>>4600
Nope. I was actually thinking about starting a thread about this on /fb/ myself. I'm also sick of seeing threads get derailed every single time females get brought up (which consequently brings in cries of "misogyny" from femanons and white knights, quickly starting a back-and-forth shitstorm more often than not). Half of the time the comment that starts these derailments isn't even sexist or offensive.

I'd prefer to see it banned by rule too, personally.

>rule banning

Not happening: this chan largely hates women; deal with it. Right, Tohno?

>>4602
The problem lies more within the people getting up in arms about anything that can be remotely construed as anti-female than from any so-called misogynistic discussion. I keep hearing that this site is full of 'woman haters', but yet I never see much of this rampant hate that's supposed to be all over the place. That flagrant troll on /ot/ right now is making the only legitimate misogynist comments we've seen in a long time.

I think most of the people here would rather avoid making those kind of comments even if they don't particularly care for 3D women, because they simply don't want to discuss or debate any kind of gender politics garbage on the site.

>>4602
Sure whatever

>Could we just not talk about it? There are other websites and chans that discuss this stuff.

This. Every person who mentions something related to genders, not matter where it's good old misogyny, saying 'I've got this friend, she's a grill by the way' or anything of the sort should be a banned on spot. The only non-gender neutral words we should keep are mother and father because those are usually hard to avoid. Everything else ALWAYS, ALWAYS results in a massive shitstorm, no matter whether the original poster didn't mean any harm by that or was genuinely trying to bait people into starting another shitstorm.

>>4602

Precisely why this should be a rule. I don't want to see that shit here because I hate it. Can't we fucking pretend women simply do not exist?

>>4602
That's why it should be banned. Like >>4606 said, if we hate women, why the hell are we talking about them? There are other chans and boards where talking about it is more acceptable, but I think a lot of us would rather just not think about women and gender politics in general.

We already have a rule that bans posting 3D women. Why can't we go the extra step and just not talk about 3D women (specifically mentioning them as women and how they are involved/not involved in our lives) ever?

>>4611
>if we hate women, why the hell are we talking about them?
Hate does not mean indifference but quite the contrary, and it's nice to have a place to vent that hate out (just like the hate towards Ford-driving). However, if any change is made, I'll respect and adjust to Tohno and mods' decision on the matter.

>>4612
Again, the thing about venting such hate is that it also brings forth the disagreeable fujoshi and white knights. I personally am not offended in the least over seeing anti-female posts. It's the aftermath of said posts that becomes a concern.

On that note, it might work to add a rule along the lines of "Do not complain about the community's opinion on certain groups of people (ie: Ford Drivers, females)". That may stop derailments and some of these unsightly agendas from popping up without censoring TC's innate thoughts.

>>4613
I see. Fair enough.

As said, I leave it to /tc/ government' consideration and abide to their verdict.

Oh look, the epic "2d4lyfe super otakus" of tohno-chan are arguing about 3d shit again.
Meanwhile the otaku boards on this site get about 1 post a month.
Maybe /so/ just attracts 3d shit and it needs to be shut down so the people who post there can go back to 4chan.

>>4615
The purpose of this thread is to discuss possible rules to get rid of that 3D discussion, shitposter-chan.

Also, the main occurance people are talking about here is on /ot/ right now. I recall seeing gender politics on /an/, too.

>>4616
He suggested eliminating /so/, which is the correct move.

>• Announcing you are female and/or drawing attention to it.
This is already on the rule's page as discouraged. I doubt bumping it up a level will really make much of a difference. I get the feeling a lot of people here don't bother reading the rules before posting anyway. I'll tweak the rules the reflect this all the same.

>>4613
>Do not complain about the community's opinion on certain groups of people (ie: Ford Drivers, females)
Added.

>>4618
Looks good.

>>4617
Completely different subject. She bitches about /so/ constantly in every thread whether it's relevant or not. In this case it's really not, since, again, this shit is cropping up on /ot/, /an/, and other boards as well. There are already threads about axing the board. Discuss it there.

>>4618
Thank you.

>>4620

Well, 'she' is right about /so/.
Then again I genuinely fail to comprehend how anybody on planet Earth could think we actually have women here. If you were an attention whore (in other words a woman) would you rather post on super tiny anonymous imageboard or something like reddit? Women wouldn't get anything out of spending their time here, there's nothing in it for them.
inb4 ticks. ticks was too busy creating IRC drama to regularly post on the site. And she only further proves the point by using a trip. Women hate the very idea of anonymity.

>>4614
>As said, I leave it to /tc/ government' consideration and abide to their verdict.

/tc/ goverment can be summed up with this post:

>>4605

>>4625
>few
more than 50% of all marriages in this country would beg to differ. You're just being naive and letting them fool you. Women are experts at being deceptive and will hide their true intentions for years if need be. poor saps like you just make for easy targets and you'll probably have to learn the truth about bitches and whores the hard way.

