/qa/ - Questions and Answers

>>6135
Isn't this kind of brainstorming called "deconstruction" by the commies?

>>6137
I don't follow.

Generals on 4chan's /mlp/ were a symptom of a fast board flooded with low-quality threads. A few content creators made content for audiences who'd bump the thread over and over just to keep it on the front page for as long as possible. Faggots spent their free time refreshing their favourite generals endlessly amd posting in them until it's time to move on to the next thread's edition of the same topic. This site is much slower than /mlp/ and higher quality so the only reason for a general explicitly called a general to exist is to store a lot of similar thread concepts within the same thread. One thread for posting greentext and getting feedback keeps things better organized than thirty generals for writing about specific ponies or fetishes or memes all competing for the front page and maximum attention.

>>6138
OP wants to put on trial the very foundation of /mlpol/

>>6137
No, deconstruction by the commies is when they look at something and try to find a weak link in its armour they can attack loudly to try and discredit the whole thing. Like mocking traditional family values because it gives women the role of mother when women would rather have the role of a prostitute whoring herself out to rich men for profit while being paid by lesser (in her eyes) men to exist through taxes and onlyfans. It's an inherently negative thing as commies never try to deconstruct things they like.

Deconstruction by writers is when they say "if superman existed he would probably be a cunt" or "if superman existed it would suck to be superman" or "if superman faces a new villain every week in each new issue how effective is the justice system and why are so many people criminals?", seriously analyzing ideas other stories will take for granted to get new story ideas and twists on old formulas.

>>6141
>No, deconstruction by the commies is when they look at something and try to find a weak link in its armour they can attack loudly to try and discredit the whole thing.
Well, it looks to me like >>6135 is exactly about that.

>>6137
I just did my best to represent every opinion I've seen so far in other threads without leaning any particular way.
>>6140
>very foundation of /mlpol/
If what you mean to say is that you like the rule as it is, and you think it's an important foundational policy for the function and culture of /mlpol/, that is certainly a very good point. If you'd like to elaborate further, please do.
>put on trial
It's just a meta policy discussion on the designated policy discussions board. There's no pressure.

>>6143
>There's no pressure.
It begins like that to suddenly turn into an unending rant for "CHANGE".

>>6142
>>6144
Come on, m8. It's not like that. I'd really prefer it that you tell me more about why you think the rule is good as is than feel offended that we're talking about it in the first place.

>>6145
In some circles what you want to push is called subversion, in others heresy.

>>6146
Okay, m8. I honestly don't give a shit what you think of me. If you have a better argument than baseless accusations of malignance, be my guest to express yourself. If not, politely piss off.

>>6147
I am wondering.
Are you applying here a new course of Critical Imageboard Theory.

>>6148
>muh buzzwords
Make a fucking argument, nigger! I literally only made this thread because the other one was too full of shit-flinging to be productive.
Are you going to react this way in every goddamn thread on /qa/? You're acting like a goddamn corndog-spamming /jp/sie trying to shut down discussion because he's infuriated that anyone would dare to use this board for its intended purpose instead of your own personal shitposting zone.

If you want to know my personal opinion on the matter: it's pretty much neutral. I agree that the rule is indeed a foundational rule of /mlpol/. I was there when the rule was made, and I strongly agreed with it at the time. I only wonder if the rule is really helpful to us right now, because a lot has changed since the dawn of the site and several notable exceptions to the rule are sitting on the board.
I think its worth discussing because I want to hear everyone else's opnions on the matter, including yours.

>>6149
>I want to hear everyone else's opnions on the matter, including yours.
All right here it is mine:
Drop it!
I'm not a naive child, I know very well where this line of thought goes.

>>6150
>Drop it!
That's not an argument.
I will continue the discussion, despite your protests. I hoped you'd be a voice representing why we should keep things as is, but I guess I expected too much of you.
Since you're clearly too retarded to talk about it yourself, allow me to a list of actual arguments for maintaining the status quo:
>We should leave rule #8 as is because we've always had it and it worked fine for four years
>We should leave rule #8 as is because we should stay true to the foundational concepts of /mlpol/
>We shouldn't change anything because we haven't discussed it enough
>We shouldn't change anything because I am satisfied with how things are
>We shouldn't do anything to rule #8 because i don't see how doing so would improve the site
>We shouldn't allow generals because it might enable discord trannies to set up commie enclaves and flood the site with undesireables
>We shouldn't allow more generals because there are no more generals on /mlp/ or /pol/ worth having
>We shouldn't enforce rule #8 any moreso than it is because I like the current generals on /mlpol/
>We shouldn't enforce rule #8 any more because removing those threads could cost us users
>Rule #8 is actually being enforced accurrately because I don't consider the long-running threads on this board to be "generals"
>Perhaps rule #8 isn't being enforced, but I don't consider that to be an issue worth acting on
All of these are good points for leaving things as they are. Shutiing down the discussion itself is not.

>>6151
>Shutiing down the discussion itself is not.
You want "change", I don't.

My say is only adding clarification. As its currently implemented by staff works.

