Plagued Soyjak.Party / The Sharty - The altchan born from the ashes of /qa/; also a containment thread

  • 🔧 At about Midnight EST I am going to completely fuck up the site trying to fix something.
Chudborean said:
No this was a situation around when the 'farms went down for a while.
Basically quote botted the swinny with frogs afterwards the admins tried accusing quote of being the previous botter months ago who spammed 'p when in reality that was colony.
It was already discussed around here
Click to expand...
the bot behaved exactly like quote's bot and it bypassed everything (from captcha to cloudflare) so unless the coalony became autistic codefaggots there is no chance that quote didn't give them the bot to spam all splinter sites with child porn
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Late
Reactions: XXLegionnaire, soy woah jaque, Space Police and 1 other person
EvantheMan said:
the bot behaved exactly like quote's bot and it bypassed everything (from captcha to cloudflare) so unless the coalony became autistic codefaggots there is no chance that quote didn't give them the bot to spam all splinter sites with child porn
Click to expand...
It’s just normal babybot that’s been used to hell and back in normal altchan raids and in the sharty, Colony could easily acquire it.
 
Chudborean said:
No this was a situation around when the 'farms went down for a while.
Basically quote botted the swinny with frogs afterwards the admins tried accusing quote of being the previous botter months ago who spammed 'p when in reality that was colony.
It was already discussed around here
Click to expand...
I'm talking about a different situation, on the 26th-27th of December some nigger(s) spammed 'p on Swinny, when I came back I saw that post which claimed Quote did it.
 
ThremboOnTheFarms said:
I'm talking about a different situation, on the 26th-27th of December some nigger(s) spammed 'p on Swinny, when I came back I saw that post which claimed Quote did it.
Click to expand...
Marge there’s only one post referencing that on the swinny right now. There would be surely more if they got a ‘p spam attack. Also wouldn’t the usual posters who use the swinny bring that up here if it happened?
EvantheMan said:
except babybot isn't even public
Click to expand...
It’s a piss easy bot to replicate, it’s been literally used by a ton of groups on various ‘chans.
I don’t even know if the colony raid used baby bot in their raid.
 
Chudborean said:
Marge there’s only one post referencing that on the swinny right now. There would be surely more if they got a ‘p spam attack. Also wouldn’t the usual posters who use the swinny bring that up here if it happened?
Click to expand...
It is weird how no one is talking about that. I guess it’s because the Swinny has a very low number of users browsing it from time to time. I can confirm (anecdotally) that there was a ‘p attack at that time, though. I went on there on the 26th, and it was being raided with ‘p, so I left. I came back on the 27th at 1:30 in the morning to check the site, and it was still being spammed with that material.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sooty Soot
I've talked to some /sci/ anons regarding the QoB formula. They've rightfully pointed out that I missed out on the reply chain of the bait. So I decided to remake the formula. My first problem came with the branching nature of reply chains, not every person who replied to your post would be bound to getting their own reply. Until I realized I could just combine all of the branches into its own mega post. When I realized that, it was much easier to envision the generations of the reply chain.
Thus I started with the reply chain portion of the formula which is the total amount of replies that have their own reply (Yr,) divided by the total amount of replies to the specific post (Yt.) This portion of the formula signifies how many of the (you)s have their own branches. Afterwards you multiply it with Yt to gain the score, and optionally divide it by Ffe% (G% in the image.) This would be your first generation QoB formula. Afterwards you can apply it to the next generation until there are no longer any posts that have a reply. Thus after all QoB generations have been quantified, you can add them all up for QoBt (the total amount of QoB.) Which would be the total amount of engagement generated.

Schizobabble.png1. This is a general showcase of the formula, with it being applied onto 2 posts in a /v/ thread. The first post being a reply to the thread, whilst the second is the OP. I've neglected the FFE% due to the fact it would be hard to tell which posts are genuine and which aren't. So the formula could be more likened to engagement rather than bait.

1736007580233.png2. This is just another showcase of the branches, to help you get a clearer idea about how QoB generations should look like.

The previous QoB formula I've made could be more likened to a seethe formula. So for the purposes of this post I'll call it the Gem formula, You could then do similar thing to the QoBt formula and make a Gemt formula where you calculate every generation of the reply chain to get the total amount of seethe. Then you can multiply QoBt (total amount of engagement.) with Gemt (total amount of seethe,) for the maximum net worth of seething.

