>>23595705>either of us could be wrong though, loltrue
>overly un-charitable interpretation(?)No I think was being unfair here. I could have definitely express my points better.
>>23595726It never says all spam. It specifically mentions frog posters. If yo- sorry,
If this completely-totally-random-not-you poster wanted to stop spam why doesn't they just say
>why is spam on /bant/ allowed? Can the mods do something about this? While showing how bad it is?
If they really cared about the Quality of this board why didn't they target all spammers, say something about necrobumpped threads for months, and, the biggest problem here on bant, the general threads and /pol/ threads??? but nope, that poster made an emotionally charged response with little to no thinking behind it(ironic coming form me). If they were truly trying to just improve a place they occasionally post on, they did a terrible job of doing so. Seriously, what they even want the mods to do? Decide how many frog post bant can have? In that case, how many frog threads is too much? Why would they only restrict the frogposters? That's not fair. the frogfags would complain just like the totally-not-you-guy did. The cirno threads would be affected to. They're arguably worse than the frogposters. At least the frogfags come and go within a few hours, the cirno threads get necrobump for MONTHS. I don't trust the mods in the slightest, they have shown to be completely incompetent on to many occasions, but apparently this guy puts a lot of (blind)faith in them.