>>6120 →
This provodes context and the reasoning behind the rule so it's not simply no generals, it's no generals that take the cues from cesspools.
The reason being is that the in action rule as it is works, the words it's under are simply being aligned together. To reduce the amount of the same question being asked, the point of its existence, the enforcement as it is, new freins or new fags looking around, and the continuation of horse pussy with politics.
Because /mlpol/ is a great place to be steadfast for the continuation is imperative.

>>6153
>I don't (want change)
That's a decent opinion. I'm not crazy about change either because I like this board and don't want to fuck it up for no good reason. I just think it's worth talking about, because other Anons have brought it up, and I'm open to hearing other sides.
>>6154
Thank you.

>>6154
I only wonder if the rule could be worded a bit more clearly, so as to not turn away any contentfags who might've been frequents to generals back on 4chins. Maybe let them know that some other communities could be welcomed, like /sg/ or the fillies.

>>6163
Whenever someone says "no generals" they often end up clarifying they only hate cancerous activity-sapping bumpfest generals addicted to time on the front page. Maybe the "no generals" rule should instead say "generals that become shit will be deleted, make content instead of bumping it while asking for more content"?

>>6174
Maybe it could be worth it to further clarify what constitutes as a permissable general vs a cancerous one.

>>6183
Good generals create stages for contentfags to post their content upon to get feedback that can enhance their skills.

Gay generals stagnate for months, yet still try their hardest to take up space on the front page through constant bumping. While a good general is a place to discuss ideas and create new content, a trash general is a place for low-effort content aggregation under a gimmicky thread title.

The sooner faggoted generals hit bump limits, the sooner its users can move on to the next thread all so when it eventually hits Bizarre Waifus Number 50 or Girly Man Manly Girl Fetish Thread Number 200 the thread's bumpfags can feel like a part of something greater than themselves.

>>6183
I bet a lot of generals on 4/mlp/ would bump themselves less often if they moved here. Bet they'd enjoy being able to post whatever sexual greentexts they want. Wasn't there a "flank worship general" on /mlp/ once?

>generals
Here we go again.
If some generals are so annoying to some, why those fags don't post new threads of their liking? Huh?

>>6186
While I'm waiting for my comprehension to kick in have this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYivyUfarws

>>6186
They do, and that's what's going on.
The no generals rule is akin to rules 4,5,6,7,8 to preserve overall site quality, and counters indirect shilling as a happenstancial consequence. That is the unthinking npc mobs.
As such the no generals rule eliminates a footfold for bots to spam the roughly same message over and over as false users.
Also allows threads to die when the time has come.
Not only that, but also encourages resurrection with new material and or insights.

>>6188
So you want the threads you don't like to die.
The problem with that is that some fags like to post more related material when shows up. From my point of view that's a win for the bread richness and the board in general.

>>6189
I think we're saying the same thing here. All threads should be filled with wonderious, mundane and things inbetween.
All threads will die at some point. How they die is the question. When they'll live again is another.
Each a mark in history telling a tale of today in the past.
If I despise a thread I'll make my objections known if my objections are valid. If I love a thread I'll try to help with my meager time and abilities.
I'll poke and see if they'll play or be dead in the water. If it's time I ought to spend there. I'll even try multiple times if the circumstances are favorable.
If I have nothing at all I'll say nothing 'till I do have something.
Or if I ought or ought not to do things.

>>6188
Threads don't exactly die quickly here either, what with the enormous bump limits and overall slow board speed.

>>6188
>footfold for bots to spam the roughly same message over and over as false users
Wouldn't bots be rather easy to notice on a board this slow?

>>6196
There is a protocol in place that is ordinarily nullified, and is enabled only in the event of a massive spam attack. The site is quite safe and secure, code wise. And yes, they are easy to spot, which is why you dont often see them, as they were spotted

A thing I think about the no-generals rule i that I feel like it's misleading in a way that might have limited out userbase in some ways. We made the "no generals" rule based on a meme, but in practice the rule has really been "no low-quality bumpfests withot content". We've allowed general threads such as /sg/, /rwss/, /filly/, etc. Even things like the write thread, the Jewish crime thread, and the "random news thread" (especially that one) could be considered generals. Generals have a bad rap, but they're still modes of content creation in their own way.
I feel like the rule could be revised or clarifie clarified in such a way that it's a bit more welcoming to threads that we might actually want here, so it doesn't just turn them away without asking. Perhaps some generals from /pol/, /mlp/ or other boards could benefit us.

>>6535
>clarify "no generals"
An excellent idea, and one that would not require a change in function, just in wording.

Ngl, I only skimmed the thread.
What HAS(?) been omitted from the arguments is OVER-generalized threads that consume possible discussion threads.
Imagine, a smol habbening. It could be made into a separate thread, and get 20-30 posts, or because its 'on topic' it goes thrown into the 'general news' thread; ideally it gets 3 replies.
Over-generalized thread are a lazy cancer. They encourage the least amount of effort and consideration, and end up overshadowed because genuine content gets coupled with unrelated shit, so that only a person who wants to see alot of unrelated shit ends up seeing the post, cuz buried etc in a non-specific 'general'

In a way, its a perversion of rule 11. In that if one checks the catalog and finds a thread that 'maybe' aligns, are they not entitled to post a new thread or are they obligated to post to the super-general general, cuz rule 11?
Like, If I posted a "for everything" general, would everyone be obligated to post everything to it?
Clearly not, so why is there a 'general news' general? Theres a thread for that, and if not theyre really easy yo make.

