Rule 4 extrapolation

Isn't rule 4 being used improperly? does "better op" imply in a long op with meaningless text? Here are a few examples that don't really seem to require a larger op(aka the OP explains the purpose of the thread clearly), but were warned nonetheless: https://lainchan.org/%CE%A9/res/1949.html https://lainchan.org/%CE%A9/res/1959.html There's a reason why OP text doesn't have an obscenely small minimum letter requirement, some threads just don't require a lot of text to explain it's purpose. So what's going on here?

>>4048 No rule 4 isn't being used improperly. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. A single line OP may explain the purpose of the thread, but it doesn't provide any additional context or elaboration on why a question is being asked, why a statement is being made , or any additional implicit constraints or frames of reference the poster had when writing the OP.Sure the interpretation of soykaf / e.g what is quality or not and what is relevant or not is inherently subjective and you can have quality discussion with short OPs and short posts, but there is a correlation between time taken to make a post, and the amount of effort put into making that post. Image only posts and short posts take more effort to make for a given level of quality but take less time to make from a practical perspective.So unless the additional effort / time is spent reviewing what is not typed, ensuring quality of a thread when an OP is short is difficult, because the OP sets a precedent for the topic and level of expected discourse in the thread. The reason why OP text doesn't have an obscenely small minimum letter requirement is because it was removed after too many users began circumventing it by pasting filler in their posts as soykaf. Such a requirement was being used to prevent spambots (posts must be >30 characters) from posting CP spam, before the server wipe. Also the threads you mentioned , were merely warned asking to make a better OP next time. They were not deleted outright, without giving the chance for the replies of said thread to improve the quality despite the precedent of the OP.

>>4048 I've learned to just roll my eyes when I see red text. If someone isn't bad enough to warrant deletion, who the fuarrrk cares. Just move on.

>>4056 You may have learned to roll your eyes at red text, but to newcomers it can be incredibly off-putting and anal. It probably turns a lot of them off from using this site.

>>4058 >It probably turns a lot of them off from using this site. go back to your containment chan

>>4056 >>4058 I tend to agree with both of you. They're not a big deal, but it is being used too much. Just be a little more lenient.

>>4062 >>4056 >>4058 Yes I am aware that the red text and the usage of bans for warnings is off-putting, for that reason work is being undertaken to change the functionality to behave differently and not display you are derezzed for warnings and to use configurable text colors for warnings.

>>4063 It's not the fact that bans are used for warnings (I doubt people would even know the difference) or that the text used to warn posts is red. It's the fact that the warnings themselves are handed out so egregiously.

>>4063 Why must every solution be technical in nature? Can't you just change your behavior instead?

>>4064 >>4065 Every solution doesn't have to be technical in nature and I do change my behavior. However in this case, my behavior is justified by cultural change that will eventually occur as a result of it. The warnings are not being handed out egregiously, I apologize that your expectations and standards of quality are at a level of soykaf, that others are less willing to tolerate. You may find another venue better suiting to your expectations.

>>4066 >However in this case, my behavior is justified by cultural change that will eventually occur as a result of it. Wow. Okay, then. If your "cultural change" is people deciding to not use this imageboard, you're right on the mark. >You may find another venue better suiting to your expectations. God damn it. Now even you're getting on the "if you don't like it go somewhere else" meme train. I'm not going to go somewhere else, Appleman. I care about this site and community. I want what's best for it, which is why I criticize behaviors that I believe are to the detriment of its well-being. And you just tell me to go somewhere else? Well fuarrrk you too then. It's like you cannot comprehend how to healthily handle constructive criticism.

>>4066 >You may find another venue better suiting to your expectations. Whoa. I never thought I'd see the day that *Appleman* said "go to jp." I feel slain.

>>4067 >>4068 >Wow. Okay, then. If your "cultural change" is people deciding to not use this imageboard, you're right on the mark. Both yes and no , on this point, some people will decide not to use this imageboard and will follow the FAQ answer of Lainchan is lame. insertnamechan is better. Either submit your constructive criticism in a /q/ thread, or go back to your favourite chan of choice. Others will change their behavior to meet the quality requirements gradually instituted by the eventual cultural change. Others still will actually do what you are claiming to do and provide constructive criticism along with suggestions for improvement. These suggestions will be more than we don't like you as an admin because you are not kalyx or <xyz person here>, be more like we want but we don't specify or elaborate on what we want. Others will ignore the warnings and continue to post as they always have and ignore the suggestions to not post soykaf and the polite requests to put more effort what they are discussing / posting.

