Yes, it should. If you want 3DPD go on 4chan pol or facebook or something.

I see your point and can understand how it might be frustrating or challenging to talk about political issues without posting images related to those things. Example off the top of my head being those infamous photos that keep getting smuggled out of north korea. But like >>6624 said there are better places for that sort of thing. yes I know I know we had that board for idols, but that was because it was semi related to otaku culture and they had no where else to go. Jokes about putin being a closet weeb aside politics have nothing to do with with weeb culture/media and unlike that idol board there actually are other places for this.
tldr; yes.

>>6624
Did you ask yourself why I might have asked this question to begin with? I know 4chan exists, and I'm not there, you can figure out the rest.

>>6626
There are other places but I'm not that interested enough to visit one whole site just to post for one topic, and 4chan is way too crowded.
I just wanted to post tacticool shit. Speaking of, does this count as otaku?

>>6627
I'd say yes, but it also counts as 3DPD. I don't get why it's hard to understand the rule. If it has a visible human in the picture, don't post it.
>>6623
>Can't be '/pol/ with more /tat/'
I think that line should go precisely for that reason.

>>6627
>Did you ask yourself why I might have asked this question to begin with?

No, I did not. Please explain why you have asked the question.

>you can figure out the rest.
Sorry, I am not psychic.

>>6628
>I don't get why it's hard to understand the rule.
No, I understand the words, I just don't see why it should apply to /tat/. Like, just try and give me a reason (saying to just go somewhere else isn't an explanation for the rule).

>>6629
Well, I already said it; 4chan is a hot mess.

>>6630
If you can't have a discussion without posting 3DPD images, aren't you part of the hot mess?

>>6631
Who said I couldn't?
/tat/ doesn't show up in the feed so, really, it shouldn't be an issue.

Pretty much what >>6631 wrote. If you need memes to convey or support and argument, you should stay in another site's /pol/. You never ever need to start a discussion with a picture. If it's so necessary, you can link it in the text itself.

>>6627
It's certainly true you'd be likely to get very different feedback depending where you go... and that feedback would likely be shit on 4chan. Still, I'm not fond of the idea of 3D being posted on TC all the same.

>>6632
eh, It's true it doesn't, but eh.. some of us would still have to see the stuff. Maybe it's a bit selfish of me but I rather not have to look at political imagery while watching the TC recent posts...

>>6634
>you can link it in the text itself.
Linking to 3DPD is against the rules.
>You never ever need to start a discussion with a picture
Ever heard of photo-journalism?

>>6635
Well, it's your site and you're the boss.

if the /pol/ crowd had any decency they wouldn't be posting unwanted content on a site that isn't focused around their interests. trying to limit them to a separate board was a very polite response to their attempts at immigrating to tc and they should be thankful for that rather than whining about having the site's rules to be changed for them. they frequently violate the boundaries of their board and post /pol/ shit outside it, its not as if they're earning favors by good behavior.
any admin that wasn't extremely benevolent to the point of being a pushover would respond to this thread by posting something like "if you don't like the special board i made for then you maybe you should go somewhere else" or "i didn't realize that board wasn't up to snuff, i'll just go ahead and solve the problem by closing it"

>>6636
I'd think there's a vast difference between posting a picture of someone with your post and an hyperlink with a news article or analysis that includes 3D people. You can always add something like "Warning: 3DPD - Open at your own risk" or so
>>6637
>Ever heard of photo-journalism?
Which is practically never applicable to a discussion?
>any admin that wasn't extremely benevolent
No need to alienate user just for the sake of being stern. Being diplomatic without being crude it's ideal for anyone in any management position until the drastic measures need to be taken, which is not the case at this moment.

wait pol tried to immigrate to tc? when?

>>6640
When people started having different opinions to the lefty cunt.
He thinks everybody that disagrees with him is from /pol/, just look through the site a little and you'll see.

>>6639
>Rule: 04) Posting or linking to 3D (real) pornography, Guro, or pictures of 3D (real) people.
>Where does it say that rules don't apply on hidden boards?

>>6640
Go to /tat/ and read the sentence below the sub-board's name.
>>6641
>rule-quoting
Yes, but there is some leeway in the sentence. It says not to post or link to 3D pornography nor pictures of 3D (real) people. It doesn't say that you can't link to on-topic articles or entries that happen to contain a 3D picture. There are dozens of links across the board where this happens, and nobody has been banned by it.
>lefty cunt
There's is definitely a /pol/ crowd posting here and there, and while I agree the commie is a bit of a drama queen, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong. You can notice this in /vg/, /tat/, /ot/, /so/ and obviously /ddl/. But anyway, >>6637 is right in the notion that it's entitled to want to warp rules just so someone can post their meme-of-the-week with baiting topic, because once more, there is practically never a need to include a picture to spark a serious discussion that is unrelated to a specific piece of media (e.g. a manga / anime series).

