>getting rid of /dis/ instead of /chat/
>thinking a serious tag is going to revitalize anything when the serious discussion board was stone cold dead in the first place

Anyway, /chat/ is dead enough so that if the people who wanted to do the /dis/ thing actually wanted to have their serious threads they would largely go unmolested. Similarly, /dis/ was so dead that the number of people who would actually use the thing is totally insignificant. So I have to question as to why bother?

The best course of action would just have been getting rid of both boards.

>>162392

That is among the things being discussed in the thread, yes.

>>162392
What mondo said.

>So I have to question as to why bother?
Because other people might think otherwise, and their voice deserves to be heard.
And also because there is the very slim chance that it would work as i intend, and i have nothing to lose by doing it, so what the hell.

>>162394

I didn't mean "why bother to ask", I meant "why bother to add the tagging system" because it would likely not change anything regardless of if you add it or not.

Also, in my experience, serious threads don't do that bad regardless of being tagged or not anyway. Utterly no-nonsense discussion attracts a particular crowd and with them dominating the thread it's rare that you see people try and insert themselves in an undesirable way. Rather, they generally just tend to avoid the thread altogether

>>162395
And people who jump into threads to be silly can also end up dominating a thread and driving away people who want to be serious.
I'm just thinking of accommodating those people in a way that doesn't screw other people up the ass.

Again, there's nothing to lose since this would be entirely optional, and it takes about 5 seconds of 'work' that would essentially be a complete copy and paste job minus changing the name of the board.

>>162391

>shit is happening

>dead board getting removed (I guess?)
>do we make the dead board's stuff go on other dead board?
this is the weakest Happening in the history of happenings

>/dis/ is gone
I didn't even notice, to be honest. I popped in there once or twice. Never saw anything interesting, and my own threads went mostly ignored.

Try out your tag system, just remember that things take time to adjust, and you can't expect change to be widely accepted in less than a month. Give it that long before you deem it a failure, at the very least.

I wasn't here early enough to see what /dis/ had to say before it was removed. Did you get any feedback from them when you were preparing to take the board away? I get the impression that boards like /dis/, when they are available but die, it represents people going other places to breach those topics. This may well be why /g/ is such a ghost town, as people looking to talk about games go to game-related websites, and people who want to ask their friends' opinions about a game go to the board where they know their friends go.

I think it's worth waiting to see if serious content emerges even without the tag. I don't think it was ever terribly strange to see serious content on chat. However, the imageboard format greatly resists formality. While serious discussion is helped greatly by requiring certain attitudes and formalities, putting those things into an imageboard is fighting a rising tide.

I do, however, like the idea of users being able to filter types of conversations by tags, like an evolution of the /all/ feature. I think that could be an interesting feature if board consolidation continues.

>>162428
>I wasn't here early enough to see what /dis/ had to say before it was removed. Did you get any feedback from them when you were preparing to take the board away?

I don't have the thread on hand still, but the responses in the week or so it was up were all "Yes, the board is dead. That is sad."

>>162428
>>162431
/dis/ is just hidden for now it seems.
http://www.ponychan.net/chan/dis/

>>162433

Oh. Then yeah, the thread's right there, you can just go look at it. That one thread got more replies than the rest of the board. That is also sad.

>It changed the subject.

How the fuck.

The filter isnt even active on /meta/.

>>162438
Furthermore, it shouldn't change things retroactively like this.

What the fuck is going on.

>>162438
>>162439
Blame Cadence

Congratulations, you're now only 6 months behind the times instead of a year.

But really though, good.

Hence why the board /chat/ is now gone, right?

/dis/ confirmed for the board destroyer.

should we lock this thread now, and stuff the old /chat/ stuff into an archive?

or... will old /chat/ suffice as an archive on its own?