>>1928
These things all look good to me!

why the hell are there two long votes with different policies

do we vote for one of the options or can we vote for all

ugh this is so confusing my brain hurts

going out to mcdonalds brb

>>1932
Oops I should have copied over the explanation. My bad.

" I think that board democracy is very important, but there's also no way on an anon board to ensure that votes aren't stuffed in any number of ways. Therefore, I would say that our version of democracy will basically be that we will post a proposal publicly if it is not something that violates opsec etc, and be open to suggestions on it (as we have done with this manifesto). Then we will discuss those suggestions in the moderation inner channels and vote on them among ourselves, trying to keep in mind the opinion of the board users. If everyone hates a proposal I think we should vote no on it unless there's some very good reason we as vols alone are aware of."

>>1928
>FAST TRACK VOTE: It is proposed that the pinned reading list topic and the /NEW/ topic on leftypol should be merged into one FAQ pinned thread as was present on the old leftypol, since we are now out of the transitionary period, and to reduce the number of pinned threads. This new thread would give advice for new members and board conduct as well as the reading list. VOTING WILL CLOSE 4AM UTC 27/08
Suggest simply unpinning both threads and leaving them as rotating generals

Abstain for other measures

>>1934
This was actually brought up in the mod chat, haha.

>>1934
Changing vote from from abstain to reject for second measure on the grounds of the following posts in /leftypol/'s moderation thread
>>>/leftypol/43663
>>>/leftypol/43667 (me)
>>got every post and thread of mine deleted.
>This really needs to stop happening
>There's nothing wrong with just putting the ban reason in a post instead of worrying about a ban log or naming vols tbqh fam
Changing vote from abstain to reject on the third proposal to avoid board bureaucracy ossification and to promote interboard co-operation, organization and information flow
tl;dr deontlogical version uphold interboardism and antidemocratic measures
>>1935
Good to know the board bureaucracy has their pulse on the mass line and is falling into neither commandism or tailism I'm assuming it's due to good serve the people work on their part

>>1936
>antidemocratic
I'm pretty sure I typed a\ntiburearocratic

Is it a filter or just autocorrect?

Testing: antiburearocratic

Polite sage

>>1936
I'm to lazy to get back on my laptop, but, I think when votes or suggestions get brought to vote here in /gulag/ the staff should tally all the votes for each preposal and apply them to the staff votes for a total site wide vote.

Perhaps staff should just vote here? 🤔

>>1938
Here's why I don't want to do that. It creates too much of a risk of corruption.

>>1941
He's right! This anon is exactly correct. I think we should leave it up to the mods too.

>>1941
>>1942
ur both rite. i vote for this. anons shouldn't have too much say.

>>1941
>>1942
>>1943
They are all right! That's four votes in favour, I believe the motion is carried?

But seriously, in real life people will be a bit more subtle than this, spread it out more, and maybe use different devices/IP addresses, but you get what I'm saying right?

I'm fine with all of these so go ahead.

>>1928
Short vote #1: soy, I like the reading list, although more effort could be put into it.
Long vote #1: based and redpilled.
Long vote #2: based

Now.... how do you vote?

>>1946
>>1933
Thanks for your feedback anons.

>>1928
>ST TRACK VOTE: It is proposed that the pinned reading list topic and the /NEW/ topic on leftypol should be merged into one FAQ pinned thread as was present on the old leftypol, since we are now out of the transitionary period, and to reduce the number of pinned threads. This new thread would give advice for new members and board conduct as well as the reading list. VOTING WILL CLOSE 4AM UTC 27/08

yes
>LONG VOTE: It is proposed that Bunkerchan should, ONCE TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE, create a ban list that is publicly viewable that includes the name of the moderator who issued the ban as well as the details of the post itself, so that users can hold their staff to account more effectively. Obviously, no identifying info or IPs should be publicly visible besides vol name. VOTING WILL CLOSE 4AM UTC 29/08

yes
>LONG VOTE: It is proposed that voting in this channel on issues which only affect one board (or not all boards) should be limited to only the staff members who administrate those board/s. If you think that all moderators of the site should vote on all proposals, please vote thumbs down to this proposal. VOTING WILL CLOSE IN 72 HOURS AT 3AM UTC 29/08

abstain
btw is this how you are supposed to vote? It feels clunky, and gets in the way of discussing the topic to vote about, can'T there be another way?

>FAST TRACK VOTE: It is proposed that the pinned reading list topic and the /NEW/ topic on leftypol should be merged into one FAQ pinned thread as was present on the old leftypol, since we are now out of the transitionary period, and to reduce the number of pinned threads. This new thread would give advice for new members and board conduct as well as the reading list. VOTING WILL CLOSE 4AM UTC 27/08
Yes. There should be one pinned thread for rules, faqs, and links. Other pinned threads should be exclusively announcements or voting like in this thread.
>LONG VOTE: It is proposed that Bunkerchan should, ONCE TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE, create a ban list that is publicly viewable that includes the name of the moderator who issued the ban as well as the details of the post itself, so that users can hold their staff to account more effectively. Obviously, no identifying info or IPs should be publicly visible besides vol name. VOTING WILL CLOSE 4AM UTC 29/08
Yes, with a link in the pinned rules or faq thread.
>LONG VOTE: It is proposed that voting in this channel on issues which only affect one board (or not all boards) should be limited to only the staff members who administrate those board/s. If you think that all moderators of the site should vote on all proposals, please vote thumbs down to this proposal. VOTING WILL CLOSE IN 72 HOURS AT 3AM UTC 29/08
Yes.

All three are cool.

>>1948
We're throwing around ideas about better ways to include anonymous votes from you guys.

Either we are going to use this thread to gauge the user opion on ideas or outright add your votes to the votes in our staff chat.

