>>163212
This is why the mods should NOT have this much fun with /oat/
- MLG4Ever

meh, its not even a big deal

you can literally tell who 75% of the posters are anyway

the posting styles and expression viewers make them stand out

maybe it just works for me, because i am good at spotting anons

I don't know about you, but I'll enjoy the ponythreads this little event has brought me

I'm not being told unsolicited about the day of people I don't know, and we're finally talking about ponies again, so I actually enjoy it and feel that quality has improved slightly. A lot of the nametopic threads descend into a shitpost dick measuring contest, you know?

This shouldn't be a permanent thing, so it's all cool.

But I do hope the staff won't force anon permanently in the hopes of making this board better.

My precious circlejerk. Now I wont know what my favorite poster had for dinner. You are all evil.

@artee

I'm totally with you there. I'm having a blast with the board right now more than I have in a long time and I'm enjoying the change, but people have their own (good) reasons for not liking it, and driving them away from a place we both enjoy simply so I can enjoy myself better would be a really dickish thing to do.

>>163220
I'm not afraid that it will drive people away.
I'm afraid that it will work.

Imagine if we would have to admit someday that ponychan was far better off anonymous. It would be so humiliating.

>>163221
>Embarrassing
You mean fucking hilarious.

>>163221
Ah, there we go. I was trying to click the ID.


Really I think what helps is the shakeup. Sometimes things here get stagnate and its good to freshen up every so often. Long hiatus and all that.

After the kneejerk reaction of "it's different, it's bad", things will be happier. Look, already there's more content

>>163224
I see next to zero content and tons of no-topic badposting. I mean, it's been like that for a while, but today it's even worse.

pls keep forced anon

>>163228
Might as well delete images feature to avoid expression viewerfagging.

>>163229
mods pls do this while you're at it

>>163229
>>163230
lurk moar
it already happened

As long as it isn't permanent. It's probably alright.

>>163231
I haven't browsed this site for a year so sue me.

As long as it's a temporary thing, forced Anon can be a bit of fun. Long term, though, OP is right.

i agree with the op... i understand if this is just some for fun thing... but, something tells me it is an experiment.

i remember, my meta proposal was turned down because it "alienates a minority." i beg the administration then to consider how this experiment (if it is one) could alienate the majority, and not just the minority.

again, if it's just for fun... then that's perfectly okay. i will have fun with it. but... i hope it isn't some experiment masquerading as fun.

>>163238

the majority seems fine with this though?

>>163241
I'll tolerate it, for sure. To be honest, though, it does feel a bit alienating to me. The tripfag (if you will) posting culture is the reason why i enjoy this site, and if this is an experiment to try and phase out names, then I would feel very discouraged from coming back here, seeing as the form of posting that I enjoy is frowned upon.

In that sense, I could see how this (if it is an experiment based on serious consideration of phasing out tripcodes) could definitely alienate a lot of people. Pretty much anybody who posts with a name.

>>163243
I'd probably resort to expression viewerfagging
and go away if no one else is putting their mark in there.

>>163244
What do you mean by: "if no one else is putting their mark there"?

>>163245
I mean, if ponychan has no semblance of identity anymore.
If every anon post becomes the same as any other.

I like feeling like I get the input of multiple individual people.

Last edited at Sat, Dec 27th, 2014 17:16

>>163246
Aye, that makes sense. I feel like I might do the same if this were to be permanent.

Last edited at Sat, Dec 27th, 2014 17:19

>>163238
I never minded the anons myself, I never saw how they were supposedly alienated. I didn't treat them any different than anyone else, because even if you have a name, a lot of the time people still don't really know you unless you let them get to know you. And honestly, people could just change their name whenever they wanted, effectively staying anons.

I'm with you, if this is for fun, great! But I really hope it doesn't become permanent. The anons should not feel unwelcome just because a majority of us have names. If you want to post anonymously, then do it. Otherwise the name is just so you know who your talking to. I would hate not to be able to recognize the friends I've made without them specifically telling me or using an oc image constantly.

like i said. i dont mind this shit for like a few days or so

thats fine. but if this is permanently? nah. this isnt culture pchan is used to

idk, if i wanted anonymous culture, id simply go to 4chan or /anon/. ironically for people who say this place has nazi moderation, we seem to have more freedom than 4chan. even more with the aspect of having an identity

im gonna be honest. i really dont think is going stop any "attention whoring" or "shitposting". if youre seriously this ashamed of your communities behavior and not able to accept its culture and the way it is, id consider giving the site to someone who accepts it

just sayin'

but it is fun for now

Last edited at Sat, Dec 27th, 2014 17:25

Seems we're all in agreement

i dont think this is permanent, its just the mods messing around for a day and getting way overblown by people

i wouldnt much want to post on oat if it was forced anon forever either, but its something new and different and fun so i dont mind it for a brief time. and it helps because the freshness has ended up making the board a lot more lively than it's been in a long while

>>163238
>i remember, my meta proposal was turned down because it "alienates a minority."
But your proposal was turned down because it was dumb and would accomplish the opposite of what you want to achieve, that being the elimination of popularity contests deciding things on /meta/ while leaving the people you wanted to remove with this change being completely unaffected.
Not sure how you gathered "alienates a minority" from that, unless you're referring to the post i made before i'd actually read your thread instead of the multitude of responses made to it which stated the above.

