/b/ - Site Meta

chill out, normoblaster
yeah, I hate it. It reeks of r9k

I think people obsess over purity too much in general. I don't really care if someone "fits in" on an imageboard, I just want them to contribute good content.

Can someone summarize this issue?

>>6236
What job is it?

>>6241

Thank you for your concise summarization.

It sounds like a common social group phenomenon, I would be more surprised if a community did NOT occasionally experience something similar.

In this case, what kind of people does the 'in' group comprise of? The OP appears to indicate that it is 'normal' people. However, I would argue that if someone is posting here, they are already past 'normal'...

>>6241
The person in question came out and said he doesn't care what people think of him. He doesn't care what we think? Then I don't care about him and his blogging that doesn't care about me. It's ridiculous that you'd fall for such cheap emotional blackmail. Should I say that this thread is persecution and announce my leaving over it? Would you suddenly delete this thread and create another for people to openly discuss their "grievances" with the community?

Everybody wants gatekeeping until the spammy wannabe riajuu who "reluctantly" goes to all the parties and talks about getting smashed in a 2D/random message board under spoiler tags is gatekept.

>>6245
Please do not misuse spoilers.

Gatekeeping the wrong people out kills a community, just as failing to gatekeep the right people out does. I don't see much risk of this site getting flooded by 'normies' (although that could always change in the future) whereas the possibility of excluding potentially constructive posters through excessively high community standards is much more realistic. In this case I think gatekeeping is unwarranted and is likely to do more harm than good.

teenmin thread award

teenmin dindu nuffin

that's exactly what a norm would say, opee

ban the norms that use the word norm

I think there should be ""some"" elitism to ensure that the website is not turned into a culture-war bullshit for either side (/pol/ and /lpol/ die in a hole).
Or maybe we shouldn't discuss our lives in general, that blogging should be verboten.

>>6241
Were those his first posts in the thread or were some of the earlier rude "stop blogging" threads him? The thing to look out for here is whether it's just him expressing his displeasure about a post and getting into an argument or a pattern of posts intended to harass a specific target.

>>6253
>I think there should be ""some"" elitism to ensure that the website is not turned into a culture-war bullshit for either side (/pol/ and /lpol/ die in a hole).
Yes to this, but we already do it.
Elitism in the sense of thinking our community is good and wanting it to be better is an important positive quality. (Although we have to be careful that the particular methods we use to gatekeep are chosen based on effectiveness and not based on blowing off anger.)

>Or maybe we shouldn't discuss our lives in general, that blogging should be verboten.
That's going overboard.

>>6245
It's the blog thread, though. It's where people go to talk about themselves and their life. I don't want to get too much into that specific example apart from it starting when someone invoked the 'norm' thing

>>6251
It's not something moderation is needed for, really. It's far better to talk about it and try to change minds.

Maybe because I'm new to this site I don't quite understand.

What are the 'anti-norms' expecting in a post in the blog board? What kind of stories do they want rather than what was posted?

>>6258
I assume it's about the work complaints

>>6260
whap'im good

>>6258
there are people who like to talk about problems that exist in their head

>>6253
>>6256
The issue with active gatekeeping, especially on imageboards, is that most of the people doing it are either autistic neophobes who hate change even when it's positive, and squeaky wheel types who voice their own personal opinions as if they speak for the whole community.

>>6268
wait fuck I'm both.

>>6268
name 3 instances of changes that were positive

>>6287
Change is always going to happen no matter what. It's simply the way the world works. Trying to prevent it leads to the ugliest possible form of change: stagnation. There's no such thing as perfect preservation, and a community built purely around it is going to gradually decay as ideas get watered down and forgotten with time.

That's why it's important to introduce a controlled form of change to a community: enough to offset the inevitable generation loss without altering it at a fundamental level.

>>6292
I see you're dodging the question
>Change is always going to happen no matter what
might as well legalize MURDER too, since MURDERS are always going to happen no matter what

>>6293
Posing OC is, by definition, a form of change, since you're introducing content that hasn't been posted before, and I'd like to think most people consider OC to generally be a good thing.

>>6287
Every time the new stuff was used to make new fun stuff. That might be two instances, I'm not sure.

>>6292
I'll say this, I have nothing against change, and I do believe that change and newness is somewhat of a good thing.
What I ask is that the common folk get a say on what should change, who should we try to shill towards, who should we bring, it should be a community effort, instead of steady invasion of people who hate you and disrespect your culture and the culture of those before you.
What I'm asking is that we, as a community should have a say in how change should be, and not the newfags who believe they are entitled because they brought the cool idea.