>>4622
Don't ask me. She identified as such herself in the past when bitching about 'misogyny' in some other gender thread. I often wonder why she's still here myself.

Either way, getting rid of /so/ wouldn't stop 3D discussion at all, and insinuating that it "attracts" Ford Drivers as she did is just plain idiotic. No Ford Driver would come to this tiny anonymous site to get their whine fix with a bunch of otaku NEETs they can't identify with. They'd find some other place (4chan, if they really wanted something vaguely similar in style) to do that shit- there's enough of them around.

>>4628
Actual Ford Drivers aren't a threat to this site since you can instantly see them for who they are. The real threats are people from other anime sites who are naive to the culture here, and people from 4chan who come here to 'funpost'.

>>4625

>Most women are good.

Sturgeon's law begs to differ.

>>4628

>No Ford Driver would come to this tiny anonymous site to get their whine fix with a bunch of otaku NEETs they can't identify with. They'd find some other place (4chan, if they really wanted something vaguely similar in style) to do that shit- there's enough of them around.

My thoughts exactly. The anti-Ford-Driver-infiltration agenda is a literal Witch Hunt - people will get accused and (occasionally) 'burned' but it doesn't change the fact that the amount of Ford Drivers on /tc/ (promguys and people who come here for the ebin krautchan raids don't count) is equal to the amount of witches out there.

I'm pretty confident that there are next to no women around here, either. /mai/ aside there's nothing in it for them, just like there's nothing of interest here for Ford Drivers.

>>4628
She's not entirely wrong. Normals might be too busy browsing FB to care, but there are plenty of negative communities and full time autists who'd have a field day with us. I don't want to see some of our posters vanish after being targeted and having articles written about them.

Deleting /so/ would be too extreme but Tohno should really considering unlisting it from the front page. If it was up to me I'd hide /mai/, /mt/, /ot/, /irc/, /arc/ and /fb/ too.

>>4635
What would unlisting those boards from the front page accomplish, aside from hurting their traffic?

>>4635
>I don't want to see some of our posters vanish after being targeted and having articles written about them.

I don't know, that seems like paranoia to me. Trolls that occasionally happened across this site before have all been very blatant about it and were quickly dealt with. Even if someone were to go to lengths to make an article or something, the overwhelming majority of posters here are anonymous and don't even go by a known online alias. Moreover, I think such an act would be more likely done out of spite by someone that used to be a member of the community here and was later 'exiled' than a passing troll.

>>4635
Hide /mai/ and /so/, our main specificity as a chan and long-held pride?

Are you out of your mind?

Dont recall seeing anything like that here, you're the one who brought it up.

>and their bowel movements?

Aside from those certain situations I dont see it necessary to take an action like that. That problem is already solved. Good post though, which you could talk some sense into the OP.

I'm just sick of this shit. Sick of the restrictive rules, the endless controversial arguments which leads to nothing, the 'cuteposting' that doesn't get deleted.

>>4659
>Sick of the restrictive rules
>'cuteposting' that doesn't get deleted.
well which is it? If I'm understanding you right, you can't have lax rules/moderation AND have everything you don't like get banned/deleted.
I don't suppose you could maybe point out some of this cuteposting if you would be so kind? Not that I haven't seen the reports but so others around here can see what you're referring to. other people around here might not share the same viewpoint.

>>4660
he was just joking

>>4660
Well I think it is possible to have rules with more freedom as well as having no bad posts. You just have to make sure that everyone on the site has a good idea of the culture and whats acceptable/not acceptable. With the people who break the rules you make sure they learn or if they're breaking them on purpose, you ban them.

I just like to think of it as a communist dictatorship vs capitalist democracy. In the dictatorship you have really strict rules with harsh punishments for breaking them. The people who lie about themselves just to fit in with the party line, the hardcore fanatics who denounce everyone they see, and the bulk of the suffering population which just want a nice life. Its supposed to be a utopia, but is it really?

I don't feel like pointing out what is a cutepost but its basically the type of shit you see on /jp/. If you leave it unchecked we'll be seeing threads about 'which 2hu wud u fuk' and erotic roleplay all over the front page

>>4663
>>4663
>If you leave it unchecked we'll be seeing threads about 'which 2hu wud u fuk' and erotic roleplay all over the front page

that's quite the slippery slope you have there.

>>4664
Its pretty plausible if youve seen what ive seen on IRC.

>>4665
As someone else stated in the other thread, most people on IRC don't even browse the site.

>>4666
So do you like the 'cuteposting'? If the answer is no, then it should be deleted.

>>4667
I'm not sure where you'd even get the idea that I do. I'm just saying that IRC is a terrible example to gauge the actual site by.

Where exactly is all this 'cuteposting' that isn't being deleted though?