Here we go...

>>5169
Popcorn?

>>5170
Definitely. The weatherman is predicting biblical levels of shit heading our way.

>>5169
>>5170
>>5171
I do believe OP was asking a legitimate question. Your types of butt hurt comments really make me wonder myself.

Better question is: why does it bother you? It's a hidden board that most people didn't even know about before you mentioned it.
What's next, complaining about /lol/? That goes against what the site/community stands for even more than /akb/.

>>5175
/lol/ and most other hidden boards (like the shinden board or the lighthouse board for example) are jokes that are not meant to be taken too seriously.
/akb/ seems to be quite serious and active though.

I also would have never thought that Tohno would do something like that. I'm disappointed to be honest, I expected something better from a safe heaven like this.

Also, I asked first.

In short it was created to boost traffic and bring in some much needed fresh blood.

As it was explained to me the western akb fan community has no place to call home other than a poorly managed forum no one uses, and general threads on /jp/ which have a problem with spam. The hope was they'd help bring some new life to some our half dead boards. For the first month or so the /akb/ board had a ridiculous post rate which was more than the rest of the site combined.

I don't blame anyone in our community for being bothered by the board and it's existence. As is they pretty much just keep to themselves and you're not gonna find their posts showing up on the front page any time soon.
I still don't personally care much for 3dpd at all, and wasn't exactly thrilled about creating the board. Back when I tried hanging out on /jp/ idols were one of the reasons I didn't stay very long. some of us mods go as far as to block the board from showing up in our recent posts, as the board has two dedicated mods of it's own so we don't have to deal with it anyway.

>>5178
Thank you for explaining.

>>5176
I think youll find a lot of our userbase doesn't actually mind 3d.

I for one welcome our new users as long as they respect the rules.

>>5180
I wouldn't say "a lot". I use this website precisely because 3D shit isn't tolerated here, and I'm sure others do as well.

All I can say about the /akb/ thing is I'm disappointed it's on here. There are dozens of other chans, why pick this one? I don't really buy the `building userbase` thing, 3D idol-worshipping freaks are the just about the last kind of person I would willingly invite here. But as long as they stay in their concentration camp and don't pollute the rest of the site there's not really much I have valid complaints about.

>>5180
Fuck off

>>5180
>I think youll find a lot of our userbase doesn't actually mind 3d.
That's got to be the most ridiculous claim I've seen in a long time. What website have you been browsing? You don't have to be here long to see that the overwhelming majority of the people here are heavily against 3D and those that promote it. Discussing 3D relationships and posting images of real people wouldn't be against the rules if "most of the userbase didn't mind it".

>>5181
I more or less agree with everything said here.

>>5184
Ive been here since ib4f. 3D used to be posted here. It was outlawed out of consideration of our more sensitive members here. It may seem like the overwhelming majority of members here don't want to see 3D at all, but I know personally several long-term members which are okay with it. Obviously, those who are okay with it don't speak up about it out of consideration of our more sensitive members and also because people like you would get on their case.

Don't confuse a vocal minority as the entirety of the site. Not everyone on this site is a 'picture perfect floor shitting neet'.

Did I say 3D should start being posted? No.

Did I say I wanted to post 3D? No.

Does this mean I want to see 3D being posted on our main boards? No. In fact, I often report 3D.

Does being okay with 3D mean you can't contribute in other ways to the board? No.

Does having people who are okay with 3D mean we will start having to see 3D everywhere? No. So long as you don't actively seek out the akb board you won't see 3D because theres rules against it on other boards and if it does it will be removed.

You seem to think that if people whose habits you disagree with read your posts it will reduce the quality of the site. Not only is this not true, this sort of thing is already happening and has been happening for a long time, and on top of that, there is no practical way to stop it short of having to pass a test to go on this site.

As for mentioning an aspect of myself which makes people feel uncomfortable, which is against the 'dont ask dont tell' mentality of this site, I apologise, although I believe it relevant to the discussion.

