>>162455
It's a grand total of six threads over the course of a month and a half. I hardly consider that spamming.

>>162456
Making the same exact thread over and over again is not spamming?

Especially when one of those threads is *still on the front page* and yet he's still making more?

To be fair, a few of his threads have actually been removed for obvious reasons. It's not like he's being completely ignored.

sounds like you're getting owned

>>162458
Yes, his threads are being moved/deleted to /keepittoonethread/ because he keeps making the same exact whine thread with the same exact whines, over and over and over.

This is the 7th time he's made a thread about:

>Twilight's friends were victimized to make Twilight stronger!!!!
>McCarthy doesn't care about friendship and just wants to turn the show into DBZ!!
>If you liked TK, that means you want to MURDER Twilight's friends to make her stronger!
>Bronies hated the key episodes but they liked TK and the Tirek fight! Hypocrites!!!!!
>If you like Twilicorn, that means you support RACISM and CLASS INEQUALITY!!

He's doing nothing but spewing insane arguments and generalizations about the fandom. And no matter how many people disprove said arguments, he ignores it and keeps posting them. And then when people stop replying, he keeps posting saying "Why is nobody responding? Why is nobody responding??"

Point is, he has made *seven* threads about this topic, and judging by that, he's going to continue to make these threads until something is done to stop him. Can we just ban him now and get it over with?

Do you think it might be Disneymaster?

The way I see it, having a bad opinion/an opinion someone else doesn't like isn't against the rules. He also hasn't been making these threads often enough that I would call it spamming. It looks like he waited for his old thread to go on autosage before he made a new one.

Just hide his threads and stop responding to him and maybe he'll go away? It doesn't really seem fair to me to ban someone just because they have an opinion other people don't like.

I've asked for more opinions in the mod skype chat, though they don't seem to be around at the moment. Looking at the way that thread is going, I guess you could say the guy is bothering people. But it's hard for me to justify moderating, and especially banning, from a "content quality" standpoint.

>>162462
thats funny coming from you, who let whats-his-face spam 'blank flank' in many many threads, bumping some of them back to page 0 for no reason

Last edited at Sat, Nov 15th, 2014 13:28

>>162462
>The way I see it, having a bad opinion/an opinion someone else doesn't like isn't against the rules.

I don't care about someone having a "bad opinion", I care about someone making the same thread seven times, provoking numerous negative responses every single time.

When he has two threads on the front page and neither are autosaged, the newest one gets booted to /keepitinonethread/ every time. He's got four or five threads there by now, I swear.

That's been my policy. This is still subject to change, though. We'll discuss it more in modchat over the weekend, I think.

>>162462
>>162465

I gotta second both of these, he's not really spamming in the usual sense (which would imply several threads a day, if not several an hour) and while his threads might be really shitty, shitty threads aren't against the rules. His threads do actually seem to get a fair amount of posts, even if they're almost entirely people complaining about how much his threads suck.

Now, one could argue that at this point he must just be trolling, posting obvious bait threads, and while I'd be totally okay with banning him on those grounds, it's a trolling attempt that's masterful enough to be up for debate, and banning him just for being obsessed about this one dumb topic would definitely be bad.

So on those grounds, I think the mods are dealing with things fine as they are. Just hide his one allowed thread at a time. Don't respond and give him reason to believe he'll actually find an argument here. Sage his threads (everyone always forgets to sage). It's a problem that can be solved without higher intervention.

>>162466
I don't know the context surrounding the issue, but saying "just ignore and sage" a frequent problematic poster is always an incredibly lame solution that simultaneously acknowledges that the person is some sort of a problem that needs to be dealt with in some way. Not everybody is going to ignore them unless the mods put a sticky onto all of their posts saying "Ignore this person we won't ban", no matter how long they stay. Half the board constantly being forced to hide threads or filter a poster will breed hostility, and that person continuing to get replies will lower the general quality of the board.

This is an issue that has been addressed (and occasionally dealt with via bans) on /pony/ before. Dismissing it with "just ignore him, people are allowed to have different opinions" is one-dimensional thought grounded in this site's obsessive indifference to quality.

