/go/ - Golden Oaks

>>3325
Yeah, and >>3304 explained on what assumptions were those rules made and why they shouldn't just be applied universally.
If we're just gonna be annoying rulefags we can as well just call all generals "recuring threads" and because rules mention only "generals" specifically so everything is fine now.

>>3326
>I think the main concern was a lack of participation in the board as a whole.
Yeah but I don't see how restricting people from participating in the way they want and instead tellign them to do it in the way we want would be of any help.
I'm still convinced that majority of people come here to have some fun. Not because they feel some compulsion to do it, not beause that's some mission for them, just because it's fun for them. And their fun not always needs to entail participatign in the whole board culture.

I really hate those fags on /pol/ who refer to community as 'we' speak about some 'our movement' and treat their daily shitposting as being part of some larger organisation and as their way of participatign in the outside world politics.
People just like to have fun without being forced to do shit for 'movement'

>>3329
I didn’t mean for this to come out this way, sorry. I’m not a great communicator I am for letting people do as they want and have fun. I just think the best way to solve both side’s issues is to leave the generals alone, but make other threads, by anons wanting discussion for example not by force, that will encourage the anonfilly crew to explore all we have to offer around the board

>>3330
>I didn’t mean for this to come out this way, sorry.
I know, I wasn't really attacking you, just some of OPs arguments.

I agree that generals should be left alone and while I agree that encouraging people to participate in other threads is good idea, better question is how? There are a lot of people who simply aren't interested in politics, and calling them cucks or soyboys or whatever as a /pol/ likes to do won't really help.

>>3329
>Yeah, and >>3304
I've already said that his arguments are bullshit. Besides if anything they don't argue for why they shouldn't be universally applied, moreover on why the mods shouldn't enforce them which isn't what I'm arguing for.
>If we're just gonna be annoying rulefags we can as well just call all generals "recuring threads" and because rules mention only "generals" specifically so everything is fine now.
Semantics no real substance.
>>3330
I want this to work but don't see it happening.
>what would you recommend
Nothing, there is no solution that'll work for both parties. Anonfilly will want to stay on their general and those who already want to come out and talk to us will.

>>3332
1. I personally think you underestimate boredom, but that’s not a given, so I will take that explanation.
2. If there is nothing we can do, then what should be the goal of this conversation? Where do we take things from here in this thread?

>>3332
>Nothing, there is no solution that'll work for both parties.
Then what's the point of all this?

>>3333
>>3334
>Then what's the point of all this?
To keep this shit off of my /comfy/ cup thread. Duh.

>>3335
You cheeky cunt. Well played

>>3335
Huh... good job with that then.

>>3335
>merely pretending
Speaking as a former rulefag, I find that hard to believe.

>>3339
The answer is very simple: there is nothing to fix.
As I already explained, generals by themselves are not cancerous. They have to exist under and meet certain conditions before they can be classed as cancer.
Anonfilly is not a dead, bump-filled graveyard with zero OC output, neither are they particularly insular (https://www.strawpoll.me/15207308/r), therefore they are not cancer.
No cancer, no fix needed.
Don't fix what ain't broken.
Easy.

>>3290
>Burden of proof on why they are bad isn't on me since we came to a consensus on April first that they were
The problem with some of these rules is that they were created on 4chan with the assumption that this community would remain on 4chan. On 4chan you have a very large group of anons, so generals are problematic because it causes the larger community to fragment into microcommunities revolving around single topics. People stay in their general threads and ignore the rest of the board. This place is different, it's a much smaller group of people and threads are up for days or weeks at a time rather than hours or minutes. The slower speed makes this board more conducive to people branching out and exploring other threads beyond the generals they came for. You'll notice traffic on the main board picked up significantly once the anonfilly thread came here, and it wasn't just that thread getting bumped. I would argue that generals are not a problem for us here in the way that they were for /mlp/ and to a lesser extent /pol/, and that if anything, we should be branching out and attempting to court other generals on 4chan, since as you pointed out they are basically insular communities that could theoretically uproot and move anywhere, and because many of them are likely as disenchanted with 4chan's current management as we were/are.

Personally I say we nix the "no generals" rule and replace it with something more along the lines of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." If some Reddit-tier cancer shows up and starts a general thread here that continuously bumps itself without any noticeable increase in boardwide/sitewide traffic, we can just ban that specific general or order it to disperse.

>>3298
> I just wish the anon would post actual news threads instead.
Personally I enjoy the ANN threads, it's fundamentally no different than getting news from an aggregator site that cherrypicks content it thinks its readers might enjoy. I like having a quick rundown of the day's news in a single thread I can scan quickly before bed. If you don't care for the format there is literally nothing stopping you from starting your own threads about specific articles.

>>3340
As I already said, we disagree with why we consider generals bad but regardless of that point the poll does look promising. Still if its a zero sum game like I've stated then that won't matter.

>>3341
>Get rid of more rules.
Pic related.

As a final point, I would like to mention that according to the early results of a strawpoll some kind Anon threw up to gauge the extent of the issue instead of making baseless claims and whining about what might be. Anonfilly already does, largely, participate on the rest of the board.

They are our own fucking people, and the implication some of you are making that Anonfilly is not part of /mlpol/ is pretty rude to be honest. The posters are, largely, /mlpol/, the thread is /mlpol/. This issue of non-assimilation doesn't exist, they're happy here, they like this board, I've even seen them suggest functions on the site like that last 50 posts function.

They're us and have been for a while barring a few exceptions, and let that be the end of it.

>>3343
The last 50 posts function really was a genius idea.

>>3343
Your points fall flat nigger, the poll doesn't show that my claims are baseless, sometimes interacting with /mlpol/ can range over a huge spectra from lurking in /pol/ threads to posting in a few of the cup threads. I'm glad to see that 2 of the members are frequently interacting with the rest of the board but more telling is that 3 never have. The remaining are anywhere in between. Sure its better then I thought it would be but its no sunshine and daisies like you try and misconstrue it.

>But they are us!
Faggot its not even a majority /mlpol/ sure we won the polarity, but like that means anything when you split up the vote into those categories. The thing is that makes me unhappy is that anons from here feel the need to post in a circlejerk rather then branch out in threads, but guess that's what you get for having been made from 50% discordfags who can't do anything besides circlejerk. If that's what those from here that go to anonfilly want they might as well run back to 4 or 8chan where they belong.

