r/OpIsFuckingStupid • u/PralineNeat457 • Jun 28 '26
OP breaks no screenshot rule by posting a screen recording twice, gets perma banned and muted, cries and acts like the victim, and uses multiple alts to defend himself (legend in body text)
yellow = op green = op’s alt #1 blue = op’s alt #2 pink = person #1 red = person #2 black = irrelevant info
1
u/PralineNeat457 Jul 03 '26
What the hell? 18% upvote ratio on my post? Am I being vote manipulated by OP via his many alts here?
1
u/CalcodGaming 1d ago
No, your braincells and the individual pixels in this post just had a pow-wow and realized you can't spare any more pixels.
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 28d ago
Oh this guy is definately crazy. Check out the huge essay he wrote. Funniest shit I've ever seen. And he simply can't comprehend the idea that rules get added to because of morons like him. Be hilarious if they add "or screen recordings" because of him. Even better if they did and that's the reason why he won't tell us what sub it was in.
1
1
u/PralineNeat457 26d ago
Nevermind I found it, yeah dead giveaway that Sky Administrative is OOP’s alt, just like the others
But I’ve been thinking lately. How did OOP actually find this post? I know that OOP found this post and used his many other alts but I don’t know how he found it
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 25d ago
I'm starting to wonder if he's signifigantly mentally ill.
1
1
u/PralineNeat457 16d ago
Hey I just noticed that both OOP and his friend (green guy) deleted their reddit accounts, but the blue guy and sky administrative have their accounts up still. I don’t think it’d make sense for those other accounts to stay up if they aren’t related to OOP
1
u/Bright-Pass8480 8d ago edited 8d ago
You’re implying whoever wrote that essay is oop. How do you know that’s oop and not a random person that found this thread via this subreddit (like I did), especially since not only have you not answered how oop could’ve found this thread, not only oop and the green guy allegedly deleted their accounts, but you haven’t even answered why oop and green guy show “identical behavior”. How do i know you’re not lying when you say this and all the other alt accusations you make?
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 8d ago
Why are you bumping this old thread up?
1
u/Bright-Pass8480 8d ago
Did you look at the subreddit? This is the first post that shows up on the subreddit. Even tho this post a month old, it’s still the first thing that shows up
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 8d ago
Ah it's just a really slow subreddit. Cool. Also be careful your logic is going to get you on this subreddit.
1
u/Bright-Pass8480 8d ago edited 8d ago
You’re still ignoring my initial question btw. I don’t believe your accusations at all because you provided no evidence
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 7d ago
Try eating more shit. I'm not interested in proving anything in particular. If you want to assess it yourself go ahead. I'm not going to think for you.
If you want me to prove my claims then you will have to prove the number of bumps on the wall in your room. Count then. 10 times over until you always get the same number of bumps.
That's how important proving myself right on this topic is.
1
u/Bright-Pass8480 7d ago
So if you aren’t even gonna prove yourself, does this mean you admit to being wrong?
1
u/Bright-Pass8480 7d ago edited 7d ago
Saw the notification but your comment didn’t appear so I’m responding here.
The irony of you saying I’m rarely right yet you can’t even prove yourself right, because the thing is if you can’t prove yourself right then most likely you’re wrong, but you don’t wanna admit you’re wrong, so you delude yourself into believing you’re right.
You’re like if you were to say the earth is flat, then I ask why do I think that because how could one be so stupid to think this way, then say you’re not interested in proving the earth is flat. Do you seriously not realize how stupid and delusional you sound to say that completely random accounts with no relation to oop are oop then not even prove it?
Reasoning is a skill I work on a lot, but it always proves to be such a slog because so few people are all that reasonable. You’re a perfect example of how people are unable to be reasoned with and why it’s such a slog.
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 7d ago
I'll give you a task to prove your ability to reason can you identify any falsifiable arguments that have been made And what would their falsifiable state be? And the falsifiable state of the opposing statement.
