[THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND]:
*We need to be welcoming and not elitist or rude - we’ve all been new to /c/ and clueless at some point. Having a /c/-like tone and giving OPs a positive impression trumps basic information. (Both are still important, though.) <--Emphasis on “impression.” We should ensure that our words aren’t misinterpreted as being anything other than positive.
*We don’t want the set message to imply that we represent all of /c/ nor should we be critical of those who choose to help OP in their own way.
*We should keep the set messages from getting too long but we also need to be explicit.
*How long should we wait before addressing a thread? <--I’m leaning toward 15-20 minutes at the moment but it’s all up for debate.
*It’d be nice (but not necessary) if OPs could identify themselves when/if they post some pics. Any ideas how to go about this?

[OLD SUGGESTIONS AND CRITICISMS]
*Things we want to avoid: messages such as “/r/ in /r/,” PROTIP:, “newfag”
*Sending OPs to /r/ has wildly varied results for many people and many also wish to avoid the NSFW content.
*Booru sites can be difficult to navigate for new users. Perhaps include a simple example/reminder in the set response about using underscores instead of spaces? Or even a search term suggestion of our own?
*Do we want a “/c/ is slower than other boards” message for immediate self-bumpers who aren’t aware of this fact?
*How many pics do we ask OP to try to contribute? People have been using 10 lately but I’m currently leaning toward 5-10 while 3-6 has also been suggested.
*Copypasta is preferable to “go to /r/” with sage
*To sage or not to sage? If yes, make it clear that it’s not out of disrespect.

***NEW CHANGES, SUGGESTIONS, AND CRITICISMS***
*Asking for a /c/ sticky was mentioned but seems rather unlikely and prone to trolling.
*GUIDELINES - Basically a set of notes similar to the ones above to help remind us of the more pertinent points made throughout these discussions. Will likely prove very useful.
*Web page FAQ? – A possibility but it’d require the efforts of someone with web skills to create and maintain. Recommend not going with a wiki-style format. (One or two individuals did mention that this could come off as being elitist and encourage trolling.)
*Iqdb.com – Possibly want to add this site to the list.
*Some expressed concerns that OPs directed to other sites may not return while others countered by saying most contributors are already aware of these sites and still come to /c/. <-- I think tone and impression may play a large role in the former case.
*Briefly mention NSFW nature of boorus and other sites as a heads-up.
*“Saging for MY non-contribution” instead of “saging for non-contribution”
*All of these methods are purely optional. No one single approach seems to solve everything but a combination of these approaches may be the most beneficial for /c/.
*No one expects people to stick with a single approach and anyone can switch back and forth between methods as they see fit.

[Where I’m currently leaning:]
I like the idea of people having two (maaaybe 3) set responses to deal with certain types of situations coupled with the guidelines all on one document or text file for reference. This allows for an extreme amount of flexibility and also caters to the tastes of nearly everyone who has contributed to the discussion. As was pointed out:

- If someone wants to take the straight set response approach, they have two or three different versions to address the types of threads we have been discussing.
- If someone wants to cater the set response to the OP’s situation, they can easily add their comments or customize some of the wording of the set response to suit OP’s needs.
- If someone wants to create a response from scratch, they have the guidelines to remind them of what to keep in mind and the set responses to give them a basic framework and to use as possible examples for phrasing or structure (if they so choose).
- If someone wants to simply contribute and ignore all of the above, then more power to them.

(And of course, every approach should contribute a couple of pics to the thread as well.)

It was also mentioned that despite the effort we are all putting into this, it could easily just not work. This is true for many things in life and this is no exception. However, the flexibility inherent in the above method makes our overall approach much more resilient. Should one type of approach turn out to work better for a type of thread we had not planned for, it’s easy to adapt to. Should the set responses COMPLETELY fail, we still have them and the guidelines to provide structure for the other approaches.

As usual, constructive feedback ins welcome. I’d also like to get some drafting input before the thread maxes out. ^_^

Just a few extra pics so all the walls of text don't fill up the main board preview.

sage

So, basically. . .
People bombard /c/ with request threads.
We don't like this.
But, just saying "requests go in /r/" is not enough, so we should develop some standardized responses to request threads?

