Voted yes. The use/mention distinction matters.

On second thought I'll edit this poll down to 12h since the question is currently relevant.

flippin vpn usage and not enough posts
i vote yes

dynamic ip can't vote but i say yest

I made a post in the happenings thread giving my reasoning, though I wasn't the one that deleted it. Happenings thread is neutral ground, HOWEVER, that neutral ground has discussed imageboards and communities getting destroyed because of those people and they've given their images watermarks because they seek further infamy. The watermarks are being tolerated because they're on images that convey happenings, but linking the site itself is too much.

>>2203
The idea that not allowing links to that site deprives them of notoriety comes across as odd as you are actually contributing to the notoriety by saying it's a "banned" site. If they do something that is happening worthy then it deserves to be reported on in the happenings. Which of the 3 musketeers came up with the retarded idea censoring something makes it less notorious?

>>2204
Cool's idea on it are as he said in that post, my thoughts are that I want to ban everyone that's ever used that site for anything, and vern probably thinks along the lines of everyone else where he'd be fine with the links being posted. My guess comes from the fact that I think something along those lines made him leave sageru #qa.

>>2204
I'm your huckleberry

>>2205
>>2206
That doesn't help me understand how censoring something makes it less notorious or otherwise lessen its infamy. Was only asking who did it so he'd come along and tell the reasoning why.

>>2207
To give a serious reply, someone else deleted it, but I separately gave the explanation for why it isn't desirable. It's not "censorship" because it's plastered all over the images and I gave a desuarchive link where people are talking about it.
Also, you're seeing things through the lens of today and not someone browsing the thread in a month, a year, or the archived thread in 5 years (if they're bored enough).
Maybe it did increase the infamy of today's version of the anonymous hacker legion, who knows, but the people that are intrigued by such things would already have sought them out anyway.

>>2208
My view is that it actually increases the infamy of today's and tomorrow's. A reader in 10 years form now will lack the context we have today and when they come across the post will wonder what despicable acts such a site committed to have warranted being unlikable despite not being a phishing/virus (ostensibly). This mechanic is one of the things that contributed to 4chan's growth in infamy; though instead of site owners banning mention of it, it was usually the users being mum or coy about the site.
Also it is censorship by definition of the word, I'm not concerned about "censorship" so much as implementing policie with bad reasoning or simply because "mod haet it".

>>2209
I'll admit when it comes to this subject me and cool are probably the most biased against it and our reasonings are clouded by animosity. Most likely once vern wakes up he'll give a more objective opinion that we'll go along with.

Although the poll seems to be more against than for, so I don't know. Personally I'd prefer links to that place be ban on sight alongside links to stalking/drama sites. Not as a way of keeping its fame limited, but as a way of keeping it clear that the undesirables from there won't be allowed anywhere else.

>>2210
>Although the poll seems to be more against than for
Assuming you two voted it's a bit of a one sided poll and then i can't vote due to the my dynamic IP as well as any vpn users can't vote. Not to mention 7 probably isn't a great sample size for site users, though i don't have access to any user stats.

>as a way of keeping it clear that the undesirables from there won't be allowed anywhere else
Are you concerned that their admins or user base as a whole uses search engines to scrape for links to their site or looks at meta data to figure out who is linking to their site? Doing asinine things like banning links to sites will funnily enough create drama around kissu and can serve as an inflammatory agent for offsite drama about kissu site to be brought back onto kissu. You should all know this given our experience with /qa/.

>>2210
If I moderated by my feelings I'd nuke all mention of it and probably ban the people, too. These teens did try to spam and kill kissu in the past, so you can't expect superhuman neutrality from me. This place would have gone the way of desuchan if they had their way.
But I think you're being overly concerned about this when it's simply dealt with and people have moved on, probably because there was nothing useful in there to begin with.

>>2211
It's not so much an attempt at a strategy for keeping those users away from kissu but a petty hatred for the users of that site which drives me! Although I agree it's probably asinine to extend this hatred towards those who aren't in any way related to that site. Oh well, as I try to think this out more I can't really rationally disagree with anything you're saying, but I simply dislike the idea of letting those creatures have any footprint at all on this site.

why does this even have a poll.
filters can only be changed or added by a sysadmin or developer and we put them in as a permaban against certain sites or people who would have to appeal and provide us with a case...not a poll though negative responses would get us to think about why we did them...