>it's against the rules to criticize or complain about the mods
>the mods completely removed the ability to delete your own thread because a few people on /v/ were using it to make the mods seem biased
>pretending to be a mod or janitor can be met with a harsh ban, even if you're clearly joking around
What the fuck is up with the mods on this site? Massive ego? Autism?
Bet one of you fucks won't come ITT and explain why you're massive faggots.
>it's against the rules to criticise or complain about the mods
I think this board is good enough evidence it absolutely is not
>>558370
This board is obviously an exception, but it is a rule and I have caught couple bans for it on other boards.
>>558370
Oh here, global rule 8.
>>558367
>clearly joking around
It's not clear. You can't even tell if someone is being sarcastic via text, so they have to treat it with zero tolerance.
>>558374
Not even the point. Who cares if someone claims they're a janny or mod?
If jannies and mods never reveal themselves, then someone claiming they are one are clearly lying.
>>558376
It's a clearly stated rule. If you're dumb enough to break it and get caught, you should be a big boy and deal with the consequences of your failure to lurk more.
>>558376
why do you care if a post gets deleted?
>>558367
Let's not forget "obtuse secrecy". When was the last time you (and anyone) have seen "User was banned for this post"?
See, when the banned post is left untouched, people get the feeling of "oh shit", also known as "authority". When those are deleted, there's none of that. Why would you delete a post that doesn't contain anything illegal, anyway?
There were times when mods didn't indulge in mindless delete-ism.
>>558372
Criticize =/= complain
>>558459
>When was the last time you (and anyone) have seen "User was banned for this post"?
A few weeks ago or so on /a/, shortly after a lengthy meta thread was deleted in which people were talking shit about how cancerous the moderation is.
Mods decided to create a troll thread that gained immediate meme responses, then they publicly banned the OP while keeping the thread up. It was a multi pronged attack:
1. to distract anon from the aftermath of the huge meta thread that was deleted, shortly after posts criticising moderation where selectively deleted.
2. to appeal to the mouth breathers for there retarded MODS=GODS spam, to replenish their damaged ego.
3. to create a false flag to fool newfags into thinking that the people complaining in the meta thread were simply making things up and that /a/ does indeed have great moderation.
I don't know why people think public bans are a positive thing. They are always used for PR and the banned posts are routinely mod posts to begin with.
>>558367
>Massive ego? Autism?
One generally begets the other.
4chan literally has the worst mods on the internet.
>>558459
If anything, mods are way too lenient with shitposters.
