Why is this allowed on /tg/? Why is it not deleted for being off topic?
The rule says: "Board games, paper games, war games, card games, etc. go here!"
Is it about a board game? No. Is it about a paper game? No. Is it about a war game? No. Is it about a card game? No.
Is there any indication that this imaginary ">a thing happened" is inside a game or the setting of a particular game? No.
Is the thread itself a game? Well that depends on whether OP makes a back-and-forth interaction. In practically every instance, no. They just shit out a single line of greentext and leave.
Does "etc." include literally every topic imaginable? Then it would be impossible to be banned for posting off topic, which is demonstrably not the case.
If it isn't related to the topic of the board, it's off topic. The rule is written. Either the rule is true and should be enforced, or it is false and should be amended.
You don't allow ">a thing happened" on multiple boards including /mlp/, so what's the difference?
do you report it?
>>549548
Yes, every time I've seen it, for years.
>>549520
>Is there any indication that this imaginary ">a thing happened" is inside a game or the setting of a particular game?
It being on /tg/ is a pretty good indication.
I know that you're the guy who wants literally everything constantly spelled out for you (Or at the very least, you post the same as the guy who asks these questions in /tg/ and then elaborates that they want everyone to explicitly say that it either happened in a game or is needed inspiration for something that will happen in a game they run), but constantly spelling it out for you is tedious, which is why nobody does it.
I agree that single lines of greentext are pretty worthless, but I'm going to keep calling you out for having no ability to use deductive reasoning and then expecting everyone else to make up for it.
>>549680
>It being on /tg/ is a pretty good indication.
So literally anything on /tg/ is automatically a traditional game by virtue of being on /tg/ no matter what?
If that were true, it would be impossible to be banned for posting off topic.
>>549709
Unless something is specifically talking about the technical parts of non-/tg/ forms of media, it's /tg/.
Why? Because you can run basically anything in /tg/ games. Settings can be adapted from other forms of media and are often made from scratch. Just imagine that "I'm going to run/am running/am playing [insert game of your choice here], using this setting or with this premise involved or potentially with this premise involved and don't need crunch" is amended on the end of posts that you don't get and you'll save yourself so much stress and save the rest of us from your constant failure to deduce what's going on.
But you've already been told this on /tg/ so I don't know why I'm bothering here.
>>549917
Why imply it and not say it?
Can I post a thread about a piece of dog shit stuck under my shoe, and say IT'S IMPLIED TO BE WORLDBUILDING INSPIRATION FOR PIECE OF DOG SHIT RPG SETTING when called out for literal shit posting?
Either literally every topic imaginable is traditional games, or only traditional games are traditional games. Either the rule as written is true or it's false. All or nothing. Black and white. Consistency. Justice.
I will now screencap your claim that literally everything is /tg/ and prove it wrong.
>>549937
>Why imply it and not say it?
Because it should be obvious when you're talking about a setting or something that is clearly part of a setting.
>Can I post a thread about a piece of dog shit stuck under my shoe, and say IT'S IMPLIED TO BE WORLDBUILDING INSPIRATION FOR PIECE OF DOG SHIT RPG SETTING when called out for literal shit posting?
Is that a setting or clearly part of a setting? No? Well then maybe you do need to spell out what you're going to do with it.
>Either literally every topic imaginable is traditional games, or only traditional games are traditional games. Either the rule as written is true or it's false. All or nothing. Black and white. Consistency. Justice.
More like mid-functioning autism.
>I will now screencap your claim that literally everything is /tg/ and prove it wrong.
I'm surprised you didn't do it the last time, considering that this conversation is going exactly the same way, right down to your dogshit strawman.
>>549944
>Is that a setting or clearly part of a setting?
Are these lines of greentext clearly part of a setting? What is your limit for that?
>>>/tg/47569641
>>>/tg/47558994
>>>/tg/47562844
>>>/tg/47523359
>>>/tg/47511198
I mean yeah, you CAN in theory make up a setting where these things happen. Just like you CAN make up a setting where someone somewhere gets a piece of dog shit stuck under their shoe. That doesn't narrow it down. Pretty much all fiction that isn't super avant-garde takes place in a setting of some sort.
>>549960
>That doesn't narrow it down. Pretty much all fiction that isn't super avant-garde takes place in a setting of some sort.
Why do you need it narrowed down? I get that you literally cannot comprehend something being /tg/ unless it is explicitly stated, but really. What is your stance here? Are you looking for some kind of minimum quality rule? Because it seems like you personally think that those things "aren't /tg/" because they aren't given enough meta detail.
