>>9434
>Basedjaks are posted in bad faith 99.99% of the time
Then how come that 100% of the basedjaks on /adv/ at this moment in time are good faith posters asking people for advice? Should they have their posts removed just because their image isn't "board culture"? There's no actual rule that bans stuff like basedjaks and frogs just because they exist unlike ponies, guro, anthro porn and NWS images.
>and I've experienced no negative feedback regarding their removal
And I've experienced no negative feedback regarding me not removing them.
>is paired with text that can be hit with an existing template
Then the text is what's rulebreaking.
>where the image itself outweighs the text by some degree
This doesn't change anything since off-topic applies to both text and images and there's no higher rule that the post could be requested as since GR6 is a warn (lol).
You're dancing around the rules. Precedents set by mods or janitors are not rules.
>seem to get away with it
No one's getting away with anything. No rules are being broken. This wojak and frog genocide position isn't magically right just because people band together and say that it was, is and will be.

I'll ask you this: Can a basedjak/frog post not be an extremely high quality post?
What matters is the "0.01%", the non-rulebreaking posts, regardless of how few or how many of those posts there actually are. Boards like /biz/ have a sizeable community of resident frogs and they're not 99.99% bad faith posts. I'd rather that there are people that read this and turn their heads at you suggesting that 2 harmless threads on /adv/ should have been removed over their innocuous images rather than having people that choose to nod along with shitty precedents just because threads with images that they don't personally like are getting removed and that's a good thing (unless they reply with a gigachad saying that).