Instead of making forced ID board specific, why not have it thread specific? So the OP has the option of whether or not to make a thread with forced ID?
Good Idea OP. I myself have suggested this many times. I think it would work
Ylilauta has this, it works fine if you want to have a thread be more towards serious discussion. Of course it doesn't work there though.
This is a great idea, let the OP decide if they want their thread to be 'serious' or not.
The more power/choice you put in the hands of the OP, the more people are going to hate them for no good reason.Though something needs to get done about the whole ID thing.
This is a better idea than making a board all IDs or no IDs. It means that the OP and everyone posting in the thread agree to be identified between posts, which some discussions need.
>>850>The more power/choice you put in the hands of the OP, the more people are going to hate them for no good reason.What does this even mean?
>>877Some threadstarters already can get "I'm the OP, listen to me, I'm more important than the rest, or deserve to be heard more than others". At least that can be the perception of them. If you give them more little choices, people will just rail against them for choosing to create a thread with IDs, or, if they make one with, for not choosing to make a thread without IDs. Not that it nullifies the idea, I just think it's something to be aware of.
>>850>getting called namesvs>getting a feature that could improve the content of your threadDoesn't really seem bad enough to not do it.>>909The only thing the OP can do is kill the threadif it turns into a getfest or other shitposting.
I don't like it.ID doesn't seem necessary on most boards.It's present on /b/ to stop a certain brand of /b/ shitposting, in the same way doubles are disabled on /b/ to stop that.Being able to identify who makes precisely what comment has a few potential benefits. It also risks changing how things feel. When you can link every post a given user makes in a given thread together, that means posts are being taken as a group rather than individually. In any decent discussion, it's easy enough to follow who's saying what anyway.What I'm getting at is that change for the sake of change is not always good. Adding a feature to 4chan encourages people to start using it, and among other things, using it for trolling and such. ID was added to /b/ to remedy problems. Those problems don't exist except perhaps on the other Very High Traffic boards.
>>1126If you don't like the idea of a forced ID, then don't create a thread or post in a thread with a forced ID, that's the entire point of it being optional.
>>1334>Don't create a thread using itI'm not saying "I don't want to use this feature", I'm saying "I don't like this feature as a part of the boards outside /b/">or post in a thread using itI wouldn't avoid those threads, I just don't like the idea of forced ID in a given thread.
The problem I see with this idea is that very soon after it was implemented, nobody would ever used forced ID again.A superior solution might be to keep forced ID on /b/ (and /q/) and have it as an OP option for all other boards.
>>1376I didn't mean take away mandatory forced ID from boards that already have it, sorry for not clarifying. I meant an optional forced ID for the remaining boards, specifically /a/ though. The drawfag and waifu threads are completely out of control, having your shitposting linked to your request would make a lot of people think twice before posting. I'm pretty sure there are other reasons people would want this as well, so I didn't want to limit the OP it to just my "complaints".
>>1474This also was meant for >>1393.
>>755I love forced id in /b/. It just reveals how much of a faggot everyone there really is.
>>1474In that case I agree. There's no reason not to add it as an OP option for occasional use if it will have a significant benefit to certain types of threads. Unless it is particularly hard to code I guess...
only OP should have an ID, that way you keep the "anonymous" spirit and OP doesn't have to claim ID and shit
So what is to point of being anonymous if every board would allow the op to ID the posters? 4chan would cease to exist.
>>1530That's the only thing that I was thinking, being completely computer illiterate I've got no idea what it takes to implement something like that, but I can't imagine it being too hard.>>1551That's what a tripcode is for.
>>1581OP could just take it off and samefag though.
I second this idea. I personally think it would increase the quality of many threads and, in boards like /v/ and /a/, or even /lit/, it would take the avatarfags, tripfags and namefags down a notch. Their posts would have to be judged on individual merit again, rather than on who made them.All in all: Pic related, OP.
If a person makes more than X posts in a thread, give them an ID.X can be 5.I don't really think this will do anything though.
I don't agree with this idea. Even OPs shouldn't be able to gain access to the way a thread is drawn out.
>>850But look, if the OP decides to use IDs then many can assume it's a serious thread. If OP does not turn on the IDs then we can assume it's not serious.If there are no IDs and you can clearly see that the thread is a trainwreck then possibly a janitor or someone can end it.
>>1845The biggest point I hope people walk away from this thread with is; By making the forced ID thread optional, you can choose if you want to post in it or not, no one is forcing you to use that thread. You can even make your own if you feel it's that bad.