>>7154
>OVER-generalized threads that consume possible discussion threads.
This, tbh. There are some threads that have unacceptably-broad topics that actually discourage new threads from being made.
I think "Random News thread" is one of these generals. As a /pol/ offshoot, /mlpol/ is supposed to be made up largely of "random news": having a general thread pointlessly compresses what could be new topics and quashes conversation of said topics.
There's also "Rule 11", which implicitly (but not explicitly) discourages redundant threads. Imo, semi-redundant threads should be fine so long as they're slightly different in topic or specificity, but when a dozen "general" threads exist for various main topics, Anons who are trying to follow that rule find themselves throwing what could have been fresh conversations on the general pile.
>>7155
Which I see you have already addressed before I could finish posting. I mostly agree with your sentiments.

Imo, I think rule #9 is even more important than rule #11. Although redundant threads can split attention and cause confusion, the worse threads ultimately just slide in the end. Generals, however, can promote stagnation and decline in quality, and they were explicitly something we set out to escape when we made this board.
It was fine when we made exceptions for /sg/ and Anonfilly (both exceptions were subject to debate before the decision was made), but since then the cancer of "Generals without the word general in the OP" has become deeply rooted in a way that I think hasn't been good for us over the years.

The absurdly long bump limits don't help either. After the second or third time it was extended, we've come to the point where threads last for months or even years before sliding, which causes them to become generals even if they weren't meant to be.

We made rule #9 for a reason. When are we going to start enforcing it?

>>7154
>Imagine, a smol habbening. It could be made into a separate thread, and get 20-30 posts, or because its 'on topic' it goes thrown into the 'general news' thread; ideally it gets 3 replies.
I've seen this dozens of times, and it drives me crazy. I'm glad at least somebody agrees. Generals like that are destroying new opportunities and incentives for Anons to start conversations in new threads.
I've even reported that thread for being a general, but apparently it has an exception for some reason.

>>7156
>the cancer of "Generals without the word general in the OP
Fucking this

>>7157
Its ALMOST like staff has NEVER really abided by the established rules and doctrines, you might say. Nothing in that, Im aure.

>>7157
>I've seen this dozens of times, and it drives me crazy. I'm glad at least somebody agrees.
You're are correct and yet it has a big drawback, the general you hate groups all related stuff in one single bread, and that is a plus.

>>7161
Only if ur lazy. Overboard alone prevents that from being an issue, in that divergent threads are couoled and itemized.
Centalization of ideas is bad.

>>7161
>groups all related stuff in one single bread, and that is a plu
HOW is that a plus? It's not like we don't have room on the catalog for new threads.
Grouping all that stuff into a single thread makes it so that conversatios that would otherwise have 20-50 posts end up only having 4-5 posts before they're buried and nobody ever sees them.

>>7163
>making threads is easy
This, I've almost made a dozen threads simply cuz pocket dial. If my pocket (lewd) can do it, anon has no excuse

>>7162
>>7163
>>7164
So, I'm guessing the catalog is filled with your breads?

>>7165
Have you looked? It isnt like Im hard to spot

>>7165
Some of them are mine, yeah.

>>7163
>HOW is that a plus?
Making threads on the fly risk to fill the catalog with breads with only 2 or 4 posts. That is a sorry look for a catalog.

>>7168
This isnt 4chan. Breads dont fly off the catalog by the second

>>7169
>Breads dont fly off the catalog by the second
Exactly my point. We would get stuck with dead breads everywhere.

>>7170
Hence why bread creation vs general stagnation is preferred.
More breads means kess stagnation. This isnt hard.

>>7171
All right, post them, if they interesting no doubt poners will replay.
Personally I will post new breads only when I have enough material to pad them, or is a very hot habbening.

>>7172
And I have been where you are, knowing what is likely(not inevitable) to result. Good luck, your faikure is NOT assured, so do your best.

>>7168
It's even worse for the catalog to be full of threads from 6-8 months ago.
Fresh threads are a good thing.

>>7170
We're already stuck with dead breads, because we don't get enough new ones to slide them.

So old (conglomerate) threads get 0-10 posts per interest point.
Posting a new thread depending in content is 0 to whatever.
So ideally
>HAPPENING!
>Lots of people want to discuss the thing
>New thread about thing only is made
Or
>HAPPENING!
>It happens and is a welcome addition to HAPPENING
<HAPPENING
<New thread only
<Nobody replies
Now so multiple duplicates of the same happening EVENT is a bit over kill and makes sense.
As things are there isn't a problem that I can tell.
If you have depper insight or discussion topics about a thing nested in an aggregate to pull out into deeper indepth discussion/shitposting the set up already supports the logical step of doing the thing.

>>7176
What I'm trying to get at with what I posted here is. Make the threads, cross link >> stuff credited for whatever purpose. Some things lend itself for greater user engagement which have its time and place.
Failing is an expected part of life as is failed threads so post what is right in your heart or head and hopefully both.

