>any post on /tg/ is necessarily on topic because the topic of /tg/ is "everything"
>it is possible to be banned from /tg/ for posting off topic
These two statements cannot both be literally true because they are logically contradictory, and there is a great deal of empirical evidence for the latter, so the former must be false.
If you deny it, you are claiming that A equals notA, or that a thing can exist outside the set of all things. Knowing this, what is the topic of /tg/?
No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything".
No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything".
No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything".
No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything".
No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything". No, it cannot be "everything".
Welcome to 4chan where you get the moderation you pay for.
I mostly post on /v/ where you can have countless lol Battleborn/MN9/etc game sucks ass and failed lets point and laugh at it threads but if you make a thread critical of a mod's favorite game (say Overwatch) you get banned and the thread is deleted for "instigating a flamewar."
But the rules effectively make every post against the rules especially with the "low quality" and "flamewar" rules and allows mods to enforce rules at their lesiure. For example:
>Anon A: red sucks, blue rules
>Anon B: blue sucks, red rules
Both could be banned for low quality/instigating a flamewar but a mod strolls in, he personally prefers blue, so Anon A is left alone while Anon B gets banned.
>>570892
Lurk more faggot and learn what is and is not /board you want to frequent/.
>>570892
Some specific threads you are talking about?
>>570909
If you want to know, please link to an archive site that includes /tg/ and isn't broken today.
But in general, either ">a fantasy setting where XYZ" is against the rules or it isn't.
>>570909
https://cuckchan.org/tg/thread/47916161/#47916161
This is a common type of "worldbuilding inspiration" thread that usually isn't against the rules.
https://cuckchan.org/tg/search/text/%22setting%20where%22/type/op/
>>570993
The first thread stopped being about traditional games about five posts in
>>571102
Most of these "worldbuilding inspiration" threads are not explicitly about traditional games.
They are only tolerated on the basis that you CAN make a traditional game out of literally anything, potentially, in the infinite realm of possibility, if you wanted to. You don't have to mention traditional games anywhere in the discussion.
>>571102
Being about traditional games is not a requirement for being on topic for /tg/, newfag.
>>571102
Most threads on /tg/ stop explicitly being about /tg/ a few posts in.
But OP is someone who needs constant, endless reminders that he is on /tg/ and that the content of a post may be used in a /tg/ activity or may inspire some form of /tg/ activity.
>>571597
If the unwritten rule means literally everything that COULD POTENTIALLY be a traditional game is on topic, the thread linked here would not have been deleted. Evidently the rule is more complex than that, which is not bad, as long as it is possible to know the rule by means other than trial and error.
What are the boundaries of posting on topic for /tg/, keeping in mind "worldbuilding inspiration" is not always allowed? Please draw a line.
For example, I know that Star Trek the TV show is inherently /tg/ related whether its traditional game adaptation is mentioned or not, but not all TV shows are /rg/ related, not even all science fiction TV shows. How do I know in advance which TV shows are /tg/ related and which are not? Saying "post whatever and see if you're banned" is useless because I want to predict which behavior will get me banned so I can avoid doing it.
>>571660
I have an idea, why don't you make a thread on /tg/ using the picture posted in the OP with a single line of greentext guaranteed to garner replies and also say pic unrelated.
>>571666
I'm sure that doesn't work, Satan.
>>571668
And why do you say that?
>>571673
Because I asked you to explain a rule, so that I can understand how it works and make predictions on a wide variety of topics. You just told me to do a single specific thing. You're mocking me.
It's the difference between teaching me a physics equation and just saying "the answer is 45" for one specific situation.
Please help me understand.
>>571683
Just go to a different website dude
>>571683
The "nebulousness" of what "is" and what "is not" /tg/ helps to keep the community small and relatively free of the cancer infesting the rest of the site. That we still have to deal with generals is a consequence of that cancer, but guys like you are also a part of the problem. Just leave 4chan because this really isn't the right website for you.
>>571694
forgot to add:
>It's the difference between teaching me a physics equation and just saying "the answer is 45" for one specific situation.
What you are doing is not like asking to learn how to solve a physics equation, it's more like you are still in first grade and wanting to have your hand held while learning your multiplication tables. How much did you even learn from your textbooks that you can't learn how to read between the fucking lines you twat.
