[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/metav/ - /v/ Meta Discussion

Meta /v/

Catalog

See 8chan's new software in development (discuss) (help out)
Infinity Next Beta period has started, click here for info or go directly to beta.8ch.net
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1426190550067.gif (59.49 KB, 325x437, 325:437, garfield_1[1].gif)

c1dd28 No.5018

Mark has stated he intends to ban console wars and "template threads" "because these are cancer".

Console war threads are video game discussion just like anything else.

Just because it has the widest base appeal to users doesn't mean it is baiting or fishing for trouble to make a console war discussion.
And in /v/ history, console wars have been some of the greatest drama and subjects for the creation of OC.

Not everyone agrees with this, and they don't have to partake in these topics.

I am currently most satisfied with what is established now,
The absence of an authoritative opinion on "post quality", and the decision to let users adjust their own experience to their liking by hiding or ignoring topics.

So that's my vote on this subject.

c1dd28 No.5019

I can't stick around to make responses.
And I didn't manage to see an email address on this short notice. So I'm just leaving this thread here.

94bd49 No.5021

>>5020

If you're making a new board it'll take effort.

It's not like /v/ or /pol/ where you can just have the name and everything will build itself around that.


195b5c No.5024

WHAT THE FUCK!?

52a59b No.5025

>>5018
I agree completely. It's not up to the volunteers to decide what a community wants to talk about it; as long as it's on-topic there shouldn't be any problem.

6317c8 No.5026

>MY TOY IS MORE GAMES I LIKE THAN YOUR TOY
>MY TOY HAS HIGHER SALES THAN YOUR TOY
>good

90603c No.5028

>>5018
console war threads are the cancer that killed old /v/

a51e8c No.5029

>>5026

Not really console wars, but this was a pretty good thread:

8archive.moe/v/thread/2618509/

But like that thread, which could have easily turned into shit flinging console wars are primarily about market speculation, and weighing the merits of consoles. Only autists, and rulefags(redundant I know) take the banter seriously.

52a59b No.5030

>>5028
No, that was the /b/ shit, and the heavy-handed moderation of legitimate on-topic video game threads.

346de8 No.5038

>>5020

>Much of the old /v/ mod staff is setting up shop there.

>Much of the old /v/ mod staff

Nice try

It's just two irrelevant faggots.


ea8f5f No.5041

>Mark has stated he intends to ban console wars and "template threads"

that would be great actually

bc6f95 No.5042

>>5030
So, we shoud allow console war threads, threads that instantly went to shit back on halfchan, and made people unable to discuss Bloodborne, GTA V, Splatoon or whatever new exclusive without some consolewarfaggot stirring shit up?
Threads that just proceed the same way every single thread, where everyone posts the same bait, the same shitty chain of replies of poor arguments and passive-agressive insults, for the sake of their anonymous e-reputation, and somehow they can be good?

The only time console threads were good when nobody took it seriously and actually made some OC about it. That time has long since passed.
It's really just not worth it to allow threads that will invariably go to shit 90% of the time.

You can sage and hide, but the presence of console war threads will CERTAINLY be noticeable in other threads which might discuss topics related to consoles in particular (as I said with console exclusive games often ending up in shitposting back in halfchan).
It poisons the minds of the users with pointless anger, and is a waste of time for the moderators, because you are just letting the same fire go rampant over and over.

723cab No.5043

Console war threads ARE cancer though, because it all boils down to taste. Whether you want to use consoles or PCs depends on what videogames you enjoy. There is no reason to have that faggotry shit up the board.

52a59b No.5045

>>5042
Maybe with clear rules against them those harmful elements could be mitigated. I don't have a clear answer for all that except to say that I prefer posting freedom over vague or excessive rules that, while removing the harmful elements, come at the expense of posting freedom. Because genuine discussion unfettered by other shit is the entire reason I am on a chan–and this place specifically now–to begin with.

c1dd28 No.5047

>>5042
This post is really bad.
You basically just want a hugbox all over, everywhere, and claim that simply not letting people make a thread dedicated to console discussion is what will stop people from releasing these opinions elsewhere.

