>>562333 (OP)
If you're talking about the furry threads disguised as "monster girl" threads, I don't think that's ever going to go away.

>>562348
I was talking more with the endless two-month threads no one contributes to, and the futa bloat from it getting everyone upset.

Contain futa to 1 thread and only 1 thread.
Allow bestiality hentai.
Have a janitor that monitors "monster girl" threads deleting all the furry, or just disallow them all together.

-Reintroduce thread time limits. But not like a day as they were before, more like two weeks.
-allow bestiality hentai. out of all the bans this makes the least damn sense. we have unicorn rape. thats just a horse with a narwhal horn on its head. no one is going to consider it extreme beyond idiots.
-set up a vote for /d/ on scat and furry. If they get a supermajority of support, let them have it too. Options are open for kemono only or... whatever tame scat is, I don't like the fetish but i know a good chunk of /d/ does.
-Some fetishes have been revoked in the past because of headbutting with program providers. What we need is a definate paragraph on WHY they're banned for this, so people can get it.
-Subject line MUST be filled with every thread. No excuse for not seeing the other thread in the catalog.

I want a /d2/ for the even more taboo fetishes such as guro, scat and loli.

>>562473
There are plenty of other chans that cater to your eccentric tastes.

>>562455
>Reintroduce thread time limits. But not like a day as they were before, more like two weeks.

>allow bestiality hentai. out of all the bans this makes the least damn sense. we have unicorn rape. thats just a horse with a narwhal horn on its head. no one is going to consider it extreme beyond idiots.

>Subject line MUST be filled with every thread. No excuse for not seeing the other thread in the catalog.
I agree with all of these. Forced subject would stop all the one pic threads that are mistakely posted by people but never deleted by them.

>>562478
that's a terribly cop-out excuse. There are plenty of chans for every board added here, old or recently.

>>562485
It's not really an excuse, more just a workaround since they won't keep adding boards for everyone's particular interests.

For instance, I would love a anime/manga retro board but I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

>>562478
I think what 4chan needs is a gurochan for furry. A site with the same sort of mentality that makes people go 'well at least there's gurochan', but for furry. The problem with furry on 4chan is they don't leave, because none of the sites reflect the 4chan furry sentiments of 'porn good, our community okay, bigger drama not important'.

I mean, you keep telling them to go to fchan. Talk about the opposite of 4chan mentality in all shades. Of course they don't want to go to fchan. No one likes fchan.

>>562484
If nothing else, the first and the third one sound practical.

>>562490
Then why add boards like /out/? Where it could just be mixed together with /an/? Why have separate boards for /i/ and /ic/? Why do we still have /po/? Why add /lgbt/? Why have five separate individual boards dedicated for video games? Why have so many boards left widely unused, that don't have broad enough of a board topic and are on other chans?

Guro, scat and loli USED to be on 4chan, why get rid of them? At least this has a more broader interest.

>>562494
>Guro, scat and loli USED to be on 4chan, why get rid of them?
Because moot's higher ups told him he couldn't have it. Sure, he deleted /l/ once for drama, but he brought it back. However...
http://tanasinn.info/wiki/Complete_History_of_4chan
>October 31 - /l/ (Lolikon) and /sm/ (Shotakon) are deleted due to threats of legal action. On November 5, moot registers not4chan.org and moves /l/ and /sm/ there instead. On November 15, /g/ (Guro) is deleted as well due to threats from YowCow to seize 4chan's donations account due to guro being against YowCow's ToS.
That doesn't give a reason for scat though... but yes, it's more than just extreme fetishes for some of them.

>>562499
4chan's got off YowCow for a long while now though.

>>562494
I'm not sure why the boards were removed but I think it had something to do with turning off potential advertisers. Re-adding them would probably cause more problems than it's worth since normalfags would go on it accidentally, get offended and them come here to complain about how immoral it is.

>>562502
Oh. Well, I don't know, I'm not a fan of them, to be honest, but I'm not like 'MUST NEVER BE ON /d/'.

>allows bestiality, furry, and guro
No, no, NO.

For fucks sake, that shit is too extreme and needs its own board. Allow it on /d/ and you will get a board full of shit.

>>562494
>guro scat and loli
The reason it's banned is because moot doesn't want his site to become a breeding ground for pedophiles and murderers.

This is in a way babbys first chan. There are plenty of other chans that specialize in those things.

Also, they cause problems with the advertisers.

>>562538
Now, that's not fair. Guro fans have had no recorded affinity for murder.

>>562536
How exactly bestiality is extreme? It's like normal sex only with a dog or horse.

>>562536
>bestiality
>too extreme for /d/

I think a board with horsecock futas and centaurs getting fucked, and pet threads can handle a drawing of a dog fucking a woman.

>>562612 >>562609
It's state law that's the major obstacle.

>>562626
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law_in_the_United_States#Zoophilic_pornography_in_the_USA
Private ownership of the real deal is legal everywhere except the virgin islands, but there are no laws on the animated stuff, because it's between two fictional creatures.

>>562626
Then there's no point in debating about it.
If it's illegal, moot won't bring it.

Which is kinda sad, bestiality is my favorite fetish.

>>562637
But it's NOT illegal. Not the hentai.

File: 1366568633691.jpg-(307 KB, 1200x848, 05.jpg)

307 KB JPG

>>562413
>Contain futa to 1 thread and only 1 thread.

This.

As much as I like girls with cocks, the over-saturation of Futa is really pushing it.

>>562333 (OP)
>How do we fix /d/?
Teach people to ignore fetishes they don't like, and stop making stupid threads about it on /q/.

>>562637
>bestiality is my favorite fetish.

Same here.
But here's the kicker; bestiality hentai is not illegal.

Make it worksafe. Ecourages discussion rather than dumping pictures you can find anywhere else.

Go look at porn on a fucking porn site.

I think the better question is, how do we get moot to do any of this? He's dragged his feet on everything involving /d/.

>>562660
discussion on /d/ is terrible.
it's an unusual mixture of roleplay, my fetish > your fetish, bickering of what's moral and shitposting.

Personally, I'm against the addition of any scat, guro, loli, furry, or bestiality.

Not necessarily for any legal reasons, I just happen to think that these are fetishes that should not have a place on 4chan. There's been sort of a precedent set when it comes to certain topics, there's just no place for them on 4chan.

>Why not a board about [topic]?
>Because 4chan is not an all inclusive, one-stop shop for all your worldly needs.

We've all seen that same exchange play out numerous times on /q/, and mootykins and his staff seem to agree. There's not a place for everything here, even if things are pretty lenient and open as they are, there is a line drawn somewhere that they intend to stand by.

The general reasoning is that allowing certain topics to be included in the cacophonous clusterfuck that is 4chan tends to bring in certain kinds of people and encourage the spread of those topics. See /pol/ and their stormfront/goyim/SRS/tumblr sjw bullshit and the way that sort of talk has wormed its way onto other boards.

I'm not saying that allowing furry porn on /d/ will cause furries to flood in by the millions and destroy 4chan as we know it, but I think it will allow them to feel more accepted and welcomed than they would otherwise, and over time, it will allow them to bitch and moan about how they've been here for years and the rules let them be here and talk about their yiff holes and that one time they snuck next door and fucked the neighbor's dog..

And, for what it's worth, I have seen threads where someone brought up some creepy cap from facebook or something about bestiality. There was the usual revulsion and good laugh at the grossness, but there were also a couple guys who were seemingly okay with the whole thing. These two guys just sort of convincing each other that it wasn't a terrible, abhorrent thing.

