I was banned fron all boards for asking why there were quest threads on /tg/ now that there is a quest board. This is the board for questions right?
I just want to know if there is a specific reason why people would prefer those threads on tg over qst like rolling or something. I was just curious...please no ban mods. Sorry for being new
>>559835
>I just want to know if there is a specific reason why people would prefer those threads on tg over qst like rolling or something.
It's obvious isn't it? Special snowflake questrunners that are desperate for attention.
Because the audience is from /tg/, the people running the threads are from /tg/, the threads themselves generally use /tg/ related terminology and rulesets, and the only people who actually wanted the new board are petulant little shits like >>559854 who can't stand people having badwrongfun on "their" board.
>>559835
Dear lord, what is it with women leaving a massive hole in their armor just to show off their stomachs? I get that she has a big shield, but it can't be protecting that one spot all the time.
>>559876
Because /tg/ had more fucking quest threads than anything else, it was annoying as fuck having to try to weed out which threads were actually discussing /tg/ stuff, and which were just Generic Monstergirl Quest #38573772: Nothing happens edition.
But when that was allowed, it was fine, that's the rules of the board and my personal tastes don't dictate what should be. But now they're not allowed, and have their own dedicated board, so why aren't they just moved?
>>559963
fucking moral fag
>>560006
>Because /tg/ had more fucking quest threads than anything else
Literally never true at any point since /tg/ was created.
>But now they're not allowed
No such rule change has been made
>have their own dedicated board
A trial board that was dead on arrival and hasn't improved in any way except technical
>so why aren't they just moved?
Most likely because the mods realized it was a mistake.
Frankly, it's fine as it is. Some quests are on /qst/, some are on /tg/. If you hate quests being on /tg/, then this is still a positive because there are now less of them *on /tg/*. If you just hate quests, well, you're part of the badwrongfun crowd and don't deserve jack shit.
>>560010
>fisking
Opinion disregarded.
>>560020
>I have no arguments
>>560021
Says the one fisking. Fisking is the 'i have no arguments' posting style.
>>560023
Arguing each point one by one by using individual arguments for each point is "no arguments" now, is it?
Funny.
>>560025
Because its a method done by pathetic loosers who can't argue for shit so they have to separate their opponents argument into tons of various bits and intentionally miss the entire point of their argument by attacking the parts they quoted while ignoring the rest and separating it all. It is something done by people with the mental attitude of a child who only has the desire to win an internet argument without any form of actual discussion or argument.
Fisking isn't something to argue against someones point, it's to try and make them look like a fucking retard by separating their entire argument from each other. Child.
>>560010
>Literally never true at any point since /tg/ was created.
Obvious hyperbole mate.
>No such rule change has been made
While it's not an official rule, off topic posting does violate the rules, and when there's a link to a board dedicated to quest threads, posting it elsewhere does violate rules. Same as it may not violate any /mu/ rules to start a vidya thread there, it should get moved or deleted, as it is off topic.
>A trial board that was dead on arrival and hasn't improved in any way except technical
Entirely because moderation didn't force quest threads to move, so they stayed on the thread that they were already on.
>Some quests are on /qst/, some are on /tg/. If you hate quests being on /tg/, then this is still a positive because there are now less of them *on /tg/*. If you just hate quests, well, you're part of the badwrongfun crowd and don't deserve jack shit.
No, it's clearly not. /v/ is fucking riddled with /pol/ posting that moderators don't do anything about it. It would be worse if you deleted /pol/ sure, but that doesn't make the fact that those off topic threads on /v/ exist in the first place any better at all. No-one's saying quest threads shouldn't exist, I don't like them, but I don't like /po/ either, doesn't mean I want it banned from the site, simply that I don't go to the board dedicated for it.
You're arguing for blatant violation of global rule 3 at this point, and that moderators shouldn't enforce that. Unless you somehow think that off topic replies are so drastically different to off topic threads that they shouldn't be effected?
>>560028
None of the arguments have been separated.
Ad hominem is worse than your blog argument though.
>>560031
>fisking
Why even bother?
>>560031
>You're arguing for blatant violation of global rule 3 at this point, and that moderators shouldn't enforce that. Unless you somehow think that off topic replies are so drastically different to off topic threads that they shouldn't be effected?