The problem with the later is people using proxies to abuse; also getting a majority figure is difficult with out aknowing how many users are involved, exactly.

>>1953
>The problem with the later is people using proxies to abuse; also getting a majority figure is difficult with out aknowing how many users are involved, exactly.
For the record I post here entirely from behind tor and a webproxy (because tor is blocked), and I'd rather not be able to vote than there be a witch hunt against proxies. I try to make quality posts, I'm just very interested in privacy.

>>1928
The fast vote on an FAQ topic on leftypol replacing /NEW/ and the reading list has been carried and will be put into effect.
So, with that said, does anyone have a copy of the old FAQ topic?
Or wants to write a new one? I personally am not sure what should be put in it - though perhaps we should merge it with the manifesto since that kind of tells everyone how to act anyways

>>1954
Yes, that is completely understandable.
I, personally, think that we should have an actual onion link, but, it's just very hard to do what we want here over the medium that we have.

Things will get worked out in time. Just gotta have faith, I guess.

>FAST TRACK VOTE: It is proposed that the pinned reading list topic and the /NEW/ topic on leftypol ... VOTING WILL CLOSE 4AM UTC 27/08

yes

>LONG VOTE: It is proposed that Bunkerchan should, ONCE TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE, create a ban list that is publicly viewable ... VOTING WILL CLOSE 4AM UTC 29/08

yes

>LONG VOTE: It is proposed that voting in this channel on issues which only affect one board (or not all boards) ... VOTING WILL CLOSE IN 72 HOURS AT 3AM UTC 29/08

yes

What does everyone think about Charcter limmits?

>>1973
>What does everyone think about Character limits?
I'd support them for OPs so long as filler was also banned for OPs. I'd be iffy about doing the same for replies.

Proposition on table

VOTE: I am bring to the floor a resolution which proposes that character limits be added to the creation of new topics; No topic shall be allowed to be created that does not meet or exceed a character MINIMUM of 100 charcters in total.

My logic behind this action will be to generally increase post quality and limit the amount of actual shit posting that goes on on /leftypol/. With luck this will also channel the shit posts into their necessary topics/boards.

Due to the nature of this request this vote will be considered CRITICAL and will require a 72hour window to resolve.

Posted at 12:00pm UCT 08/30/2019 and will resolve 12pm 09/02/2019

>>1980
**Posted at 12:00pm UCT 08/29/2019 and will resolve 12pm 09/31/2019

<Fuck I'm retarded.

>>1980
>I am bring to the floor a resolution which proposes that character limits be added to the creation of new topics; No topic shall be allowed to be created that does not meet or exceed a character MINIMUM of 100 charcters in total.
I support this proposition so long as "topics" is defined as threads. That being said I would encourage this rule be expanded to exclude obvious attempts to circumvent the minimum without adding more content, for example by copy pasting one phrase repeatedly or something similar.

>>1980
This is 24 characters.
Now, I am at character 49.
100 characters might appear like a
fair minimum at first, but why
do we want to set a minimum
in the first place? Are there not things
that can be best said at less than 100 characters?
Shouldn't we incentivice succinctness, and
well organized thoughts instead? I vote nay.
[324 characters total]

>>1980
the idea of a character minimum being a real barrier to any kind of spam is laughable, and generally only server to friendly-fire actually good threads that don't need much of a description.

I vote nay.

>>1980
> Proposition on table

> VOTE: I am bring to the floor a resolution which proposes that character limits be added to the creation of new topics; No topic shall be allowed to be created that does not meet or exceed a character MINIMUM of 100 charcters in total.

No, you can just as easily spam with 100 characters and provoke discussion with fewer. Threads still will need to be modded

>>1987

/leftypol/ had spam filters for this exact thing, actually.

>>1985
Really the thing about the hundred charcter minimum incentivizes higher levels of discourse rather than just keeping posts above 100 characters. Expecting paticipents to post something that is greater than or at 100 characters incentivizes them to actually think about what they are saying critically and expound on the topic rather than half of the >lol what do you think of x faggots?

Posts that are currently infesting the board.

>>1980
I vote yea. I see no reason not to, despite what the concern trolls are saying. 8/leftypol/ also had a minimum character count and even a word filter.

If you can't type at least two or three sentences, why the fuck are you even here? Are you illiterate?

>>1989
>I vote yea. I see no reason not to, despite what the concern trolls are saying. 8/leftypol/ also had a minimum character count and even a word filter.
152 characters
>I vote yea. I see no reason not to. 8/leftypol/ also had a minimum character count.
84 characters, while making the same point.
All else was clutter.
My oh my, does /leftypol/ have a tongue problem. Can we start trying to be succinct, and attempt to communicate our ideas as clearly as possible, without all of the decorations? Or at least, can we allow the possibility for others to do so, and demonstrate this willingness by not setting a 'minimum word count'?

>>1980
SUPPORT
As a pure formalism to lighten board bureacracy load as even
>fug need to hit 100 characters
Repeated shows effort and intent on the part of the original poster towards having the thread

>>1989
This.

If you can't coherently and accurately explain your ideas why the fuck are you even on this site?
Leftypol on 8chan had it why should this place be any different?

>>1980
Veto, nay whaterever...
While it filters the "commies btfo" it also filters laughter such as "LOL good one comrade, nazis btfo" and its not as conversational. If leftypol really is earnest in articulating socialism and communism let people speak and it may even attract new socialists and communists. The 100 character limit tends to be boomer-esque, sure, its not 300 character minimum. Newcomers arent necessarily going to write long discourses and effort posts just let then feel that they can speak even for the well read they enjoy a short break. Nevertheless people like effort posts, I for one, liked the Late Stage Capitalism posts and general effort posts by others on different threads on different subjects sometimes the same comrades. To increase quality why not encourage comrades to lurk and post in the reading list thread and share sources, citations and proofs. If you cant get your own comrades interested and reading the books and source you might an problem with "normies" on gym sites. I have reading the Communist Manifesto and started reading Das Kapital and Lenins work

If you go to other forums to explain socialism and communism, guess what? There isnt a 100 word limit to prevent "lol a commie", "imao retard", "this". I suggest to talk freely.