I'd just rather there be fewer voices in the echo chamber to encourage that sort of thing at all.

>>562891
your entire argument sounds like the sticky on the 0th page

>>562891
You're absolutely right. We don't have to include everything.
But, we can't exclude everything else under that precedent, especially when it just leads to conjecture subtly. Maybe some porn has been excised from precedents, but when you have, for the first time in a while, an established asking for something rather than 'make a new board plz' that's different. It's a decision that ia not being made just out of want, it's an adressing to a declining /d/ population and the tastes of non-futa /d/ butting heads with the rules constantly. There's no opinion to not attract they're already here.

And /pol/ is a system of reaction, and connecting all events to a social precedent of all that stuff. Does/d/ raid? Have the rise in some types of porn made us all act a new way? No, because that's dumb. /a/ will still like lolicon no matter what we do, /co/ will still have a soft spot for furry no matter what we do, and... well i don't know what board likes scat, but still, same thing.

This is something people on /d/ want, or at least a lot do. I gave the non-bestiality ones the idea of a vote for a supermajority (60-2/3rds %) before we made the decision but with beast the jury's out.

4chan does not have to be a one stop shop for stuff. And it's a good thing no one is arguing that. /d/ wants relevent content to be relaxed to expand their fetish pool, and if there no legal or social rammifications that cannot be pointed to like a big black mark, then saying no to an established board after all that is not protecting 4chan from 'too many new ideas'. It's bein a cunt.

>>562956
>does /d/ raid?
If you let furshit on there they will. Never, ever let furshit on /d/. I personally have nothing against the fetish, but the community that will flood in will destroy /d/.

>>562598
>he was not there on gurochan for the threads over the years where people would defile corpses and take pictures

You must not remember the time somebody stuck their dick in the eyesocket of a dead woman.

>>562971
Dude, go away, you haven't made any important points this whole thread. And yes, I remember th dick in the eyesocket. I didn't know /b/ was gurochan.

>>562990
That was reposted from to /b/ from gurochan. Also,

>I don't like your opinions! You need to go away!
Stay butthurt.

>>563023
>you haven't made any important points
>proceeds to call me mad and forgets dessected-chan may have come from gurochan, but unlike on /b/ was banned.
/b/ supported the meme more than gurofags ever did. If we ever had actual murderers they'd be banned because allowing fetishes does not suddenly turn us all into psychos. Guro is a moot point anyway because we're not getting it for legal reasons, and i said you needed to leave because all you've done is cry furry invasion this paradigm shift that as if we're sll going to be unabke to ban stupid people from 4chan over porn. That's not a slippery slope, that's a slippery vertical drop with colony drop boosters. You habe yet to make an actual argument for anything that cannot be taken apart.

I guss being butthurt has its advantages. It makes a crock of shit that much easier to spot.

>>562647
Yesterday 12 of the 15 front page threads were futa threads. However, comma, we haven't had a futaspammer invasion in some time. The boards seems fairly healthy at the moment. Two of three futa threads per page is not so bad after the days of 70+ futa threads.

>>563161
Futa's a very poular fetish, limiting it because we've chipped away at everything makes no one happy. We just need those things i recommended beyond fetishes to restrict his spread without generalizng fetishes on a board that autosages at 150 images.

>>562413
I think that there should be one general Futa thread, one Futa-on-Man thread, and one special futa thread allowed at a time. There is just too much material for one single thread

I firmly agree with two of the ideas in this thread:
>Require threads to have a subject
>Keep each fetish in one active thread at a time

This would structure the board more like /vg/, which is a template that (apparently, judging from /vg/) works. Futa content would not be at all discouraged, but rather consolidated (I would argue that there would be more futa content, as all of the posters that like futa would be together, encouraging each other to post more). Once a thread was full, a new one could be made and the old one abandoned.

We would also be limiting (or eliminating, with a mod's help) the two-image threads that pop up fairly often on /d/, as those posters could jump into the single active thread for their fetish. Recently, I've seen several of these threads for goo girls, which is just a waste for anyone who likes goo girls and/or wants other threads not to be bumped off the board.

I'd like to mention that the BDSM general on /d/ already does this.

>>563217
I'd like to clarify, moot would need to explicitly define what a "fetish" is, and what could be made into a new thread. For example, as >>563216 mentioned, futa can be separated into different categories. Is futa-on-male different enough from regular futa to warrant another thread? Should femdom be wrapped up in the BDSM thread? Etc.

/d/ is was made for futa, and not for furry/scat/bestiality.

IF YOU WANT THESE THINGS, GUESS WHAT? GO TO THE BOARD WHERE THEY ARE ALREADY ALLOWED AND HAVE THREADS.

>>>/b/

The only thing wrong with /d/ is the discussion of things that is NOT HENTAI. Nobody gives a shit about your fetlife/whatever bullshit. Just go to >>>/soc/ or something if you want to discuss things for real life meetups/whatever. Just stick to the discussion of Hentai/doujin /d/ related games on /d/ please.

>>563217
>>563224
The issue though is there's always comic dumps and such that would just get lost if a general was in play. Generals tend to gain a general opinion about some writer or artist or something, and stuff everyone into generals would just be more of a cluster than /d/ is. would dmitrys need his own general? What of the comic dumps people may be sick of? Instead of hiding them they'd be shuffled into one thread.

Not to mention for this to work we'd have to expand /d/'s post limit, and image containers beyond /vg/. We can't have every thread be a general that is forced to be a general, or they'll go too fast and burn out too quickly. We want things to be faster than 'two months for a thread to go away', but not that fast.

Compelling people to move to threads to avoid duplicates is good, but a subject line and a 'avoid duplicate threads' mentality should be enough to find those who won't listen and expunge them. These decisions should be made with maximising effect wtih minimizing effort.

>>563277
Just stop posting already .

>>563289
You raise some excellent points. Perhaps forced generals wouldn't work out as well as I'd imagined.

I'm still fully behind forcing a subject line and having a mod (at all, but specifically to) delete/ban OPs that don't contribute to their own threads or start redundant threads. Janitors would also be very helpful.

Maybe if the mods weren't so focused on deleting text content, they'd see these other, worse threads in the catalog.

>>563329
It's not a terrible idea, it's just generals work best for a site like /v/, because so many people making so many opinions cuts down on any specific mentality getting too big. /d/ is too small and too focused on images to make it as effective as /vg/.

I'm happy you're contributing though, thinking these sort of ideas out was what I wanted, not just 'CANT DO THIS CANT DO THAT' like other threads. Of course, maybe we wouldn't need a mod to cull forgotten or underused threads. That idea of bringing back the thread limit with a little more leeway from>>562455 here would probably do the same without constant mod supervision. And requiring subjects means threads made by accident from a dump can't be made, and duplicates can be sniffed out.

Fetish expansion or not, patching up the /d/ system will make it run smoother.

>>562971

Who's talking about allowing furshit on /d/?
Bestiality hentai isn't furshit.

>>563401
It's part of the discussion, but a different part.

>>563391
I'm not sure about reviving the thread time limit. I can't see moot greenlighting the change for just one board, and I really don't think that it'd be good for the entire site.

Perhaps if we adopted the rule /h/ has, where OPs are required to post at least 6 relevant images, we could discourage some of the low-content threads from sticking around. That sort of rule might also remind posters to post images along with text-heavy posts, since (we ARE on an imageboard and) the mods often delete them.

