I thought it was Shii.
Anyhow, as long as it spawns more activity, I am all for it.
I never cared much for the whole "attention whore" thing. Some were funny, some were not, as everything that goes through the holy digestion tract that is 4chan's /b/!
And now it's gone. That's pretty weak.
I heard it was just a test drive. Final decisions will probably be made public on the SUPERDUPERIMPORTANT IRC meeting today.
You going? We should have somebody there to represent the interests of The Society! And who is better suited for the task than Anonymous?
I bravely predict that nobody asked us any useful questions, since almost all the submissions seem to be furries asking for furry boards where they post furry pictures of themselves fursuiting with furries.
Well, transcripts and logs of the meeting are online. I just want to say this:
> ManOfWax is suggesting a no "camwhoring" rule.
You betrayed the glory of cracky-chan!
My question about the official tracker of 4chan being on the officially-not-related-to-4chan site not4chan was ignored :(
They should reconsider getting rid of it IMHO.
Getting rid of what?
Of FORCED_ANON
Maybe it's just me, but lately I really found /b/ to be lacking of chaos.
Everything circles around Snack's latest bullshit, camwhores and other shit that reminds me too much of register-only forums.
4chan is moderated by faggot Lowtax lovers anyways.
Yeah well, yanno?
Accuse me of being wapanese and all
but I think /b/ has become so predictably random
and so similiar to normal online forums
with mod sassing and mod asskissing
with camwhoring and drama celebrities
that it's just not fun anymore that way.
This is why I say moderation should be quick and silent, like a ninja in the night. Nobody tries to sass a ninja, or kiss his ass.
Having a priviledged elite that go around lording it over the peasants doesn't create an interesting board. Even if you think it's funny to watch people get banned, you're just part of an audience watching a performance. That's not what a board should be like. If I wanted to be audience, I'd go to a concert.
>>16
You can't really do much about boards that are uncurably full of morons.
>>17
http://astrange.ithinksw.net/sa/fireinvent.jpg
>>18
Poetry!
>>19
Almost everything is done anonymously, but IRC leaks back into the site and you can't be anonymous on IRC.
It doesn't help to have "USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST" marks and sticky posts and so on, though. That all feeds into the performer-and-audience thing. Even if you do things anonymously, you still have The Mods and The Users.
Appending stuff to the end of posts really usually doesn't happen (they get deleted or the whole thread goes); in /b/ if it happens it's because people think it's funny. The rule stickies are there because people don't read rules page updates, and they're less annoying to users than unexpected bannings and more effective than just warning posts that will be expired soon or deleting offending posts (and if I make one, I delete it in a week or so at most).
Yeah, but the "because it's funny" thing just goes straight back to my original argument. And stickies aren't just used for rules - they're used for all kinds of dumb shit too, because it's funny. And so you have the mods running the board as a performance again.
> You can't really do much about boards that are uncurably full of morons.
Thing is, I just don't want to keep track of WHO these idiots are
and most of the time about 50-60% try to make it look like it's important to know who they are
when mostly it isn't, and I think it would be a more truthfully random experience
if the system didn't allow them so in the first place.
> And stickies aren't just used for rules - they're used for all kinds of dumb shit too, because it's funny.
Currently stickying a thread is the only way to get a large number of posts in it; otherwise it hits the autosage limit and gets pruned immediately. It would probably be better if everyone used the discussion board setup instead of wanting to post in a large thread on the image board, but they don't seem to want to, so it stays.
(here I'm thinking of the game console stickies in /v/ and some of the /b/ stickies; other stuff tends to be things moot posted, and nobody's going to stop him from doing something)
So then you have the moderators arbitarily deciding which threads deserve to be big, and which don't. And it's no longer that very popular or controversial threads get to grow into big Legendary Threads, it's just the powers that be decide that a thread should grow big. It basically takes all the fun out of it.
> otherwise it hits the autosage limit and gets pruned immediately.
It's supposed to be like that on image boards...
> It would probably be better if everyone used the discussion board setup instead of wanting to post in a large thread on the image board, but they don't seem to want to
Yeah, I have noticed it, too. It's probably because still most people are used to registered-posting-only forums (see my thread here on Anonymous Posting: http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1110953600) and also because there's a reversed historical order here when compared to the east: Futaba is 2channel's image board extension (roughly said) but world4ch is 4chan's extension. And I guess the drift of people mainly there to collect images and lead quick discussions doesn't help them to jump over to the discussion boards too easily...
And then there's the fact that 4-ch.net and world4ch have been competing from early on and probably roughly halfed each other's users in the process, but that's another story altogether.
>>26 + > It's supposed to be like that on image boards...
Both of these were (intended to be?) addressed by "It would probably be better if everyone used the discussion board setup instead of wanting to post in a large thread on the image board, but they don't seem to want to"; that seems to be the main problem, so if you want to address the issue it would be the thing to change.
> "It would probably be better if everyone used the discussion board setup instead of wanting to post in a large thread on the image board, but they don't seem to want to"; that seems to be the main problem, so if you want to address the issue it would be the thing to change.
Close world4ch or merge with 4-ch lol
Also stop using shiichan, it sucks (no offense, Shii).
> Also stop using shiichan, it sucks (no offense, Shii).
