>>58441900Several rules, even more with the reasons we know they're posted for. And yes, they can be argued to be incitement/participation of a flamewar. They're posted in what should be an otherwise normal thread. And for what? To fail at attempting to bother OP, to spam, to troll, to derail the thread, to seek attention. Those posts and the other garbage posts draw attention to themselves and derail OP's threads into being about the drama about OP, when it's irrelevant to the actual topics of OP's threads.
>>58442241Basically this. Some more I can think of are being possibly an automated spam bot as those kinds of posts could be automated, and use of an NSFW image on a SFW board as a character committing suicide by hanging is obviously NSFW.
>>58448506Doesn't feel worth it for me really. But that does bring to mind, some stuff written on the application page for it. Like how it says they're meant to be well versed with their board, be active members of it, and notably that they have to enforce the rules exactly as written. Relevant quotes from that page:
>Knowledgeable about the content posted to their respective board. Active members of the community.>Rules are to be enforced as written. Janitors enforce site policy only and personal motives should never influence deletion. They are objective, not subjective.So with all those factors combined. They would see the obvious rule breaking going on here and delete it on sight, even more so as they'd know the context. So there's personal bias going on and they've specficially told not to for some reason. It sure seems that way. While the rule breaking posts do get removed sometimes in these threads, mostly they do not, not a single one so far in this specific thread. They do in fact remove some other rule breaking posts.
>>58457814On the situation with OP you're seeing here or regarding the thread's actual topic?