IMO, you come to /c/ to either post images, save images that you find here, or discuss cute anime or whatever. Asking other people to post stuff for you is not what /c/ is for. Other than directing them to /r/, iqdb.org, boorus, or other sites, I just don't see what else there is to be done. This whole topic seems to be overcomplciating a simple issue that all the boards deal with.

If anything, all of this stuff you're doing needs to be in a sticky, or I just don't see the point at all. Mods can make locked stickies as far as I know.

>>1005557
well put except does anybody know how to contact a mod?

that's why they are making a big issue out of it, they don't know how to get in contact with a mod
and that isn't even taking into account if the mod agrees to do it

>>1005565
Why would a mod need to be contacted?

>>1005617
Among other things, only a mod can sticky a thread.

on a related note, mods aren't assigned to boards, they just roam around wherever they want. This may explain why we don't get a lot of spillover, I guess some mods like it here.

>>1005566
There's no pride in being stuck-up here, but there is pride in the whole civil thing.
/c/ has way too much pride. It gets annoying sometimes.

If you're going to make SEVERAL CUSTOMIZABLE messages, you might as well just type up your own damn message every time. If you think making your own little ad-lib spam is such a great idea, then start using it already, and stfu about it already. The only way to get rid of these threads is to image spam them with the images they want, then poof, they're not bad threads. I say "bad threads" because that's what they are, right? That's what you imply with all this. Here's the thing, this whole thread is elitist, because you think it's your role to represent us and come up with some genius idea to fix this. You're over complicating something that's as simple as...
a) Post images
b) Sage and link to other sites
c) Fucking ignore it

And if you guys decide it's a good idea to create a web page faq or a wiki, you're crazy. You think just a wiki is elitist, but they both are. Even if you just say they're supposed to be guidelines, they're both trying to govern /c/, which, guess what? You yourself are saying over and over you don't want to do. You don't?
STFU.

Glad to see the usual naysayers and trolls are all here.

I am in total support of this and anyone who isn't can just ignore the thread unless they have something constructive to add.

>>1005712
Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't automatically make them a troll. I'm hoping this fails because I've seen stupid shit like this cause board-wide trolling before, and I want you guys to fucking quit already. You're complaining about junk threads being made, and yet this one has been recreated twice now with pretty much nothing new to add and has been on the front page forever. If you're going to do it, then fucking do it, quit talking about it, it's not like it should take more than 15-20 minutes to write up some goddamn copy pasta.

>>1005557
The problem is that some people are getting so fed up with it that they're being jerks with there messages or at least coming off as jerks. I'd like /c/ to remain the nice place it is and not scare away noobs. The whole point of this is people wanted to help and be polite.

Most of us agred that the sticky stuff wouldnt work I think its just there as a recap.

>>1005692
What part of 'The people involved in this DO NOT intend to represent all of /c/ users nor are all /c/ users even remotely required or expected to take part' is so difficult to understand???

>>1005712
Don't say to just ignore this thread when you guys are bitching about how you can't ignore how there are some /r/ threads. PS, saying you're making things over complicated and to just start posting copy pastas immediately ARE constructive, you're just beating around the bush.

>>1005716
This thread has cute pics so what does it matter what we discuss?

If we could have made a copypasta that people could agree on that quickly I think SRG would have. Problem is he'd be doing it with no input and people like you would be shouting 'ELITIST' again. People had problems with the first version and so this stuff takes time.

>>1005718
Difference is this thread is contributed to while the others are not. This thread has a discussion the others just sit there and spam. I don't know where you got the 'PS' part can you quote that?

>>1005716
And I was referring more to the spammed sage posts than the naysayers who had something to add to the discussion. Unless the sages were you I wasn't necessarily calling you a troll.

sage since it's not really an important post

Because as one of the sage spammers was correct to say, this thread needs more cute pics. xD

I think this is one of the most fascinating pictures I've ever saved from /c/.

