Turn visible sage back on. It was a useful feature that moot turned off globally because of idiots on boards like /v/ and /b/. Punishing every user because of a small number of users 'misusing' a feature (read using it in a way moot didn't like) is stupid.
*downvotes*
There's no reason for it to be visible
>>580017
Instead of sage being something in the options field, make it a button you tick. That way people know it exists but it doesn't get used as a downvote by being visible.
>>580115
There was no problem with people using it like a 'downvote'. These people are going to downboat the thread anyway, with sage or not. The problem was always people who did nothing but bitch about people saging. Something that is easy to fix by telling them to shut the fuck up and having the mods actually ban these users.
A small number of autists get upset about people saging their threads is irrelevant when the feature has actual proper usages. Visible sage has a ton of various useful usages that aren't just things like self-moderation. I have always auto-saged all my posts and still do. Having it visible means that it will encourage every single person who replies to me to sage in response as well. Visible sage has valid ways to use and it removing the feature because of a bunch of newfags is still retarded. A checkbox is cool, but making things easier for users is always a worse idea.
>>580017
Could you please tell me why you used that cute neko webm as your OP?
>>580215
Yeah, I agree.
>>580017
Couldn't you have used a picture of Sageman or something, OP?
>>580271
There are various ways to use visible sage that don't mean 'i disaprove'. Just because you are a dumb idiot who can only think of it negatively, doesn't mean that is what it is.
>>580274
Please enlighten me as to why you want other anons to know about your choice to not bump a thread.
>>580275
>Sage is a personal choice based on how much you value your own post
Sage is not for shitposting. It's perfectly valid to sage when you are making a high-quality informative post if you don't want to bump the thread with it.
>>580288
Fine, perhaps I worded it wrong. It's about whether or not you feel your post is suitable for bringing the thread back to the front page.
Although I'm fairly certain you misinterpreted it on purpose, and I'm still not seeing any substantive reasons to make sage visible.
>>580293
That wasn't me, I was parachuting. I needed to add that point because if you don't want to bump the thread, it stands to reason that you might prefer it if other people didn't bump the thread either. Visible sage is a reminder of that, to people who might be similarly inclined but don't use it as habitually.
Basically if nobody knows it exists the concept will never perpetuate.
>>580294
>you might prefer it if other people didn't bump the thread either
Why would I prefer that? Because I don't like the thread? Because you don't want others to bring a thread to the front page with whatever content they'd like to post?
I'm not the judge of that, and what other people do is none of my business.
When I sage a thread I'm not thinking "gee I wish everyone else saw that I saged the thread so they can do it too and the thread can die earlier", because sage isn't a gauge of my disapproval of a thread.
And I don't think knowing that sage exists is a big problem when people still regularly announce that they didn't bump a thread with sage. But if that sincerely is your concern, then this guy's >>580115 idea allows for there to be a constant reminder of sage, without having to flag every post you make as "please look! I didn't bump the thread!".
>>580297
>Why would I prefer that? Because I don't like the thread? Because you don't want others to bring a thread to the front page with whatever content they'd like to post?
For the same reason that you didn't bump the thread. It could be a slightly off-topic thread. It could be a really shitty thread. You might be participating in an autistic argument full of minutae 99% of people don't care about. You might be participating in a silly flame war. You might be having an enjoyable semi-private conversation you don't want on the front page. Really, it could be any number of reasons.
Also, sometimes I'd like to know when someone else isn't bumping a thread.
>people still regularly announce that they didn't bump a thread with sage.
This is a bannable offense.
>But if that sincerely is your concern, then this guy's >>580115 idea allows for there to be a constant reminder of sage, without having to flag every post you make as "please look! I didn't bump the thread!".
I really hate buttons. That said, it would still be preferable to the present.
>>580310
>This is a bannable offense.
Then it stands to reason that, since the rules of the site dissuade sage from being a proclamation, that a visible sage would go against the spirit of the function.
All the reasons you posted are
1) Content that you shouldn't be replying to in the first place
2) Personal judgements on how worthy you feel the thread and/or other people posting in the thread are of bringing the thread to the front page.
It's not your business.
>Also, sometimes I'd like to know when someone else isn't bumping a thread.
It's not for you to know and then potentially misinterpret.
And I'm not talking about just you, poster of 580310, having an extra layer of potential misunderstanding does not benefit discussion in any way, for any poster.
Visible sage was a blight on all boards save for maybe /jp/, if it returns it will be a blight on all boards, perhaps including /jp/.
>>580275
Because I want them to know, simple as that. I don't need to give a reason, the website came with the feature. Why people sage is different to every person, but people put visible to good use. Sage's only purpose is to not bump a thread, that's it. So yes, IT IS A DOWNVOTE. IT'S A DOWNVOTE BECAUSE SAGE IS DEFINED BY WHO USES IT AND THE BOARDS CULTURE. This is not a retort to why we shouldn't have visible sage as it completely misses the point of the feature.