Thanks for bunkerchan btw

>>1980
>>1993 (me)
Sorry I read that wrong (I have been in front of the screen for too long the past few days). Let the thread creation have a certain number of characters but let the comments be character limit free.

Yes, sorry about that.

>>1994
Yeah, I am pretty sure that the vote is about the creation of threads not posting as a whole.

>>1980
I vote Yea
My logic is >>1989

>>1995
Sometimes, a 'Discuss' thread is sufficient, imo. I say this because what goes in the creation of a thread sets the anchor that the remainder of the thread will thereby follow. There can be richer conversations, in some cases, where the responses can vary according to each individual poster's unbiased and relatively unanchored thoughts.

>>1980

I vote no

Bunkerchan seems fine without a character limit atm so I'm not bothered.

>>1980
Yea for me

>>1990
see >>>/leftypol/44524 >>>/leftypol/44525

>>1980
Vote yea.
Would cut down on the HAHA COMMIES BTFO threads substantially I think.

>>1980
Please don't do this, this shit is always terrible fun-killing measure. Thread discussion quality is not dependent on the thesis quality of the OP. If you've used image boards long enough you should know this.

>>1928
LONG VOTE: It is proposed that Bunkerchan should, ONCE TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE, create a ban list that is publicly viewable that includes the name of the moderator who issued the ban as well as the details of the post itself, so that users can hold their staff to account more effectively. Obviously, no identifying info or IPs should be publicly visible besides vol name. VOTING WILL CLOSE 4AM UTC 29/08

VOTE PASSED

LONG VOTE: It is proposed that voting in this channel on issues which only affect one board (or not all boards) should be limited to only the staff members who administrate those board/s. If you think that all moderators of the site should vote on all proposals, please vote thumbs down to this proposal. VOTING WILL CLOSE IN 72 HOURS AT 3AM UTC 29/08

VOTE PASSED

These votes will now be put into effect, though you won't see any difference immediately. The one about public mod lists might take a while considering the technical situation, but I hope it helps people to feel like we are okay with being more accountable than certain previous regimes.

>>2003
Having it just for thread OPs would be an improvement at least. 100 characters isn't hard to break if you want to start a new discussion. Short one-liner questions should go to a respective megathread, and ragebait shitposting should just be removed anyway as per the manifesto.

Keep in mind as well, there is /GET/ if you want to chat in a relaxed setting.

>>2005
that's not what was implied!!!
GOD FUCKING DAMMIT YOU'RE FUCKING USELESS!
What was implied was that not everything needs to be a fucking poem/manifesto on here.

>>2008
Maybe you should articulate your proposal a little more clearly if I have somehow misinterpreted it. It is a proposal for a minimum character count for OP posts, is it not?

>>2008
God this anon is fucking stupid.
Why don't you just leave the site and enver come back? Your constant sperging out on every end of the site is fucking jarring.

>>2009
sure
>>2010
I don't know who you're talking about, but you're right about one thing. I think I'm going to leave the bunker for a couple of months. I'll come back in December and hopefully by then the literacy rate will have risen. 'Till Christmas!

>>1928

VOTE: I am bring to the floor a resolution which proposes that character limits be added to the creation of new topics; No topic shall be allowed to be created that does not meet or exceeed a character MINIMUM of 100 charcters in total,

My logic behind this action will be to generally increase post quality and limmit the ammount of actual shit posting that goes on on /leftypol/. With luck this will also channel the shit posts into their neccesary topics/boards.

Due to the nature of this request this vote will be considered CRITICAL and will require a 72hour window to resolve.

Posted at 12:00pm UCT 08/29/2019 and will resolve 12pm 09/01/2019

VOTE PASSED

Hi everyone,

For the sake of transparency, attached to this post is the pdf file with the voting history for the month of August of the bunkerchan's modteam that I will ideally post each month. You will find all the propositions voted on last month and also the details of the votes for each propositions.
This will be also posted in /leftypol/.
Feedback is of course always welcomed.

Have a nice (sectarian infighting filled) day.

Proposal 5: I propose that /trash/ should be returned to /leftypol/ where it was previously based to give /leftypol/ an outlet once again for memey off topic discussion to flourish, It is (in my opinion) damaging to /leftypol/ to try to enforce seriousness and many users have not made the move over to /GET/.

This is in response to some complaints and my own feelings, thanks, have a nice day.

>>2031
Scratch that, new proposal

Proposal 6: A new /leftytrash/ thread will be created and maintained on /leftypol/ along the same lines as the old one, for the purposes of enabling funposting and acting as a pressure valve for non serious topics.

>>2032

No from me; Why should there be such redundancies? /leftypol/ isn't really our home now, bunkerchan is. Leftypol is just part of the over arching super structure of bunkerchan.

There's no point in it. If people are too lazy too click a fucking link then why are they here? It's like the last proposition. If you are too lazy to give at least 100 characters why are you here?

That's how I see it anyways.

Do not want.

>>2032
The proposition is being voted on until 00:00 UTC September 7th, feel free to give your opinion on it.

minimum character limit isn't even possible in lynxchan lmao

>>2032
Hard reject on the basis that funposting doesn't need to be contained, and if it does then there's /ref/ /GET/ /e/ and /dead/ for funposting and non serious discussion containment
Also concur with comrade dubs --> >>2033

>>2032
I agree with comrades >>2033 and >>2041 even though I think redundancies are nice

>>2032
Yes : 2
No : 4
Abstention : 3
Proposition : Rejected

>>2049
This is good, this will allow /GET/ to grow with its proper audience.

