(untitled)

So, how many boards will you guys create? Holy fuk.

Provide arguments. Images are not arguments, this is not twitter for fuarrrk sake.

>>1953 That's my argument. ps. visual communication is the most refined form of argument.

>>1957 "In philosophy and logic, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion." You have provided no statements. You reached no conclusion. If you think more boards are a problem, explain why you feel like that. With words.

>>1958 I have already: >>1632 , >>1650 , >>1664 And os other people too: >>1681 The people behind lainchan is refusing to listen to it's community. Shame. You'll destroy the community. Not because of the clusterfuck bloat of boards, but because you refuse to listen.

>>1960 >And os and so has*

>>1960 And many arguments have been made against or in favor of your posts. More against than in favor. Having an opinion does not grant you the right to be right. You can be refuted, people can think differently. If you don't like it, you can leave. If you want things done your way, you can create your own imageboard.

>>1960 You're the social scientist who doesn't understand social science? Really, you're using those posts as arguments?

>>1960 >"fak u appleman where r our boards >:(" >boards are back up, with more based on suggestions >"fak u appleman y u make so many board >:("

>>1960 Every single one of those posts has been answered already. Do you disagree with the arguments against those ideas? If you do, provide counter-arguments.

>>1949 >So, how many boards will you guys create? Holy fuk. They said they would consider up to 23 boards in the AGM (as that is the limit the system can handle) . I'm not making that up.

>>1966 You could have said something about it if you didn't agree with them?

No wonder Appleman never made any decisions. He makes the worst ones. Jesus fuarrrk. Stahp.

>>1967 >You could have said something about it if you didn't agree with them? They said that was the upper limit. Who the fuarrrk would have thought they actually would?

You're clearly in the minority and you want things done YOUR way. Why are you trying to be part of this community, then? When clearly what you want isn't what the community wants. Thus either you create your own community or find another one that is aligned to your preferences. Arguments towards more boards have been made (most lainons use /mega/, so board count is irrelevant, only provides more focused discussion). The arguments AGAINST more boards only make sense for people coming from 4chan, aka "people won't see the posts in less popular boards". They certainly won't if this was 4chan, but it isn't. This is not 4chan and should not use it as a boilerplate. Most of us use /mega/, thus the imageboard should be adapted to the community.

>>1962 >>1953 >>1954 >>1955 t-thanks. This imageboard has never seem a good admin/sys-admin. On ancient times I've already discussed with kalyx (a.k.a the mac user), that have censored me and some people against his opinion. Then I come back now, after kalyx mac user is gone. Now the new admin can't do things right again, and people started to censor again (a mod removed by comment from /r/, reporting the thread as being a data-mining one). I've already counter-argumented on the threads cited above. All you (or is just one annoying anon?) are refusing to listed. You didn't provided a real argument. I have cited cognitive science arguments, what you have? Nothing. I'll just create my own imageboard then. Bye (again... oh this is happening again. Started with 4chan, then 8ch, then lainchan, then endchan, now lainchan again, great. I'm I alone on this soykaf world? It seems so). ps. the only thread I'll reply now is on >>>/r/1456 , because photography is fun. ps. 2: >so many drama!1!!!

>>1962 > If you want things done your way, you can create your own imageboard. I think they already did.

>>1971 >things done in YOUR way no. I want it to be done in the LOGICAL way. My arguments are logical. You're are not.

>>1972 >have cited cognitive science arguments, what you have? Nothing. You're delusional if you think you have used proper cognitive science arguments. You're even more delusional if you haven't seen the tons of replies against your flawed arguments. I can make a hash function, that doesn't make it a good hashing function. You can study science but still be unable to understand the very basic premise of your field of study.

>>1974 You cited data that doesn't exist and the user model of 4chan as arguments. How is that logical for this community? Why are you still here?

>>1975 Care to point me where you refuted my "flawed" cogsci arguments? I would want to know exactly where I'm wrong, please.

>>1976 >Why are you still here? Exactly. I don't know why I'm here... I guess it's just fun to see you guys angry and destroying the community.

>>1977 Nigga literally every reply to every post you linked here >>1960. Are you outta your mind?

Well it looks like we're lain8chan now. Everyone can have their own board!

