/go/ - Golden Oaks

I suggest the two golden rule threads of rule 9 be allowed to remain, that being /sg/, one of politics and the other /af/, Anon Filly, for pony. I suggest this for the fact that generals such as these, with our mods, can keep them from becoming a sealed off place

>>3281
>Hur dur lets scrap more rules!
Nigger what?

>>3282
Shall not be infringed

>>3283
Not an argument.
Being against a fucking general isn't saying you can't post that same shit anywhere else. Just keep it from being a circle jerk.

>>3282
I never said scrap. Exceptions to the rule, only said exceptions.

Since this thread was born from a discussion about generals, it is important that we define what is being talked about. What exactly is a general, what is a happening, and why are generals considered bad?

>>3285
My bad, lets make exceptions to rules, so that we can make more exceptions and the rules will eventually be taken off the policy page and removed entirely like rule one and two.

>>3287
1 and 2 served their purpose, but we also need more traffic. These rules can be enforced again -I assume anyway- if need be. As for this slippery-slope bit, I don't see any rules being removed or other exceptions being added. Hence the golden rules to rule 9.

>>3287
>>3285
There are already exceptions to the rules. Exceptions are not good as it weakens the rules. Instead of adding more asterisks to the rules, the rules should be better defined in their meaning.

>>3286
>generals
An insular community that doesn't revolve around anything besides a specific piece of content. Consider the difference between an art thread and a /mlp/ general. One is open ended the other is for what the general is about.
>happening
Anything from drama but no e-celeb bs to a war. So something tangible and impossible to be continuous.
>Why are generals bad
Burden of proof on why they are bad isn't on me since we came to a consensus on April first that they were. Explain to me how it is good we have a large amount of insular communities that never leave their respective threads?

>>3288
I never liked the changes and its something I will continue to disagree with the mods on. Its not a slippery slope if there is evidence that this has a trend to it, which it does.

>>3286
Good explanation of the generals. In any case, I'm just throwing my 2 bits in on this subject and will stand with you for any others that attempt rule remover/adding more exceptions

>>3290
>art threads are okay
Writing is a form of art, anon. To me, an easy fix would be to have greentext threads rather than a specific anonfilly thread. We don't have enough non-filly greentexts as it is and it would be a nice diversification of subject.

>>3292
Agreed, and pretty much my entire point. The content and users from Anonfilly are fine and great I just don't want a general.
Anonfilly could have argued they were a happening, but its been a while and now they need to spread their content out rather then keep it contained in a single thread.

Reposting because it needs to be said for the umpteenth time to this one ponk avatarfagging fag.

We had generals before Anonfilly even got here. The fuck you think Syria GENERAL and Awoo News Network is?

When rule 9 was drafted on April Fools, it was in the spirit of avoiding shit like what PTG turned into, or /mlp/'s infamous bump generals and nothing else, of which Anonfilly is neither. You also cannot claim most posters on the Anonfilly thread are wholly insular, as you are drawing from exactly zero statics to make that claim. Consider that not a lot of /mlp/ were /pol/ crossposters before the merge and are by their own admission not crazy about politics or even knowledgeable, if they are spreading out, they are lurking as they rightfully should.

Not to mention a cursory glance over the board at any given time shows that not a lot of pony threads are even posted here compared to /pol/ threads. That's a whole other bag of worms, but what it means is that most pony posters are lurkers, and you cannot force them to post no matter how hard you whine or how many threads you wish to axe to "encourage" greater participation. The Anonfilly thread came here to avoid this kind of retarded moderation, after I made attempts to sell it to them, no less.

If there's a rule that needs to be added, it's no avatarfagging, jesus christ, you might as well throw a trip on.

>>3294
>Statics
Statistics, whatever.

Just going to put in my two cents:

Anonfilly puts out content constantly and remains one of our most active threads: they're an art thread, write thread, and a CYOA thread all wrapped up into a single package (just with an Anonfilly flavor to it), all of which we've had before in copious amounts. They're not all isolationist, and it's perfectly fine to post Anonfillies outside of the main thread.

/sg/ is nothing but a constant happening. It may call itself a general, but so much is going on in Syria and the Middle East that the happenings (and in Ebin's case, mappenings) never cease, and even on 4/pol/ /sg/ was a comfy general that was satisfied with letting the other boards and generals be.

Awoo News Network is...eh? Considering most people discuss Trump and American politics outside of ANN, it's more like a status update or news report on what's going on in the States than a legit general.