>>2020
This is an odd one. I think a well-shortened thread topic would entice more people with shorter attention spans. Which nowadays is a lot of us really.

Vote: Should the e-celeb general thread be de generalised, and e-celeb topics be allowed on the rest of the board (unless they become a nuisance or duplicates of the same thing as with other topics). Vote will conclude 6pm UTC 12/09

>>2068
no.

>>2068
No

Vote: Ban anime

Vote: ban >>2071

>>2071
No
>>2072
Yes

>>2068
VOTE HAS PASSED and will be put into effect.

Vote - Critical - /leftypol/: Should the idpol/gender topic be decycled, and should idpol/gender discussion be allowed on the rest of the board, subject to usual rules about being overly trollish or disruptive? Vote concludes 3am UTC 20/09/19

Vote - Critical - /leftypol/: Should incelposting be a bannable offense? Thumbs up yes, thumbs down no.
Incelposting:

explicit mysoginy (eg. females are whores, etc)
explicit resentment towards the idealized male sexual monopolizer (eg. chad)
explicit resentment towards the idealized female sexual denyier (eg. stacy)
asserting entitlement of sex (including justfying rape and unironic state-sanctioned gfs)
blamining sex-havers for inceldom, as opposed to capitalist alienation
comlpaining about paying taxes (or working) to feed other's children
applying capitalist ontology to sex (the "sex market", regarding women as property)
Vote concludes 3am UTC 20/09/19

We've got something of a stand off today boys!

Vote - Critical - /leftypol/: Should incelposting be a bannable offense? Thumbs up yes, thumbs down no.
Incelposting:
< explicit mysoginy (eg. females are whores, etc)
< explicit resentment towards the idealized male sexual monopolizer (eg. chad)
< explicit resentment towards the idealized female sexual denyier (eg. stacy)
< asserting entitlement of sex (including justfying rape and unironic state-sanctioned gfs)
< blamining sex-havers for inceldom, as opposed to capitalist alienation
< comlpaining about paying taxes (or working) to feed other's children
< applying capitalist ontology to sex (the "sex market", regarding women as property)
Vote concludes 3am UTC 20/09/19

>>2094
>Vote - Critical - /leftypol/: Should the idpol/gender topic be decycled, and should idpol/gender discussion be allowed on the rest of the board, subject to usual rules about being overly trollish or disruptive?
No. I'm in favor of decycling in favor of having enforced generals which can be archived for later users and reference, but I believe that having a containment thread for a certain type of posts which are neither productive, nor enjoyable and certainly not quality is of extreme importance to the health of the board. A board volunteer put it well:
>>>/leftypol/59088
>To elucidate some motivation specifically on the /idpol/ general, idpol can be tricky to moderate. A nuanced conversation can turn into incel/racist/transphobia/etc very quickly, and it tends to do so.
>When we didn't have the idpol general, there would be 5 different daily idpol threads all with /pol/ bait as OP and it generally attracted the worst posters and encouraged their shit takes. Those threads usually had 3-4 words per post on average (eg. "fuck [trannies/jews/gays]").
>Also, idpol can derail a thread extremely quickly. Sending people over to the idpol thread has been a good tactic to let people continue discussing some topic without it derailing the entire thread.
>As a board user, I can empathize. I enjoy btfo'ing idpol-liberals as much as anyone, and the current idpol general isn't really a great place to do it. I also enjoy discussing idpol more generally, which is definitely not suited to /idpol/. We've been more lax as of late towards "meta" discussions of idpol, while still sending idpolers to the idpol thread.

>Vote - Critical - /leftypol/: Should incelposting be a bannable offense? Thumbs up yes, thumbs down no.
This would have to include a ban on posting not just about "chads" and "stacys" but also "incels" for me to support it. This would be simply a unbiased way remove a significant portion of modern internet identity politics from the board, and with it a certain segment of the mentioned neither enjoyable nor productive posts on the board.

I hope my comrades will see things similarly.

>>2094
Vote - Critical - /leftypol/: Should the idpol/gender topic be decycled, and should idpol/gender discussion be allowed on the rest of the board, subject to usual rules about being overly trollish or disruptive? Vote concludes 3am UTC 20/09/19
No, because the majority of /leftypol/ are white boys that are far to reactionary with regards to superstructure politics like race and gender.

>Vote - Critical - /leftypol/: Should incelposting be a bannable offense? Thumbs up yes, thumbs down no.
Incelposting:
< explicit mysoginy (eg. females are whores, etc)
< explicit resentment towards the idealized male sexual monopolizer (eg. chad)
< explicit resentment towards the idealized female sexual denyier (eg. stacy)
< asserting entitlement of sex (including justfying rape and unironic state-sanctioned gfs)
< blamining sex-havers for inceldom, as opposed to capitalist alienation
< comlpaining about paying taxes (or working) to feed other's children
< applying capitalist ontology to sex (the "sex market", regarding women as property)
Vote concludes 3am UTC 20/09/19
NO
And this bias as hell write up was obviously written by some butt hurt soy boy mod.
The incel posters haven’t been any of those things. What’s been fucking happening is that feminist cucks have been doing everything they can to prey on the insecurities of incels and SURPRISE, they get incels to speak abrasively about women once in a while, the very people they said they had a problem with.
BTW if you do this you’ll lose a good 30-50 unique IPs immediately, and problem 100 long term including mine.
The incel thread has been the number one fastest moving thread and incels have been making novel, and substantial insights into how capitalism plays a role in their plight.
China just changed the law to favor men because of the very sexual market issues incels are talking about.
The other thing is you assume only incels are this frustrated with dating, plenty of other men are as well.
When reddit deleted the Pick Up Artist subreddit “The Red Pill” their site traffic rankings when from number 5 to number 14. That’s exactly what will happen to this site. Other anons are free to enrich other threads and make them more compelling but they don’t. You all fancy yourselves as some kind of intelligencia but you’re all as dull as dish water.

