>>5249
(not Tohno)
I've actually brought that up half-jokingly on IRC when it was mentioned 8chan has or had an idol board. They said they'd want to take a look at how their moderation and board culture is before considering moving out.
Not sure how serious the answer was.

>>5249
do not support 8chan

>>5248
Even if people couldn't help having a world view, they could still keep themselves from acting upon it. It would be the rational thing to do, considering that a world view is just a set of opinions, and not a truth. But a lot of people in this thread are too arrogant to see their own lack of insight, and the result is a thread full of posts without meaning.

>>5253
The same thing could be said about you and your world view and about your truth. You acted just as arrogant in >>5236

>>5255
If that were true, you'd be proving my point.
If it weren't true, your post would have been pointless (too).

>>5256
what? Yeah I agree with what you just said in >>5253 but I don't think you're any better than the others in this thread.

>>5258
Neither do I. No one can be better than someone else because we're all one in God.

>>5236
>>5253
So in essence, you believe your personal world view to be the real "truth", and that everyone that does not share your views is wrong by default (and therefore just a bunch of arrogant "haters") because their truth does not match up with yours?

Seems legit.

>>5259
Oh, you're trolling. Gotcha.

>>5260
That kind of ignorance is just offensive. If you want to know why you're wrong, just read my previous posts. I'm not going to repeat myself.

I will add something though: We can only consider something as good if it's absolute and eternal, and only God fulfills those criteria. So by saying I myself was good I would be effectively committing blasphemy. We have to realize how lucky we are to live at God's mercy and shouldn't spend our lives trying to become some kind of other god but instead live in accordance to what God has taught us. It's somewhere inside of us and to find it can be the only motive for a good life. You might consider this a world view, but it's hardly more than a motive really, but at the same time it's also the only thing that's required.

>>5261
You don't even know what my opinions are, and yet you've already inferred that they're "wrong"? Thank you for proving my last point and making an argument against yourself; not that I think it matters as I highly doubt you're being serious.

Might want to tone down the religious shit in your trolling, though. When it's unprovoked and that flagrant, it's a dead giveaway.

>>5262
You were wrong in saying that I think other people's opinions are "wrong ny default", because I never said anything like that.

And if you really think that anything regarding God is "religious shit" and an indicator for trolling, you need to broaden your horizon. I recommend Decartes' Meditations.

>>5259
>>5261
You need to fuck off with your proselytizing, this isn't a synagogue.
>>5263
Oh, never mind. You're that dumbass thesaurus philosophy troll. Why are you still here? Are you so sad you wasted your life studying a useless subject that you have to resort to worshiping 3D now?

>>5264
He's not the Asuka guy, if that's what you mean.
Chill out.

There is no point in arguing when the other party doesn't have at least a small probability of accepting your view.

>>5270
What about venting frustration and in doing so give others a better understanding of your feelings on the given matter?

>>5271
Generally speaking, personal feelings have no place in any rational or constructive debate (not to be confused with the feelings of the community at large, which was quite relevant to the discussion in this thread earlier). Of course, whether or not this thread ever had any semblance of 'rational debate' in the first place is subjective; I personally think that possibility was pretty much thrown out the window within the first three replies.

>>5272
>Generally speaking, personal feelings have no place in any rational or constructive debate.
Agreed. Also, it's kind of silly to have a debate about this topic in the first place since there is only one answer to this problem (the board does not belong here).

I think my reply might have gotten lost in the conversation, could a mod answer >>5249 please?

>>5249
I believe that site was mentioned to me when creating /akb/ in the first place. Those who recommended /akb/ had nothing nice to say about it. If as you say anyone can create a board on 8chan, I would think they would have already and moved there long ago. It's not like we're imprisoning them here mind you, they're free to go when and where they please.

I feel I should remind you guys that the situation with /akb/ is something of a give and take relationship. They get their board and we get a bit more traffic on the rest of the site. I don't partiality like having the board here but if people here didn't seem intent on keeping this site in a state of stagnation I wouldn't have had to create /akb/ in the first place. Every attempt at bringing some life to this place gets shot down by people who seem content to constantly reload inactive boards. I get the idea of wanting to have a slower easy going place to hang out, but this isn't slow we're talking about it's a dead stop for boards outside of /mai/ /so/ and /ot/.