I'm also really glad that actual discussion is possible on /q/.

>how to fix /d/
Make /fetish/
Moot will never make changes that effect /d/ though
We have pretty constant threads on it up and it's almost like he's afraid of touching /d/, he just deletes threads that get too big for him to ignore if he's on and posting elsewhere
Seriously, you're better off just finding another site rather than trying to lobby for the changes that would need to happen for /d/ here to be useful

File: 1366599439475.gif-(471 KB, 410x250, 1366578882711.gif)

471 KB GIF

>>562333 (OP)
/d/is what it is because there's a small range of stuff not allowed on /h/. And a great part of this small range isn't allowed on /d/. So, what's left are dickgirls, diapers, tickle (which I believe isn't even forbidden on /h/), and monstergirls/monsters fucking girls.

To quote m00t (not his exact words, the general idea), this is his website, so if something goes against his personal views, we just have to suck it up. Therefore, I doubt guro/furry would ever be allowed.

Alas, all that is left is accepting that /d/ is indeed for /d/ickgirls, seeing as this is, by far, the one fetish on the small amount left for /d/ that has the most content. (diaper/monstergirl/dragons orcs whatever threads can only go so far).

I personally don't like dickgirls, but all I do is hide the threads and dig for something else.

Deal with it, I guess

File: 1366606662729.jpg-(154 KB, 823x1200, Rutledge from Texas by De(...).jpg)

154 KB JPG

>>563224

I never fucking understood "Futa x fetish" threads. Are you that sexually repressed in making a thread about Futas with socks on their cocks? Futas frothing? Futas drinking?

What next, Futas reading Scientology Books?

File: 1366608001287.jpg-(237 KB, 1024x1615, 1366446829187.jpg)

237 KB JPG

>>563629
>implying implications
most futa-lovers I know aren't "repressed". a girl with a dick is just their fetish.
I agree on the level of specification of one's fetish being something curious, though

>>563629
Given that the spammer reads these threads, I'm sure he's already on it now that you mentioned it.

Personally, I'm utterly ambivalent to the fetish (I do think it's pretty gay/bisexual unless it's a futa and a normal female, in which case it's weird sort-of-het porn). However, I've come to LOATHE the community, they're simply awful. The way they talk about their fetish is creepy, they make threads like 'worship futanari' and shit. What the hell dudes? Taking it too seriously.

File: 1366621291369.jpg-(275 KB, 532x800, miyu1296278735266.jpg)

275 KB JPG

>>563643

The issue is why does Futa on /d/ is allowed to go into such obscure and pointless sub fetishes when the other fetishes can just cope fine with what they have. I don't see Bukkake Schoolgirls, Victorian Spankings, Force Feeding Senior Citizens, or Tentacle Rape Gays.

>>563675

I believe it's derisively called "tranny chasers" if /lgbt/ is accurate.

Sticky three futa threads. clear them once a mnoth.

File: 1366630827154.png-(8 KB, 588x113, moot does read these threads.png)

8 KB PNG

>>563460
>I can't see moot greenlighting the change for just one board
Actually, it's the one thing we've been able to get moot to respond to.
>>563817
The way I see it, if we added something with a big scope, maybe two other things, since that one '/d/ can take 5 fetishes as big as futa' thread said so, that acted in a similar fashion, people wouldn't see futa as omnipresent as it is.
We're just at the crossroads of having more varied tastes, and able to navigate around the drama, but the old rules are holding back just because of tradition, and so the interests of the non-futa crowd get pruned while futa just grows and grows, and takes up more and more space without any limiters. And the point is, we don't need to put limiters on futa to make it as miserable. We need to open up to more stuff so we can just let /d/ do its thing.

We had a few hours a few days back of people posting whatever porn they liked, and wow, /d/ is active and posting and commenting on the state of things! It's almost like you give the board more slack it can have fun! Sure it upset a few people, but if it upset everyone that'd be all the thread was.

And if you're worried about the elements or types of people it'd 'attract', then here's a mad mad mad idea. Keep clearing out idiots. Not just here, anywhere. It's not like that've changed from the site on a whole. People admit they like banned fetishes and aren't banned for it, but the people that go out of their way for drama are. The only difference in this situation is, /d/ now has more stuff to play with.

>>563944

Your idea is never gonna work. Sexual deviants maybe deviants, but we are bias as fuck.

People like BDSM, but then you find that people like BDSM+Pissing, which abhore other S&M folks. Maid Uniforms will turn on people, but not when the wearer is a man.

Simply put, the best option is usually the easiest.

>>563817
It's funny because the inability of the futa crowd to control themselves WAS one of the prime causes of /d/ being made in the first place (not something to be proud of. Congrats, you were the bronies of /h/)...

But it wasn't the only reason and their constant acting like they honestly believe the have exclusive ownership of the board and that all other fetishes are there strictly at their allowance is really offputting. That more than anything is what's strangling /d/, probably.

>>563277
The fitlife hook-up for sex threads are an odd exception to the general rule against this stuff. Moot has ignored this fetlife thing. Either he or some staff must be members of the site.

>>564725
You just gave two examples of things that have had threads in /d/.

And what exactly won't work of adding more fetishes? I'm confused.

>>564726
Attacking a fetish like /d/ because it's large won't work. If you want it to be less frequent in perspective, you have to expand what the other fetishes can be, and then with more variety futa threads are no longer as large. This couple with the return of the thread time limits and subject lines cuts down on the spam threads and expands /d/'s gallery of choices, breathing life back in and making it harder to spam.

>>564841
Fetlife's free, and it's not advertising the site itself, it's just linking a social group off-site at the top of the thread. TF2 generals have off-site links to steam channels and clans to join, and you have to sign up for that too. That's not advertising, it's basic general stuff.

>>564841

I've found a shitton of tripfags from /cgl/ on Fetlife. It's a bit surprising about folks that put on one face and put on another face.

>>564943

No, heavy handed moderation of futa is what is needed. It has overstayed it's welcome and needs to be dealt with swiftly. Only then can /d/ actually start fresh and new.

Ban IP's that shitpost futa, & put in time limits on threads in the forum (max 1.5 weeks).

>>565050
You don't shape boards with mass bannings, you just get people upset. If you don't like futa, that's your problem. There are ways to shape /d/'s structure that discourage the lesser threads that pop up involving futa or other base fetishes, and ways to change the technology so that threads that are just feeding the flames or are just OPs being idiots and not posting in the right thread.

The best ways to shape a board require no direct moderation, beyond the public, permanent removal of a person, or one type of action, but going on the attack of futa when alternative fetishes have been bent and denied over petty rules again and again, leaving room for futa, then it'll only make /d/ more paranoid. It's like continually cutting taxes in a recession. Sure it makes people happy but it only spreads the problem.

File: 1366686049774.png-(156 KB, 293x376, Froggy fresh.png)

156 KB PNG

>>562333 (OP)
Get some real men on the internet.

>>563675
>>564726
Honestly I've browsed /d/ for a while and I don't know what you're talking about. The most I can think of is that Futa Nazi faggot, but he isn't representative of the fetish as a whole. One or two people don't represent the whole thing.
The big problem is the spammer, you can see he posts one image a day in old as fuck threads in order to keep the front page full of it. When he's not around, the front page usually only has one or two futa threads.
One thing to fix this problem is to re-implement the automatic thread deletion after the thread reaches a certain age.

