1d4chan talk:Policy

From 1d4chan

The hilariously depressing part about the linkspam stuff is that the tactic is completely ineffective on almost every mediawiki installation in existence. The default mediawiki setup instructs any search engine that honours the tag (i.e. Google and nobody cares whether the rest do or not) not to consider external links on its pages for pageranking purposes. Not only does the crap clutter up our database but it is also, even left entirely unchecked, completely and utterly useless for the spammers, who have to be expending some small degree of effort to get past the captcha.

Anyhow, these things written so far meet my approval. --Wikifag 10:47, 21 April 2012 (BST)

I think the idea might be to get external links as plaintext in the recent changes section when they get deleted. Not sure if that would actually work, but I notice on the wiki I admin that a lot of these bots put the link where it would show up in the default deletion message, which is why I blank it completely. Tim 12:51, 21 April 2012 (BST)
If fools stopped doing things because they were ineffective, then we wouldn't have to put up with copper/magnetic bracelets, "holistic medicine" diluted tinctures, &c. You can see in our wiki's logs that we still get hit by robots that create a user account but can't get past the captcha, and that doesn't stop robots from trying and re-trying to get in. There will always be automated barbarians at the gates, throwing themselves on our pikes.
An explicit policy statement is good for when a human gets upset because they got caught in a spambot trap, or if a human spammer tries a self-righteous defense. --NotBrandX 16:21, 21 April 2012 (BST)

Lolicon/Child Porn (basically the same thing)[edit]

We should make uploading Loli images a bannable offence. -- HussarZwei (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hussar, you are such a sick person that hearing you say anything makes reasonable people assume that the opposite must be true because you agreeing with anything makes it look bad. Nobody wants to hear policy suggestions from you even if they agree with them.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 05:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Your definition of "lolicon" is so broad that it doesn't even discriminate between sexually charged images and ones that are merely supposed to be cute. If you were projecting any harder, you'd be like one of those IMAX things. Seek help now.--Newerfag (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)