I'll admit there is a solution to the filly problem, but I had no intention of stirring up drama with it, but you brought that here yourself. That is to vocally tell the fags from our community to fucking to posting on it while telling the filly posters to actually leave their thread for a goddamn few times. How fucking hard would it have been to just post Giddy Up! in the cup thread? Or see the art thread and give a few fucking pointers to the new artfags we have that could use second opinions or help?

But noooooo, guess its just my fault for not being high IQ enough to understand the 8D chess benefits I, and others who don't post on circlejerks get out of it. Guess I and those who actually care about this board as a whole are just brainlets and need to bow down to the high IQ real heros who like to keep it all in a single general. In fact why didn't I think of that before? Why bother having any other threads like this at all? Why not just make a fucking /mlpol/ general where we can have our own great CYOAs, greens, art, and the great other things we've been missing out on!

>>3345
>Wah, people aren't posting what I like
And the faggot reveals his true colors.

>>3346
>wants to take away my god given right of calling people faggots over the internet
Faggot.

>>3345
>That is to vocally tell the fags from our community to fucking to posting on it while telling the filly posters to actually leave their thread for a goddamn few times. How fucking hard would it have been to just post Giddy Up! in the cup thread? Or see the art thread and give a few fucking pointers to the new artfags we have that could use second opinions or help?

Yeah, because everyone here just posts in every thread, it's not like a lot of people just visit few threads that they are interested into and leave the rest alone. It's not like a lot of peopel probably don't care about cup or art thread because they are simply not interested in it.

>People should do and post what I want because I say so. How dare they do only things that are fun for them, how dare they refuse to cooperate with the rest of the board even tho they have no reasons to do it.

>>3348
I'm sorry, do you speak English? Looks that or are you a brainlet? Seems you can't decipher my words so I will spell it out.

P O S T O U T S I D E O F A S I N G L E T H R E A D.

I hope this helped your autism.

>>3343
I'm from the Anonfilly thread, and my vote in the poll was "I never interact with the rest of /mlpol/, but would consider future interaction"
I'm already lurking a few pony threads I saw that looked interesting to me when I did a quick skim of the /mlpol/ catalog, but I've never ever been to /pol/ before in my life and I always tend to shy away from political issues and debates, so I'll probably shy away from the numerous political threads there are here as well
I wouldn't exactly consider myself one of you, especially since I wasn't around during the April Fool's Day when /mlpol/ began, but that doesn't mean I want to stay in a bubble away from the rest of you unless you all end up being like that one faggot who was screeching about anonfilly's colors when we first arrived here
>>3345
>>3349
calm your fucking tits, dude
we as individuals are gonna spread out to other threads if we personally find them to be worth taking a look at. Hell, that's exactly what I'm doing right now, but we're gonna be timid as hell because of the circumstances that led us here
There was a guy who was screeching at us nonstop when we first arrived because Anonfilly isn't orange instead of green, and that was my very first experience with /mlpol/. I don't know about you, but I think it would be a good idea to be warm and welcoming to people who you want to participate in your threads and integrate into your culture

>>3350
I'm just shitposting against shitposters lad.

But in all seriousness sorry for that faggot who was being, well, a faggot and splurging about about something as gay as filly colors. My concern comes down to us breaking rules that we made at the formation of our community for a similar reason on why you'd say orange filly wouldn't ever be the same as green filly to you all. Its part of your culture just like how the edicts of equestria are part of ours which is why shitposting aside I'm disappointed others don't take them as seriously as I wish they would.

Semi-related to board speed, but a problem I have specifically is that I can't be here at all hours due to not being a fucking NEET, I would wager a good majority of everyone else here is a contributing member of society to some degree as well. My problem is that it's often difficult to discern which threads are dead and which ones are not without refreshing the catalog every five minutes, due in part to there being a small userbase and the site being just a little bit too large for it to utilise effectively. Another part may be that /mlpol/ tends to chew through ram at an alarming rate, so it's generally not a good idea for Anons to leave too many tabs open on their potatos, further reducing the scope at which many Anons can browse.

What could potentially solve this problem may be an auto-update feature for the catalog, which would be especially useful in the overboard for quickly determining where most of the activity is taking place at any given time, and allowing Anons to find and participate in active threads without having a million tabs open at once or mashing the F5 button on the catalog. That or expanding on and streamlining the thread watcher function to include notifications or in-thread display rather than keeping it exclusive to the catalog. That is, of course, implying that I'm even using the thread watcher right.

But I'm really fond of the idea for an auto-update for the overboard catalog, because it may even increase crossposting between boards if it were more user friendly (read: laziness enabling)

>>3345
Your entire rationale can be boiled down to "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE BAWWWWWWWWW"
And then, you take your distaste, and through a series of cerebral trapeze artistry, decide to cling to a literal interpretation of the site rules to justify getting rid of them, for the crime of violating your sacred, infallable tastes.
Now, I could go out and draw up some parallels on this, about how you'd be the same guy to interpret select biblical verses literally instead of figuratively to justify your own fedora-tipping euphoria, or how this closely resembles the kind of shit our governing class pulls all the time, banning shit left and right that they don't like.
But frankly, from the way you've presented yourself throughout this thread, consistently repeating your same line of thought without any concessions, beyond the highly obtuse token 'lol i see but ur still wrong cuz im rite lmao rules4lyfe', it would be a waste of both my time, and everyone else's.
A shame, too, because this is an issue I wanted to see put up for some honest-to-god discussion.
Too bad you're not interested in discussion, just pontificating.

>>3351
It seems to me that the crux of the matter here is how the rules are written vs how the rules are intended
Most people ITT seem to be saying that the intent of rule 9 is to prevent cancerous generals from plaguing the site and the rule doesn't apply to the apparent exceptions in the first place because they aren't cancerous, but you've been saying that doesn't matter because the rule simply states "no generals"
If this is the case and there isn't anything I'm missing, then a mod or admin weighing in could probably resolve this pretty easily
though I wouldn't be surprised if I am missing something because this thread has several walls of text, I'm not originally from /mlpol/, and I should have been asleep hours ago

>>3354
Mods have weighed in multiple times, yet once every so often, Discount!TOPF starts his drama again. Pretty sure they're just ignoring him now, as we should be.