>>6642
Yeah I don't really mind the linking to outside sources. If I remember correctly I think that line in the rule refers to linking directly to images. In other words linking to what might be a nasty little surprise. That or linking to 3D/normie crap that has nothing to do with the topic or anything weeb. So yeah, if you want to link to news articles be my guest.
That said I still don't like the idea of 3D being posted on TC.
/tat/ was made as both a containment board for topics no one wants to see on other boards, and as a way of generating a bit of activity in this ghost town of ours. After all, it seems people would rather yell at each other about who's right rather than talk about the latest manga or VNs. Still, I don't think anyone wants to see a full on /pol/ style board here, even if it didn't have the same grade of people that normally hang on /pol/. The board is essentially a compromise. you can use it to debate about politics or religion or what have you, just don't post 3dpd. That's not too much to ask, is it?

>>6643
i'd like to point out to you the history of operatorchan, which was started as a website for weapon otakus. it has a news board and for the longest time the rules on the news board was that it was to be used to weapons related news only and the moderators stuck to their guns on it. they had to ban a lot of people who only wanted to post about niggers misbehaving in sweden, but that didn't seem to negatively impact the site at all, it had a number of active boards on nuanced subjects relating to weapons. about 5 years ago there was a big management change at operatorchan and the new moderation team decided that 4chan style political content was just fine. in the subsequent years operatorchan's daily post count has dropped and dropped, the site is practically dead these days. they've have to close down a lot of formerly popular niche boards so that what little content they get these days isn't spread too thin.
starting to sound familiar?
the people who used to use operatorchan really were interested in the nuts and bolts of weaponry, but when they had to discuss it through the veil of edgy teenager political discussion they just gave up and went elsewhere.
opchan had a reset of it's post count in late 2011, when it was about 3 years old so you can verify all of what i'm posting fairly easily by checking their historical post counts on archive.org and comparing it to today's numbers, here is an example: operatorchan/k (their main board) - 1st 3 years with no poltards averaged about 100,000 posts annually, after the moderation change it averages 20,000 a year. their highly specialized weapon disassembly photos board had over 12,000 posts before the change, afterwards it was closed due to lack of interest.
poltards want to invade your site to spread their version of the same basic 4chads newschooler cancer that drove so many of this site's dedicated users from 4chads in the first place. if you let the noobs have their way then you will necessarily be driving off your established user base. when the original users leave and the recent immigrants have nobody left to proselytize then you'll be feeling really lonely and stupid and even more bored. you'll look at some old threads in /arc/ and wonder where the fun went so you can follow them there and you'll regret inviting non-otaku to tc and giving them their own board and catering to their every little whim.

>>6644
But /tat/ content doesn't show in the feed though. If you don't visit that board, you wouldn't know it's been used.

>>6642
>and while I agree the commie is a bit of a drama queen, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong.
Being a Commie makes you 100% wrong automatically. Simply BEING a Commie invalidates your right to existence.

>>6644
Fuck off Commie, it's Commies that ruin Chan's, just like Communism ruins nations.
All Chan's die when Commies start debasing the 'evil' Fascists that naturally inhabit all Chan's.

And to clear up, I really don't care, it was a simple question I wanted an explanation to; I actually never gave a fuck about being allowed to post 3DPD (and never said I did).
Really, some of you take things too seriously, really inhibits posting since people are afraid of you sperging out.

>>6646
>I actually never gave a fuck about being allowed to post 3DPD
>>6623
>Can't be '/pol/ with more /tat/' if we can't post photographs of Poles or Tatars.

>Really, some of you take things too seriously
Ah the old "LOL I TROLL YOU!!!1one".

>>6647
I'm not the anon you were responding to but you kind of do take things too seriously.