>>565085
To clarify, as much as I like the fetish, I do think the saturation of futa threads is a problem. However, I don't think it's a problem created by the users of /d/, but much more so by the spammer. Just check old threads that are being bumped to the front page, they usually have one or two posts a day from the spammer to bump the thread and that's it. I honestly have no idea what this person gains from doing this.

>>565100

He's just sexually repressed somehow. I doubt it's something else. Maybe he was jilted by a trans girl and this is how he takes revenge.....

>>565136
Dude, calm down. This isn't healthy to the thread. He's a problem, but getting worked up about some infamous character isn't going to solve it. We have to make some unified demands and present them.

>>564943
>attacking a fetish like /d/
>they think they own the board
Now, maybe it was just an innocent typo, I don't know, but the pessimist in me sees this and grits its teeth.

>>565085
Every pro-futa person I've ever see posting text, particularly on /q/, is a godawful psycho who treats it like a religion. The rest of you should really speak up if you don't want them to be your representative.

>>565179
It was a typo. It should say
>attacking a fetish like that on /d/

File: 1366691271417.jpg-(61 KB, 1007x424, capture 2012-8-13a1.jpg)

61 KB JPG

>>565179
"Every pro-futa person I've ever see posting text, particularly on /q/, is a godawful psycho"

You must have missed this post on /q/. Calling the owner of 4chan a psycho is not the recommended method to get him to listen to your complaints.

Don't know if its been said yet or not but how about letting more than ONLY Japanese pictures posted there? I know there is an exception for Dmitrys but that just adds to the "too much futa" issue /d/ seems to have.

There is no safe place to post/discuss western drawn porn and I'm sure fans of it will agree it isn't worth going to /b/ for.

>>565199
Hello futa spammer. You're late.

Ban "modifiers".

Futa is a fetish that deserves its own thread.

Blonde futa, married futa, blue futa, futa with glasses, futa that forgot it was Tuesday, futa that thinks mauve is a nice color... That shit needs to stop. It's dumb and pointless and it clogs up the board. Force consolidation, like /vg/.

>>565227
The problem with Dmitrys is that "New Dmitrys!" is apparently deserving of its own thread.

Futa spam is so prominent on /d/ that individual futa artists get their own threads. Come on. Keep it in one thread, please.

>>562654
>>563277
Welcome back futa spammer. You still don't realize that you are the only one who supports /d/ as a futa board. It was never a futa board. If not for you making 99% of the futa threads there would be only one or two futa threads on the board. This 90% of /d/ being futa shit has to stop.

File: 1366708583164.jpg-(324 KB, 1429x1000, mistymaydawn.jpg)

324 KB JPG

>>565227

Where have you been? I've seen shit from Dofantasy to Lustomic to even that Sunstone comic artist popping up in threads as of late.

>>563675
>Given that the spammer reads these threads, I'm sure he's already on it now that you mentioned it.

I really wanna see if that futa spammer could find ANY PIC of a Futa reading Dianetics. And a decent pic at best. Not even Rule 35 could produce.

>>565227
We do. It just has to be good.

File: 1366714491561.jpg-(12 KB, 200x200, 1365403289021.jpg)

12 KB JPG

>make an entire board for gays and transexuals
>won't even allow furry on the fetish board

>>562455
I just counted how many threads are older than two weeks.

47.

And they're ALL doing that 'one a day' post thing we don't like. That settles it. We need the time limits again.

File: 1366747364082.jpg-(467 KB, 3264x2448, gKRJqGT.jpg)

467 KB JPG

>>565062
>You don't shape boards with mass bannings, you just get people upset.

Hate to say it, but mass bannings are being advocated but the other board denizens, only towards one person/group of people and their fetish that is being forced onto a board. The benefit I can see is it sends a clear message that that shit won't be tolerated and people will think twice about not doing it.

>>565874
Yeah, like the mass banning on the very first raid of the Scientology website stopped that from ever happening again.

People don't listen to mass bannings, and thirst for blood will just cause everyone to be upset. /m/ wasn't happy when they just deleted all the Star Trek threads, but when the mods sat down and talked with 4chan, it suddenly became a good discussion on what the board wants for itself and they're starting to hammer out a better solution. When you engage with your various groups rather than just going act of God, people start to listen. We aren't all /v/, and I'm in no mood to start banning people for liking things, even if they're liking things in the wrong way.

Right now they aren't doing anything against the rules outright, but these systems of time limits and subject lines will discourage their actions without creating more rules to follow.

I cannot stress enough how bad mass bannings would be, when there are much simpler solutions to sniffing out the bad elements.

>>565199
>>>/d/4611083
When I read this,I understand what he said

>>565874
pawn stars
pornstars
wow that took a while for me to connect

>>565942
I think it's joking about the Battletoads in the background actually.

>>565899
>People don't listen to mass bannings, and thirst for blood will just cause everyone to be upset.

You still don't get it. People want the futa spammer to be taken out. Heavy handed tactics in the form of mass bannings is the answer, with time limits and better enforcement.

If people like futa, then they will post like normal bundists. If futa lovers can't play by the rules, then let them feel the hammer.

>>565937
That thread is a hilarious example of one facet of the problem. It's been up since March mother fucking fourth. This isn't /po/ we're talking about here. The mods just do not give a shit.

>>566125
If banning worked on the futa spammer, we wouldn't be having this conversation and /d/ would be doing just fine.
The mods have tried to get rid of him with banning. It doesn't work. All you can do is create an environment not suitable for his actions, and then whack him when he pops up. He's like that CP link thread. It never really goes away, but at least it's not in an environment where it can keep going into a bigger thing.

Although, maybe we're talking beyond ourselves. If you're spamming, you'll get banned anyway, and I'm cool with that. With a thread time limit, his one a day threads can only last so long and stick out even more.

But just going in and banning anything like it isn't going to work. He wants everyone angry at everyone. You have to cut his ability to make threads at the root, and then deal with spamming actions.

>>566339

Delete his threads, ban his IP's, throw on the time block for threads, have semi-active enforcement to prevent shitposting, and allow a bit more free rein for other fetishes to flourish.

There, I just solved the problem. Someone gimme $100K US for my consultation fees.

File: 1366763894504.jpg-(88 KB, 850x566, kuuga_thumbs_up.jpg)

88 KB JPG

>>566344
Oh! Is that what you wanted? God, we WERE just talk beyond each other, I'm sorry. I thought you meant go into /d/ and start banning any thread that looked like him first. That leads way too much room for error, and I'd like to at least give the bastard a sort of 'ex post facto' situation so any fucking with /d/ he does after the fact is punished. Give him ONE chance to play by the rules, seems fair. (He won't take it, but the offer's out there)

As for the rest, yes, that sounds exactly right.

Except, I'd also say, add in a requirement for a Subject Line. All of his threads are without a subject line. Sure, he can just make one, but it makes his threads more apparent as to what they really are, and it also sets up a way so people who improperly post out of their own threads don't actually make a new one by mistake, since deleting threads seems beyond quite a few people on /d/'s grasp. That, and it both makes it easier to locate an existing thread and put the responibility on the duplicate thread maker. It's their fault they didn't look, not the thread on page 7 for not being visible.

>>566396
Keep in mind that the bumpers don't only bump their own threads in that way, they'll sometimes fuck around with legitimate threads. Sort by creation date, scroll down and you'll see what I mean. For example, that one where OP talks about sharing an imageset was a good thread, but it doesn't need to be up anymore. Just kept around by worthless posts. One a day, right on schedule.