TL;DR Formulas developed to calculate the amount of clitty leak and time wasted. If enough data is mined we can use it to calculate what posts would create the biggest amount of clitty leakage possible.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
  • Autistic
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Sarn’t, Blackhole, FliguGigu and 9 others
Montenegro supremacist said:
I've talked to some /sci/ anons regarding the QoB formula. They've rightfully pointed out that I missed out on the reply chain of the bait. So I decided to remake the formula. My first problem came with the branching nature of reply chains, not every person who replied to your post would be bound to getting their own reply. Until I realized I could just combine all of the branches into its own mega post. When I realized that, it was much easier to envision the generations of the reply chain.
Thus I started with the reply chain portion of the formula which is the total amount of replies that have their own reply (Yr,) divided by the total amount of replies to the specific post (Yt.) This portion of the formula signifies how many of the (you)s have their own branches. Afterwards you multiply it with Yt to gain the score, and optionally divide it by Ffe% (G% in the image.) This would be your first generation QoB formula. Afterwards you can apply it to the next generation until there are no longer any posts that have a reply. Thus after all QoB generations have been quantified, you can add them all up for QoBt (the total amount of QoB.) Which would be the total amount of engagement generated.

Schizobabble.png1. This is a general showcase of the formula, with it being applied onto 2 posts in a /v/ thread. The first post being a reply to the thread, whilst the second is the OP. I've neglected the FFE% due to the fact it would be hard to tell which posts are genuine and which aren't. So the formula could be more likened to engagement rather than bait.

1736007580233.png2. This is just another showcase of the branches, to help you get a clearer idea about how QoB generations should look like.

The previous QoB formula I've made could be more likened to a seethe formula. So for the purposes of this post I'll call it the Gem formula, You could then similar thing to the QoBt formula and make a Gemt formula where you calculate every generation of the reply chain to get the total amount of seethe. Then you can multiply QoBt (total amount of engagement.) with Gemt (total amount of seethe,) for the maximum net worth of seething.

TL;DR Formulas developed to calculate the amount of clitty leak and time wasted. If enough data is mined we can use it to calculate what posts would create the biggest amount of clitty leakage possible.
Click to expand...
Wordswordswords the left can't meme.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Sarn’t and SlavBVLL
Montenegro supremacist said:
The previous QoB formula I've made could be more likened to a seethe formula. So for the purposes of this post I'll call it the Gem formula, You could then similar thing to the QoBt formula and make a Gemt formula where you calculate every generation of the reply chain to get the total amount of seethe. Then you can multiply QoBt (total amount of engagement.) with Gemt (total amount of seethe,) for the maximum net worth of seething.
Click to expand...
I think you are overthinking it and that you are not realizing that many people who bite the bait are in turn baiting themselves by pretending to have bit the bait. It is impossible to tell how many layers of irony a soyjak.party user operates on.
 
Kaspersky said:
I think you are overthinking it and that you are not realizing that many people who bite the bait are in turn baiting themselves by pretending to have bit the bait. It is impossible to tell how many layers of irony a soyjak.party user operates on.
Click to expand...
Let me put in layman's terms. The QoB formula measures how much engagement a single post is able to generate, and by adding all of the engagement up you get the total amount of engagement a chain has made. The Gem formula on the other hand would just measure how much seething a single post has made, and when you add up all of the Gem values you'd get the total amount of seethe. And when you multiply the engagement and seethe you'd get the clitty leakage maximum amount of clitty leakage.
 
  • Like
  • Autistic
Reactions: Sarn’t, MAAAD, XXLegionnaire and 5 others
Is there any special meaning to "clitty"? I've picked up an intuitive understanding but after keeping up with this thread for a long time it's the only part of the soyspeak that's still heckin' insane and incomprehensible or however the woahjaks are discussed on xitter
 
  • Dumb
  • Like
Reactions: soy woah jaque and Space Police
Irrational Bounty Hunter said:
Is there any special meaning to "clitty"? I've picked up an intuitive understanding but after keeping up with this thread for a long time it's the only part of the soyspeak that's still heckin' insane and incomprehensible or however the woahjaks are discussed on xitter
Click to expand...
It comes from trannies refering to their dicks as clitties to not feel heckin dysphoric or something.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Bababooey Warlock, Sooty Soot, Coolio55 and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back