/wap/ - wapchan discussion

I've not seen much edgy politics here. This place isn't so bad. I could be wrong though.

>>1201
Thankfully people understand that this place is meant to be comf, worst stuff I've seen is a couple of really stupid kids on Discord so that's actually a win as far as I'm concerned

it's just, you know, kinda dead

>>1203
thank you
well activity is not a problem, I see that there are still anons here so no problems ig

>>1201
>>1202
Politics is verboten, this site won't associate with any other site that has a /pol/ board afaik. I doubt that policy has changed at all.

There was one case where someone started using politically charged language and people got really mad, even though politics werent even brought up directly. Due to that I think any kind of politics won't ever really gain any traction.

Post more lain!

>>1205
>this site won't associate with any other site that has a /pol/ board afaik
This is true, and is one of the reasons this site isn't a part of the "webring".
>>1201
It's better to think of this site as a anonymous forum instead of an imageboard, and the niche topics the site is focused around leads to a self selecting good crowd.

>>1205
I don’t think politics should be totally forbidden as long as it’s relevant and not /pol/ or Twitter garbage or posting current news cycle junk. It’d be hard to talk about Barefoot Gen or Graveyard of the Fireflies without mentioning politics and all the anti-nuke anti-government stuff. I guess we can limit it to historical discussion? Maybe have some rule against starting flame wars or partisan arguments? No bad faith arguing and shit flinging or racebait? I haven’t seen any really hostile negativity here but I haven’t been here very long and this is the internet after all ^_^

>>1247
As seen in the rules:
>Current political content. This site does not host any form of /pol/ and is not meant for political discussion. Historic content important to the context of a discussion is allowed. There's a fine line with this one, so just use your head and think before you type.
So, pretty much what you said

>>1248
almost like the site wasn't made by total shitheads love ya figamin

>>1205
maybeee

>>1205
>There was one case where someone started using politically charged language and people got really mad, even though politics werent even brought up directly
You mean the /kind/ thread where a guy complained about being called a subhuman online? Seemed poeople were too fixated on the naughty word and not really understanding what he was upset about.

>>1294
>the naughty word
the thin end of the wedge, you mean. No politically charged language should be allowed, particularly not "chud" which is both a harsh insult and connected to american politics (in particular used commonly by more extreme, terminally-on-twitter ideologies). On top of that, it's also closely associated with jaks, and therefore a violation of site rules. The reaction to it was warranted. If you want to speak that way go to an 8chan clone or lainchan or something. Stawmaning your political enemies with buzzwords in a /kind/ thread about love should not be allowed and also isnt allowed within the very narrow edge cases described ITT. Your post comes off a bit disingenuous, but I'll assume you just didn't understand the above. In any case its a buried issue, no need to keeping necroing the thread.

>>1299
>Stawmaning your political enemies
What are you talking about? The post was a complaint about being bullied. It was not an argument or a political debate.

>>1300
read the rest of the post. read what chud means. nowhere in the post at issue was the word "bullying" used. you are attempting to move goalposts by calling it an argument or a debate, it was one post which used extremely politically charged language closely associated with jaks and american politics. the problem is that it was a hint and a hint of bad stuff cannot be excused for not being as significant as a whole lot of bad stuff. cancer starts small too, after all. and before anyone claims bias, I would be just as firmly against it if some frogposter had used some american-right leaning /pol/speak. This is a comfy space. I can only assume past this point that you are being disingenuous, so I'd ask that you leave the month-old issue to rest and participate in the actual site instead. Or if you are only interested in arguing this point further, then maybe you should just leave and argue it somewhere else.

>>1301
based anon, we have to shut that kind of shit down early or else this is just another 4chan

>>1302
thanks! I was worried I was alone for a second. New users are good, but only if they positively contribute to the site. New users that don't want to fit into the atmosphere and the budding culture need to be corrected or need to be removed. Its been said before but there are plenty of other sites where that sort of thing is allowed, and it should stay in those places. frogs, jaks, politics (especially the american kind) are like locusts. they consume everything in their path and leave desolation in their wake. if you give even one inch, before you even realize what is happening, every board will become pseudo /pol/ and those anons will completely outnumber the original users of the site. I don't think anyone wants that. If I wanted to be on 4chan, Id go to that shithole of a website. I want to be on wapchan, so I am here instead.