As for how this started, and these are mostly different mods with lots of stupid shit like "/me paps" interspersed:

"Hey zeke, make the forced anon option hide tripcodes pls."

"'kay, i'll do it on my personal board for shit."

"I'll spread access of your board everywhere unless you give back /metachat/"

"pls no, illu/meta/ti is bad"

"How about /illuminati/?"

"okay i'll make that, force it anon and publicly stick it to the top bar"

"We kinda did just delete /chat/ though, so lets not just add another board like that a couple months later."

"But it would just be for funsies."

"Just do it to /oat/ if anything, that would be a shakeup."

"Do it faggot" x5

Does it.

"This is the advantage to no /chat/, nowhere for people to run to.
I will play the cello as the ship sinks, I need a violinist or two"

"But I thought all three of us play violin"

And then nobody linked in chat or even embeded on the site: Nearer my god to thee, which i find disappointing.

If you can interpret all this being an experiment of some kind, you're a better detective than i.

I think zeke only said it might stop the attention whoring and shitposting because a few of the attention whorses went from zero to platinum mad in roughly 3.2 seconds over this.

Maybe we should have anon fridays or something, or even a random day of the week where everything is forced anon again.
Might liven things up a bit more since no one can say the board hasn't received a boost of activity over this, but it remains to be seen whether it's because it's new or not.

Probably because it's a strange thing, but eh, a guy can dream.

I may also be slightly biased, since pony related threads popped up within roughly 30 minutes of tripfag genocide.

>>163253
In a way, I wouldn't mind an anon Friday.

As long as it's not an anon everyday

it will probably lose its shimmer in a while, though

I fucking love this change. It's too early to tell the real impacts of it, but I'm seeing more thread with topics than just people socializing. Good on your mods.

>>163257
A lot more threads being all
"Why is /oat/ anonymous?"

Sure

Last edited at Sat, Dec 27th, 2014 20:09

>>163258
There is literally not a single "Why is /oat/ anonymous" on the front page.

i dont like the idea of "anon friday" because it makes it part of a schedule and that removes the spontaneous element of it. it would be fun to just do it randomly every now and then instead as long as it isn't too frequent

i also dont like that for some reason /meta/ is clearing out my namefield every time i post and making me retype it

I dunno about this, honestly. I could get used to it as a permanent thing, but it wouldn't be an improvement or a detriment. It'd be essentially a complete overhaul of what the board is and does, mostly into something that already exists elsewhere. That doesn't give Ponychan a reason to even exist, honestly, if we just shift gears to 4chan. We'd lose all the people who liked having names, and gain no one because they'll just stick to 4chan anyway.

Of course, I don't think most people were even considering something like that, so that's mostly a moot point. As a joke that lasts a day or two, that's kinda whatever. Would've been more interesting as maybe a New Year's holiday thing, perhaps. Something sorta festive in a way.

If we brought it back as a recurring thing I'm not sure it would accomplish much. Again, perhaps as a holiday sort of thing, but I don't think turning anon on every Friday would really create any threads. Today was probably a fluke as far as traffic goes.

in the several years i have been here this is by far the stupidest thing the moderation team has ever done by a landslide

I'm really not getting how people hate this. When people have their names on, you treat everyone differently based on their reputation. I've found that now that everyone is anon you can focus on the content of their posts and not just on who's saying them. That's been a major improvement in my mind. It's also eliminated the fact that most of the front page was pointless socializing. People are making threads with topics now, and that's been a nice bit of refreshment.
>>163262
>That doesn't give Ponychan a reason to even exist, honestly, if we just shift gears to 4chan
This is indeed the kicker. We'd have to totally re-purpose the site for this to work. I think it could be done, and overall it would be an improvement but it would take effort.

>>163263
I think it's fun, and really not a huge deal. Provided it's not a permanent thing.

I post anon anyway, so it doesn't affect me a huge amount. But I do like a good number of the namefigs and would hate to see them go.