>>5274
8chan has been updated a lot recently. I can understand it not being chosen in the past, but the site now has a lot more features than here. I've only taken a glance at /akb/ but it seems like the board would benefit from hovering to play webms and animated thumbnail gifs at the least. The mods might not be aware that site has these features now.

As for the traffic, I understand that the post rate has increased but subjectively the quality of discussion seems much lower and there's bickering everywhere. Just look at this thread and the one at the top of /an/ for example. Outsiders (I'm assuming from /akb/?) keep trying to push their opinions here and stir up shit everywhere and it's getting really tiring.

I have no idea how to contact the mods for /akb/, but if you could at least bring up the subject again with them I would really appreciate it.

>>5275
>Outsiders (I'm assuming from /akb/?) keep trying to push their opinions here and stir up shit everywhere
This thread and it's bickering were started by someone who's been here a long time. That thread on /an/ was also started and continued by someone who's been here for ages. I wouldn't dump all the blame on new comers.

only one of the mods on that board seems active these days, but I'll be sure to bring this to his attention.

>>5276
Thanks, I appreciate it. I guess I shouldn't jump to conclusions about where all the conflict's coming from, but it just sucks seeing it everywhere.

>>5273

>it's kind of silly to have a debate about this topic in the first place since there is only one answer to this problem

I agree. Since it's not your site you can't do anything but ignore it. Debating this any further is pointless.

>(the board does not belong here).

That's not your decision to make.

>>5275

>Outsiders (I'm assuming from /akb/?)

Here we go again, the time honored /tc/ tradition of witch hunting. If somebody disagrees with you he's an outsider, a dangerous element, a rebel and he has to be dealt with accordingly. It's not like he could just not share you views for any reason other than trying to sabotage /tc/.
This argument has been repeated on /fb/ since the day it was created - for over three years by now (it just never gets old!).

>>5280
>That's not your decision to make.
Indeed. But it is my strong opinion and an opinion I believe the majority of the site shares. That's why I asked for the input of Tohno and the mod since they're the only ones who can do anything about it.

As for the outsiders comment, /akb/ was explicitly created to bring outsiders to the website (>>5274). It's not just some crackpot theory when it is actually happening. I consider an outsider to be someone who posts pictures of and discusses 3d, going against all the board culture and rules of tohno-chan.

>>5281
While there's no denying they're outsiders, you have to remember that they know full well the majority of the site isn't comfortable with having their board here. They aren't going to do things that might jeopardize their place here. If you found yourself standing on thin ice would you start doing jumping jacks?

>>5280
>Here we go again, the time honored /tc/ tradition of witch hunting. If somebody disagrees with you he's an outsider, a dangerous element, a rebel and he has to be dealt with accordingly. It's not like he could just not share you views for any reason other than trying to sabotage /tc/.
Goddamn, you bitch about this a lot. Give it a rest. Someone regurgitates the term "witch hunt" every time anyone so much as disagrees with someone else or points out blatant rule breaking (see: that /so/ thread) these days. Really, the only people I even see bringing up this shit most of the time are the assholes whining about "not being accepted" in TC's environment- ergo, the ones crying "witch hunt" in the first place.

>This argument has been repeated on /fb/ since the day it was created - for over three years by now (it just never gets old!).
The irony is killing me.

>>5283

Why does who wrote what matter? It doesn't. The only thing that should matter is the thing being said. Assume any post can be written by anyone. *chans are notorious for applying labels to people even though the whole structure of these forums is to prevent that, to the point where they even creat unique terminology for it (*-fag).

>>5284
It doesn't matter who wrote what, but the post quality certainly matters and so he is wondering why he recently noticed what seemed like a drop in quality to him. He came up with an explanation that sounds plausible to him, that's all there is to his post.

>>5285
This, more or less. It really doesn't matter who keeps parroting the phrase or flipping out every time someone gets upset when 3D subjects come up. It could be one person or a dozen, but it's no less annoying in either case.

>>5281

>But it is my strong opinion and an opinion I believe the majority of the site shares.

It's still not your call either way so making claims like
>there is only one answer to this problem (the board does not belong here)
is ridiculous.

>It's not just some crackpot theory when it is actually happening.

