgin media never flagged .gs as an adult site so I used to browse /x/ on my phone when out and about. Not because I wanted to look at porn, but because it felt like thumbing my nose at the filter.

Afternoon, mods.

Any chance you can lift my ban on /emo/ for posting >>/emo/24841, please? I didn't think I'd get in trouble for referencing one of our previous posters.

>>14167
You were banned for shitposting in /emo/.

>>14168
I'm all for keeping /emo/ free of cunt-offs and cuntery, but I'd have thought that, when the discussion drifts towards mobile phones and rape, that's the opportune time to reference the lad from here who went on trial for rubbing his iPhone against his infant daughters fanny and couldn't see what he'd done wrong.

>>14169
Perhaps you should have reported the posts drifting towards mobile phones and rape instead of joining in. Regardless, ban lifted.

>>14171

Same deal, I was a silly shitposting sausage may I have my Emo priviliages back? post >>/emo/24859

>>14172
Yes but only if you promise to learn to spell privileges.

>>14172
Privily Argh-Jess.