>>2097
*misformatted
>Vote - Critical - /leftypol/: Should the idpol/gender topic be decycled, and should idpol/gender discussion be allowed on the rest of the board, subject to usual rules about being overly trollish or disruptive? Vote concludes 3am UTC 20/09/19
No, because the majority of /leftypol/ are white boys that are far to reactionary with regards to superstructure politics like race and gender

>>2096
Agree with this on the main
>This would have to include a ban on posting not just about "chads" and "stacys" but also "incels" for me to support it. This would be simply a unbiased way remove a significant portion of modern internet identity politics from the board, and with it a certain segment of the mentioned neither enjoyable nor productive posts on the board.
Support this, but with the modification that complaining about "chads" is allowed

Suggestion, consider allowing more nuanced discussions outside the general, but allow unpleasant or distasteful venting in the general

When complaints are made about things being shut down, direct them to the general

>>2099
>Support this, but with the modification that complaining about "chads" is allowed
Which is to say at least allow them the most deserving target for their resentment
t. someone who just found out that by incel definitions they're a chad

>>2099
Why would talk of "Chads" be allowed but not "Stacys" or incels? Ban it altogether or don't, quit trying to make this your personal hug box.
If you ban incel talk your numbers are going to drop and never come back, this is The Rojova Incident all over again

>>2100
>t. someone who just found out that by incel definitions they're a chad
Getting sex once in a while from a Roastie doesn't make you a Chad. Just a failed normie.

>>2101
Because incel talk is the male equivalent of feminism, with all the good and the bad that implies, incels complaining about chad look sympathetic to the non incel audience, incels going into other topics are about as sympathetic as radfem menchhasse or TRAs complaining about cockshot

Also if you pay attention you'll notice I suggested not banning, but keeping the strong language contained to the general
>>2102
That's not what convinced me, it was an incel saying only chads can cold approach successfully :^)

To be clear I'm the guy that posted >>>/leftypol/63212 in the moderation thread

>>2103
>Because incel talk is the male equivalent of feminism, with all the good and the bad that implies, incels complaining about chad look sympathetic to the non incel audience, incels going into other topics are about as sympathetic as radfem menchhasse or TRAs complaining about cockshot 
This is stupid as fuck and won't work. Either ban incels and watch your numbers drop, or allow them and come up with some convincing anti incel arguments that aren't dripping in liberalism.

>>2094
>>2095
Major concern, doing this will empower destiny tier liberals

>>2095
Vote yes.

I would like to see a blanket ban on all incelposting including shitting on incels. Incelposting derails threads, curtails interesting discussion and gets the whole board riled up in a very unproductive way. Ban it all.

>>2095
No.

Incelposting is very entertaining in certain contexts. This topic policing will be the death of this website if we allow it to continue any more than it already has. Just let the fucking mods delete spam and illegal content and the community can self-moderate the rest.

Do we have enough data now to assess whether the de-cyclicing is having the desired effect on PPH and post quality yet? I took a peek at the daily graphs and did not notice a persistent change. I generally tune out all the low quality posts so I'm not sure if there has been a change in this or not. Anyone have a opinion or want to do a more rigorous look over of the data?

>>2111
>No.

>Incelposting is very entertaining in certain contexts. This topic policing will be the death of this website if we allow it to continue any more than it already has. Just let the fucking mods delete spam and illegal content and the community can self-moderate the rest.
This, the anti incel anons are just fanny furious all their arguments are liberal pap.
Reddit did this very thing with Pick Up Artist closing down their "The Red Pill" subreddit and their site traffic ranking crashed from #3 most trafficked site on the internet to #14. You do this now while the site is still nascent and you'll doom the site to irrelevance forever. It will never recover because bunkerchan.xyz does not have other traffic to piggyback off of like /leftpol/ on 8chan.
More anons better vote against this unless you want to stay all alone in a circlejerk.

>>2113
There is also a chance that every sane person will gtfo if the board starts to be overrun with redpill/incel shit.

>>2114
yeah this seems a lot more likely

>>2115
>incel talk in all of 3 threads.
OH MY GAWD WE'RE BEING OVER RUN.

>>2116
but isn't one enough? I think one is actually more than enough. If no one likes you it doesn't really help to be extra annoying.

>>2113
also lol at thinking Pick Up Artists could make such a big dent in reddit.

>>2118
"The Red Pill" was in the top 5 of most concurrent online users for a subreddit. r/incels was as well. Their rankings dropped right after they banned TRP. That's why they came up with the new "containment" strategy where the number of currently online users and subs is hidden and you get a content warning each time you visit the subreddit. They don't want to lose anymore traffic by outright banning manosphere subs anymore.

>>2117
>but isn't one enough? 
To stroke fears of an incel coup? No one isn't enough.

>>2119
Do you really want to turn leftypol into a manosphere shithole? I thought this was supposed to be an anti-idpol board.

>>2094
>Should the idpol/gender topic be decycled, and[...]
No
>Should incelposting be a bannable offense?
No

>>2094
>Vote - Critical - /leftypol/: Should the idpol/gender topic be decycled, and should idpol/gender discussion be allowed on the rest of the board, subject to usual rules about being overly trollish or disruptive? Vote concludes 3am UTC 20/09/19
Nah, maintaining containment more generally is a good idea.

Vote - Critical - /leftypol/: Should incelposting be a bannable offense? Thumbs up yes, thumbs down no.
Yes - incels should be reclassified as a type of idpol at the minimum, blanket banned if needed.

>>2121
inceldom is an idpol

Yes to banning incels. Incels are stuck in a reactionary, bitter ideology of wallowing in self pity on the most pathetic grounds imaginable.