At any rate, read these threads:
http://tohno-chan.com/fb/res/1955.html
http://tohno-chan.com/fb/res/1546.html

As you can see, opinions are mixed. Things may have changed since then, but considering the rate of chang of this userbase I find it unlikely it has changed much.

Post edited on 30th Sep 2014, 10:50pm

>>5185
You claim to be here since the site's inception, yet you open with a 4chan-styled "I'm an epic oldfag" argument? Cute. I would also be careful calling other people sensitive when you immediately jumped on OP for simply making this thread. It actually seems more like you're offended by those that DON'T like to see 3D, but that's just what I'm seeing.

>Not everyone on this site is a 'picture perfect floor shitting neet'.
That's a lovely argument, but I don't believe we were talking about NEETs at all, only 3D content on the site. Aside from you, who even brought this up?

>[long list of defensive responses to accusions I never made]
Did you quote the right person? I'm not OP, in case you didn't notice the lack of a tripcode.

>You seem to think that if people whose habits you disagree with read your posts it will reduce the quality of the site
Yet another strawman argument... Where am I saying all of these things that you're pulling out of your ass? And again, I'm not even OP. I'm just saying that making the claim that people here are 'okay with 3D' is outright retarded.

>At any rate, read these threads:
The evidence provided by these threads work against you. Using the "case-by-case" way of doing things proposed, pictures of 3D women (ie: idols, which are somewhat lewd images to boot) would be killed on the main site by default. No, I don't think many people here would raise an issue to a picture of Einstein posted innocently in a mathematics thread. But by no means does that mean the same people want to see pictures of 3D women all over the site.

You might like telling yourself that the rule against 3D people being posted on the site is there because a small group of people is oversensitive, but I think the reality is much more simple: most of the community just doesn't want to see images of 3D women and people posting selfies on the site.

>>5186

>yet you open with a 4chan-styled "I'm an epic oldfag" argument?

I don't think this is what was really important. People simply don't realize how much the site has changed over the course of years. Back on ib4f people went as far as discussing online dating sites.
Is it really a vocal minority that dictates any 3DPD rules? I don't know, this was never polled so all I can do is take a blind guess. It's most likely a vocal majority. Point is even though the site never actively encouraged 3DPD discussions they were tolerated early on so people saying 'THIS SITE HAS ALWAYS STOOD AGAINST THE VILE 3DPD!' are simply wrong.

>Cute.

Cute, trying to offend the person you're talking with right off the bat. Such is discussion culture on /tc.

>when you immediately jumped on OP for simply making this thread.

I have absolutely no idea where you saw that.

>That's a lovely argument, but I don't believe we were talking about NEETs at all, only 3D content on the site. Aside from you, who even brought this up?

Great, now we're down to the level of pretending we don't understand what the poster meant and taking all of their responses as literally as possible and nitpicking about the smallest inaccuracies. This always bodes well for the discussion.

>>5188
How are those older times relevant to this discussion today?
You say it's probably just a minority of people who despise 3D here because back then people didn't mind. But did you ever think of the crazy idea that the people who visit the site today might not be the same ones as four years ago?

>>5188
>It's most likely a vocal majority.
As the other person said, I do believe you're projecting here.

>Point is even though the site never actively encouraged 3DPD discussions they were tolerated early on so people saying 'THIS SITE HAS ALWAYS STOOD AGAINST THE VILE 3DPD!' are simply wrong.
I haven't been here quite as long as you have, but for the past three and a half years, I've never seen TC even remotely "tolerant" of 3D shit, outside of simple exceptions like that black-and-white photo of Einstein. I never recall photos of 3D women being posted and not being deleted, that's for sure.

>Cute, trying to offend the person you're talking with right off the bat.
I'm merely returning the favor. My argument still stands, with or without insults added.

