>People have left in droves for /ota/ because the environment here has become so unpleasant.

Why would they do that? /ota/ is way more unpleasant than /tc/.

Herein lies the problem. Such violent reactions to perceived threats forces such threats to either leave or adapt to the board culture. However, these violent reactions detract from the quality of this site itself. It creates an atmosphere of hostility and fear, people are scared to post because they might invoke the wrath of the board. This has progressed to the point where probably even Tohno or the site mods would get called out if they didn't censor themselves before posting.

It doesn't even work most of the time. Obvious shitposting gets taken down quite quickly, but stuff which sort of skirts the border stays around for a while and raises a shitstorm until the size of the shitstorm itself justifies taking it down. Also, it doesn't always remove bad elements from our site, because people who are determined to stay here just take their unsightly habits underground. Some of us, maybe even most of us, like/are okay with drugs and 3D, but simply don't talk about it here.

I question the effectiveness of this sites so called 'immune system' when it starts making even hardcore otaku scared to post and causes the site to become slower. There has to be a better solution.

Post edited on 18th Apr 2013, 9:51am

>This has progressed to the point where probably even Tohno or the site mods would get called out if they didn't censor themselves before posting.

heh, you don't know the half of it. Even when posting Anonymously there are people who recognize my posting style and immediately stop the conversation to basically say "oh it's Tohno, fuck this." Hell I got banned the other day for posting a photo of shit in a thread where everyone was complaining about shit posting. So yes I agree, I think the reason why people don't want to post more is becuase they're afraid to. when people see posts they make get deleted of course they'll be afraid to post again (unless they're a spammer/troll). when someone linked to wizard-chan, someone came over and posted a feel image for a thread, I deleted it and banned them for a day. Another poped up and I banned them for a week. then came across the thread on us they made on their site. sounded like they were a bit afraid of posting here after that. While that's not the kind of stuff we want around here, the point is heavy moderation is scaring people off. I remember back in the day /a/ seemed like a fun place when it appeared that there were no mods. it meant you had the freedom to say and do whatever you wanted, and whenever a mod did show up on the board it felt like someone just crashed the party. I mean I've been banned for some pretty shitty reasons in the past, didn't make me want to straighten up and fly right in accordance to whatever I was banned for, just pissed me off. If you ask me, it's the people who want us to delete every other post and forcibly quiet others who can't take things easy, Not just the people who call everything shit posting. People who can't handle seeing things they don't like or hearing people say things they don't like. and yeah I can't pretend to not be a part of that myself sometimes. but it's certainly why I don't post as much as I used to, everything I say and do pisses people off or in the case of this thread don't do. Sometimes I'd post things then delete them soon after becuase I know I'll get shit for it, or just close the tab before hitting reply. I'm tempted to do that with this post as well.

The way I basically see it, stricter moderation gives better quality across the site but scares lots of people off slowing things down, more lenient moderation invites 'shitposting' and brings high traffic at the cost of being lower in quality. but you can't complain about the staff being too lenient and it resulting in lower traffic, I just don't think it works that way. if anything I could see people leaving becuase of how slow the site is. it's certainly a major complaint among outsiders who refuse to visit our site becuase it gets "1 post a day".

>>3790
You don't necessarily need to think all that as a negative, you could also be proud that your application will go straight to the top of the pile if you ever want to be a moderator on 7chan.

>>3791
Why would I want to be a mod on 7chan?
Why would I want to be on 7chan?

…exactly…

>>3790
>Hell I got banned the other day for posting a photo of shit in a thread where everyone was complaining about shit posting.

>>3792
>Why would I want to be on 7chan?
/cake/

/so/ has a problem with a couple of toxic users backseat moderating. For example thread 26084 was fine for 5 years until some people (likely fresh from wizardchan) showed up to abuse everyone who likes what they don't like.
Unfortunately the moderation only encouraged and validated their behaviour by locking 26084 as a "kuso thread." There was no real rule breaking there except for one stubborn ban evader who always comes back to post about brothels and shit despite earning frequent penalties.
Before someone says the lock was supposed to keep that one flagrant rule breaker from abusing the thread for his purposes, he wasn't endemic to that one particular thread. I noticed him earning the bold red caption multiple times in different threads not just on /so/ but also on /ot/.

