[ mlpol / qa / go / 1ntr / vx / sp / üb / a ] [ Overboard ] [ Statistics / Banlist / Search ] [ PonyX ] [ Policy / Store ] [ home ]

/go/ - Golden Oaks

Thread Repository
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
:
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1520260656196.png (1.55 MB, 2222x2222, 1493582670548.png)

3504f No.3280[View All]

Talk about shit that is related to our founding rules here, not else where.
96 posts and 48 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

6f23a No.3378

File: 1520803749076.png (315.85 KB, 1000x860, 1478592307352.png)

>>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.

cbd97 No.3379

File: 1520809910666.gif (541.78 KB, 744x618, Balkans_Animation_1800-200….gif)

>>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.

6f23a No.3380

>>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.

be5a0 No.3381

>>3280
Are raid threads allowed?

a22aa No.3382

>>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.

6f23a No.3383

>>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.

3de69 No.3384

>>3381
Threads about raids and raiding are allowed

a22aa No.3385

>>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.

6f23a No.3386

>>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.

be5a0 No.3387

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

a22aa No.3388

>>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?

dab1b No.3389

>>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.

f8ef9 No.3390

>>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.

f90be No.3391

>>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.

3de69 No.3392

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

f8ef9 No.3393

>>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.

f90be No.3394

>>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.

6f23a No.3395

File: 1520829381045-0.jpg (64.33 KB, 356x500, 23098439284.jpg)

File: 1520829381045-1.gif (1.24 MB, 609x400, 1249041894.gif)

File: 1520829381045-2.gif (504.15 KB, 503x503, 1435134534.gif)

File: 1520829381045-3.gif (1.29 MB, 760x540, 102587416573.gif)

File: 1520829381045-4.gif (2.08 MB, 450x374, 1497239334780.gif)

>>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.

a22aa No.3396

>>3395
You didn't answer the question.

6f23a No.3397

>>3396
Which one.

a22aa No.3398

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

f8ef9 No.3399

>>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.

6f23a No.3400

File: 1520833921914-0.png (155.4 KB, 900x776, 1112526525758.png)

>>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.

f8ef9 No.3401

>>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.

6f23a No.3402

File: 1520843184746.gif (688.84 KB, 733x533, 1517453509731.gif)

>>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.

f8ef9 No.3403

>>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.

dab1b No.3405

File: 1520869003725.png (717.71 KB, 1600x1083, 42851 - Lyra artist tenchi….png)


439f1 No.3406

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

c44cc No.3407

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

439f1 No.3408

>>3407
Fine.
0.0420 bitcoin

c44cc No.3409

>>3408
$9001
my final offer

439f1 No.3410

>>3409
1 whole Bitcoin

And maybe a Klondike bar if I'm feeling generous

ca1a8 No.3411

File: 1520909879713.jpg (151.31 KB, 368x375, 1500735684687.jpg)

>>3404
Um… I have my love to offer

c44cc No.3412

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

439f1 No.3413

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

e5c69 No.3414

File: 1520911819467.gif (1.39 MB, 480x480, 1504881300261.gif)

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!

c44cc No.3415

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

f90be No.3416

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

c44cc No.3417

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

e5c69 No.3418

File: 1520912367699-0.png (11 KB, 200x200, 1519011254100.png)

File: 1520912367699-1.png (1.72 MB, 888x1025, 1519245636078.png)

File: 1520912367699-2.png (152.72 KB, 1013x1000, 1519245979675.png)

File: 1520912367699-3.jpg (130.66 KB, 1013x1000, 1520627475290.jpg)

File: 1520912367699-4.png (189.35 KB, 1000x1000, 1520631301243.png)

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

c44cc No.3419

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

e5c69 No.3420

File: 1520912601797-0.jpg (62.88 KB, 400x416, 1519087636647.jpg)

>>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.

c44cc No.3421

>>3420
where is this link though?

e5c69 No.3422

>>3421
The same place as your soul.

c44cc No.3423

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

8becd No.3424

>>3423
Trips confirm this anon is not a ginger

e5c69 No.3425

File: 1520912972505-0.jpg (Spoiler Image, 1.06 MB, 4175x3635, 1504883571736.jpg)

>>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.

f90be No.3426

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

c44cc No.3427

>>3425
that sounds like bullshit I'm sorry

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

a22aa No.3428

File: 1520936272722.jpg (Spoiler Image, 7.79 KB, 274x200, 1520057072160.jpg)



[View All] (96 posts and 48 image replies omitted)
[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ mlpol / qa / go / 1ntr / vx / sp / üb / a ] [ Overboard ] [ Statistics / Banlist / Search ] [ PonyX ] [ Policy / Store ] [ home ]