>>11309405The emergent social dynamics of /sci/ do not benefit from posts in your format. Most posters are at least peripherally aware of this, but the more intelligent half react intelligently to each such post. Rather than bothering to indulge the perspectives of such posters, they see fit to allow you to burn yourself out trying to force the board to be better—something they already know is not within your power. Simply put, a small amount of trolling, the most scarce of the occasional shitpost, and of course reasonable corrections for tolerable posters are all useful for the most intelligent anons to cultivate an atmosphere for abstract scientific discussion.
Since the intent of bait is not always clear, /sci/ does not often report posts for deletion, and the board itself is slow enough that they do not often have need to report anything at all. Spam posts get deleted fast enough by the janitors that excess attention from mods isn't necessary to sustain board culture. Most notably, /sci/ is now aware that you bit the bait, rather than simply minimizing the thread like the more intelligent posters likely would.
This is probably not a very satisfactory answer, but it is the correct one. Were your notions about how the board ought to be run correct, this thread would have been deleted some time ago. Since it has not been deleted, we can safely infer that your beliefs are empirically wrong.
It is not expected that you will appreciate hearing this nor accept that /sci/ is simply not going to be run by your idle opinions. The urge to respond anyway will likely win in the end, and you will find yourself fully capable of writing a response that you consider satisfactory. After having posted it, you will feel justified in your perspective and (if the thread still lives) I will fully validate that perspective with explanation of why your feelings are correct.
If you disagree with any part of this then perhaps we can work together toward a mutually agreeable ideal.
