Hello? One of the /sci/ mods is abusing his power again we need help!

>>388187 (OP)
4chan bans are based on IP. If his IP changes or is shared, others will get caught in the blast radius of the banhammer.

>>388187 (OP)
>No macro image replies
Uh, your OP there had a macro image in his post. Oopsydoodles.

>>388187 (OP)
The picture.

File: 1359062271980.jpg-(33 KB, 273x334, 1354752265667.jpg)

33 KB JPG

>>388196
It doesn't look like a macro.

It looks like one of those "close up of person in picture, close up of text" kinds of things.

Pic related.

A more likely reason is because the question "which major is funnier" is nonsensical trolling.

Looks like he was banned for trolling.

>>388187 (OP)
>my friend
LMFAO

You've been banned for shitposting. You made a low quality troll thread and got reported. Serves you right. I remember your name and your tripcode and I can confirm that you're a horrible shitposter.

>>388220
How exactly is he trolling?

>>388226
"Major X vs major Y" is a common flamebait on /sci/. There is no insightful discussion to expect, only a shit storm of opinions. He made it even worse by asking which one is "funnier". This is pure subjectivity and does not allow for any objective answer. Additionally /sci/ is the board for science and math, not for school advice. His question does not deal with scientific or mathematical theories.

>>388199
but that's what an image macro is

>>388187 (OP)
I've been banned a few times for things I didn't do. The funniest was getting banned for "posting in a cuckold thread" or something like that. Which was funny because I didn't although it seems everyone does. I also got banned for supposedly posting an adult image in a blue channel. Which I rarely post to blue channels. Usually /Pol. I just read the others. So it's done by IP and you sometimes get shafted by that.

>>388242
He said which was funner not which one is funnier

Really? People are justifying this as a ban?

What if this guy is just deciding what course he wants to study or something?

This is a joke.

>>388305
>>388187 (OP)
Its about the wording. A vs. thread its always a flamebait thread, unless its directly about scientific results. Results is key word here. Cause if its "which type of rocket do you like better" its flamebait, to an extent, and walking the thin line between on-topic and off-topic
But if its "which rocket will have a higher speed/distance/so on "its about the science and is more on-topic.

Now when you add the word "funner" to the sentence it becomes an opinionbased and not a scientific or math based thread, this becoming even more off-topic, but more importantly, creating a vs. thread that is entirely opinion based and not scientific, which will result in a battle of "x is better cause only faggots like why" creating a circlejerk of flamers.

Ceasing this level of flamebaiting is also known as "trolling", albeit whether its to cause the anger, our simply accidental. the key is the wording used And not just the topic at question.

Does that help any?

>>388348
Did not mean to sage. My bad.

>>388364
Silly goose, there is no sage on /q/. But you do have a valid point, I think its sad people can't tell the difference between a legit question and flame bait.

>>388378
Yes, there is.

Post related, I'm using nokosage since it's already cookied in the e-mail field.

>uncalled for catchphrases
>"muh sides"

>>388378
Pretty much. Happens on /mu/ and /int/ all the time. I have too explain this about once a day to people.

File: 1359079694735.png-(381 KB, 656x425, 1357856305741.png)

381 KB PNG

I remember when moot tried to ban image marco replies, it didn't work. And people who think it should be enforced is a fucking moron.

>>388439
This argument isn't about that.
Issue was resolved, please let it die its slow inevitable death.

>>388348
You're argument is basically "ban people i don't like" because no one un that thread actually trolled

"my friend didn't do nottin" sounds like your too young to be here . . .

2. If you are under the age of 18, or it is illegal for you to view the materials contained on this website, discontinue browsing immediately.

>>388450
>>388450
Did you not tread that at all or can you not think of any actual agreement to basic logic other than using a term used to refute subjective bitch fits on an objective explanation?

Or in other words, other than your feelings, how us this wrong?

>>388496
You all sound like the same posters that hate my tripfriend on sci. That thread had zero trolling and therefore should not have been banned.

>>388501
Flamebait threads are troll threads. Please read my post.
How is it not a troll thread.
I AM NOT saying the posters within trolled.
I AM NOT saying it turned into aflame war
IAM saying it would have, given the time, and was deleted as a preventative measure.
The ban was trolling. It's like going too /pol and asking which is funner, tea party or conservative party. It's not to the same level but it is a flamebait.
I'm trying to explain in a mostly objective way here. Do you see what I'm trying too say?

>>388515
How the fuck is that flame bait? No other forum would ban someone over a simple question. Just admit u dont like the OP and thats y u agree with the ban

I don't understand people who complain about getting banned on 4chan. The mods are liable to ban you at any time for any reason, and you have to deal with it. Banned for something you didn't do? Too fucking bad, suck it up.

>>388519
I explained how it's flamebait, on detail, but you didn't want too read out so you posted the stereotypical "i have no valid argument"phrase of "stop liking what i don't like" even though i never said i didn't like out, nor used andsubjective based argument or opinion, only you did.

I'm being objective and exposing my argument.
Your 'disputing' my agreement by asking me to explain what was explained. Personally i don't care either way, and heck I'll debate anything, but rules are rules.
People complained about needing rule enforcement, well here it is guys.

>>388534
define flame bait objectively

>>388535
I did. It was my first post that you subjectively called"stop liking what i don't like".
That was objective

>>388543
Wat might be flame bait to u might not be to someone else.