It also seems like you think you deserve to be the arbiter of what is and isn't /tg/. I'm glad that you aren't though, since you'd be like a worse version of nazimod.
Incidentally, since you need everything completely spelled out for you, those blatant and repeated shitposts that were just made and deleted (Elf slave wat do and redeemed succubus so far deleted. Spoony and hackgax are still up currently.) are things that shouldn't be on /tg/ and you should not try to use my stance on hypothetical situation threads as tacit approval of those. I don't know if you could actually make that connection or not, but since you could create a strawman, I have to assume that you do have some understanding of implications, even if you don't completely grasp them.
>>549967
Well now you've got me confused. I thought you were saying it's ALL okay, but now you say SOME of it is on topic and SOME of it is off topic?
Please explain what makes
>You successfully open the lock of an old traveller's chest.
perfectly fine and
>The goddess is a redeemed succubus.
off topic.
>>549980
The old redeemed succubus threads were blatant smutposts.
>>549980
>I thought you were saying it's ALL okay, but now you say SOME of it is on topic and SOME of it is off topic?
That was always just a strawman of your own creation.
The reason why you think it's off-topic is the problem here.
>The goddess is a redeemed succubus
is a reference to old shitposts and is literally constantly repeated.
>You successfully open the lock of an old traveller's chest.
Is not an old shitpost and is not literally copypasta. It's just vaguely low quality. It is not "not /tg/" because of its content, because its content is a very minor "what happens next" scenario. Scenarios are the stepping stones of campaigns, which are extremely relevant topics to RPGs and some Wargames, which are extremely relevant to /tg/. So it does not break any relevancy rule. In fact, redeemed succubus assfat goddess IS relevant to /tg/ and does not break /tg/ board rules, but it is also low quality shitposting, which is against several global rules.
>>549987
>because its content is a very minor "what happens next" scenario
There is a piece of dog shit stuck under my shoe. That is a very minor "what happens next" scenario. I might attempt to scrape it off now, and/or clean my shoes when I get home. But I might not. What happens next? You decide!
>>549990
Your dogshit post is low quality bait created solely to make some kind of meta point and therefore breaks global rules 3, 6, and 8.
It doesn't break /tg/ rule 1.
>>549980
>The goddess is a redeemed succubus.
https://www.4chan.org/bans
BAN
EVASION
you idiot
>>549993
How can you possibly judge an anon's intent based solely on the sequence of words on screen? You can't read minds.
Maybe someone just really wants to run a campaign and that dog shit is an essential part of the setting!
>>550006
You've stated your intent clearly.
And also, you're literally the last person to be talking about reading intent, since you are entirely incapable of doing so and have openly stated that you want to be explicitly told the intent of every thread on /tg/.
>>550006
This is funny coming from someone who wants people to explain in detail how their thread is /tg/ related.
>>550008
>You've stated your intent clearly.
It wouldn't necessarily be me doing that. I'm speaking in general.
When someone posts ">a thing happened", how can you tell if it's an off-topic shitpost or if it's ~worldbuilding inspiration~ for a traditional game? Teach me your ways.
>>550013
It's called "lurk moar, faggot." It's easy to do and you learn by observing.
>>550028
If a single line of greentext thread involves either real people, sex, generally disgusting things or any combination of the three, but is NOT posted multiple times, is it a traditional game?
>>550033
The first time it's posted, sure. It might still trip some global rules though.
No True Scotsman is a shit way to determine what belongs on /tg/ and I'm glad we don't use it.
>>550036
Okay, good to know.
So why does anyone ever get banned from /tg/ for posting off topic then?
>>550046
You'll know when it happens to you.
>>550046
Because it gets posted multiple times or is directly and unquestionably talking about the mechanics of a vidya game.
Because I know you're the same fucker, that Overwatch thread a few days ago was /tg/ because it was about the setting (Specifically looking for characters that would fit in the setting). A thread about converting the game into /tg/ mechanics would also be /tg/. A thread about the game itself or about the people who developed or play the game wouldn't be /tg/.
>>550052
I think I get it. I honestly thought someone was slacking off and enforcing the rule inconsistently. I'm sorry.
>>549520
It's not allowed. Call the police.
>>550052
Now explain this.
1. Many anons repeatedly claim that "everything is /tg/ related", so if they are correct, logically NOTHING can be off topic. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to see this.
2. A single line of greentext describing an imaginary thing happening is automatically on topic for /tg/ by virtue of it being posted on /tg/, and it doesn't need to be framed in the context of a game.
3. This line of greentext was not posted multiple times. It was not directly and unquestionably talking about the mechanics of a vidya game. It was not inherently disgusting or inflammatory.