>>6646
> some of you take things too seriously, really inhibits posting since people are afraid of you sperging out.
If anything I feel this is one of if not the main issue the site is dealing with. I love the freedom of speech and being able to say whatever the fuck you want without some hive mind user base or agenda serving staff censoring you, But it's gotten to where people are afraid to say anything less they get ripped on and chewed out. That in itself has become a form of censorship much like that if the hive mind one you see all the time on garbage forums that jump on people for daring to have an opinion. Then there's someone coming down on you for not following the rules to the T. Shouldn't be much of a secret that I've been banned, name called, and told to fuck off back to 4chan more than a few times while posting Anonymous here. It's a hard as fuck balancing act to try and pull off lemme tell you, allowing for fun and freedom to say and do whatever, but to keep out the shitposting and normalfag crap, and it sure doesn't take much for a few people to knock it over. I don't know, maybe I'm kidding myself, maybe it's not even possible. It'd be nice though not having to stress over what you write while picking your words carefully like some school essay, less people pick it apart and use your words as ammunition to attack you with. Lord knows that's just one of the reasons I try to avoid posting with my trip, even if most people can spot my posts a mile away just from the writing style.

>>6649
I agree. I want to post more but with the posts I've made it feels like I'm supposed to not write a post on the internet but instead some kind of science report, it's annoying and it shouldn't be.
When I make a post somebody comes down on me for some reason but they don't always point out what problem they have, sometimes they just throw a snarky remark. Getting mad at people for this or that doesn't exactly help encourage activity.
Even now I feel like somebody is going to get their snark on when they reply to this and I'm not sure what it will be for this time.

To contribute to the thread and answer the OP:
To some degree. I assume that sometimes there may be some photographs or images that have 3D in question that really do help the debate an anon wants to have so I say that 3D imagery should only be used if really necessary, as in, when it actually helps anon make their point.
If the picture does not do just that then it shouldn't be posted.

I really think that people who want to obsess over every little detail of what the mainstream western media wants to portray as important (AKA "the news") just aren't the type of people we want. Who lets themselves be lead around by the nose like that and be told what to discuss and think about just because CNN thinks its important? Only a 100% normie mindset can obsess with /pol/shit, its the same crowd of people who go to the local state university, love the football team, join a frat, etc…
I think its really weird and suspect that every day the local news has exactly 30 minutes worth of content. If "the news" really was as important and unpredictable as it makes itself out to be then wouldn't their naturally be slow days with less that 30 minutes worth of news and important days with a lot more? But it isn't like that, its 30 minutes worth every day, minus commercial breaks of course, yet people still obsess over it likes its real and important and nobody thinks thats strange or stupid except me apparently.

>>6651
They have more than enough content to fill that 30 minute space everyday. They'll reuse material and/or spoon feed it as need be, or use less interesting material if they don't have anything good available. There's also plenty of stringers out there fighting each other for material to feed to news organizations regularly. If anything what gets reported on is just a small slice of what's really going on in the world.

>>6649
>it's gotten to where people are afraid to say anything less they get ripped on and chewed out.
The OP makes a post with a specific, crystalline-clear, question, and points out that the subtitle of the /tat/ board creates a false expectation towards its potential users. Then, after being barraged with obviously expected opposition they claim they don't actually care (while contradicting themselves -immediately- in the next sentence, and then doing a 180° after, impressively), and then attempts to invalidate the whole thread, because this was just a "joke" and everyone replying fell for some sort of bait. How this translates in any way to a reflection of potentially inhibited posting is beyond me.

>maybe I'm kidding myself, maybe it's not even possible.
The issue is: What is shitposting? For some (per the rules) is someone replying "no" in a post to an elaborate question. For others is blatant use of reaction images, for others is deliberate mocking and insulting. As the owner of the site, you absolutely have the ability to write out elaborate guidelines. If you're not content with the ones you have written already, then why not change them? If the mods are over-zealous, then why not direct them? I'm sure it's a tough task, but there is no one who still posts who doesn't believe in your capabilities and dedication.

>If anything I feel this is one of if not the main issue the site is dealing with.
I'm not you, so I don't have your insider knowledge to know what the issues here are, but I strongly doubt "fear of challenge" is what stop people from posting. Specially when if you go to any other board and mention Tohno-chan, it is praised or alluded to be an hermetic and autistically-moderated high-quality board, which is something you should be proud of, even if it keeps the user base small. But this isn't what is gradually leaking users.

It's a lack of an anchor. If you were to stumble upon TC by coincidence, is there anything you could say "Wow, this is pretty cool, I'll hang here for a while" about? Is TC different enough to any of the hundreds of anime-related imageboards in -content-? TC has no particular beacon, hub, harbour, etc. that differentiates from others, with the single exception of being deemed an enclave of tightly-controlled otaku demographic. Whether this perception is for the good or bad of the site, that's up to you to decide. Still, I'd rather have my site be considered the stronghold of the few, than the cesspool of the many.

