What if we had an option to post without a post number?
I think it would be an excellent way to break reply chains and stop pointless 1-up battles.
The thing is, it's not just that your post isn't able to be linked to, because people will still find a way to reference your post, but I really think from a psychological point of view it would go a long way toward helping people ignore things.
First of all, you can imagine that someone responds to one of your posts with something very annoying, something that you would normally respond to and end up starting a huge argument.
If his post was numberless you could just think
>well anyone who reads his post will see that it's numberless meaning he was afraid to be challenged, there's no need for me to respond
while at the same time, if that guys post makes perfect sense people will still accept it. So it really just means anyone reading them will know they have to think for themselves and you won't have to see post after post of anons trying to 1-up each other to save face
On the other hand, if he doesn't make his post numberless you can respond how you normally would and make your own post numberless. Normally it would blow up into a long argument but now that your post can't be linked to you can just forget about it.
Even if they do manage to reference your post there's no link (and no backlink on your post) so their post might as well just be starting a new topic.
People won't feel like they have to keep responding because anyone reading it won't be expecting a response and will know they should decide for themselves what to think, not just listen to two people call each other "newfags" for the next 50 posts.
Basically I think it would be a way to say "let's agree to disagree" that would actually work for both the posters and the lurkers from a psychological point of view.
What the actual fuck
I'm not sure what you're suggesting
Okay I've read it four times now
>well anyone who reads his post will see that it's numberless meaning he was afraid to be challenged, there's no need for me to respond
I can tell that there are several layers of faulty thinking here.
>>554975
You are quite self-centered, aren't you?
>What was confusing?
>The suggestion is for an option that you can type in the Options field (like noko or sage) and your post would have no number. Meaning people can't reply to you.
What's stopping me from just quoting you? This is a terrible suggestion imho.
Hell, you don't even need to do that on slower boards
>>554981
Whom are you quoting?
>>554982
go eat a bag of dicks, metacancer.
>>554982
>>554982
>>554981
Yeah but I covered that in the OP, it's a psychological thing and I think instead of responding to bait and shitposters if you aren't directly linking to their post they'll just ignore you.
>>554964
OP, did you know that you can make a post nobody will reply to without even needing to go on 4chan?
why not just replace numbers with letters
A much easier way to go about that is to remove backlinks like on Futaba Channel. Make people quote the text they want to respond to, as opposed to misusing the quote function and calling it "green text." It would remove the (You) autism as well.
Remember, just because a feature adds convenience doesn't mean it's good for the community. Example: before the catalog, generals weren't a thing either.
>>555041
No, people would just install 3rd party extensions to bring that functionality back.
Not that I necessarily agree with what OP is saying. Numberless posts would just add a new dimension to trolling and meta shitposting. The supposed benefits aren't worth it.
>>555041
You could say something similar about auto-updaters too.
But removing features like that will never happen. People don't think like that and will cry if you try to remove their conveniences.
If you could post without a number though it would have that same effect but wouldn't cause as much backlash because you're adding a feature instead of taking one away.
>>555041
>before the catalog, generals weren't a thing either
/v/'s Pokemon General pre-dates the catalog function by several years.
>>555045
>Numberless posts would just add a new dimension to trolling and meta shitposting.
Like what? Shitposting without a number, which would lead to everyone just ignoring them?
That sounds like a good thing to me.
What else? Replying to shitposters without a number which also means the shitposters can't target you? I don't see a down side. Either way it breaks the reply chains and makes things end quicker instead of taking 20 posts to end like they do now.
>>555048
How about saying something clearly inflammatory without a number just to watch idiots scramble to greentext what you said and retort, ON TOP of adding a paragraph about how much of a coward you are for not having a number.
Plus, if having a number is the default, then numberless posts stand out, what a marvellous tool for people who want attention, but would have deniability because "see, I didn't put a number! I don't want the attention! ;)"
I'm afraid to say that in my opinion, the idea falls apart instantly. Perhaps if you have the time to test it on another imageboard website you can prove me wrong.
