>go on every board
>"generals" for the smallest of things, usually made because of a one off question
Why is this allowed? This is literally subreddits and it's allowed.
/vg/ was a mistake
>>384269
Almost everyone hates the stupid things and the mods don't want to put the effort into killing them. Generals are technically not allowed
/vg/ was a bad mistake
>>384314
>/vg/ was an endorsement of generals
Yes and? That's exactly why it was a mistake.
>if it was a mistake they would have deleted it years ago.
That isn't true, it's the same reason why /b/ still exists. It's too big to delete even if it's nothing but trash.
>>384314
>/vg/ was an endorsement of generals
It wasn't an endorsement of generals. It was a board made with the intention of REMOVING them and discouraging the culture. Generals used to be heavily discouraged or outright banned, but the mods have gotten lazy in recent times
Generals are bad for the site and need to go
>>384319
>Generals are bad for the site and need to go
I'm with you on that. Too bad the damage is already done and if /vg/ was deleted they would have to ban at least half of the people that go there regularly to prevent /v/ from somehow becoming worse. It's the general attitude they invite that makes them so awful.
Person: "Guys, we have nothing to talk about, what do we do now?"
Most of the thread: "Shitpost and troll."
Cancer.
>>384319
But /vg/ is better then /v/.
>>384269
I know, it's fucking cancer. The mods actually stood up to the redditors on /tv/ who had 24/7 game of thrones generals and surprise we haven't had generals in between seasons. I'd like to see them make GoT generals disappear entirely now, and the rest of them too
>>384395
Lol. Go ahead, enjoy having half of /TV be GOT posts in season, and 80% of /SP/ be NFL during NFL season.
This site would suck without generals. People who want to discuss the topic wouldn't get to discuss it in one thread, and people who don't want to discuss it would see the board taken over by dozens of threads discussing the same thing. Generals exist because people want them to exist. Deal with it and quit bitching
>>384413
/a/ is perfectly able to discuss seasonal anime without using generals
>>384314
>/vg/ was an endorsement of generals
No, /vp/ was.
/vp/ exists because Pokemon took over the front page of /v/ with 4 24/7 generals along with random threads about the up and coming 5th gen. moot decided to give them a board and after that, people stared to make generals hoping that they will get a board as well. Moot could have just went hard on the Pokefags but stuff like that requires mods who give a fuck about /v/
>>384319
They've been allowed for years because the rules have changed, dickfuck. If you don't like it, leave.
>>384416
Because they know how to use the catalog.
Generals are the only threads on /mu/ that allow decent discussion, everything else is overhyped crap and /mu/core or memes
>>384389
>first general on /news/ banned
>"the creation of "general" threads is discouraged." - /his/ sticky
It's seems like hiro doesn't want that shit on his new boards either.
>>384413
>people post in general
>"BAAAAW GENERALS ARE CANCER MUH REDDIT"
>People don't post in a general (Homestuck, MLP, Star Wars)
>"BAAAAAAW DEY MAKE TOO MANY THREADS PLS STOP THEM FROM TALKING ABOUT THINGS I DONT LIKE :("
>>384498
Rules haven't changed fagwad, the mods have just gotten lazy and don't want to deal with the mess they made from getting lazy
I think it's amazing how many people need these little cuddleboxes because they failed at socializing as a teen.
Back in the old days of 4chan, you couldn't subsume your entire life with the Internet because there simply wasn't enough to keep you engaged.
Now, kids have been entirely raised by the Internet and are seeking perpetual circlejerks and "fandoms" to cling onto because they never made real friends.
It's pretty sick. I'm pretty convinced that 4chan was better in the old days simply because the users were better socialized. I've got no time for all these kids with no dads and no shame.
>>384646
WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU NEED A GENERAL ON /news/????
>>384284
Fucking this. /vg/ was moot's biggest fuck up
>>384646
>implying yuk knows what generals are
>>384850
>the mods are getting lazy, that's why this thing that isn't actually breaking the rules hasn't been deleted!
YOu sure would like to believe that, wouldn't you.
>>384988
Yes, that would be the case. Have you ever actually looked at any of the boards outside of /qa/?
>>384907
>no shame
Why the internet is so awful in two words.
/arg/ on /k/ has basically become a reddit tripfag circlejerk. The generals are cancer remove them
>>384907
>I'm pretty convinced that 4chan was better in the old days simply because the users were better socialized.
It really was and I miss it every day.
>>384269
>This is literally subreddits
You're probably thinking of recurring threads that can build circlejerks.
Generals don't have to be recurring, they can die and stay dead.
For example someone can start a topic with a question and say it's also for anyone else to ask general questions in the same topic or discuss it. Then when the thread dies nobody remakes it. That's still a general thread, but it's not recurring and doesn't have a circlejerk.
But I guess most people just use "general" and "recurring thread" interchangeably anyway.
>>385277
This, not all generals are eternal generals.
>>384269
>>384319
>>384389
Sometimes generals are better.
/n/ needs generals to function as a board. Without /bqg/ and /bbg/, there would be nothing but pages upon pages of people asking about why their bike broke and which new one to buy.
It's better when it's all contained in one place, and people are much more likely to get an answer.
Plus it's an act of etiquette toward people who want to talk about trains.
They've earned the right to be able to talk about trains at their own pace without a dozen idiots bumping them off.
I guess it depends on the posting speed and the board's propensity for circlejerking. /n/ has neither of those things, so it works out okay.
>>385347
>people asking about why their bike broke and which new one to buy.
Going by that I'm going to assume those are like for /g/ tech threads and for /a/ rec and source threads. If that's the case, they are better off banned and told to fuck off. But I'm just making comparisons
>>385350
Nah, without them there'd be pretty much zero actual bike discussion. It's just the only way to talk about bikes without stomping all over planefag, trainfag, and busfag territory.
It's sorta its own thing. It's not totally like the "stupid questions" threads on /sci/, /g/, /diy/...etc, because it's actually valuable discussion some of the time.
The whole community hates it when people post frivolous bike threads outside the generals, actually. It's just considered part of the board etiquette.
If you saw a post disapper I removed it, because I don't actually browse /n/ and was apparently talking out of my ass
>>385356
No you're pretty spot on, it's a lot like /djt/ or the stupid questions threads.
Only there's a lot more involvement from the whole community to keep the generals isolated instead of just a bunch of dicks circlejerking around for no good reason.
>>384416
It also does it with generals as well.
