This board is in such a deplorable state that we have to do something about it. I've been holding off from posting meta-discussion up until now, but i've decided it is time to say something, as i'm of the opinion that even this thread that you are reading in right now is of higher quality than 90% of the threads currently up on the catalogue of this board.
This board is supposed to contain "a high level of discourse". It's made for "discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages, etc." (quotes from the sticky). I'm not gonna quote the sticky more, it's right there for everyone who wants to read (you should go read it right now if you haven't).
Now, the quality of most threads obviously don't meet the criteria stipulated in the sticky. I'm going to give a few examples of low-quality threads, my percieved reasons for why these threads degrade the quality of the discussion on the board, and my suggestions to improve the situation.
>"What if?" -threads.
Also known as "alternate history". These threads may be interesting, but contain mostly baseless speculation. The OP will post a question, for example: "What if Napoleon hadn't invaded Russia, what would have happened?". In these threads any response is valid. Since no one can possibly know what would have happened, had history taken another course than that which it did in fact take, discussion devolves into a war of opinions. My suggestion for dealing with these threads is to confine them into one (or a few) general, running "Alternate history" threads.
>One-line-question -threads.
These are a few examples from the catalogue:
>"We're the Nazis Übermensch?"
>"Was there ever a perfectly secular country?"
>"Did the Holocaust have any benefits for the Third Reich"
The problem with these threadstarts is that they don't even come near deep and meaningful discussion. The only suggestion i can give here, is to WRITE A DECENT FIRST POST! Explain your thoughts about the subject matter. If you came here to spark discussion, don't just drop a sentence and hope for the best.
>"Tell me about X" -threads.
Also known as "Please google this for me, /his/" threads. The OP wants an in-depth essay on his choice matter, but gives no input himself. Maybe he posted a relevant picture at best. This kind of thread is awful for much the same reasons as the One-line-questions.
>Name-dropping -threads.
Example threadstarts of these are: "Who is your favorite emperor /his?", "Post god-tier gods ITT", "What's your favorite period of history?" The problem with these threads is that the majority of posters will simply drop off a name. The thread will ultimately consist of a huge list of names / empires / musicians / car models / goat breeds etc. Without an incentive for discussion in the originalpost, the thread just becomes a sterile registry of names.
>Reading recommendations.
People are starting entire new threads in order to ask for a recommendation of source material which to read regarding their choice subject. The issue being (of course) that such a question does not warrant an entire thread. These type of questions need a dedicated thread, no doubt. Other, more long-running boards like /lit/ already have a tradition of recommendation threads. Perhaps you could should ask over there instead?
Now this all being said, i suggest that posters need to ask themselves the 3 following questions before they start a thread:
1. Could i answer this question with a quick google search?
2. Have i supplied enough initial information to spark intellectual discourse?
3. Is there already an active thread in the catalogue for this subject?
These three different questions correspond to 3 hypothetical general threads that i would like to see occurring in the catalogue here on /his/, these being:
1. Reading / Watching Recommendation Thread.
2. Alternate History Speculation Thread.
3. Stupid Questions Thread.
Of course, these are just my personal suggestions.
To janitors i want to say: Please do your job (heh) and delete low quality threads! Threads that are obviously shitposting, threads like "Redpill me on X", "Was he a meme /his/?" "What went wrong?" "When did you grow out of atheism?" "Who is your historical waifu?" "Time for dank memes /his/" don't belong on this board.
I would not have started this thread if i did not feel some sense of affection for this board and its users. I just want to implore everyone to remember that this board is supposed to contain high-tier discussion. We are gathered here because of our interest in history and the humanities. Meta-threads such as this one do not belong on the board, and this thread should not be necessary, if the situation wasn't as horrible as it is right now. In a nutshell, my hope is that the quality of threadstarts should improve, the amount of shitposting go down significantly, and that actual legitimate discussion threads should survive a lot longer due to the reduction in the daily amount of threadstarts.
>>674678
I strongly agree OP, but I there is an issue with you suggesting generals when the sticky warns against making generals.
Honestly just delete this stupid board. There is no worse medium for a serious, substantive discussion than an imageboard.
You forgot the thinly veiled /pol/ rally threads like 'when was scientific racism debunked'
You fucking nigger, 4chan is for having fun. Your idea of fun seems to be shitting rules out of your loose asshole, but my idea of fun is having a informal discussion about various subjects, like the ones we have here.
>the discussions aren't deep
The quick-posting character of 4chan allows for discussions to be filled with dank maymays and 4chan's very own language and intersubjectivity. That doesn't make the discussions any less deep. We are contantly talking about highly erudite subjects, and everyone here is at least above average intelligent and can and does discuss in depth subjects which are pretty much unknwown to the general public. We just do it through reaction images and greentext. Get over it.
Also, I invite you to go to ANY other board in 4chan, and come back here and DARE saying there is a shitposting problem in /his/
honestly why are you expecting anything different from 4chan? this board is humorous shitposting with a history theme. if you thought it would be a place of true and honest discourse you're in the wrong place
>>674678
I don't necessarily believe one-line question threads are inherently bad, though many of the ones we see on this board are of dubious quality, it all depends if the question is able to spark of a serious discussion or not, unfortunately a lot of those that do sparrk discussion rely on loaded questions such as '*When was* scientific racism debunked?' rather than asking the neutral question on whenever it has been debunked or not. Though I agree an OP should at least try to add more content to their post if able to, even just explaining why they are asking their question, what in speififc they're curious about, giving their own opinion when it comes to something subjective like philosophy or ideology.