Right now it's debatable as we've actually seen an influx of new users but this theory has been around for over 3 years by now. Tons of people seem to believe that the massive internet moloch that is /tc/ is targeted by several groups of vile Ford Drivers whose sole purpose in life is to drive the site into the ground. It's very easy to spot them, too: if somebody disagrees with any opinion that seems to be prevalent on /tc/ he's got to be the one.
Case in point this
>Just look at this thread and the one at the top of /an/ for example. Outsiders (I'm assuming from /akb/?) keep trying to push their opinions here and stir up shit everywhere
was said. However the person behind that post is a guy who has been on the site for so long he got a joke board dedicated to him.

>>5283

>Goddamn, you bitch about this a lot. Give it a rest.

No, you give it a rest. If you see rules breaking content report it and it'll be dealt with accordingly. As for you baseless conjecture as to who does what for reason you might as well give it a rest, all it does is make you look paranoid.

>The irony is killing me.

The only irony here is that you don't understand what's the cause and what's the effect. The term 'witch hunt' would've never appeared on /tc/ if not for everybody who tries to push the theory that there's some secret society out that that was made to destroy /tc/.

I want everybody who posts 3D to get out but I want them to get out slightly less than I'd to see people like you gone. I want to take it easy but the likes of you will vehemently attack everything you don't like as a foreign element, regardless of it being a rule violation or not.

>>5288
Fine. You win. I'm done with this site. Enjoy your echo chamber once you drive everyone away.

>>5288
>If you see rules breaking content report it and it'll be dealt with accordingly.
This is not directly related to the idol thing, but I keep seeing you put so much trust into the rules.

So what do you think about stuff like this?
http://tohno-chan.com/mp3/res/1462.html#1949
Just because it does not directly violate any rules it's okay? It's okay to make such excessive low-quality and off-topic metaposting?

The fact that shit like that doesn't get deleted goes to show that you can not rely on only the rules.
I also don't believe that the mods are up to the task because more often than not do they not immediately delete things that violate the rules but instead wait until enough people complain/report.


Actually I just realized that the rules are clearly broken in this case on /mp3/
The rules state that no "meta shitposting" is allowed. And yet the posts were never deleted. Great job.

Post edited on 23rd Oct 2014, 6:10pm

>>5291
>The fact that shit like that doesn't get deleted goes to show that you can not rely on only the rules.
The fact you want that post deleted goes to show that you need to take that tree out of your ass.

>>5292
I don't just mean that one post, I mean that whole lot of replies too.

>>5291
I agree that mods need to use discretion and not just rely on the rules all the time. But to me those posts are within the realm of acceptability. Dont get me wrong, they're bad, but not enough to warrant deletion.

>>5289

I'd rather see this place turn into graveyard than get overrun by people like you who can't take it easy and are aggressive towards everybody who doesn't share their worldview. You won't be missed.

>>5291

>Just because it does not directly violate any rules it's okay? It's okay to make such excessive low-quality and off-topic metaposting?
>The fact that shit like that doesn't get deleted goes to show that you can not rely on only the rules.

That's up to mods to decide. Those reponses mostly fall under
>/b/-Level Shit. E.g. gets, greentext, meta shitposting and reaction images.
so they are in fact regulated. Deciding where to draw the line is always up to the staff. Only a small fraction of posts are clear rule violations, most are more gray zone area.

>I also don't believe that the mods are up to the task because more often than not do they not immediately delete things that violate the rules but instead wait until enough people complain/report.

That's bad moderation then, not the rules' fault.

>>5295

>Dont get me wrong, they're bad, but not enough to warrant deletion.

This is also a thing. What deserves to get axed is always subjective in cases such as this. Personally I'd delete 1950, 1951, 1953 and 1958. The rest is really low quality but doesn't reek of ill intent.

>>5288
>The term 'witch hunt' would've never appeared on /tc/ if not for everybody who tries to push the theory that there's some secret society out that that was made to destroy /tc/.
And yet, I never see anyone coming up with that theory. Ever. That's just an assumption you make time and time again to fuel your strawman arguments, presumably because seeing anything anti-"normalfag" offends you. If someone so much as says "don't post pictures of 3D people", you fly off the handle with your cute little 'witch hunt' accusations and act as if they're coming up with some grand paranoid conspiracy despite nothing in their post indicating anything of the sort.

>>5296
>overrun by people like you who can't take it easy and are aggressive towards everybody who doesn't share their worldview
Are you seriously unaware of how ridiculously hypocritical you sound?