>>1302
Yeah i still remember when the majority of the users here rejected at unanimity the idea of discussing politics or even associating with political imageboards, back when this site had only /ar/ and /meta/.
I'm glad it's still the popular consensous and i think we should keep it this way.

>>1303
the funny thing is I'm a new user and I like this place because it specifically doesn't have the locusts you find on other forums, or worse, imageboards

>>1301
>by calling it an argument or a debate
I just pointed out what you implied by using the term "strawmanning" and "political enemies".

>>1302
You can start doing just that by not using the term "based".

>>1304
I don't think anybody here is arguing for political discussion to be allowed.

Why not just have a word filter for some of these insults? Really just seems like that one anon was venting about taking heat from right leaning people but that got overshadowed by debate on politically charged insults. Okay that wasn't right but the rest of his post about bad experiences online was fine and people should be allowed to discuss those things too. Other than that agree with all measures to keep the locusts out.

>>1307
I didnt imply anything, you seem to be putting words in my mouth? Im not even really sure what you mean by this but I think its clear at this point that you are alone in your thinking.
>>1308
You are the only one here arguing at all, though, everyone else is in agreement.

>>1309
The problem isnt really the word itself, but what the use of the word implies and the baggage it brings into the discussion. A person who uses politically charged language is going to bring that political baggage into a discussion just by using the lingo. That wont change with a filter. A rose by any other name, you know? How can you filter the below phrase to remove the political context behind it:

"I hate democrat leftist commies! They ruin everything I like."
or
"Those rightoid chuds make shitty music. I hate country."

Neither example is really something I'd expect to see on the site but the point is moreso that you can't remove the political baggage in those statements (or most statements which include politically charged language) with a word filter so its better just to get rid of people who think along those lines in the first place.

That being said its not a bad idea to filter words into a sort of automated warning. Something like "DONT USE UNKIND WORDS" to make it aggressively obvious that its not acceptable here could work as part of a strategy to keep the locusts out.

Throwing in my modest opinion in this matter.

I would like this place not to become so uptight as Sushichan. Constantly having people bark "This is a comfy place. Don't do that." "Be kind. This is an altchan." and other things.

>>1310

> so its better just to get rid of people who think along those lines in the first place.
This is what I would do. No talking to them, warning them or whatever. Straight forward ban. For example figmin(Or a mod) banned a frog poster for 3 days and I think this is good. Giving a short ban to let the people have a change to learn and come back. If they do it again, a long ban.

>>1311
I think you may be right that encouraging a "report and ignore" approach from users would be the best. Its not disruptive like it was in the kind thread, it helps to discourage the behavior by denying the poster attention, and it puts things in the hands of the only people on the site that can actually do anything directly. In your opinion, should bans/warnings be public or should it be done quietly?

This discussion has kind of spun out of control considering it was a single incident. I'd like to keep things simple for the most part, and not have an ultra strict/uptight culture (like how people on heyuri spam "rule 8" or what >>1311 mentioned). I'd lean more towards "report and ignore", no need to give them attention.
>>1312
Bans/warnings are generally not public except for cases when multiple users in a thread are acting in a rule breaking way (to remind people about site norms) or when I think it would be really funny (we get those every once in a while).

>>1309
We used to have filters, I remember at least "friendgot" and "go to sleep", maybe there were more.

>>1314
I mean we as /kind/, I don't know about wapchan.

>>1312
I don't think warnings should be a thing at all. Zero tolerance policy. Furthermore in my opinion a ban should always be public, so people see what gets you banned. I think this helps new users as well. Lurk and learn, you know.

>>1313
Thanks, figmin. You rekindle my hopes in imageboards a bit.

>>1313
This post goes against rule number eight figamin. Might consider banning you for 3 days. I'll flip a quarter and decide. So what'll it be, heads or tails?

>>1317
>checks the rules page to see what rule 8 is
>there are only 2 rules
a- am I stupid?

>>1318
Other rules are hidden.

>>1319
No way! I checked my browser's debugging tools and everything

>>1320
What dont I know!

>>1321
>>1322
Heyurians like to express their rules very verbally. Here in the 'ap we do things differently. The mods like to do a quality check on every poster before they get to express their feelings. So we hide certain rules just to see how /kind/ they are.

>>1323
How do you express the rules verbally if everything is a text or image post?

>>1324
anon I...

>>1325
W- webms with sound! ..?

>>1326
anon......

>>1327
...discord calls?

>>1328
...