>I have absolutely no idea where you saw that.
I was referring to the snarky comments made right after OP made the thread. I do believe they're a clear indicator of offense taken to the question he posed.

>Great, now we're down to the level of pretending we don't understand what the poster meant
No, I seriously didn't know what you were getting at. I never mentioned any kind of "truNEETs only" elitism, so it just seems like another attempt at fabricating an argument to me. My stance is simple: It's pretty clear cut that TC dislikes 3D pictures and relationships, and it's been that way for at least over 3 years now.

>>5189
I believe the userbase two years ago is a reasonable representation of the userbase now because this site travels very slowly and we hardly get any new members. If you disagree with this then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

At any rate, its no question that the part of the userbase which is okay with 3D is underrepresented, because they would get hounded for vocalising this view. We can keep arguing back and forth on the point of 'how many people on tc are ok with 3D' but short of an actual poll we can't be certain.

Your gripe about the /akb/ board is merely philosophical. You don't like it simply because it 'goes against the philosophy of the site'. There is no practical argument against it, because little to no 3D will leak from that section of the site.

>>5191
>Your gripe about the /akb/ board is merely philosophical. You don't like it simply because it 'goes against the philosophy of the site'.

That's all I was saying the whole time you idiot.
I'm uncomfortable with its existence and disappointed, that's all I meant. As you can see from the rest of this thread I'm also not the only one who feels this way. I never said I'm afraid 3D would leak to other parts of the site.

Another argument would be that it attracts the wrong kind of people to the site, lots of normals and shitters from 4chan.

>>5191
>part of the userbase which is okay with 3D is underrepresented

They shouldn't be represented period. They should leave.

>>5189

>How are those older times relevant to this discussion today?

I just want to get this straight: unlike what a lot people seem to believe the side wasn't made for the pure purpose of purging 3DPD from the face of planet Earth. It used to be tolerated back in the day.
Also if you think 'here and now' is the only thign that matters I'd like to remind you daily visits to /tc/ increased by 100-150 since /akb/ was made. Just those guys alone would represent a very large chunk of current userbase.
This was never about some democratic bullshit though, thank God.

>You say it's probably just a minority of people who despise 3D

I said the exact opposite, thanks for reading the posts you respond to.

>But did you ever think of the crazy idea that the people who visit the site today might not be the same ones as four years ago?

Yes, currently we have a lot of idol lovers/wotas on /tc/, you're right about that.

>>5190

>As the other person said, I do believe you're projecting here.

Good job reading the post, too. I clearly said 'majority'.

>I'm merely returning the favor. My argument still stands, with or without insults added.

I fail to see what about his post was offending (unless you're offended that somebody doesn't share your opinion) but I can say with a high degree of certainity that throwing in some random insults really weakens your arguments so you might as well stop.

>I was referring to the snarky comments made right after OP made the thread. I do believe they're a clear indicator of offense taken to the question he posed.

Yes, I'm sure all of those were posted by the same person. You have absolutely no idea whether any of those were his to begin with. Picture related.

>No, I seriously didn't know what you were getting at.

What he meant was obvious: tohno-chan isn't some kind of hivemind. For the better or the worse. You might believe that everybody around here despises 3D but even though it's probably like ~9/10 people saying it applies to everybody is just delusional.

>>5191

>You don't like it simply because it 'goes against the philosophy of the site'.

I still don't get it. Who decided that? Everybody for themselves? When the site was made things didn't look the way they do now.

>>5194

>That's all I was saying the whole time you idiot.

Here we go again.

>I'm uncomfortable with its existence and disappointed, that's all I meant.

Again, it's a hidden board. I mind it less than /lol/ really, if I had to pick between /jp/ EBIN IRONIC MEEM XDDD shitposters and people who can discuss their hobby in a sensible manner (even if it's a hobby I despise) I'd much rather have the latter.