I'm finding it hard to take any of these "stop bullying normalfags" arguments seriously when the only group overreacting is the one jumping on anyone that dares mention the site's rules or culture. When I see the supposed pitchfork-in-hand anti-3D crowd start making posts of your caliber, then maybe your points will carry some validity.

>>5298

>If someone so much as says "don't post pictures of 3D people", you fly off the handle

No, I never did that. Posting 3D violates the rules and as such it should be deleted.

>despite nothing in their post indicating anything of the sort.
Yeah, sure:
>Outsiders (I'm assuming from /akb/?) keep trying to push their opinions here and stir up shit everywhere

Literal quote. I have nothing more to add.

>Are you seriously unaware of how ridiculously hypocritical you sound?

It's my rule to never start any shit but I guarantee you that I'm not gonna remain passive the second somebody gets aggressive. And hey, would you imagine that, if everybody followed that rule nothing would ever happen!

>group overreacting is the one jumping on anyone that dares mention the site's rules

The rules must be stricly followed.

>or culture

The culture is much more subjective than you seem to believe it to be.

>>5299
>No, I never did that.
If that was true for you and your crowd, there would be no issues here.

>Literal quote. I have nothing more to add.
The same quote you keep pulling up over and over, and it just showed up on this thread. Then again, it's the only evidence you'll ever get so it only makes sense that you'll cling to it. But in the first place, nothing in that quote indicates that the poster believed in the grand conspiracy you speak of- that's something you keep making up.

And if the witch hunters are as rampant as you insist they are, why don't you show me some evidence from the main site? It should be easy, but I'm still waiting. Because I can't find any substantial proof of your claims.

>It's my rule to never start any shit but I guarantee you that I'm not gonna remain passive the second somebody gets aggressive.
That's the problem- it might not be you particularly- but someone is becoming very aggressive with the 'stop the witch hunt!' crap even when someone else so much as brings up the rules in a passive manner. Again, I refer to >>>/so/18327 for this.

>The culture is much more subjective than you seem to believe it to be.
The rules are based on the 'culture'. Personally, as long as the rules are followed, I have no issues. I don't even care that much about /akb/. I'm just sick of the pro-3D crowd acting like they have some grand right to be here, and getting pissed off when people tell them otherwise.

>>5302

>your crowd

Oh, more of that. I guess 'your crowd' an 'my crowd' are some different species, sorry for assuming otherwise.
Announcing you're an outsider is against the rules by the way, don't do that again.

While I'm at it might as well add I don't think I have seen anybody advocating rule changes ever since the anti-3DPD rule was adopted and neither have I seen anybody who openly urged others to break it.

>The same quote you keep pulling up over and over, and it just showed up on this thread.

Oh, I'm sorry, I never realized that quoting things from the very same thread is such a faux pas. I should've looked into old /fb/ threads that have next-to-nothing with the topic at hand instead.

>Then again, it's the only evidence you'll ever get so it only makes sense that you'll cling to it.

Pretty rich considering just a post earlier you claimed 'nothing in their post indicating anything of the sort'. Now it's not 'nothing' but 'one post'. Moving the goalposts at it's finest. Of course if I were to dig up some ancient stuff like you want me to you'd either say it's way too old or that now I have only two posts which I'll desperately cling to so why bother.

>But in the first place, nothing in that quote indicates that the poster believed in the grand conspiracy you speak of- that's something you keep making up.

Oh, and here's another smart move: taking everything literally without trying to understand what's being said. That's new. I'll be sure to avoid all the idioms while I'm at it. Then again it's my fault for exaggerating like that I guess: you reap what you sow (but wait, where are the seeds?).

>Again, I refer to >>>/so/18327 for this.

Do you really expect me to read through some topic on /so/ of all places? At least quote something. Crtl+F ing 'witch' doesn't give me a single hit. Just skimming through it all I see is 'I don't fit in and it sucks' but I don't really see much of 'I don't fit it and it sucks but you can't bully me!'. The only person that kinda speaks up against that seems to be an empathetic (rather pointlessly so, go elsewhere if you want to discuss abusive relationshits) third party.

>The rules are based on the 'culture'.

I disagree. If anything I'd say board culture is based on rules.

>I'm just sick of the pro-3D crowd acting like they have some grand right to be here

Considering it's not against the rules to be pro-3D I fail to see why they wouldn't.