You're arguing from the standpoint that /qst/ is a containment board, which is clearly not what the mods think of it. Even the original announcement was from a misguided standpoint of giving the quests their own board, not "cleaning up /tg/" or whatever. It was never intended to be a containment board and there was never official mention of removing them from anywhere else in favor of /qst/. It's not a containment board, so its topic is not "off-topic" from the board that originally spawned that content.
>>560035
I don't really see what's wrong with fisking as a debate tactic, as long as you're actually addressing the great arguments as well.
>>560037
Something doesn't need to be a containment board to have a topic that should be kept to that board anon. I wouldn't start a vidya thread on /gif/, or /out/ or /lit/, because those are offtopic and should be moved or removed. It doesn't mean those are containment threads.
Many /tg/ posters expressed unhappiness with the amount of quest threads, and /qst/ was created so that they would have a board to be posted on. The same as /vp/ was created to get rid of the pokemon spam on /v/. Moderators that refuse to actually moderate and enforce global rule three, as in keeping threads on the board most well suited to them, shouldn't be fucking moderators, because they're not doing their jobs. It's not left to their discretion to decide what the rules are, they're right there, and should be enforced.
>>559835
There's something you're not telling us. There's no way the mods would ban you for a rule they've been unclear about.
>>560040
Explain all the deleted posts and threads telling quest threads to go to /qst/ then.
>>559963
Are you retarded? It's not women who are to blame for that. This is a fantasy trope perpetuated by male artists - real armor for women is, you guessed it, exactly the same as armor for men. "Boob plate" and what you mentioned are not things that exist in practical armor.
>>560035
I have never heard an actual argument as to why fisking is bad. Its critics seem mostly to be made of people who enjoy freely ignoring substantial portions of what other people say.
>>560040
>I
Because
>really
most
>what's wrong
people dont seem
>fisking as a tactic
to know how to do
>wrong long
it correctly
> addressing the great arguments as well.
And just fucking do this
>>559835
Are you admitting to ban evasion?
>>560045
>made of people who enjoy freely ignoring substantial portions of what other people say.
You have found the reason why don't like fisking. Because most people use it as a mean to do just that and its fucking annoying.
>>560040
>Many /tg/ posters expressed unhappiness with the amount of quest threads, and /qst/ was created so that they would have a board to be posted on.
A few /tg/ posters expressed delusional levels of hatred and claimed to represent most of /tg/, and some of them even followed quests onto /qst/ to perform victory laps. They were the only people happy about the board and that's probably why the mods haven't actually forced the issue. The entire concept was a mistake (Quests inherently have waaaaay less OPs than total posters because only a fraction of all people who quest actually run quests, and only a tiny fraction of people who participate in quests actually care enough to move to another board for it, leaving a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction actually going to /qst/ even if the move is forced) and the mistake was only realized after the board had been made.
Very few quest players actually go looking for new quests, and putting it on an entirely different board basically kills the concept because of that.
>>560043
What are you trying to say here, exactly?
>>560046
Yeah, people do that shit a lot, I get what you're saying, but I don't think that's the tactics fault, you know? It's just individuals being fucking morons and intentionally arguing dishonestly. Fisking is a great way to refute long articles or posts if you do it right, because you can refute each point individually.
>>560050
You literally cannot ignore your opponents posts when fisking. At most you can make an irrelevant response to part of someone's post, and then it's obvious that you did. Responding to "the whole post" means that parts of the post may have gone unresponded to.
>>560051
Saying it's just a vocal minority is a sourceless argument, you have no way of proving that on an anonymous forum.
Your entire point that quest threads don't work because /qst/ isn't very active is silly, because the only reason this is the case is that people can still just come to /tg/ for those threads. If /tg/ no longer had them, the posters that are interested in it would open up /qst/, find their favourite ones that they've been following, and close the rest. If people don't care enough to follow them to another board, then that's their problem, no-one says /po/ should be deleted because it's a slow board, or because more posters would be interested in it if it was on /r9k/ or somewhere else.