>>7177
>Some things lend itself for greater user engagement which have its time and place.
This.
Topics that get their own threads consistently get more replies and better overall discussion than equally-relavant topics in the random news thread.
I've posted both ways over the years. New threads always invoke more engagement.

Yeah, this is why I was unsure if I wanted to make another writefag support circle after the first one but people seemed to like it so I continued. Even when the first one was create, I was unsure if I liked it tbh. If you read the OP you can kinda see that if you read between the lines.

I also like to not point fingers at the mods. Like, I guess we can discuss who is responsible but and so on but I'm way more intrested in fixing this. Reagardless, I can't really say anything consider the generals I posted in the past an that fact that I haven't pointed this out much. Do what you want.

I also think it's important to define what a general is, even if it's a bit vague. I think I have come up with a good way to describe what it is. For example, GG has ponder in his last two review OPs if his threads aren't generals, which I would say that they are not. It would have been if it was a, "Pony reviews thread," but it isn't. It's specifically him reviewing, often one specific story for each thread.

So here's my rule of thumb for what defines a general: If you can split it up into different subject matters that people are intrested in, then it's not a general. Or something to that effect.
How would one split up GG's threads, into two or more threads? I don't see how it would be done?

The same goes with Anonfilly. Would we split it up into only the drawfag parts or the writefags parts of the character? Not really right. People come there for Anonfilly first and foremost. Images make themselves known next to text so neither bury the other, either but you seldom come for just one either way.

It's when we get into Covid we start to ask questions. I'd say it's almost like semi or something because you can split that thread into a few smaller threads that deals with different aspects of Covid, in fact we have another thread up right now that could have just been baked into covid but isn't.

Worse are threads like my writefag circle, general news and such. Comming from a good place sure, but what is said here it the consequnce, >>7154 imo.

This is partly why, I been think of having another type of thread(s) replace my writefag threads.
I was thinking of having a weekly prompt thread as in, I post a thread where you post greens about the prompt described in the thread and then I move onto a new thread for the next week. I believe in it much but I haven't started one yet because my min has been on the synergy cup thread.

>>7179
I didn't want to call out the writefag circle because for all intents and purposes it seems to generate some content, but perhaps individual write threads would be better.

>>7179
>I also think it's important to define what a general is
I agree.
As far as things go, the term "general" only refers to threads that have"general" in their name (to the point that it will be edited to "Happening"), but that's obviously not a clear definition.

If its not a current event, but it IS a recurring thread, surprise, its a general

>>7182
I don't know what the definition is for generals but a recurring thread isn't a problem, imo, (GG's review threads for example) however threads that are "general" instead of "specific" in it's topic.

The writefag general is a good place for writers who don't want their own threads, but the news general should only be for minor news topics. Major stories tend to get buried and forgotten by the minor news topics once they are no longer visible on the Overboard.

>>7159
I don't really think it's even that much of a question of enforcement as it is that that site sort of just collectively unwittingly accepted long-lasting threads turning into de-facto generals so gradually that it wasn't easy to notice.
Which is why I want to raise awareness of the topic so that we can decide on our own terms how we want to proceed.

>>7185
Well, that gets into the individual apporaches to staffing. Without criticism, some have a hands off approach and some have a hands on approach.
Neither is 'wrong' on its face, and in hindsight one can always think of a 'better way'.
I would say - if I were in the position to say (which Im not) - that more effoet could be exlended, as well as a but of discernment, to discourage blanket threads like the "News" thread. Its far too general, and runs afoul of the spirit (but NOT the intent) of rule 11.

>>7186
This thread is one of those /qa/ discussions that never really got the staff to weigh in after the OP. Maybe it's about time we get an official response so a solution to these problems can be taken on.

HEY, MODS! WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Posting pony ass to make sure they see it.

>>7187
Since you call law enforcement to assist you, I have no choice but to intercede.
Fuck off with your attempt to make changes. I don't care how you spin it. I oppose upsetting the status quo.

>>7188
I want to status quo to go back to what it was when we actually had consistent news threads.

>>7187
I don’t know; I’ll review the question when I have more time. I don’t care much for the “random news thread” and it’s potentially chilling effect on new thread creation, but I’m not aware of any other threads being potential problems.

>>7190
>I’ll review the question when I have more time.
Basically what I wanted for now. Thanks for the consideration.

I would say that some of the threads that have become de-facto generals or close to generals would be the ones that have titles formatted like this:
>"[1-2 word topic] Thread"
Emphasis on the word "thread" in the title, as if to imply "this is the place we talk about X". Call a thread "X thread" isn't all that different from calling it "X general". Threads worded in this format tend to have minimal OP material and cover a broad topic that could have had its own series of threads pertaining to separate discussions of that topic.
That's not to say that these threads are bad, or that they're necessarily even generals, but I would still put them in a similar category to a type of thread that has pushed the board towards habitual de-facto generals.
A non-general thread is usually worded in such a way that:
>asks a question
>makes a statement
>has a prompt
>links materials or links of some sort of some sort
>Requests something
>Dumps images
>begins greentext
>Is an unapologetic shitpost.
Threads that only have titles of "[Topic Thread]" threaten to act as "[Topic General]".
That's not to say that those threads shouldn't exist or that they're necessarily bad (except for the random news thread, I hate that), but they're still in the "close to general" category. I wouldn't reccomend removing those threads, but maybe we could encourage OPs to reconsider titles to continue discussions in those threads once they hit bump limit, so that their next iterations are based on more specific discussions.