>>1980 I'm referring to my supposed bad use of cogsci. Please, clarify how I used the studied effects and biases, so I can refine my knowledge. And no, none of the posts on the other thread refuted my usage of cognitive science, just (tried) to refute my arguments about less boards is better.

https://ghostbin.com/paste/opzrt In this paste of the AGM, appleman does say that he was planning to implement the overboards (0), but the only thing he said concerning new boards was that new boards would be decided at a later date(1)/created as post volume for a certain topic in /r/ showed demand for a board.(2) I can't find any mention of these new boards, what's the deal? Was there a discussion on IRC? direct quotes from the paste: (0):"apple of the boards that were requested, 5 of them, and so far those boards have been brought back except for the feels replacement which is still the requisite stuff for _____ and the cult replacement which as I said before is planned to be an overboard solution, and has that technical block on it but no moderation blocks on it, and should be done probably sooner than 1 week from now" (1)"also I don’t want to spend a lot of time on individual boards in this meeting, there’s already been a lot of that and I’d prefer to have that at a separate time" (2):"we didn’t really discuss this in the dress rehearsal, under what circumstances should/can we create a new board, and then making a new board is based on the number of posts per day on average and proportion of moderators to people and the demand for the board. this is aside from the circumstances that happened with the split and the “demands” that get called a meeting where people have said “bring back these boards or we think everyone else will leave the site” this is more general than that specific instance"

>>1985 https://lainchan.org/q/res/1623.html#1660 Your arguments for cognitive science would make sense in a physical context. Not in here, more boards don't imply in confirmation bias nor would it make sense to due to the nature of lainchan. You can't have confirmation bias discussing technical, provable points. It would be similar to have confirmation bias with mathematics. We're not talking about politics or anything remotely close to that. And even if we were, /mega/ would render the argument useless because more boards would not promote segregation between users.

>>1986 >(1)"also I don’t want to spend a lot of time on individual boards in this meeting, there’s already been a lot of that and I’d prefer to have that at a separate time" When was this separate time? There was a second meeting?

>>1989 I'm not sure, maybe it was discussed during the dress rehearsal? also supposedly there was some sort of recent mod meeting earlier that wasn't recorded or logs were lost. I think appleman said something about it but I can't seem to find it in the logs. all I can find is: "apple next is present and apologies. not going to read everyone out, take screenshots. we can get whose present from irc logs after to the fact. there was no previous agm and the last moderator meeting had minutes but they were purged, expired after 30 days from riseup, does anyone have a mirror? I have the recording but not the minutes" "ilb I would bring up our previous conversation but I wasn’t allowed to record it"

>>1988 ok. You really don't understand what confirmation bias mean. I don't like to do what you're doing (say that other people don't know how to use some field of science), but you're accusing me of something, so: >would make sense in a physical context Cognitive Science don't make sense just physically. It's meant to explain cognition and patterns found in human cognition. If there's people interacting in some place, physical or virtual, them cogsci can be applied. >more boards don't imply in confirmation bias nor would it make sense to due to the nature of lainchan. First you have to explain what's your definition of "nature of lainchan". And yes, it may cause confirmation bias. Let's just clear what is confirmation bias: >[1] Confirmation bias occurs from the direct influence of desire on beliefs. When people would like a certain idea/concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views (prejudices) one would like to be true. Ok. So let's create an example: >Bob likes technology >He browses /tech/ almost everyday >But he don't usually browse /sec/ for some reason, even that it also interests him >Bob will mostly see contents related with /tech/ posts and, therefore, that's a confirmation bias Good. Now let's do an example where there's less boards: >Bob likes technology >But there's only one board that talks not just about general technology, but also about security/safety, programming and diy thing >Some day, Bob is searching this board to find something that he likes. Most of it don't interest Bob, sure, but them he finds a post about a new algorithm that he haven't heard yet (let's say it's Google Deep Dream) >Bob goes to the thread >Start talking about it The last example clearly has less interference of confirmation bias. Bob may like some things that he will not see if it's confined inside a very fragmented school of thought or very specific field. The same example goes for other subjects: >Alice likes art >She just browses /art/ >But someday she decides to go on /zzz/ for some reason >Find a thread about oneirogenics and, there, some anon posted an image in one of the replies >This trigger an idea on the head of Alice, do create an art based on dreams On the example above, Alice would never have that idea if she, for some reason, didn't want to go to /zzz/. The logical conclusion is that, if there's less boards, there's a higher probability of more posts, since there's more interaction. Now, I've only explained confirmation bias. As I have said on the other thread, there can be many other effects. For example, the bandwagon effect would increase the number of posts almost certainly: >Many fragmented boards >Bob goes everyday in /tech/, but never sees a thread updated >Bob concludes that lainchan is dead Now: >Few boards >Alice goes on /r/ everyday >So many posts >Alice concludes that lainchan has many good people trying to express themselves, therefore she has a higher probability to also post something (based on the bandwagon effect studies) >The post rate goes up because there's a social proof About >/mega/ It is limited to 15 posts. >Let's say Bob need to be out for two days >When he come back he enters on /mega/ >Can't see the threads he's currently on, since it's not on top threads anymore >have to enter on specific boards to check individual threads >after some time entering all the 15 fuarrrking boards, Bob is tired /mega/ does not work. >b-but you can customize it So you're still using javascript, hum? baaka. Please, prove how I used cognitive science the wrong way. You all don't have arguments and you keep saying I have none just to feel better. [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias

>>2001 >Cognitive Science don't make sense just physically. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But the way you're using implies a need for either a physical grouping of people, physically segregated (different boards), or a different topic than what lainchan offers. In here this segregation is not realistic due to the customs of our community. >confirmation bias examples Once again, your examples are according to how 4chan works, not lainchan. The lainchan community uses /mega/, not individual boards. We do not have as much traffic as 4chan, thus browsing one board is often undesirable. That is why confirmation bias doesn't make sense, more boards do not cause more segregation because that is not how it works in here. >bandwagon You seem to think that lainchan is trying to get as many users as possible. This has never been it's goal. Well, it was when kalyx advertised us in 4chan, but other than that it's clear that we're a niche, a lot more users imply in a loss of culture, as exemplified by /civ/ lat year. >mega is limited If you post something you care about, you go back into your thread. These arguments don't make a lot of sense if you just browse lainchan for a few days, these implications conflict with reality and how people browse here. You can get answers days after your post, that implies people come back to their original posts. Again, this is not 4chan. You're creating a strawman that browses lainchan as if he was on 4chan.

I love how almost every post here defending the 17 new boards is like "if you don't like it here, go make your own image board." Really? Let's see how that goes. So what you're really saying then is that if you disagree with how things are you aren't a lain? Maybe you should be the ones to leave.

There are 13 boards. /inter/, /music/, and /vis/ are new. /cult/ and /psy/ are overboards, just like /mega/.

>>2005 If you provide an argument and every reply from the community disagrees with you, isn't it clear that what you want isn't what the community wants? And if you ignore every counter-arguments to your arguments, and just keep on saying that others can't see the truth, shouldn't you make your own truth in your own imageboard? Being against decisions isn't the problem, feeling entitled about how things should go is. Implying that your lone opinion is more important than those who do not agree with you. Flooding images is hardly an appropriate way to get your point across.

>>2005 this.

>>2002 >The lainchan community uses /mega/, not individual boards I've been here since the kalyx days and have never once used /mega/. I'd advise everyone to never speak on behalf of lainons.

>>2008 >If you provide an argument and every reply from the community disagrees with you, isn't it clear that what you want isn't what the community wants? And if you ignore every counter-arguments to your arguments, and just keep on saying that others can't see the truth, shouldn't you make your own truth in your own imageboard? There was almost complete agreement that we needed *less* boards than before the wipe (look at the threads about the board organization and the annual meeting respectively), but in spite of that we now have *more* boards? So yes, less is what the community wants, but Appleman choose to go with the opposite. I don't know how you fail to see that.

>>2008 >If you provide an argument and every reply from the community disagrees with you, isn't it clear that what you want isn't what the community wants? There was almost complete agreement that we needed *less* boards than before the wipe (look at the threads about the board organization and the annual meeting respectively), but in spite of that we now have *more* boards? So yes, less is what the community wants, but Appleman choose to go with the opposite. I don't know how you fail to see that.

There was a mistake in the original news post. To clear up any misunderstandings like >>1981, people can NOT create their own boards. >All overboards support making a new board, please select the board you wish to board to from the board drop down menu. should have been >All overboards support making a new post, please select the board you wish to post to from the board drop down menu. Board creation is still done by the staff based on perceived user demand.