>>555051
The only valid reason to respond to a troll in the first place is to correct something you think others might fall for. In any other circumstance if someone is annoying you it should just be ignored, or reported if you think it deserves it.
The whole reason I think this is a decent idea is because someone who makes a numberless post would be lowering the status of their own post at the same time. For one, wouldn't you be less likely to read numberless posts altogether since they're dead ends and you can't reply to them anyway (or at least not as conveniently)?
Then on top of that there's the fact that they intentionally didn't want anyone to respond to them meaning they're either full of shit and don't want to be called out or they're calling someone else out and don't want to start a huge argument. Both are also reasons why you probably just wouldn't even be interested in reading their post at all unless you've been following the reply chain that it's a part of.
There's also the fact that attempting to respond to a numberless post means they won't be getting any alerts. There would be no red exclamation mark in their tab icon, or a bold number in the thread watcher, and everyone would know that. So you could make a numberless post and just ignore any shitposting replies because nobody will expect you to notice someone attempting to respond to your numberless post.
I still don't see how this feature wouldn't result in shorter chains of arguments and shitposting in the long run. Sure maybe there will be incidental abuse that could make it worse than if the feature didn't exist, but for most cases I can only see it increasing the ease of ignoring things.
and more people ignoring things and dropping arguments is something 4chan needs pretty badly.
>>554964
It would require more alteration with the software the site uses than you may think but I do understand the desire to do away with direct post links attached to the quoted post.
While it is useful it also has that flipside of being something that often attracts shitposting in the form of low quality responses simply for the sake of responding to a post which has already accumulated a number of replies. The hive nature of contemporary 4chan kind of makes me dread a little posting a comment or having a discussion with another anon and expressing something that may garner unwanted retarded response from shitposters, autistic manchildren, or simply a response that is heavily biased by the previous responses the individual post has accrued because we all know that if someone has posted something that five people have posted retarded insults in response, it is far either to mindlessly jump on the bandwagon and do the same.
I find myself monitoring what I post on certain boards and taking into account the particular hiveminds present on them, which really undermines that spark an anonymous board is supposed to have. I mean, the way a lot of anons go about posting we may as well be on Facebook or something as the posts are more about appealing to the audience than earnest conversation. You're in luck if you have a great interest in what the slower boards have to offer as there is far less of that shoal of fish type posting mentality and far less blind adherence to posting only in extremely narrow "accepted" phraseology.
>>555062
>For one, wouldn't you be less likely to read numberless posts altogether since they're dead ends and you can't reply to them anyway (or at least not as conveniently)?
If this is the basis of your faith in this idea then I can only say that I think you are sorely mistaken.
The eye is drawn to posts that differ from the norm. It's why you're more likely to read a post with an image. Hell you're more likely to stop and read a post if the guy puts a period in the name field instead of leaving it as "Anonymous".
Another tool to set oneself apart from other posters is counter to the entire point of an anonymous imageboard where all voices are meant to be equal, and the site is set up to try and keep it that way. Remember when moot made the sage function invisible for that very reason?
I appreciate that you want to introduce an idea that will curb (You) hunting, but this idea has too many caveats, in my opinion.
But that's just me. Thanks for trying to justify the concept of numberless posts to me. It's been interesting, but at this point I don't think I can be swayed.
Perhaps try https://www.4chan.org/feedback or sending Hiroyuki an e-mail with what you've just typed for us here.
>>555062
>The only valid reason to respond to a troll in the first place is to correct something you think others might fall for.
4chan is for anonymous discussion not posturing for an audience. The mentality you have expressed is a core symptom of the problem.
>>555072
What mentality? That you should ignore something that bothers you unless you think a response is needed to help others?
That's a symptom of "posturing for an audience"?
>>555074
>you unless you think a response is needed to help others
This part.
>That's a symptom of "posturing for an audience"?