If you are wallowing in misery for not getting your dick wet in the right way or something you don't care about leftist principles, liberating others, or the creation of justice; you care about yourself and your own self value through sexual yard sticks.

>>2126
>you don't care about leftist principles, liberating others, or the creation of justice; you care about yourself and your own self value through sexual yard sticks
t. sexhaver

A potential counter proposal to the current proposal is to allow idpol topics to leak out to e-celeb talk since all the e-celebs talk about is idpol anyway

User proposal, liberals are reactionaries

>>2129
also sjws and radlibs are liberals and therefore reactionary

One more user proposal wordfilter the various labels for trans to incel and incel to trans

>>2128
>A potential counter proposal to the current proposal is to allow idpol topics to leak out to e-celeb talk since all the e-celebs talk about is idpol anyway
>>2131
>One more user proposal wordfilter the various labels for trans to incel and incel to trans
I genuinely don't understand why everyone is so opposed to enforced containment threads. It's a simple effective solution, and once again I've seen no evidence that degeneralizing the e-celeb, nor the american thread has persistently increased PPH according to the daily graphs. I have noticed slightly more thread derailment due to incel posting recently (obviously conversation is a two way game so I'm not pointing blame at either side here), if these individuals want to talk about this issue so badly why not give them a thread, and make sure they stay there instead of derailing threads?

>>2131
This is just you trying to censor talk about both transgender people and incels because your booty blasted. I vote no.

>>2133
>something that doesn't stop a thing but will fuck with newfrens is censorship
ok
>>2132
This is a good question

>>2134
>Fustrating speech to the point people stop talking about it isn't censorship.

>>2135
>implying people will stop talking about either of those topics no matter what attempts are made

>>2136
No, they'll just leave the board entirely, and slide the site into irrelavancy.

>>2137
I don't think site traffic is even going going to be remotely negatively impacted by us not being able to discuss incels or trannies.

User proposal time for a vol purge
All vols are to read https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ and take a test on the contents

All vols who fail are to be removed

>>2137
>if you throw us incels out you will become irrelevant!!
kek delusion

>>2138
Meh, I think you might be surprised. People love to discuss bullshit or they wouldn't do it.

>>2141
>ban the fastest threads with the most replies will sink popularity of this site
>delusion
People don't like your stupid topic policing.

>>2143
If this board dies because we ban incelposting it wouldn't deserve to live anyway.

>>2145
>One of the best leftist sites should die because they talked about one thing I didn't like.
We don't all have Fortnight to go back to kido.

>>2139
and i suppose you will mark the test and you interpretation is the correct one?

I prefer incels over trans, because nobody's going to make an effort to cancel censor or ban anyone for calling them on their bullshit

Vote - Bunkerchan - Critical : Tor posting should be enabled, albeit with limitations (e.g. specific captchas for tor posters, disabling of posting picture etc...) to be decided upon later in function of the difficulty of their technical implementation and efficacy to limit abuse. This vote will conclude on 8 A.M. UTC 25/09/2019.

>>2155
I would very much so like to see this pass, although I'd understand if others did not. It's not a particularly easy vote when one considers the trade offs between the privacy of our users, the quality of our board, and the stress put on our moderators resources. Regardless privacy means quite a lot to me, so thank you for considering. Written behind tor and a webproxy (because tor is blocked).

>>2155
Suggest the board bureaucracy consulting the dev and site administration on the practicality and ease of implementation of this before going ahead with the vote

>>2094
>>2095
Just to clarify for everyone, both of these votes FAILED so the status quo will continue for now. We may revisit the issue with some compromise proposal later on.

>>2158
Question: is incelposting allowed outside the containment thread?

>>2155
Yes Tor posting should be allowed. It was allowed on 8chan's /tech/, but they required a capatcha for each post.
They didn't even ban image postings. Someone could still post CP using a VPN or a coffee shop Wi-Fi, so it doesn't really prevent that.

>>2160
no

>>2160no, it's still idpol

>>2155
Yes : 7
NO : 0
Abstention : 1
Proposition approved.

>>2167
This is wonderful news! I look forward to it being implemented!

btw how do we know if the vote is legitimate? eg carried out by a mod? Can the admins just post the votes with their admin tag, so we know its real? Also: the vast majority of the site, doesn't frequent this thread and don't know when a vote is being held, how could we fix this, it seems like a problem for me

>>2167
8 votes ?
there should be a link/reminder of current votes on front page/leftypol itself. Passing a decision with 8 votes is a bit ridiculous

>>2239
only jannies can vote.

>>2208
We do the actual vol votes on Riot, krates (I think) publishes a monthly vote log on /leftypol/ mod topic if you want to check it's legit.

>>1928

Vote - Critical - All Vols: The boards /e/ and /tech/ should be merged (with their topics imported if technically realistic) into a singular /hobby/ board, to be established on the success of this vote, at https://bunkerchan.xyz/hobby/ . This new board will be intended to serve as a left wing or politics agnostic space for the discussion of hobbyist topics (defined broadly as any kind of entertainment, art, passtime, or technical skill). /tech/ and /e/ will therefore be closed. If /hobby/ proves to be dominated by a singular topic it may justify the creation of a new board related to that subject, when the required population to open a new board is proven. Vote closes 14:00 UTC 23/10/19

>>1928

Vote - Critical - All Vols: The board /dead/ does not have the required population to support its use, and it should be closed, with post-left discussion moved to /leftypol/ if needed. Vote closes 14:00 UTC 23/10/19

>>2362
Please consider the following post: >>2330 and the other posts it links to when voting, thank you.

>>2363
Oppose.

>>2363
no

>>2363
Seems that /dead/ doesn't want to die
>>2367
>>2368
>>>/dead/462

>>2362
>>2363
What was the result of the votes?