What it comes down to is that at this point, quest threads are not being posted on the appropriate board, and moderators are not doing anything about this. Whether /qst/ was a mistake or not is irrelevant, if the admins decided later to get rid of it, you'd have a good point. But it is not the moderators job to decide whether or not they personally like the idea of another board, it's their job to moderate and ensure that rules are being followed, which they're blatantly not doing.
>>560058
The unprovable vocal minority argument again. Every time there has been an anti-questfag vs questfag shitfling in the past the anti-quest side has only reached up to 12 unique IPs per thread. Now it would be wrong to say that it was the same 12 anons, as that is the unprovable part, but a number of them most likely had a few posters in common.
>>560058
Unique IP count is invariably low when it comes to bitching about quests, on any of the boards that it has happened on. /tg/ never gets more than a handful of them at a time, /q/ didn't get many, and /qa/ doesn't get many. If they can't get more than a handful of people to agree with them anywhere on the site for literally years, they're a minority.
If /tg/ no longer had quests, only the most dedicated of questers would go to /qst/. People join quests incidentally. Questers are /tg/ first, quest second almost every time.
The fact that the mods and janitors haven't been moving quests, but have been actively deleting and banning people for telling quests to move is telling. It shows that something is wrong with the whole situation. Maybe their hands are tied, maybe they aren't, but the fact that there's such an effort to shut up ">>>/qst/" posters shows that "it's got its own board so it has to be removed from everywhere else" is objectively false.
/qst/ is still a trial board anyway, so even if it's not considered a mistake, it's not mandatory and no rule changes have been made. Because quests are literally irrelevant compared to every other thing that has ever gotten its own board on 4chan. Even /po/ had more support, and it was slow and small from its inception.
>>560056
>You literally cannot ignore your opponents posts when fisking
Except the part were you can? Even if you frisk every single part of the posts, it is incredibly easy to. You are separating the entire post into individual parts and thus, you are arguing each point by themselves. It should be easy to see how you can undermine someones point by doing this. Here, have an example
>Sage IS a downvote. Why? Because it has no defined meaning other than that its purpose is to not bump a thread. Because of this....
>>Sage IS a downvote. Why?
>Except that part where its not
>Because it has no defined meaning other than that its purpose is to not bump a thread
Yea, still no a downvote faggot
> Because of this....
Fucking autist
See how easy that was? Obviously, most people don't make it so obvious, but that is exactly how pretty much every single person who fisks uses it.
>Unique IP count is invariably low when it comes to bitching about quests, on any of the boards that it has happened on. /tg/ never gets more than a handful of them at a time, /q/ didn't get many, and /qa/ doesn't get many. If they can't get more than a handful of people to agree with them anywhere on the site for literally years, they're a minority.
Using the IP counter as a way to determine if something is a minority or not on 4chan is a pretty faggy way to do things. It doesn't really illustrate much other than how many people are willing to put the effort into posting.
>>560068
>>560064
It's useless talking about how many people believe something on a board unless we have a moderator supporting how many unique IP's are posting it, because we can't prove shit. And how could you possibly proclaim to know which side of the argument has what amount of unique IP's out of the entire thread?
>If /tg/ no longer had quests, only the most dedicated of questers would go to /qst/. People join quests incidentally.
I addressed this point already, read my post again.
>The fact that the mods and janitors haven't been moving quests, but have been actively deleting and banning people for telling quests to move is telling. It shows that something is wrong with the whole situation.
Yes, it says that they are refusing to do their job. Their job is not to decide what rules should be followed, their job is to enforce the rules. They are willingly not enforcing global rule #3, which is the issue. They're not arbiters or judges, they don't get to decide what should be okay and what boards are worth having, they're moderators.What you're saying is that if there was a new law introduced that the police weren't properly enforcing, that this is okay and that the crime at hand is no longer a crime, simply because the police won't do their jobs, despite it not being their place to decide what's legal and not.
Same here. It's not a moderators job to decide what the rules are.
>>560080
If you're watching a thread, you can see when the counter goes up. Especially on slow boards in threads with very few posters.
>I addressed this point already, read my post again.
You addressed it by saying that it's "their problem". Having no players is not the non-existent player's problem. It's very much the struggling quest with no player's problem.