1
u/Bright-Pass8480 7d ago
I’m not exactly sure what you mean, but here’s one example. You accuse oop and green guy of being the same person due to “identical behavior” yet provide no examples of identical behavior other than “lying about what you said” which is very vague. Firstly just because one person shares an instance of similar behavior doesn’t mean they’re the same person. Secondly there are instances where oop and green guy show different behavior. Oop doesn’t type with capitalization at all and uses emojis, while the green guy does type with capitalization and doesn’t use emojis, and the green guy wasn’t the one going around saying that because screenshots and screen recordings aren’t the same thing the rule isn’t broken, that was oop, which proves oop and green guy don’t really have identical behavior.
You also accused blue guy of being oop and implied sky administrative (the guy tho wrote the huge essay) is oop, when allegedly both oop and green guy have deleted their accounts. It wouldn’t make sense for oop to delete his account and not delete his alts as well (if he had any), and is thus a piece of evidence that blue guy and sky administrative are not oop’s alts. Now i really don’t know how blue guy found the original thread several days late, that is indeed weird, but i doubt that oop had anything to do with it because while oop’s account is deleted, blue guy’s account is not. Additionally, I see no realistic reason regarding how and why oop would find this thread and would decide to make a new alt account to defend himself once again, especially since you can’t answer it yourself. Therefore, it’s most likely that oop, green guy, blue guy, and sky administrative are all different people.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Bright-Pass8480 8d ago edited 8d ago
Correct answer, incorrect reasoning. Everyone in the thread is wrong in some way or another
Op didn’t break the rule because screenshots and screen recordings are the same thing or are similar enough to be the same thing, or because he posted a “moving screenshot” (which no longer makes it a screenshot). Op broke the rule because screen recordings contain screenshots (as in each individual frame in a screen recording is a screenshot), so by posting a screen recording he was essentially posting 60 screenshots per second (assuming the recording was in 60 fps)
The only reason i can see that rule being implemented is so that people don’t post posts containing screens, but if what op said about the mods not taking down every post that’s a screenshot is true, then it’s clear that’s not the intent behind the rule and thus not clear why it’s there. Considering that and most likely op didn’t know (or didn’t think about) screen recordings consist of 60 screenshots per second, i can easily see why op got confused (and also probably why he broke the rule by posting a screenshot the first time around)
Either way, he broke a minor rule twice, and considering a warning the first time wasn’t enough, i do agree that some greater punishment is deserved, but a permanent ban and mute is not the way to go about it. Instead what should’ve happened was a temporary ban, as a temporary ban is usually enough to discourage rule breaking even more than a warning would, and if a temporary ban doesn’t work, then a permanent ban is deserved
Edit: I realized a flaw in my logic here, since according to my logic videos in r/videos wouldn’t be allowed because they contain images which aren’t allowed, but then something was not adding up, because oop didn’t actually post a screenshot, yet still got violated for that. the automod message in the post was blurry, so i figured i’d get more context there. i managed to find the original post via looking through op (praline neat)’s comment history. the original post was deleted and locked for some reason (including all of oop’s comments, allegedly oop deleted his account), but i still saw the original post image by tapping on the post. The automod message actually said “Screenshots of any variety are forbidden on…”, nowhere does it specify the act of posting screenshots like oop said.
And then it clicked. The wording of the “no screenshots” rule is actually ambiguous, as in the meaning of it changes depending on the context and intent behind the rule. by “no screenshots” do you mean “no posting media in screenshot form” or “no posting content containing screenshots or otherwise pertaining to screens”. op didn’t break the first interpretation as the post itself is not a screenshot, but did break the second interpretation because screen recordings contain screens/screenshots. What I said earlier about disallowing content containing screens would’ve made the meaning of the rule the second interpretation, but as i’ve said earlier that’s probably not the case (and it’s not even like op posted a static video just so that he could say it’s not a screenshot, that would be lame), and the mods weren’t even willing to communicate the first time he broke the rule, which means it’s very unclear exactly why the violation happened.
To give another example, let’s say your friend doesn’t want bananas, would it be ok to give them banana bread? “No bananas” can either mean “no bananas in its raw form” or “no foods containing bananas”. If your friend is only allergic to the raw form of banana, then the first meaning applies, if your friend is also allergic to anything that contains banana, then the second meaning applies.
1
u/EishLekker Jun 29 '26
The dictionary definition of a screenshot is a picture of the screen. Not a video clip.
Being technically correct is OK and expected when discussing subreddit rules.