At the same time, I feel like some users want to keep general or semi-general style threads, so it calls into question if the rule against generals is something we want to keep or something that we want to amend, because as it stands there are many official and unofficial exceptions to the rule, and I don't think users would necessarily respond well to sudden full enforcement of it either without a full discussion and/or consensus on it either.
Some people have said that opening it up to more generals might enable more pony generals to move here, like anonfilly, but I'm skeptical of that...

>>7192
>At the same time, I feel like some users want to keep general or semi-general style threads
Given the low /mlpol/ traffic, I think it is the best trade-off. Splattering the catalog with new threads that end up with a just a few responses it is very bad look.

>>7193
>Splattering the catalog with new threads that end up with a just a few responses
That's what it was 4/1/17, and it wasn't a problem then. Why would it be a problem now?
>bad look
Who are you trying to impress? If there are a lot of dead threads, make new threads to slide the old ones, or bump the topics you like to the top of the catalog. That's a healthy rate of flow for a site.

I would say that letting the catalog stagnate with months-old threads and generals is an equally bad look. Not only that, we still have the catalog splattered with dead threads that have been there for months, because of the abysmal rate of thread creation.
New threads encourage new conversation, and when those threads die you make more threads that slide them.
>Given the low /mlpol/ traffic
Traffic could be a lot higher if we had more specific threads instead of generals.

...Idk though; I don't really know what to do. I just feel like we could do better than this.
At the very least, we could use some clarity in the matter.

>>7195
I dont disagree.
The problem is, for many/most of the 'oldfags', /mlpol/ has always been slow and theres a certain charm in that; one doesnt HAVE to lurk the site 24/7 to avoid missing out on gem threads.
And yet, the single greatest argument from potentjal users is "too slow". Thats not to attribute authenticity to their prospective userdom, just reiterating what has been said. So, a greater number of specific threads as opposed to generals would appear to appeal to a larger potential userbase. Emphasis on potential.
At the same time, it would also be in keeping with the professed intent of the policy/site.
Which begs the question: which is better, the devil you know or the devil you dont? Conventional strategy suggests the former, but thelatter has never been tried, and wat HAS been tried - while not unstable or insustainable - isnt working.

>>7196
>/mlpol/ has always been slow
We weren't always this slow. I remember 2017-2019 when threads got made every day, and not just when I was making them. I want to go back.
>theres a certain charm in that
The charm eludes me, tbh. I'm not saying I dislike it here, but it's not because of the low speed that I stay. I'd like it even more if we went back to our old speed.
>one doesn't HAVE to lurk the site 24/7 to avoid missing out on gem threads.
What gen threads? You mean the generals? Half the time conversations get squished under vaguely-related topics as the thread gets moving, so users miss out on commenting on particular topics if they don't browse that thread every day.
(another detriment of the long bump limits, imo)
>which is better, the devil you know or the devil you dont?
That's a false dichotomy. It wasn't always like this. We didn't always have de-facto generals. We weren't always this stagnated. We used to have new threads every day. We used to have random pony threads. It's not "the devil we know"; it's "the devil who moved into our basement 2 years ago and hasn't left because we don't want to talk about him and pretend we've gotten used to him".
All of these things I'm talking about are NEW THINGS that only became prominent in the past 2-2.5 years. They just occurred so gradually that most of us didn't notice them or didn't bother having real discussions about them as they occurred because we thought things would just get better if we didn't say anything.
>the latter has never been tried
It has been tried. It was 5 years ago, and it worked. It's what prevented heat-death of this community in its formative stages so we didn't die in the womb.

>>7197
>>missing out on gem threads
>what gen threads?
Nigger,....

>>7197
This, pretty much.

At this point I am suspecting this thread has been reactivated to stir shit again by the same faggot than the last time.
If so... KYS and burn your disgusting remains in the Everfree Forest.

>>7200
You must have not been paying attention if you think that's the case.

>>7202
>B-but, I just want to discuss an idea
Fetching mayhem and discord looks like a sport for that faggot. Not only he didn't learn, looks like he is enjoying it.
To try to change things in an autistic board is a very bad idea and not welcomed at all.

>>7203
>Fetching mayhem and discord
Where? The entire conversation has been self-contained, in the designated thread on the designated board.
>change things
Do you prefer it when things just change by themselves without anyone talking about it or approving it? We didn't always have generals.
>he is enjoying it
Literally who are you talking about, why do you think that, and how could you possibly even tell that.

And if you must know the context for why it was bumped, it's >>>/mlpol/349017 →
Partly to do with the fact that the problems that were discussed before have only gotten worse since.