We allow dedicated threads, with certain understanding between us and those threads
1: you will not become literal cancer
I don't know if you remember this but trump generals on 4chan became 30 awoo posts, 20 copy-pastas, and 100 "btfo" posts pretty fast. Then they metastatized and flooded the rest of the board
2. You are welcome to like thing, just understand not everyone will like thing
generals tend to attract people who like something and think it's so much better than everything else. this is a pretty difficult thing to have on a site with more or less diverse tastes

we try to mitigate drama on the site as best we can and we apologize if we fail you

>>3356
You do a fine job
Keep doing what you're doing

>>3353
Your right, I got mad at the Aussie and from there just shat up a lot because I assumed it was the thread against me. The truth is I just miss the original magic from the merge and know it won't come back as it was and want to preserve that special feeling. Its why I've thrown so much autism into this board I want everyone to have that magical feeling again and again but it never feels right. I cling to the rules because besides the little amount of OC reposted from it feels like one of the last tangible parts of it to me. It feels like a rip that rule 1 and 2 were taken off and then when I was thinking what other rules it feels we're slowly ignoring to an etent we've gutted them all.

In the end it isn't stop liking what I dislike its more like please like what I do like. I want you to like the rules I helped create with the others there and now that its all tumbling down its like being a cornered animal. The rules are important to me for irrational reasons, they likely don't server any real purpose anymore now that we have mods of our own, but its like wanting a green anonfilly, I just don't want to let go of the roots.

>>3358
The quicker you accept that the special feeling is gone and never coming back, the quicker you can rationally look at things, identify the real problems, and suggest solutions to those.

Really, the biggest problem on this site is Page 1 Syndrome, as it is on basically every chan ever made. Ask around, I guarantee you more than a few will admit to skimming page one due to time constraints and real life commitments, not because they're insulated within single threads. We need to work on mitigating that via the development of user-functionality, especially with a site larger than its userbase can use effectively.

See, I won't deny there being a problem, but I will deny your solutions as being heavy handed, short sighted and more likely to cause grief than solve anything. It's not one of rules, it's one of site design.

>>3356
Trump general should of ended after the election.
>awoo will live forever tho
>>3350
I enjoy any color of filly

>>3360
Awoo was one of the only decent things to come out of /ptg/ tbqh.

>>3361
It came from /tg/, Trump general. /ptg/ is what reddit turned it into

>>3362
/tg/? I thought it was /s4s/ and /a/ that started the meme.

>>3363
Not /tg/ the table and games, Trump General, before he became president.

>>3364
Ah, forgot about that,

>>3360
>I enjoy any color of filly
but changing the filly from green to something else is an affront to our culture!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

In all seriousness though, I'm glad that the single autist eventually ceased his autism and we were able to make a joke out of the whole ordeal (the filly who wants to be "different" and "special" painting her fur a different color and screeching at anybody who calls her out on it)

>>3366
So I take it you wouldn't like these fillys?

>>3352
>Another part may be that /mlpol/ tends to chew through ram at an alarming rate, so it's generally not a good idea for Anons to leave too many tabs open on their potatos, further reducing the scope at which many Anons can browse.
Holy shit, I thought I was the only one having this problem.
I literally have to use task manager and kill the tab with MLPOL on it because it gets to past 1m K, which causes everything else to lag.

I've thought about it for a bit and looked over the thread again and now I'll be completely clear and honest. I let shit get under my skin because I thought others weren't giving my view a fair shot and as soon as I thought that I pretty much dismissed others who came here to what I viewed as to shit around. I'm a conservative reactionary in nearly every way, I see tradition as good regardless of utility or practicality and am only willing to drop such things if they are not deeply rooted in tradition or if the tradition is absolutely harming the current state for everyone. I originally viewed this as a given, which is why I placed the ownership of proving why rule 9 needed to be rid of/liberally interpreted on the other side but I see that's not the case.

I get that it sounded like I was pontificating since I thought everyone else had similar views and thus I was making a valid claim since other similarly held these views. But now that I look over things I can see that is not the case and that there are many others who have a more liberal view of the matter. So I will make arguments on rule 9 from a less ideological view and from a more utilitarian view instead.

The two main reasons why we have rule 9 is from a /pol/acks view and from a nor/mlp/erson's viewpoint. For /mlp/ its because of how cancerous general can get once their content falls off a cliff. It becomes bump central and needless shitposting repeatedly with no actual content. The /mlp/ catalogue is full of this and it becomes insufferable because of how much of this exists. Although this is a nuisance I'd say rule 9 was mainly added because /pol/acks wanted it. /mlpol/ acid washed all the generals from existing mainly because of /pol/ being a much faster board which made having a general nearly impossible since it would mean you'd need to bump it not just regularly like once in a few hours, but every 30mins or so if not more.

/pol/'s reason for disliking generals is twofold. One its irrelevant. On /tg/ or /Trump General/, a lot of the anons would say that it would become irrelevant and we should ignore it after the entire shabang ended which I can say I did. That is because its purpose would be fulfilled, and it would be needless to continue discussing Trump in such a format. Why talk about him so broadly when he is now no longer just someone campaigning and trying to win office when he is calling the shots on foreign policy and executive roles? Surely these things should be discussed in several different threads rather than a single broad overarching thread mainly made to discuss the one issue of electing the man and following that. The other reason we on /pol/ wanted to get rid of such generals was to keep colonies off the board. /ptg/ being the poster boy of something that had been entirely co-opted by leddit after Trump was elected. Their general continuing to exist was a way for them to seek refuge in their leddit tier safe space rather than interact with the rest of the board if they saw fit.

However, /pol/ also had a soft spot for happening generals, or generals not only like /sg/, but /tg/ before it became co-opted or irrelevant. It is because of this that we wanted to keep "generals" that remain happenings, or that are both relevant and not a foreign colony.

So those on /mlpol/ when we were creating rules that would keep our catalogue quality high made the choice to keep generals out, but happening threads in. It was to keep us safe from the nine bump in a row reply thread, a non-stop shitposing thread, a thread co-opted by and outside community, and a large broad thread that could contain everything and be self-sufficient. We wanted to keep /mlpol/ safe from this.