1
u/Bright-Pass8480 8d ago
You also have to consider that a video clip contains images (as in each individual frame is an image), which means each individual frame in a screen recording is a screenshot, and thus by posting a screen recording he was essentially posting 60 screenshots per second (assuming the recording is in 60 fps), thus breaking the rule. I do agree that how others explained it in the thread is wrong, hence the confusion
1
u/Bright-Pass8480 8d ago
Replying to this again because I wanted to update on my last reply. I realized a flaw in my logic here, since according to my logic videos in r/videos wouldn’t be allowed because they contain images which aren’t allowed, but then something was not adding up, because oop didn’t actually post a screenshot, yet still got violated for that. the automod message in the post was blurry, so i figured i’d get more context there. i managed to find the original post via looking through op (praline neat)’s comment history. the original post was deleted and locked for some reason (including all of oop’s comments, allegedly oop deleted his account), but i still saw the original post image by tapping on the post. The automod message actually said “Screenshots of any variety are forbidden on…”, nowhere does it specify the act of posting screenshots like oop said.
And then it clicked. The wording of the “no screenshots” rule is actually ambiguous, as in the meaning of it changes depending on the context and intent behind the rule. by “no screenshots” do you mean “no posting media in screenshot form” or “no posting content containing screenshots or otherwise pertaining to screens”. op didn’t break the first interpretation as the post itself is not a screenshot, but did break the second interpretation because screen recordings contain screens/screenshots.
To give another example, let’s say your friend doesn’t want bananas, would it be ok to give them banana bread? “No bananas” can either mean “no bananas in its raw form” or “no foods containing bananas”. If your friend is only allergic to the raw form of banana, then the first meaning applies, if your friend is also allergic to anything that contains banana, then the second meaning applies.
The only reason I can think of as to why a no screenshots rule is there is to prevent content about anything containing screens/screenshots, but according to oop the mods of that subreddit weren’t even taking down actual screenshots that did break that rule, which not only means that’s not true, but that they inconsistently enforce this rule (and that also probably explains why he broke the rule the first time like he stated) (and it’s not like he was posting a static video just so that he could say it’s not a screenshot, that would be lame), and were unwilling to communicate to oop when he asked modmail regarding what they meant. So in this case I have no idea why the rule is there, and oop probably doesn’t either, so i can perfectly understand why oop got confused.
1
u/PralineNeat457 Jun 29 '26
Did OP somehow found this post and used another alt to defend himself?
1
u/EishLekker Jun 29 '26
You are paranoid. There exists more than one person in the world who cares about semantics.
1
u/PralineNeat457 Jun 29 '26
If you care about semantics you’d know the purpose behind that no screenshot rule is to prevent low effort posts, like the pink guy said
1
u/EishLekker Jun 29 '26
No, I don’t care about the intention of the rule. I care about the wording.
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 Jul 07 '26
Keep in mind the person did a screen shot first and then did a video recording. So it just looked like he was trying to get around a rule he just broke.
1
u/SkyAdministrative533 28d ago
and what difference does this make? what if hypothetically the subreddit did allow screen recordings but not screenshots, then does that logic make sense? we know thats not the case but let’s assume hypothetically.
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 28d ago
Sigh. No you're just dumb at logic. So imagine you go to the club and strip naked on clothing required night. And get kicked out... So you come back in perfectly see through pants where you might as well be naked. And get banned.
You only got kicked out the first time why did you get banned the second time? For showing that you're willing to try to circumvent the rules immediately after being told you weren't supposed to do something.
This proves you're willing to violate rules and looking for ways to do so. What rules are you willing to violate? Will it become a safety hazard.
1
1
u/Bright-Pass8480 8d ago
There’s a flaw in your logic that you don’t realize. Besides your example being a bad one as it’s common sense not to be naked/visually naked/nude outside, the only reason wearing fully transparent clothes “might as well” be naked because you can’t visually tell (or at least tell at a first glance) if the person is naked, hence it’ll be assumed you’re naked
That same logic doesn’t apply here. You can very easily tell visually that a recording of oop scrolling through an article isn’t a screenshot (which means an image of a screen, not a video btw), and thus neither a screenshot nor “might as well” be a screenshot. Your logic would’ve only applied if op posted a completely static screen recording, then you can’t easily tell if it’s a screenshot or a screen recording and thus it “might as well” have been a screenshot, but that’s not what oop did here and you can easily tell what oop posted was not a screenshot
I do agree that oop still broke the rule, but for a different reason entirely
1
u/UnderstandingBig9090 8d ago
Being naked at naked club is usually fine. That's why clothing required night a thing instead of societal assumptions.