>>4069 >constructive criticism = personal attack >unconstructive criticism = go to jp You cant fuarrrkin win with this guy.

>>4067 >It's like you cannot comprehend how to healthily handle constructive criticism. This is definitely the case.

>>4066 >will eventually occur as a result of it. It isn't going to go down like that. We're already on the high side of the effort we ask people to put into posts, higher is just going to mean less posts and it's not like these posts are actively a detriment. Here's the thing, you can't push culture around like that. Everything you do has side effects related to how it's done. Nobody likes being told they didn't do a good enough job, it's discouraging and ultimately it harms more than it helps. If the OP has done a decent job, (i.e. started a decent discussion) let them be.

>>4048 >>4052 The rule is being used improperly, yes. The intention of this rule was to maintain post quality, discouraging the "I don't like thing! let's all hate it!" threads that pop up everywhere on other chans (and particularly /g/, since many early users migrated from there). Appleman failed to intuit this, as "quality" is a nebulous attribute that people "get a feel for", and so interpreted it as a reference to quantity. the minimum post length which he mentions being removed was one he enabled in the first place. also, could whoever's getting all the tor exit nodes derezzed / doing the banning please settle down?

>>4056 if you roll your eyes every time you see a red text in lainchan you're going to get really dizzy in a short time

>>4069 >Either submit your constructive criticism in a /q/ thread And what board is this? Oh look, it's /q/ This whole "cultural revolution" that you're promoting sounds like an awful lot of wishful thinking and not a single bit like an actual plan publicly available. It's like you're deciding all this soykaf on your own, imposing it on your users without any transparency whatsoever, and when your users go batsoykaf because some decision is controversial, you just shield yourself because "it's for a greater good, in 10 years lainchan will be great again!". Since you really like to make long legalistic "official" statements, why not tell us straight up what do you really expect of the users, of the community, what you expect the character of this site to be (and take the risk of it not being what your users want, god forbid you'd have to actually respond to them!), what are the actions you intend to take to achieve this goal, and most importantly, and I want to emphasize this: Try, just goddamn TRY to work synergically with the users, because ultimately THE USERS are the community, and you're dealing with real human beings and not checkers' tokens that you can manipulate in a particular direction. You may think you have the ultimate word here because you *bought* lainchan, but for years before you appeared the community already evolved as all communities do to have it's own character, all due to the participation and work of many before you and even now, it's the people, and not your own whims that ultimately decides the fate of lainchan. This is exactly why your measures keep failing and meeting so much resistance and spawning heated arguments, you think you know everything, and that because you're in control you can just adjust the nuts as if this were some kind of cold machinery. Have an ounce of respect for your users and the community, the fact that you are on the driver's seat doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want and everyone has to suck it up. It is quite obvious how inexperienced you are at this, yet you don't take the moment to listen to those trying to help you for the sake of the community. And cut the crap with >we don't like you as an admin because you are not kalyx or <xyz person here> Hardly anybody likes kalyx either, he's mentally unstable and scammed the users, and he got a lot of soykaf too. But the reason people don't like you is not because you're not kalyx, it's because of your lousy decisions and the huge pride with which you meet resistance, which end up in a soykafload of responses where all you ever do is defend yourself and never ever admit your own fault ("against my better judgement..." kind of stuff even). As an administrator, you have to put yourself last, and the community first. Work with it, with what it is now, instead of with what you wish it were, instead of trying to subject it to your parameters. That's enough from me.

>>4066 You seem to be really defensive, i know this whole .jp issue is annoying as fuarrrk but cmon, we're all on the same boat here. As for rule 4, shouldn't it be more precise in it's description? From what you've said, it seems that rule 4 includes that threads must be specific instead of generalistic, both threads i linked in OP are pretty well described, their only problem is to be too general. Shouldn't that be included in rule 4? That threads shouldn't be generalistic.

