Image spoilers when? I personally hate them, but its still a fun feature when trolling. I think it would be wonderful for all new users with less then 100 posts to have there image spoiled automaticly, with an option to unspoil all thumbnails. That way when we get flooded with CP spam, it will be just a bunch of spoilered thumbnails until moderation. For users like me that hate spoilers and won't click them, I will just check the box that unspoiles all thumbnails. Everybody wins. execpt spammer
>>6499 Chek em BRING BACK OUTLANDERS NIGGER
>>6499 I think this would also solve the problem of no new users. As of now, I wouldn't tell anyone about this place, unless they were looking for CP. The CP links are bad enough, but CP is also still getting posted by the spammer sometimes. The higher the chances are that you won't see CP posted, the higher the chances are that a user base will start posting here.
>>6499 The most important part is a button that usnpoiles all thumbnails. If a potential new user clicks on a spoiled CP thumbnail accidentally, that is just the same as clicking on a CP thumbnail to enlarge the image purposely.. While non pedos don't enlarge CP thumbnails on purpose, and just ignore/report them, there has to be a way to unspoil all thumbnails, to make sure that you don't enlarge something illegal.
>>6500 Every single anti spam measure would render moot if outlanders are back. If someone can't do two clicks in order to get an anonymous account is a good sign he doesn't belong here.
Please pin my post to the top, we will not spam anymore >>6499 >>6500 >>6501 >>6502 >>6503
>>6539 You are worth nothing Die in silence
>>6539 "Pin"? This is not tumblr man, you're in the very wrong place.
>>6501 We also need a site owner who actually cares about the site enough to do more than just delete spam. One that actively corresponds with its userbase instead of revising a site only to abandon the project for months on end without letting anyone know the reason why.
>>6544 I don't like either but I totally understand it. In first place Gad do not owe an explanation to anyone, he is not our employee, we don't pay for this so it's his prerogative to explain or not. You may don't like it, i get that, but that's how it is, we're guests in his house. This must give him only economical loss, there's a real danger to get in trouble with the law due the cp spam, and we're no more than 10 active users, so he does the minimum necessary to keep the site alive while he's (probably) busy with earn money for his real life. I suspect Gad doesn't necessarily like us, we're a bunch of whiny spergs at best that won't do anything to generate new content, we just troll and whine. I may be wrong, but i think those are the reasons why he never finds the time for this, i can't really blame him. Again this is his house and we're guests, we know where's the door so if the situation is so unbearable bad... just leave.
>>6545 My grammar was atrocious and I'm too lazy to edit it, so deal with it.
>>6545 >This must give him only economical loss, there's a real danger to get in trouble with the law due the cp spam, and we're no more than 10 active users, so he does the minimum necessary to keep the site alive while he's (probably) busy with earn money for his real life. With how little actual traffic this site gets I don't really understand the point of keeping the site up anymore if requested changes only take place once or twice a year, long after a problem has been addressed--several times. And there are hundreds of other *chan owners out there that are able to keep up with RL work AND their websites with little-to-no interruption to their responsibilities offline. I think several people here would be fine if gad/ette only popped on here for 10-20 minutes each day as long as we knew that our voices were being heard (in a metaphorical sense obviously). There was a time when gad/ette lurked about on a regular basis and actually gave feedback on /global/ threads AND /gg/. >we're a bunch of whiny spergs at best that won't do anything to generate new content As I mentioned in another thread I at least try to spur discussions by creating new threads because very few others bother to. I don't like seeing only one thread being posted on over the course of a week or two. Even if it's a bullshit thread, at least it's something else to respond to.
>>6547 Every time I make a thread some rule click moderates it to off topic. I don't bother making new threads anymore. If there wasn't a huge banner that said my thread was off topic'd I prob wouldn't notice. The on/topic system would work so much better without obnoxious banners.
>>6555 I don't quite understand why people takes the off topic thingy so personal, if the thread is popular or people answers to it frequently enough it will be on the front page regardless. If our user-base were huge the off topic would send any thread into oblivion in minutes but as it is right now... it's irrelevant really. That being said I (personally) believe /b/ad is very very inconsistent with his rules about on and off topic, since the topic is "random" it reduces to whatever he likes and/or tolerates and what not fits into his tastes. It's crappy but that's the way it is. I solved that random discrimination making my own board, with rules that are clear enough to prevent myself to be too authoritarian. Finally, I said this before: /b/ needs more than one mod, because it's the most important board of the site, but... yeah I'm not holding my breath.
>>6556 badmin here. people have frequently complained that i on and off topic based on personal preference, but i can assure you it is based on how gad described the feature to me. when i am unsure if a thread is on or off topic, i consult gad himself, and posters are always welcome to constructively argue if they disagree with my decisions and i will alter them if necessary. >>6555 the site is long overdue for a redesign, i'll keep this in mind and suggest it again when the time comes (soon™). i do agree that it sticks out a lot.
>>6557 I believe you're trying your best to keep the on/off topic as objective as possible. The result is not great, however. That being said I don't think I ever saw anyone contesting your choice in a rational way, normally it's just an autistic screech. When you set'd my thread off topic I agreed with you, it was cancerous enough (the maid thread) but even off topic it was useful still, so I didn't really care, which brings me to my first point: with our current user-base the on/off topic is completely irrelevant. PS: have a maid, because I'm an asshole.
>>6558 What I would love to see if Gad fixing the bug that allows easy spam, I'm very tired of the constant spam trickle.
>>6556 >>6557 Personally I think gad/ette should just get rid of the On/Off Topic "feature" altogether because its use confuses too many people and even /b/admin just stated here that there are times when even they're not sure when it is appropriate to use it or not.
>>6560 While I'm agree with you, on/off topic should go the way of the Dodo I think it's potential to trigger autists is golden. For that alone it worth to keep it alive.
>>6562 > I think it's potential to trigger autists is golden. For that alone it worth to keep it alive. There's like only one person that gets triggered by it and it's nothing compared to when we used to berate the shit out of KV.
>>6557 >described the feature to me I guess you really don't know what you're doing
>>6566 sorry you got triggered, autist
>>6564 Have you seen the professional creep thread? that was so textbook 13 y/o screaming at the monitor it was truly fun, it couldn't have been so effective if /b/ad didn't off topic'd it.
>>6578 You should rename that thread to "the wannabe pro creep" kek
>>6582 a worthless pedo, no surprise really
>>6584 Why did you originally come here then?,you follow Eliza from 8chan?
>>6585 masterchan was originally a /pc/ board, enjoy your miserable life scum
>>6586 you can count on it
What happened to Outlanders?
>>6707 They all died in the great war, didn't you read the memo?