I think you had a fantastic idea with the re-subtitling of F.A.Girl, but it's understandable for a continued effort to be kept, specially without a translator that frequents the board and/or the irc.

>>6650
>Even now I feel like somebody is going to get their snark on
You seem to be the kind of person who can't help themselves taking things personal, so I'll start by remarking these thoughts are in general, and goes for you as well as anyone else who might feel the same, and not you exclusively.

>it's annoying and it shouldn't be.
There is no direction (courtesy of Tohno) to what the quality of each board should attain to, because the overall rule is to "post whatever you want" as long as it doesn't break the rules, which I agree to. Therefore, what the quality of posting in TC should be ended and ends up to the ideal of each user. The users veered the quality. This means it's impossible you won't eventually fine someone who disagrees with you. The issue you're having is that it seems you don't like being disagreed with, same as this thread's OP, and if you find annoying then you have around four options:

- Stop caring about negative replies.
- Reflect upon your posting and put more effort.
- Complain and overrun the site until its warped to your liking.
- Leave.

It's understandable you'd wish a post or thread you make receive no disapproval, but TC is not a hug box (outside or /mai/) and that's how it should be. You're not entitled for your feelings to be protected nor your notions to not be countered. Ultimately, you do have the choice to stop caring, so your feelings become your own responsibility, and nobody else's. As long as the alleged snark doesn't become outright baseless insulting, like OP's vitriol in >>6646, then you shouldn't feel opposing behaviour doesn't belong in a site that allows for discussion.

>Getting mad at people for this or that doesn't exactly help encourage activity.
Hard to say. Maybe more people would be drawn (or return) if the quality of the site improved. I personally don't think making TC more a of hug box helps.

>>6651
I partly agree with your post. I myself care more than I should about news, agenda, "brainwashing" and similar stuff that you might find in your average politics-discussion board, but I just don't think TC is a place to discuss these topics, unless it's strictly related to (or directly affects) Otaku-, Hikikomori- and NEETdom.

>>6653
>How this translates in any way to a reflection of potentially inhibited posting is beyond me.
Yes I realize I went a bit off topic there, my apologies. I said my part about the topic on hand, and I'm sorry if the tittle of the board is misleading.
As for the rules and mods; we've tried rewriting the rules countless likes while putting them into legalese and adding explanations. It really comes down to needing the users to have some a level of common sense. I don't want to have to think of the people here as robots to need to be very specifically programed so they don't walk into walls or smash whatever they hold onto. People who come here aren't (usually) normal-fags after all, they should know when to stop without needing to be told to. I think it's impossible to write rules that someone wouldn't try to bend to their own interpretation, no matter how specific you try to make them.

As for the mods, I'm just grateful to have anyone helping to be honest. So I try not to be 'too' controlling or nitpicking with them. Well, that and they're better mods than me in some ways. I prefer to give people a bit more freedom to post whatever and usually just nuke spam, cp, and blatant rule violations or stuff that shouldn't be here. They're better at policing the site for more minor rule violations and annoyances. such as people responding "no" to a thread.

> I strongly doubt "fear of challenge" is what stop people from posting.
Well we've already had two people in this thread who seem to think the opposite, and one who brought up this issue a few days ago via irc. So I wouldn't call it a none-issue, but maybe calling it one of the main issues might be jumping the gun. If anything it's a number of issues, making it all that more of a challenge to kick some life into this place.

>TC has no particular beacon, hub, harbour, etc.
We did, /mai/, and 8chan stole that from us along with what little users would have come with it.

>>6653
>with a specific, crystalline-clear, question,
Yeah, about how I can't post photographs of Polish or Tatar people. Don't know how you couldn't see I wasn't serious.
I even said I just wanted to post tacticool shit, but continue to ignore that as well.

AND I NEVER said it was a joke, you mongrel.

>>6655
Easy there Gilgamesh, we're all friends here.

>>6655
Your question was answered by Tohno in >>6635
>some of us would still have to see the stuff. Maybe it's a bit selfish of me but I rather not have to look at political imagery while watching the TC recent posts...

ive always thought the no 3d rule was dumb. admin has a job, the mods go to college. it's hardly as though this is some hiki site where people go years without seeing human beings. the mods delete hateful angry posts complaining about normies. so it's hardly as though the site is anti-human in general. half the site admits they don't watch anime, so it's hardly as though this is some 2D focused site.

just no fucking clue why this rule exists, it's hypocritical, it's just plain funny.

even wizchan allows 3dpd posts and that site does wish for the genocide of mankind and has people that have gone 10 years without leaving their rooms there.

if it was no attractive people, or no women, i would understand (not really because the IRC defends women), but i can't even post a face of an ugly old politician? hmmm

Post edited on 22nd Nov 2017, 2:12am

>>6658
People are gross and ugly, I don't want to look at them if I don't have to.