>>4076 >Have an ounce of respect for your users and the community, the fact that you are on the driver's seat doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want and everyone has to suck it up. It is quite obvious how inexperienced you are at this, yet you don't take the moment to listen to those trying to help you for the sake of the community. You are basically citing the lainchan.jp homepage.

>>4080 whats wrong with that

>>4080 >You are basically citing the lainchan.jp homepage. Gee, it's almost like they were right about Appleman.

>>4080 Nice red herring. This theme has been popping up over and over, where any form of criticism or polemic is dismissed by calling it out on .jp .jp was the best thing that could happen to lainchan, since it invalidates all criticism by just pointing to them.

>>4084

>>4085 At the risk of sounding like I'm advertising for the other site, people here are pretty much telling me to go there instead if I don't like the way things are done which makes sense anyway

>>4072 Thank you very much for the constructive criticism and elaboration, even though it didn't meet my expectations regarding elaboration, something is better than nothing, and I am trying to work synergically with users. You are correct that threads in /omega/ and possibly in general could have their improve quality of said thread by making good replies, rather than being public warned and locked, or public warned and left for other users to attempt to do so. I don't have the numbers for all these three options at present, but a combination of all 3 options are being done and your suggestion to publicly warn less and make good replies will be considered and most likely implemented. >>4076 Thank you very much for the constructive criticism and elaboration. I don't really like it, but if it is necessary, then I will do it. Previously the some of the information and transparency regarding these gradual changes was made available in a thread that was deleted, and is available at https://archive.lainchan.jp/q/res/11628.html . As for the rest of the proposal , I will attempt to draft it, but it will take some time to do so, external constraints being what they are. I don't think I know everything. I am trying to work with synergically with the users and I understand that Lainons will be the change (cultural or otherwise) they want to see. I do respect the users and the community, and I am listening to as much feedback as possible, even though you may not be able to determine it from merely interpreting my responses. I am already putting myself last, and leading by serving and working with the community as it is now, and I realize that what Lainchan could be and should be is the hands of its users. >>4077 Thank you very much for the constructive criticism and elaboration. You are correct that Rule 4 should be elaborated upon, or supplemented with a new rule that elaborates. Generally stickies of a given board were supposed to indicate or provide summaries of quality and relevance expectations for a board. Generals like image only threads and threads with post supporting text constraints are posts that can have lower quality if there effort is not put into to ensure otherwise. Generals are not inherently soykaf, but making a general with one line OP does set expectations at a certain level.

>>4088 What a fuarrrking asshole. You do realize that we post in /q/ because we care about lainchan, right? I'm not so sure about you.

>>4088 Did you ever explain why you bought lainchan? Did you have any idea what you were getting into? Or was it as impulsive as jp makes it out to be?

>>4089 Yes I realize that you care about lainchan, thank you very much for reiterating it though. >>4090 Yes, some of the explanation is in the linked thread in >> 4088. Other parts of the explanations were on other /q/ threads that have been deleted from the wipe, and some of those /q/ threads will be restored from backups to /archive/, however that hasn't happened yet. Yes I knew what I was getting into, and it wasn't an impulsive decision on my part, I had been lurking Lainchan for over 1.5 years before offering to purchase it.

>>4091 Is this all going to plan?

>>4091 Don't take this the wrong way, but have you learned anything through all of this?

>>4091 I'm sorry I'm just frustrated.

>>4088 the suggestion was not "publicly warn less"; the suggestion was "warn less", implying that it is not the method at fault but the motivation. tee >>4064 and >>4073

>>4096 and, to be clear, that's not "stop warning and start banning (though the "warnings" are being used as temp bans at least in some cases it looks like) but rather "quit being legalistic and follow the *spirit* of the rules, particularly in cases where you've misinterpreted the rule in the first place, so your legalistic implementation does something entirely different from what was intended when the rule was made, as is the case with this use of "rule 4"

>>4089 >>4090 >>4093 The man is taking the advice from the previous posts and you all find something else to complain about? Honestly these posts look like veiled attacks, considering he was basically saying, "I hear your complaints, I will consider and implement some". What more do you all want? Also just to be clear, the warnings never bothered me. The thread never gets deleted, discussion continues, and the OP is reminded to not make soykafty posts NEXT TIME.

