Delete greentexting
- Home
- Board: /qa/ - Question & Answer
- Reading: Delete greentexting
It's harmful 4chan culture.
>>530026
>implying implied implicit implications
there's always reddit if you prefer
>>530026
Yeah, it makes it easier to strawman and be a dickhead
It isn't going away though, unfortunately
>>530057
Indeed. Greentexting is 9/10 times a shitpost.
>>530063
Things that would improve 4chan:
-no greentext
-manual bump instead of manual sage, still hidden
-no spamming replies to corrupt backlinks
-make it so that you have the option of filtering new IPs, or IPs that have not posted on 4chan more than 12 hours ago. Additionally, make it so that, if you're banned, the typical ban lasts two days instead of three but your IP stops being recognized by 4chan, or you have to post and then wait 12 hours before you escape the new IP filter. This will make it easy to ignore mobile posters and unregenerate ban evaders
>>530080
>-manual bump instead of manual sage, still hidden
I remember reading this idea on the Jay.
>>530086
Which is the only board I could see it working on.
Even then it's now dealing with shitloads of generals that are obviously exempt from any of this netiquette.
It's too late. moot didn't take the necessary precautions and now everyone thinks sage is a downvote and misuses the quoting function.
>>530026
How about instead of it being removed, it looks up the post you quoted and only turns green if that text was in the post.
>>530092
>Which is the only board I could see it working on.
It would work elsewhere, people would just have to behave slightly differently. When bump is manual it becomes more effort to bump a thread, and so threads that are considered universally terrible and require extremely low effort replies, like roll threads on /b/, will not be nearly as successful.
Also, it would be best to keep it obscure from newfags so they don't shit up 4chan.