>>163263
i agree

>>163265

it is stupid and annoying in my eyes and serves little other purpose. if this is supposed to cut down on "attention whoring" not only this really, really, really, really, really laughably late at doing so, but the "attention whores" can do exactly what they do before. is taking away Ember's name really going to turn us all stupid to where we can't recognize him?

i keep hearing about how this is encouraging "actual discussion" yet most of the discussion is "why the fuck is /oat/ forced-anon?" and if this change is supposed to turn us into a really fun imageboard "anarchy" then there are already dozens of imageboards that already do this and....

*whispers*

..... are actually rather active

I legitimately am trying to see the appeal here but I am just laughing because this reminds me of the shit i used to do on proboards forums I was a part of when we got really bored and were trying to "liven things up" by doing excessively dumb crap

>>163267
>yet most of the discussion is "why the fuck is /oat/ forced-anon?"
That's not even true tho, that's only a few threads.

>>163268

okay sorry we also have "Fluttershy Thread" as well as several other types of threads that were frequently on /oat/ as well

>>163269

oh and a generic "tumblr sucks" thread great sorry i missed that

>>163267
>this reminds me of the shit i used to do on proboards forums I was a part of when we got really bored and were trying to "liven things up" by doing excessively dumb crap

Why did you not think that's what this was?

>>163267
>yet most of the discussion is "why the fuck is /oat/ forced-anon?"
Lurk moar, bruv. That is not the case.

It's not to cut down on attention whoring, it's literally just for shits and giggles. Source: >>163253

No need to take this all so seriously.

>>163269
>having pony threads on /oat/ is a bad thing now
ok then. We have 4 threads on the front page with an actual topic and some discussion, which is much more than the 0-1 that we normally have.
>>163270
>do you like the tumblr artstyle?
>this is obviously a tumblr hate thread
ok

>>163271

I thought it was that

That's why I still think it is that

>>163272

There are like 3 threads explicitly about it/relating to it

>shits and giggles

>bad

either or I guess

>>163273

that isn't what i said dumdum


also that second statement is flat-out wrong and just cherrypicking based on what you "want" to be true

as for that second part how about "durr context" and actually read the threat because it was mostly stereotypical "tumblr is dumb and black trans otherkin lol ! ! !"

>>163274
I don't know how else I'm supposed to interpret "okay sorry we also have "Fluttershy Thread"" in that context. I had said that it wasn't true that most of the discussion was about the forced anon, and then you said that and it either has to mean that it's shit, or that nothing new had been added, but if nothing new had been added (not true by the way) then what's the big deal?

And it's not cherrypicking, just look, there are multiple threads with actual discussions in them, which is many more than we normally have.

And yeah, NOW it's turned into a tumblr hate thread, but by the OP there's no way to tell if it is. When i had posted that it looked fine.

>>163263

if you think this is the dumbest thing the mod team has ever done you're either INSANELY opinionated or not paying attention to fuckin anything because this is just about nothing compared to a lot of shit they've done in the past

i cant really do anything but laugh at any outrage directed towards this because it really didn't do a whole lot to the board beyond making it a little more active in its aftermath because something interesting was going on. the only negative parts about it have mostly been from the people who can't stop complaining about it

>>163274
>3 threads
>most of the discussion

>>163276
>>163276
>>163276
>>163276
>>163276
>>163276
>>163276
>>163276
>>163276
>>163276
>>163276
>>163276
>>163276

>>163276
this so much

>>163275

i more or less off-handedly referred to it to mock the idea that 'going anon' gave way to such a thread when it is such a common thing in the first place. not at all saying the thread is bad or anything.

and it is cherrypicking when you are acting like /oat/ was nothing but crap before this magical thing happened when it was more or less the same

>>163277

look how active they are?

>>163276

>you're either INSANELY opinionated

nope, bad marcy

>not paying attention to fuckin anything

wrong again, bad marcy. i just don't agree with you. i don't recall anything this pointless and stupid ever occuring, sorry.

>>163279
I never said it was nothing but crap, but there was certainly less interesting threads. It's mostly why I didn't post much here anymore.
>>163279
>wrong again, bad marcy. i just don't agree with you. i don't recall anything this pointless and stupid ever occuring, sorry.
>what is the deletion of /ef/ and creation of /gala/

also that tumblr thread is right, it looks stupid. i totally blame tumblr for the random artists who seep into other places i frequent who draw weird emo looking men and strangely proportioned women with rosey santa clause cheeks and the most congested noses imaginable

>>163280

i liked both of those things so HA fuck /ef/chan

>>163281

i agree lets go to 8chan and stop the sjws

>>163279

what about-

>>163282

oh ok, so you're insanely opinionated.

between /ef/ and /gala/, moderators going public with their retarded insane love triangles and getting removed for it, embarrassing conflicts over admins who don't want to do anything because the mods might say mean things to them resulting in nothing getting done for months and months on end, that whole project ponychan thing, moony hosting that stupid con panel, etc. this is a raindrop in the goddamn ocean.

and one that has had more or less no negative repercussions beyond a few people throwing really embarrassing, but admittedly sort of amusing, fits. but even that wasn't much of a problem because it lets you see just how attention hungry some people can be over something as frivolous as "for a day, /oat/ is an anon board"

>>163282
>I liked both of those things
You like stuff that killed the site good job.