>>4097 >>4098 >>4091 >>4076 As with e.g. narcissists or psychopaths, it can be hard to pinpoint exactly what is "wrong" with a persons behavior if they happen to be wired very differently from the norm. In this case, we have an autistic person who seriously and in the best of faith thinks that everyone who doesn't work like him is like a broken clock and that communicating in an autistic, hyper-formal, detailed and detached manner is more "correct" than anything else and that any display of emotion or any quarreling or "incorrect communication" of any sort constitutes a breach of public peace. Because Appleman communicates so vaguely and doesn't take in one ounce of what other people say - after all, he knows he is right at all times - people sort of fill in the blanks and think that he must have a point buried under all that legalistic babble. But no, there really isn't. Not only is he autistic but he refuses to reflect upon the fact that he is autistic, probably because deep down he doesn't want to admit to himself that he might be inherently flawed or crippled in the way he is. And/or, which is even more frightening, that he truly can see that other people function differently from him but simply consider them "inherently wrong" and in need of "behavior regulation" regardless. But he is mentally and emotionally crippled, and none of us can do anything about it since it is completely impossible to reach him. If enough people yell at him he does things, that is true, but trying to get him to change the parts about him that causes people to yell at him in the first place would probably require him to have some sort of major life crisis.

>>4100 Yeah thanks for the amateur hour psychology there but you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. Being formal==autistic is already a push but the jump from autistic to "I think everyone else is wrong and I'm right all the time" is absurd.

>>4102 The formality comes from using order and patterns to compensate for the fact that one cannot integrate details into a whole correctly. It results in hyper-correction not only in speech but in cognition. It is a very distinct type of formality, in the same way that schizophasia is a very specific form of nonsense. One cannot integrate emotions properly either, which causes them to become overwhelming, and so these are repressed. And flat-out arrogance is not inherently a symptom of autism, no. It is however a fact that Appleman is arrogant regarding these fundamental parts of how he sees things. And I have never seen him admit even a minor fault, actually. It is always "you don't understand", "things are complicated" or even things such as "I protect lainons from themselves"(!!) As for me making wild conjectures and e-diagnosing people: it is not amateur psychology exactly - I used to be like Appleman when I was a kid but I managed to break out of it via what basically amounts to self-destructive behavior. It is an extreme process of going outside of one's own comfort zone. I can very much relate to every word he writes which is why I also can see through his bullsoykaf.

>>4098 That's because he's very obviously saying "thank you very much for the constructive criticism and elaboration" robotically (seriously check the post he said the exact same line three times) as a token gesture just to shake off people who have been criticizing him. He doesn't actually mean any of it, he's just patronizing us.

>>4106 There is also the fact that he takes everything absolutely literally. When someone says X is Y even jokingly he will proceed to write an essay about how X is not Y. He also suffers from 'someone is wrong on the internet' syndrome.