Now we are at an impasse, for two reasons.
1. Anon filly is a general by the criteria I lay out. It is a space anonfilly anons can retreat to like how leddit retreats to /ptg/ after /pol/acks call them out as such. It is a broad self-sufficient community, where anons can have everything all in one like /ptg/ turned into after Trump was inaugurated.

2. We have a rule against generals, rule 9, which states: "HAPPENINGS" allowed, but not "GENERALS." Thus there is a clear contradiction and we must choose what to do from here.

>>3369
With these two things considered there are four things possible to do.

1. Radical
>Get rid of rule 9/get rid of all the community rules.
It'll remove the contradiction, but even if its a non-contradicting idea its a very bad one not only because it removes tradition, but because it'll leave us open to more reliance on the mods and will led to more tolerance to a shitty catalogue.

2. Liberal
>Re-interpret rule 9 to not included anonfilly.
This is problematic in so far that it does not settle the question and that it'll inevitably lead to radical. Look at what happened to rule 1 and 2, ideas that were originally just liberally interpreted, till the mods saw fit to remove them entirely. That same thing will happen here to rule 9 if we chose to not value it, it'll eventually be removed and no one will care since few actually cared about it.

3. Conservative
>Don't change anything.
This is where we were before the 4cc thread where someone said we should shill for anonfilly and I said I want to have nothing to do with anonfilly. It will lead us to this same spot till action is taken in any other spot. Either we start valuing anonfilly and the "more post" which is BS since accounting for anonfilly and big events our post numbers have decreased relatively outside of the general or our old rules. Which will determine where we head.

4. Reactionary
>Enforce the community rule.
This doesn't mean the mods will kill it but anons need to make clear that they need to stop making new threads. Whether it be anons trying to get anonfilly to understand the inherit problem and post in more specific threads dependent on the content or outright telling them to fuck off to /trash/. Its not nice but the reactionary right never is.

>>3370
You forget the fifth option;
5. Slow process of elimination
>combine conservative and reactionary to get desired result over a longer time
The key to this is to start persuading the anonfilly general to move to other threads, without the enforcement until much, much later in the plan. The process will allow the general to stay, keeping the posters, and will start to seep those posters into the main board. I’m not sure on the best way to obtain this, but it will work a whole lot better than any of your mentioned plans, which will lose a number of users no matter which way you slice it. This plan would decrease the loss and provide the desired results at a cost of time.

Whether that plan is worth the trouble is if the users are willing to put forth the time and energy to see it happen.

>>3369

>creating rules that would keep our catalogue quality high
Wrong.
User quality is what keeps catalog quality high. High-quality users, in this instance, followed from the sudden formation of /mlpol/, who quickly adapted to their new environment and formed a coalition, becoming stronger for it.
Here, on the site, we have both high quality users and administration, as opposed to just users on the 4chan board. I can't help but notice that most of your points labour under the assumption that the rules need to be tailored for bad administration as well as users, but ultimately, this ignores two points:
1) High quality users are self-policing. Recall in the early days of 4chan, which this site currently mirrors, that the userbase actively chased off undesirables. On 4chan, this was the furfags and assorted autists, and here, it's the shills, degenerates and LARPers, among others.
2) Bad administration does not give a shit about what the rules say. They're the admins, what the hell do you plan on doing about it? Bad moderation kills anything, and the only cure at that stage is leaving and taking your business elsewhere. Which we did.

Overall, your outlook continues to be overtly absolutist, and seems geared towards instant results. While that is very useful in crisis situations, it is not called for here. A more nuanced approach is necessary for this impasse, which I will agree needs a more defined and consistent resolution than simple administrative edict.

>>3370
>1: Get rid of rule 9/get rid of all the community rules.
Neither one is acceptable; the first ignores the conundrum completely, the second just doesn't make any sense: those rules aren't currently suffering any problems, so why did you feel the need to include this here? One does not logically follow another. Not everything rests upon a slippery slope.

>2: Re-interpret rule 9 to not included anonfilly.
Naming specific exceptions is unwise.
>rules 1 and 2 removed
I understand your traditionalist consternation revolving around the removal of those first two rules, but I don't see it as a particularly huge issue, either way: as I explained, our community of both users and staff is self-policing enough to boot undesirables off. If one or both of those become compromised, you have bigger problems than simply needing more rules.

>3: Don't change anything.
Sweet, I get to keep arguing over the Internet! Sign me up!
>blah blah 4cc thread
Personal beef noted and discarded. I could care less about some digital slapfight you had.
>post distribution isn't where I want it to be
>which will determine where we head
Arrogance. Imageboards have always created their direction for themselves, through organic communal means. Your say on this matter is no more important than mine is.

>4: Enforce the community rule.
This entire segment is a repeat of the above point on arrogance. You can only account for your own tastes: issuing decrees on what people should and should not post or participate in is at best, a massive waste of time, and at worst, will utterly destroy the site and community.
Just because your tastes aligned with many others in the days following April 1st, 2017, and just because that brief consensus gave birth to the first incarnation of the rules, does not automatically mean that everyone shares the other aspects of your particular taste.

My own solution was outlined in the above posts at:
>>3302
>>3308
What we need to do, at least in my opinion, is to reform and refocus the rule, to make it adapt better to the changing conditions the site finds itself under, and to better define it's scope and function. Put simply, give the spirit of the rule an actual body.

Again, I understand why you don't like changing the rules around, I really do. But maintaining rules that are nonfunctional, ignored, and/or malignant is a fast-track to stagnancy, followed by death. If the rules are akin to the site's constitution, then it behooves us all to factor in a way to amend this constitution, as well.
Some rules are inalienable, of course, and absolutely should not be infringed: 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and the spirit of 5 and 6 should not be touched.
But I don't think we should be afraid to update, combine, or if necessary, cull rules that no longer serve a viable purpose, to keep things as streamlined as possible. A constitution bloated with garbage is no good to anyone.
Whatever happens, however, I think we can all agree that we should take this shit very slowly and very carefully.