Can we just agree that

1. the /akb/ board can stay as long as they don't post 3d on the rest of the site

2. Its ok for people who like 3D to browse and post on the site but they shouldn't post 3D, nor should they talk about it. Also, people shouldn't ask about it.

3. Arguments and complaints about what what/who belongs on the board or not usually creates even worse quality drop than the original cause of the argument/complaint, and should be avoided if possible

>>5303
>I never realized that quoting things from the very same thread is such a faux pas.
Missing the point. You're using a quote in a meta discussion about 3D belonging here or not, not one from actual topics on the 'main' site.

>so why bother
Burden of proof lies with the claim bearer. You say that witch hunters are everywhere on TC. I say that's bullshit.

>Do you really expect me to read through some topic on /so/ of all places?
The tl;dr is that people complained about not fitting in here due to being "3D-oriented" and were met with somewhat empathetic responses at first, which got increasingly harsher as they continued to complain about the "unfairness" of it. Later, a different person (?) wanted to discuss 3D relationships here as it related to their problems, and the same chain of responses followed.

>Considering it's not against the rules to be pro-3D I fail to see why they wouldn't.
Maybe I should reword what I said. I'm sick of the pro-3D crowd acting as if they have a grand right to post and discuss 3D things here.

>>5304
>1. the /akb/ board can stay as long as they don't post 3d on the rest of the site
This doesn't really bother me. I don't agree with a word they said about idol-worshipping being akin to 2D love, but I wasn't even aware of the existence of the board until this thread came up anyway. In the end, it's not my place to say whether they stay or go anyway.

>2. Its ok for people who like 3D to browse and post on the site but they shouldn't post 3D, nor should they talk about it. Also, people shouldn't ask about it.
So as long as they never bring anything 3D-related up at all, we'd never know the difference and couldn't even police it anyway. Ergo, I have no issue with this either. I don't believe any true 'normalfag' would stay on a site like this very long without being disruptive anyway.

>3. Arguments and complaints about what what/who belongs on the board or not usually creates even worse quality drop than the original cause of the argument/complaint, and should be avoided if possible
Generally true, however- many times, as others have pointed out, borderline-rule-breaking posts don't get deleted, and we're left with people offhandedly bringing up things that simply should not be brought up here, like gender or 3D crap. Believe me, I'd rather those posts were just bombed and shitstorms avoided too.

Post edited on 26th Oct 2014, 3:27pm

>>5304

Agreed wholeheartedly with all of those.

>>5305

>You're using a quote in a meta discussion about 3D belonging here or not

Obviously. I fail to see your point.

>Burden of proof lies with the claim bearer.

Yes, and I proceeded to post exactly that but you didn't like it for some reason.

>You say that witch hunters are everywhere on TC.

No, I don't remember saying that. Whether I believe it to be true or not is a different matter altogether.
But fine, I'll humor you. Here's a non-/fb/ example. >>/an/21032
(>>21050): (I wonder how you even found this site.)
(>>210520: (You might as well leave then. You know? I don't think you actually watch anime in any case.)

In other words they both (or maybe it's one person but it doesn't seem like it) assume the person they're replying to came to /tc/ just to stir some even though he doesn't even watch anime.
That's quite a delusion of grandeur by the way, to assume that that person came to /tc/ just to annoy those two posters who responded to him (and maybe 3 other guys who get offended the second they see something they disagree with).

Of course this example won't count either because you'll come up with some arbitrary reason as to why it's worthless just in a second.

>I'm sick of the pro-3D crowd acting as if they have a grand right to post and discuss 3D things here.

Well, no wonder because they don't. I don't really think I've seen it before anyway.

>>5306
>I fail to see your point.
When the topic of this thread is a meta discussion about the very thing you're discussing and trying to dispute the existence of, logic would dictate people are going to discuss "outsiders" here even if they wouldn't normally. I don't know how to simplify it further.

>No, I don't remember saying that.
>>5280
>Here we go again, the time honored /tc/ tradition of witch hunting. If somebody disagrees with you he's an outsider, a dangerous element, a rebel and he has to be dealt with accordingly. It's not like he could just not share you views for any reason other than trying to sabotage /tc/. This argument has been repeated on /fb/ since the day it was created - for over three years by now (it just never gets old!).
>>5288
>...if not for everybody who tries to push the theory that there's some secret society out that that was made to destroy /tc/.