>>5191
>I believe the userbase two years ago is a reasonable representation of the userbase now because this site travels very slowly and we hardly get any new members.
I'd say it's not based simply on the fact most of the many mods here have left over the years. Many of those mods were frequent posters who greatly influenced the community. 60% for instance created the 3DPD rozenmaiden cosplay banner, and no one has every really complained about it (that I can remember). I think it's safe to assume many regular uses have also left over time. This would have caused a large drop in traffic but since we now have the same if not more traffic than before it's safe to assume we've gotten new users over time.

You can also see it very clearly on /mai/ which is the only reason why the board is still active. old users leave and new ones remake or post in old threads which are new to them.

>>5197
>but I can say with a high degree of certainity that throwing in some random insults really weakens your arguments so you might as well stop.
One sentence earlier...
>Good job reading the post
Does it only apply to me? Or are you insinuating that some sort of double standard exists in which you are allowed to fling passive aggressive insults without harming the "credibility" of your already-poor arguments while my doing so is forbidden?

>unless you're offended that somebody doesn't share your opinion
Coming from someone bitching about insults in lieu of making actual arguments...

>You have absolutely no idea whether any of those were his to begin with.
While I do admire your 4chan terminology and arguments, I don't recall any use of the term "samefag" nor blatant accusations of the sort; he was simply the only person in this thread not using kakusu that initially opposed OP and responded to myself and another person. They continued to respond in a standard chain and are thus very likely the same person. It's a small possibility that it's someone different that just "switched off" with them, but that really seems like grasping at straws. If it bothers you so much, go request that someone with sufficient privileges looks at the IPs for you.

>What he meant was obvious: tohno-chan isn't some kind of hivemind. For the better or the worse.
How do you pull being against 3D being posted from quote "Not everyone on this site is a 'picture perfect floor shitting neet'."? Being a NEET has absolutely nothing to do with being against 3D, and it's a completely unrelated matter. That ad hominem argument was made just to tie "truNEET" elitism to this unrelated subject in a last ditch attempt to weaken the arguments for it, and I think even you know that damn well. But while it's been suggested on /so/ recently that less than half of the people on TC are NEETs now, the overwhelming majority of the users appear to be strongly against 3D (NEET or not).

>You might believe that everybody around here despises 3D but even though it's probably like ~9/10 people saying it applies to everybody is just delusional.
Are you seriously saying that I said *literally everybody* on the site is against 3D? Because I don't remember ever using a term that would even imply that. Even your figure of 9/10 would indicate a very clear overwhelming majority, which is what I've been trying to say the entire time. How many times do I have to restate this until you understand it?

>Who decided that?
It's in the rules, buddy. I would say the administration decided it in the community's best interest.

> if I had to pick between /jp/ EBIN IRONIC MEEM XDDD shitposters and people who can discuss their hobby in a sensible manner
I think this thread speaks volumes for how "sensible" the pro-3D crowd is. This is the kind of persecution complex shit I'd expect to see from Tumblr or something. No, I'm not making claims that /akb/ pictures or 3D discussion is going to 'leak out' into the main site, but the (two?) people here complaining about or even outright denying TC's stance on 3D pictures/women/relationships is just ridiculous.

Post edited on 3rd Oct 2014, 1:24am

>>5199

>Does it only apply to me? Or are you insinuating that some sort of double standard exists in which you are allowed to fling passive aggressive insults without harming the "credibility" of your already-poor arguments while my doing so is forbidden?

It's not an insult, it's a factual statement. You either didn't read the post at all or just skimmed over it without paying any attention at all. I feel trying to argue with somebody without even trying to understand what he's saying is pretty insulting.

>I don't recall any use of the term "samefag" nor blatant accusations of the sort

You literally said at least one of those reponses were his without any evidence whatsoever to back up that claim.

>he was simply the only person in this thread not using kakusu that initially opposed OP and responded to myself and another person

He wasn't, I did that too and I did it earlier than he did in fact (>>5175). You're making it up based on how you'd like to see things play out. For all you know the first 10 or so reponses could be from completely different people but you're doing your best to pretend it's one person because that would be much more convenient for you.