>>3369
>Anon filly is a general by the criteria I lay out. It is a space anonfilly anons can retreat to like how leddit retreats to /ptg/ after /pol/acks call them out as such.
Except it's not, you claim to have thought about things more clearly and in some ways you have, but you're still being a divisionist little shit. We have chosen what to do, which is make case by case interpretations of the rule based on the thread's current quality, the only one who seems to have problem with it is you.

>>3372
So, rewording the rule so that it allows generals so long as they're also either happenings or are producing content. r_/ptg/-tier generals where it's just 50 people typing "AWOO" or /mlp/-tier generals where it's nothing but bumps aren't allowed, but generals like /sg/ which put out constant news updates on ongoing conflicts or threads like the Anonfilly thread which put out OC are allowed.

>>3374
This is the gist of it, yes. It goes deeper than that, but for sake of clarity this is the sentiment.

The e-celeb rule concers. Not because I don't like it, but I don't think people have followed it strictly. Should debates be considered restricted, is someone allowed to start a thread with a single video, and what is the scope of web drama allowed? I feel like without clarification, we may one point along the line ecounter an e celeb thread.

>>3376
We already did to a degree when there was a thread following the fallout of the Kraut doxing servers and various other dramas around Killroy event.

>>3371
Noted but I think I covered that within reactionary. Reactionary and radical options have degrees of severity but the end intent is what I stated that make the options what they are. Either your goal is to make them integrate and lead toe the eventual break down of anonfilly general or you like the status quo of keeping things as is. Same with radical, which I'd argue in the end having that view on mods being able to secure everything will eventually lead to all rules being canned.

>>3372
I thought I quickly addressed the two points but I will clearly address them in a more visible way.
1.
>High quality users are self-policing.
This has two problems to it. 1 users come and go and we need a way to secure the user's continual quality as a long run measure. This is why the rules were created, a way to ensure the continual survival for a place where anons could have higher quality discussion and cute ponies rather then leddit tier posts, shills getting bumped to page one day after day with their propaganda, and a lot of cyoa/glimmer threads. Your argument boils down to a chicken and the egg one where you say egg and I say chicken but neither one of us can prove it entirely. But that gets into my second argument towards it.
2 disorder is the natural order of the world. Nearly everyone shitpost and things always escalate. I noticed I was doing it in this thread with an aussie which is why I took a break to think more rather then to make rash choices. But the same things have happened here before. Need I remind you of Nigel and glimmer? Shit happens and then devolves regardless of how good the userbase is, having rules is there to try and limit it. This is why I think a good userbase is important but the rules are what selects the good users. Users that are willing to follow the rules as layed out will stay while those that dislike them and break them are either ignored or are trolled and leave. Regardless of which the rules are an important mechanism in halting the disorder that might come about from our nature to shitpost.

2.
>Bad moderation kills anything, and the only cure at that stage is leaving and taking your business elsewhere. Which we did.
I do not disagree with this entirely but my view on things is that we need to have a mentality that the mods will not pic up our problems. I am grateful to the staff and the moderation team for their work but there are points where its not clear if its someone trolling like in the stripped thread to which many needed to have just let it die off. Guess I'm more of a lolbertarian in this that my ideal would be for the staff to be as hands off as possible and for us to police ourselves and all problems rather then to complain to them to fix the problems which seems to be a bit of your argument.

My view is more absolutist and I want action now rather then later on someone else's terms that much is true. I'd like for you to state what is wrong with that or my view instead of arguing semantics of which comes first the chicken or the egg like you did with users bring high quality or rules enforcing high quality.

On the options I listed off you are a liberal. I have already stated my problems with that view leading to the eventually destruction of the rule because the argument could just as easily be why have the rule if its not used and if its clearly not needed since the mods can kill all bad generals. To which I have already argued the mods should not do nearly anything besides ban spammers, bots, and the like. Do you want the mods to do more which including to ban shills and leddit? I don't think that should not be the case since everyone can easily ignore them and just rule 10 any bad thread that is continuously bumped by an outside source. The problem is that you argue around my concern, so I ask you as a liberal to address my concerns.

>>3373
>but you're still being a divisionist little shit
I see your problem in the end and I think your the one being divisionist by thinking in bad faith like you have this entire thread. You use we and you don't address my points after I reflected and noticed I was stepping out of line. You are doing the same here, take a break cunt and come back when you an argue that anonfilly is not a general by the criteria that I've layed out or by what you consider a general to be.

>>3378
>users come and go
Of course, but as we're a fairly small site, it's not at a high enough rate to displace our ingrained culture. The majority we do have are quite proud and vocal, yourself included, and this helps to cement the local culture in newcomers and lurkers alike. For the forseeable future, as long as we stay vigilant, I don't envision this as a problem to worry about.
>chicken and egg
Well, I can see where you'd get that impression. Since we're both unwilling to budge on that front, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>disorder is the natural order
Ignoring the platitudinous nature of that statement, I don't see a problem with it. Entropy is a good thing in doses to avoid stagnancy, and when it does escalate (as in your Nigel example), the mods are there to step in.
I know you don't like that idea, but bear with me here, and I'll do my best to address that:

>we need to have a mentality that the mods will not pic up our problems
In ordinary circumstances, with ordinary mods and admins, I would absolutely agree with you, no question about it. But the situation on /mlpol/ is very different, and I'll tell you exactly why that is.
Recall the threads with that annoying cross-boarding Korean anon, more specifically the one where he was shitposted into the Doom Dimension and I had a real hoot and a holler doing it. Right as the moderator decides to put on his capcode, he already had 4 posts made under his ID. He was participating in the thread as a regular anon, same as us.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with small businesses, and it may just be this way where I'm from, but in the ones I frequent, the managerial and senior staff actively participate and banter with the low-level employees, are highly friendly, and interact often with customers. It's friendly, it's courteous, but most importantly, it demonstrates genuine care for the people they serve and work with. It shows that they're right there with us, having the same discussions, making the same threads, all of that.
This distinction is absolutely critical, and it is the only reason I place so much trust in the moderation staff: they are not some disconnected, separate class, as it is with most managerial and business systems, but they're right here with us, doing the same shit we do. Their Venn diagram overlap with us regular users is significant, if not total.
Again, I get your caution, but in this situation, it's simply unwarranted. And the instant they stop being active participants with us, and become a separate, disconnected ruling class, is the instant I'll side with this 'every man for himself' position you espouse.