>>1005731
Ever heard about paperchild?, there is an entire folder in /rs/ with many of them ( some are NSFW)

>>1005742
Didn't know about the /rs/ since I always thought it was 'papercraft' but I have seen a bunch from time to time.

Thanks for the pointer! xD

there's nothing wrong with trying to civilize a raging beast, but once one releases the beast back into its natural habitat, it will revert back to its old necessary habits.

our generation is more selfish than any other. we are a commune of walled-off narcissists, so if all posters in /c/ followed 3 basic rules, behavior, atmosphere and camaraderie will grow by leaps and bounds.
1. put others first
2. ignore rudeness utterly
3. fulfill requests to the best of your ability

>>1005755
Very true, it makes me very sad how ugly we can allow ourselves to be online. Your 1st and 2nd points are in the guidelines I thikn-I don't have the rough on me-and the third is where all of the differing opinions come in.

As most of you know, I'm as opposed to "set messages" as anyone. I only joined the discussion because I was getting mad at seeing "belongs in /r/" in every. Single. Thread.

Everything else I have to say is in the last two threads for those who care to peruse them. Starting now, I will devote less time to arguing and more time to /c/uteness.

Hazuki and Saiji from Moon Phase.

>>1005770
What's your opinion on the alternatives? Do they fall more in line with your views?

>>1005885
Yeah, 'cause that stuff wasn't around before these discussions, nope nope nope. Nothing about a 1M get, summer vacation, and a few trolls in this thread trolling outside the thread to prove their own point. Nope, not at all.

>>1005886
You're like the 10th guy to say that so it's obvious some people aren't actually reading. Maybe not you, but I get the feeling there are a handful of alts contributing to railing on this thread.

Sage because I haven't contributed anything worthwhile in this post.

These round table discussion threads have severely lowered my opinion in the /c/ommunity. Most people here take almost excessive pride in being friendly and welcoming but once someone tries to start an open discussion we start to see that it's only a handful of people who really stand for this--everyone else is just giving lipservice out one side of their mouth and being extremely rude out the other.

I'm sure there are people just sitting this one out but seeing how this third thread immediately sank into trolling, name-calling, and personal insults which have thankfully been deleted, I think this whole idea of a /c/ivil /c/ommunity is bunk.

I'll still enjoy coming to /c/ and contributing when I can, but I'll no longer be under the false impression that this board is as welcoming as it claims.

sage for my noncontribution and rant

I think the difficulties behind these greetings and this thread in general can

1. People who want to make /c/ a better place (at least in their opinion, nothing wrong with it) by setting up some something between guidelines/rules
2. People who have a problem with one group of people trying to set up rules (or guidelines) by a group
3. People who don't want ANYBODY to tell them what to do

Personally I think that what Group 1 is trying to achieve is great. But I am in Group 2 because I am not that keen on the whole "keeping it civil". It's starting to come of as guise of trying to exert control over the other people because "you're not acting like us". I remember somebody in the last thread saying that "because somebody was doing X that meant they weren't a /c/ivilian, they were a lurker". First off, agree that isn't very civil and it was only one person. But still... So I gotta say that unless it comes from a mod, I'm going to keep posting what feels right (for me) at the time. Just because I may not live up to your concept of a "/c/ivilian", I am still browsing, enjoying and posting pics in /c/.

>>1005892
The past week has been worse than the past couple months combined.

>>1005903
I think part of the problem is most people think that if you don't do something 100% of the time, then you fail.

So just because people are failing to be civil her doesn't mean they fail all the other times outside of this thread.

Also if you notice, /c/ doesn't have many discussions, which may be why it is usually considered civil. And if that thought bothers you, this is 4chan after after.

>>1005908
1005892 <--me

Well with all respect, I think they're going out of their way to emphasize that you and people such as yourself don't have to do a single thing when it comes to this stuff. It's even written twice in the first few posts. I think the problem is - again, no disrespect to you and your useful post - that people for some reason cannot grasp this and interpret it however they want, disregarding what's clearly written. Your point has actually been made and addressed numerous times already and for some reason it isn't working.