>It's a small possibility that it's someone different that just "switched off" with them, but that really seems like grasping at straws

Not only is it a possiblity but even without me telling you it is in fact exactly what happened - because half of what you see for his reponses are mine - the possibility was high. Moreover trying to guess who's who in discussion on anonymous imageboards goes against everything anonymous imageboards stand for. If you prefer to throw around ad hominems and attack people based on who you take them for rather than repspond to their arguments I suggest you should stick to fora.

>If it bothers you so much, go request that someone with sufficient privileges looks at the IPs for you.

Again, if you really care about people's identities give up on anonymous imageboards. I don't really care and the only thing that bothers me it that you do.

>How do you pull being against 3D being posted from quote "Not everyone on this site is a 'picture perfect floor shitting neet'."?

It's extremely straight forward. 'Not everyone on this site is a 'picture perfect floor shitting neet'' translates to 'not everybody on this site fits every single one of [somewhat imaginary] crtieria people could have for /tc/'s userbase'.

>That ad hominem argument was made just to tie "truNEET" elitism

How is it even an ad hominem? He didn't say anything about people involved in the argument. All he said is that there are tons of people who seemignly believe every single person on /tc/ is a NEET with very specific experiences, worldviews and hobbies and everybody who doesn't fit that description should be purged. I won't say anything about whether that view is right or wrong but I can tell you for sure that not everybody on /tc/ is a NEET for one. And that not every single person despises 3DPD if you feel like nitpicking about the choice of words again.

>I think even you know that damn well.

No, I disagree entirely.

>Are you seriously saying that I said *literally everybody* on the site is against 3D?

While I can't tell which posts are your and which aren't even OP said
>it goes against most of the things this site/community stands for
Then there's stuff like >>5195 and a couple of other 'strong' opinions (>>5182).
Point is people who have don't have much of a problem with 3DPD are on the site right now, have been around since forever and that doesn't really go against 'what the site stands for'.

>It's in the rules, buddy. I would say the administration decided it in the community's best interest.

No, all I see in the rules is that discussing 3DPD is not allowed. For some rather obvious reasons I'd say, the #1 being that people simply don't want to see it. I can't find anything about 'philosophy of the site' or any rules that state that people who 'go against things the site stands for' should 'leave'.

>I think this thread speaks volumes for how "sensible" the pro-3D crowd is.

I think they've been perfectly tame...

>This is the kind of persecution complex shit I'd expect to see from Tumblr or something

... unlike you who goes on witch hunts and seems to be very offended that somebody who doesn't mind 3DPD would dare to browse the same site as you.

>but the (two?) people here complaining about or even outright denying TC's stance on 3D pictures/women/relationships is just ridiculous

To make it clear I certainly do not want 3DPD discussions on /tc/ and I think our current rules are far too lax when it comes to that. The point is there are several retarded claims in this thread which are simply false and I don't really like that, either. If you're gonna argue against 3DPD/existence of /akb//whatever I'd be grateful if everybody could at very least use arguments that make sense.

>>5200
So if I call my insults "factual claims", I can get a free pass, too? Cool. You're an idiot- this is not an insult, but what I believe to be a fact after reading through your posts.

>I feel trying to argue with somebody without even trying to understand what he's saying is pretty insulting.
Likewise, seeing as you claim to "not want 3DPD discussions here" but appear to argue vehemently in favor of it regardless -just to play devil's advocate, apparently?

>You're making it up based on how you'd like to see things play out. For all you know the first 10 or so reponses could be from completely different people but you're doing your best to pretend it's one person because that would be much more convenient for you.
Grasping at straws. How is this conjecture any better than what you claim I'm doing? If I'm wrong, he can simply speak up and correct me. But it doesn't seem to be the case right now.