>>2382
1st vote passed with 7 ayes and 1 nay
2nd vote passed with 9 ayes

These decisions will be put into effect today or tomorrow hopefully.

We understand that some people are unhappy with the decisions, however we feel we have done what the majority were in favour of, and that this will be a positive step for the site - in addition, it is implicit in our decision that boards may be created at a later date if the population is proven to support them. Overall, boards with only 2-3 posts per day make the site look inactive and abandoned, and we hope that /hobby/ will revitalise discussion on these topics.

>>2383
I wonder why do you and the other mods think why /e/ is dead?

leftypol has these threads:
>>>/leftypol/96581
>>>/leftypol/63325
>>>/leftypol/27850
>>>/leftypol/27775
So there is an interest in other topics besides leftism.

The first post on /e/ since we came here was >>>/e/158
The first post on /tech/ since we came here was >>>/tech/241
Considering the current post count of /e/ and /tech/, /tech/ is two times as fast as /e/ while being a moar niche board.

personally, I believe that >>2379 has a point.

>>2383
/hobby/ is live!

https://bunkerchan.xyz/hobby/catalog.html

Comrade King is currently in the process of migrating over the active threads from /tech/ and /e/, however if there's a topic from 6 months ago you want to save, now is a good time to repost it.

>>2385
Why is it that at every possible impasse the moderation team decides to sacrifice quality for quantity? Your obsession with survival will be the death of you.

Perhaps >>>/tech/ should make its own imageboard, but with blackjack and hookers. I already have a good chunk of a template done, wouldn't take long to finish off. Maybe a few weeks of very part time work.

>>2387
All the top /tech/ topics are being migrated over, I don't think you need to worry about anime fans posting in your super serious software dev topics, at worst you might get some new interest from people that never used /tech/.

>>2388
Honestly man, it's not just this it's everything. I'm not mad, I'm just tired of it. I don't remember the last competent choice made by the staff, maybe the tiny character limits? Between that Krates accidentally deleting all my posts on >>>/leftypol/, staff now deleting the board I moved to after that happened, the repeat incompetent choices, the ineffectual responses, and the shitty styling and parsing on the site, I think I'll go through with this. Why not.

>>2389
Sorry man. I just wanted to make discussion more active.

>>2390
>Sorry man. I just wanted to make discussion more active.
You're not responsible, no need to apologize, we're all just causal processes, it makes more sense for me to blame the big bang than you personally. Don't worry about it. My actions are not motivated by anger, and hopefully we can have a healthy relationship once things are up and running.

>>2383
>>2385
Based. Glad it's finally happening.

>>2393
Well, at least somebody isn't up in arms about it. Thanks.

>>2394
Very few people seem to have an issue with it, /hobby/ is actually getting 20-30 posts per hour. Going from 3 dead boards to 1 active board is definitely a good thing.

>>2396
<Going from 3 dead boards to 1 active board is definitely a good thing.
>go to hobby
>/tech/ doesn't get discussed
It's almost like /hobby/ is only active because It's new and people have shilled for it instead of it being a merge.

>>2363
Just leave /dead/ alone. If it's not very active, that means it's not taking up many server resources. So what if there's a slow board on the site? No every board on 4chan is as active as /b/ or /pol/, they have /t/ which is slow.

There is room for slow boards on the site. How about this, make me BO of /dead/ and if we're not at whatever threshold of PPH you deem acceptable in a month you can delete it.

>>2399
>/tech/ doesn't get discussed
Then discuss it. Nothing is stopping you.

>>2400
anonrade speaks troof

>>2400
You realize it takes resources to his even a dead board right?

Some mother fucking radlib mod is censoring shit that hurts his fee fee again.
This post got deleted out of the sex politics cyclical
>>115477
And my post in the Richard Spencer meltdown thread got deleted too. It wasn't referenced by anyone so I don't have the number.

>>2597

when were the posts, made? Also, this thread is not for complaints make a new thread please.

>>2598
The post I made in the Spencer thread was posted on the 2nd.

We are holding currently two new votes:
Vote 1 - Critical - Bunkerchan - /gulag/ should be the exclusive board for all meta discussions. Vote closes 14:00 UTC 07/11/2019
Vote 2 - Critical - Bunkerchan - There should be board specific threads on /gulag/ about mod related issues. (Only if vote 1 above is approved, for obvious reasons). Vote closes 14:00 UTC 07/11/2019

>>2601
>Vote 1
Sure, as long as the vols don't post >>>/gulag/ and delete posts at any whiff of meta discussion. People replying to a banned post with positive or negative feedback isn't by itself a "discussion." It's pretty easy to make a thread/post here and reply to such a post there with a link to here. Just type >>>/gulag/2601 or whatever the post number is and you can link from other boards. If someone has more nuanced to say than MODS=GODS or "that didn't warrant a ban" they can post about it here and link that in a reply to the post. Big problem with /gulag/ is lack of activity. If meta discussion goes here, there should at least be crosslinks from the place being discussed. That way you will get more traffic here and the people who are most interested will see there's a discussion happening. If standard procedure is simply "take it to /gulag/" then at best people have to look for the discussion here and at worst it disappears into the void.

>Vote 2
This seems like a reasonable approach if Vote 1 passes.

>>2602
>Just type >>>/gulag/2601 or whatever the post number is and you can link from other boards. If someone has more nuanced to say than MODS=GODS or "that didn't warrant a ban" they can post about it here and link that in a reply to the post.
That's basically what I had in mind. When I proposed "/gulag/ should be the exclusive board for all meta discussions", I didn't mean that all meta discussion should be deleted and banned on sight but merely redirecting anons to /gulag/ so they can have a proper space to debate their points without derailing a thread or clogging up a board with meta.