I'll grant that the 1M get and its residue combined with the start of summer vacation was a spike but it's not like the months leading up to that were great either. But technically yes you are correct.

>>1005920
I am only repeating that point so others who read this may stop trolling outside this thread because it reminds them that they don't have to do it and presenting it in another light... partly if they tl;dr the first posts.

>>1005913
No I agree, it's hard to write concisely without overgeneralizing and I do think that there are these awesome people out there in /c/, I just now think they're a tiny minority. It is 4chan yes, but I had always gotten the feel that /c/ was a strange haven within 4chan. It's still true, just not quite as heavenly.

>>1005925
Ahh, well if that's the case, then apologies. What kind of trolling are you seeing? I've just seen the usual 'REQUESTS GO IN /R/!!!!!11!1"

sage for off-topic

>>1005926
I dunno, maybe your expectations of /c/ were too high to start out with? It is a place they tout as being civil and friendly but maybe you took that too far?

Just throwing that out there. I'm sure "you'll get over it." ;)

>>1005926
I do believe heaven still has sex, drugs and rock and roll. Otherwise it'd be filled with boring cloud condos and 24hr mass.

I hope everyone gets the analogy.

>>1005903

It's probably due to the nature of an organized mindset rather than the actual nature of /c/. To formulate a standard, a compromise between people is inevitable. However, conflict is a part of compromising, meaning that there will be differing opinions. >>1005908 brings up a good point, that there are several factions competing to determine the standard. It may or may not be in those precise markings, but the key is that having a discussion between multiple people will go through fighting before arriving at a conclusion.

tl;dr It's a process that'll take time to work out. Sorry if it's bugging you out, please don't take it to be an exact representation of /c/.

As for me, I'll just continue being a nice guy that doesn't mind answering requests and random dumps regardless of what happens here. Good luck with getting this figured out.

>>1005935
No I'm in total agreement with you. Some people aren't able to grasp that brainstorming and compromise take time and if SRG just set things in stone from the beginning, he'd be called a dictator, elitist, "not speaking for /c/" and all the other stuff he's still getting called.

THe problem is that we've got people trolling these discussions under the guise of dissent. There's been tons of dissent already but those people made their arguments in a mature way and many actually have played a large role in getting the discussion to this point. No, the problem are the people being jerks to everyone and then get defensive when they're asked to change their tone. Like some other guy threw out, I think it's fewer people than it appears and that we're dealing with some trolling alts.

In case someone misses my point again:::::::
dissent + mature post = okay
dissent + namecalling and insults = troll or ass and not a good representative of /c/.

>>1005929
I honestly don't consider "r is that way" to be trolling. I think it is just being extremely direct. If I started calling that trolling, then I'd lump all of these into trolling as well:
1. "Can it be X tiem now (or nao)?"
2. Y is my waifu!" usually followed by "you can't have her" in a subsequent post
3. "What is the name of this character?"
4. "What series is this character from?"
5. "source" or "sauce"
6. "/a/ told me you could help me."
7. "All I have are h pics" followed by a plea for non-h pics
8. "I can has (insert whatever)"

The only phrase that I can't stand that feels like trolling (to me) ALL the time is "X is a slut!" But luckily that doesn't show up here very much.

>>1005956
Oh dude, I didn't mean to make it sound like I consider those trolling, I was just saying that's all I've really seen lately apart from bot posts. Sorry if that's how it read.

Since this thread is taking an off-topic tone-seriously, where are the usual contributors? They feel like sitting this one out?-I'm going to start posting some cute pics to lighten the mood.

Gonna start saging with this one to not be a bump whore.

>>1005933
I think I get it. Even though it's a safe haven, free from, spammers, trolls, and /b/-ness, it's still 4chan and as such will have its own issues and related asshattery.