I don't think the futaspammers were banned. I think they just got bored and went to play somewhere else. After a months-long siege with 50-80 futa threads at a time and not one fucking thing done by the mods the problem just seemed to gradually go away. I've seen this sort of behavior before, and attribute it to the spammer deciding the limited yuks weren't worth the effort.

As I said earlier, the board seems reasonably healthy at the moment. There could stand to be a bit more diversity, but at least there are a few different topics appearing in threads instead of an endless wave of "Tan Lines Futa" and similar shit.

>>566434
Oh look it's the futaspammer.

File: 1366769112059.png-(311 KB, 516x352, bobsapp.png)

311 KB PNG

>>566478
No. Stop it. We're not doing that dance of 'GUESS THE FUTASPAMMER'.

>>566486
It's no guess. The futaspammer is the only one to ever supports futa on /d/. Nobody else wants or likes futa on 4chan. It's obvious.

>>566499
You must be newhere. There's plenty of people who like futa. Though don't get me wrong, there is one really obnoxious ass out there.

>>566499

The futa spammer is the only person to support the idea that /d/ is near-exclusively supposed to/made to be dickgirl central.

What the fuck is that op?

get the janitor to stop randomly deleting giantess threads just because a couple of dummies are trying to force the whole "loli butt stuff" thing. that's all i want

>>562333 (OP)
Ban the ONE guy who constantly reposts the same western and CGI shit.
I refuse to accept that anyone enjoys that shit.

File: 1366795597052.jpg-(67 KB, 479x720, 0004d7c2-1035-85b1-a908-b(...).jpg)

67 KB JPG

>>566649

Western and CGI, if done right, does have it's benefits. But like furry, most of it is shit tier.

>>566894
>>566649
I'm not in favor of banning of those things on /d/ as a whole (even furry) but if you mean that low-tier one from sheanimale in the futa threads... yeah, it's kind of crap but it could always be removed under the quality rule. Still, that's not really fixing /d/ as a whole.

File: 1366802812828.png-(831 KB, 1600x1440, dangerous_girls_by_radpro(...).png)

831 KB PNG

>>566914

In many cases, the quality of "Western" Drawn Porn ranges greatly from the great (like the stuff you find behind many a paywall as of late) to what looks like the deranged scribblings of a 10 year old male who has just found his first Playboy magazine (which oddly enough afflict the furry artworld more than any other).

Lucky for us, most of the junk only is a minor bother and rarely shows on the boards.

I just think there needs to be a /trap/ or /tr/ where it allows futa, dickgirls, shemales, etc and change /d/ to all weirder fetishes like giantesses.

>>566962
Yeah, it's not really a problem on either ends. The paysites don't mess with us because outside of Jollyjack's Bongland rules, they have no real case they could make. And hell sometimes we have paysite artist chill with us in their own threads. And bad art? It's not really what most are interested in aharing or looking up. So, not really a problem.

I wonder if moot's reading any of this.

File: 1366805117263.jpg-(227 KB, 1000x2134, latexarmy.jpg)

227 KB JPG

>>566963

I recall seeing an argument in the past by one of the mods that if futa was given it's own board, either it or /d/ would see a drastic reduction of pages instantly and it would mean that either board would have to be re-merged into the other again.

The BDSM generals seem to be nothing but a neverending circlejerk. They recycle pictures endlessly and spend most of the thread talking about their own personal lives.

>>566478
Look, I don't like futa. At all. I used to stop by /d/ just to watch the fireworks as the spammers revved up dozens and dozens of threads. There's not even much ON /d/ that I like, since I am at heart a furry and it's not allowed there.

I have the perspective of one who visits from time without really caring about the place. Occasionally there's something in a vore thread I like. Usually not.

So, since I look for futa threads out of habit, I tend to notice how many there are. And while there are usually several on the front page, it is nothing like the flood of them we had last summer. There are actually things besides a flood of narrow futa crap. From the perspective of a disinterested outsider the board's diversity seems to be decent at the moment.

>>567480
The futaspammer returns.

>>562333 (OP)
Make a /fet/ or /bdsm/ board and let the futafags alone.

>>567544

why didnt you just say kill the board?

>>567545
Killing the board?
The futaspammers will continue to circlejerk on /d/ with dickgirls. That is the purpose of the board. Just make a place for fetishes, kinks, bdsm or whatever.

>>567544
>>567545
>>567553

See this post please:

>>566972
>I recall seeing an argument in the past by one of the mods that if futa was given it's own board, either it or /d/ would see a drastic reduction of pages instantly and it would mean that either board would have to be re-merged into the other again.

A good way of "fixing" it is starting threads for material that you like instead of crying about other more popular material that other people like.

>>567919

......which fall off the board cause the idiot futaspammer necrobumps his threads from oblivion.

>>567940
And that can be fixed with >>562455's technical stuff. I like the other ideas, but that's more to deal with the problem of not enough people posting not enough things on /d/.

Actually, best thing would be to make another sticky discussion thread like they did on /m/, but in /d/.

>>568185

No, thats gonna just embolden the futa spammer to go even more full retard.

>>563290
>>565378
please stop posting. There is no "Futa Spammer". People just like to post futa. If you don't like it, just go somewhere else.

>>568908
Except for the fact that all the futa threads will get precisely ONE post when they're near page 9-10. For weeks at a time if they're nowhere near bump limit.

>>568908

There is a futa spammer, just stop denying it.

>>568889
How? He goes on saying everything is fine, the mods can tell what he's posted recently, and know it's him?

>>562473

There will be as soon as moot gets desperate enough to start vampirizing other sites' userbases.

File: 1366970879444.png-(149 KB, 575x1014, the day exterminatus was (...).png)

149 KB PNG

Seriously, though, add furry to /d/. They want it, we're not gonna get sued by anyone with any bite, and we're certainly not setting off some sort of invasion flag for shit that we can't just ban for breaking other rules.

How about them draw threads or other excuses for "Post x-female, I'll shop a penis onto it" threads?

And when people make Monster/demon/blue-skinned girls, then someone posts futa in those threads too,

Mods and janitors respect the subjects of threads in /v/ and /vg/, doesn't seem to be translated over to other borads, or so it seems.

>>566964
moot's /d/ is watching /q/ complain.

Just create a futa board.

>>569667
See
>>566972

It won't work.

File: 1367022717579.png-(67 KB, 600x786, Marigold_futa.png)

67 KB PNG

Just say no to futa. They can go somewhere else.

Why not integrate a "tag" system for threads? If you want to have a thread for preggo futa bondage, you use the "preggo," "futa," and "bondage" tags for your thread. That way, you can easily filter threads that have something you don't care for. Even if there are a million different variances of Futa threads, it'll automatically get rid of them all.

Hell, you could even make "Futa" the default tag so that spammers, idiots who are too lazy to change the title, or people who post a picture as a new thread instead of in a current thread accidentally will immediately be culled.

>>570476
But... you just said here >>566972 that that wouldn't work...

>>570572
Seems much for a porn board. Solutions are nice, but we don't want to reinvent the wheel here.

Although, that does sound like a good idea to ask about on 4chan as a whole. Maybe you should ask moot about it in his next ask moot thread, or make a new thread about it. It would probably be nice to try on a lot of boards.