>I can tell you for sure that not everybody on /tc/ is a NEET for one
How can you possibly criticize me for "not reading" when you repeatedly fail at reading comprehension when reading my posts? First you say I said "literally every person on TC is against 3D" and now you claim yet another thing I didn't say. Re-read the post. That's all I can say.

>For some rather obvious reasons I'd say, the #1 being that people simply don't want to see it. I can't find anything about 'philosophy of the site' or any rules that state that people who 'go against things the site stands for' should 'leave'.
Semantics cherry-picking. The point is that the site does not view 3D warmly.

>unlike you who goes on witch hunts and seems to be very offended that somebody who doesn't mind 3DPD would dare to browse the same site as you.
Where did you infer this, again? To me, the only bitter one here seems to be you, one who claims to be against 3DPD but appears to be extremely angry when someone says the community here does not like 3D. I never actually raised a complaint about /akb/ in the first place- are you blind?

>To make it clear I certainly do not want 3DPD discussions on /tc/ and I think our current rules are far too lax when it comes to that.
If this is actually true, then what are we even arguing about? The ONLY claim I originally made was that the majority of the users on this site do not want to see 3D pictures or relationship discussion on the main site. Then you proceeded to throw an asston of strawman arguments my way and got this whole thing going. But if you don't have any refutations for the above statement (which I've now repeated 3, maybe 4 times), and are just going to make more conjecture based claims based on what you would like to believe I'm saying, then there's no reason for me to continue discussing anything with you.

Didn't something like this just happen on /so/ too? Why are 3D lovers suddenly throwing fits over the fact that people don't want them here?

Shouldnt /mai/ and the japanese board be in the specific interests category?

>>5210
I don't like the latest changes. It looked a lot better before

>>5211
Truth be told I had been meaning to change it for a long time now. The 'boards' and 'other boards' just somehow seemed kinda strange to me. of course now it looks a bit odd all separated.

>>5210
I suppose I could see why /mai/ would go there, but the Japanese board I think would be for general topics and whatever. making it broad discussion since people can talk about anything there.

In case anyone was wondering, yeah I mostly just made the Japanese board public to even out the front page. I might change the url as it's not the most convenient thing to link to. Considered some other hidden boards too but they're all mostly garbage/dumb ideas.

>>5219

This new layout will be very hard to get used to but oh well.

The top bar (with boards) doesn't update properly on most board, though. Right now on /fb/ I see the right one with [ an / ma / vg / foe / mp3 / vn ] [ fig / navi / cr ] [ so / mai / ot / txt / 日本 / mt ] [ irc / ddl / arc / ns / fb / pic ] but when I got to other board I still see the old one.

>>5220
I'm welcome to suggestions on rearranging it. in fact I should probably alphabetize it if nothing else.
btw boards update automatically when they get posted on.

>>5168

So it finally leaked out.

OK. Please, bear with me for a while.

First of all, let me tell you OP that you're right: at first, it's an apparently conflicting (even insulting) board. I've had a waifu pretty much since /tc/ began. I do stand for /tc/'s open misogyny, having actively contributed myself to build that community identity with all my might. I honest to Eva assure you that I long ago can barely stand dealing with women at all, be it in actual life or as online forum members. Yet, from a couple years ago I fell flat for AKB and this summer I welcomed the board here with trembling but open arms...

Basically, for me at least, it works like this: (AKB) idoling is a brother practice to 2D love. It's the same spirit: the fulfilling of true love through virtualization.