Yes. Posting something with the reasoning that your insights have value for the sake of the audience is entirely symptomatic of this bullshit mindset.
That you think others may "fall for" is entirely fucking irrelevant. Your opinion is not that fucking valuable that you can step up on the soapbox and posture for the sake of others, who will likely just thing you're being an obnoxious dick. It's basically a form of virtue signalling, which is fucking cancer.
What do you value more: the content of a discussion or what those in the discussion think of you?
>>555082
What the fuck man?
You sound like you're assuming this is all about political opinions or some shit. That would fall under the category of things that I said to just ignore.
I was just talking about things like
>drink bleach
which is an obvious troll post. But if you start seeing replies like
>Help what kind of bleach should I buy?
then it might not be such a bad idea to respond and say "Don't fucking drink bleach you dumbasses"
That's what I meant by
>unless you think a response is needed to help others
It had nothing to do with opinions. Why would you assume that I'm so arrogant as to associate my _opinions_ with "helping others"? Does your home board have a lot of idiots like that or something?
>>555180
No he's not be nice.
>>555180
You sure you're just not too dumb to understand it?
>>555231
I can not. Just the name of the idea
>numberless posting
makes me want to trip him if I ever were to see him in person. Who does this guy think he is?
This is a place for open discussion, where users have influence through their posts and posts alone. By making a post numberless you have directly obstructed the way to quote them. Giving users the option to not be quotable, or in other words, the choice to not be open for confrontation is diametrically opposed to what this imageboard is about.
You are able to post in whatever manner you wish as long as you follow the rules, regardless of what views or opinions you happen to hold. That means that you are not only open to get criticized, it's also encouraged since it's a vital part of discussion. Ignoring provocative or inflammatory posts is part of common sense and is not an essential part of discussion on a board, thus it should be encouraged and not enforced since you can't force people to act certain ways.
The initial argument for the idea falls flat since, as posted, it would be optional. I'd even call it false since what those who provoke want is reactions and may not necessarily need to do a follow-up of any sort. Not everyone will recognizes a post as incendiary or bother making their post numberless either, so a chain of posts will carry on as long as at least someone else(see: proxy) replies.
The option to choose to not be directly quotable means that one has deemed one's own post "right", that the conversation ends with you because you think anything more is needless. This is not right because it gives a user more power than others.
A healthy conversation consists of participants having an equal opportunity to have their say. Making a reply means sharing your thoughts, why would you want threads with thoughts that will only be exchanged one-sidedly? How can they fully be part of a discussion?
I think the OP's idea and view on others' opinions is quite vile.
>>556115
But your thinking about it as if you take normal 4chan and simply allow some people to sinisterly prevent anyone from linking to them.
If this feature were added it's not that simple. Everyone would be able to see those posts which are numberless
so all the "vileness" of the idea your talking about would be directed at posts using that feature, not at the feature itself.
Which is why it could be a good thing. Because you can't use that feature without incurring a lot of negative implications about yourself or your post. It would be a humble way to end an argument.
>the conversation ends with you because you think anything more is needless
Which makes you look quite bad or arrogant doesn't it? Why would you need to respond to someone who doesn't want to keep discussing it and would rather put his fingers in his ears and walk away?
When people want to end arguments now they don't just drop it. What they do is they start to just throw out insults until eventually they feel like they can safely leave the conversation since it's become so off topic.
With a numberless post someone could end it by humiliating himself to a degree.
>I think the OP's idea and view on others' opinions is quite vile
For the record, when I envision this feature existing I'm not putting myself in the position of someone using it all the time. I'm imagining myself have discussions and people using this feature against me, to get the last word, and do you know how it makes me feel? I don't give a fuck. Because everyone can see that he made it impossible for me to respond. How the hell does that make his post more valuable than mine? Only an idiot would think he won the argument. I would expect anyone with moderate intelligence to know they'd better take that last post with a huge grain of salt.
But in the end the conversation was dropped instead of devolving into basically "no u" type comments because someone's looking for a way out.
