/qa/ - Questions and Answers

>>7315
It's not bait. It's a question.
Wtf is going on?

>>7317
>implying
If you don't have the answer, just don't bother responding. It's not even bait, and somehow you're still biting it.

>>7320
You do realize that spamming "bait" won't make the thread go away, right?
It's staff policy to answer relevant questions posted here in a day: it will be answered. If you want to be part of the conversation surrounding it, just say what you have to say.

>>7321
>spamming
I'm not the same anon, the mod will confirm that.
On the other hoof, you should let it go. You are taking your butthurt too far.

>>7322
While I can confirm that, calling this bait isn't fair. It is something that is being discussed. Contributing arguments in favor or against the new posting pattern will help the solution be in your favor.

>>7322
>too far
How is asking a question "too far"?

>>7325
Meanwhile, you need to provide an argument as to why the new posting pattern should remain, so staff does not make a choice you disagree with, allowing us to have the best information before acting. Saying this is bait allows only arguments for returning things to how they were be up and leading us to act accordingly if we don't have better arguments.

>>7326
I'm just shidposting, boss. I don't actually think he's baitin', just look at the filename on my last post. I'm a meta baiter.

>>7327
Ah, got it. Sorry for taking it too seriously.

>>7314
Frankly I preferred it as it was with it being an /mlpol/ political topic aggregation.
However
>>>/mlpol/353661 →
Sure having IDs is nice, the proposed 'solutions' would flood the board with one or two same topic posts with news.
Since some people are bitching about the /overboard/ not having enough pony post percentage space, this would blow that out of the water entirely.
I would view that as a net negative.
Not only that the Anon that digs and curates information took it upon himself to solve this issue because he cares. Considering fellow political horse fuckers.
>>>/mlpol/354084 →
Evidently there's outside asinine ninnies desiring the separation and destruction of /mlpol/.
I'd suggest motive, intent, background, patterns, ect. however it's not relevant.
Fact of the matter is the topic aggregation is still an ongoing set of events.
Of everything posted so far the proposed solutions and guilt tripping is null and void.
IDs would be neat, but irrelevant.
Shitty meme images are informational bulwarks of the spicy normalfag sphere and shows attempts are being made.
Information aggregation dissemination and everything included
>>>/mlpol/354097 →
My hat's off to you Anon.

>>7329
>IDs would be neat, but irrelevant.
Poster IDs are not irrelevant. They're necessary for coherent political discussion, as they prevent doublespeak, sockpuppeting, and self-contradictory arguments. That's why /pol/, and by extent /mlpol/, had them in the first place.

>>7320
is that anne frank?

>>7330
Fair point when people keep to the same IP address.

>>7332
Even with IP switchers, it still minimizes that. IDs exist for a reason, at least for political threads. For pony threads or other sorts it's fine to switch them off.

>>7330
I agree completely. They're can significantly improve a /pol/ thread. Maybe not necessary for /mlp/, though.
>>7333
Checked.

I'm OP from most (not all) of the "undesirable" threads.
My choice not to use IDs is because of shills having unlimited IPs to burn, so to try to engage them is mostly pointless. On the other hoof, IDs make vulnerable the shitposter (mostly myself) by showing shills a particular ID to target, so my preference is to remain fuzzy.
In any case, be patient with me and I will try to accommodate my shitposting behavior to minimize collisions with pone posting.

>>7335
It's not just shills who do doublespeak and nonsense. IDs improve political discussion across the board.

What if general threads had their own board? They're clearly not meant for /1ntr/, but perhaps the site could benefit from a /vg/ type board.
It would solve the issue of rule #9 being ignored/poorly-enforced too.

I personally don't like the generals on /1ntr/. Idk what moving the threads was really supposed to accomplish. They're still generals that absorb attention to various topics; which is something this site was created to escape. They still lack poster IDs, which leads to dismal quality of discussion and samefagging.
That aside, they have nothing to do with the topic or purpose of /1ntr/; they'd be more fitting on /sp/ if anything. We can have a discussion on whether or not generals should actually be allowed on /mlpol/, but /1ntr/ is obviously not the place for them.