>>163279
The "why are we anonymous thread" hasn't had a fresh post in almost an hour and none of the other active threads, despite mentioning being anon in the OP, are discussing this at all.

>>163283
>strawman

>>163285

i guess hating the tumblr red nose thing is admittedly roughly on par with sending bomb threats to anita sarkeesian and making a mad dash through the streets of san fransciso beating trannies to death with a gamecube so i am sorry for my prior intolerance

>>163284
>>163285

yea sorry i guess i am here for the wrong reasons

>>163286

if you are expecting anything but insincere crap out of my mouth at this point you are wasting your time

the only sincerity i have left is Fen is a fucking idiot and has proved it big time lately

>>163287
>

>>163289
>if you are expecting anything but insincere crap out of my mouth at this point you are wasting your time
Fine by me, but don't expect anybody to listen or take anything you say or have said even remotely seriously.

>>163291

Dissenting opinions don't even mean anything here, I have friends who have voiced concerns and they were laughed off. I am blowing off steam because i realize what I want to say or argue doesn't matter to the people in charge

sigh.

please dont give essie a hard time

>>163292
>I am blowing off steam because i realize what I want to say or argue doesn't matter to the people in charge
Lets be real tho, when has anything anyone ever said on /meta/ made a difference?

I don't see what the big deal is.
It's a fun little change and is pretty harmless. Helped mix things up a bit. Posting quality has improved slightly aside from folks complaining about it. But it seems like the usual oversensitive types are the ones outraged so it's more funny than anything else.

>>163293

they are allowed their opinion just as much as mine. i don't think mine matters but at the end of the day i liked this site because of the people i got to know and i can't talk to people through forced anon

>>163295
>But it seems like the usual oversensitive types are the ones outraged so it's more funny than anything else.
This, half the fun is the massive butthurt from a few people. And it's funny because there's absolutely no reason for it.

>>163296
i said how i felt here >>163250

if they keep this up anonymous bullshit their batshit retarded

its w/e eitherway because i know a #based admin named anonthony who LISTENS who his people and aint ashamed of how it goes.

>>163298
>its w/e eitherway because i know a #based admin named anonthony who LISTENS who his people and aint ashamed of how it goes.
Off topic, but anonthony has turned into kind of an asshole recently and I'm not sure why. I'm worried for the guy.

>>163299
he seems fine to me

unless youre being a real shitter

i see no reason to get on his bad side

>>163292
>I have friends who have voiced concerns and they were laughed off
Where? The only people I've seen "laughed off" were people throwing massive shitfits, and Ember Storm, who was throwing a minor passive-aggressive shitfit and barely posts on /oat/ anyway.

People who voiced legitimate concerns in a constructive manner were, as far as I saw, met with "this isn't permanent, we're just screwing around, lighten up and enjoy yourself", which I'd hardly consider "laughing them off".

Why not round up your friends who are upset about this and go post on /gala/ with them, for now? That board is meant for socializing anyway.

>>163300
Idunno, maybe it's because there's this one anon who I swear is him but maybe it isn't.

>>163301

It was done in private.

My friend raised legitimate concerns (even prior to this, in regards to abusive replies on threads) and was laughed off by moderation. My friend is a calm and rational person and did not warrant being written off as "oversensitive". I feel this is the motif being paraded, and as such I can understand my place and where I am not to tread or speak.

>>163292
The mods kinda do whatevs as near as I can tell. Unless they have massive polls that grind decision making to a halt. I'm not sure if /meta/ has any real impact nowadays, especially since they seem cagey about a /meta/ clique having power again.

>>163304

And with that, they have gotten under my skin a fair amount. I don't like seeing my friends upset by behavior that is so flippant. Unless I see some degree of change in regards to how moderation is carried out I am rather adverse to coming around here - completely unrelated to the fact that I cannot converse anonymously with others as this causes a great deal of paranoia on my end and impacts my ability to communicate in a rational manner.

tfw nobody can think logically about this and realize that "cancerous anon behavior" can be done at any time because people can post anonymously at any time like i'm doing right now

jeez

>>163303
Is your friend PSP? If so, I agree with his stance on abusive posts, and that he is calm and rational. That said, the mods run the site (and /meta/) the way they do for a reason. In the past, threads like the one he made have gotten very large and overblown and made absolutely zero progress toward any sort of consensus, simply leaving everyone involved with a sour taste in their mouth.

