(untitled)

Restore the visual snow thread immediately.

>>11625 If you break the rules we will delete your post. Do it repeatedly and you'll be derezzed. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. Do not spam or advertise unrelated content. Make a better thread, and have actual discussion and any future threads won't be deleted for Rule violations, until they violate the rules.

>>11628 High quality discussion was ongoing. So intervention was not only disruptive, someone took it upon themselves to delete other people's work, which itself contained an investment of time and energy. This sort of behavior is not proper nor should it be tolerated in any but the most clear cut "this is a net negative" case. This seems to be the fallacy that the seed was flawed, and therefore, all which comes from it will also be flawed. The "genetics fallacy". No.

>>11628 >You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. What makes you say that? I feel like the whole thread was that. People sharing their opinions and asking questions. >Do not spam or advertise unrelated content. What was the unrelated content? I don't see how it was being advertised or spammed. >have actual discussion What makes it illegitimate? I hope I don't come off as rude, I'm genuinely confused about it so I'm curious what you think? I don't see the reason why at all.

>>11628 You need to accept that you're not getting trolled. The deletion do that thread was genuinely perplexing and uncalled for. It was not a soykaf post at all and had better discussion than many other threads. It totally fit into lainchan board culture which many undeleted /hum/ posts do not.

>>11628 but the discussion was fine i posted in the first thread but now im too scared to post in any further threads it genuinely destroyed the discussion for me and i dont understand why

>>11634 The discussion was more than fine. It was perfect.

Apparently if a thread isn't about transgenderism or pop philosophy it doesn't belong on this website.

For context: https://archive.is/y5rLN https://archive.ph/yyXym

>>11632 To elaborate, forgot to mention this: I understand the idea that the OP's post wasn't too good. It didn't really contain any questions or interesting information. The actual discussion turned out very well, though, so I don't understand why the whole thread was deleted rather than the OP being told off for poor posting. I'm curious about this and would appreciate a response. Personally I find that information on this subject is pretty hard to find and I was happy to learn from other people about it, and I think removing the whole thread was overall destructive.

Was the OP "too short"? If so, that's a stupid metric, it communicated around the same amount of information as other OPs like https://lainchan.org/vis/res/8750.html , https://lainchan.org/music/res/10945.html , https://lainchan.org/%CE%A9/res/66335.html but was just less rambly about it. But sure, let's say somehow the OP was a rulebreaking post. The fact is, you deleted 10 rule abiding reply posts just to spite the OP of the single rulebreaking post, who probably won't even visit the site again.

>>11638 I believe it was purely destructive. Nothing was lost by its presence, nothing was gained by its removal.

>>11636 I'd prefer that pop philo and trannies weren't here, to be honest with you. >>11639 >Was the OP "too short"? To you, that is a retarded metric. It's people who have been here for more than a few weeks feel differently.

>>11641 As bad as "pop philo and trannies" are, I still prefer them to an idiot like you. >few weeks Real self report seeing the thresholds newfigs like you pick, since you just know that they're just barely past whatever threshold they've picked.

>>11644 I've been here since the first week this site was launched. You just didn't lurk enough.

>>11645 The site wasn't launched a few weeks ago, smart one.

>>11646 >smart one. Not him, but only snotty snarky little soykafheads who are miserable use this particular phrase.

>>11647 Not him, but you are also a smart one :D

>>11646 I've seriously been here for nearly a decade. I don't think you belong if you still haven't figured it out.

>>11648 >Not him, but you are also a smart one :D I know.

>>11649 Wow, nearly a decade? I'm impressed. So in other words you've only been on the site 1 year longer than me and you think that means you get to dictate to all the other users what their opinion should be.

>>11651 This is the stupidest soykaf I've ever seen. Get the fuarrrk out of my thread.

>>11652 Explain how it's your thread and also explain why you sound like a halfchan immigrant despite supposedly using this site for "nearly a decade".

>>11653 I'm not him, momo. And I claim ownership of the thread in the sense of being its creator. ie, I'm not going to say "this is of me, but not me, and now belongs to everyone" rather I'm simply saying "this is mine, I created it, get the fuarrrk out." k? k. thx, bye.

>>11654 Sorry to bother you sir, didn't realize I needed your permission to post in your thread. Won't make this mistake again, please be assured.

>>11655 Okay, good. Much appreciated. ^_^

>>11632 >>11638 Because the opening post didn't sufficient elaborate or frame the discussion it wanted to have. As such it was also off topic for /hum/, it wasn't until I spent 15 minutes researching that I was able to clarify the actual desired topic and its relation to /hum/ supposedly. The follow up replies were just short questions because of the lack of clarification in the opening post, and then short closed answers because of the lack of context and clarification in previous replies. The unrelated content was Visual Snow thread because it has been spammed multiple times , without any actual discussion or clarification of context. >>I hope I don't come off as rude, I'm genuinely confused about it so I'm curious what you think? I don't see the reason why at all. I don't know what you come off as , if you were curious what I think , then you actually ask me instead of asking leading questions in a manner that seems to be incomplete and in bad faith. >>11638 The whole thread was deleted rather than OP being warned because this is the 6th time I have seen this level of OP being posted, and I deleted it , instead of warning because I had warned the previous 5 times. The bickering that follows in this thread is an example of the bickering that gets /hum/ threads deleted instead of their OP post just warned or the bickering posts just deleted multiple times to mop up the thread, to prevent derails. This thread stays because it is /q/ thread. However this thread will be locked because >>>/hum/68111 exists. It has been warned this time, see I listen. To all the people asking why other terrible / soykaf / rule violating threads on /hum/ haven't be deleted yet, it is because we are short staffed , and mopping up long running threads takes time, lest I delete those threads whole and then your complaining about that continues. >>11639 Different boards , unfortunately have different standards regarding the OP elaboration and OP character length. >> The fact is, you deleted 10 rule abiding reply posts just to spite the OP of the single rulebreaking post, who probably won't even visit the site again. This isn't really the fact, but I would do it again, because it is Rule 1, If you break the rules we will delete your post. Do it repeatedly and you'll be derezzed.