>>1005955
I (>>1005908) am going to point this out (hopefully) before any trolling of this post starts. So please don't take it in a wrong way
>set things in stone from the beginning, he'd be called a dictator, elitist, "not speaking for /c/"
>In case someone misses my point again:::::::
>dissent + mature post = okay
>dissent + namecalling and insults = troll or ass and not a good representative of /c/.
What you declared in the last of that post could be seen as what you said in the beginning of the post.

Also, just because somebody's post is insulting (to you), doesn't mean that the post isn't okay. There may be a valid point in there that you are missing because you're getting caught up in your anger. Insults are a very personal thing. Calling somebody fat may make somebody cry and another person shrug. Calling somebody a dog or pig is a really big insult in other countries, but not in others.

I just noticed the incredible foresight in SRGs vocaloid pics. Is this what he was expecting?

>>1005975
No I know what your saying and the problem is I didn't write out a 2-page essay like random guy does (though it doesn't seem to help his cause). I think people are taking the good stuff from those posts but when its obvious the same guy is doing it over and over to rile people up, that's what I meant. I suppose my post oversimplified things again so that's my fault.

>>1005958
I didn't mean to imply that you were saying all of these were trolling. I just thought your post said that "requests go in /r/" is a form of trolling.

>>1005972
You got the right idea. You remember all the trolls and drama from the magic card threads, even if some of it was from /tg/.

>>1005981
so we got a new guy to blame now

>>1005977
Minus the copped feel-ups, you may be onto something...

>>1005983
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQ!!!!!!!!!!

*sniff sniff*

>>1005984
Oh, werent you there for those? xD

>>1005985
The hell is 'noooooooQ'? Sounds like some noise a critter from WoW would make.

Last one. Gotta do some RL stuff.

Not a big fan of Warhol but I love tihs pic.

>>1005965
Just like you'll never see Mozilla Thunderbird the same.
You'll never see SFIV Sakura the same.

>>1005994
Oh god, why? Why!?!

Makes me want to scream "NOOOOOOOOOOOOQ!!!" ^o^

images... the acceptable way to kill a thread on /c/

>>1005892
In a deleted post, someone mentioned SRG might be an "elaborate troll." I think he's sincere, but you must admit his timing was bizarre.

>>1005678
Every once in a while, I venture into a strange, awful, depraved place some know as "IRL." Much like /c/, the denizens of IRL are also obsessed with civility, but their idea of "civility" involves being completely stuck up and viewing anyone who doesn't live up to their standards with disdain. I want to think that /c/ivility is different than the definition of civility used in the bizarre and perverse land of IRL. I hate being wrong.

>>1005692
I think that's the best solution: encourage the new anons to contribute in a way suited to their thread, and do in in your own way.

>>1005396
Chibi vocaloids = d'awwwwww!

>>1005929
>>1005956
When you think about it, "requests go in /r/" is the kind of "set response" SRG and the others were arguing for in the first place, only not as fancy. I and others have stated our problems with sending everyone to /r/ previously, and I won't repeat them here.

>>1006288
I've noticed that a lot of your most recent comments fail to address how things have changed and what compromises have been proposed. The original set response seems to have been disavowed by everyone including SRG but everyone who was against it doesn't seem to update their arguments.

I've been lurking all of these threads and I'd like to know what you tihnk of the latest proposal instead of the bickering that followed.

And since people were asking so nicely:

>>1005780
> What's your opinion on the alternatives?
-> Send people to /r/- nossir.
-> Send people to 'Boorus- fine in principle, but people who make these threads wouldn't know how to use a 'Booru and may feel left out and frustrated.
-> Sticky- probably the best of the alternatives brought up so far, especially the locked variation. Nearly impossible in practice.
-> Set response with relevant pic- a compromise offered when the opposition seemed slimmer than it is now. SRG likes it, apparently others don't.

>>1005962
Seems the bulk of the discussion before the end of thread 2 was only a handful of long-winded namefags (myself included) and anons. Can't speak for the others, but this stuff actually wore me out.

No pics, we're near (or at) the limit.

>>1006298
THIS

Not as much for Yomi, he/she's been pretty cool overall but I think this is one of the big reasons we haven't made as much progress as we should have.