Ponychan has been moving toward more lenient moderation as far as conduct is concerned for over a year now, and as it seems the majority of the community likes it that way, I don't think it's going to change any time soon.

This forced anon thing is not a policy change like that, though, to the extent of my knowledge. It's kind of like an autoplay [www.youtube.com], in a sense. Just fleeting tomfoolery.

>>163307

I do not feel lenient has to equate to arbitrary and inconsistent.

>>163308
I said as far as conduct is concerned. Do you feel that the rules regarding conduct are enforced in an arbitrary, inconsistent manner?

Forced anon on /oat/ is arbitrary and spontaneous because it is not meant to be a policy change or a culture shift for the site. It's a silly joke done for fun. Almost everybody agrees that it should not be permanent, even the ones who are enjoying it (myself included), so they'd have to be really, really fuckin' stupid to make it an actual serious change. Unless most people end up liking this "new" anonymous /oat/ better than before. Time will tell, I guess.

>>163309
>Almost everybody agrees that it should not be permanent, even the ones who are enjoying it (myself included)
As much as I hate to admit it, this. I would love this change, but I know that unless the site underwent heavy modifications, this would destroy it. I still think it's an improvement tho.

>>163308
Real talk, it's been just as arbitrary and inconsistent for the past three years. It's merely become more lenient on average. but seriously, forced anon has nothing to do with it lol

luckily this is only temp

otherwise im annnymmoose leeegion

>>163284
Creating /gala/ was a great decision, the execution was just shoddy

>>163293
essie is kind of a piece of shit though

I will throw in here now that the subject field doesn't seem to work either.

Was this intended as part of forced anon? Or is this an unlucky byproduct?
It's a minor thing, but all threads now have to rely on people reading the content, instead of getting the gist of it through the title.

>>163313
I'd still say that's debatable. I mean look at how things have progressed - /chat/ is still gone, and other than infrequent shakeups like this, /oat/ is still the same old repetitive /oat/. And the number of serials has bloated, along with the number of people who post in nothing but serials. Now, can that be directly attributed to /gala/? Well, seeing as how these changes started around that time, I think it's fair. Though other factors are in play as well - such as the natural progression of the community and the entropy of the imageboard fandom. However, I feel it has still played a role.

People want to knee-jerk agree with the isolation of serials because they didn't like them, or advocated for the idea of a serial board, without looking back at exactly what effects (positive and negative) that decision has had over the long run. I would ask you to take a critical eye back at it all, to the situation at the time (with how /oat/ and /chat/ were at the time) and how the situation is now (with /oat/ and /gala/) and ask yourself what else might have been done to reach at *least* as 'good' a state things are in now, with less trouble and alienation of people or groups.

Could we have reached the state we're in now by simply loosening /oat/'s pony restrictions and letting serials stay in /chat/? Would we now not still have 2 boards (/oat/ and /chat/ vs /oat/ and /gala/), one a general off-topic board and one a 'serial' board? Yes - and /oat/ would probably not feel as non-pony, and /chat/ would not *only* be serials, and we probably wouldn't have experienced the rush of new serial creation as people holed themselves off even more from the rest of the site in response to their being a board exactly for that. The handful of serials which existed at the time - Love and Advice, /pony/ After Dark, /b/ & Friends, Order of the Insomniacs, and Fellowship of the Pic, would not have been joined by nearly as many copycats all wanting their own little patch of circlejerk chatroom. And this handful of threads would have been more than fine existing on a regular off-topic board with the very minor changes that were suggested as counters to the serial-board - like a lower bump-limit and additional pages. However, management at the time would not consider any of these options, or the long term outcomes, as it had already predecided it's course of action before any discussion had occurred.

And in addition, what I agree with you on was the execution, as it was a less-than-stellar choice executed with incredible hamfistedness on top of it, unable to even stay the course of the decision and arbitrarily switching at the last minute from 'serial board' to 'splitting /chat/ between topical and non-topical' which caused months of confused frustration and dissatisfaction which inevitably, eventually had to be reverted back and the original idea being implemented instead anyways.

>>163300
Literally as long as The Hands doesn't bring up police brutality lol, the ONE topic I seriously can't seem to keep my tables from flipping on.

>>163316
And the catalog only shows the subjects (and only if you hover over the image), so that's a good point.

>>163292
What you want to say or argue doesn't matter to the people in charge because you're completely incapable of raising even a valid point in a way that doesn't immediately cast you as a butthurt kid who can neither give good rationale or be a good representative voice of that perspective. No one with any level of responsibility listens to you because you give them zero reason to, and when they don't (for these reasons) then you go right to what you flat out admit is insincere steam-blowing assholery for it's own sake, which only further alienates you from ever having any impact on things - just like most of the no-fun-allowed cyberbullying-is-real crowd. Sorry. Truefacts.