I dunno feels like a fair bit of redundancy to me

>>2010 >I've been here since the kalyx days and have never once used /mega/. I'd advise everyone to never speak on behalf of lainons. That's untenable. Suddenly nobody is allowed to speak about the community and obvious statements like "lains like technology" or "lains care about their privacy and free software" become a faux pas. Yes, we're a pretty wide community and no statement is going to be 100% accurate (I have met lains don't really care about free software for instance). On that note, most lains do use /mega/ we know this from the time that kalyx collected usage statistics.

>>2012 >There was almost complete agreement that we needed *less* boards Have we been looking at the same discussions? What I saw was almost universal cries of "MOAR BOARDS LOOK .JP HAS ALL THESE BOARDS WE NEED MOAR BOARDS MOAR BOARDS OR EVERYONE WILL GOT TO .JP AND NEVER COME BACK!!!!"

What is up with /psy/? A overboard for 2 (two!) boards? Seriously?

>>2020 >Have we been looking at the same discussions? What I saw was almost universal cries of "MOAR BOARDS LOOK .JP HAS ALL THESE BOARDS WE NEED MOAR BOARDS MOAR BOARDS OR EVERYONE WILL GOT TO .JP AND NEVER COME BACK!!!!" Just reset the fuarrrking boards to how they were before the reset. Just stop. You're doing it wrong. >>2021 >What is up with /psy/? A overboard for 2 (two!) boards? Seriously? Apparently we have to copy everything lainchan.jp is doing or else everyone will go to lainchan.jp. Wait. Don't think about that too much.

>>2011 >>2012 I bet the mods have to get Appleman's permission before deleting duplicates.

>>2023 We don't do much moderation of /q/. That has always been the case, even when kalyx was admin.

>>2024 Wow. I thought I was joking.

>>2025 Since you apparently want it spelled out for you: no, we do not have to get Appleman's permission to delete duplicate posts. Or do any moderation, actually. We do not do much moderation of /q/.

>Made a billion fuarrrking useless boards >Still no /cyb/ I mean its like you're trying to make everyone leave

>>2027 If you want /cyb/, you know where to go.

tfw you visit lainchan.org and think youve gone back in time and typed amazon.com. nope. just dumbass mods. put soykaf back like it was.

#thisisntnormal

>>1960 No, the staff of lainchan is listening to one part of the communitywhile not listening to another. Our community is not a monolith.

>>2031 You can't keep everyone happy all of the time. If they'd listened to the other side they'd be saying the same soykaf. I'm pretty happy with things. We got /cult/ back, in a slightly different form but that's fine. I generally just use /mega/ anyway.

Can everyone please pull their head out of their asses? The "ALL THE BOARDS!" lains are misrepresenting the "jesus christ, less boards pls" lains. They keep making it out like all of the "less boards" lains were the same ones that were begging for "more boards" before. Yes, that is true. What you are overlooking is the fact that when we "less boards" lains were advocating for more boards... ....THERE WAS ONE. fuarrrkING. BOARD. In case I have to spell it out for you, there are numbers between 1 and 17. Pick one. Get your fuarrrking soykaf together mods.

When I loaded up lainchan just now I noticed there was something wrong with the top navbar. It was on two lines instead of one. Call me slow, but it took me a moment to realize what the fuarrrk happened. Appleman added so many god damn boards that without maximizing the window I didn't have enough room on my screen to accommodate all the new boards (stop playing word games; overboards are still boards). Appleman has proven time and time again that he is utterly incapable of making any rational decisions ever since he bought the god damn board. Please. You had one job. That job was to keep the lights on. The lights got smashed. Replace the lightbulb. Don't fill the house with a million lamps. The rest of you need to wake up. Don't let autism break lainchan.

>>2007 Ok, then how about hiding boards that are included in /cult/ and /psy/? Their functionality would remain without complains about cluttered header.

Are people just not getting that there's going to be a UI that allows for people to customize which boards are displayed? Like, I really don't get why there's such rage and resentment over more boards being created. Yes, it's cluttered, and Appleman has acknowledged that he is aware that it is cluttered. But it's for the time being. This image board is being brought back from scratch, and this is a chance to rebuild it, better & stronger. If you want a board to be created, and there's not already a thread about it, go make one and start a discussion so that there's adequate data to satisfy the criteria for board creation, instead of making yet another thread that boils down to, "lainchan is a singular unit; what I desire for/from this board is what the rest of the userbase desires; Lainchan wants 'foo', no Lainchan wants 'bar.' You may well be right. Go prove it by participating in the process of board creation in a useful - and as of yet effective - way, by specifying your topic and having a discussion, and/or posting content related to said board, instead of lashing out at the modteam. If your board hasn't been created yet, there's either a reason it hasn't (ie. cyb) or there hasn't been enough user demand tabulated/content created. Go start a thread arguing for that board, it'll be more productive for all parties.