>>7335
>IDs make vulnerable the shitposter (mostly myself) by showing shills a particular ID to target
What do you mean by "vulnerable" or "target"? Your IP is hashed. You have nothing to be afraid of.
Poster IDs exist to avoid samefagging in political discussions, and to allow Anons to link separate posts from the same speaker to point out obvious flaws in arguments. There are obviously ways to circumvent them, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist at all.
>>7334
They are the standard for /pol/ threads. They were made optional to make pony posters more comfortable.

Can we get an answer to this question soon please?

A response, please.

>>7377
Troublemaker.

>>7378
No u.

It's been 10 days. Can we get a reply?

>>7381
>(we)
Ahem.

>>7382
"We" as in the community.

>>7384
Idk what you're insinuating. I mean users of the site, preferably those who have been here 5+ years. I want an answer, and I believe others want one too.

>>7385
I've been here since the usenet group. There is no "community" or "we".
It's an idea, not a community. newfag.

>>7386
M8, I really don't care how much you want to nitpick the grammar. I expect the question to be addressed in due time, as per the staff policy that has been here since the beginning.
>newfag
How cute.

>>7387
>I demand that that mods and admins acknowledge my shit stirring!
Do you feel accomplished in your efforts?

>>7387
It has already been interacted with by staff, and no conclusion was delivered by OP or other users. Please scroll to the top of this thread to see I specifically tried to engage with the users to determine what to do and no one said anything.

If you wish to pick back up discussion now, we can do so. Please engage an argument for or against the current situation so staff can appropriately respond, because for now there is no opinion by staff that anything is in violation of the rules. If you feel there is, then bring it to our attention and perhaps our interpretation of the situation has been wrong.

>>7390
Perhaps it wasn't clear. I am the OP, and I thought I made my position on the subject clear. Perhaps it wasn't absorbed due to a switch in my IP.

>>7390
>there is no opinion by staff that anything is in violation of the rules
Well, for starters, there's a rule against generals, and putting them on /1ntr/ has somehow made the problem even worse (neither flags nor IDs now), and the threads are no better there. Not only that, but they're also clearly not on-topic for /1ntr/. While off-topic posting isn't against the rules, mods have previously enforced it as if it were one. I, personally, am not satisfied with the way things are going, and I'm more concerned by what effectively amounts to a change in rules without proper procedure/discussion.
These patterns represent a clear and drastic change in what is acceptable to post on this site, as well as the intended use of /1ntr/. If this change is being made intentionally, I would like there to be some discussion on it first.

>>7392
>These patterns represent a clear and drastic change in what is acceptable to post on this site, as well as the intended use of /1ntr/
/1ntr/ was a ghost board and is coming to life again from exiled /polacks/
Why that bothers you?

>>7393
>exiled /polacks/
Go back to bunkerchan, tranny. This whole division between /pol/ and /mlp/ is obviously artificial.

>>7392
Off topic is against the rules, but I am not seeing what makes it off topic. I am against generals, and I am open to nuking them. However, the posting on other boards is permitted last I remembered and does not violate any rule or change anything. I don't recall a restriction on who can post on the /1ntr/ board. I will agree the content needs to be better.

Will a compromise of nuking generals work, or do we need to discuss the finer details of what threads need to be allowed to exist in that board?

>>7395
I'm fine with nuking generals, imo. There have been talks about it before.
I just think putting them on /1ntr/ is worse than leaving them on /mlpol/. At least on /mlpol/ they're on-topic.
>Will a compromise of nuking generals work
I would agree with this, although:
>do we need to discuss the finer details of what threads need to be allowed to exist in that board?
Could have it's own thread. I've been meaning to open that can of worms for a while, because it's questionable if it's really fulfilling it's purpose rn.

>>7393
>exiled /polacks/
Exiled from where? /pol/? What exile?
>ghost board
That's true, but that doesn't mean the threads go there.

>>7396
>I would agree with this
I would not.
What happens in /1ntr/ is mainly the business of the anons posting there.

>>7393
>coming to life again
Just because it's cluttered with dump threads that were previously on /mlpol/ doesn't mean it's "coming back to life". None of those threads are on topic.
>>7398
It's the business of the site users. And just because 1-3 Anons started dumping Facebook memes there 2 weeks ago doesn't give them agency to change the board all on their own.