>>7204
>Partly to do with the fact that the problems that were discussed before have only gotten worse since.
Every time you tried this stunt the post count went to the cleaners, you have been warned before about hurting the board and yet you are doing it again. Your malice is evident.

>>7205
How is talking about generals "hurting the board"? Are you implying that all posts to /qa/ somehow stifle conversation?
I don't believe that for even a second. Correlation does not imply causation, and it's 1:00 AM on a week day.
People have been posting to /qa/ since the board was first made. It's normal to have conversations about the site, and necessary for the community to function. That's why we made /qa/.

>>7205
You're only comparing site data from between today and last week. Not to mention Wednesday had more posts, and Thursday has only barely begun. That's not a representative sample size and does not prove anything.
If you want traffic to improve, go make some new threads.

>>7205
>>7207
And now that I look at it, it says we had MORE posts per day than last week on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, so your claim about this conversation somehow discouraging the rest of the board is totally unfounded.

>>7206
Yeah, that's silly. Maybe if the conversation was in a more requent thread but on a literal meta board, you can't be criticised for stifling conversation.

Besides, I believe in the point being raised and I like to discuss it, without any personal drama to squander it.

>>7209
>I believe in the point being raised and I like to discuss it, without any personal drama to squander it.
This.
I'm so tired of personal drama, and accusations/paranoia thereof, ruining good meta threads where the users should have the opportunities to voice opinions on important site issues.
People need to chill the fuck out.

Maybe the site is just too small? Petty personal disagreements regularly and easily lead to threads getting derailed.
It's not something that is ever going to change, given the nature of the site.

>>7187
>HEY, MODS! WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I think that's the best looking shot of Pinkie's ass I've ever seen on this board.

As to the actual question being discussed, I more or less agree that it would be better if people would just start a new thread for each major news event instead of just dumping it into the Random News thread. That's basically how things worked in the very beginning: happening threads usually included a link to an archived article along with a greentexted summary.

However, my memory might be fuzzy, but I seem to recall that people started complaining about there being too many news threads. People were starting threads about minor events that usually got few if any replies. The Random News thread was created as an all-purpose dumping ground for news events that were interesting enough to merit posting, but not significant or discussion-worthy enough to justify a dedicated thread. It seems like, over time, people just started getting lazy and dumping everything into the Random News Thread.

As to the more general "generals" issue, I honestly never quite understood why we had to have that rule in the first place. From what I recall, it was something that came from the /mlp/ side. /mlp/ anons felt that their board had divided into subcommunities, and everyone just stayed in their neverending threads and never interacted with the broader community. Since that's never been a problem on this site, the no-generals rule has always felt superfluous, so by and large we don't enforce it. Also, as has been brought up ITT, it's hard to define exactly what a "general" is in the first place. We've had the Syria General for nearly as long as the site has existed, and Anonfilly has been here since like fall of 2017 or thereabouts. Nobody has ever complained about those threads existing as far as I'm aware.

In any event, this seems like another issue that ought to be settled directly by the community, rather than by altering the site rules through some arcane parliamentary procedure. One of the founding principles of /mlpol/ was supposed to be that it be largely self-policing; ie, the community sets its own board culture and deals with interlopers by shitposting them into oblivion. It was part of the appeal we made to Hiro, actually, since 4chan staff at the time was saying they didn't want to give us a board because they didn't have anyone who could moderate it; we argued that we didn't need moderation because we could just police ourselves. The whole point of this place is supposed to be that we are a free-speech antithesis to over-moderated spaces like Reddit and Facebook and whatnot, so in general I think we should keep the written rules few and mostly informal. That's just my two cents.

I would personally be glad if people started posting news topics as their own threads instead of just using one big thread to dump the news in, but if people don't want to do it that way I can't really force them.

>>7197
>We weren't always this slow. I remember 2017-2019 when threads got made every day, and not just when I was making them. I want to go back.
This is true and I can sympathize; 2017 was a fun era and I miss it sometimes. Personally, though, I don't think enough people appreciate just how great it really is that this place is even still here. When I volunteered to be a mod, I honestly expected this place to be gone by the end of the summer. We had a lot of energy and a lot of posters in the beginning, but we also started life as a joke, and we were bound to lose momentum the longer it went on. When you consider that MLP isn't even on the air anymore and "bronies" haven't been relevant since 2013 or so, it's pretty impressive that we're still here 5 years after the fact.

>It wasn't always like this. We didn't always have de-facto generals. We weren't always this stagnated. We used to have new threads every day. We used to have random pony threads.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but my response to this issue is the same every time: if you want to see more activity, post more. If you want more of a particular type of content, post more of that type of content.

These meta discussions are fine if people want to get these issues out in the open, but the bottom line is that starting a thread to talk about how the site ought to be this way or that way is going to be far less effective than just posting the kind of content you want to see posted. Frankly I don't think "generals" are the problem; in fact if more of /mlp/'s popular generals had a concurrent thread here we might even get more activity. Here's a couple of things to put it in perspective:

I started the /bale/ thread (Beginning and Low-Effort art) partly in response to the earlier complaint that there isn't enough pony stuff on the main board. It was a successful thread on /mlp/, I liked the idea, and I thought it might encourage more people to create doodles and projects and whatnot. Thus far, I'm the only person who has actually contributed anything to it the SFM pinup art in there is mine. I set aside about six hours of my time every week to run movie night, I've completely lost count of all the image edits and shitposts and whatever I've posted here, and I don't even want to think about how many precious hours I've squandered reading and analyzing horrendous fanfiction so I can post hopefully witty commentary on it. Not trying to guilt-trip anyone, but I put in a fair amount of creative work around here, so if the site's slowing down it certainly isn't my fault.

