>>159490
On /pony/? Compared to /oat/? Not even close. Though /oat/ has had a lot less shitposting recently, which is good.

>>159490
I'm talking about what the boards are meant to be. If the users decide to screw around then let them.
(as soon as I hit reply and stood up, I knew this will be taken in all the wrong ways)

Last edited at Wed, Jul 23rd, 2014 18:17

>>159484
>
♥

>>159485
Except there is harm, in that it would be yet another example of our incompetence if people vote to change it and jack-shit happens because both of our admins are so busy.
Status quo is shit, but doing anything right now that requires admins has a greater chance of causing harm than it does benefits.

I have experienced several scenarios almost exactly like this several times, please just trust me on this.

And yes, those semantics were what i was going for.

Although a toggle to flip the board names between /oat/ and /chat/ would probably a few problems, perhaps with a setting that applies "pony thread" or "social thread" to the OP upon thread creation (Defaults to pony thread for the lazy.), and choosing /chat/ automatically hides every pony thread.

>>159487
The idea sounds do-able, but would be an absolute bitch to manage and would be a bit annoying for users.
We'd essentially be standing over them 24/7 and hitting them with sticks if they step out of line.

>>159486
>>159487
I initially suggested opening /pony/ to the silly because those threads almost always get derailed in /oat/ and because the /pony/ people dont go to /oat/ because of the derails.
We tried it for a week, and the results were positive.
With my idea, it's the best of both worlds.
People get to have their silly-pone threads in /pony/, and people get to have their social-pone in /oat/ as well as the silly-pone threads if they want.
Yes the board is technically redundant, but instead of the situation with /oat/ right now where it's just "/chat/ with ponies", it would be broadening the range of /pony/'s current topics, while still keeping the spirit of the board intact.
At least, in theory.

>>159489
>Lazy bastard
While normally true, i've had roughly 15 hours sleep over three day's because I've been so busy, hence why you've probably noticed that i give a lot less of a shit than usual.
I also cant take my sleep meds tonight because i have the dentist tomorrow and i'd end sleeping right through the appointment, so expect me to be even more cranky tomorrow.

>>159491
I thought you meant /chat/, not /pony/. Oh well.

>>159492
What they're meant to be and what they are are two different things. And please point to me where exactly does it say /chat/ must be more serious than /oat/. Because they're not. They're the same damn thing, they always were the same thing, and they always will be.

Last edited at Wed, Jul 23rd, 2014 18:18

>>159494
>And please point to me where exactly does it say /chat/ must be more serious than /oat/. Because they're not. They're the same damn thing
Uhm.. yes? I never said anything against that.
/dis/ is srs, not /chat/

>>159495
What? Now you're just confusing me.

>>159496
/chat/ doesn't have to be serious.

>>159493
>The idea sounds do-able, but would be an absolute bitch to manage and would be a bit annoying for users.
Yeah I can totally see that. From my totally not informed mod perspective, I do think it sounds a lot more difficult than it actually would be. Not every thread is going to be derailed and I think that with the /pony/ population, threads meant to be serious will remain more in line. At least I would hope. I'm not exactly an expert on /pony/, I only went there for about a month or two when the season was still airing.
>second thing
It sounds reasonable and all, but one of the knocks on Ponychan has been it's disorganization with boards. I mean I think the idea would go fine, but I would rather Ponychan be more organized. Organization is attractive to new posters.

So it's still happening?

>>159647

i dont think it was ever going to happen to begin with

>>159467
IIRC, it received mixed feedback, much of it having to do with a certain pink mod deciding to leave the fetish threads up and asking people not to let them get too fetishy.

PLEASE DON'T DELETE CHAT FOR PONYCHAN'S SAKE, IT WILL BE LIKE /ef/!!

>>159725
No, no it wouldn't be. /ef/ had a unique purpose and more than 4 people that actually wanted to post there.

I still think /chat/ should be given loosened rules on civility.

>>159733
Under a normal site or site culture that might be an acceptable outcome. It can't and doesn't work here because immediately the site is broken into two distinct camps; edgy, tryhard internet coolguys pushing the envelope and being assholes because now they can, and butthurt, whiny babbies who get perma-assdamage over them and then there's neverending conflict between the two. You can't do it on a site whose population is dominated demographically by children, manchildren, and people with zero social skills or abilities. It's why /ef/ devolved into what it did (as was warned by many), and why it still is the way it is.

