Fifth Soyvil War Journal: Booru Administration Under A Pink Sun
1535 replies·7600 views
So, we BTFO'd the Baitcorders, Furcorders and Vishnucorders in the poll. Now that I've achieved Booru Administrator, what can I actually do in Mist's temporary site management? High expectations are around the corner, but for your information, you must realize, that Mist is the MAIN administrator right now. So he still has the final say.
My perms surprisingly aren't that much different, on the forums, other than that I have authority over the Booru to an extent and even then, if Mist says "No", I can't ruin his one week management. Remember, I do not have FULL power.
But since I've known Mist for some time, I know that he can be reasoned with and that we can rationally solve some problems that are currently afloat.
I'll try to do as much as possible, and I truly have to thank all you who are on Anti-Baitcord's side. I'll do some regular actions like handling appeals, mass tagging, deletions, IP appeals, etc etc. Although, the war isn't over, just yet, the Baitcorders still cower in fear within the forums because I am but a Booru administrator. They still wont be safe.
But one thing is clear: WE ARE WINNING THE WAR.
My perms surprisingly aren't that much different, on the forums, other than that I have authority over the Booru to an extent and even then, if Mist says "No", I can't ruin his one week management. Remember, I do not have FULL power.
But since I've known Mist for some time, I know that he can be reasoned with and that we can rationally solve some problems that are currently afloat.
I'll try to do as much as possible, and I truly have to thank all you who are on Anti-Baitcord's side. I'll do some regular actions like handling appeals, mass tagging, deletions, IP appeals, etc etc. Although, the war isn't over, just yet, the Baitcorders still cower in fear within the forums because I am but a Booru administrator. They still wont be safe.
But one thing is clear: WE ARE WINNING THE WAR.
pepsi47
It's Saint Pepsi bitch.
2 weeks ago#1765956
why do you suppoty a smuglet porn creator criminal??you can't speak when you have his tiny cock somehow lodged down your throat i bet someone caged your clitty because you do nothing but leakShow quoted text
that you're one of the most aids ridden people on this whole siteShow quoted text
what is filledfaggot trying to imply?even if pepsi has raisin opsec you are and always will be a faggot who can't talk on this
why are you a gay furry on minecraft?Show quoted text
why do you support a smuglet porn creator??Show quoted text
what is filledfaggot trying to imply?
because he doesn't rape yoshis, now answer the question
BootsandChainsaws
Polacken tango
2 weeks ago#1765961
Only in Ohio
FillKaggots
zach edey
2 weeks ago#1765965
you're an aids ridden faggot and that's a fact, your tbp is so small it grows in size when you're about to pee.you can't speak when you have his tiny cock somehow lodged down your throat i bet someone caged your clitty because you do nothing but leakShow quoted text
that you're one of the most aids ridden people on this whole sitewhy are you a gay furry on minecraft?Show quoted text
why do you support a smuglet porn creator??
2 weeks ago#1765981
qeq keep projecting raisinter faggotyou're an aids ridden faggot and that's a fact, your tbp is so small it grows in size when you're about to pee.Show quoted text
you can't speak when you have his tiny cock somehow lodged down your throat i bet someone caged your clitty because you do nothing but leak
why are you a gay furry on minecraft?
FillKaggots
zach edey
pepsi47
It's Saint Pepsi bitch.
2 weeks ago#1765996
wow.i love raping animalsShow quoted text
you're an aids ridden faggot and that's a fact, your tbp is so small it grows in size when you're about to pee.Show quoted text
you can't speak when you have his tiny cock somehow lodged down your throat i bet someone caged your clitty because you do nothing but leak
why are you a gay furry on minecraft?