There isn't all that much left that's really bad (mostly in admin), although I don't think any more will ever be fixed.
Also, it turns out that everyone else also wants /b/ forced anon, but Snacks doesn't want to deal with angry users about it.
lol angry users
THEY WILL DEMAND APOLOGY AND COMPENSATION NIDA!
> Also, it turns out that everyone else also wants /b/ forced anon, but Snacks doesn't want to deal with angry users about it.
what, I never said that. ...and the majority of people don't want it.
Right now we're spamming /b/ by all posting with Kintak#[somerandomtripcode] until people or snacks get annoyed enough to demand or enforce FORCED_ANON
internet terrorism 4 lyfe
> ...and the majority of people don't want it.
The original thread in /sug/ that you closed for no reason indicated otherwise.
Surveys on IRC don't count.
AND HERE WE GO AGAIN!
The new HAX by SnAX now includes Futaba Channel-style inclusion of E-mail field info as link in the date info field!
Apparently, only "sage" can appear in it, though
No neat additional text :(
annoying, forced anon is so boring
you can come out of anonymous to SoRu anonymous by adding <usrnme> to post.
I can't test, because snacks will probably ban me on sight, i'm using a different connection so I can't tell if i've been unbanned yet.
> annoying, forced anon is so boring
If you want drama associated with names, you can still do that on the rest of the 4chan boards or on wtfux.
> you can come out of anonymous to SoRu anonymous by adding <usrnme> to post.
You're not making any sense, as always.
dude, youre' saging someone else's thread. And it's you fault I don't make sense:
Isn't this obvious?
You can come out of anonymous -> you can break anonymous posting
to SoRu anonymous -> if you're aware of who SoRu actually is, he's an ex 4channer with a public tripcode. Therefore, if you add <HELLOI"MATOOL> to your post, you will be able to identify yourself with the <HELLOI"MATOOL>, although with the significant risk of posage.
KOM
PRES
SION
god of the universe
> dude, youre' saging someone else's thread.
Who gives a shit?
> Isn't this obvious?
It's fucking retarded, that's what it is. It only shows how desperate of an attention whore you are.
of course, if anonymous is moderator, you can stop any attempt to selfidentify by banning anyone who identifies themselves with a name.
Since this concept is probably going to emerge sporadically, and not as a mass movement, you can effectively surpress names in this way.
>>It's fucking retarded, that's what it is. It only shows how desperate of an attention whore you are.
nope. I've never been an attention whore, it's the combination of the responses of other people and my own tendency to reply to attacks.
So what's fucking retarded about a somewhat vulnerable workaround?
> So what's fucking retarded about a somewhat vulnerable workaround?
Uh... the fact that anybody can just take "your" signature and ridicule you?
Oh well, of course faggots like you would LIKE that, the attention.
Anyway, it has already been done a dozen times and nobody cared enough.
It's just narcistic faggots like you who do that and think they've beat the system or something.
Keep on trolling raging against the machine, Inst.
>>Uh... the fact that anybody can just take "your" signature and ridicule you?
Oh well, of course faggots like you would LIKE that, the attention.
You've poked a hole in you own argument haven't you? No, I doubt I'd like the attention, but I don't have the proper stature in 4chan/b/ to take damage from posers.
>>Anyway, it has already been done a dozen times and nobody cared enough.
It's just narcistic faggots like you who do that and think they've beat the system or something.
I don't think I've beat the system, I've already mentioned that you can just surpress this attempt by banning anyone who identifies themselves, and estbalishing a "self id gets you banned" rule.
if and when you lose the argument, feel free to ban me.
Is that supposed to be an attack?
No, he's just pointing out that drunk posting goes in the drunk posting thread! http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1120204593/46-
Part of the raison d'e^tre for this board is for people to have these silly arguments. You're not going to get banned anytime soon, so no internet martyrdom for you!
Now, to get back to the real topic of the thread, here's a silly, silly idea that just popped into my head. What if you set up a board to allow posting with a name, but the name would be hidden by default, and you could reveal the names with this or that Javascript function? How would people react to that? Would those who care about names keep clicking those "reveal name" buttons forever? Would people complain as much as they do now about anonymity?
>>51 What would make that more interesting would be to track how many people click "reveal name" and how often. Or if they do it before replying.
Snacks just said on /b/ that this is just a test phase, he will revert back to names after one week of FORCED_ANON for another week, then make a decision what will be permanent.
> How would people react to that?
I think it would be annoying. Functions on image boards are supposed to make the general experience more fun and convenient, not more dramatic and stressful.
>>Part of the raison d'e^tre for this board is for people to have these silly arguments. You're not going to get banned anytime soon, so no internet martyrdom for you!
oh noes! And I was actually looking as though I was winning the argument!
>> How would people react to that?
Actually this would work better than expected, on high volume board like 4chan/b/, most users wouldn't bother to click on reveal name for every post. If the post was actually worth reading, people would probably click on reveal name.
but then by extension you'd imagine a SoRustyle thread could also get reveal named, and so would a camwhore...
> how many people click "reveal name" and how often. Or if they do it before replying.
If sassing the moderators is enough to get you banned, they'd have to check it's not one of them.
If that was going to happen than capcodes wouldn't be hidden in the first place.
blankpostblankpostblankpost
Posting in a dead board FTW