>>568964
why would m00t get desperate? 4chan is a hobby, not his work

>>570800
not his job*

stop having 50 different variants of futa threads

File: 1367049104119.gif-(1.27 MB, 210x260, cantbelievethisasshole.gif)

1.27 MB GIF

FUTA LIMITED TO 1 GENERAL - or its own board.

Everything else barely touches that HUGE problem.

File: 1367053600640.png-(6 KB, 631x87, XX 1325805540665.png)

6 KB PNG

>>570891
Futa was given it's own board. That board is /d/. I fail to see how only 50 futa threads out of 164 /d/ threads is a problem. At least try to form some kind of logical coherent argument instead of spouting foolish bs.

File: 1367059563831.png-(320 KB, 2000x1750, 1329338719176.png)

320 KB PNG

>>570939
>I fail to see how only 50 futa threads out of 164 /d/ threads is a problem.
>only 50 futa threads
"Oh, but it's only a third of the board!" That shit wouldn't fly on any other board besides /d/. Can you imagine a third of /g/ being desktop threads? Or a third of /v/ being Game Grumps threads? It's doubly bad because the threads are weeks, sometimes months old.

>>570992
>a third of /v/ being Game Grumps threads
I want to see that happen. Just once. Just to watch /v/ freak out.

/d/ when hookup threads became a thing years ago and mods let them fester for a long time without any repercussion.

Even though they have long since been banned /d/ has never recovered. It's dead. Just move on.

Also fuck those roleplaying threads. Or that shit that gets hijacked by I'm a trap :3

File: 1367063475768.jpg-(95 KB, 1280x720, Tatsumi.Kanji.full.979168.jpg)

95 KB JPG

The point is though, banning futa or excluding it won't stop the spammer. Did banning pony stop it from being spammed? No, because spammers don't listen to rules anyway. In fact, go look at /d/. Haven't you noticed?
>>>/d/4694408
>>>/d/4713800
>>>/d/4708417
He's diversifying. We're all focused on futa, but it's MORE than that. It's a style of posting that upsets /d/ because it just cycles through the same boring stuff.

You have to cut down on his actions, and create a system that makes them more apparent.
-Subject line threads stops him from making nameless threads dumping nothing really amazing.
-Thread time limits of a reasonable size means he can't just stick with a good 50 threads on nothing for more than two weeks, and he has to keep remaking them, making him stick out like a sore thumb, to just keep banning him.
-Necrobumps are more apparent this way when once a day bumps turn into slim 14-day threads. Sure, he could make them larger, but then he has to use up more of his database to keep up, so he either makes bigger threads of fewer size or he sticks out like a sore thumb. Either way, futa's thread production is cut.
-Add in new fetishes that /d/ would enjoy to deal with the lesse
and voila, you didn't have to ban futa or excise any group to fix /d/ outright. You just had to add some features and open up some fetishes to make an environment healthy for /d/ but unhealthy for the spammer. Because, you know what really makes a spammer go away? Boredom. If he can't get his Skinner Box response, he'll start pushing harder, but then, eventually, give up.

And yes, I'm sure he could be in this thread watching us. In fact, I think I have a good idea of who it is. But I'm not going to play into his infamy game.

>>562348

You must have a very loose definition of furry.

>>571023
I dunno man. I'm convinced the futa spammer is an autist of singular focus and devotion. I think those other threads might just be imitators.

Following the logic of the points made here it would seem /d/ only needs 2 general threads. One general futa thread and one general non futa thread. They could be placed on /h/ and there would be no reason for /d/ to exist.
Why do we need so many different non futa fetish threads and so many different futa fetish threads.

>>571453
Points made where, exactly? The futa general thread ideas that no one besides the people posting them liked because that's asking for a world of butthurt?

/d/ is fine the way it is.

>>571510
>futaspammer keeping up multiple threads at a time
>proper futa crowd is chastised for it
>alt fetishes clipped for not fitting global rule or extreme rule standards many aren't comfortable with and don't make sense
>no programmed commands to trim the spammer or plans to open up new fetishes
It may be fine to you, but it's not to many, and we can do better.

We need a "expand images"-button.

>>571669
Use 4chanX instead of the inline extension

>>570743

It doesn't mean I can't advocate futa to piss off somewhere else.

>>571897
Why do you suddenly want futa to leave when earlier you were saying it'd break /d/?

>>572086
Simple.

He's the futaspammer.

You thought the futa spammer LIKED futa? He just wanted it public, open, without any sort of reason. And then he complains about his own controversy to rile up and divide /d/.

All of his suggestions are about making futa go into one general that he can later call bannable for growing in isolation, like all generals end up becoming, or mass banning futa, or telling futa to go away, while sometimes admitting it'd break /d/.

And any reasonable suggestions to cut the bullshit and give /d/ more things to enjoy (thread time limits, subject headings, take off some extreme porn/no furry rules for /d/) is ignored in favor of a diatribe on futa. Now, would a spammer be hurt by a ban on futa? Well, he's skirted the rule so much now, how could it?

/d/ needs help, it needs real change to liven it up again. And those calling for less or restrictions that aren't helpful, change that isn't good for /d/, well, only a spammer would aim to benefit.

>>572110
How is that aluminum foil hat of yours meant to stop cosmic rays from controlling your brain working out?

>>572110

If you start to go on an Obama/Obongo rant, please warn me beforehand, I wanna make some popcorn.

>>572110
>the futaspammer.

Please ignore this idiot.

There is a small group of users on /d/ who genuinely believe that one person posts all the dickgirl threads just to annoy them.

Despite the fact that the majority of users on /d/ like dickgirls, they think they are only posted to annoy them.

On /d/ a person will post a bondage thread, and that thread will have guys, girls and dickgirls in bondage. Cranks will get upset by this because they can only fap if each fetish is kept in strict isolation from each other and accuse the poster of being the 'futa spammer' who only exists in their imagination.

The fact is these paranoid cranks are far more annoying to /d/eviants than dickgirl posters because they which shit up whole threads with their complaining.

>>572186
"Paranoid cranks" do not explain the periodic waves of futa spam. While I maintain that the board is OK *at present*, there have been times when literally dozens of futa threads, many with no title, sprang up overnight. You don't go from 30 futa threads to nearly 80 overnight without someone intentionally spamming them.

Yeah like these examples >>571023 of how threads with no futa content are futa spam. This conspiracy theory stuff is getting way beyond bat shit crazy. The solutions of adding guro, bestiality, furry, scat, and loli to help displace the 'hated' futa follows in the same vein. It is difficult to tell if this is just a troll or a serious wacko.

>>572116
>>572155
Oh, when YOU call someone the spammer or call for the removal of futa,>>570476 no one bats an eye, but I offer solutions that don't get rid of futa, but prevent bad apples from abusing futa, I'M the insane one? And oh look, more 'it's /pol/' stuff. Just like the spammer yells at anyone telling him to stop that's all a conspiracy. False flagging techniques have been used time and time again on 4chan. For furries, for ponies, for W.I.T.C.H., for freaking everything. You think he's just fond of futa? There's fond and there's obsessed beyond normal like. Spam it enough, and people get mad.
>>572186
Futa is fine. Great even. What isn't fine is the pg.9/pg.10 twenty thread bumps at once that keep up threads only he's using by one guy, WHO DOES EXIST, and I'm offering a solution that won't hurt other people posting futa proper. Techniques like:
-Imposing thread time limits again, at two weeks, which by then is more than enough time for normal threads to finish up but endlessly bumped threads get deleted.
-Adding subject lines to both deal with textless, subjectless threads that pop up from either the spammer, or are just posted by mistake by people dumping in other threads. This is both to work against the spammer's tactics, and prevent duplicate threads.
>>572229
Extra fetishes balances out futa's bloated presence by allowing greater variety. It isn't cutting out futa, it's doing nothing to futa, it's opening up to fetishes that /d/ wants, when alt fetishes have experienced shedding from the 2009/10/11 futa spammer attacks.