A sage since I can't access my pics right now.

>>1006305
Argh, this is what I'm talking about. No offense to you again, Yomi, but that's why people like myself suggested and supported giving an example or relevant booru search entry. I think it's even in one of the top posts.

I'm getting the feeling that a lot of the people who were so gung-ho and contributed to the last two threads weren't actually willing to put more than a few paragraphs of effort in. That or they let some trolls and rude posters scare them away.

One way or the other, I'm a bit disgusted looking back on some of the comments from the old thread. Maybe people are just all out and away at the same time.

>>1006309
[Sorry, just frustrated that certain select individuals seem unwilling to grow a spine.]
*insert cute pic of something here*

>>1006298
>>1006306
Perhaps you're speaking of the off-site commandments/guidelines proposal?

That could actually work *if* it's used properly. Experienced contributors would use the guidelines and sample responses to craft a semi-unique response to that particular situation. I can see this happening, but there is so much that could go wrong:

-> Those who have access to the guidelines should not start thinking of them as "secret knowledge" and start acting like they own the boards. The last thing /c/ needs is some wannabe Skull-and-Bones BS.

-> Everyone needs to understand that these are not the word of Moot, only some disgruntled users. The others say this a lot, but it cannot be overstated.

I'm sorry if I was the stick-in-the-mud that held this thing up. I didn't mean to be.

>>1006309
So for example:
New_Anon: Bleach girls in school uniforms gogogo!
Experienced_Cutie: Ever hear of this site called Danbooru? It has lots of neat pics, though it can be confusing. Try entering "bleach school_uniform" in the search bar and see what comes up!
New_Anon: *posts several pics of Bleach girls in school uniforms*

If it could work like that, than I say go for it. I am, however, a believer in Murphy's Law.

>>1006319
Well the way I interpreted stuff and I may be wrong is that the guidelines were to keep us the /c/ veterans in line and werent meant to be posted as rules for the OPs. If that's right then I don't see how such rules as 'be polite' and 'contribute a pic or two along with your comments' could possibly lead to a skull & crossbones secret society. If it did, it'd be the worst secret society ever. xD

Now that I think about it, are you reading the suggestions as a one-of-the-above list and not everything-of-the-above? Your remark about the guidelines gave me that impression and I remembr how some of your 'discussion minutes' read.

The one thing I don't understand is why you're so held up on the us not being mods part. It's been one of the most stressed part of every single thread so I can't for the life of me imagine how it could get past us if we ever get around to drafting.

And you aren't really the person I'm ranting about in the earlier posts, so no big deal. I don't always understand where you're coming from but that's why we discuss.

>>1006324
Thats kind of what I have in mind too but a little more helpful stuff for OP. Of course it's not going to work perfectly all the time, we're talking about noobs and noobs always find a way to screw things up. I know I screwed up a bunch when I first came to the boards. :'(

>>1006346
Sorry, don't have access to IRC :-/ That's partly why I'm saging my posts.

The guidelines and responses would be together in the sense that they're in the same document for reference. They're separate in that they don't have to rely on the other.

>>1006330
I didn't think the text of the suggestions were posted here or even finished. If they were, I must have skipped over that particular post. Either way, I haven't yet read them verbatim.

"We're not mods" keeps coming up because the two ideal solutions, namely a locked sticky or amending the official rules, require a mod or Moot himself to execute them. Chances of that are slim.

Since this is becoming a back-and-forth between the three of us, I invite you (and anyone else interested) to join me on IRC. I will linger in /c/'s IRC channel (#/c/ on irc.rizon.net) for the next hour or so.

[Deleted old post after I thought of a better way to word things]

Yomi has pointed out the, what i beleave to be the main issues as well.

1. /r/. I've tried many times to get things out of /r/ only to get the feeling that i was in some kind of /b/ extension.
2. Boorus. Beginners to them most of the time will only find chickens, like i did back in the day. I had to play with the searching to find out how the tags worked. (stupid underscores)
3. Sticky. Hmm getting this would be an act of congress, but would be the most effective.
4. Mostly named /c/itizens and a few others would be the only ones to implement this. Its a good idea but ppl just travling in /c/ just wont bother.