The kind of angry meta scolding they do is itself an infraction mentioned in the rules by the way. Anything they rage against is also explicitly stated as allowed for /so/ specifically.
I tried my best not to respond to them, which would only add to the metaposting, but they're ridiculous and getting harder to ignore each time.

So what's up with /so/ now? Am I supposed to follow some unwritten rules recently set by self appointed enforcers now? Submit to their arbitrary policing of subjective "virtues" or leave the site?
The board's description for /so/ reads as follows: Feeling sad? Feeling lonely? Feeling hopeless, lost, pathetic, unloved, unappreciated, uncared for, neglected, or confused? If the behaviour of the backseat moderators should be considered a manifestation of the new normal to conform to, it would suggest that posting about five of these officially stated topics (a 50% of suggested themes) would be tacitly discouraged and could have a poster derided or otherwise abused.

>>6783
Nice, very passive aggressive.
>likely fresh from wizardchan
Uh huh, keep saying that.

>it would suggest that posting about five of these officially stated topics (a 50% of suggested themes) would be tacitly discouraged and could have a poster derided or otherwise abused
Nobody has been criticized for just talking about feeling negative emotions. I'm the one who posted >>/so/26162 What's being criticized is people shitposting about wanting a girlfriend and that general attitude of revering romanatic relationships with 3d woman. Nobody here can offer anything in response but the solid advice that pursuing that isn't worth it. If they don't listen though, there's literally no point in them continuing to post about it. I don't think it belongs on tc and tc has been just fine without that kind of discourse. You're not even willing to discuss this in earnest, you just conflate things and sidestep everybody who disagrees with you because you're not happy with the way things are. You want tc to be a different kind of site, the kind where people give dating advice and tell recluses to go outside more or whatever. Or the kind of site where people circlejerk constantly over "that feeling when no gf :(" I honestly don't know which.

I do think /so/'s description should be far more specific.

>>6784
You don't belong on TC.

>>6785
The person who wants to be here belongs and I'm perfectly content. I'm guessing your virtues are objective? I'm also the one who created this thread >>/so/25323 and posted this >>/so/26157 I don't appreciate you derailing my thread by complaining about how "certain toxic users" have been doing bad things lately or whatever.

Post edited on 27th Nov 2020, 3:51pm

It amazes me how we can have personal drama on an Anonymous image board...

Anywho, it wasn't me that locked the thread but as I've learned the hard way, sometimes we have to be strict and set examples, less we be walked all over. Sometimes that means stoping potential problems before they have the opportunity to get out of control.
If I had it my way I'd never ban anyone or lock any threads, but lord knows that would never work.
I also wish I had a dollar for ever time I saw someone here tell someone else "you don't belong here."
I mean I get it, we don't want to see or hear about 3DPD here, but we're all just human, none of us are perfect. We all have our bad days, our issues, our weaknesses, and things we need help with. For some people it's harder than others and takes a bit more work to get the message to really sink in. This I think is why one should try to keep more of an open mind about the people here before calling them toxic for that mater. It goes both ways I think, like two sides of the same coin. Yeah there's going to be some problematic people here like everywhere else, but again we all have our problems, many of those problems are what bring us together here. maybe we can even help each other out with those problems. You could say that's one of the reasons /so/ exists. I like to think the people who find their way here end up here for a reason, because they have something or are looking for something that the rest of us have too. It's one thing if it's normals who don't understand or want to understand what this place is about, but I don't really get the impression that's the case here. I think this is more likely just a simple misunderstanding from people who might be assuming the worst of each other without giving each other a fair chance.

>>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.

>Judging by the posts you linked you have a problem with no one wanting to interact with you even outside of TC.
Wow, it's almost like tohno-chan is a site for social outcasts or something. Thanks for calling me a loser in a roundabout way. I'm sure your social status is far higher than an unempathetic, toxic person like myself.

Post edited on 28th Nov 2020, 9:01am

>>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.