We CAN'T resort to the same overreaching moderation that plagued /mlp/ and /pol/ for so long. These three threads aren't hurting discussion, and you can still make threads related to their topics. The no generals rule was designed to protect the site from neverending generals that produce no happening content and corral users into a few threads while promoting a board culture that actively attacks new threads on those topics. None of the three mentioned threads are doing any of those, they do no harm to us, and should be left alone. If you want them to be less insular or /comfy/, then either plead your case for seeing what else the site has to offer, or make your own threads on their topics.

>>3296
>>125502
God fucking dammit, double post.

>125487
>fillyfag leaves his general long enough to see my post
>ignores my post directing discusion here
>ignores all arguements made here and doesn't read the 13 reply thread at the time of posting
>claims not to be insular
Hehe good one.
I know your a fillyfag because if you were paying attention to our board culture you'd know 1 why I avatarfag and 2 that threads have IDs which nullifies that.
>>3296
I'm not claiming their isolationist, but that their insular. That means instead of opening up and dispersing their content they like their general and intend on keeping it along with all the parts from their general in their general. A few might leave once in a while for other things but art, cyoa, and greens will never leave anonfilly from the content creators who do these things. If they were dispersed into a separate thread for each then it'd no longer be a general and would be much more open ended.

I'd agree with you on ANN, with it being somewhat more general oriented because of of closed off it is. But at the same time its so small I really don't care too much, I just wish the anon would post actual news threads instead.

>We CAN'T resort to the same overreaching moderation that plagued /mlp/ and /pol/ for so long.
I agree, I'm not calling for it, the rules we made were community based, when we made them we didn't expect mods to follow them. And tbh I've avoided bring this up because I hate drama, but someone brought it up and I answered honestly.

>>3284
Yes it is, you're just not grasping it. If you think you're going to get a lot of support in violating rule 3 on behalf of a shaky violation of rule 9 then why insist on the rules at all, as you have asserted.

>>3299
I'm not trying to get support, if I was I'd be sugarcoating my words, I've accepted a long time ago that I'm one of the only rulefags when it comes to the original rules. That said you'll have to explain HOW it is a violation of rule 3 to follow rule 9.

>>3300
Its been pretty effectively illustrated that a significant portion of /af/ wants to keep to /af/. Prohibiting /af/ because "muh rule 9" also by its nature violates "muh rule 3", because it presents a context in which ponies wouldn't be allowed. You can say "can still post muh AF in other threads", but that's not what they want to do. What they do want to do, they're already doing yet you want to modify their behavior which flies against the overall spirit from which the rules were conceived which is that the right to keep and bear ponies shall not be infringed.

I've always been of the opinion that outright banning generals was a mistake, although it was a measure I can certainly empathize with, given the damage they caused to both /pol/ and /mlp/. But like most blanket bans, it fails to explain why, precisely, generals were bad; more importantly, it fails to explain why some generals succeed, and why others fail.
From what I've been able to gather, both from my own experiences with /mlp/ generals, and from my own research into /pol/'s generals, I think it's necessary to properly explain what a general is, and what causes them to become cancerous.

Generals, put simply, are a large, ongoing series of threads devoted to a singular topic. The topic can be narrow or wide in scope, and varies greatly between boards:
A) /mlp/'s generals typically revolve around OC, in the form of greentexts and drawfags, centering around a specific character, prompt, or theme.
B) /pol/'s generals typically revolve around ongoing geopolitical shitstorms, political figures, and entire countries. They used to also revolve around OC, but this has declined significantly since the 2016 elections (thanks, Reddit).
Broadly speaking, parts of the definition given on https://mlpol.net/policy.html apply to both board definitions, in that they tend to grow out from a happening; a greentext prompt on /mlp/ may strike creative gold, and persist for many threads, or a political shitstorm on /pol/ might go up a few categories, and become the gift that keeps on giving.