>>159733
I think /chat/ should be given loosened rules on pony content. Make it and /oat/ even more similar.

>>159742
As far as I'm concerned, /ef/ only truly went to shit when it went off-site. Now the board's just a joke.

>>159765
Funny, most people think the same thing about you.

>>159766
Fuck off, #MeinForMod2014.

>>159766

apocalyptic ownage

>>159766
ow

>>159482
>>159485
>>159483
So, the opening of /pony/ won't be an excuse to send all pony content from the reformed /chat/+/oat/ away? I always thought that was the main plan.
Hmmm

I've always said that if people can convince /pony/ that this can work, it could be done.
i dunno, though, I did get the impression that /pony/ even after that silly week had its posters harshly voting against allowing silly topics.
And that doesn't even directly include oits reaction on fanon being allowed at large there.

>>159435
I have to ad on this, I do think that boards like /art/ or /fic/ or /collab/ shouldn't be removed because they're slow.
They're actually built around a certain functionality that can benefit from being slow.

Last edited at Sat, Aug 2nd, 2014 01:24

What we SHOULD do is restrict /oat/ to pony content and move all non-pony random to /chat/.

Then, if /oat/ dies, combine it with /pony/ like it was back in the early days.

>>159771

Well /oat/ was already dead previously, so that would also actually be the same thing as what other people said.

>>159771
Question. Would pony be allowed on /chat/ in your plan? I mean, it is a pony website, after all.

/oat/ has proven over and over that it cant survive entirely based on the premise of "ponies, except silly". it needs to branch out to get users. so that is basically not an option

if you wanna do anything, its either combine /oat/ with /pony/ or delete /chat/. one or the other

>>159774
You can make a case saying that a lot of the boards here can't survive on their current premises and would need to expand. If /oat/ pre-change would be considered "in need of change" then almost all of the boards are in the same boat.

Outside of the /croop/ guys. They're doing pretty swell, really.

>>159775

The problem with that line of thinking is that the current state of the boards is less related to the board's arrangement and more related to everything else ponychan has done in the past and how many people have split away from it.

Even during busier times though, /oat/ for silly ponies was a broken concept that died every time mods decided to try and clean up rp, off topic discussion, derails, and whatever else

>>159776
Fair point, agreed.

>>159771
>Imfuckingplying that boat hasn't sailed a long time ago.
The shitstorm would be cataclysmic, /oat/ is pretty much untouchable right now unless a majority starts wanting a change.

>>159774
>if you wanna do anything, its either combine /oat/ with /pony/ or delete /chat/. one or the other
I still say that just opening /pony/ to the pony related content of /oat/ would be the best idea.
People who want to talk about ponies would migrate until only the people who want to socialize stayed on /oat/ (For the most part) which would then enable a mostly painless merge with /chat/ so we'd have one "Talk about whatever the fuck you want." board.


>>159776
To be fair, most of the mods attempts to make /oat/ more pony were either sabotaged, we did the wrong thing or we did (What i think was) the right thing but didnt stick to it.
It was completely possible to make it fully pone, that's what makes it such a personal sore point for me since it's an almost constant reminder of how much i fucked up.

>>159778
Not only that but /oat/ is such an iconic name on this site. And the name itself holds such a high regard in the communities outside us that a deletion of that name would probably make those damages unrepairable. If you asked someone outside this site if they recall the names of any board here, they would likely mention /oat/ first, even though /oat/ isn't the most populated board here. Back in the heyday when the site was highly relevant towards the fandom, this wouldn't be a problem, but our lack of relevance nowadays no longer provides us the opportunity to change iconic board names on a whim. Doing so might be detrimental to the site's future, or whatever's left of it.

>>159779
>the name itself holds such a high regard in the communities outside us
>/oat/
>highly regarded in outside communities
I.. I can't... Wat

>>159780
I meant high regard relative to the rest of the imageboard. If there's any lack of relevance with this place towards the fandom nowadays, that is an inherent problem with the site as a whole.