>On the options I listed off you are a liberal. I have already stated my problems with that view leading to the eventually destruction of the rule because the argument could just as easily be why have the rule if its not used
First off, I've been doing my best to avoid pigeonholing your views on this matter. Since we're actually managing a decent discussion here, I'd appreciate if you offered me the same courtesy, too.
Secondly, I have absolutely no desire to revoke rule 9, I only want to see it amended to reflect our current position on it. Once again, you try to present this as a slippery slope, but I've been very explicit as to the limits I would like to see this extend to. You've done this numerous times now, and it seems to be more of an irrational concern, rather than a pragmatic one.

>My view is more absolutist and I want action now rather then later on someone else's terms that much is true. I'd like for you to state what is wrong with that
All right, here's the fundamental problem.
You're simply too late.
The time to have this discussion passed months ago, when we decided to take the Anonfilly refugees in, get them settled, and integrate them with our board culture. That was when you should have expressed your objections, even more vocally than you are now.
But now, they're a well-adjusted part of who we are, and have been for more than a month. And there's no changing that, now. Nor would I want to.
The solution you are proposing, to purge them after they've integrated with us, made their mark, and gotten along with us, can only lead to one logical outcome.
Balkanization.
This is what the local Aussie means, when he says you're being divisive. As we are a small community, we absolutely cannot afford to split hairs over such a relatively small issue. Cohesion is what we need the most of, at this Internet weight class.
You see things from the /pol/ perspective, now let me tell you more about the history of the /mlp/ perspective.
The problem with bumpfest generals there was a direct consequence of user and moderator overreach, of splitting hairs over such relatively insignificant matters. The Scruffening was one of the worst happenings there, and is directly responsible for creating the problem with generals to begin with.
Your implication throughout all of this is that banning them will prevent history from repeating itself. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. Banning them will cause history to repeat itself.
What you're proposing is guaranteed to trigger a second Scruffening event, and that is the root reason why I will not agree with your determination. Nor will I ever agree with banning content wholesale, just because of a conflict of taste. Outside of being purely egoistic in motive, I've seen what happens when that is tried, and I will never accept it.

>>3379
>agree to disagree
Alright sure guess that's fair.

>But the situation on /mlpol/ is very different, and I'll tell you exactly why that is.
I could argue ideological points, like I said I'm a bit of a lolbertarian but I don't think that'd work. I don't think this is just a small business, the mods after all do regularly contribute but to compare it as such wouldn't be great because one is contractually bound and the mod team isn't contractually bound to us well besides Atlas with his initial promise but that's not written in blood let alone ink last I checked.

The question then becomes should we really on the mod team to the degree you suggest? I don't think that is good, its mostly why I'm against large forms of authoritarianism. Willpower is a muscle and if the state erodes at all people will not have much let over. Its why bad times make strong men, they are up to the challenge to fight degeneracy whether the state does or not. Same here, if the mods be the end all to problems around here any small problem in moderation or large growth will lead to us becoming what the majority of us ran away from. Its why the war on drugs won't work, we need volunteerism and unofficial rules that people reinforce with one another to make our society less degenerate rather then have a big state ban it.

>Since we're actually managing a decent discussion here, I'd appreciate if you offered me the same courtesy, too.
Fair enough I've just noticed that you are making similar argument that I can classify as such, wanting big government, the mods, wanting to change existing structures, the rules, ect. But I guess this isn't a fair and accurate description entirely.

>Once again, you try to present this as a slippery slope
My concerns on are the pattern not only in /mlpol/'s rules that can be seen within rule 1 and 2 but more generally the less we value something it is eventually cast aside because its viewed as useless. Marriage is under this process right now, citizenship in Canada and the US has also fallen under this devaluing effect. Surely you see my concern and how it applies to this as well? Why will this be any different from all these other institutions that were changed?

>You're simply too late.
I fear you might be right, which is why I consider my view reactionary rather then conservative. I viewed it as a given at the time and became more annoyed that it wasn't so as time passed and I noticed that others did not share my mentality. But overall I doubt that they have "adjusted" since a majority of them still post in anonfilly and rarely leave. Sure we got 2 of them as doing well last I checked the poll but overall its got 3 who haven't and don't. I'd hardly say this is well adjusted and dont't think that the time to discus this is over.

>As we are a small community, we absolutely cannot afford to split hairs over such a relatively small issue
I understand why you say this but you must understand to me this sounds like a reddit tier post. What unites /pol/ is hatred of an other, and I'd say the main reason this community exists is similar. We hate the state of our home boards so we chose to unite and break away. Not being able to disagree with something like this or have a radical view on how to fix it isn't the problem I see the mentality that this is devise to be the most devise idea around. If we cannot agree to disagree and talk things out how do we deal with all of our other differences? Do we just retreat into more general?

>can only lead to one logical outcome. Balkanization.
You'll have to talk me a bit further through this one I really don't see how making anons integrate then dissolving their general causes this.

>Your implication throughout all of this is that banning them
Now I ask that you offer me the courtesy here, if you think I actually want to ban the users from anonfilly you are mistaken. Like I said I don't want mods to do anything, instead I want us to indicate to anonfilly that we have a set of rules and them having a general is breaking it. I want them to then understand this and make threads specifically geared towards the content they like such as making art threads where all art can be posted an anonfilly art will be. Same goes with all of their cyoa, writefaggotry, ect. I think this would be the most beneficial solution to both parties, where anonfilly would still have their content and user base able to interact with each other all while /mlpol/ can interact with them openly on the content we love as well.

Does this mean that the few that never want to interact with us will leave? Sure if they really don't want to but that is their choice in the end not a ban like you make it seem like I want. However its interesting that you say you've seen what happens when things are scruffened which is why you not accept anything from the straw-man of me you put up. I too won't budge on a rule being removed because I too know where things will lead once we head down that path.

>>3280
Are raid threads allowed?

>>3380
>You'll have to talk me a bit further through this one I really don't see how making anons integrate then dissolving their general causes this.
If you try to force them to integrate against their will, they'll grow resentful and want to leave the site rather than doing what you want them to do. That's what he's talking about when he says what you're proposing will lead to Balkanization.

>>3381
As far as I know, yes, but check the catalogue first to make sure there isn't a raiding/fishing thread already up. If there is, just post in that.