>>163318
I think that the presence of better options in the light of two years of hindsight does not immediately make it a bad decision. Of course there was a more optimal path. There nearly always is. That doesn't invalidate the decisions made.

Considering the long term outcomes in this case would require nearly prescient foresight. The decision wasn't perfect, but it was good.

>>163319
We weren't asking anyone to be Nostradamus. We were asking people to have a basic level of considering logical outcomes. Every thing listed as something that's happened, was something that was specifically enumerated as 'this is what's going to happen if you take this course of action' - a bloat in the number of serial threads, more isolation, and with the natural entropy of things, redundancy in the other two boards. You don't need to see into the future to 'predict' likely outcomes, especially when you have people telling you exactly what's likely to happen. Instead, the few, persistent voices who reviled the mere presence of serials won out and their crusade to get-them-outta-my-sight was adopted with little thought to the long-term consequences and outcomes. -That- is why the decision was 'bad'; not 'invalid', but that's like saying the Cuban embargo wasn't 'invalid' because a more optimal path existed. It seemed like a good idea to someone, somewhere, but that doesn't make it 'good.' The decision was neither perfect -or- good, in the face of more logical, piecemeal alternatives that had much sounder rationale behind them than 'fucking serials get this shit off my board.'

>>163320
The bloat in the number of serial threads and increased isolation were known consequences when the decision was made and I would assume factored into the reasoning as an acceptable price.

If I recall correctly the natural entropy of the other board's collision was never brought up as a talking point by the peanut gallery. If the dozens of users talking nonstop about the change failed to think of it, I can't see how it is anything but the product of hindsight. /oat/ had its independence and its own culture. At that time it was unthinkable that the boards would have become redundant, and similarly, holding up serials as the thing keeping /chat/ from becoming redundant would have been met with derision.

>>163321
If "the consequence of this decision is more isolation and more serials, and therefore, obviously, more serial posters, (whom we know and specifically acknowledge always end up spending exponentially more time in the serial and less time in the rest of the community, which is in fact a part of the very reason everyone seems to think we need to 'do something' about serials in the first place)" was an 'acceptable price' of an idea.... to minimize the effect of serials, that would make the individual(s) coming to such a decision absolutely, mind-bogglingly retarded; I don't see how what you just said in the first sentence doesn't completely jive with the point of how such a logical outcome was easily foreseen - and I would posit is in no way any reasonable person's 'acceptable price.' And I know I specifically brought up board entropy at least once, as a consequence of removing such a large portion of the board's population who would then instinctively have no reason to venture outside their new board's walls, rendering the original board with a dearth of people to respond to threads, rendering /oat/ the only populated place to go. Another logical outcome.

>>163322
Ah, so it is that fundamental of a disagreement?

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

serial threads ate up all of chat at one point and should have just been disallowed tbh

why is /oat/ still anon today. i thought this was for just like a day

>>163324
It started as a joke but has since turned into an experiment.
There will be cake.

>>163325
Except for the ones who are dead.

On the bright side, once things turn anon, you can keep up the pretense that no one really left.

if it becomes permanent then i do understand people complaining because it was done without talking to the community in any way. that's ok for an occasional gag but pretty shitty for an actual change

im assuming that its not going to stay this way though.

>>163318
I can only respond to this post with one thing.

^ This

>>163328
It's not a permanent thing.

  >>163328

If this ever became a permanent thing on /oat/, then I would petition to bring back /chat/. I mean, if forced anon discourages non-serial topic-less socialization, why not have a board for those of us that enjoy the non-serial topic-less socialization?

>>163318
I'm speaking from the perspective of somebody that greatly appreciated a /chat/ board without the clutter and baggage of serial threads. There was absolutely no harm in letting folks create their own little circlejerk serials in /gala/ exactly because it was completely isolated. /chat/ getting deleted and /oat/ turning to shit had pretty much nothing to do with the creation of /gala/.

It might have been reflective of the staff's sense of ideals, and it foreshadowed more hamfisted poorly thought out moves to come, but it is not directly connected to the decisions to open /oat/ up or anything else. The staff could have simply began to make better decisions afterwards. The decision is not to blame, the people that continued to make them (and got progressively worse at their jobs) are to blame.

Running with this train of logic, was the creation of /rp/ not a major factor in killing old /oat/, therefore opening up the doors to allowing /oat/ to post non-pony and killing /chat/? Would you say it's fair to at least partially blame those who wanted to create /rp/ and get all the roleplaying off /oat/ for the death of /chat/? I wouldn't, I just see it as a shaky decision followed by other even worse decisions later on. They might be related in a sense, but in retrospect the creation of /rp/ was a good move, and the only people who would blame /rp/ for today's misfortune either have a shaky grasp on how decision making works or are still bitter about /rp/'s creation.