>>6658
>the IRC defends women
Your attempts at trying to start trouble are about as subtle as a fog horn.
Ya sure you don't wanna toss a bit more in there to spice it up a bit? If you're gonna rile people up you might want to add more than that.

>>6660
if i edit that part out of my post, will you explain why you have 3d banned when you're the only one that posts on the anime board, your mods disallow misanthropic views and you and the mods all talk to probably 100 human beings IRL a day?

not to mention you're a bit of a western film consumer tohno. you can't even post a screencap of your movies on your own site. so the "i only look at humans involuntarily" comment above yours is bull.

im sorry tohno i'm sure my posts are stressing you out i've just always wanted to say how dumb i thought this rule was but never wanted to make a thread myself about it.
your site isn't a weeb recluse misanthrope safe space, and none of you mods are weeb recluse misanthropes, and the site with real weeb misanthropes does allow 3D posts and it's a non-issue there. there's threads there now posting japanese advertisements and movie posters, something you would probably be interested in but can't post here!

Post edited on 22nd Nov 2017, 2:53am

>>6657
And did you read my response to?
Bloody retard.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Breaking rule 11. Take a couple of days to cool off.

>>6661
this site isn't wizard-chan. if you enjoy 3D posting so much you're free to go there

the userbase shouldn't have to be comprised of hypervirgin misanthropes to be an exclusively 2D website.

>>6661
>if i edit that part out of my post, will you
we don't negotiate with terrorists.
okay but yeah no jokes aside that's actually not that bad of a point to be honest, it's a bit of an exaggeration but it's still a fair point. You seem to only be interested in attacking me but whatever I'll bite on the bait and answer best I can all the same. (Since I'm sure you're probably gonna spam the site again with your porn collection regardless of whatever I say here anyway.)
I've always just assumed most people here were anti-3D, and I'm pretty sure a few have mentioned not wanting or liking 3D much in spite of the weeb centric boards being a bit empty. The anime board isn't 100% me though. Closer to 55-65% if anything. There are still people here who like weeb stuff. That said, I don't think most of the people who are here would still be here if they thought the no 3D rule was stupid or annoying or anything. In fact I think it's never actually been an issue before this thread.
>you and the mods all talk to probably 100 human beings IRL a day?
I literally spoke to about 5 people today. Who the hell talks to 100 people a day and why would you assume that? Unless you work in retail or behind some register, that's not likely to happen.
>you can't even post a screencap of your movies on your own site.
It also means I can't post selfies here. I've got no problem with that. Just like how we have different boards for different topics, so too is this site itself. Yeah I watch a decent amount live action movies, I don't deny that (although never in my room because that feels weird for some odd reason, that along with any 3D imagery in general, but I digress). I'm fine with having hobbies or interests that can't be shared with TC. I don't expect people here to like films, cars, toys or whatever. If I really wanted to talk about that stuff I'd go somewhere else for it (and do). There's a place for everything, and this isn't a place for that stuff. Our target is weeb crap, if people fall a bit short of that center target then so be it. At least they're landing somewhere on the board. We can't exactly be picky when we've got so few people willing to give us a chance.
It sounds like you're just advocating some 4chan like board. If you want to post photos of real people just go there and do it, why's it got to be here? there's plenty of image boards out there. why go to the one image board on the net that doesn't allow 3dpd imagery and complain about it there? You wouldn't go complain about the virgin stuff on wizchan and how they should let non-virgins post too, would you ?

>your mods disallow misanthropic views
Now that's just not true at all. If you're referring to something you said that got deleted I'm sure there's a good reason for it. Humanity is disgusting, it's filled with horrible selfish close minded greedy people who don't think twice about hurting others or destroying the works of others for their own gain, even if it's just for a moment of self satisfaction. They hear what they want, see what they want, and shitstorms when things aren't 100% to their liking, without caring who they cause trouble to. ... ...But yeah, I can't think of any mod who would ban someone for saying something like that or remove their post.