Apart from fallen members, AKB idols count not as women and all about them that is troublesome for us men. They cannot possibly: with the (always polemic) love-ban rule at its core, their job has its foundation precisely on the agreement of not function as such, being corrupted by men's earthly lust and social maturity roles (as wives and mothers), in order to remain a worthy vessel to embody men's romantic (and even properly/purely erotic) ideals for as long and strongly as possible. It is, if you want, a reverse prostitution model: to be paid not to whore themselves (well, hopefully); rather than some authentic feminist move, understood as a stance for the free self-research and empowering of women, the birth of a proper idol is a denial/sacrifice of womanhood for the sake of patriarchal castrating concepts of femininity, which the girls themselves must embrace to a fair extent in order to build their own idol character or, in other words, to fictionalize themselves as far as to blurry the limits with their personal life and compromise it to the job. Conversely, the relation of a wota with their oshimen is also an openly mediatic one; most of what wota get from their beloved are just images and audio on a magazine or screen; even at theater performances and handshake events (a fundamental part of the "Idols you can meet" concept), wota are compelled not to impact their oshi at an interpersonal level cause that would once again reduce such relationship to earthbound level, say, killing the magic. As Aki-P said himself, AKB idols in particular spring from a very curious circa Cinderella trope: the plain girl who, with nothing to offer but love, becomes something greater precisely thanks to the miracle of receiving love in return, portraying an archetypical romance story; so, despite the truly voracious greed that fuels AKB's business model, the commitment between idol and wota, when taking seriously, earned me most respect: to recreate/reinvent love together, one as the beloved (which I'd normally call erómenos) and the other as the lover (or erastés), fulfilling each other's dream; a dream of love completion that apparently no actual 3D wife can fulfill, as seen on the cases of divorce driven by the husband's sudden AKB idoling. But that should not be strange at all for any of us here: we supposedly know better; we know that, where the veiled lies of 3D love conventions fail, the honest fictions of 2D/virtual love can succeed...

So, in resume, for me wota love works in a similar fashion than 2D love (or even doll love, for doll lovers): a soliloquy based on an openly fictional character, which in this case is my own take of my oshimen as a screen and stage artifact. I cannot stress this point enough: even with her remarkable features (which hooked me), I couldn't care two fucks about her if she wasn't an AKB member and I sure won't once she graduates and devolve into a woman; I invest in her as a character, not as a woman (whom I hate) and it's precisely in that sense that an oshimen is something closer to a waifu than to a 3D, idoling closer to 2D than to 3D love, and so /akb/ an overall legitimate board to exist in here (although as a secret board alright, not to bother others or get 3D posting out of control).

That said, although I let myself enjoy this experience liberally, my oshimen is still nowhere, nowhere, near my waifu. My waifu is me and everything that gives me sense (even my current idoling); she's the absolute compass that guides my entire life as well as my standard of excellence and, as of today, I've seen no other character (idolish, 2D or else) who could possibly fill her shoes and I wouldn't betray her (that is, betray myself) for any less. AKB... well, it's just an engaging and damned, damned joyful and funny experience. I do personally recommend it to those of you who might be at your limit through this grimdark life.

>>5223
Sorry, but all that fluff you spouted doesn't excuse the board's presence. There are tons of 2D idols one could follow if you must, there is no reason to follow a degenerate 3D and you're fucking stupid for trying to advocate for them on this site. Despite putting on a cutesy act they are still filth at their core. Idols are walking trash bags sapping money and passion from other trash heaps and all they have to do is smile and get autotuned and then laugh all the way to the bank.

Please just stay on your containment board.

>>5224
For my previous argument, 2D idol shows are obviously useless: either you like 2D of any particular genre (which is fine) or the sort of commitment that actually embodying and following a living idol represents and which isn't at all reduced to the crude farce you picture.

To your second argument, I could conversely say that anime producers also heartlessly drain us from our money and passion as otaku serving from petty stereotypes, but of course that's not the point: it's the choice I believe we consciously and willingly make, of characters over people, of media over social life, what matters to me the most and which I think can bring /tc/ closer to some wota under a positive light (otherwise, from the normal perspective, we're just a bunch of bitter losers in denial, 2D lovers and wota all alike).