>But fine, I'll humor you
That's an example of site "secret club" style elitism, no doubt. I'll give you that. But it's hardly what I'd call a "witch hunt"- there are no accusations of being a normalfag or "ruining the site", or, as you say:

>That's quite a delusion of grandeur by the way, to assume that that person came to /tc/ just to annoy those two posters who responded to him
That's another assumption (and severe exaggeration) on your part. Why do you do this? People here view outsiders as a negative thing, sure, but I highly doubt anyone conjures up a view in their mind this ridiculous. Take it for what it is- something thrown at their argumentive opponent as a petty insult.

>Of course this example won't count either because you'll come up with some arbitrary reason as to why it's worthless just in a second.
I wouldn't call it arbitrary at all, and it's not a completely worthless example. But again, I'm not seeing the exaggerated witch-hunt style normalfag ousting I've come to expect from reading what you think of the anti-3D people. What I get is "how did you even find this site?" with a very large amount of conjecture from yourself as evidence for his intent behind the sentence.

>Well, no wonder because they don't. I don't really think I've seen it before anyway.
Uh, what? Did you completely ignore that thread I just pointed out to you? Before that, there was a guy that posted a picture of himself on /mai/ (which is obviously deleted now), and even now still posts around /mai/ hanging around with people describing their bodies or hinting at their 3D sex lives. That's the kind of shit that I'd argue lowers the quality of the site.

>>5308

>When the topic of this thread is a meta discussion about the very thing you're discussing and trying to dispute the existence of, logic would dictate people are going to discuss "outsiders" here even if they wouldn't normally. I don't know how to simplify it further.

I still fail to see how that matters. My point is people randomly accuse those 'outsiders' for all sorts of stuff with absolutely no proof whatsoever. I don't understand the importance of those accusations being made here. Where else should they be made?

>>No, I don't remember saying that.

So, where exactly have I said they are 'everywhere on TC'? It's mostly visible on /fb/ because it's the freaking meta board.

>But it's hardly what I'd call a "witch hunt"- there are no accusations of being a normalfag

What's the difference between saying 'you're not from here and you don't belong here' or 'how did you even find this site?' and 'you're a normalfag'? It's basically the same message rephrased.

>That's another assumption (and severe exaggeration) on your part.

How else would you interpret it then? Since that guy 'doesn't belong on /tc/' he obviously comes here to either annoy them or push some kind of secret agenda (or both). What else could it be? I legitimately can't come up with any other reason.

>People here view outsiders as a negative thing, sure, but I highly doubt anyone conjures up a view in their mind this ridiculous.

Oh, but judging on what happened there I think that's precisely the case. One poster was pointlessly polite despite getting attacked (the same thing happened here with >>5223 by the way; the second someone throws insults your way you get a free pass to stop taking them seriously), the others were seemingly convinced he must be trying to get on their nerves, it's not like he could simply have a different opinion.

>Take it for what it is- something thrown at their argumentive opponent as a petty insult.

Sure, it is an insult but I don't feel like it's random. It's not like saying 'fuck off you faggot'. What they say is 'since you don't think that [x] you are obviously not from here and you need to get out'. At that point many people like to attach some additional conjecture to complete the portrait of a 'dangerous distruptive element'.

>But again, I'm not seeing the exaggerated witch-hunt style normalfag ousting I've come to expect from reading what you think of the anti-3D people.

What example do you even want me to bring up, really? People getting literally burned at stakes?
The point is there are some people here who believe there are some opinions which cannot be expressed even though expressing those opinions is not forbbiden by the rules. Because of some 'intent behind creating the site' or something. Like you can't like 3D because that's the entire intent of the site despite the fact that all anti-3D rules were made years after the site was created and 3D used to be discussed on pre ib4f /tc/.

>What I get is "how did you even find this site?" with a very large amount of conjecture from yourself as evidence for his intent behind the sentence.

Again, how else could you interpret that? I paraphrase that's being said but this time around I'll throw in three literal quotes:

>I wonder how you even found this website.
>You might as well leave then. You know? I don't think you actually watch anime in any case.
>Man, I didn't come here to talk to the same kind of hypocrites back there.

How else can you interpret 'you might as well leave'?
If 'here' and there' are different then 'there' is obviously an undersired outside element.
I didn't really notice before but Jews get brought up a lot in that topic. I guess it's Jews who are targetting /tc/?