>>159781
Even then, man. /pony/ and /chat/ largely hate /oat/.

And other than /pony/, /oat/ and /chat/, the rest of the site is either highly narrowly defined, specific purposes or dead.

>>159782
My point is, that if we ever merged /oat/ and /chat/ together, it would probably be best if that merged board took /oat/'s name rather than /chat/ because the name holds a greater appeal. I'm well aware of the problems outside the two, but that's not the topic of this thread.

>>159782
>/pony/ and /chat/ largely hate /oat/
Are we back in 2012 or something? /chat/ doesn't have a large enough userbase to hate anything, and /pony/ just kind of keeps to itself. Hell a lot of the /pony/ posters also post on /oat/, at least that's what I've been noticing recently.
>>159783
Yeah I agree with this. /oat/ has more name recognition (which isn't a lot, but we'll take what we can get) than /chat/. I really do think the solution is making one all pony board, and one non pony board. Second step would be to delete all of the other useless boards.

>>159784
If one was to make one non-pony board, wouldn't you name it /chat/, name recognition be damned?

>>159785
Not really. The bulletin board solution would be "ot" or "off-topic", and the imageboard solution would be "/b/".

/oat/, at least in reference to the show, is the definition of random!

>>159784
I disagree on this because not of my ban protest thread could be removed, but also we wouldn't discuss our problems.

>>159791
My ban protest thread is here:
>>40976044

>>159785
I don't really think it matters that much what you name it, but I think keeping the /oat/ name would help ponychan for some name recognition. But I think naming it /chat/ wouldn't be the end of the world either.
>>159791
wut

>>159805

Stop bringing this shit into threads that have nothing to do with it!

>>159806

Just ignore them. It's just an anon that can't seem to let go of a stupid ban they had from a totally different image board.

Last edited at Sun, Aug 3rd, 2014 12:28

On that note why does /dis/ still exist? Because of another thread I checked out the board and half of the front page threads haven't had a post in over a month, and the only post within the past couple days is a thread with no replies from a few hours ago.

It doesn't serve a function other than a kill board, so I was wondering if we can get rid of the idea that we have a functional board dedicated to mature discussion. While there would probably be more dumb responses the threads would most likely get more decent responses elsewhere, and of course the OP can request that it stay somewhat serious and people who continuously refuse to go with that... well we have mods to stop people from jumping in to screw up a thread.

>>160035
The threads mods would move to /dis/ would be those of questionable nature that do provide a soiurce for discussion, as an alternative to /nope/ing them.
On retrospect, just /nope/ing them could be better right now.

>>160043
Just /nope/ing them is what you're doing, and unless manually locked don't many of those kill boards last for a short time anyway?

So is /dis/ just a board where you can say you're not deleting threads while still killing them? In that case we can nuke the board and be honest about what's happening to the thread. They're not being moved to a place where it can be seriously discussed, it's dragging whoever's currently in it to drop a few more posts before it dies.

>>160045
Technically, /dis/ allows people to discuss a subject in proper setting.
It allows people with the desire to discuss a subject to discuss it. And there's nothing stopping people from taking up the subject and talking about it on /dis/
People interested in the subject get linked to /dis/ upon move.
And /dis/ allows the discussion to continue, which doesn't work on deletion board.

>>160067
No, it doesn't. There is no proper setting to a kill board. It's a quarantine zone. In theory it could, but it doesn't. That's what matter. It's intended to be what you say, but please, look over the board. Can you really tell me that it's serving more of a purpose than a kill board?

>>160072
The entire point of it is that people can post in it if they want to continue the sex-discussion-that-totally-isnt-just-an-excuse-to-talk-lewd.
Only those threads that have the potential of being discussion worthy get sent to /dis/ to at least give them a chance.
People abused the mods lax view on things, so shit got tightened up.
An argument was made for people that wanted to seriously talk about sex as mature adults, so the option was provided instead of taking a fuck everything approach.


This solution is literally wins all around unless you want to use the excuse of "But i dont want to talk lewd, i want to seriously discuss sex as an adult." to post softcore porn / ERP with an audience at which point i stop giving a shit about your(Not you specifically, just the imaginary 'you' in this scenario) opinion.

merge /chat/ and /oat/

>>160109
update never