I can see the point both sides are making.
1. One side wants /c/ to remain in its un-guided form. Where /c/itizen are free to do what they want: Why fix whats not broken.

2. More ppl are coming to 4chan and liking boards other than the more comical boards. This is where the "guidelines" come to play to prevent threads of epic win from deletion. An easy way to explain this is seeing 3 konata threads with 15 pics in each bumping a thread with an important link or something off page 10. The newer ppl dont care enough to lurk more and without a "search", thread clones appear.

When I first came to /c/ it was something like a modern Lost Valley from The Land Before Time. A peaceful town where there really was no government or leader but there was no problems with the ppl that lived there, and /c/'s ppl was organized better.
Every once in a great while there would be a wandering trouble maker but for some reason this town had a ever-watching guard that would act fast in removal.

The only problem now is that town is rapidly becoming a city. One with dark alleyways and the old /c/itizens are trying to think of ways to keep those alleys lit.

>>1006391
Hmm well maybe the dark alleys are pushing it. But i just think /c/ maybe growing to fast.

I’ve been lurking this whole time watching the discussion progress and often devolve and while trolls and impolite folk are a mild irritation, I’m much more disappointed by the lack of contributions from the people who frequented the previous threads. This is 4chan and we should be able to move along while dealing with or ignoring trolls and namecallers.

>>1006391
To address your concerns:
1. I don’t think sending people to /r/ has been on the table for quite some time. Maybe it’s my fault that this concern continually comes up and I should have explicitly stated this in the first few posts (then again, I DO explicitly state that we aren’t mods nor is anyone even remotely required to participate and we still get those complaints time and time again).
2. This is similar to the previous point and I think Anon mentioned not too long ago that we’d include a short explanation and/or example search entry and maybe even suggest a search entry specific to OPs needs.
3. I really don't like the sticky idea UNLESS the mods step in and write it up themselves. Otherwise we continue to get the same bitching and moaning we've been getting - only much louder. I also agree that it'll bring in the occasional troll or two and no one really wants that. We've got our fair share waiting in dormant mode already.

[wrap up in next post]

>>1006493
4. Well the whole idea is for those who choose to take part to set a good example and show that /c/ is a great place while at the same time working on reducing abandoned posts. I've actually noticed that certain people have been ragging on the roundtables and then immediately posting pics in dead threads to remove the evidence, so to speak (notice how healthy the threads are over the past day or two?). I realize this could be a bit out there but the times, wording, spelling errors, and even the type of pics used all point to three specific individuals (max - could be alts). To be honest, I'm almost positive one of them was one of our supporters in the first round table (double agent! O_O). Anyway, this all doesn't matter, it's their choice to post those pics and at least they're contributing. ^_^

The more pressing matter is that the usual contributors on both sides (with limited exceptions) are suddenly all M.I.A. at the same time. Whether they're away, avoiding the trolls, or have just lost motivation, this idea only works if it's more than a few people. If people are no longer willing to make an effort toward this idea then it basically gets put on ice until they do. In the meantime, I'll simply do the same thing I've been doing for the past year or so. It's not going to really fix much, but that seems to be where the general consensus his heading. <shrug>

>>1006493
>>1006494

But there are still a few anons who tell posters to go to /r/. Whether that's ignorance or trying to piss us off, I don't know.

As for the lull in activity: People may have started to realize that they were putting so much time and effort into this discussion that the rest of the board started deteriorating, and are now overcompensating. In my case, summer classes and the Stanley Cup Finals also got in the way.

>>1006494
Speaking for myself, I've been absent because I haven't felt the need to say anything.

I'm kind of indifferent to the whole thing, including the root "problem" itself. I'm willing to entertain the idea and will offer my input on how to make it more effective, nicer, less likely to backfire or whatever, but I'm not invested enough to be a driving force on anything. This entire part 3 thread has had essentially nothing new said, so my options were either to join in the cycle of trolling and countertrolling, or just to ignore it until things pick up again.