>Did you completely ignore that thread I just pointed out to you?

If you mean the /so/ topic then I must admit I haven't read it. I didn't really see them talking about how they should be allowed to talk about 3D on /tc/. If I'm wrong then, well, I'm wrong. It's a long thread and /so/ is neither interesting nor fun to read.

>Before that, there was a guy that posted a picture of himself on /mai/ (which is obviously deleted now), and even now still posts around /mai/ hanging around with people describing their bodies or hinting at their 3D sex lives.

That's obviously no cool and should be dealt with accordingly. Including bans for repeat offenders.

I stand by what I said, though. No, they have no right to discuss it and no, I haven't really seen them claiming they do have such a right.

>>5309
>My point is people randomly accuse those 'outsiders' for all sorts of stuff with absolutely no proof whatsoever.
Citation needed. I see people being called outsiders sometimes, but what are they being accused of other than simply not belonging here? Moreover, in some cases, such as when they're trying to discuss 3D things, do they belong here in the first place? I think telling them to get lost is justified.

>What else could it be? I legitimately can't come up with any other reason.
Don't play dumb. The most obvious case of someone that came here and actually bothered to post in a discussion like that would be someone that actually DOES enjoy the topic, but might not meet TC's standards of 'posting quality', per se. No lunatic would think along the lines of "this guy is after me personally, he came here to get me or to run this site specifically".

>If 'here' and there' are different then 'there' is obviously an undersired outside element.
No arguments here- outsiders ARE frowned upon here. They're frowned upon in virtually every community. But I don't think there's active witch hunts or conspiracies of outsiders trying to destroy the site. That's silly. I've seen no posts indicating that anyone believes that other than your conjecture.

>No, they have no right to discuss it and no, I haven't really seen them claiming they do have such a right.
And I agree completely. In that 'boring to read' /so/ thread (and it is), towards the bottom half, you'll see that someone is quite insistent about discussing their 3D relationship under the idea that it relates directly to their problems and thus to the topic of /so/. It took them quite a long time to get the idea that 3D is not allowed here under any circumstances. I'm not saying these issues crop up all the time, but I have noticed people getting a little more "personal" as of the last few months -such as certain posters making passing references to being female and others talking about their past 3D sex life. Generally I try to avoid stirring up needless shitstorms too, so I just report them and ignore the posts if possible, but they don't tend to get deleted these days.

>>5310
>but they don't tend to get deleted these days.
I agree with what you said in that last paragraph.
The mods these days openly admit they only immediately delete CP when it's posted but when other rules are violated they often let it slip or wait until enough people complain. Some people even say if they were active mods they wouldn't delete anything that is not (CP) spam.
On IRC they actually made fun of people who report things like when someone brings up gender or relationships.
It's sad to see where this place is going.

Post edited on 29th Oct 2014, 1:52am

>>5310

>what are they being accused of other than simply not belonging here?
>>5275
>Outsiders keep trying to push their opinions here and stir up shit everywhere

>Moreover, in some cases, such as when they're trying to discuss 3D things, do they belong here in the first place?

50-50. If they'll stop blatantly breaking rules I don't care either way. I don't believe in this whole 'chosen people only' ideology.

>The most obvious case of someone that came here and actually bothered to post in a discussion like that would be someone that actually DOES enjoy the topic, but might not meet TC's standards of 'posting quality', per se.

I really wanted to hear it from your mouth. This is pretty great.
So basically you do agree it's just somebody who is a random /tc/er who just happens to have a different opinion on topic at hand, right? If you do then surely you must understand what I'm talking about by now. Expressing some opinions (which are in no way rulebreaking or even gray zone) automatically gets you marked as dangerous element because it's unfathomable that somebody who eats a choco cornet stating with the wider side could possbily be from /tc/.

>No arguments here- outsiders ARE frowned upon here. They're frowned upon in virtually every community.

What's an 'outsider', though? Is it a 'new user'? Because if it is then you used to be one, I used to be one, everybody who tries to murder people who accidentally reveal they haven't been here for at least 4 years was one and goddamn Tohno himself was one on day 1.
/tc/ is almost dead and our favorite pasttime is attacking new users. That's just great. I understand telling them to get out if they blatantly break the rules but that's not the only case where people end up getting stoned.