4. No, the image had nothing to do with it. The reason for this ban was OFF TOPIC, not COMPLAINING, so it has to be because something about my single line of greentext was off topic.
>>550750
The image you used most likely had something to do with it, as it made it look like it was a off-topic meta-thread. That you need these things pointed out is failure on your part.
To anyone other than him watching this thread:
Would speech therapy help in learning how to infer information in text conversations? I get that it helps teach people how to talk, I'm just not sure if it helps with the other parts of conversation.
>>550768
It wasn't an off-topic meta-thread. It was a perfectly on-topic single line of greentext thread.
Would it help if I had written "pic unrelated"?
>>550769
You make it sound like that would have changed anything. You are something of a known quantity and would get reported, much like what happened with all of the meta-threads over the years.
>>550771
That doesn't make any sense. Are you saying I didn't actually break a rule, some mod just felt like making me suffer?
>>550774
You broke a rule. Even if you said pic unrelated, you would still be breaking a rule. It seems that you really shouldn't be posting on 4chan if you cannot realize this.
>>550783
>You broke a rule.
Which rule? My thread was not off-topic. There's no rule against posting screencaps.
>>550850
Are you literally autistic? You can get banned for images. You'd get banned if you posted porn and said "pic unrelated" and the content of your post was discussing some rule from 40k.
You probably got banned because you're trying to start shitty meta threads which are not /tg/ no matter how you slice it.
>>550768
There is only a correlation between breaking the rules and getting banned. The actual CAUSATION is that the mods felt like banning you that day in their human brain. Not that the perfect logical judge determined that you violated a directive and acted accordingly. That the fuzzy and wishy washy human on the other end of the glowing rectangle you stare at all day decided you should be banned in their brain.
Hope that clears things up.
>>549987
So quests are in fact /tg/.
Gotcha.
>>551762
I'm glad we agree.
>>551762
Quests are /qst/ right now dude :^)
>>552520
No, questfags stuck around on /tg/ to complain that no one uses /qst/, and that by being put in 'some secret back alley with a puzzle door'* it's abuse of them and their right to have their niche within a niche (RP forum on a Indonesian mud-painting forum) broadcasted to a wide audience. The irony of this seems to have escaped them.
*not a joke, by the way. >>552392
They think that they need /tg/ to 'advertise'. Because that's the point of 4chan- advertising off-topic threads on various boards. I'm amazed they aren't protesting for the right to run quests on /d/.
>>552550
I have seen no complaining on /tg/ by questfags since /qst/ went live. The only complaints I have seen are threads created by anti-questfags, on /tg/ mind you, that deleted within a few hours regularly asking why the mods have yet to force quests onto /qst/.
>>552575
Usually questfags are good enough to keep their bitching to quest threads, which can be easily filtered, and small shitposting in other more general threads like art dumps. Though I haven't seen any specific antiquest threads in a long while, since soon after the board was originally put in place.
Though there is no good reason why quests are still on /tg/. There's literally a board devoted to them, with all the specialized tools to run quests, and a sticky telling people who want quests to go use /qst/. There's no good excuse for them to still be on /tg/, whether or not you agree with the need for a separate board in the first place. I can remember the Great Pony Purge of 2012, and it was much cleaner to just throw them into the containment board and banhammer the ones who tried to get out. Messy, but the conditioning set in quickly, and the ban on mlp outside of /mlp/ is still respected.
>>552581
The sticky isn't telling people to move. The only ones telling people to move to /qst/ are a group of anons that have been assblasted ever since /a/'s anti-quest bitchfit got a bunch of easily killed threads sent to /tg/.
>>552586
C'mon, man, the implication is clear.
>new trial board added specifically for quests
>have an open mind and have fun
They didn't come out and say, "Questfags fuck off, we're full. You can crash on /qst/ if you want," which IMO was a mistake, but it's a blatantly obvious prod to them to get their asses moving.
>>552590
Yes, and you know what you're full of?
Jokes aside, looks like you'll be getting your wish - we have another overzealous janitor tagging every thread he doesn't personally like.
I hope he likes the games you like, otherwise you're in for a pretty horrific surprise.
>>552602
>I hope he likes the games you like, otherwise you're in for a pretty horrific surprise.
Fortunately, I like traditional games, so that's not going to be a problem. I also like roleplaying, and maybe one day I'll find something on /qst/ worth the investment.
But speak true- Is he going after games he doesn't like, or is he going after threads that aren't really /tg/ at all? What got removed that put your knickers in a twist, and were any of the threads actually about a game, or just threads that someone had Six Degrees of /tg/ with to justify them being on the board? I know I got a warning for shitposting in a thread that wasn't actually /tg/.