Conspiracy theories, my ass. Making real solutions to real problems is not conspiracy. Yes I mad. And you know why I mad.

>>572238
>What isn't fine is the pg.9/pg.10 twenty thread bumps at once that keep up threads only he's using by one guy, WHO DOES EXIST,

As a long time /d/eviant I'm telling you he doesn't. You also need to understand that posting images relevant to the board will NEVER be spam.

You are far more annoying than your mythical 'futa spammer'.

>>572278
I've seen it. With my eyes. And even moot's aware of the guy. He's not a myth.

And if really is not spam, then methods that tighten up the board anyway, methods of letting threads constantly bumped for two months just die, methods that would prevent threads from being made in duplicate or threads made in the middle of dumps, and expanding fetishes to give /d/ more choices they want, STILL HAVE A PURPOSE.

It's just they also deal with the spammer. I have listed nothing that couldn't also focus on cleaning up /d/ in general. It's just also got the added bonus of cutting the spammer's activities.

>>572278
That is not just wrong, of course. If someone on /co/ made 50 threads about a single comic or movie the board would be up in arms. If someone on /an/ made fifty threads about dogs the board wouldn't stand for it. If someone on /fit/ made fifty threads about bench pressing they would get reported.

Just because a topic is allowed on the board doesn't mean you are allowed to have 50+ threads about that one topic.

>>572485
"Not just wrong, but stupid" I meant to say. Ugh.

>>572485
Dispite this one cunt obviously trolling "that there is no futa spammer",

and yet there is a clear problem with far too many futa threads being on /d/.

Fuck, even that Dmitrys is questionable for being "western art" and that shit still flies, with 3 threads no less.

>>572791
There's no longer a rule on western art. It wasn't getting us in trouble, and western artists are just able to provide more for all the /d/ kinks besides futa.

>>572798
Western styled comic / toon art like bugs bunny will still bring down the ban hammer.
>>572791
Moot and his staff made a Dmitrys decision and stated that it was o.k. years ago. Now that he has a pay site I imagine he is no longer thrilled.
>>572485
/d/ was created as a general futa board with other fetishes added due to the same type of bitching to get them off of /h/. Due to a small group of shit posters bitching every time a thread they view as non-futa receives a futa image general threads age routinely broken into futa and non-futa versions. So for every fetish you have the possibility of both futa and non-futa threads.

>>572816
>bugs bunny
Well, furry rule's still in place, but quality is still very important. And most toon stuff's regarded with contempt unless it's good, like slipshine.

And dmitrys used to go on /d/, so mostly he leaves /d/ alone for still posting his paysite stuff. He knows his roots.

>>572833
>And dmitrys used to go on /d/, so mostly he leaves /d/ alone for still posting his paysite stuff. He knows his roots.

Too bad he went full retard and began to draw unrealistic and hyper shit.

>>574252
Some people like that sort of porn. It's not up to others to decide what you do or don't find attractive. Not directly anyway.

>>572203
>>572238
>>572281
>>572485
You idiots. That IS the futa spammer you're responding too. He types in a very specific manner that you really should have learned to recognize by now and always touts the same fucking lines.

>>562455
Kemono is not monster ggirls.

>In short:
>Monster Girls

THink of it as extreme cosplay. Human bodie sand faces with some animal characteristic (Classic lizard girl: Body of woman, end of extremeities with scales)
>Kemono
Furr without the retarded community
>Furry
Anthro porn of western original with a very retarded community.

We cna't allow furry because of the community. Kemono is borderline furry so it will bring a lot of chaos, so it's best to be left forbidden.

Monstergirls are not furry at all.

>>562492
You common drama is still ten times worse than anyone's drama. The rest of the furry communities are total pariahs.

>>572833
Slipshine is shit. I have a full siterip and most of it's comics are shit quality.

>>572186
You are mistaking stuff. The futa spammer is a dude that posts futa on random dead thread, instead of the current active futa thread.

>>574353
I've actually started to think making a seperate board for futa, or non-futa, would be an idea.

That or follow each futa post with an image of someone vomiting, just to see how well that goes,
considering they've been getting away with posting shit that turns our collective stomach, in threads that don't belong, for far too long.

>>574343
It's always funny how 4chan goes all muh drama about anything involving furry, but whenever there's any sort of real example the threads are dramatic from the people posting 'gtfo you're ruining everything with that one pic!!!!'

Furries spreading drama is such a flimsy excuse. If the community was so hellbent on shitstirring, they wouldn't let stuff like rules get in their way. The real drama comes from the collosal faggots who get shitter-shattered over the mere mention that someone doesn't like the exterminatus meme. They're the same people who act this way about someone postin pony reaction images, as if that's the same thing as thread spams.

4chan needs to stop addressing problems working from the lowest common denominator up. Add furry porn, and if someone is pulling drama on either side? Fucking ban them. /d/eviants don't give a fuck about your paradigm, we're just tired of every tf thread being a pointless battle because someome saw a snout.

>>574350
>binkysopionsvsfact.png

>>574326

DUUUUURRRRRRR, HOW IS FUTA SPAMMER DEEEEERRRRRPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

File: 1367318390096.jpg-(205 KB, 1000x1741, alans_catalogue_page_3_by(...).jpg)

205 KB JPG

>>574310

It's pretty sad how artists slowly degrade in quality. It can be quickly, or it gradually.

>>574613
>confirmed for futa spammer

File: 1367327479859.png-(33 KB, 1220x770, special chart.png)

33 KB PNG

>>574616
As you can see in this science chart, by mapping the rate of an artist's artistic ability measured in blue, with the ever increasing expectations/popularity of fandoms in red, and the increasing knowledge of a person's personal life and goals, at an eventual burst of emotion they intersect on a moment we in the science-business call a 'shit-storm'. During this point, time and space double back on themselves and fanbases are retroactively shunned and/or artists are retroactively known as always shit. Lemonfont and My Little Pony have experienced similar flashes of interesting temporal chaos, and the effect, as with any event, is known to spew much science and drama all over this 'hizzy my nizzy'.

>>562660

Go discuss sports on a sports site.

Go discuss cartoons on a cartoon site.

Go discuss health and fitness of a health and fitness site.

Go discuss anime on an anime site.

I'm sure you see the flaw in your logic here.

File: 1367335524894.jpg-(21 KB, 548x530, good dice.jpg)

21 KB JPG

Ban roll threads.

Any thread where "rollin'" alone is a valid post is cancer, spamcer, and should be bancer.

>>574619

Try harder. I advocate banhammer level tactics against the futaspammer.

>>574609
> If the community was so hellbent on shitstirring, they wouldn't let stuff like rules get in their way.

You haven't been around on 2006, ahven't you?

The reason 4chan's furfags are so tame is because we have beaten them into submission. It took years, I mean /years/, of furry fridays, fursecution, bans, FHP40 and Warhammer spam and insults to make them understand.

And in the end it didn't even work. The only reason furries are calmer now is because the most retarded member have either an hero'd or grow up. They are still retarded enough to be forbidden.