I was actually in the process of writing green for Sven's prompt thread when I noticed this was getting bumped and I figured I should make a response. So at least for me, this meta-discussion is actually diverting energy away from content. I'm certainly not trying to discourage you guys from starting these meta-discussions about the site, but it might actually be more constructive to take that same energy and put it into actual posting.

>>7212
>Make content to get activity
That's how I see it as well. This is basically the main problem. I still think that the no generals rule is good but having said that, I mean that in the terms of gardening. If you have to choose between watering a flower or a give it some fertlizer or something else, then the water takes priority.

That's why I don't want shitflinging. I want to discuss this without this taking to much emotional effort and energy or people feeling blamed for stuff.

Even if we enforce some sort of no general rule, it's not gonna solve the site slowness problem. I'd would argue it would improve it sure, however, the biggest problem is the lack of constructive posting of content. In that regard, you defintely have nothing to feel bad about GG because you are one of the people who contribute the most and make this site what it is.

Basically, if we got like a few more GGs this site would really start to tract attention. In fact, if we were to fish with GG's thread as bait on mlp we'd probably catch many people's intrests right now. It is also certainly something that brings me back to this site among other things.

>>7212
Thanks for the response, Elway.
>happening threads usually included a link to an archived article along with a greentexted summary.
Yeah, Imo, that's the ideal non-general /pol/ thread.
>I seem to recall that people started complaining about there being too many news threads.
I don't remember that, tbh. Back in the early days, I made a lot of the news threads, but I don't recall people complaining about the quantity. It seems bizzare considering that would've been the time when people came from /pol/.
>People were starting threads about minor events that usually got few if any replies.
Hmmm, I guess there's a case to be made that certain kinds of threads would be "not worth our time", although I never really considered those to be a major problem because they'd simply slide to the bottom of the catalog when interest waned.
Although, they also tend to stay on the catalog for a pretty long time due to the relative slow speed of our board. Perhaps some might find that unsightly, but the bottom of the catalog has always been full of dead threads, so I personally don't have a problem with that.
>It seems like, over time, people just started getting lazy and dumping everything into the Random News Thread.
See, I feel like this can't be understated. Overtime, some posters have gradually gotten used to posting things in the generals, perhaps even to the point that making fresh threads even feels awkward for some people.
Imo, that sot of creeping board-wide attitude is potentially a symptom of stagnation, reminiscint of the lower periods of /pol/ and /mlp/ (which is part of why the no generals rule was added in the first place).
>I honestly never quite understood why we had to have that rule in the first place.
Well, that's why this thread exists. To analyze what purpose it serves and consider the impacts it has had on our community.
That's fair, tbh. If you want to know the context, it was because the /mlpol/ constitution was drafted on a shitpost thread on the high-speed memesplosion that was the 4chan /mlpol/ board, not in context of an independent site which would inevitably be many times slower than the original April Fool's joke.
(Not saying we should ignore it just because "Muh founding fathers didn't have AR-13s!"; I'm just reminding people of the historical context.)
>From what I recall, it was something that came from the /mlp/ side. /mlp/ anons felt that their board had divided into subcommunities, and everyone just stayed in their neverending threads and never interacted with the broader community.
Yeah, that was really it. When /mlpol/ was created, /mlp/ was at a historic lowpoint, and the go-to scapegoat for board stagnation was the generalfags who only posted to a few threads (although, to be fair, a lot of them were DB tourists with no interest in the rest of the board). It might have been a hastily-created rule.
I feel like the "no generals" rule might have actually caused us to miss out on some pony content, because for all that's fair, a lot of those pony general threads are actually good and promote content creation while encouraging and attracting content creators. I would say that Anonfilly is an example, in addition to several of the non-cancer /mlp/ gens that are up right now.
>Since that's never been a problem on this site, the no-generals rule has always felt superfluous, so by and large we don't enforce it.
I agree, tbh. Maybe it's due to be amended if nobody really wants it to be enforced.
My only real problem is certain broad-topic threads, like the news thread. I'm not vehemently against generals, and I think a few generals could actually be good for this site, especially pony ones.
>We've had the Syria General for nearly as long as the site has existed, and Anonfilly has been here since like fall of 2017 or thereabouts. Nobody has ever complained about those threads existing as far as I'm aware.
Iirc, when /sg/ moved here, there was a pretty long discussion here on /qa/ about if an exception to the rule should be made, which was pretty broadly agreed upon. That discussion was brought up again when we adopted Anon Filly, with the same conclusion.
Anonfilly and /sg/ are both examples of generals that have been well received by the community, and were given explicit exceptions. Perhaps those exceptions should be extended to other threads, or maybe they shouldn't need threads in the first place.
>In any event, this seems like another issue that ought to be settled directly by the community, rather than by altering the site rules through some arcane parliamentary procedure. One of the founding principles of /mlpol/ was supposed to be that it be largely self-policing; ie, the community sets its own board culture and deals with interlopers by shitposting them into oblivion.
This is a fair assertion. It's also the one I think people are most comfortable with, although with no guarantee of results. I think a couple other anons in the threads have been disappouinted by what they determine to be insufficient staff action, but imo i personally think this is best addressed by the community itself, so long as we're all able to discuss the issue in a civil and productive manner.
On the other note though, I think it's also important for the rules that are important enough to be written to also be clear, since a lot of posters still take care to follow the rules and might be dissuaded if the rules are left vague. Some Anons might have wanted to make generals all this time and refrained from doing so because it was against site policy that they wanted to honor, so maybe the board could benefit from rule #9 being clarified to say that exceptions to the rule exist and what might define those exceptions.
That's just the other side of the argument though. I wouldn't consider any offcial changes to be of top priority.