None of this, however, adequately explains why generals become cancerous to begin with, as there are threads that fit this definition, yet do not have issues.
As such, I've put together my own little bucket list of things that cause generals to fail and become tumours upon the catalog.
A general usually has to meet at least two of these criteria to start down the path of cancer, but if one of these black marks are pushed with enough autistic fervor, it can also trigger a general's degeneration.
1. Excessive usage of identity
Unironically using names, trips, avatars, and in our case, flags, has always been a sore point, as the entire point of an anonymous imageboard has been to be just that: anonymous.
Sometimes, however, you need to take up an identifier for various reasons (although threads with IDs enabled do not apply, for the most part): a writefag or drawfag may 'sign' his updates and pictures with a name as part of an ongoing project, or a person on the ground in a political event may use a trip in the same fashion to verify their identity, if juggling devices.
Used properly, identifiers do have a place on chans, but the problems arise with their misuse. Anons may start using their trips/names for every post they make in the general where it is not warranted, even extending out towards the whole site. The reason for this is fairly obvious, of course: attention whoring.
2. Content stagnation and drought
It happens, sometimes: a general just loses it's spark, it's magic, for some reason or another. In cases like this, the answer is simple: let it float off to sea to die with dignity, and preserve the events and OC for future generations.
Except, of course, that's not what actually happens: people cling to it, unwilling to let it go, and thus starts the endless cycle of bumps and prompts, hoping and praying that they can somehow restore the thread back to life. In extreme cases, they start to give praise to shitty content creators, for no other reason than them choosing to use their thread as a dumping ground.
3. Splinter communities
Possibly the most fatal of all problems a general can face: the problem of becoming insular, of forming a splinter community within the confines of the general.
All generals suffer from this problem in some form or another, as it's more of a human social dynamic than it is a general-specific issue. When it remains as a limb, with anons (even lurkers) and content feeding back into it's main board, there is usually no issue.
It's when it becomes a completely separate entity, however, where the issue arises: the general becomes like a Siamese twin upon it's board, remaining separate in users and content, yet is not independent enough to simply be cut off and survive on it's own; see 8/gtpone/ for a prime example of this. This stage is almost universally terminal, the only cure being the entropic heat death of the general.

It's also important to note, that the large generals we have were not made here on /mlpol/, but were instead transplanted from 4chan after being driven off or banned outright. In such cases, our welcoming treatment of them nets a certain level of gratitude from the refugees who beat the 4chan Stockholm Syndrome, which helps greatly in reducing any pre-existing cancer the general had, before it was transplanted.
Cancer, like electricity, takes the path of least resistance, and being uprooted like that and persisting despite it is a sign of strength.

>>3290
>>3293
I see your points, but I disagree with you on what the nature of generals are and why they are cancer. You are right that generals are insular, but the fact they revolve around a certain concept is not the problem. An active thread produces content, and facilitates discussion. If there is shitposting, it is in the minority of the posts. Even if this active thread is called a general, it is more of a happening because something is happening.

The generals that the founders wanted to see dead are cancer, because they areliterallychan cancer. General threads are filled to the brim with shitposting, and produces no discussion or OC. This induces the /ptg/ Reddit shitfests, the dozens of generals on /mlp/ that are image dumps, and at times even the 4/sg/ thread on 4/pol/. These threads are literal zombies that take up space on the board and serve no purpose. In fact, the posters in these cancerous generals will aggressively bump their threads just to make sure their thread doesn't get archived.

Right now, I would not define the filly thread as a general, as legitimate discussion and OC creation takes place there. The only real problem is the perceived insularness of their thread, and I hope to provide data on what exactly is going on there soon. Instead of taking draconian action and forcing them to post in designated art threads, we should work on integrating the thread further into /mlpol/. Integration meaning at least having their regulars give the catalog here a chance every now and then. If data shows they want to remain chuckle fucks who want their own little ghetto here, then we can take further steps.

TL;DR I don't really consider anonfilly threads to be generals in spirit, and more data is needed before taking action.

>>3298
>Hue hue, you're a fillyfag who doesn't post anywhere else
Projecting, and been here longer than you, pal, I generally skip over your posts because you are an avatarfag and attention whore and generally not worth the time. Your argument is generally the same against general threads every time I do manage to see it too, "They're insular, they're not posting more, board is slow.". Which as I said, you cannot force them to post with your borderline communist ideas.

1. Anonfilly content is not posted outside of Anonfilly threads for the same reason we don't post about other character specific threads, it's imageboard etiquette not to and tends to IDENTIFY YOU as being from a specific thread, which goes against the anonymity of general boards, something you do not understand.

2. This board is slow because it is in its infancy, the greivous mistake of every 4chan clone to date has been its users insisting that they can grow to 4chan's size and infamy in the tenth of the time. It cannot, no matter how you wish it were so. What you see here is basically what 4chan was in its infancy, with more politics and less anime girls.