>Add furry porn, and if someone is pulling drama on either side? Fucking ban them
It would be like banning the /b/read. It's impossible.


>/d/eviants don't give a fuck about your paradigm, we're just tired of every tf thread being a pointless battle because someome saw a snout.

> The real drama comes from the collosal faggots who get shitter-shattered over the mere mention that someone doesn't like the exterminatus meme.

This is true, and old. There aren't such anti-furries anymore. They left when they realized they were as retarded as the furries they hated.

/d/eviants are the biggest snouts on the site. They stir shit up for every fetish that is posted and have been doing so since they were created nine years ago.

>They're the same people who act this way about someone postin pony reaction images

Ponies, better known as /b/reads, post ponies for the sake of trolling.

>>562660
/d/ is part of an ancient family of board that are dump-only. Discussing stuff can get you banned.

They are terribly obsolete, but moot will never delete them or try to better their situation.

>>575112
I have, actually. Late 2005. The Arfenhouse creator madr a joke about 4chan and that's how I got here.

And I know enough to know that suddenly going '/d/ van have furry porn' doesn't retroactively change the game on furry and anti-furry drama. The furry community is always going to be mocked, (rightly so most of the time) and a lot of the anti-furries like you are never going to stop pretending that a perpetual pogrom is the answer. And if that was what was on this plate then that would be an argument to have.

But it isn't. It's about shifting a rule to better fit /d/'s interests about posting porn. Drama is still culled, shitposting is still reportable, and hell, overblown discussion isn't allowed either.

4chan loses nothing with this. You want to keep fighting drama fine, but pick your battles. /d/ getting its porn is not a crisis of holding your ground.

I don't want you to misunderstand me. You're wrong about what made furry tame. Your shitposting to counter did nothing compared to just absorbing the 4chan mentality of thick skin and letting things flow over you. You're not even right about the date, April Furs Day was in 2005.

But forgiving all that, pretending all that was right and factored in, it's not worth perpetuating the shit on a tamed community over images on a second board, It's not even close.

/d/ can survive and wants more porn. We have drama and we deal with it as as it comes. We aren't tired of fetishes, we'd like more. What we don't want is excuses. From your 'I'm keeping you from what you want for your own good' to moot's 'well i don't feel like it.'

The worst that canhappen is you end up right and things just go back to what they were. Hell, give it a test run. The summer's always considered the worst time in4chan, let's have a social experiment with all the changes that /d/ needs anyway. If by September it's still too much? Put it back to normal. /d/ can handle an experiment, and either way it has its answer.

>>575145
Well, I don't know. It sounds a bit chaotic, especially if you made an open timeline. Maybe give it a window of how long the trial would be at the minimum, and keep it low key. Don't start going '4CHAN IS NOW TRYING OUT FURRY', just change it on the board there. Maybe.

Actually, you know what we need? The same type of mod sticky /m/ got. Just ask us what we want, how we can improve /d/, and not have to come to /q/ to do it one time. That helped sort out /m/'s bugs, it'd probably be just as helpful for /d/.

>>574725
There was literally a thread the other day where every single person in it was publically (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>575112
>They are still retarded enough to be forbidden.
Just like bronies.

keep all futashit in one stickied thread and ban every overly specific futa-thread. like:
>futas in blue jeans!
>futas with 40 centimenter dicks riding dinosaurs
>futas doing cartwheels on the moon while moot jacks off in the background

and then ban every third poster in said sticky, just to keep them on their toes.

>>576411
Bronies don't cause drama. In fact they contributed more to raiding faggots than /b/ has done in recent years.

>and a lot of the anti-furries like you are

You are talking out your ass. Would I be an anti-furry I would simply said "Because you are a sub-human piece of shit" and posted YIFF IN HELL.jpg.

It's not perpetual progrom. Your prejudice towards dissension and tendency to go "Everyone who dislikes furries is a fursecutor!" are the kinds of attitudes we don't like. And you are just one of the tamer one, able to, at least, write a worthwhile argument.

I do not believe in perpetual progoms, I have had enough of the "summerfags" bullshit that has been called around since the Newfag summer of 2007.

>Drama is still culled, shitposting is still reportable, and hell, overblown discussion isn't allowed either.
There's a difference. /d/'s drama is from 4channer and is predictable. When you allow furries in, the rest of the furry community receives the notice will flock in. (Oh my god, 4chan has finally accepted us!). You give a hand to a furry and he takes the whole arm.

>4chan loses nothing with this.
We do. We risk turning /d/ into a new fchan.

>You're not even right about the date, April Furs Day was in 2005.
I didn't mention April's fur day. What are you smoking.

>Your shitposting to counter did nothing compared to just absorbing the 4chan mentality of thick skin and letting things flow over you.

And why did that happen? Someone has had to insult them for them to become apathetic towards it.

>it's not worth perpetuating the shit on a tamed community

Problem is, the tamed community is still part of the untamed one, and we risk untaming those we already have by giving them rights.

Check the /co/ "caturday" threads. That's what happens when you allow furries to run amok.

>We aren't tired of fetishes, we'd like more.

Are you high? Every single fetish except futa as been requested to be forbidden at least once.

>>576472
>When you allow furries in, the rest of the furry community will flock in
Because they're all just SO hungry for a piece of 4chan. Remember the facebook crowd was going to ruin 4chan with /soc/ and that didn't happen? Remember when /lgbt/ was going to attract the tumblr privilege crowd and it didn't? This is the same shit, just on an even smaller scale. The porn has a better board to go to, and the 4chan community is just as selective and normalfag repelling. If furry porn on a fast board doesn't break us, furry porn on a slower board won't.
>we risk turning /d/ into fchan
We are several dozen steps away from fchan. Have you even been to fchan? It's a paranoid mess of antiquated board functions and people afraid to post anything for triggering someone's emotions. /d/ allowing furry doesn't drag those assholes over anymore than the TF2 General attracts TF2chan's community.
>we risk untaming those we already have by giving them rights
So, the sheer potenial that some might act like a tard on 4chan is enough to treat /d/ like a child? Do you think us incapable of any sort of sense and reason to report idiots?
>look at caturday /co/ threads. That's what happens when furries run amok.
They post cheesecake? Sounds better than shitposting about how autistic one thing or another is.
>every single fetish except futa has been requested to be forbidden at least once
And they haven't gotten their way because /d/ is pretty adamant about keeping what fetishes they have at least.

Why is it that in every thread about the problems in /d/, the real issue that IS currently killing the board (futaspam/necroposting) gets derailed into hypothetical nonsense about splitting the board for futa and the same tired furry/anti-furry debates?

File: 1367450175084.png-(183 KB, 632x342, flitwick.png)

183 KB PNG

>>576708
People have a thirst for blood over futa they need satiating, the furry/anti-furry debate has valid points on both sides (the fear of lawsuits is unfounded, and the community on 4chan is capable of handling this responsibility V.S. the need for it is not as pressing as other concerns and the end result is potentially destablizing) while moot never steps in and shuts up on side or the other, just closes threads or deletes them.

And of course, there's only so much you can talk about how to cure futaspam/necroposting on a bigger scale because that's well and easy to figure out >>562455 but again, moot never says anything about some very easy stuff he can do right now, so we just start fighting the bigger picture issues.

Don't fix what ain't broke.

>>576438
THIS.

One thread for each fetish.

Having to wade through the swamp of dicks just to find a thread for my fetish is fucking annoying.