>Yes, it says that they are refusing to do their job. Their job is not to decide what rules should be followed, their job is to enforce the rules.
Find the rule that says quests are off-topic to /tg/. And actually, mods are explicitly arbiters and judges. Janitors are not. But janitors can't actually ban people, so it's clearly mods doing it. /qst/ was a mistake and the administration clearly realizes it. They aren't enforcing a non-existent rule because that purely hypothetical rule would make the mistake worse, not better.
>>559963
You think she made her own armor?
>>559835
>I was banned from all boards
Hm...then how are you posting here?
>>560091
I know how the poster count works anon, do you really expect me to believe that you monitored every pro and anti quest poster and the post count to find out who was on each side though?
>You addressed it by saying that it's "their problem". Having no players is not the non-existent player's problem. It's very much the struggling quest with no player's problem.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I'll rephrase. A board being slow does not mean a board shouldn't exist. If people aren't willing to search out a topic on less popular boards, that doesn't mean they should automatically be moved to faster moving ones.
>Find the rule that says quests are off-topic to /tg/
Find the rule that says that /pol/ is off topic to /fit/. There isn't one, but it's clearly off topic when there's a board explicitly dedicated to the thread type that they refuse to post on.
>mods are explicitly arbiters and judges
Admins are arbiters and judges, not mods. Mods decide if a rule applies somewhere, the same as the police decide if you should be arrested, not if the law is just and should be enforced.
>/qst/ was a mistake and the administration clearly realizes it. They aren't enforcing a non-existent rule because that purely hypothetical rule would make the mistake worse, not better.
If the administration thought it was a mistake, it would have been deleted by now.
And your purely hypothetical non-existent rule is literally the third fucking global rule of 4chan. Off topic posts are not allowed. Posting a thread about a topic outside of the board designed for that topic, is by definition, off topic posting.
>>560098
>do you really expect me to believe that you monitored every pro and anti quest poster and the post count to find out who was on each side though?
Not each individually, but when the unique IP count is less than a dozen, it's not hard to go "There's another anti-quest post with no increase in IPs." Literally years and years of it. Sure, I almost certainly missed some of the threads, but I don't think it's likely that the great majority only ever showed up when I was personally absent.
>If people aren't willing to search out a topic on less popular boards, that doesn't mean they should automatically be moved to faster moving ones.
And some people not liking a topic doesn't mean it needs its own board.
>Find the rule that says that /pol/ is off topic to /fit/. There isn't one, but it's clearly off topic when there's a board explicitly dedicated to the thread type that they refuse to post on.
/pol/ topics didn't literally originate on /fit/. Quests originated on /tg/ and have been a /tg/ topic since before 2008. There suddenly being a new board for a small part of /tg/ is not equivalent to an entirely unrelated topic or an overwhelming amount of threads that created boards like /pol/ or /vg/.
>Admins are arbiters and judges, not mods. Mods decide if a rule applies somewhere, the same as the police decide if you should be arrested, not if the law is just and should be enforced.
Too bad it wasn't an admin who made /qst/. It was some kind of "manager" who hasn't resurfaced since then.
>If the administration thought it was a mistake, it would have been deleted by now.
Boards are never deleted lightly.
>And your purely hypothetical non-existent rule is literally the third fucking global rule of 4chan. Off topic posts are not allowed.
Off-topic implies that something created on /tg/ from /tg/ posters, using /tg/ rules with /tg/ themes is somehow not /tg/ just because a non-containment board was misguidedly made for it.
>>560098
>Off topic posts are not allowed. Posting a thread about a topic outside of the board designed for that topic, is by definition, off topic posting.
Good thing it's not a topic outside of the board for that topic then, huh? Are you one of those crazies who wants /tg/ to be carved up and sent out to /lit/ and /toy/ because there's lore discussion and models are a prevalent topic?
>>560049
It could have been a temporary ban and OP posted after it wore off. Doesn't that happen?
>>560111
Bans can be as short as 1 day, and I've heard that warnings can come with a post block timed in hours.
It's not likely that it was a long ban, but he could be evading.
>>559835
its a trial board faggot
its usage is not mandatory for anybody
or did you just make a meta thread?