3. This board is slow, therefore there is literally no reason to axe general threads because, let's face it, we need whatever users we can get. An idealistic board that is 404 because posters were driven away serves no one.

4. You CANNOT force posters to post as you please, and this cannot be overstated. People are not lemmings to be lead around as dictated by people claiming to be their betters. Ergo, you.

5. The one point you don't seem to get the most is that the SPIRIT of rule 9 is specifically meant to prevent bump generals (Pick a general on /mlp/) and 300 posts of "AWOO" and maybe one or two of news (PTG). You appear to be too autistic to make a distinction between the letter of the rule and the spirit of it. Which yes, I fucking voted on no generals too in the thread, with the general understanding that it was meant to prevent those two specific problems.

6. Arguing for making Anonfilly threads recurring threads is just asking them to remove the structure OP, in which case, why fucking bother because it's still a general without the OP. You don't understand that generals refer to ANY frequently recurring thread (See: /a/'s Evangelion threads(Yes, they're all the fucking same, no, they don't use the same OP all the time, yes, they really do play out the same way every time.)).

Let me put this into economic political terms to try and get this through your boneheaded skull. We have three (3) options here; Communism (You), Mixed (Status Quo, or everyone else) and Laissez Faire (Literally no one). You are, at a glance, suggesting we distribute the Anons in the Anonfilly thread, their content creation and posting potential, forcefully to the rest of the board by advocating the dissolution of the general, ergo, "Seize the means". Pretty much everyone else around is just fine with the Status Quo and sees no problems, some generals are fine so long as they are quick and do produce content and/or present news, not bumps or meaningless drivel. I know of no one who'd advocate the Laissez Faire method of just tossing all the rules out like an Ancap and turning into /sp/ where anything goes so long as it doesn't violate United States or Canadian law.

Whether you admit it or not, you are advocating for heavier moderation and a violation of one IRONCLAD rule in favour of another that you barely understand, using threads as a public platform to win people to your side and gain the mods' attention. People like you are part of why 4chan is shit and exactly why so many chan clones failed. I know you're scared that this site might go away if it doesn't grow fast, but I'm telling you that you can't force it to grow fast, and that trying to will only make it crash faster. People don't want to have their posting habits dictated by ffffffffffucking rulefags, they want to have fun, if that includes the creation of a general thread, by all means they should. Moderation should only step in when the thread is of no further value and is being kept alive in spite of that, and no sooner. I don't even know why I'm typing this all out to you, you're not site staff, and you're not even a popular opinion, you're an avatarfag and literal autist.

Say it with me now, Shall Not Be Infringed.

>>3304
>General boards
Imageboards, it's 5am and I'm going to bed now.

I’m a little confused on what you are proposing to do about this. If they were to be removed from the thread and spread out, then wouldn’t they gravitate to threads about art creation, and start to overrun them? This would cause a, for lack of a better way of expressing it, creep toward more anonfilly generals.

For example, a thread about how to improve green texts will start to show examples with anonfilly, as they are now displaced from their thread and want to discuss topics related to what they like to do. This example thread will quickly become the best way to write an anonfilly green text with the possibility of other types being included on occasion, just the minority. However, other anons that dislike the majority of anonfilly content and may wish that they leave that thread as it is growing too fond of anonfilly and not other content, simply because of an influx of those kind of content creators.

Then the I enter the part of the example that will most likely not happen, but is interesting to think though and important to avoid regardless. The pro-filly and anti-filly factions form and we start a campaign of glimmer posting, but fillies instead. It may cause a new form of division over such a simple concept that really shouldn’t activate our autism. The result will be that the site suffers a drop in either side, or both, from using our services to avoid more conflict.

To sum up, while the current solution may be beyond our current rules and is not perfect, I fail to see another solution that is equally as effective and can keep us from both losing users from some sort of drama, or appeal to the concerns leveled by both sides. The current system keeps anonfilly away from users that don’t wish it in their content on the board, and keeps content makers a place where they can post fillies without pressure to change what they are doing should they not want to. I fail to see why the general cannot be allowed to stay, with other threads can be made to encourage those on the general to try out the site as a whole, such as an art discussion thread that, if too many fillyfags join, they have a refuge to retreat and leave the rest alone.

Your thoughts?

>>3306
>If they were to be removed from the thread and spread out, then wouldn’t they gravitate to threads about art creation, and start to overrun them?
They would go back to 4/trash/, nothing is more of a turn off than a site that lures you in with the ability to post your content, and then takes it away when they think you're entrenched.