>>4103 >It is a very distinct type of formality We all know what he's like but autism is a whole different level. >I have never seen him admit even a minor fault I have. >It is always "you don't understand", "things are complicated" Let's consider the context of the time he said that to you. You, at the same time as a whole bunch of other people, were trying to talk to him. You were saying "you should just do as I say and the reasoning behind it is something that you cannot possibly comprehend." I'd have probably told you it was more complicated than that as well. >even things such as "I protect lainons from themselves"(!!) I don't know the context for this but it looks like it's in the same vein as quotes of other mods saying soykaf like "fuarrrk lainons." When stuff like spam or flaming or whatever happens they're the ones who have to clean it up. Even when it comes to making decisions there's always somebody who hates what you did and wants to tell you so in no uncertain terms. >it is not amateur psychology exactly That's exactly what this is but I won't pretend to be a professional either. >I used to be like Appleman when I was a kid Are you sure you're not just projecting? At its core it's the assumption that others are like yourself and we're always more prone to bias when we're not used to what we're seeing. More importantly, what you've described is not what I've seen. I messaged him a day or two ago. I asked him what he thought about all the stuff going on and he told me. Hell, during the conversation I criticised him and he said he'd try to work on it. >>4106 >That's because he's very obviously saying "thank you very much for the constructive criticism and elaboration" robotically Obviously, yes but actually, no. Read the rest of the threads or his other posts, he's just like that. I can see how you'd come to this conclusion, you put yourself in his shoes and think "Why else would I copy paste the thank you sentence?" but he's just like "good sentence, I'll reuse it." That's not to say that there's never emotional reasoning but that's an indication of his general mood more than an intentional expression. >>4108 Yeah but that goes both ways. When he says "thank you very much" he means it. He's generally sincere. It's why he says things like "I'm protecting them from themselves" rather than "fuarrrk 'em" when someone gets angry and he has to delete a bunch of personal attacks or whatever. Anyway, this is all getting a bit pie in the sky. It's very well to say it's constructive criticism and you should take it in your stride and integrate it immediately but nobody actually does that and asking someone to sit down and do some deep emotional introspection while people are posting pictures of their face with "I support pedophilia" written across it isn't reasonable nor wise. So yeah, try to cut him a little slack when it comes to things like not sounding sincere in thanks. I do know that he's trying to improve in these areas but that's not something that happens overnight. These things aren't unsolvable in the long term though and the place isn't going to burn overnight because he writes big posts about x not being y. So yeah, this thread has gone a little off topic. The thread was started to say that there are too many warnings. It's a fair point and he's said he's looking at it and, at a guess, it's probably going to go down the same as it has the other times where we wait a while and he maybe makes some big posts and then handles it. Rest assured, he'll listen to people about this, he is being sincere when he says thanks and he knows he doesn't always come across as sincere etc. All solvable problems in their time. Despite claims, he's not alone.

>>4103 >I have never seen him admit even a minor fault, actually. It is always "you don't understand", "things are complicated" or even things such as "I protect lainons from themselves"(!!) See the attached image. >>4108 Case in point: >>3837

>>4110 >We all know what he's like but autism is a whole different level. No. This is a common misunderstanding based on the image people have of autistic people huddling in a corner playing with their own feces. Also, Asperger syndrome has been folded into autism spectrum conditions. We could use that word instead, although it makes not much difference (and no practical difference) from HFA or even PDD-NOS which is what a high school friend of mine would probably have gotten diagnosed with, except he's too busy trying to learn finnish - he is the only person I've ever met in my generation who never managed to learn english - and working as a dishwasher to bother with such abstract things as labels. >Are you sure you're not just projecting? 100% sure. At this point it's like mistaking anger in a person for something else as they're yelling slurs at you, red-faced, while throwing rotten tomatoes. Or, etc. >I don't know the context for this but it looks like it's in the same vein as quotes of other mods saying soykaf like "fuarrrk lainons." No it really wasn't. It was in a very calm and collected post. Furthermore he communicates like that always, not just then and there. >Let's consider the context of the time he said that to you. You, at the same time as a whole bunch of other people, were trying to talk to him. No. I have tried to speak to him in private about things as well. Also in public under less heated conditions. This has gone on long before the current events. The response is always and unwaveringly the same - he might play away the cards by using some vague politeness or almost-non-sequitur-statement but at the end of the day he very clearly seems to have two singular responses: confused autistic rules-lawyering and "people are upset so I will do as they say." >Read the rest of the threads or his other posts, he's just like that. Yes. He indeed always treats things like that as "Okay then I will put up with your irrelevant bullsoykaf now." You interpret the tone correctly but you fail to recognize that it is still fundamentally a dismissive way to act even if there is no hostility behind it. At this point I'm almost certain that the person I'm speaking to is Jove. I know that you want harmony, much like a small opiate-smoking hobbit trying to have their little hobbit-house, but sometimes conflict or even just severe expressions of disagreement cannot be avoided.

LEAVE APPLEMAN ALONE!

>>4129 >LEAVE APPLEMAN ALONE! half of /q/ in a nutshell

>>4130 Only because these threads always devolve into "Appleman is unfit because of X" when the topic is about something else entirely. Just look sweet this thread. No one is even taking about the warnings anymore.

>>4132 They always devolve to that because that is commonly the fundamental reason behind the problem in the fist place.