>But I don't think there's active witch hunts or conspiracies of outsiders trying to destroy the site. That's silly.

I've never meant it literally but I could actually link you to several discussions on /fb/ where people create the most ridiculous slippery slope scenarios and conclude that if we let anybody who doesn't like blue stay on /tc/ we've just bought ourselves a ticket to hell.
Why the hell would Ford Drivers come to a barely alive *chan to begin with? There's nothing for them here. Again, it's a delusional of grandeur. Ford Driver-sama went out of his way to come here and annoy all 50 of us. Sure he did, why wouldn't he go stir shit up in a bigger community? Those people only ever go after small ones afterall.

>someone is quite insistent about discussing their 3D relationship under the idea that it relates directly to their problems and thus to the topic of /so/

It's not like he has no point whatsoever. A number of us ended up here (both not-so-literally as in here on /tc/ and more figuratively as in here, living this hikki NEET life) because we got burned in the past. It's hardly uncommon. And I see why some people would want to let it out.
But rules are rules. And that settles it. If they don't like it they can discuss it on /fb/, that's what the board is for. People who were annoyed at how some people seek some escapsim using drugs instead of more acceptable methods such as anime/games actually did end up getting drug discussion banned.

>>5315

Blame every single person who ever shouted 'nazi moderation!'. Mods are supposed to be 'nazi' (what a retarded description it is, though). They are here to enforce the rules.

>>5315
>On IRC they actually made fun of people who report things like when someone brings up gender or relationships.
That's extremely discouraging. Did TC get female moderators again or something?

>>5316
>I don't believe in this whole 'chosen people only' ideology.
I don't believe that TC regulars are a "chosen people", per se, but I don't really think those that do want to discuss 3D have any place here.

>So basically you do agree it's just somebody who is a random /tc/er who just happens to have a different opinion on topic at hand, right?
Yes. In that thread as well as others, as I said, the term is flung around as an insult to imply that the other party is 'not fit to be here', along lines with the 'secret club' elitism I mentioned earlier. I think labeling them a dangerous element is a bit much. Personally, I always took those outsider attacks as a completely derogatory and ridiculing insult rather than one labeling a threat.

>/tc/ is almost dead and our favorite pasttime is attacking new users. That's just great.
I can't speak for everyone, but so as long as they don't break the rules I have no issues with newcomers.

>Blame every single person who ever shouted 'nazi moderation!'. Mods are supposed to be 'nazi' (what a retarded description it is, though). They are here to enforce the rules.
Agreed. I miss the days when the rules were enforced more actively. This may very well be the root of the issue. Many of these shitstorms wouldn't have a chance to start if the offending posts were proactively cut down.

>>5316
>Blame every single person who ever shouted 'nazi moderation!'. Mods are supposed to be 'nazi' (what a retarded description it is, though). They are here to enforce the rules.
I agree. I told Tohno he should go more strictly by the rules but he said that's Nazi behaviour.

Enforcing the rules is not nazi behaviour, nazi behaviour is when someone deletes threads about topics they don't like. Like when someone on /an/ posts about an anime they dislike or someone on /mai/ has a waifu they dislike and they delete the post. That mod abuse is nazi behaviour, but actually moderating and deleting things that violate the rules is not nazi behaviour.

>>5318
>That's extremely discouraging. Did TC get female moderators again or something?
No, don't worry. And don't be discouraged.

>>5318

>term is flung around as an insult to imply that the other party is 'not fit to be here', along lines with the 'secret club' elitism I mentioned earlier. I think labeling them a dangerous element is a bit much.

The point is the 'sikkrit club' elitist mentality is what causes people to stone people who don't share their one correct sikkrit club worldview. I think 'you don't belong here' is mean literally. You can take it at face value. 'Since you prefer red over blue we don't want you here'. I'm sure some people legitimately believe letting people who don't share their views hang around here will cause some massive userbase shift.

>>5319

>I told Tohno he should go more strictly by the rules but he said that's Nazi behaviour.

Can you even blame him after every mod quit because they just couldn't take it anymore? I don't follow /tc/'s staff closely enough to name all of them but Natsume definitely cracked under pressure and I think the same holds true for hamish.

>Enforcing the rules is not nazi behaviour, nazi behaviour is when someone deletes threads about topics they don't like.

That's what the funposters always said on /fb/, though. That the mods delete shit they don't like.