Echoes the creation /mlpol/, doesn't it?

>>3302
All that being said, I'm not against limiting generals: one look at /mlp/'s catalog should put that idea to rest in a hurry. Nor am I suggesting that everything must become a general, as that's clearly not a sustainable or desirable approach. What I am suggesting, however, is that we strike a balance between all of these factors, to recognize exactly what causes the cancer to take root, and do all we can to avoid suffering the same fate.
I may believe that banning generals was a mistake, but that doesn't mean I believe they should be left unregulated, either. So with that in mind, I've got a few choice suggestions.

First of all, generals should only be a last-resort measure, if all else fails.
Second, there should be a limit on how many generals are on the catalog. This limit should ideally be a soft one, as predicting the circumstances they're needed in is a tricky effort, at best.
Third, we should take it easy on our transplanting efforts from other sites. We should wait for the transplant to succeed, acclimate, and integrate, for at least a few months.
Fourth, we should not create a hostile environment on our main board that necessitates gratuitous amounts of generals in the first place, as makeshift shelters against shills and shitposting, or harboring delusions of generals being necessary for OC creation. I believe our mods have this in hand, but it bears saying: I'd rather not have a repeat of /mlp/.
Fifth, do not be afraid to merge and axe generals that become cancerous or extremely slow, particularly ones that become belligerent and hostile. A tumour that functions as a facsimile of a lung is still a tumour, and needs to be treated or removed as necessary.

>>3307
Exactly why I argue they are are not a general, but are rather a long running thread. Mind you, a general is meant to just be a long running thread, but 95% of so called generals are just shitfests.

>>3307
Correct, that is why I state at the end that it should be left up and other threads be made to encourage trying out the site voluntarily. It shouldn’t be a forced to be removed and if the content makers refuse to try out the site, that is their decision. We shouldn’t force this to happen, definitely.

>>3310
We should encourage further integration though. I'll be damned if my politics/pony board has a ghetto filed with minorities in it.

>>3311
Then damned you will be, unless you want minorities mixing in with everything causing a division. The best solution should be a slow process of integration by which they will want to be site users and not a minority.

>>3312
That's exactly what I want. Strong arming them into complying with what we want will help nobody. I just want to see them interact with the rest of the board. However long that takes is irrelevant, so long as it happens.

>>3313
Correct, they need to see that the rest of the board is just as interesting and entertaining to participate in. But telling them that they are a ghetto and need to be removed is not the best step. The best is to leave them for now and introduce more threads that get them invested in what we have to offer. Once that happens, they may drop the general on their own terms as the whole board is more enjoyable,

>>3301
By that same logic I could say I refuse to post if /af/ stays and thus anything and everything violates rule 3.
>>3303
Well, regardless on how a general forms the reason why they end up as such is because they are broad. This makes anons able to go to them for everything which is what makes them devolve into /b/ tier shitposting. Otherwise you are on point.
>>3304
>been here longer than you, pal
Speaking of projecting, and "I generally skip over your posts show that you are either rarely on, or you are a fillyfag. If you still don't get it after this post then I really can't help you.
>1
Bullshit, anons post reaction images fucking everywhere based on whats reliant and what they like the most at the moment.
>2
I'm not arguing for this nor do I want to be the size of 4chan.
>3
Stupid arguement its like saying I should do whats always good for the economy even if a bunch of kikes are going to get the money.
>4
Misatribution faggot, I'm only talking about this because someone atributes AF with /mlpol/ which I said I don't and I see how little they've integrated as a problem.
>5
Le spirt arguement. Great, job faggot its pretty much like saying WE. I can dislike generals for different reasons then you do.
>6
I'm not arguing for anything besides that its a fucking problem faggot. Your projecting fear where it doesn't belong. I didn't make this thread "ANON FILLY IS SHIT" I made it because someone disagreed with me and I've been thinking this is a problem for a while and wanted to voice it. Everything else is just you projecting you absolute brainlet.
>>3306
Yeah should have made the more clear I guess. I'm just saying that its a problem, and that the anons from the board should read this and understand that we as hosts do expect them to work on integration with our community. That is the problem and I don't see any real solution to it.

>>3315
If you choose to refuse to post whether you declare it or not is your decision; rule 3 does not apply

>>3316
Exactly anon!

>>3317
If you say "No /af/" then Rule 3 applies. R u trolling?