>>4119 >This is a common misunderstanding based on the image people have of autistic people huddling in a corner playing with their own feces No. Autism is a whole different level. I have worked with autistic people, actually autistic people and it's night and day. >100% sure. But still wrong. >It was in a very calm and collected post. Furthermore he communicates like that always, not just then and there. Of course he does, even with all of this I can think of only a single post that hasn't been calm and collected. He'll be consistent with things, if cleaning up some soykafposts once means that he's protected people from themselves, then of course it's always true right? More importantly, that sort of arrogance in admins is a problem but we're missing all the problem symptoms. The worst he's done is warn a bunch of people. All the usual things like shutting down criticism or trying to cover things up don't happen. >The response is always and unwaveringly the same Not for me, or for plenty of others. That's not to say he's always easy to get along with but he does explain his reasoning if you just ask nicely. >You interpret the tone correctly but you fail to recognize that it is still fundamentally a dismissive way to act Wait, excepting the tone which part of say, >>4088 is dismissive? It's entirely in the tone that it begins to seem dismissive. If you look at what he actually says it's things like "thank you very much" and "your suggestion to publicly warn less and make good replies will be considered and most likely implemented." >At this point I'm almost certain that the person I'm speaking to is Jove. Doxxxxxxed (also no capital letter please). >like a small opiate-smoking hobbit trying to have their little hobbit-house Well ok then. I guess he's not the only one who's sometimes inappropriately rude. More than that, think back. I'm not just afraid of conflict and you have seen that. You've seen me kick off at people before. You've seen me kick off at Appleman before. I just don't see the point in conflict that amounts to a misunderstanding. He's not arrogant.

>>4134 >I have worked with autistic people, actually autistic people and it's night and day. If you have worked with the severely autistic then that's the part of the spectrum that you have observed. There exists another part of it. >But still wrong. But alas, no. >That's not to say he's always easy to get along with but he does explain his reasoning if you just ask nicely. He explains his reasoning in terms of his own very strange and insular world-view. Whenever he is confronted with having to go outside of said world-view he dissembles or stonewalls. >It's entirely in the tone that it begins to seem dismissive. No. There is a layer underneath the layers you are talking about where it and the responses like it that he gives are fundamentally dismissive of others. Most people, as you do, try to interpret it in a benefit-of-the-doubt-way and fill in the blanks of his strange behavior with things they can understand. Fundamentally there is a detachment, fundamentally he interacts with people via systems and not normal social feedback, fundamentally he does not act as if he understood that he did these things. >Doxxxxxxed (also no capital letter please). ;P >Well ok then. I guess he's not the only one who's sometimes inappropriately rude. The major difference here is that I choose exactly how rude I am because I can tell how I come across, which currently happens to be "frenchman stuck in morning traffic". What Appleman does is not voluntary, indeed he plasters on superficial politeness quite heavily.

>>4119 >that's the part of the spectrum that you have observed. There exists another part of it. I know. Everybody knows, everybody's seen it but it's a spectrum and everyone exists on it somewhere. Using the word for weak cases just weakens it and strong cases are qualitatively different. >He explains his reasoning in terms of his own very strange and insular world-view The things he told me were perfectly sensible if unusual. He told me he was still considering options, that he understood the gravity of the situation and that he wanted to make sure it didn't happen again. He didn't lay it out like that, he was his usual self, but it was a far cry from indecipherable. >There is a layer underneath the layers you are talking about where it and the responses like it that he gives are fundamentally dismissive of others This layer is there for you or me or people like >>4106 but to him it doesn't seem like that. >try to interpret it in a benefit-of-the-doubt-way I'm interpreting it in a consistent way. Either he understands the nuances or he means things literally. There's the idea that underlying emotional state bleeds through, but you don't expect someone to be happy after they've been hounded for a month and then found that the people behind them have some constructive criticisms as well. You expect them to grit their teeth and take it onboard anyway and, as best he could, that's what he's done. >What Appleman does is not voluntary I'm glad we agree. Why then are we taking it as an indication that he's arrogant or dismissive? >superficial politeness What's superficial about it? I suppose the appearance, but he is trying his best and when it comes to being polite that's what counts. I know it's not ideal, especially for first impressions, but it is being talked about and like most things he'll probably go slowly and get it right but, right now, let's do one thing at a time and focus on the warnings. The rest won't happen overnight but it will happen. In the meantime cut him a little slack when it comes to being polite and rest assured he's not oblivious as to these things.

