I think it's mostly referring to Tripfags who talk about themselves as if their the greatest thing since slicebread and who's the best in their cult of personality.

At least on /mu/.

>>78706
This.
That shit belongs in the IRCs all of them have.

The problem is that the regulars tend to shut everyone else out and make the discussion all about themselves.

That's what circlejerking is. A bunch of tripfags patting each other on the back so that they don't feel so lonely.

>>78661
Threads with a consistent set of regulars create subcommunities which may become cancerous at some point. If it's all anonymous it may work, but usually there are also tripfags involved and that's when it really gets bad.

moot ## Admin
08/12/12(Sun)19:33
No.78765

moot ## Admin 08/12/12(Sun)19:33 No.78765

>>78706
>>78740
aka >>>/soc/ before forced anon and IDs.

Is it really that bad in /mu/?

>>78765
/mu/ is one of the shittiest boards on 4chan. Of course it is.

>threads with a consistent set of regulars with a civil community who enjoy each other's company ignoring everybody else and discussing their own internal dramas, breaking up the flow of the thread and generally faggin' up the place

Fix' OP.

>>78765
Mootles did the mod ask you about putting optional ID in /a/? OP can choose if the thread will have an ID or not.

>>78765
I don't know about /mu/, but I generally see it in General threads on /co/

>>78765
its gotten pretty bad, see >>78547

>>78740
Ain't that the same shit friends do ?

>feel.jpg

>>78808
We don't need IDs on /a/. If you feel the need to make your identity unique, use a tripcode.

Most non-ID'd boards have these once in a while. See: /vp/'s "Pokemon" General threads, most /vg/ generals, etc.

I believe it to be one or multiple of the following:

>Tripfag worship/cocksucking
>Never ending recycling of content
>Stagnant userbase
>Mass bandwagoning
>Topics frequently discussed that lack any opposing opinions
>Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls... (etc)

>>78843
IDs aren't unique, they are there to prevent identification, not to ascertain it. How the hell did you get the completely opposite idea?

>>78857
>IDs aren't unique
Can you post with my ID? No, certainly you can't. It identifies me in this thread. You can click on my ID and see which posts I made in this thread.

>>78857

>IDs are for preventing identification
>identification is for preventing identification

wat

>>78884
>>78888
I thought you were thinking that IDs were persistent cross-thread. My bad.

>>78845
Yeah this started to become a huge problem on /vg/. Some threads are beginning to grow small circlejerking communities.

>>78843
Why the hell would you say that? If depended on me, /a/ would all be forced anon and ID. It's working quite well here, on /soc/ and /b/. With those in place, people feel less inclined to shitpost.

>>78765
Holy shit! Moot responded to my post! I feel honored.

Hi moot. /mu/ is in pretty bad shape. Mostly due to feel threads and off-topic posts. Most /mu/ants don't mind a few off-topics posts here and there, but when 2/3 of front page is taken up by those threads, there's a problem. We just need mods to reduce the number of those threads. Doubles are also a problem. Someone will get doubles on accident and a spammer will see it and spam the thread with the usual memes. They usually bring all discussion in the thread to a stand still.

I don't think /mu/ should have forced anon turned on. Most of the tripfags are pretty good folks, there's just a few rotten apples that try to make it all about them.

We just need better moderation. I've heard /v/ has gotten better in the past few days. A balance of good discussion threads (which surprisingly has been happening all today on /mu/) and off-topic threads (like Olympics closing ceremony) would do the board a great service.

>>78888
it's designed to prevent people from using tripcodes while preventing samefagging and imitation.

>>78910
>Why the hell would you say that?
Because it takes a bit of anonymity away because it ties all posts to your ID.

>If depended on me, /a/ would all be forced anon and ID. It's working quite well here, on /soc/ and /b/.

>here, on /soc/ and /b/

So, because it's working well on /soc/ and /b/ it must also work well for /a/? You are fully aware that the userbase of /a/ has little in common with the userbase of the other two boards?

>With those in place, people feel less inclined to shitpost.
Yeah, no. It's not going to hurt a shitposter. You can shitpost as much as you want with or without ID.

>>78765

/mu/ has turned into an utter shithole.

>>78918
It prevents persistent tripfaggotry, but it still ties all posts to a certain user on a per-thread basis.

>>78968
But it doesn't defeat the point of anonymity. You are anonymous, because I can't judge you based on your personality, or on your religion, or your nationality; I can only judge you based on your ideas, on your thoughts. IDs don't change that.

>>78765
I'd say it was like /v/ was before the mods wiped that board clean, but instead of random off-topic shit on /v/, it's circlejerking on /mu/.

>>78988
You can judge my ID in this thread. You can judge posts I'm going to make in the context of past posts I made so you're not going to judge them without bias.

>>78765

>Is it really that bad in /mu/?

no

>>79003
But you are still Anonymous. Even with all your posts on a single thread, I have very little information about you. It's different from, say, Reddit, because all of the information a user sends to it is tied to his username forever.

>>78959
Fine. But i still want forced anon.

>>79019
>But you are still Anonymous.
No, I'm not. I'm U/kM+2RR.

I'm not anonymous, I'm pseudonymous.

You might not know a lot about me, but that doesn't change that all my posts tie to my ID and that the context of previous posts influences how you're going to view future posts.

>>79045
IDs aren't a pseudonym.

You're saying that 2channel--the world's largest anonymous board that arguable started the "anonymous board" concept--isn't an anonymous board? Baka gaijin.