>>3382
>That's what he's talking about when he says what you're proposing will lead to Balkanization.
Alight then first I'd like to point out an inconsistency. If they were well integrated would this be an argument? Would those who are constantly interacting with us want to leave just because we tell them to post their content in different threads? It doesn't sound very fitting to me.

Regardless I don't view those who will leave because they cannot have their general as losing something valuable. Their community won't be forced off, their content will be encouraged, and above all I'd expect them to understand our position. Still if there are those who leave from us saying that we'd rather them post in designated threads to this type of content rather then keep in all large broad general that siphons away users traffic and potential conversations outside of it then I say so be it those are the types I don't mind losing.

>>3381
Threads about raids and raiding are allowed

>>3383
There are two issues with this:
1. This still doesn't solve the issue of where Anonfilly content will go, as from that point onwards any Anonfilly-based thread can be seen as a recreation of the general and deleted.
2. How would you like it if, for example, your workplace were to remove their restrooms, while saying that it's still okay to use the restrooms, just not here? That's what deleting the Anonfilly threads will do. You're saying they can still post Anonfilly, they just can't do it in the place specifically designed for Anonfilly.

>>3385
>This still doesn't solve the issue of where Anonfilly content will go, as from that point onwards any Anonfilly-based thread can be seen as a recreation of the general and deleted.
Anon please no more straw-mans. I don't want to delete anonfilly stuff I want anonfilly to understand the problem and just not making any more anonfilly generals.
>How would you like it if, for example, your workplace were to remove their restrooms, while saying that it's still okay to use the restrooms, just not here?
I don't use my works restrooms :^)
But in all seriousness this point also has the problem that you assume that's what I want to do. I'm asking that anonfilly understand the problem at hand and ween themselves off their general. To your metaphor that'd be like saying the building had a rule against eating in the office but mostly everyone did it anyways. I'm the guy saying don't eat in the office any everyone is going crazy because they are screaming where do we eat!?
Easy answer, the lunchroom or in this case the threads for the specific stuff.

>>3386
I agree we need to have one dedicated anon filly thread.

>>3386
>I don't want to delete anonfilly stuff I want anonfilly to understand the problem and just not making any more anonfilly generals.
So, if someone made an Anonfilly thread after you enacted your master plan, what would you do to the thread?

>>3379
>>3382
Thank you, these beautifully articulate my position, which I haven't succeeded at yet. I do feel that amending rule 9 along the lines of "we reserve the right to refuse service" is worth considering, but as far as AF is concerned I'm unalterably opposed to any restriction or prohibition implicit or otherwise, on principle that - like /mlpol/ - they are persona non grata on 4ch and provide near constant content. I don't participate beyond an occasional opportunistic shitpost, but as has been said that ship has sailed imo.

>>3378
I didn't address your points because they are either stuff you have been told in this very thread, or just your old points redressed and reworded. I am not the one who has no faith in my fellow Anons, it's you, you keep bringing this shit up because you, fundamentally, do not trust the good judgement of your peers. You keep citing rule 9 as though everyone browsing this site is unaware of it, and unaware of Anonfilly being a general, as though you are the only one that sees clearly. Everyone knows, everyone is already well aware of the cancer generals have become, and has left Anonfilly alone because it is not something they consider cancer, only you.

You argue that Anonfilly is insular despite having zero evidence to that effect, just as there is zero evidence to claim that they are not. It's all assumptions, and if you actually wanted to resolve this, you would go in their fucking thread and ask them, but no, you want nothing to do with it am I right? You probably even filter it to that effect. I am not out of line in any way, shape or form, any appearance to the contrary is your arrogant assumption and no one else's.

For the record, I don't like you, not one bit, my gut tells me you don't give a fuck about this site or its community. My reasoning tells me you're a fucking newfag to chans who doesn't understand how the culture works, to clarify further, your chance to be an oldfag and see a real chan passed in 08 or you wouldn't be a disgusting rulefag. Lucky for you then, applicant, that what you see here is 4chan as it was before it became shit, as the leaf said, we are self policing and have good staff, so shut the fuck up and trust your fellow Anons to be able to tell when something is cancer and needs to be removed.

>>3390
I will fight you on the notion that the anon in question does not give a shit about this community. No one writes out that much when they don't give a shit. Also, I'm 100% sure this is Plus, the guy that manages the /mlpol/ team in the /pol/ league. I can tell by past threads, and that he likes to post ponks a lot fpr some reason. To put the work he has in means he does give a shit. I think he is being irrational, but he does care.

>>3390
Are you shitting me? Do you know who he is?

>>3391
I would argue that he doesn't, because he says absolutely nothing about another thread that was in a similar position to Anonfilly, which is OiE, it's status as fucking dead and [/i]literally living on bump posts right now[/i] not withstanding, it is technically the very definition of a cancerous general of people from offsite whom we have no evidence of their participation in the site at large. Does he say anything about that? No. Because it's not an active thread, there aren't many people to blatantly bully into posting as he wants.

>>3392
I don't give a fuck who he is or what he does, regardless of his contributions he has consistently been a massive twat on this issue. Not to mention avatarfagging is blatant attention whoring mostly done because he wants attention and recognition on a site whose culture is anti-identity.

>>3393
You bring up a good point with the OiE thing, which further shows why this thread is important. However, that still does not mean he does not care about /mlpol/. Everyone here wants this place to be successful, so please both of you please stop this drama shit and work to come up with a mutually agreeable solution.

>>3388
Its almost as if we didn't have a way to enforce the rules when we made them. Or maybe its the rules we came up with to keep shit we didn't like off here.

>>3390
>For the record, I don't like you, not one bit, my gut tells me you don't give a fuck about this site or its community
The sad part is this is the only thing that isn't an adhom, a strawman, or an appeal to popularity. Still not an argument. Hell yah I'll argue and fuck up some shit with everyone if I disagree enough. Just because everyone believes something doesn't make it right, and if I'm wrong others can prove me so, in fact if it wasn't for you derailing shit it might have actually happened. I'd love to be proven wrong or told that my concerns are invalid. But so far the only one who has argued with my points to such an extent that I had to think was a leaf. He was right I was acting like a child but at least I'm self aware enough to notice when I act like one. Everything I've done is justifiable and I won't rant about it anymore, have a good day.