>>4146 >Using the word for weak cases just weakens it and strong cases are qualitatively different. There is no other word to use unfortunately. >The things he told me were perfectly sensible if unusual [...] He didn't lay it out like that, he was his usual self [...] Yes he is indeed very unusual, I'm glad you too admit this. >This layer is there for you or me or people like >>4106 but to him it doesn't seem like that. Yes, that would be part of the problem. He does not recognize this within himself. >Either he understands the nuances or he means things literally. Oh, I believe he is absolutely honest outside of not wanting to think outside his little box. >There's the idea that underlying emotional state bleeds through Yes, and frighteningly so. I'm not sure he realizes that he's supposed to be able to handle emotions much more fluently than he does. >I'm glad we agree. Why then are we taking it as an indication that he's arrogant or dismissive? Because voluntary does not enter into it - he's presumably been like this since early formative childhood. He seems to treat that fundamental distance as obvious and unchangeable and again, I don't think he reflects upon it. >What's superficial about it? I suppose the appearance, but he is trying his best and when it comes to being polite that's what counts. It is entirely superficial to the point of seeming sarcastic at times. That is how he comes off and that is indeed what counts to other people because that is what they see.

Here is a perfect example of rule 4 being abused by incompetent mods. The post on the screenshot contains all information necessary, context is obvious in the thread. Please revoke mods from people who don't have the capacity to follow basic discussion

>>4150 Wow. It's not like they're even trying anymore. They just see a short post and flag it without reading it.

>>4155 No, Appleman (he mentioned being the one that was handing out warnings in that thread) did read it -- notice the text of the warning -- but still warned it because it validated criticism against him. He basically warned every post in that thread that disagreed with him, or made him look bad.

>>4150 >Here is a perfect example of rule 4 being abused by incompetent mods. I was the one who posted that (S1ohy on the IRC). I don't take Appleman's warning as abuse, more that I should provide additional commentary to encourage reading it in it's entirety as opposed to letting lainons take messages out of context. In regards to the rules, in the very quoted text here you're breaking rule 3; much of what Appleman's issued warnings were of. We can have better discussion without insults and such. >>4155 Lainchan staff are trying, and from talking to them I'd say they're diligent in their duty. >>4165 Appleman warned lainons who were insulting, spilling soykaf, and not articulating their reasoning. If we are to welcome low quality drivel, we are to become the board whose name we don't speak of.

>>4169 Normal conversation has a very high degree of bullsoykaf in it. This is because people have a need to express themselves emotionally and also express themselves vaguely and using whatever comes to mind, filling in the blanks later if needed. Enforcing a rule to the effect of not being allowed to do so means that the majority of posters would not be able to express their thoughts naturally and clearly without feeling repressed or self-censored. The only kind of communication where people regularly elaborate in the length and detail that is implied by these warning is in e.g. essays or such. Some people, such as Appleman, naturally communicate in this "essay-like" manner. That is not the norm, and it is (very notably) not an indicator of quality or mental rigor either.

>>4169 >We can have better discussion without insults and such. Appleman's incompetence isn't an insult, it's a fact. >the majority of posters would not be able to express their thoughts naturally and clearly without feeling repressed or self-censored. Thank you for describing exactly how I've felt posting on here since Appleman arrived.

>>4171 >Thank you for describing exactly how I've felt posting on here since Appleman arrived. Then don't.

>>4172 I'm sick of this tired old meme. Yes, Appleman owns the site and in theory can do whatever he damn well pleases. However, doing so would alienate a good majority of its userbase and turn a lot of newcomers off to using the site. Appleman's counterproductive tendencies need to be kept in check by the community, because he doesn't know any better otherwise. If he doesn't listen to us he'll just end up slowly driving everyone away, which has obviously already begun to happen. I'm criticizing Appleman because I care about this site and community. Telling everyone who has a gripe with him to "go back to .jp" or "if you don't like it leave" doesn't solve anything, it just throws accelerants into the dumpster fire of the current situation.

>>4173 Pretty much this exactly, yes.

