/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.