gem

veiron mentioned o algo

@Black_Watch: veironn is top 10 most under rated nameflamboyant persons or whatever the goyslop greedy persontubers say

Gem

i really hop that Odessan doesnt get banned

>>144993

over 1000 comments award

@Smoot: *hope

Veironn is a gem and jimbos fat booty is obsessed

@Smoot: but in case he does ive already got a 'toss ready to mourn xim

All 'Z needed was to leave for 2 months to be now eternally glazed

@Soyton: I thought he was funny back then but I didn't really use the 'ru that much

@epx7fclhdrp: most of things he was accused of were indeed falseflags, but the brap was real, his leakages under every circumstance made him really hateable at the time. Though, the only things I dont like in him are:
- hes muslim, and immigrant, but okay, he learned to be shut, unprovoked.
- he is datamining anonymous users just becouse they insulted him, and its killing the 'ru

@Soyton:

>looking at comment history by ip is heccin datamining

???

@epx7fclhdrp: yes, mod abuse used just for his leakage sessions

@Soyton: i only lick quotes boot doe

Anyway, theres a 'toss that shows how it looked like

BAN THAT noon!

^mindbroken

@Soyton: GEG gem

@Soyton: but the difference is who he's leaking at

@Smoot: He's banned for 3 days.

@Soyton: We can debate if that's killing the 'ru, its basically checking a nametoilet's comments, actual datamining would be saving their information for malicious purposes which isn't what I'm doing.

@Soyton: How's checking comments mod abuse? You are a special.

@Soyton: Despite the fact my haters were the ones brapping at me, what I was doing was self defense. I wasn't going to kiss your filthy ass.

@Soyton: My haters clitty leaking in the replies*
Also nobody's listening to a Vlodson poster.

odessanraisinskin is allegedly a mod on the z*Rty if that matters

@Smoot: why? you and him used to goon in the z*Rtycord together?

the council is gonna decide bros fate

@Warrior-Z: anonymous posters are anonymous to not have such things as their post history revealed just becouse they insulted a nameflamboyant person who was elevated into mod perms. Doing so was just getting them to abandon the site. No other admin or mod I really thought you managed to figure out that "your haters brapping at you", excluding nameflamboyant persons, were just participating in one of humorous aspects of the site, but you are so dedicated to "defending your image" that just mentioning you under any case would lead to comments being turned into unusable raisinhole filled with copypastas. Now you see that actually just few of them really wanted you gone. About that "vlodson poster", you say that as if I was a forcing spammer, while I just made one post to try to make a good use of this coal.

@Soyton: *no other admin or mod is so invested in dramas

Sorry, something fucked up while typing

@epx7fclhdrp: forgot the :-speech: award

@Warrior-Z: please never stop checking chuds' comments it's so funny

^awarded award because im to lazy to give a award for some reason unknown

@epx7fclhdrp: therefore you look like this

@Soyton: Yeah I'll be refuting your specialed argument in a few moments.

>anonymous posters are anonymous to not have such things as their post history revealed

special, they remain anonymous even if you look at their past comments you dumbass. The definition of anonymous is someone unknown or unnamed, and they remain unnamed or unknown, bitch. Being anonymous doesn't erase your history or what you have done, matter of fact, regular users can see who's samekekking now.

>Doing so was just getting them to abandon the site

You literally have ZERO evidence for this and I'll force you to drop this point, since I'll be putting the burden of proof upon you.

>No other admin or mod I really thought you managed to figure out that "your haters brapping at you", excluding nameflamboyant persons, were just participating in one of humorous aspects of the site

That's fine and you can't have your cake and raisin on it, because me calling our their baiting or specialed comments in the past is also humorous, and it's an activity that isn't harmful to them in any way except if they get embarrassed, which makes it even funnier.

>but you are so dedicated to "defending your image" that just mentioning you under any case would lead to comments being turned into unusable raisinhole filled with copypastas

Haven't posted a 'pasta in a while and even so, somehow defending my image is posting LLLLLLLLZZZZZZZ to someone who posted a slopjak? Or is it when someone makes an absurd claim and me debunking it? It's quite sad you try to rationalize this.

>Now you see that actually just few of them really wanted you gone

Many of them did, but the war is done now.

>About that "vlodson poster", you say that as if I was a forcing spammer, while I just made one post to try to make a good use of this coal

Posting that coal, is him declaring you are on his side.

Soyton is one guy full of baloney.

>special, they remain anonymous even if you look at their past comments you dumbass. The definition of anonymous is someone unknown or unnamed, and they remain unnamed or unknown, bitch. Being anonymous doesn't erase your history or what you have done, matter of fact, regular users can see who's samekekking now.