>>2037 >Are people just not getting that there's going to be a UI that allows for people to customize which boards are displayed? Uh, yeah. Maybe because no one told us?

>>1953 a picture is worth a thousand words

>Like, I really don't get why there's such rage and resentment over more boards being created. because a few active boards is better than 20 dead boards.

>>2037 Otherwise, more boards are not inherently bad, and it could easily be argued that it's great to have 1) a dedicated board for a topic, both in containing a fostering discussion & keeping the site organized 2) categorical overboards that allow for grouping of similar ideas, to spur creativity and cross pollination of ideas & memes There's something for everyone in this format. Between the ability to hide boards (which is an extant feature) and the ability to hide/group boards that you don't have any interest in (upcoming), you will still be able to have the discussions and threads you come to lainchan for. Or if this place is really so far gone in your view, and you can't stand the turbulence of things being rebuilt to your specifications, you're not alone. You know where to go. If that's the case, then please just go there, and stop flinging soykaf where the rest of us eat.

>>2037 >Are people just not getting that there's going to be a UI that allows for people to customize which boards are displayed? Are we supposed to be mind readers? >Like, I really don't get why there's such rage and resentment over more boards being created. Yes, it's cluttered, and Appleman has acknowledged that he is aware that it is cluttered. Maybe because it is abundantly clear that it was a poor decision to begin with. Did he really not expect people to get pissed off when he snaps between wanting to take things at a glacial pace and going recklessly fast. >But it's for the time being. This image board is being brought back from scratch, and this is a chance to rebuild it, better & stronger. Then why don't we do it right the first time? >If you want a board to be created, and there's not already a thread about it, go make one and start a discussion so that there's adequate data to satisfy the criteria for board creation, instead of making yet another thread that boils down to, "lainchan is a singular unit; what I desire for/from this board is what the rest of the userbase desires; Lainchan wants 'foo', no Lainchan wants 'bar.' You may well be right. Go prove it by participating in the process of board creation in a useful - and as of yet effective - way, by specifying your topic and having a discussion, and/or posting content related to said board, instead of lashing out at the modteam. Are you deaf? We are screaming for boards to be reconsolidated and yet you are talking about how we ought to be going through a formal process to propose and create even more boards? We are almost at the absolute maximum number of boards the system can even handle. Anon said the limit is 23. We are sitting at 17. If the pace of board creation keeps up, we'll hit 23 in days. I expect to see /sci/, /feels/, and /civ/ to be listed any second now. >If your board hasn't been created yet, there's either a reason it hasn't (ie. cyb) or there hasn't been enough user demand tabulated/content created. Go start a thread arguing for that board, it'll be more productive for all parties. Are you kidding me? Where was all of the user demand and tabulation and content creation to warrant the creation of /inter/, /lit/, /music/, /viz/, or the need for a /psy/ overboard? It doesn't exist. Stop making excuses for the staff. If they are able to break things they are able to fix things. They can't fix things if they don't realize they're broken. Typing all of this soykaf out isn't fun. We do it for a reason. Things are getting worse. We want things to improve. We don't want to leave, but you're testing lains patience.

>>2037 >lain asks for less boards >lain offers instructions on how to request more boards you want us to go full regard on boards? nice try dot jp. very clever. now go the back to whre you belong.

>>2037 >>2048 Anon is right. Your deception was obvious.

>>2042 >Are we supposed to be mind readers? That's fair. It was discussed at the meeting (which is how that poster knows) but obviously not everyone was there or has time to listen to the recording or read the transcript. To elaborate further, the original plan was to use the unicode board names to keep the bar short but a lot of people complained about them. In light of people not liking unicode, both an options setting for unicode board names and for hiding boards are being worked on but they need implementation. >snaps between wanting to take things at a glacial pace and going recklessly fast. That's not fair. He wanted to wait until after the meeting? Far too slow. He implements the changes right after the meeting? Recklessly fast. >We are almost at the absolute maximum number of boards the system can even handle. Anon said the limit is 23. You misunderstood. 23 is an arbitrary limit that was decided during the meeting to ensure that too many weren't created. The tech does get annoyingly complicated (like a lot of things in vichan it's badly implemented) but there's not a technical limit. 23 was just the number of boards (including hidden) that the site had when Appleman bought it. >Where was all of the user demand and tabulation and content creation to warrant the creation of /inter/, /lit/, /music/, /viz/ It was definitely there. I, for one, asked for /cult/ back. Plenty of people asked for /rpg/ back and there were big popular threads about music and art before the wipe. >>2048 >>2049 Calm down there. That's maps (he used the name field). He's not with .jp and even if he were good points are good points and bad points are best refuted rather than just questioning the poster.