Additionally, in a hypothetical situation where console discussion is allowed, you claim that moderator time will be wasted. Wasted on what? Banning things that aren't supposed to be banned?

I don't come here to fellate my ego by watching "bad" opinions get told to hit the dirt without discussion, I come here to have free arguments and discussion.

What killed old /v/ was these endless witchhunts over unproven and misunderstood circumstances.

52a59b No.5048

>>5042
>>5043
I would like to hear both of your definitions of "console wars". Could you state as clearly as you can what you think that entails?

c1dd28 No.5049

>>5020

Mark said he would make a vote, so I'm not running away yet.

I will establish this thread on the new meta later.


723cab No.5050

>>5048
Arguing over whether consoles or PCs are better to the point where you're making entire threads about it and trying to explain why the other person is wrong and why you are right. It's like a fan of first person shooters telling a Nintendo fanboy that all platformers are shit. It's just stupid.

723cab No.5051

>>5050
However though, I don't believe that Mark should be removing these threads himself. If the board likes the thread, it will stay. If the board doesn't like the thread, it'll be saged to oblivion and disappear.

However though, Mark really needs to do something about the countless morons who post for dubs or say something is shit or basically say "I HATE YOUR POST", yet choose to bump it to the front page by not putting sage into the email field.

52a59b No.5052

>>5050
Is a thread about why the PS3 failed a console war thread? Is a thread about how awesome the Neo Geo was or wasn't a console war thread? Is a thread about the hardware inside of the Xbox a console war thread? What about a playful SEGA does what Nintendon't thread?

723cab No.5053

>>5052
No, because you're not trying to say it's objectively better than other consoles.

c1dd28 No.5054

>>5051
"saged to oblivion" is not what self moderation means.

That is spamming and it renders the thread useless for people who want to use it.

People who don't want the thread must simply not click on it.
But guess what, some people want the thread so they can argue against the OP in it. And that is a value that cannot be denied.

723cab No.5055

>>5054
What if it's a thread about a piece of shit game that has been discussed to death already, like Life is Strange, The Order 1886, Dragon Age Inquisition, Evolve, etc? If people want to discuss in the thread, they can. People who are sage spamming are not stopping them, they are just making the thread 1% more difficult to read and are shortening the lifespan of the thread. And if the thread dies, another can be made.

I don't agree with sage/dubs spamming if people post more than once or twice in a row without someone else posting though, if they post more than that in a row then they should be banned.

52a59b No.5056

>>5053
What if I said that the Genesis sounded like a farting toaster and SEGA's choice of sound chip was outdated even on release, and Nintendo's inclusion of DSP support in their sound hardware proved to be prescient? Is that console warring?

c1dd28 No.5057

>>5055
I too feel there is a line between some harmless doubles/sage posts and spam, made with intent to volumize the thread space.

I wouldn't call having a few people having a dubs game in your thread a "saged to oblivion" though.

c1dd28 No.5058

>>5055
Also
>What if it's a thread about a piece of shit game
That is totally subjective. And not up to the staff.
Not everyone has been through the same paces and to some people the discussion may still be new.
If it has happened too much for you, you can leave it.

723cab No.5059

>>5057
If it's a game that enough people hate, then EVERYONE dubs spams, not just a few people. That's only decreased because of the cuckchan cancer that flooded in here, which has gotten so dramatically bad that there have been now ASSFAGGOTS threads on /v/.

I know it's a videogames board and people should be able to discuss what they want, but allowing taste that's that shitty will just drag the board down. People having awful taste in games is one of the reasons people hate reddit and cuckchan so much.

723cab No.5060

>>5058
>That is totally subjective. And not up to the staff.

EXACTLY, that is what I'm saying. I do NOT believe that the staff should have the right to remove threads for being "cancer" or "shit taste". However though, what I do believe is that the user base should be allowed to sage dubs if a thread is really shit. Dubs sage used to slide a lot of horrible threads months back, but if people wanted to actually discuss the game, they'd bump it and the dubs men would eventually leave.

c1dd28 No.5061

>>5059
>all this subjective enforcement

>>5060
No, that is not justified.
I have to default to my previous point.

