Why isn't needless tripfagging a bannable offence yet?

Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 2

Anonymous
2016-05-06 00:02:14 Post No. 521334
[Report] Image search: [Google]

File: 1448684209132[1].jpg (171 KB, 1280x1024) Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2016-05-06 00:02:14 Post No. 521334 [Report]

Why isn't needless tripfagging a bannable offence yet?

It can't be because it's too vague a rule, because the current implementation of the rules is just as vague anyway and bans are pulled out of the mods ass

>>

Anonymous 2016-05-06 00:10:22 Post No.521340
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2016-05-06 00:10:22 Post No.521340 [Report]

File: 755a8a6b5a982c0f814872c35b8852dffd5818c7.png (2 MB, 2507x3541) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 2507x3541

Go lurk 4chan with a time machine, then come back.

>>

Anonymous 2016-05-06 04:26:30 Post No.521565
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-05-06 04:26:30 Post No.521565 [Report]

>>521334
4chan used to be 99% tripfags. Anons are the newfags.

>>

milkless cereal :( 2016-05-06 05:10:30 Post No.521595
[Report]

milkless cereal :( 2016-05-06 05:10:30 Post No.521595 [Report]

>>521334
Next you'll complain about me huh

>>

Anonymous 2016-05-06 15:12:10 Post No.521947
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-05-06 15:12:10 Post No.521947 [Report]

They need to add tripfag filtering to the inline extension.

>>

Anonymous 2016-05-06 15:36:16 Post No.521964
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-05-06 15:36:16 Post No.521964 [Report]

>>521947
they did

>>

Anonymous 2016-05-06 21:33:02 Post No.522228
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-05-06 21:33:02 Post No.522228 [Report]

>>521964
not globally, only for individual trips on specific boards