>>3391
>spoilers
Why not post the best pony as much as you can?
Also if I'm being irrational you are not helping anyone by not saying how.

>>3394
>mutually agreeable solution.
If you can think of one go for it, I've listed off what I think are viable solutions.
The only thing I can think of that'd be a decent solution would be giving them their own board, but I dislike this idea nearly as much as amending the rules. But I guess given the given the alternative of amending the rules this would be my only alternative I would begrudgingly accept.

>>3395
You didn't answer the question.

>>3396
Which one.

>>3397
After the Anonfilly thread is gone, if someone makes a thread about Anonfilly, what would you do?

>>3395
Have you not ever heard of the fallacy fallacy? I'll argue properly with you when you stop redressing your opinion every time it gets refuted.

>I won't rant about it anymore
Until you bring it up again a month or so later, like you have the past couple times.

>>3398
Didn't I answer that?
I mean obviously I'd put on my mod powers and insta perma ban dem bad bois because I'm the biggest meanest fakest mod around.

But to your point ask to stop, ignore, R10.

>>3399
Your acting like a child.
Your only substantive points boiled down to I don't like you.
I still like you even if I disagree with you and know you dislike me and my view on things.

>>3400
>Low brow insult
>Just like his use of "brainlet" earlier
Who's using ad hominem now?

Refute these.
>The board is self policing against cancer.
>People will like things you don't like.
>People will post as they so choose.
>General threads are cancer when they're cancer, not before.
>Avatarfagging betrays a lack of understanding anonymous culture, and by extension, the posting habits of said culture.
>You are not special, if you have noticed something, chances are a great many people have noticed it before you.
>Punishing for pre-crime is wrong.
>It is not your board.

Saying you're not going to rant about something anymore, then coming back to rant about it some more is likewise not a smart thing to do. If you're going to stop, then stop, if not, at least have the courtesy of being coherent.

>>3401
>Insult
>This much a lack in self awareness...
I love you anon but
Its really hard to love the shit that keeps coming from you.

I honestly should just ignore your shit but in good faith I will seriously answer your stuff one more time because >aussie. I've thrown you the bone of good faith a few times but I doubt it'll come back. So lets refute some things.

>The board is self policing against cancer.
Very broad but I assume you are referring to how I don't want it to be a mods do all. I talked about this already.
>People will like things you don't like.
I don't believe this and I think your purposefully attempting to portray me as believing this.
>People will post as they so choose.
1 contradictory with another one of your arguments but also I have no problem with this.
>General threads are cancer when they're cancer, not before.
Generals can be cancer or not, but don't belong here to what I have already state.
>Avatarfagging betrays a lack of understanding anonymous culture, and by extension, the posting habits of said culture.
1 I and other have hinted at this but it keeps going over your head. I tripped in the thread this argument stemmed from so I assumed everyone I was going to be arguing with knew it so I saw no reason not to post exactly like how I wanted. This is where your other argument contradicts.
>You are not special, if you have noticed something, chances are a great many people have noticed it before you.
Sounds like your getting a little mad at how special I am. But even if I'm not, which I obviously am, guess I'll have to bring it up more often to get more talks going about these things I'm just realizing. Think of all the traffic we could be getting. :^)
>Punishing for pre-crime is wrong.
But lad, a general's existence isn't a pre crime, its a post crime. Same with all rule violations.
>It is not your board.
Damn, I thought Atlas said it was. Oh well, guess I'll have to buy it from him when I get more good boy points the mods give me.

>Saying you're not going to rant about something anymore, then coming back to rant about it some more is likewise not a smart thing to do. If you're going to stop, then stop, if not, at least have the courtesy of being coherent.
>rant
Also the context of what I said seems have have flown over your head lad. But you've shown this pattern before, so I will clarify, I was saying I wouldn't rant about justifying my choices.

>>3402
Thanks for answering, now that I understand exactly what kind of person you are, I can talk to you instead of at you. You don't like any recurring threads, and I'm willing to wager your starting board was /b/ considering how vehemently against them you are. There's no further point in me arguing with you as you will not back down from your claim of all generals being bad simply because they are generals. I am grateful that the decision to ban them or not is not up to you.

I thought we'd left the anti-general general behind on /mlp/ to be honest.

>>3402
>Oh well, guess I'll have to buy it from him when I get more good boy points the mods give me.
I'll sell it to you for a klondike bar\r

>>3404
I'll buy it for some pocket change and a $2 bill

>>3406
you're a disgrace to Ancaps everywhere, I can at least offer $20 in pocket change.

>>3407
Fine.
0.0420 bitcoin

>>3408
$9001
my final offer

>>3409
1 whole Bitcoin

And maybe a Klondike bar if I'm feeling generous

>>3404
Um... I have my love to offer

>>3410
dude, I think we may have been outbid by >>3411. Join together to outbid him and have joint custody?

>>3412
Shit, we have been outbid. I'll take this deal

FUCK IT I'LL GO ALL IN. TAKE EVERYTHING! MY LIFE MY SOUL! TAKE MY MONEY MY FAMILY!

I JUST WANT A CUTE PONY AND POLITICS WEBSITE!

>>3413
alright, we have 1 bitcoin, over 9 thousand dollars, and a klondike bar. Is that enough, Atlas?

>>3415
Is a soul worth more than a bitcoin? If so >>3414 wins.

>>3416
I wouldn't imagine that they are, since souls are non-transferable.

>>3417
>what is link
Many souls have been transferred through it.

>>3418
oh yeah? then how does the process work?

>>3419
Step 1
Buy Link
Step 2
Buy high sell low
Step 3
?????
Step 4
JUST and now your soul is able to be transferred via link.

>>3420
where is this link though?

>>3421
The same place as your soul.

>>3422
then I don't know where it is
I know my soul's somewhere inside of me, though

>>3423
Trips confirm this anon is not a ginger

>>3423
At this point anon your soul has left you body and is near your ass. If you take a big enough shit it'll come out and you can put it on the open market.

>>3423
You have no soul, the afterlife is a lie, and God is dead.

>>3425
that sounds like bullshit I'm sorry

>>3426
that's what you think, but that's also where you're wrong