>>2050 >He's not with .jp "he has a different opinion to me, must be from .jp" I am angry

>>2050 >He's not with .jp and even if he were good points are good points and bad points are best refuted rather than just questioning the poster. His loyalty is not questionable and therefore relevant? He is is literally offering instructions on how to make this situation unequivocally worse.

>>2052 Ahh calm down. Considering the underhanded actions from the .jp mods so far it's not unthinkable that they're shiIling. They did get it wrong in this case. Maps is active on IRC and was at the meeting and doesn't, as far as I know, have any connection to the .jp mods and, in general, it's never a good idea to announce it or use it as a point but tensions are high and people are jumpy. >>2053 So explain why that is. Attack his points, not his character. This is always the way you should deal with shiIls, announcing it and starting an argument over it just plays into their hands.

>>2052 >>2049 >>2048 I just want to touch on these before responding to the other points: When that accusation was first lobbied against me, I thought poster was drunk. But after another anon agreed, I tried to understand why that made sense to people. I get it, so let me clarify - and I'll touch upon the 'more boards in discussion of less boards" in my next post. What I intended with those posts was saying that there's a constructive way about voicing concerns, and there's a way that's just soykaf flinging. And while there have been many good points that have been brought up, and valid concerns expressed, the approach of angrily attacking the mods and/or Appleman because things aren't going the way you'd like is of the former category. That's not to say you can't be angry, or that you shouldn't feel the way that you do, but that coming at it with such an emotional approach tends to devolve into soykaf-flinging, name calling, and nonproductive infighting. There is a process, which has been put forth by Appleman, and refined via feedback - which he is actually open to, if you talk to him. That's what the AGM was all about. For the record, I am not a .jp wage slave, I don't patronize, I don't support them, and I've actively spoken against them both on the forum and in IRC. I understand that my post may have come across as some sort of reverse psychology trick to say, "If things aren't going your way here, they will at .jp" which was not at all what I was saying. What I was saying was, "Please contribute in a constructive way without immediately approaching with vitriol, and try to be part of the solution to actually resolve things here. If you're not willing to do that, you'd fit in at .jp." Now, you may not agree with that sentiment, but to suggest that I was advocating for people to actively go to .jp in order to benefit .jp at the sake of .org is pretty ludacris. As >>2050 said, anyone who is familiar with me knows very well that I am 100% loyal to .org. I namepost here because I care deeply about this community, and want to contribute to it as much as I can. At this point, you are welcome to see me as a .jp wage slave, but know that you will be totally wrong in doing so.

>>2057 on second thought, i'm ridiculously tired and my bandwidth for discussion has run out, so i'm going to take another attempt at sleeping and give this a shot when i can do service to each party's arguments. polite sage.

>>2057 I wish that I was as cool as you maps.

>@Appleman1234: if they don't like picking a board, they can just post in /r/ Apparently Appleboys suggested solution (to his self-imposed problem) is is to say ｆｕｃｋ ｉｔ and have post absolutely everything in /r/. Are you serious? Everyone says he doesn't troll but I don't see how this could be interpreted as anything but. If he is serious, lain have mercy on us. You heard it here folks. /r/ is now /b/.

>>2077 I interpret this as the thread will be moved to a representative board. I expect lainons to be less ignorant than that though.

>>2077 The board for random topics has become the board for random topics WHODA THUNK IT

>>2030

Just make the board list what it was before the wipe. Stop trying so hard.

If you're going to add so many, you should add an index on the home page with descriptions. Having to jump between them to see what they are isn't very convenient.

>>2263 You shouldn't have to in the first place. I don't understand why we need to re-arrange the boards every single fuarrrking day. Just let it go already.

>>2264 ikr? It's becoming a huge thing when, in reality, it's not that big of a deal at all. Maybe we could just... remove the board list entirely...