Spamming a thread to destroy it's functionality for users is not self moderation, and it is not the only way users have to disagree with the discussion taking place.
Users can be allowed to disagree with the OP by any means they want, but they should not be allowed to force threads off the chart that they disagree with.

This is echo-chamber hugbox through the roof.

52a59b No.5062

>>5057
>>5059
Dubs shit shouldn't be done by anyone. It is a form of shitposting that attracts more off-topic random garbage from new users who come here and think that's what this place is all about (/b/ with some video games). Misnamed file name threads or "show me your /b/ face" Steam avatar threads are a similar problem. If you want to sagebomb a thread to oblivion do it the right way or don't. When you ironically shitpost or just ironically take a joke too far with something you attract people who mistake you for being genuine. There are many, many past examples on half/v/ to support this.

c1dd28 No.5063

>>5062
This is all subjective still.
We are in a thread discussing administrative action.

I totally disagree with any notion that posts should be censored for quality.
Like I said, Users should be allowed to disagree with the OP by any means they want, and this includes being dismissive of his subject in his thread.

723cab No.5064

>>5061
>Users can be allowed to disagree with the OP by any means they want, but they should not be allowed to force threads off the chart that they disagree with

Well yes, they should explain WHY they are trying to sage the thread to death, but what if the OP doesn't care? What if people are explaining to him EXTENSIVELY why the game is a piece of shit, yet he just says "but its fun you guys are just a bunch of hipsters"?

Also, you don't seem to understand what a hugbox is. A hugbox is any community where you are BANNED from a dissenting opinion. It's also more likely that the OP thinks the thread is more useful than other people do, because he made it himself. If people find the thread useful, they'll bump it. If not, they're sage or ignore.

I feel as if I'm the only one who remembers what /v/ was like back in September, October, and November. Back then, shitty threads were slided by dubs, and it was a great way to combat shills. Good threads may have been injured too, but if it warrants discussion, then they got it.

There is a final point about dubs that you don't realize. What if the OP is just fucking around and trying to piss people off? Or what if he legitimately has shit taste, but will think he's being an epic master troll when you explain why the game is a piece of shit? Dubs are perfect because it's a way of having fun when people are trying to shit up the board, rather than posters getting even remotely upset about the topic at hand. It's like taking the hook of the bait and attaching it to a rock instead of biting onto it. If anyone will get pissed, it's the OP. Everyone else will be having a laugh.

52a59b No.5065

>>5063
I don't think off-topic content or spam is quite as subjective as "console warring" at least.

723cab No.5066

>>5065
No, "off topic" posts is even more subjective. Neither should be banned though, unless we're talking about threads. Threads unrelated to videogames should be removed, but people shouldn't be getting banned if they end up discussing something not strictly videogame related.

I can tell this board is going to be an overmoderated hellhole.

52a59b No.5068

>>5064
>There is a final point about dubs that you don't realize. What if the OP is just fucking around and trying to piss people off? Or what if he legitimately has shit taste, but will think he's being an epic master troll when you explain why the game is a piece of shit?
But how do you know? What if the OP is trying to get a productive discussion going but if your angry reaction to his opinion you disagree with you fail to detect this sincerity? What if the dubs spammer is simply trying to kill a discussion they can't handle being wrong about?

>Dubs are perfect because it's a way of having fun when people are trying to shit up the board
For some of us, dubs stopped being funny fucking ages ago at this point. It was cute for a while, back in 2013, but they aren't fun or funny anymore, they're just lazy and unoriginal. And when you've had enough of your own threads or discussions ruined by them they're just obnoxious background noise that drown out the whole reason one comes to /v/.

3127e9 No.5069

>>5066
when we talk about qc, we are always referring to threads. moderating comments would be impossible to do, and retarded.

d1d677 No.5070

So now shit gets to be even more fragmented, boy, playing with 8ch will be easier than ever now!

You faggots are insufferable dramawhores.. lol

4f8f12 No.5072

>>5064
c1dd28 OP here


>Also, you don't seem to understand what a hugbox is.