>>163336
You mean /gala/?

oh, you specified non-serial. I don't see why that matters.

Last edited at Sun, Dec 28th, 2014 14:57

>>163340
oops, name field

>>163340
>>163340
>somebody that greatly appreciated a /chat/ board without the clutter and baggage of serial threads
You mean what /oat/ exactly is right now? Yeah.

>>163346
If you see no difference between post-/gala/ /chat/ and modern /oat/ then what can I do but assume that you never went there?

>>163341

It's leads to less sense of obligation, and feels a lot less cliquish, in my opinion

>>163349
Topicless socialization on ponychan is almost exclusively between the same group of friends responding over and over like a skype room. How is that not cliquish?

>>163347
They are functionally identical. The differences in people and personalities is not a function of that, but other factors.

>>163340
Running with this train of logic, was the creation of /rp/ not a major factor in killing old /oat/, therefore opening up the doors to allowing /oat/ to post non-pony and killing /chat/? Would you say it's fair to at least partially blame those who wanted to create /rp/ and get all the roleplaying off /oat/ for the death of /chat/?

That doesnt even make sense since /rp/ was around long before /oat/ was even a thing.

That was actually the huge problem people had with the oat roleplay, since there was literally a place for it that people refused to use for whatever reason, yet they wanted to have roleplay on oat 24/7

>>163351
"Because anyone can join in" despite the fact that because it's just a lot of people talking amongst themselves the chances of anyone wanting to join in are next to nil when compared to threads that have actual topics.
It's like going to a general job fair for a job in computers versus going to an IT workshop for networking.

Chances are, you're going to easily more people to your liking in the workshop and be able to relate to them more easily than the people who are at the job fair simply because you know for a fact that they share at least one of your interests.

To use an actual comparison, compare /mlp/ to /oat/

Every fucker who visits /mlp/ is either a troll or likes some facet of My little pony, be it the show, the fan art or the porn.
There are some people who visit /oat/ who dont watch the show at all anymore, only come here to talk to people and dont even like ponies or talking about them.

>>163351

Skype chat rooms require invitations. Serial threads are created to be formal communities, typically attached to other boards. If cliques form in topicless, non-serial boards, they feel more organic and a little less formal.

>>163352
Functionally identical in that they both don't have serials, but that's as far as relevance goes as a response to what I said. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough; when I said I appreciated a "/chat/ board" without serials, I meant that I appreciated /chat/: the board without serials.

>>163354
I know the issue that you're talking about, which has been present since very recently, and I know the forced migration of roleplayers to /rp/ that killed old /oat/ and eventually inspired the mods to open the board up. My bad if I got the timeline wrong, but it WAS just an analogy and you didn't really address any points being made.

>>163355
An organic clique is not as cliquey as a formal one to those on the inside, but the effects are the same. It encourages discussion between the same isolated group of friends and discourages topics and content.

Last edited at Sun, Dec 28th, 2014 16:02

post deleted, shoe eaten. I misread if anyone saw that.

>>163363
I won't tell anyone~

>>163355
You do realize serial threads started from cliques formed in normal threads? Don't even try to say /oat/ isn't cliquish.

>>163362
"old" /oat/ was killed when they killed off-topic posting and forced everyone to /chat/. The /oat/ that came after that was horrible and stayed horrible until they killed /chat/ to save it.

Also the only difference between post-/gala/ /chat/ and modern /oat/ are that there are ponies and more autistic people. They serve the same purpose besides that. The people and rules(things like no porn, etc) are the only things that make it different from /ef/ or MLPchan /oat/ or /GET/. They are all for the same random circlejerking threads.

>>163362

So what ? My whole point in the post I made in this thread was that some of us want a board that allows for less formal, topicless non-serial threads for socialization.

Now, while in my experiences here I generally find that the lack of formal serialization and named communities leads to less cliquishness, I admit that it inevitably occurs to a degree. But here's the thing, in /gala/ and in the skype chatrooms, multiple cliques form withen the same serial thread/chatroom, often time competing for the same time in the same threads. When those same cliques do pop up in a place like /oat/ or like they used to in /chat/, they typically have their own threads.

>>163365

>The /oat/ that came after that was horrible and stayed horrible until they killed /chat/ to save it.

no, /oat/ died twice. first they ran everyone to /chat/. then more people came to the ruins and they ran all of -those- people to /rp/ or mlpchan and after that it just sort of stayed dead until /chat/ was kilt

/gala/ is a bad situation because on one hand a lot of them are confined on that single board and never leave. but on the other hand if you pour /gala/ back into /oat/ at this point it would just smother everything else because that's what serial threads do and in the end the only traffic increase would be inside said threads. so there really isn't anything you can do about them at this point

>>163362
If your point was that mods can make shitty decisions, then as one of said mods that was promoted to admin, i can safely say that i agree with that.