I appreciate your respect but I actually found numerous things, which I listed but accidentally deleted. Either way, your entire response relies on a contradiction because you mock the framework of logical argumentation as nonsense. You cannot reject the rules of structured debate while simultaneously trying to enforce them to save your argument. Also, the crap about me refusing to admit failure is the exact same circular fallacy you started with. You are still presupposing my motive is a defense, and not a standard Socratic testing of your system’s consistency. I haven't lied about a single premise because I have simply refused to let your emotions dictate the boundaries of a logical discussion. If we are going to discuss things rationally from here on out, you need to leave the circular logic at the door. I still dont see a single piece of evidence other than an anecdotal fallacy.I will gladly not be conceeding, thank you. I do want to know what sort of double standard you have found considering your high level examination of my argument. If there arent any that would be kind of embarassing right? Regardless, if you genuinely think youre fooling anyone with this skeptical inquiry nonsense its not going to work, again anyone with half a braincel can tell you are using this as an excuse to refuse your failure to defend this degenerate furcoon homo bastard, but I respect your decent level of knowledge in argumentation and we might be able to discuss things in a more civilized manner from now onShow quoted text
Your dismissive labeling of my cross-examination as nothing does not change the fact that your entire argument is circular. You are explicitly claiming that your burden of proof is satisfied simply because I refuse to performatively condemn him, which is a blatant argument from ignorance as you are assuming that a skeptical inquiry into your moral framework is mathematically equivalent to an endorsement of his actions. I never once established a premise defending him, and you are unable to distinguish between an active defense of an action and a baseline investigation of your own consistency proves that you are inventing your own dialectical rules to avoid scrutiny. You can appeal to what someone else would do and attempt to retreat to an emotionally charged platitude all you want, but trying to move the goalposts because you cannot handle a Socratic internal critique of your double standards is a complete logical failure. Your claim is invalid, and I will take your concession.. Next time you should also stop with the lies it really does not build your credibility
2 weeks ago#1766266
Accidentally deleting them is convenient. Also I am not entirely dismissing the framework of logical argumentation I think its great, but it needs to be used honestly, I unfortunately cannot believe you were doing a good faith "Socratic testing of my systems consistency", because of the circumstances of the argument as well as the multiple lies i pointed out which you use to save face. Also again lets be honest you did not find any inconsistency, I answered all your questions and you consistently failed to register this as you repeated them constantly. I also repeatedly asked you why you arent condemning pepsi and you neither agreed to condemn him nor did you offer any rebuttal to the argument for condemning him (not one that stood any ground after a simple response at least). You might not have explicitly stated that you defend pepsi but the context of the conversation makes you implicitly commited to that cause.I appreciate your respect but I actually found numerous things, which I listed but accidentally deleted. Either way, your entire response relies on a contradiction because you mock the framework of logical argumentation as nonsense. You cannot reject the rules of structured debate while simultaneously trying to enforce them to save your argument. Also, the crap about me refusing to admit failure is the exact same circular fallacy you started with. You are still presupposing my motive is a defense, and not a standard Socratic testing of your system’s consistency. I haven't lied about a single premise because I have simply refused to let your emotions dictate the boundaries of a logical discussion. If we are going to discuss things rationally from here on out, you need to leave the circular logic at the door. I still dont see a single piece of evidence other than an anecdotal fallacy.Show quoted text
I will gladly not be conceeding, thank you. I do want to know what sort of double standard you have found considering your high level examination of my argument. If there arent any that would be kind of embarassing right? Regardless, if you genuinely think youre fooling anyone with this skeptical inquiry nonsense its not going to work, again anyone with half a braincel can tell you are using this as an excuse to refuse your failure to defend this degenerate furcoon homo bastard, but I respect your decent level of knowledge in argumentation and we might be able to discuss things in a more civilized manner from now onShow quoted text
Your dismissive labeling of my cross-examination as nothing does not change the fact that your entire argument is circular. You are explicitly claiming that your burden of proof is satisfied simply because I refuse to performatively condemn him, which is a blatant argument from ignorance as you are assuming that a skeptical inquiry into your moral framework is mathematically equivalent to an endorsement of his actions. I never once established a premise defending him, and you are unable to distinguish between an active defense of an action and a baseline investigation of your own consistency proves that you are inventing your own dialectical rules to avoid scrutiny. You can appeal to what someone else would do and attempt to retreat to an emotionally charged platitude all you want, but trying to move the goalposts because you cannot handle a Socratic internal critique of your double standards is a complete logical failure. Your claim is invalid, and I will take your concession.