>>571701
Oh sure, insult me more, that's likely to help!
How do I pick a TV show at random and determine logically, BEFORE posting on /tg/ ad possibly getting banned for it, whether that particular TV show is on topic for /tg/ or not?
What are the objective characteristics of a topic the mods look for to judge whether a topic fits into /tg/ or not? It can't be ONLY "is it science fiction or fantasy" because sometimes a thread about a science fiction or fantasy setting will be deemed off topic for some reason I do not currently know.
I am asking for something LIKE this. It is a visual symbol of the type of explanation I want, please do not take it literally.
This is not an issue that can be solved with "lurk moar" because I have been here since 2009, maybe longer, I forget.
>>572042
If you haven't been able to figure it out after seven years with sporadic help, you aren't going to be able to figure it out with more help.
>>572075
Why not? If a rule exists in such a way that it is possible to enforce, it must be possible to explain.
Your picture implies I'm closer to understanding than I think, which is good.
I know that Star Trek the TV show is inherently /tg/ related, regardless of whether a thread is framed in the context of a traditional game or not.
I know that not all science fiction TV shows are /tg/ related, so the reason for Star Trek being /tg/ related is not just being science fiction.
Where is the dividing line?
I know that a thread in the format "imagine a fantasy setting where XYZ" is sometimes /tg/ related and sometimes not.
Some of those threads were political flame bait, some were fetish trolling, and other topics clearly intended to offend rather than discuss. That's fine.
However, not all threads in that format which were deleted possessed such characteristics.
Many seem to have been deleted for no reason at all, and many were never deleted despite being obvious trolls or flames.
I cannot induct a rule from that experience, but I am self-aware enough to admit it might make sense to someone else.
Where is the dividing line?
>>571694
>The "nebulousness" of what "is" and what "is not" /tg/ helps to keep the community small and relatively free of the cancer infesting the rest of the site.
It does exactly the opposite.
Maybe you can approach my question another way. I realize different anons may not agree perfectly on the finer details of this rule.
When you're about to post on /tg/, do you ever think for a moment "does this topic fit within the boundaries of /tg/?", and if so, what characteristics do you look for to determine that?
If you can't explain the rule well enough to work in all cases, at least try to tell me what YOU do.
>>572246
I've underlined the relevant rule from >>5499177 that you refused to consider because you were focused on another part of what he was saying to make your faulty leap of logic (the red-colored text saying "By this logic: x).
>>572264
https://cuckchan.org/tg/thread/47916161/#47916161
"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: Imagine a fantasy setting where every man has a sword"
"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: Imagine a contemporary setting where every man has a gun"
"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: Imagine a science fiction setting where every man has a permeating disrupto-caster"
The thread linked here was deleted, and at least one anon replying to it was banned for "posting off topic", so apparently it fell outside the dividing line.
It was a "worldbuilding inspiration" thread, and though I tire of seeing this sort of thread on /tg/, multiple anons have repeatedly claimed that such threads CANNOT be off-topic.
Please explain the difference. Is it on-topic to make a thread with the format ">imagine a fantasy setting where XYZ" or not?
Or if there are additional criteria beyond the format ">imagine a fantasy setting where XYZ" that make it sometimes on-topic and sometimes off-topic, I would like to know them now.
>>572309
Was the one banned you?
I kid, but I have given you all the help you need. Now you have to put what you have learned into practice and figure out how to fill any gaps in your knowledge yourself.
>>572309
You do know that the mods delete on-topic threads all the damn time? Even if a thread meanders a bit but still keeps itself heading in the right direction is not exempt from such pruning, as a lot of it is based on how whatever mod that comes across that thread thinks. And they are all insane.
>>572348
I haven't learned a damn thing.
You said to add "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" onto every thread with the format ">imagine a fantasy setting where XYZ" and that will determine whether it's on-topic or not. Yet it clearly doesn't work that way every time, or else threads with the format ">imagine a fantasy setting where XYZ" would NEVER be off-topic.
Either it's allowed or it's not allowed, and if there are exceptions, I failed to notice a pattern after 7 years. You give me no choice but to continue to be banned every week for actions I thought were okay because I see other anons do the exact same thing.