>>7212
>>7214
>so in general I think we should keep the written rules few and mostly informal
I agree. It's not a top-down system; it's a community-driven system. That's why we have this board to talk about site matters.
>I would personally be glad if people started posting news topics as their own threads instead of just using one big thread to dump the news in, but if people don't want to do it that way I can't really force them.
I agree with this as well. Although certain kinds of generals may perpetuate stagnation, removing them entirely wouldn't necessarily improve the board if those posters do not make their own threads afterwards. You can lead a pony to water, but you can't make her drink.
> Personally, though, I don't think enough people appreciate just how great it really is that this place is even still here.
Perhaps I was a little harsh about that earlier. I'm amazed this practical joke of a board still exists too. I guess I was just frustrated.
>Frankly I don't think "generals" are the problem; in fact if more of /mlp/'s popular generals had a concurrent thread here we might even get more activity.
I agree with this as well. I would welcome most of the /mlp/ generals to move here if they actually wanted to.
>These meta discussions are fine if people want to get these issues out in the open, but the bottom line is that starting a thread to talk about how the site ought to be this way or that way is going to be far less effective than just posting the kind of content you want to see posted.
You're right, tbh. I would just like people to think about these issues a bit more, because some of my past efforts to keep this board alive felt like like lonely, thankless endeavors....
I was pretty autistic on board back in 2017-2018. I was making dozens of posts per day, and in the most autistic cases sockpuppeted and astroturfed entire conversations to keep people engaged. It was cringe in hindsight, but I had a lot of time on my hands back then...
>It was a successful thread on /mlp/, I liked the idea, and I thought it might encourage more people to create doodles and projects and whatnot. Thus far, I'm the only person who has actually contributed anything to it
With this, I can sympathize. It's a demoralizing feeling, but don't let it deter you.
I've got my own community-engagement project I'm working on for the board, which I guess I should launch asap. It had to do with setting up a community-wide roleplaying network, although life's recent events have gotten in the way... Maybe i should make the thread about it anyway though.

Also, the "post ITT every time you visit" threads are low-effort bait and do nothing for the site beyond 'increasing the post count' while overall decreasing the post count. Seriously, there's no conducive reason for them

If we're going to keep having generals for the foreseeable future, can we at least have a soft etiquette that the political ones should have poster IDs? The political generals without poster IDs hardly ever have coherent conversations, and everyone deals with them for 700 posts because that's the thread with the topic at hand.

>>7798
>can we at least have a soft etiquette that the political ones should have poster IDs?
It only benefits the faggot having more proxies at hand. Any anon wanting ID can put his name in the Quickreplay's field. It is that easy.
>and everyone deals with them for 700 posts because that's the thread with the topic at hand.
KEK, that GALL of saying that.
Actually no one will make new threads or post even a single pony. Be the solution by participating by posting new threads and shitposting instead of complaining on other's threads while sitting and doing nothing. It is like you are here to be entertained instead or actively participating.

>>7799
I'm not that anon, but participating in what? A flat earth thread where one guy spams his facebook memes and ignores what's actually being argued? Nigger/tranny/jew hate thread #6969? Coronavirus thread that goes nowhere for 2 years?

I don't know why I personally keep coming back here. Stockholm Syndrome I guess.

>>7800
You could post in the soap thread or the mare fair thread
I'm pretty partial to those two

>>7801
A convention I will never be able to attend and a craft I have no real interest in

How about this compromise, since this keeps being brought back up constantly? Next time I see boomer meme spam, I ban the poster for three days each time until he gets it through his skull?

As for corona thread, it is about time for it to end as a general. I can agree to stopping that one. New discoveries about effects of the vaccine or policies that aim to return to lockdowns need their own threads. I much rather keep the flat earth thread so we don't have a wave of threads on that shit and I have to dig around for other content.

And as for complaining about content, fucking interact with the content that exists and make suggestions for anons if you can't make threads on your own. So many of my own threads get no engagement with no critique on how to change it to make it appealing. If you can't do this, then you get to deal with the current state of quality.