>>3318
No I'm saying rule 3 does not mean that rule 9 cannot exist, which is what you original argument was.

>>3319
But again we return to the fact that the rules presumed to remain on 4chan, where such as /ptg/ would/could be an issue. Being as though /af/ is banned on 4chan not dissimilar to mlpol its self, the general reception seems to have accepted that even if it is in violation (ish) of one of the rules, it can be excused due to content, traffic, and theme.
Tl;dr Rule 3 not as a ruling, but as a statement of intent

>>3320
>it can be excused due to content, traffic, and theme
Whatever mental loops you need to go through to make it work in your head anon.
I'm just saying that the rules don't contradict and their assimilation is a problem. I accepted their general thread here at first because it was a happening but I don't consider it to be one anymore and I am disappointed they haven't worked harder to do more to assimilate.

What the hell is even that thread about?
And why avatarfag is talking about chan etiquette?
What is even the thought behind removing general, people who participated in it won't just start to be more active elsewhere, most people come here for fun not because of some mission. If you tell them to fuck off or start doing something that they don't really want to do (because if they wanted to participate in threads outside of their generals they would just do it) they would probably just go away.

I don't even really see why generals are bad, they're just places that gather people who are interested in certain things, and not the others.
If someone comes to /mlp/ for certain pony why would that person be interested in discussing other things or in integrating with those who don't share their interest?
If someone comes here to read about syria habbenings why would that person be interested in discussing murican politics or green filly?
Of course at some point they can turn into bumpfests but I still don't see issue unless board is so popualr that those constantly bumped generals just slide normal threads. We certainly aren't in that position.

>>3322
Read the thread faggot.

>>3323
I'm doing it and I still don't see why generals are bad.
You have 30 people who are interested in drawing dicks, so they create thread about drawing dicks, then they're gonna make another and another. Of course they could talk about drawing dicks in some other thread, for example some for all drawfags, but it's a lot more convinient for them to do it in their own place, where they don't have people doing other things so they can just focus on their dicks. And if you kill their general it of course can lead to the outcome where they enrich some other thread and everyone lives in peace. It can also lead to situation where they invade some other thread and turn it into dickthread, or they simple can leave the board in search of new promised land.

And it also means that people who aren't into drawing dicks don't need to see it.
General is formed around some community, when community dies general turns into zombie, but still, even zombie generals aren't really a problem unless it's just so much of them that they drown everything else.

>>3324
Congrats you just explained every thread that exists, people go into them if they like them and ignore them if they don't.
I was hoping you'd read the thread already but since you didn't read >>3287 and >>3290
Burden of proof isn't on me for why generals are bad since a super majority came to a consensus on April 2nd.

>>3324
I think the main concern was a lack of participation in the board as a whole. I don’t see much of a problem as long as we are making content here that is interesting and encourage others to participate. It is none of our business if they stay in a general or come to the rest of the board. The key will be to keep the generals from spreading to a point of no return by making nearly every thread a general.

>>3325
I don’t want to be rude, but every time you say that, it just sounds like you don’t know why it should be that way, you just know people said it shouldn’t be that way. While I agree that generals are not desirable, the ones we have are useful for the time being. The problem will slowly die off as the users will slowly explore the whole board as we encourage participation in new threads. That or there will be those generals there forever, but I guess that won’t be bad if we keep more from sneaking in.

>>3326
So, in other words...
>OP is a faget?

Still a decent discussion, though.

>>3326
>I don’t want to be rude, but every time you say that, it just sounds like you don’t know why it should be that way, you just know people said it shouldn’t be that way.
Well the end reason why I don't is because the reason people are okay or not okay with generals is multifaceted. Some are against them because they become bumped blanks or are contentless. This would be the /mlp/ argument. The reason non-happening generals didn't last long if at all on /pol/ was because /pol/ is too fast for them so I thought this wasn't the main reason we originally came to this conclusion, although it seems to be the main argument now. The main reason I liked the idea was because it would be colonies or ghettos from forming on our board like /ptg/ is on /pol/. It forces anons to engage with the main community and doesn't let leddit tier colonies be set up. Which is my problem with anonfilly, its a colony of some cross posters but as of now I'd say most like to, and reasonably so, stick with their own. But there are a lot of reasons to be against them, and like I said a lot of anons were against them when we made these rules so for anons that are for it have to explain why they want it rather then me having to defend it.

>>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