>>4170 A normal conversation is typically a 'rapid fire' ordeal which is certainly not the case here[1]. Expressing yourself emotionally and vaguely doesn't necessarily lead to soykaf. A kind of post that resembles those feelings could be seen as a rough draft of sorts, but this doesn't mean a lack of elaboration and effort. There's no rule implying or demanding the lack of emotion and expression, and I don't see any such thing coming into existence. Hacker News maintains high quality posts because of their enforcement of rules, this creating a culture of elaboration rather than soykaf; Is this repression?. I think aiming for that ideal a worthwhile experiment. And this is done without comments being of essay length. This very exchange is testimony to ideal lainchan conversation. [1] And I don't think resorting to your perception of normal really relevant. Normal as in natural? A natural output of humans is language, and we naturally form societies, and naturally create formalities and such. So, progression to this ideal could constitute as 'normal' and 'natural'.

>>4173 I believe you fail to see that Appleman will and does listen to advice. Your idea of needing to keep Appleman in check is similar to reducing him to a dog. Since day 1 of Appleman owning lainchan he's only once done completely 'whatever he wanted', which was the unlisting of all the boards. The community complained and he retracted this. I don't follow why lainchan would crumble and drive away people if he doesn't follow your exact demands. Quite silly.

>>4179 If you go back and look at the warnings being issued then you will see that they are quite normal discussions and, indeed, in some instances would not be out of place in a more formal fora such as a development mailing list. >>4180 It is not my demands and my reactions. It is a lot of people's demands and reactions. If I seem personally insistent it is only because I know how people will react and want to spare the community more drama and ire. I also, very specifically, want Appleman to understand what it is people react to.

For the record I did not make this thread, this is just something i've been noticing and to be honest it pisses me off. Even further I have never ever had this happen to me on a post or thread I made. Good discussions often spring out of a simple premise. There shouldnt be a need to elaborate on "why" they are asking a question, this is a imageboard. Some of the best discussions on imageboards come from one line threads, or even just images. Im not suggesting that users shouldnt be warned for making threads with yes/no answers, inflammatory comments or soykafposts. But here is a good example, and not the only one, of a pretty interesting idea that is "warned" for no reason other then it being rather simple. I feel like this is because of some sort of disconnect between what I see an OPs job being vs the people who run this site see it as. The way I see it the OP doesn't have a job other than to facilitate discussion. If the thread does that, as this one does, its fine. In fact a thread like this comes from a pretty non self centered mindset of wanting to hear about other people, in that aspect I see it as a perfect thread. Meanwhile people who post OPs with walls of text talking about their personal issues and then what amounts to "what should I do" will not be warned because "they elaborated on why they were asking the question" as if that means anything. Furthermore for the post pictured, what would you suggest he do? Talk about what skill he thinks people should all learn ahead of time? I think that actually detracts from the quality of the thread, if people disagree discussion would become largely about OP rather than his question. Meanwhile as is he can always just make a post in his own thread, something I see as being completely okay on an anonymous imageboard, posting a response to his question while keeping the OP simple (a good thing). I have always avoided intentionally posting what I think with my OP, as it looks like self centered and also as I said is a distraction and overbears other peoples responses (which is ideally why you make a thread, to hear about other people not talk about yourself). Another thing I noticed is that many of these threads are left alone until a discussion breaks out that turns sour, the OP (and the users to be fair) are then given one of these warnings, as if it was somehow their fault. It isn't, unless it started with a very biased or inflammatory comment, which is actually what you are encouraging by asking people to post "why" when they ask a good thoughtful question. I know nobody is being derezzed but you are discouraging what I see as quality threads while plenty of what I see as self centered rants are seen as okay. And thats just what I see, maybe i'm seeing wrong or don't reflect the communities ideals but I figured I should say this and see if anyone agrees.

>>1583 >Which leads to respondents seeing 2 line OP and thinking that 1 line or one word responses are a sufficient level of dialogue. How do you reckon that is? That is not what I think nor do I believe its what anyone else thinks when they see a short question. Interview questions are short and responses are usually long winded. I think you just like to use too many words and think one to two lines, even if meaningful, isnt enough somehow. Probably the most derailing and off topic post in this thread is yours.