Then my Internet died last night just as I was about to post a semi-trolling "get back on topic you idiots" post, so I've been left with ignoring it.

sage

So I've combed over this thread once more. #2 is dead and the archive hasn't posted #1 yet. SRG's approach in >>1005400 seems more agreeable than anything else we can come up with.

If the guidelines *are* completed, I would like to see them re-posted sometime soon. Like I said earlier, I haven't seen them. If they are *not* completed, someone should get on that.

It seems everyone not in agreement has either went troll or thrown in the towel, so this is as good a time as any to move forward. The next step would probably be to find someone who is willing to host/store the guideline document and provide it upon request.

Other comments:
>>1005956
You'll have to live with memes- that's the price you pay for being part of 4chan. Some seem to think /c/'s sanctuary-like aura will protect us from memes. I have nothing against them in moderation.

"Requests go in /r/," after all the time we spent discussing it, is either trolling or means not as many people as we think are following this discussion. That is, unless the hivemind has declared it as a meme.

>>1005986 and all posts below
Thanks for sending a crack team of lolis to rescue this thread!

Maybe things will pick up later this afternoon. I'll be on IRC most of the afternoon if people want to discuss things further.

>>1006965
Oh, and I missed something.

> everyone not in agreement has either went troll...
should be
> everyone not in agreement has either gone troll...

Since I don't know my basic grammar, that last post and all of my previous statements, arguments, and concerns should be thrown out as invalid.

I think posting a helpful pic and guiding wayward posts to other threads with the same topic, or to a booru that can give them a start on pics (because let's face it, as good as they are I bet /c/ has at least twice as many pics collectively, if not 3 or 4x)

these seem like they could work, the new /c/itizens would learn how we roll, all while maintaining the air of civility and peacefulness that has drawn and kept us here.

Thanks for the updated feedback, gentlemen/ladies!

>>1006965
Yeah, I hear you on the Stanley Cup diversion.

I don't have immediate access to the guidelines but I can vouch that they're very similar to the points in the first post and the "things to keep in mind" portion of the second - they're just better-written.

>>1006866
Well, I thank you for not posting the semi-troll. ^_^ I know it gets pretty frustrating seeing the same stuff getting discussed over and over (it bothers me too) and some things I just can't figure out why they keep coming up. Nonetheless, if someone poses the concern in a polite manner, I feel they deserve an answer - even if it's already been answered. Three threads is a lot to cover and I sympathize with those who aren't always in the mood to read the mini-novels that are the roundtables.

Still, I think we've made some very positive progress overall. Not as quickly as I would have liked, but sometimes that's just how things work.


Reflecting over things a bit, I think it would be best to take a short recess to let people on both sides (as well as trolls) cool their heads. I fully admit that three of these extremely text-heavy threads in less than a week can be a bit overwhelming to deal with so it would be best to think of this as a short break to let everyone stretch and enjoy themselves a bit more.

So everyone, have a great weekend+, make note of any ideas or suggestions you come up with, and I'll start up a new thread once things calm down a bit. Thanks again to everyone who has constructively contributed so far! ^_^

You guys are far to nice. We here at /c/ shouldn't be 'spoon feeding' these newcomers when they stumble onto our board and then post 'lame' request or single images posts. It takes a few minutes of using Google to find anime images, image boards, and boorus. It's time that /c/ stopped being a doormat.

>>1007008
I think a short break sounds like an awesome idea. Ive got plans for the weekend and other people probably have there own as well so it all works out.

sage cuase no need for me to bump right now

>>1007010
you summed up the point of why these threads started

Is is there a reason to continue these threads?

>>1007721
probably not

Easiest solution to these threads.
A. If you like it, go along.
B. If you don't, then do what you want within the rules of 4chan.
C. If you don't care, see B.

>>1007733
inb4 s/c/hitstorm

>>1007721
>>1007724
Don't reply to yourself, it defeats any valid point you may be making.