>>556338
Good one
>>556331
>Because you can't use that feature without incurring a lot of negative implications about yourself or your post.
The point of being anonymous is that every post stands on its own merit, unbound by any reputation. You can't justify the introduction of a new feature that is contradictory to the nature of how the site works just because of some shitposters.
>Why would you need to respond to someone who doesn't want to keep discussing it and would rather put his fingers in his ears and walk away?
Because I can. If someone doesn't want additional or opposing view points then they should leave and go to some other site with like-minded people since they are ill-fitted for a place where claims will be up for scrutiny.
>What they do is they start to just throw out insults until eventually they feel like they can safely leave the conversation since it's become so off topic.
Ad hominem and name-calling are a natural consequence of anonymity and not how discussion itself is set-up. They will be more frequent on popular boards because those are inhabited by more youngsters and new users who aren't used to imageboards. This is a drawback that you have to tolerate. There's also nothing that says that numberless posters will be inclined to post in a humble way, the opposite case would most likely be much more true.
>and do you know how it makes me feel? I don't give a fuck.
That's just your view point though. I'd personally feel immensely unstatisfied if people could end arguments on a whim. You're basically giving leeway to people who can't tolerate other view points so they can maintain their poor attitude in exchange for diminished discussion, which hurts everyone.
The problem you want to fix is minor one and happens in shitty threads on popular subjects on shitty boards. Of these spats or 1-ups that you've described, I have not experienced them happening to any significant degree. I think you will have to prove they have a significant presence in discussion.
>>554964
I feeel like, checking the speech patterns and writing vices, half this thread is OP samefagging massive walls of text to reply and argue with himself. I'm glad he's not aware of how autistic his ideas sounds since he could create real damage had he pulled even slightly decent ones
>>556984
It's not just about stopping arguments.
I really think any little thing that helps 4chan remember to just ignore things from time to time will rub off on a lot of aspects of the site and make a lot of things better.
and maybe if people spent less time arguing they'd spend more time having fun or creating interesting new content.
I've been trying to think of features that could help that happen and this is the best I can come up with. I really don't see any down sides other than people being too caught up in "everything must be the same for all posters always"
even though we already have ID and flags and tripcodes and crap like that. I'd say this feature it's even 1/10th as cancer inducing as any of those features are since it's symmetric. Anyone can do it and it doesn't take away your anonymity at all.
>>557116
The downside is that if individuals decide to be annoying e.g. intentionally posting misinformation or provocative falsehood it will be displeasing for those who want to correct them, which hurts the user experience, even if nothing good would've come out of it if the feature wasn't there. It doesn't have to be intentional though, some people may truly believe that they're right and be self-important enough to use the feature. If no one corrects them then new users may get the impression that those people are right. I feel that your concerns and good intentions are genuine, but I don't think it's a good idea to stifle potential discussion with such insincere means.
I believe that it takes a group effort to encourage and convince people to ignore trolls and things they dislike. If you voice your concerns and if others care as much as you then surely less people will engage in that behaviour. On a small board it be more likely to get picked up by others, but since popularity has a price it will most likely not have any significant effect on popular boards without great and lengthy efforts.
>>557335
That is some weird-looking poop.
>>556984
>The point of being anonymous is that every post stands on its own merit, unbound by any reputation. You can't justify the introduction of a new feature that is contradictory to the nature of how the site works just because of some shitposters.
>>Why would you need to respond to someone who doesn't want to keep discussing it and would rather put his fingers in his ears and walk away?
>Because I can. If someone doesn't want additional or opposing view points then they should leave and go to some other site with like-minded people since they are ill-fitted for a place where claims will be up for scrutiny.
Agreed. You have no right to drop the discussion and get the last word. It's not humble, it's arrogant.
If you WANT to stop the chain, you stop replying and accept that you won't get the last word.
This feature can also make any relatively big discussion incomprehensible.
>>554964
>let's agree to disagree
I don't agree to that.