No, you don't, and I'll show you.

A dissenting opinion, BY DEFINITION, is an opinion which the majority disagrees with. This is what "dissenting opinion" means.

You say that when someone makes an opinion that the majority of users disagree with, they should be allowed to silence it and shove it off the chart.
If the majority should silence whatever the majority disagrees with, that is the DEFINITION of a hugbox or echo-chamber.

723cab No.5073

>>5072
Surely there's a line between argument/discussion as to why something is shit, and posts that are just made to get rise out of people. I could go make a DA:I thread RIGHT NOW and people would take it seriously and keep it alive. Anyone who wanted to sage it to death would get banned by the hot pocketers who are on /vidyagaems/, but not by Mark.

4f8f12 No.5074

>>5073
>Anyone who wanted to sage it to death would get banned
That's right. They can sage the thread and call OP any manner of insults they want.

But if they are trying to literally "sage it to death" by trying to volumize the thread's resources, that is bannable spamming.
It's the same as covering your ears. It's the same as a DDOS attack.

If people want to keep your thread alive, it should not be taken down by those who want it dead. If they want to thread not to exist, they just have to not enter it.
If they want to argue with people against having DA:I discussion, they can go in and do so, by any words or means that do not hinder functionality of the board.
Whether for debate, or sharing agreements, the thread has value.
And how do you still not understand what a dissenting opinion is?

Some posts are made to get a rise out of people, that is not bannable and should not be bannable. People are not here to solve the riddle of the game industry, they are here to spend time as they wish.

People may ask questions simply to agitate others into an argument, those users are not obligated to take part in that argument. When they decide to take part in that argument, they are using their time as their own will dictates, and it is not wrong for them to do this.
Like I said, I myself prefer to hold arguments on occasion.

723cab No.5076

>>5074
Every time I've said "sage to death", I mean when enough anons are saging a thread yet only replying to each other and not double posting to make the thread die. This is very, very rare, but it was more common before the third and second exoduses.

I don't agree with legitimate spam either, but I've been banned for sage dubs posting when I wasn't even double posting at all, just replying to other dubs posters.

4f8f12 No.5077

>>5076
Then I think you shoud cease tales celebrating "sliding threads off the board",a nd using terms "saged to death".

Because, as I did say, I agree that people should be allowed to be dismissive of OP and his subject.
Those posts can absolutely be ignored and don't kill the thread. When I say "by any means" those are means I include, saging and being dismissive [derailing/dubs].

I am not Blue, unfortunately, but I would love for two things.
1. to find evidence of banning harmless dismissive posts
2. To try and convince Blue to make looser definitions for what constitutes "spam".

723cab No.5078

>>5077
Why should I when they've happened before? Also nice doubles.

4f8f12 No.5079

>>5078
I personally believe in having evidence before I make accusations.
But, perhaps Blue may openly illustrate his opinions on sage/doubles and allow for debate.

Mark had honestly filled me in on what he did that pissed Blue off, instead of covering it up, and he stated in that thread his desire to apply administrative QC.
Nothing says Blue wouldn't be honest either.

On the side, I don't think Mark is lost. I have a policy of forgiveness, and he seems willing to cooperate.
I'd like to "save /v/" rather than migrate.

723cab No.5080

>>5079
Me neither, splitting the board seems really idiotic.

4f8f12 No.5083

>>5080
So perhaps we should try and come up with a "test" for what situations count as spam.

Like needing to fit a certain number of conditions on a list, like
1. Being non-responsive or non-related to any material within the thread
2. Being multiple posts.
3. Maximizing line-breaks / post size

But the problem is, some posts that are non-responsive are just multiple users expressing their dismissive opinion.
Sometimes multiple posts are imagedumps for relevant material to the thread, or relevant to a request in the thread.
And not all TL;DR's are spam. Some people are making arguments that just necessitate the length, or are telling stories.

I think two points should make it spam, but not without #1 being one of those points.
A post being 2 and 3 but not 1 can be a story, or article dump, or argument, etc.
But a post being 1 and 2, or 1 and 3, or 1 2 and 3, should be considered spam.


[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]