>>2603
Neat. Then the practice just needs to be encouraged until it's standard.

>>2601
This vote has FAILED at present but it may return in a different form as we work on things behind the scenes - thank you for your patience.

Technocracy flag when

>>1928
Vote 1: The maximum message length on /leftypol/ and /hobby/ will be doubled to 8192 characters. Vote closes 8pm UTC 05/12/19

Vote 2: The following image will be added to Bunkerchan as a favicon. Vote closes 8pm UTC 05/12/19

First of all this voting system is bad because anyone can very easily rig it with proxies/VPNs ITT.

>>2798
1. Sure I don't care.
2. No because we're supposed to pick from multiple possible favicons, not just one choice.

For example here are some other possible favicons people can vote on.

>>2799
Exactly the reason why only mods can vote, the input of the users in this topic is advisory

>>2800
They're ok but too small to really distinguish (though I have a small soft spot for the alunya one)

>>2800
What about this?

>>2803
That would have been my second choice but I think it's a bit hard to discern.

Oh, well, hell, I'll put those two to the collective too.

>>2798
>Vote 1: The maximum message length on /leftypol/ and /hobby/ will be doubled to 8192 characters. Vote closes 8pm UTC 05/12/19
Check with space on what the page size of the machine bunkerchan is running on and ask if it'll cause any issues first, if no issues go for it
>Vote 2: The following image will be added to Bunkerchan as a favicon. Vote closes 8pm UTC 05/12/19
Sure go ahead, it can always be changed again later right?

>>2800
>>2803
'alunya' and 'bunkerchan logo smol' are also being voted on now.

I picked our girl, she's the hero of my heart, but we'll see.

>>2798
>Vote closes 8pm UTC 05/12/19
And?

>>2816
That favicon vote has been superceded by voting on other options, the expansion to character limit will be implemented when we can get ahold of Space. Thanks.

The favicon vote has ended, with this as the victor! It will be added as soon as we can get Space to. Also, >>>/get/ will now be filtered to >>>/GET/ on /leftypol/ and /gulag/ in order to make links work. Thanks friends!

>>2826
soooo Is Space going to do it or...

>>1928 Vote passed and will be implemented: All volunteers of /leftypol/ and /hobby/ should also have volunteer status on /gulag/ for general board maintenance and spam prevention and in order to directly reply to posts with volunteer tags. Vote passed and will be implemented: A plaintext link to 'catalog' will be added to the top of threads and board homepages on all boards to aid 4channers in acclimatising and limit confusion, the existing catalog button will be left in place as well.

>>1928 Vote: (you)s wlll be implemented for post replies as seen on 8/4chan to aid in acclimatisation. Vote ends 09/01/20, general vote (all vols)

>>3917 Vote passed and will be implemented by the tech team workload permitting.

>>1928 Vote: It will be added to the /leftypol/ manifesto and agreed by the general mod team that post history must be reviewed in full by the acting volunteer before an IP deletion is issued, for both global bans, and board specific bans on /leftypol/, /hobby/, and /gulag/. Vote ends 14/4/20 5am UTC. All vols permitted to vote.

>>1928 Vote: It will be added to the /leftypol/ manifesto and agreed by the general mod team that post history must be reviewed in full by the acting volunteer before an IP deletion is issued, for both global bans, and board specific bans on /leftypol/, /hobby/, and /gulag/. Vote ends 14/4/20 5am UTC. All vols permitted to vote. Vote passed and will be implemented Vote: Delete the idpol thread. Vote ends: 16/01/2020 22:17 UTC Vote passed and will be implemented I'll give you guys until 11.17pm to finish your arguments in the idpol topic (1 hour from now) as that's when the vote officially ends. Enjoy.

VOTE: The recreation of /tech/ 08:00 WENSDAY 1/15/2020 Vote will conclude on Saturday 08:00UTC

VOTE: This vote will bring to the floor the creation of a roulette board the test the user demand for temporary boards. If boards garner enough traffic (as to be deliberated upon by the staff) then the board would establish a permanent home on the site. Otherwise it is to be tossed to the dust bin of history; either to be forgotten or be rehased in the future. This vote will conclude on Monday 13:30UTC

>>3966 Kudos whoever thought of this compromise. Even if it doesn't work its a good attempt

>>3966 Oppose. As /GET/ is supposed to be operating as our /b/, thread frequency on a given topic there should be instructional on the requirement for a new board.

>>3966 Please make /his/ the first board (or vote on it), for the reasons I have argued here: >>>/leftypol/220035 >>>/leftypol/220040 >>>/leftypol/220101 >>>/leftypol/220379

>>3966 >This vote will conclude on Monday 13:30UTC It is Tuesday.

>>3982 The vote was concluded and passed with a unanimous effort. I created the board but the other admins walked it back, saying that it should wait until we can put it in the java bars API at the top to not cheat anyone of any time on the board and maximizing user exposure too it. I am in partial agreement with their logic. Needless too say, the vote has passed.

VOTE: This vote will be considered CRITICAL as par the constitution of this site. This vote will codify the move to bring new staff members onto the team. As it sits the amount of work currently required is more than I think the few of us can handle, atm. This vote will ratify the desire of the current administration to bring new people into the inner circle. This vote will conclude on Saturday 1/25/2020 at 19:00UTC

VOTE: It is my belief that polyops are using their image-macros, even in good faith arguments, to spread inane propaganda involving their ideological view points.In lieu of this I am proposing that we spoil all files posted or shared by Nazi posters as not to give them ideological ground and force them to focus mainly on their arguments. This vote will conclude on Sunday 20:30UTC

>>3986 Why can't you, as an admin, change the top bar? Don't tell me space is the only person who can do it.

>>4050 Because I am not proficient enough in javascript in order to do so. We already have it changed, though, we just need space to push the features through.