Global rule suggestion (that is not enforced on several boards):
>"OP can define rules for OP's own thread. If you don't like OP's thread hide it. If you REALLY don't like OP's thread, hide it and make an opposite thread to parody it."
Remember back when we had forum games on /b/? Remember quest threads? Remember when people actually listened to you when you said "no futa" on /d/? Remember "ITT: we have a flame war over which girlscout cookies are the best" and things like that?
I really like /soc/'s "Respect the gender of threads" rule and I think there's something that other boards could really gain from not being allowed to shit all over a thread just because they don't like it.
This would kill all bait threads because responding to bait negatively is against the rules now. Nobody's going to reply to your thread, so what's the point of posting bait in the first place?
Also a second suggested global rule:
>"Check the catalog before making threads on all slow boards. Don't make a second thread on a subject unless there are no other threads that have fewer than the bump limit of posts or image limit of images."
Probably necessary now that your thread isn't going to get hyper-accelerated by a flamewar.
>>377954
I should follow up.
I do not mean that disagreeing with OP is illegal in their thread, I mean that if OP explicitely defines a rule like "ITT EVERYBODY POST IN ALL CAPS" then you have to post in all caps if you want to post in the thread. "ITT NOBODY DISAGREES WITH ME" is allowed but makes you look like a faggot so people have to hide the thread rather than post in it.
Silence is the harshest critic. Negative attention is still attention.
>>377954
>lets make threads more circlejerking by allowed OPs of threads to outright ban things they dont like in thread
Sounds incredibly stupid
>>377954
>I really like /soc/'s
Stopped reading there
>>378094
I don't see how this image is applicable to that anon's post.
Your idea IS incredibly stupid, by the way.
>>378094
No anon, your idea is fucking retarded. OPs aren't a rule maker of a thread and neither are they a topic setter. OPs exist with the express purpose of starting discussion, but thats it, that's were the purpose of OP ends. Just because OP wants to talk about x in the thread doesn't mean I have to actually talk about x and instead I can talk about y. That's how its always ran. What you are looking for is a traditional forum, not 4chan. That sort of shit shouldn't be implemented here as it runs everything good and fun about the site
>>378104
>Good and fun.
>>378104
Off-topic replies are part of rule 3, so OP is the topic setter for all boards except /b/, /s4s/ and /trash/.
>>378110
Off-topic has nothing to do with the OP, it has to do with the board. You can post whatever you fucking want in a thread as long as its board related. Its just a dick move to do so
>>377954
>that pic
After seeing the normafags memeing, we've lost our innocence. We've eaten the forbidden fruit of knowledge and there is no way back into the garden now.
But no, your idea wouldn't work. You think threads are different worlds? they influence each other. If you ever mange to impose those rules, soon people would be complaining about there being three threads about the same series, while minor threads get pushed off the board.
And that's ignoring that shitposters would just make whole new threads, making small threads even more short-lived.