I do try to learn from mistakes though, and i dont think i've repeated all that many, feel free to point them out to me though since i cant fix shit if i cant see a problem.

>>163365
Forced thread moving was a problem, but the roleplaying was a totally separate issue.

On paper you're right about their similarities, but in practice they are worlds apart. I didn't think that needed to be said.

>>163366
That's an awfully specific breed of harmful pandering you're asking for to justify a whole board when there are so many reasonable compromises. But since this is all reliant on something that the mods have confirmed is not permanent, I digress.

>>163368
Nobody's perfect or psychic or whatever, I'd just rather not blame shitty decisions on other shitty decisions from the past like a chain of dominoes because that doesn't make sense to me.

>>163367
I know, but the only people that cared the second time were the gross /rp/ers so that one wasn't a big deal. I know thats what ultimately ended /oat/ and made them have to kill /chat/, but the /oat/ before that was just as dead as far as I'm concerned.

/gala/ shouldn't have happened in the first place, but now that it has you can't remove it.

>>163370
In practice they really aren't that different. I know cause I go to all of them. The difference is the people, not the topics.

>>163371
>In practice they really aren't that different. I know cause I go to all of them. The difference is the people, not the topics.
iktf bro

>>163370

How exactly is it harmful ?

>>163371
Were we strictly speaking about the topics?

>>163373
see >>163362

>>163371

>/gala/ shouldn't have happened in the first place, but now that it has you can't remove it.

something had to happen, though. /chat/ up until the change had become an absolutely miserable place to post. finding threads was a massive massive hassle and half the time when you did it was either extraneous serial thread drama that spilled over or just nonsense. the main reason /ef/ was so fun was because it didnt have any of that (of course when it became efchan it just fell backwards into itself and turned into a mess) and since they deleted /ef/, something needed to be done

>>163374

I'm aware of that post, what I want to know is why you think that would be harmful.

>>163376
Reviving a dead board dedicated to /oat/ cliques just talking amongst themselves that don't want to use skype or /gala/ because they're "too formal" is an awful redundant idea, and nothing good would come of it even IF /oat/ was permanently anonymous, which it supposedly isn't.

>>163377
>Reviving a dead board dedicated to /oat/ cliques just talking amongst themselves that don't want to use skype or /gala/ because they're "too formal" is an awful redundant idea
I agree with you there, but only because that's pretty much what /oat/ is right now.

Theres no rhyme and reason to it beyond "The oat community."

>>163374
So what? Atmosphere? Cause outside of /oat/ which has more fedoralords the atmosphere is mostly the same too.
>>163375
I think there were other things that could have been done. Like mlpchan has serials but they aren't all over the front page. But when you make /gala/ people made even more serials and now theres way too many to even thing about merging it back.

>>163379
That's the weirdest part, forced anonymous has done very little to discourage non-serial topic-less socialization in the first place, so why is this even being brought up?

>>163380
I'm seeing a mix of selective interpretation and bad opinions here, not entirely sure where to take it.

>>163381
>bad opinions
>just label someone's else's perspective a bad opinion, no need to discuss it
pls

>>163382
Yes

>>163381
I was talking about /oat/ as it is now in general, not during these shenanigans.

As for your question, because pony related threads popped up within minutes of tripfag genocide.

>>163381

>>163387
>>163387

*tips dubs*
░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄█▀▀▀█▀▀██▄░░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░▄█▀▀░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▄░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░▄▄█▄░█░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░██▄▄█▀▀▀▀█████████░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░██▄▄▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░
▄▄█████████▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▀▀▀░░░░░
▀▀█████████▀▀▀██████▀████░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░▀████▄░░█▀▀█▀▄░█▀█▀░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░██▄▀░░░░░░░░░░█░█░░░░m’lady░░░
░░░░░░░░▀██░░░░░░░▄▄░█░█░░░░░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░░▄██▄░░░▄░░▄▄▄░█▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░
░░░░░░░░▄▀██▀▄▄░░▀▀█▀▀▄████░▀█▄░░░░
░░░░░░▄█▀▄░█▄░███▄░▄▄▄█▀████▄░▀█▄░░
░░░░▄██░░█▄░█▄▄▀░▀▀░▄█▀█░█████▄░█▄░
▄▄█▀▀░█░░░█░░█▀▀▄▄░░█░▄█████░██░░██

Last edited at Sun, Dec 28th, 2014 16:58

>>163388
good meme

>>163299
>recently