>>6302
change and evolution of a community should occur naturally, not as a democratic process with scrutinous thought
not that i really give a shit but the thought of some fags deciding over irc or something about what is "2d/random" just seems rediculous

>>6303
Everything that has been "natural" has been dogshit, forced, and most of all, unfunny. Hell I'd argue it's psyops shit to ruin our community.

>>6302
>What I ask is that the common folk get a say on what should change
Isn't that what kissu does? I mean, that's why threads like this exist to talk about things. Many people love meta after all.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the rest of your post or the posts after it as I haven't noticed anything myself.

>>6307
All I'm saying is that on my time on 4chan has taught me that every change has been even worse in the past 7...8 years now?

>>6303
the council of nicaea but it's sageru #qa debating the what the true nature of meta really is.

>>6310
That has me thinking, forgive me, but how far can we push meta discussion?

>>6311
Until the East-West Schism when /qa/ and /jp/ irreconcilably break apart due to internal divisions.

>>6303
Natural culture isn't real. Culture is the work of humans by its nature. Attempting a natural culture just means passively going along with the culture pushed by someone else. But you're right that expecting it to be the outcome of a debate is ridiculous. That's because action always trumps debate. Still, that's not to say debate is worthless, especially if people are open to changing their minds. Kissu should be a board full of people who have learned the pitfalls of stagnation, passivity, and aggression, and who each do their best to change Kissu into their vision of a better board.

>>6409
I don't see any reason for that to happen, especially with the popularity of /all/

Rather than judge culture by whether it's natural or artificial, we should judge it by whether every poster can have an influence on the culture. People are rightly upset when they feel they have no part in a culture. On sufficiently huge boards, people often convince themselves that the culture is an amalgamation of the wills of its members, but in reality it's driven by moderators and spammers. On small boards with overly strict moderation, mods dictate the culture, and on /intl/ style free-for-alls, spammers dictate culture because they're the only ones with visible posts. On stagnant boards, posters can't influence the culture because the culture is fixed and unmoving. It's not necessary, practical, or even good for everyone to have an equal influence over the culture, but everyone should have a little influence without the need for outsized effort.

>>6538
I agree.

>>6538
speaking from authority the culture of a site is from a select few people who are interested in seeing a site succeed(you label them as spammers) and the moderators deciding if something fits or not(this can be removed depending on maturity of the group). You point out authoritarian structures and anarchist structures but the middle ground exists.

The rest of what you said is nice though. Culture needs to move around a lot and I think this relates simply to the problem of repetition. Constantly creating new things is important and this requires fresh ideas from new people or to empower the creative ones.

>>6541
On very large sites to influence the culture you have to be a spammer, regardless whether your intentions are good or bad. I'm thinking boards like 4chan here, but the same ideas probably apply to social media, although I have less experience there. These aren't always people who want to see the site succeed. They have varying interests like propagandizing a particular political view, spreading their latest wojak variant, or simply venting about their feel when no gf.

It sounds like you're describing more of a small, healthy site. As I said, I have no problem with some users having a greater influence over the culture than others. It's obviously healthy for people who use the site more, care about the site, and contribute more content to have a greater influence. I certainly didn't mean to imply no middle ground exists between authoritarianism and anarchism; rather, I was enumerating various ways a board can be unhealthy. The middle ground is desirable.

>>6241
>Most recently some guy(s) attacked another guy and labeled him a 'norm' in the blog thread, because for some reason they didn't expect blogging in it or something.
ha, i remember this happening to me on samachan with my posts deleted and banned. cant say i missed it much when it closed.....

>>6706
I remember samachan being a den of spermers..
From what I remember, the it had a meguca-like liveblog board, like 90% of the posts there were about porn and masturbation. There was also some girl with a horsecock dildo blogging and posting pics of herself there?
And the admin was also female?
She had her nudes leaked because of some drama in the mod team
Can't say I remember much more about that website, hopefully you know something more, mr. samachan poster

>>6708
i know the liveboard got shut down a few years before the site itself was closed due to drama, but the admin themselves was a little crazy and paranoid about a lot of things so its hard to know what was actually drama. They were very active and very vocal about a lot of things, they were a tripfag with admin powers for the most part. i dont know much more than you, i lurked for a good bit but that blog thread was my first post, and after that i stopped going there.

I miss samachan and lol at all these misconceptions.

>>6710
What did I get wrong? I can't say I've lurked there for that long, but those were my strongest impressions of it

>>6257
meh, a-holes will be a-holes. can't do much about it except ignore them. as long as we hide their post so we don't see it anymore, then we'll be at more peace.

>>6709
I don't know what their deal was but for what it's worth I archived the entire site in that brief window admin brought it back up to publish her long cringe novella about how she dreads her website being associated with 4chan just because it's an imageboard or whatever. yeah what do you expect?