No banners, make a banners thread

/vvv/ - vidya vidya vidya!

a fun /v/


New Reply on thread #287
X
Max 20 files0 B total
[New Reply]

[Index] [Catalog] [Banners] [Logs]
Posting mode: Reply [Return]


thumbnail of rule.png
thumbnail of rule.png
rule png
(25 KB, 850x409)
> 1 : if it's not atleast somewhat video game related or board related, take it to /b/.

> 2 : spam will NOT be tolerated.

> 3 : if you cannot handle the banter or as you call posts you don't like "shitposts", you really should take your no fun allowed ass back to /v/ or 8chan

> Remember that no matter the rules of the board, all global rules apply

critique of these rules would be nice.
> having rules on an alt board
How about you get rid of them. It suits /am/ just fine.
 >>/288/
> getting anal about 3 rules

as much as I like /am/, this isn't /am/. it ain't all that bad tho, atleast if you make an ea thread, It won't get deleted
thumbnail of aloha snackbar.jpeg
thumbnail of aloha snackbar.jpeg
aloha... jpeg
(24.62 KB, 286x400)
Post your face when this "hurr durr all other vidya boards are rulecucks" shithole has had more discussion about rules than anywhere else.
thumbnail of rules huh.jpg
thumbnail of rules huh.jpg
rules huh jpg
(472.97 KB, 1280x720)
these read more like a guidelines than rules

...I guess you're making some progress... maybe?

Why can't you see that you shouldn't be aiming at having fewer rules. You're missing the point. Rules don't work, they don't solve the issues you're trying to use them against. 
And most importantly rules cannot produce better content.

As for spam consider the following:
"No spam" as a written rule is retarded in every sense.
It has been used to ban things that don't even resemble spam in the past.
Second, if we assume that we all agree on what spam means, which is flooding, then it's assumed by anyone with a brain that the rule applies to all boards unless the board is called /intl/.
Third, saying you will ban spammers does nothing, because the spammers in question don't care about being banned in your board and will spam anyways.

When a BO adds "no spam" as a written rule, you can tell he has no idea what he's doing.
thumbnail of 1355455805549.jpg
thumbnail of 1355455805549.jpg
1355455805549 jpg
(109.38 KB, 1347x502)
 >>/294/
You're thinking about it wrong way.
The "no spam" rule is useless as explained above.

The on-topic rule is harmful. No one is qualified to act as a quality control on an imageboard, no one besides Anonymous themselves. Anonymous that relinquishes his right to self moderate ends up as whiny, dull, mod reliant faggot. 

Let's say OP wants to talk about movies of David Lynch. He'll post on here but either he won't get any replies or they will be offtopic (or in case of /v/ tier boards pathetic whines) so OP will realise video game board might not be the place to find people that would like to talk about topic he's interested in. In case he's retarded he'll attempt to start a thread couple times more but the community will act roughly the same - disinterested.

Where are your rules now?
 >>/303/
wait if he wants to talk about a movie, he can go or create a movie board now if the anon wants to talk about the movie game, that would be allowed.

movies aren't games cholo.
thumbnail of rulecuckery.png
thumbnail of rulecuckery.png
rulecuckery png
(386.43 KB, 832x1392)
 >>/304/
Why would I even need to explain that on what was once a part of freeposting federation? They're useless for what they're advertised to do. They're useful for justifying power abuse.
 >>/315/
V-V-V-VIRGIN(s)

Not good enough?
 >>/308/
Wasn't it Moots that it didn't work, and /pol/'s rulecuckery just led to political stagnation. 
Doubly so, didn't Stormfags simply spawn from making nazism a meme?

Post(s) action:


Moderation Help
Scope:
Duration: Days

Ban Type:


26 replies | 9 file
New Reply on thread #287
Max 20 files0 B total