It's also pretty unfair to all the other posters that got banned for essentially "having bad opinions that they wouldn't stop repeating to the point of annoying the whole board".

Last edited at Sun, Nov 16th, 2014 20:40

>>162471

I suppose you have a point there. I guess my opinion is really grounded in the idea that the guy isn't spamming by any real stretch of the word. He has made threads that are very similar to each other, yes, but they're usually pretty spaced out. Sure, they aren't the best threads, but the first one sparked discussion, and a couple later ones sparked discussion when they didn't see the first ones. The most recent one, though, sparked no discussion, and I think OP naturally got the hint, without any mod intervention, and that if he makes another thread it's gonna be even more dead.

So it's less like "This idea should work." and more like "It's already working and the problem has left." Now, if it does keep going and become a larger problem, then folk might need to step in and escalate things, but I think it's dead and stuff is fine.

And here OP goes again, making yet another thread to whine about Twilight's Kingdom.

http://www.ponychan.net/chan/pony/res/36784611.html

He seems to be attempting to hide it by shrouding the whine in another subject, but

>seem to be better finales than Twilight's Kingdom, because neither of them desecrated and/or victimized Shepard's squadmates the same way the S4 finale did Twilight's friends

makes the reason for his thread very clear.

This is the ninth thread he has made about it, so far. Is anything going to be done about this, or is he going to be allowed to make the same whine thread over and over again?

Like seriously, the guy seems to have serious issues because he cannot get off the subject of Twilight's Kingdom and how "baww baww Twilight's friends were victimized" and "boo hoo McCarthy hates friendship and just wants to turn the show into DBZ!!!!". I'd say a ban would be for his own good.

>>162726
Guy's persistant, i'll give him that.

The thread was better suited for /oat/ though, so problem solved.

lmao i wanna parody threads but theyre all deleted

>>162728
Lucky for you he's not quitting that easily.
http://www.ponychan.net/chan/pony/res/36784750.html

>>162729
thanks. time to shitpost /

>>162730
You're welcome.

>>162729
He's essentially shitposting at this point. Making the same thread over and over again complaining about the same wildly insane points over and over again. His threads keep getting autosaged and/or moved to /keepittoonethread/, and are generating numerous negative responses because he keeps spewing the same nonsensical bullshit every single thread.

Can we just ban him already so he'll stop spamming /pony/ ?

>>162732
I think one of his threads was moved to /oat/ earlier.
My advice would be to ignore the threads. But that's usually my advice for everything.

mods, if you ban tihs dude then you also have to ban fleur and kamie

Last edited at Wed, Dec 3rd, 2014 09:47

At this point, he's either a massively obsessive-compulsive one issue wonk, or he's doing a subtle troll via tweaking /pony/'s nose about something we had to deal with for months between season 3 and 4.

And here he goes again.

http://www.ponychan.net/chan/oat/res/39554023.html

Like I said, he's just going to keep making these threads until he gets banned.

pls ban th fegit

>>162791
Technically, that's /oat/ and I wouldn't wanna invite him to spam on /oat/ as well, but I don't think that thread warranted a removal.

>>162793
It was on /pony/ before it got moved to /oat/.

And seeing as it's the 11th time he's made a thread, still regurgitating the same crap which boils down to "stupid fucking bronies, they make me so mad because they like what I don't like!!", I think it does warrant a ban at this point.

>>162794
>>162791
Here's a cached link for anyone that missed it:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.ponychan.net/chan/oat/res/39554023.html

That guy definitely has some issues, considering that he openly admitted that he's been banned from literally every other pony forum out there. But in the event that this whole thing was a ruse, 10/10, makes me want to punch a hole in the wall.

>>162795
SOMEBODY GET THAT HOTHEAD OUTTA HERE

12th thread.

http://www.ponychan.net/chan/pony/res/36785321.html

Mods pls. Do something.

Handled, report him if he makes a new thread on /pony/ about that topic or tries to derail a thread to it.

GG

The thread that did him in almost talked about something else, but not quite. I feel sorry for the guy. Not because he was banned for stubbornly keeping it up when he was asked not to, but because he's probably a massive obsessive compulsive IRL who basically can't stop thinking about Twilicorn all day every day.