Why don't threads start autosaging when they reach image limit?
I wonder that. Whichever limits is reached first, right?
>>565418
Because you can bet that autistic anons will spam images in threads they don't like so that they die earlier.
>>565426
The problem with that ascertation is they already do that. Threads are effectively over when the image-limit is reached, and with regards to GENERALS between 3 or 5 people scrambled to make the next one, right after the image-limit is reached.
>>565433
>Threads are effectively over when the image-limit is reached
I don't think that applies to all boards, or even most of them. Discussion doesn't just dry-up because it can't be accompanied by reaction images.
If it's a problem that plagues a community that you're part of, just make an agreement to move onto the next thread once the image-limit is reached, as opposed to waiting for bump-limit or page 10.
As I understand it, the posters of certain /c/ and /e/ threads do this with great efficiency, is it so hard for others?
>>565418
This should be the case for image sharing boards, like the porn boards and /gif/, /wsg/, Etc.
