DSG is an insufferable cunt and I hope he has a lethal accident.

Thanks for getting posting fixed without the white screen

Arigatou Tohno-san

The captions below the banner are my favorite part of the site. Thanks for maintaining them.

Thank you for keeping the site running Tohno

>>6807
Why?

I don't see any reason to.

>>6804
other chans went down because the owner stopped caring, nno activity or too much spam to remove

It would be if we had anyone left who knew how to do such things.

>>6770
I am not sure I understand which player you and OP are referring to. The only Flash-based player included with Kusaba (that I'm aware of) is the one in the picture. But that shows up next to audio, not video uploads.

If you really are talking about this one, then it's simple to replace with an HTML5 Audio element. Every modern browser that doesn't support Flash does support HTML5.

>>6801
Anyway, if I'm mistaken, then it's probably still a good idea to remove the Flash-based audio player, for all the reasons mentioned by OP.
In that case, I'd also ask you to direct me to a thread containing the broken video player/embed you guys are talking about, I cannot promise anything but I will try my best to help.

Instructions to replace the audio player:
1. Go to admin panel
2. Click "Edit Templates"
3. Start editing the index template (img_board_page.tpl)
4. Find a section that looks like this:

{if $post.file_type eq 'mp3'} old player code (11 lines) {/if}

5. Replace that with:

{if $post.file_type eq 'mp3'} <audio controls preload="metadata"><source src="{$file_path}/src/{$post.file|utf8_encode|urlencode}.mp3" type="audio/mpeg">{t}You are seeing this because your browser does not support the HTML5 Audio element.{/t}</audio> {/if}

6. Save and rebuild.
7. Repeat 3-6 for the thread template (img_thread.tpl) and upload-thread template (upl_thread.tpl)

>>6801
The flash video player was added by another guy years ago. You can find plenty of examples of it on /mp3/. It's only broken in so much as is doesn't work on chromium without the pepper flash player. Tohno himself is technically illiterate.

Post edited on 12th Jun 2021, 11:37am

What was the one last year? My memory is blanking; the last one I remember was the adblock one from 2 years past.

>>6798
>What was the one last year?
Posts' vertical margins were increased, I think: posts were "socially distanced." Pretty clever!

I think it was from using the term "cap tcha" in the post. That term shouldn't be in our filter list but people have gotten banned for using it all the same. That's my guess anyway.

>>6762
Ahh, I did use that in a post actually or I tried too.

I'll leave this here as a record of a /ns/ google thing issue.

>>6762
The issue is finally resolved.

>>6787
>we don't want to see or hear about 3DPD here
It's nice that you're giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not even sure if everybody agrees with something this basic: >>/so/26177 I really do suspect that the person who has an issue disagrees with the entire notion and doesn't want tc to be a place for people who prefer 2d to 3d. I have no reason to think otherwise.

>assuming the worst of each other without giving each other a fair chance.
I would give this person a chance if they talk to me and clearly express themself rather than labelling me toxic and saying I'm from wizardchan. Not once have they directly interacted with me in an open manner.

I have no problem with people talking about their loneliness and other issues. The general consensus though is that actually pursuing a romantic relationship isn't worth it and it's better to focus on other things. I may be wrong about that, but it's up to you to decide that. A person has a moment of weakness or a bad day or they feel bad all of the time and they come talk about it on tc. Then what? What do you want to happen after that? Do you want people to give advice? What type of advice would you like to see be given here?

>>6788
>The general consensus though is that actually pursuing a romantic relationship isn't worth it and it's better to focus on other things.
That's your personal opinion, nothing more. You're not acting on behalf of the rest of us when you dump your righteous tirades on anyone who isn't literally you.

>Not once have they directly interacted with me in an open manner.
Of course I don't want to interact with you. Someone who in their own words considers objectors to their imaginary rules "fucking brainless cattle" is not worth talking to. Judging by the posts you linked you have a problem with no one wanting to interact with you even outside of TC.

>>6789
>That's your personal opinion, nothing more.
Very funny line. It's also the opinion of this person >>/so/26180 and this person >>/so/26181 I can't link to every instance of it, but I think it's also the opinion of a sizable number of other people here. Of course you like to paint it as just people from wizardchan or "crabs", etc. My way of expressing this opinion is just more direct. Really it's up to tohno to decide which attitude fits tc better. TC is for a specific demographic after all. What is your attitude again? You've been very coy and indirect about it.

>considers objectors to their imaginary rules "fucking brainless cattle"
I wasn't referring to any anon when I made that comment and you seem to have misconstrued it. Yes I do look down on normal people and their mindset, another typical opinion on tc. To quote tohno himself >>/ot/32508

>When this anon went to the irc to ask what we consider to be normalfags, I said that I consider it a state of mind, a way of thinking, not a checklist of accomplishments or lack there of. That to be a normalfag is to mindlessly conform to the standards and way of life of your peers, regardless of who those peers might be. Be it a gang member or a suburban house wife, to follow the herd like some zombie incapable of individuality let alone independent thought is what makes one a normalfag. For these people it's about finding a herd to fit in with, that they might identify with, not to be confused with trying to find people who might think the way you do.

Herd, mindless, incapable of independent thought. Hmm, sounds a lot like "fucking brainless cattle". I've had the same opinions I do now since before I started posting here.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>6790
>>6789
Forgive me for barging in, but it seems the issue stated point-blank is whether discussion of personal, romantic relationships with 3D should be allowed on /so/ and to what extent. There's been an increasing number of threads on /so/ that have been getting derailed by such conversation (and meta-conversation).

Given the assertion from >>6789 that

>That's your personal opinion, nothing more.
It seems to me that his side of the issue is that these should be allowed (do correct me if I misinterpret your position).

I'm of the position that such discussion should not be permitted in any form (e.g. hypothetical, anecdotal, etc.), for several reasons:
1) It wholly contradicts the spirit of the site
2) There's endless avenues on the internet to discuss such things. Why do you need another place for it?
3) Even if it's allowed in a "constrained" manner at first (e.g. discussion of "past" experiences), it opens the floodgates for digressions, flame-wars, and will over time dilute the rest of the board. Refer again to point (1).

While I will asusme good faith from >>6789, if I have misconstrued your position please be direct about it. It's hard to infer exactly what you're suggesting the nature of /so/ should be.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.