FillKaggots
zach edey
2 weeks ago#1766297
nigga give me your lunch moneyAccidentally deleting them is convenient. Also I am not entirely dismissing the framework of logical argumentation I think its great, but it needs to be used honestly, I unfortunately cannot believe you were doing a good faith "Socratic testing of my systems consistency", because of the circumstances of the argument as well as the multiple lies i pointed out which you use to save face. Also again lets be honest you did not find any inconsistency, I answered all your questions and you consistently failed to register this as you repeated them constantly. I also repeatedly asked you why you arent condemning pepsi and you neither agreed to condemn him nor did you offer any rebuttal to the argument for condemning him (not one that stood any ground after a simple response at least). You might not have explicitly stated that you defend pepsi but the context of the conversation makes you implicitly commited to that cause.Show quoted text
I appreciate your respect but I actually found numerous things, which I listed but accidentally deleted. Either way, your entire response relies on a contradiction because you mock the framework of logical argumentation as nonsense. You cannot reject the rules of structured debate while simultaneously trying to enforce them to save your argument. Also, the crap about me refusing to admit failure is the exact same circular fallacy you started with. You are still presupposing my motive is a defense, and not a standard Socratic testing of your system’s consistency. I haven't lied about a single premise because I have simply refused to let your emotions dictate the boundaries of a logical discussion. If we are going to discuss things rationally from here on out, you need to leave the circular logic at the door. I still dont see a single piece of evidence other than an anecdotal fallacy.
It is fascinating that you accuse me of lying and conveniently deleting things while providing absolutely zero empirical evidence or quotes to back up those claims. If we are talking about a failure to register the conversation, you are projecting in that case. I explicitly answered your question regarding Pepsi toward the end of our exchange. Because my ESTABLISHED framework is strictly against sexual content as a whole, condemning an act of posting that content on an open platform is the only logically consistent stance I could take. Your claim that I am committed to defending him is bad you failed to read my actual response. Also, you the contradictions I exposed in your system, your double standard regarding platform responsibility (blaming parents on an explicitly 18+ labeled site while ignoring user and platform boundaries), and your refusal to explain why sexual content can be ethical within your framework despite your blanket condemnation of the industry. You are projecting your own bad-faith argumentation onto me because your emotional assumptions about my motives completely blinded you to my actual premises.Accidentally deleting them is convenient. Also I am not entirely dismissing the framework of logical argumentation I think its great, but it needs to be used honestly, I unfortunately cannot believe you were doing a good faith "Socratic testing of my systems consistency", because of the circumstances of the argument as well as the multiple lies i pointed out which you use to save face. Also again lets be honest you did not find any inconsistency, I answered all your questions and you consistently failed to register this as you repeated them constantly. I also repeatedly asked you why you arent condemning pepsi and you neither agreed to condemn him nor did you offer any rebuttal to the argument for condemning him (not one that stood any ground after a simple response at least). You might not have explicitly stated that you defend pepsi but the context of the conversation makes you implicitly commited to that cause.Show quoted text
I appreciate your respect but I actually found numerous things, which I listed but accidentally deleted. Either way, your entire response relies on a contradiction because you mock the framework of logical argumentation as nonsense. You cannot reject the rules of structured debate while simultaneously trying to enforce them to save your argument. Also, the crap about me refusing to admit failure is the exact same circular fallacy you started with. You are still presupposing my motive is a defense, and not a standard Socratic testing of your system’s consistency. I haven't lied about a single premise because I have simply refused to let your emotions dictate the boundaries of a logical discussion. If we are going to discuss things rationally from here on out, you need to leave the circular logic at the door. I still dont see a single piece of evidence other than an anecdotal fallacy.
Log in to reply to this thread.
