It's MEANT to be NOT SO LOGICAL DISCUSSIONS. Go to General Discussions if you want quality.
forum
Why do we need to post quality threads in off-topic?
posted
Total Posts
70
This is a good topic, and I would like to discuss it further.
As I see it, we are posting "quality" to please out current moderator, Flanster. However, it looks like he is not currently satisfied with our conduct. So why should we post quality here? Any attempt simply gets hammered either immediately or after a page. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if this thread gets locked as well.
As I see it, we are posting "quality" to please out current moderator, Flanster. However, it looks like he is not currently satisfied with our conduct. So why should we post quality here? Any attempt simply gets hammered either immediately or after a page. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if this thread gets locked as well.
well we should have another round of this discussion either way, whether this thread gets locked or not. looking at past examples, it is hard to straight out define which threads get locked and which don't.
"So why should we post quality here?" (sorry im using quick reply so..)
imo to what i've seen off-topic quality / criteria is usually determined by the overlord present during that period of time. which means.. we should stick to flan's expectations or negotiate the extent to how shitty our posts can be.
"So why should we post quality here?" (sorry im using quick reply so..)
imo to what i've seen off-topic quality / criteria is usually determined by the overlord present during that period of time. which means.. we should stick to flan's expectations or negotiate the extent to how shitty our posts can be.
not so logical != retarded
I've only spammed once, and I now realize that was a mistake; I apologize. Although I'm pretty sure I'll never hear the end of it.Raspberriel wrote:
That's still not an excuse for spamming.
I agree with this as well. Maybe Flan should give us clear expectations on his definition of quality, because obviously mine does not match up with his.kai99 wrote:
imo to what i've seen off-topic quality / criteria is usually determined by the overlord present during that period of time. which means.. we should stick to flan's expectations or negotiate the extent to how shitty our posts can be.
I agree with this as well. Maybe Flan should give us clear expectations on his definition of quality, because obviously mine does not match up with his.he literally just wrote it in the post above yours
Which he posted while I was writing my response; therefore I did not see it.Foxtrot wrote:
he literally just wrote it in the post above yours
Can you please expand on this? Retardedness is very subjective; the extremes are clear, but what of those posts that fall in the middle? What of those questionable posts? Surely you must have a guideline for locking.Flanster wrote:
not so logical != retarded
something can be completely absurd but still not hot garbage
unfortunately "hot garbage" seems to be the only thing some (not all) of you are capable of
unfortunately "hot garbage" seems to be the only thing some (not all) of you are capable of
Bwoah.. I just evaluate if the thread's topic (if any) is interesting enough and worth expanding on. If it "barely makes it" lets say, I let it stay and see how it goes. If it derails, which in most cases does, it goes to helvette. Typical examples are posting random youtube videos, food recipes, irrelevant random conversations, random memes and topic hijacking even. What are "questionable" posts?johnmedina999 wrote:
Can you please expand on this? Retardedness is very subjective; the extremes are clear, but what of those posts that fall in the middle? What of those questionable posts? Surely you must have a guideline for locking.Flanster wrote:
not so logical != retarded
I wasn't even talking about you!johnmedina999 wrote:
I've only spammed once, and I now realize that was a mistake; I apologize. Although I'm pretty sure I'll never hear the end of it.Raspberriel wrote:
That's still not an excuse for spamming.
So..... as mentioned yesterday it's the mindset of peeps. we should have a behavioral session :thonkang:
actually a really good example of this kind of stuff is the 'helvetica standard' shorts from nichijou
absurdist humor may look "low effort" but it is actually somewhat involved
the ot news dudes have the right of it. high effort low-effort shitposting, if that makes sense
absurdist humor may look "low effort" but it is actually somewhat involved
the ot news dudes have the right of it. high effort low-effort shitposting, if that makes sense
since i never spam in off-topic thread. i wonder if moderator allow it :thinking:
spamming is the fastest way to die
i want to live a bit more :^)Flanster wrote:
spamming is the fastest way to die
high effort low-effort shitposting 👌Ephemeral wrote:
the ot news dudes have the right of it. high effort low-effort shitposting, if that makes sense
i think that makes sense, and it's what i've been thinking about a long time.
dk if that will even happen tho
So.as long as it contributes something to OT, it's good to stay?Flanster wrote:
Bwoah.. I just evaluate if the thread's topic (if any) is interesting enough and worth expanding on. If it "barely makes it" lets say, I let it stay and see how it goes. If it derails, which in most cases does, it goes to helvette. Typical examples are posting random youtube videos, food recipes, irrelevant random conversations, random memes and topic hijacking even.
I don't get it.kai99 wrote:
high effort low-effort shitposting 👌Ephemeral wrote:
high effort low-effort shitposting, if that makes sense
because you and your band of cancer heads are worthlessCanadian Baka wrote:
Why do we need to stop postingqualitythreads in off-topic?