>>674742
I also share the concern on generals, not just due to them being warned about in sticky, but in general (pun not intended) they tend to develop into rather toxic environment, and communities of their own, the only sort of general I coiod condone would be dedicated request/recommendation threads
>>674742
I'm not sure why the sticky discourages general threads. Fact is that we need a few generals, such as the ones i suggested, in order to consolidate the vast amounts of threads created daily. This would slow down the "speed" of the board, allowing for more serious discussion to take place, as the rate with which threads fall off the board will decrease.
>>674774
Memes are indeed fun, and fun is allowed on this board, however i've stated my case. There exists specific boards for meme:ing, such as /s4s/, if that's your thing.
>>674774
>The quick-posting character of 4chan allows for discussions to be filled with dank maymays and 4chan's very own language and intersubjectivity. That doesn't make the discussions any less deep.
kill yourself desu senpai
/pol/ colonies in /his/ are the #1 worst thing here.
I use /his/ because it is exactly what I am interested in, the Humanities.
I just so happen to enjoy 4chan's format and such as well, making it absolutely perfect. OP has a point.
>>674774
>The quick-posting character of 4chan allows for discussions to be filled with dank maymays and 4chan's very own language and intersubjectivity
Is that calling someone a nigger rather than addressing their points?
>Also, I invite you to go to ANY other board in 4chan, and come back here and DARE saying there is a shitposting problem in /his/
/m/, there's a shitposting problem in /his/
>>674792
but /m/ is full of shitposting
>>674678
Nice meta thread you fucking dweeb.
you pretentious faggots that want a board that moves like molasses need to quit crying
if you don't like a thread then don't reply to it, it's very simple
if you want a deep discussion then make a thread about it or go discuss Marxism and the cultural benefits of atheism on the /r/history hugbox where you'll never find a genuine debate
if you want a non-ded board then you obviously need to allow for it to breathe a little and not smother it with condescending retardation, I do agree one liner OPs are kinda shit but interesting threads can also come of it name-dropping only is definitely shit
>>674862
>hugbox
If there was a field guide to Reddit spotting, this would be the entire text. Sage.
To be honest, /his/ is in a good place right now. It is not an echo chamber (unlike /pol/ or certain subreddits) and the level of discourse is about as high as it can be for an imageboard.
It also allows participation from less-educated anons and from real historians. If you actually studied the subject, by all means, get yourself a tripcode and start lifting the general level of discourse.
>generals
>ever
Do you want to ruin the board OP?
>>674759
> I don't like it
> nobody else should either
Please go back to /pol/ or reddit.
>>674678
You should open good threads to encourage the intellectual discourse that you like. But I guess you are just as shallow as the people you antagonize
>>674686
>3 hypothetical general threads
Sticky states no generals. I thought you read the sticky?
In the past when I reported mods actually deleted the posts(yes yes admitting I reported, do your job and b& me fagit) now they seem to not do it as much
I swear this board was surprisingly ok for a while, but things have gone south since although I thinkthere possibility for improvement, a good first step is making sure anons actually report shitty posts, although it's hard to cram this into their heads and mods need to actually delete rightfully reported posts.
>>674679
>>674678
Meta threads go on >>>/q/
Should /q/ be unavailable, try >>>/b/
Because "stahp liking what I don't like" is for /b/ananas.
Personally, my only complaint is that the mods need to be a bit more on the ball at catching thinly veiled /pol/ threads (worse when they aren't veiled at all, but given the potential for overlap...)
Beyond that however, the board is tolerable, if not indeed, about as good as one could reasonably expect, for history/philosophy thread on 4chan. Moderating for "quality" is simply not something we do around these here parts, at best, we moderate for category.
>>674678
This board was created in the same vein that /mlp/ was. We are a containment board first and foremost to get religious and social science out of the other boards.
This board is shit and always will be shit. What did you expect aside from shit when most of the browsers are shit?
>>674678
Not to encourage shitposting, but do you think 4chan is really the right website for thought out, well written, intellectual discourse? It sounds like what you are looking for is a history forum, but on 4chan, why not just go to a history forum then?
>>674678
Good thread OP, pretty much voiced my concerns as a lurker.
>>676448
>>676525
>>674862
It's obvious 4chan isn't the place for any kind of "intellectual discourse", but that doesn't mean it has to be as shit as the constant alternate history and 4th reich wank threads.
Honestly I don't like the Christfaggotry on the board either, but at least there's some depth there.
>>674678
I agree with all of this.
>>674782
The generals you posited aren't a bad idea, iirc the original concern was that we'd end up with cliqueish generals for eras or subjects like a hypothetical "/Roma/" for instance, where one would end up in the /v/ paradox of "I want to talk about Rome, but /roma/ is a tripfaggy little circlejerk that just posts anime girls in armor (or whatever dumb thing) instead of talking about Rome, but if I try to talk about it outside of /roma/ I get told to gb2>>>/roma/". There was also concern that a nazi general would turn up as a /pol/ embassy.
>>674862
Frankly, I'd prefer a slow moving but intelligent board over a quick board where I make a thread with a paragraph of interesting information about Egypt I'd like to discuss and upon posting it, get swarmed with WE's in two minutes.
>>674679
OOH BOY ONE OF MY THREADS GOT INTO YOUR LITTLE DISCUSSION THAT WILL MAKE NO CHANGES WHAT SO EVER!!!!!!!1
:DDDDDDDDDDDD
>benis
>>677442
t. buttmad
Bump