Under this definition, all of us are anonymous in the same way, except nameflamboyant persons got their willing label, which chuds dont intend to have, but once you reveal their history for clearly not moderation purposes, you are partially forcing it on them. It does not remove their anonymousness, but the difference between chud/nameflamboyant person.

>Doing so was just getting them to abandon the site

Okay, I dont stand strong with that point since you are the one with look into it, but I want to see the proof anyway, whatever it could be.

>That's fine and you can't have your cake and raisin on it, because me calling our their baiting or specialed comments in the past is also humorous, and it's an activity that isn't harmful to them in any way except if they get embarrassed, which makes it even funnier.

Fine

>Haven't posted a 'pasta in a while and even so, somehow defending my image is posting LLLLLLLLZZZZZZZ to someone who posted a slopjak? Or is it when someone makes an absurd claim and me debunking it? It's quite sad you try to rationalize this.

More about LLLLZZZ, I dont know where you took that "youre trying to rationalize it" from, I just say it was technically annoying for people not involved, thats what I started my claim with.

@Warrior-Z: ^

Why is there a war in this comment section?

@Soyton:

>special, they remain anonymous even if you look at their past comments you dumbass. The definition of anonymous is someone unknown or unnamed, and they remain unnamed or unknown, bitch. Being anonymous doesn't erase your history or what you have done, matter of fact, regular users can see who's samekekking now.

>Under this definition, all of us are anonymous in the same way,

No, because you are named. Chuds are unnamed, you're completely butchering the use of this definition. Nice try though.

>but once you reveal their history for clearly not moderation purposes, you are partially forcing it on them

It does not because they remain unnamed and unknown, nice try though. I love how you're trying to argue against the Oxford definition and you are failing.

>It does not remove their anonymousness, but the difference between chud/nameflamboyant person

No because nameflamboyant persons have a name, that's already the difference.

>Doing so was just getting them to abandon the site

>Okay, I dont stand strong with that point since you are the one with look into it

Yeah, they don't leave the site. There's your looking, saar. Also then dont derive that conclusion.

>Fine

Exactly.

>More about LLLLZZZ, I dont know where you took that "youre trying to rationalize it" from, I just say it was technically annoying for people not involved, thats what I started my claim with.

They involve themselves via the comments, saar.

>No, because you are named. Chuds are unnamed, you're completely butchering the use of this definition. Nice try though.

Theyre unnamed to remain unrecognized between threads, at least regular users cant do so, thats how your action comes from position of power, as I said, without moderation purposes.

>It does not because they remain unnamed and unknown, nice try though. I love how you're trying to argue against the Oxford definition and you are failing.

I specified that its not striping them down of their anonymousness entirely (or whatever you pinned as oxford definition) but it forces the label of being recognized between threads on them, something that is chosen once creating account, not using site as chud.

>No, because you are named. Chuds are unnamed, you're completely butchering the use of this definition. Nice try though.

>Theyre unnamed to remain unrecognized between threads

And they are unrecognized especially BETWEEN threads since I dont go out of my way on every thread, 2 threads are nothing unless they're actively delving in every thread like the Braptan gooner, then they're only revealed in those said threads. This arg isn't good.

>I specified that its not striping them down of their anonymousness entirely

Then you move the goalpost and concede on two points.

>it forces the label of being recognized between threads on them, something that is chosen once creating account, not using site as chud

Again, you're not recognized between threads and that makes zero sense as anti-sameflamboyant personging is enabled and we can tell who's who within threads lmao.

@Warrior-Z: atp I may give this one to you, becouse to be honest, after the wordfilter was enacted, chuds began to consist mostly of baiters and gooners so whatever. Still, checking user's entire history whenever they say something against you is not good, in another word, obsessed, but at current state, it does not matter as much as back in the day to me.

@Soyton: Sure, I may take your concession upon this one.

I mean, when using 'ru logged out was not feeling like post-lobotomy experience

[h1][redtext]

FACT 1: JIMBO IS SO BLACK XE STANDS OUT FROM A BLACK HOLE

[/redtext][/h1]
[h1][redtext]

FACT 2: JIMBO IS SO FAT XE CREATES A GRAVITY FIELD AROUND XIM

[/redtext][/h1]
[h1][redtext]

FACT 3: JIMBO IS SO specialED XE IS THE FIRST PERSON WITH NEGATIVE IQ

[/redtext][/h1]
[h1][redtext]

FACT 4: JIMBO IS SO BRAPPY THAT WHEN XE BRAPS, EVERYONE NEAR XIM DIES OF INTOXICATION

[/redtext][/h1]
[h1][redtext]

FACT 5: JIMBO FANS WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER BE WHITE

[/redtext][/h1]

What kind of SNCA nameflamboyant person coal id this

is* fuggen typo