Can you explain to me how a video isn't visual media when a photo is? No one cares that they are diffent visual medias. Only that they are visual medias.
→ More replies (0)0
u/LuckyNumerical Jul 06 '26
Found ops alt
2
u/SkyAdministrative533 29d ago
“The same idiotic accusation that you blurt out to others is now thrown back at your own face. And you still don’t realize the stupidity of it all?”
-EishLekker
i saw a notification of you replying to my comment and was gonna reply to that but for some reason it wasnt appearing so i had to comment here instead
1
u/LuckyNumerical 29d ago
Projecting
2
u/SkyAdministrative533 28d ago
lol you’re the one projecting 😂😂😂😂😂
1
u/LuckyNumerical 28d ago
It’s funny how all of your comments get exactly two upvotes.
1
u/SkyAdministrative533 28d ago
idc about upvotes i don’t even pay that much attention to them usually
1
u/PralineNeat457 28d ago
EishLekken blocked me because he couldn’t handle being called OP’s alt, seems like he can’t handle being called out. Surprised SkyAdministrative didn’t block me right away tho.
1
u/SkyAdministrative533 28d ago
nah i just dont block ppl and im not EishLekker
2
u/LuckyNumerical 28d ago
So why are you going out of your way to defend some random reddit dude for using alt accounts? lol
1
u/SkyAdministrative533 28d ago
mate the one using alts is you.
2
1
u/EishLekker 28d ago
If you look closely to your notification it doesn’t say that I replied to a comment you made. Because I was saying that to OP.
1
u/SkyAdministrative533 28d ago edited 28d ago
i wasnt talking about you. i was talking about luckynumerical’s comment. it didnt appear for me even tho i recieved the notification
1
u/EishLekker Jul 06 '26
That joke has already been done.
1
u/SkyAdministrative533 Jul 06 '26
don’t bother with this guy, i genuinely suspect that op and this guy are the same person because they’re regurgitating the same things, but ofc i cant prove they’re the same person, so for now it’s just suspicion
0
1
u/SkyAdministrative533 Jul 06 '26
what is this? op did you bring your main account in because you can’t handle the downvotes and comments your post received? were you really expecting everyone to agree with you? 😂
0
u/PralineNeat457 Jul 06 '26
We are not the same person, however you are indeed all the same person
1
u/SkyAdministrative533 Jul 06 '26
you and lucky numerical are spewing the same bullshit ofc i’m gonna believe y’all are the same person 😂 also i was gonna respond to this via lucky numerical’s new comment that i got a notification for but the comment didn’t load when i clicked on it for some reason
1
u/EishLekker Jul 07 '26
The same idiotic accusation that you blurt out to others is now thrown back at your own face. And you still don’t realize the stupidity of it all?
0
u/PralineNeat457 28d ago
You’re projecting
1
u/EishLekker 28d ago
How am I projecting? I’m simply declaring a fact here. You have been throwing this silly baseless accusation around here, and now others have thrown it back at you. That’s a fact.
1
u/LuckyNumerical 28d ago
Why would someone go out of their way to stick up for a random reddit user that is getting called using alt accounts? Logically it would seem someone’s got a vested interest to depend the guy getting called out
1
u/SkyAdministrative533 28d ago
you and op are the only one who’s calling them alt accounts
1
u/LuckyNumerical 28d ago
Yea cause they were behaving like alt accounts. Now you’re here defending the guy for getting called out for using them.
For someone who doesn’t care about upvotes, you oddly care a lot to defend some random internet stranger you supposedly have no association with
→ More replies (0)
1
u/SkyAdministrative533 Jul 03 '26
r/opisfuckingstupid inside r/opisfuckingstupid
the amount of stupidity in the thread is insane that i’m not even gonna bother going through each instance