>and none of you mods are weeb recluse misanthropes
I kinda feel like a broken record here but they're they're the only ones stepping up to the plate. I don't know what your criteria for how weeb is weeb enough, but it's them or nothing, and they're not doing that bad of a job I might add. I recommend talking with those mods yourself and getting to know them if you dislike them that much. You might find they're not what you think they are.

>the site with real weeb misanthropes does allow 3D posts and it's a non-issue there.
We're not wizchan, we're not trying to be like wizchan, we've never claimed to be anything like them or have ever tried to snatch up their users. For that matter, no where on this site does it claim to be for misanthropes. That's essentially just a side effect of having a site for hikki/neet, they tend to also be misanthropes, but at no point was that ever a requirement of anyone, nor is it something we don't allow. I'm not even sure what the point of bringing up misanthropes even is, it's a none issue. You can be misanthrope or whatever, it's fine, but we never claimed to be for misanthropes.

>your site isn't a weeb recluse misanthrope safe space,
Dunno what to tell you. It's an uphill battle, that much is true. Not much in life ends up the way we want it or invision it. Like the scribbles of someone who can't draw for shit but wants to get their mental image across, we too just gotta do the best we can with what we got. What we got is a very niche and dying demographic that's overshadowed by websites that have a monopoly over said demographic. We're a tiny family owned mom and pop store located next to a walmart. We can't hope to compete with their selection or even offer the same grade of products. Our store is old and falling apart, but the best we can do is patch it up here and there. We don't get many customers, but those regulars aren't so bad when you get to know them. They might not be here to by the same product, but they're still at the shop all the same instead of that walmart, that's got to count for something.
And yeah, our employees are far from perfect, but they're like family and they do the best they can to help take care of the shop where most others would refuse to due to poor hours, horrible pay. And sure there's the occasional rude customers who never buy anything and just like to complain, but even they took the time to walk through those doors. So even if I'm busy with other things to do, I'll still take the time to hear out those customers and offer whatever assistance I can.

>>6658
>the IRC defends women
I frequent the IRC and I can say for the sure that isn't true.
Use better bait next time.

>>6657
Is that supposed to be an irl gondola?
>>6658
>admin has a job
Not everyone has a supportive family, lives in a country with exploitable welfare, nor has enough disabilities to get a monthly check. Sometimes, there is no choice but to eat the bullet and work so that you can survive.
>mods delete hateful angry posts complaining about normies.
If these posts were breaking the rules, why is it wrong for them to be deleted? The posters can always take a deep breath and post it again while still being considerate to the rules.
>it's hypocritical
It's not. The site upholds an ideal of limitations and tries to stick with it. Users enjoying things that are outside that range doesn't make the rule a contradiction.
>not really because the IRC defends women
I haven't seen this happen so far, but do provide proof if you have it. I would definitely like to see that.
>>6661
The youtube embed didn't work. What was the video?
>>6664
I saw you changed the subtitle of the board. Maybe just completely remove the mention of /pol/? Something like "For discussion of politics, religion, and other content not fitting the rest of the site". Subtitles don't need to be quippy or friendly to be effective and concise.

Post edited on 22nd Nov 2017, 1:58pm

>>6658
I applied for neetbux and was denied. I interact with less people per day by going to college than working some retail McJob, plus I don't have to fake a smile and pretend to be social. I don't even have to go to the campus most days, I can just sit at home and read the book. I was hikkineet until I was threatened to be kicked out. So tell me again how I'm a 3D-loving normie who aims to get as much social contact as possible. As someone else in this thread said, not everyone is able to get welfare and never leave the house. Trust me, if I could I would.

>>6662
Now that I'm unbanned, I'd just like to say that I bet that guy was being stupid on purpose so I'd get myself banned.
Either that or he's just stupid.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>6673

>>6673
So you can be genuinly stupid to the point of infuriating and not get banned, but if you are smart enough to be infuriated by stupidity that's a ban?
Seems stupid, it punishes the wise and protects the idiot. IF that is the path of this site, then it won't end any different to yotsuba-channel.

>>6675
Bloody yanks, always killing people with some sort of intellect.
All men are equal, and if there are some better than others, kill them so that all men remain equal. Pol Pot did the same thing.

Heaven forbid the Founding Fathers weren't some sort of divine beings sent from the stars and their precious constitution not the Commandments of God.

Must be sad being this narcissistic.

>>6677
First of all, if you're going to insult somebody the least you could do is put in the number of the post you're responding to.
Secondly, you're kind of violating rule 11.
Third, would it kill you to contribute to the topic this thread is about?

Locking this thread. User who was banned two times in here, try to maintain some decent quality posts in other boards.