If I sage a thread, its telling others I saged and that's it. What it means variates from thread, user and board. It's a cultural thing. /jp/ used to have, what, fucking 60% of its posts being just sage? Some places its considered outright incredibly impolite to sage. It can be used as a tool of self-moderation as well and could be considered the ONLY tool of self-moderation users on chans actually have. If I sage a post, I don't want people replying to me bumping the thread, but they can't know that I'm saging unless it is visible. This also follows on with shitposting and off-topic posting as well. I can't provide reasons for why sage should be visible, because it has so many fucking ways to use it I can really only list the ways I'd use it. Which is I don't like bumping threads unless I really really like it. As such, I don't want others to bump when replying to me.
Visible sage has actual valid uses that they out way the number of newfags and idiots like you who view sage negatively and use it as a 'downvote'. The problem here isn't the feature, it's fucking you and people like you. You have your head so far up your arse that you can't view it as anything but negative as proven here >>580297 I shouldn't have to provide reasons why a feature that site came with should be here, instead, you should be giving me reasons why it shouldn't be there. Why should a feature that has many uses be disabled because of a small number of children? Why should all the users be punished because of a minority?
>>580297
>why would I prefer that?
Perhaps you and another anon have segued into an off topic conversation which isn't worthy of bumping the thread. For example, a conversation in a /v/ thread might segue into something not related to vidya. In that case, we should both sage with our non vidya posts. Otherwise we are cluttering the board with a thread that isn't vidya. If other anons talk about the original topic, they can bump the thread.
Another example would be if I were to make a thread that I only want to exist for a short period of time, like question. For a hypothetical example, I may post on /m/, "what's the best show to start with Gundam"
I don't really want that thread to stay up very long as I'm sure everyone else on the board has seen it a bazillion times already. So in responding to other users of the thread I would use sage, which would indicate that they should also sage the thread. You may assume that people would automatically sage such a thread, but sometimes we forget, or just don't know any better. Having visible sage silently communicates that I don't think my thead needs to be bumped. Hence I get my answer, and the thread quietly falls off the board. You could argue that such a thread belongs in /wsr/ instead, but that's another argument.
I'm not sure I support visible sage, but I can see a use for it.
>>580319
>Some places its considered outright incredibly impolite to not sage
*
>>580319
>Sage's only purpose is to not bump a thread, that's it
Isn't that what I've been saying the whole time? If you look for "downvote" in this thread you'll find that only you have been saying it. So I'd appreciate if you stop strawmanning my position.
As for this bout of selfishness:
>As such, I don't want others to bump when replying to me
I've made it clear that I view sage as a personal use of the function, being a control freak over whether or not other people do it is silly.
And in the situation where you've announced your sage, and then someone replies to you with a clear bump, why allow that extra slap in the face?
I've made the rest of my reasoning in >>580317 as to why I agree with moot's decision and I won't type it out again.
>>580320
>For example, a conversation in a /v/ thread might segue into something not related to vidya
Natural conversation going into offtopic is indeed a very good place to use sage, but my concern in the past was seeing anons on /v/ using polite sage initially to go on a tangent, then being told to fuck off by people who wanted to talk about the topic.
>You know your posting offtopic, why are you cluttering up the thread with it?
To paraphrase.
Perhaps it can be compared to the EXTREMELY obnoxious practise of pretending ERP is okay if you use spoiler tags, but obviously not that bad.
The /m/ example is a little less obnoxious, but as you've already said, it involves knowingly starting a request thread that shouldn't be there in the first place.
I'm not saying that visible sage has no upsides at all, but I'm saying they're negligible compared to the downsides.
>>580317
>Then it stands to reason that, since the rules of the site dissuade sage from being a proclamation, that a visible sage would go against the spirit of the function.
The rules of the site are often retarded.
>1) Content that you shouldn't be replying to in the first place
It's content that gets replied to. People will reply to it. Tangents happen, and 4chan is a an anarchic place. You might as well say that nobody should get in an argument.
>It's not your business.
The location of the thread is either your business, or it isn't. If it isn't, there's no reason people should be allowed to sage at all. If it is, then whether other people sage is relevant to me.
>having an extra layer of potential misunderstanding does not benefit discussion in any way, for any poster.
It's more information. More information only misleads the retarded.
Randomly autofill the options field with sage, then wait for the reaction
>>580333
>The rules of the site are often retarded
Then start a site that you like. People who rally for rule changes on /qa/ do not get listened to.
For the record, I think >>>/global/rules/7 is a great rule.
>People will reply to it
There's no harm in natural conversation, there is harm in declaring that you know you are encouraging offtopic, but that you feel it's okay because everyone knows you saged.
>The location of the thread is either your business, or it isn't
I'm not buying this dichotomy anon. The effect your post have on the thread is entirely your business, the effect of other posters is not.
>It's more information. More information only misleads the retarded.
Just like how much flags have totally enriched discussion on /pol/, /sp/ and /int/.
I do not really care for information about the poster. I don't care about their name, where they're from, their level of education, or how suitable they think their post is for bringing a thread to Page 1. I care about the content of their post and I don't really appreciate any other information distracting from that.
Yeah, perhaps it takes a retard to make a big deal out of flags, or sage, or anything else. But you share a site with those retards and it only takes a handful of them to derail a thread.