In any case, you advance nothing by insulting and ostracizing me and it's no needed too. If you just don't want to deal at all with anything concerning women (not even their shameless and anti-feminist objectification I just advocated), it's perfectly fine too and it's not my intention at all to push you away from that. I agree that a general anti-3D policy must continue as /tc/ backbone. As always, the final word is up to Tohno and in regard to the majority of users' will, of course; but I wanted to explain how, at least the way I see it, /akb/ (as a hidden board, not to force 3D content on anyone) might still compatible with /tc/'s most hardcore spirit.

Post edited on 19th Oct 2014, 1:48am

>>5223
3D is 3D, they are all the same. On the surface and in public your stupid idols may act all cute and fancy, but in their private life they are just like any other women.

>>5226
>To your second argument, I could conversely say that anime producers also heartlessly drain us from our money and passion as otaku serving from petty stereotypes, but of course that's not the point
What? Are you trying to say 3D idols don't pander to otaku and aren't full of stereotypes?
You worship pigs, we don't want you here and why would you ever come to this site in the first place?
You fucking 3D worshippers have practically 99.9% of the internet for yourselves, can't this small site be spared from your fucking shit? Why do you want to post 3D everywhere? Why would you want to unify us? Just FUCK OFF YOU'RE NOT WELCOME HERE

>>5227
Yeah, maybe. They all sure will at some point, by all means. My point is that wota do not actually relate with them as women (even if some would want to), similarly as 2D lovers do not relate with anime girls as paint over cells (or actual living beings, even if some would want to). If you find meaningless that signical distinction (or between matter and form) then obviously I'll hold no reason to you at all.

>>5229
No, of course I didn't mean that. You're too angry and didn't get me at all.

I really should give up on this now.
Do as you may.

>>5221
These buttons need a fix too.

Personally, I found the new arrangement unnecessary but nothing hard of adjusting to, hoping for more traffic on those boards.

This kind of bullshit makes me want to go and pursue my own imageboard.

Sometimes I wonder how many of you are trolls and how many are actually serious.

And sometimes I wonder how can one be so oblivious to the fact we're calling all 2D women perfect and all 3D women degenerates, while I know exceptions to the rule in both cases.

If you're going to antagonize Tohno or anyone else for creating a secret board for a certain group of interest without a place to call their own and keeping it secret just for your own safety, then please, get out.

>>5234
Have you ever seen a degenrate 2D girl?

>>5223
I've gone through pretty much the same thought process and just want to tell you that you're not alone. Let's not mind all the hate, especially not the one coming from people who can't even form proper arguments. It's not our duty to show them the truth. All that matters is that we ourselves live in accordance with that truth.

>>5236
"The truth" is just another opinion, don't act so holy. The people who are angry obviously have their own opinion but they are just mad.

>>5237
What's there to live for then if not for the search of the truth? I'm not a nihilist.

>>5235

>>5239
A world view?

>>5240
Okay. Point taken, I see what you mean.
I think tomoko is quite the exception though as most 2D characters are perfect and she's special because she is not. The same way I also think 3D idols who are perfect (as you say) also are an exception because most 3D people are not perfect. Can we agree on that?

>>5243
That is a valid agreement. Just like a 3D person can intentionally try to be as perfect as possible, a 2D person can intentionally be as non-perfect as possible - but we need to accept both possibilities.

>>5241
But anything can be a world view. And everyone seems to have a different one. Now if everyone spends their life rigorously living according to their own personal world view, the world will be full of arrogance and meaningless clashes. That doesn't sound appealing to me at all.

>>5245
that's what the real world is already like.

Post edited on 19th Oct 2014, 9:35am

>>5246
Yeah, and people not searching for the truth are responsible for that. That's what I was getting at.

>>5247
everyone is searching for the truth. People just have different world views and so they can't agree on what is true.

>>5178
Tohno, since you mentioned the board has its own mods, could you consider getting them to move /akb/ to 8chan? If you haven't heard of it, it's an imageboard that lets anyone create and administer their own board and I think that site would be a far better fit for the topic than here.

>>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.