what about reserving a 'generals' section for every board? it could have a different catalog/be delimited by normal threads in other ways (for the purpose of giving the two separate bump orders/thread number limits)
a few features that could help managing:
>a new thread could be automatically made upon the relative general reaching a bump limit, thread redirecting can also be automated
>the creation of a new general could be decided upon consensus (that means that threads can't be created/deleted since the creation is handled automatically and voting/mods takes care of deletion). finding consensus on a possible new general could be troublesome without creating a thread on the topic, so trial thread creation could be allowed since it's an efficient way to see how the userbase reacts to the new general
>consensus/mod discrection also applies for modifying the contents of the thread's OP
4chan (and every imageboard by extension), was given a structure such that post quality is maintained with fast discussion on always different topics (this obtained by only giving broad indication for a topic, I'm talking about the partitioning of the boards of course), as opposed to trying to get post quality with all the psychological processes linked to having an account and having more focus on specific topics (peer pressure in the form of your post being linked to your 'person', like/dislike, etc), a structure that other websites prefer.
Keeping this at mind, it's easy to see why this trend of generals makes people angry and uncomfortable: fixing a discussion topic greatly rises the probability of reposts, stagnates topics, and even favours people who feel knowledgeable about the subject and feel like their opinion is worth more, thus giving themselves names/trips (necessary if they really have to be recognized for particular contribution, I'm just arguing about the majority of cases in which a trip doesn't serve a purpose and just derails the discussion into berating the trip)
(2/2) In conclusion, if we accept the practice of generals on 4chan, why shouldn't we adapt the site to make the 'old' 4chan (the one strictly adherent to an imageboard philosophy) coexist with generals (in all of this I'm not arguing their utility, in fact I think they can be an added value if properly integrated)
hello rddt
I wouldn't mind this.
>>580351
Looks like it would clean up the catalog from reddit if anything.
I hate the idea of ceding more things to to general users, but it seems like an inevitability that they will continue to gain more power and more influence with each passing day.
This could be nice, I guess. I hate that it's coming to this.
If I wanted to hiro to comment on one thing it would be generals, but he picks a random thread once every 1.5 months, confuses things, and disappears.
>>580344
Won't work and general faggots will continue to make thinly veiled general threads in the non-general section of the board. Generals are where topics are laid to rest and discussion is nowhere to be seen. It's also highly accessible to new people coming to the website and they will feverishly defend their thread and posts despite breaking the rules. An example of this is in the recent MM general that hit bump limit, defending off-topic garbage like cosplay being posted. >>>/a/143637834
>>580424
>>580424
>>>580344 (OP)
>Won't work and general faggots will continue to make thinly veiled general threads in the non-general section of the board.
I don't see why they would bother if a specific section only for them is made. I'd also argue that veiled generals, by being forced to come up with a different OP every time, will generate enough variety of topics. In case this doesn't happen a general about that subject can be made and those posters can be redirected there
>>580444
>different OP every time, will generate enough variety of topics
Wrong.
Search the archive for /ai/ on /a/.
>>580451
I don't expect this to be the general case, but there are topics that can be viewed in different angles. If the discussion shapes around the particular perspective that the OP gave, different OPs will result in different discussions. that's sadly almost never the case with /a( though
>>580453
>I don't expect this to be the general case, but there are topics that can be viewed in different angles.
There can be and there are various, but this thread is concerning generals. See below.
>If the discussion shapes around the particular perspective that the OP gave, different OPs will result in different discussions
That's never the case with generals unfortunately. /a/ is still fine to the point that they are able to have a discussion despite overall board quality going down due to recent events and I can imagine board quality plummeted on other boards. Such a thing doesn't happen on generals and thankfully they make it so easy to just archive hunt and see how they interact in their 24/7 threads.
I really miss him.
>>580457
>his thread is concerning generals
my reasoning in the post you quoted was about the 'veiled generals' in >>580444 ; when talking about proper generals with fixed OP and everything sparks of new discussion can only come from inside the thread, and the older the general the less chance for this to happen
why exactly are you thinking that the solution in OP wouldn't help /a/?
>>580460
Because several generals that went on hiatus(another board) came back. KanColle garbage is on /a/ after getting an anime and they do everything but discuss the anime itself, given that it's been running for months they've nothing else to discuss about it, it's been run down to the ground. It's filled with shitposting, game discussion and image dumping and waifu garbage. Then I get to see it happen again as soon as a new season's show ends making discussion about a particular show dead on arrival.
>>580344
No, just ban the stupid fuckers and kick the people who live off of them out.
