/fringe/ - Fringe

Something else up for discussion: should we make a sticky thread that is just cyclical? Right now we constantly make a new thread and archive the older ones and in this way preserve a ton of knowledge and basically build a huge FAQ. However, maybe it would be best to just have a permanent cyclical thread for questions like on /tech/, and to use the board page called "FAQ" more to keep a record of common questions and the answers to them?

One more thing, feel free to make suggestions as to threads to have added to the "important threads" list in the sticky. Currently there is one for diet and one for music.

The rules link in your sticky says "8chan.net" instead of "8ch.net" and the greenpill link 404's for me. But otherwise, everything's looking pretty nice.

If you're trying to solve namefaggotry and drama, you're going to have to get rid of flags, too. This is a small community. It's not like tens of people are using any specific flag other than no flag or the V mask flag. We all know it's almost always if it's the fringe girl flag, or that one anon who's constantly telling people the opposite advice to the board's popular opinion with the Pleiadian flag, or what I guess are now former namefags that turn up once every couple months and give advice about specific things who usually use the same flag each time. Getting rid of flags isn't something I'm suggesting you do, though. I personally think this is a shitty rule either way. If you want to get rid of the drama, you have to somehow come up with a rule that targets the specific people who only come to /fringe/ to intentionally cause drama, loosh farm, make fun of , or tell people that they're delusional and that the occult doesn't real. They're still going to do those things regardless of whether or not they have a name field. If that's what you're trying to combat, your rule won't change anything. If that's not the point of the rule, then I don't think you've explained it very well.

>I may turn on IDs as well or I might not. Depends on the demand for it ITT.

Wouldn't that encourage the same shit rule 5 is trying to combat? It creates more identification between different posters, even if it's only within the one thread.

>Tripfags will no longer be able to tripfag.

100% behind this. Fuck tripfags. That said, I still don't think that getting rid of names would stop the board from being filled with drama.

That's my 2 cents, if it's worth anything. If you're an entirely new BO, I'm not convinced that you aren't a massive faggot yet.

>>96392

I think the flags would be less of a problem if we had 100+ active users who were actually serious about the occult. As it stands, I think at least half of our few users are trolls, shills, and loosh farmers. It would be good if there were some way to selectively advertise this board so that we got more people who were serious without bringing in too many shitposters, but I have no idea how that would have to happen as people with actual potential for this stuff are pretty spread out in the world. There would have to be a rule against people asking for proof, and even still there would be a ton of neophytes. Any experienced magicians/wizards would have their work cut out for them, at least for a time, but once enough people start seeing results it would be pretty nice.

Zero-content shitposts should be punishable at the minimum by deletion. There's a lot of that going on. It takes up space and lowers board quality. If you're going to shitpost at least include some actual content in your post bearing on the thread or discussion. It's a serious problem on this board and has gotten out of hand.

>>96396

It should be written somewhere noticeable that if somebody wants to farm loosh, they should have the decency to go do it on other boards/chans. If the non-shill/troll posters here complied, it would at least solve part of the problem.

The number one way to be become a Bullshit Acultist is being a whiney bitch

>>96413

Also wtf is loosh? You make no fucking sense. Grow thicker skin. How do you expect to make it anywhere in life if any 500 lb douche can say "Bushleague Ucultist" to ruin your day?

I think IDs would make it obvious whose trolling.

There is supposed to be a rule against over-use of the default flag which is to encourage people to pick other flags, either on the basis of which flag is most relevant to their current postings, or just picking them at random. This obfuscates who is using what flags. We had a rule like this before and it just needs to be formally re-implemented again with specific wording about how it's going to enforced. I am thinking that posters who consistently post with the anon flag from the same ID all the time will basically get the occasional ban telling them to make use of other flags. Besides that, using the default flag is a sign of being a newfig, and rightfully ought to invite insult.

>>96396

There is already a rule for that (rule 3). Report that shit. Right now there are only 3 board vols btw and more need to be hired. I will not hire any new vols however until the entire board is archived first, board assets exported, and everything is made ready so that if a new vol goes full retard the board can be set up again pretty quick. I hope the board decentralization and export stuff that codemonkey has been saying for months he's going to give us finally happens and if anyone wants to head over to >>>/sudo/ to pressure him on this that would be great. There needs to be a way for board owners to back-up their entire boards every week or even every day if they want to, so they don't lose potentially months of content in the event of a Protagonist 2.0.

The rules have been reworded a little in the board announcement btw. They are shorter now than they were before and a little more clear I think.

6. Do not sit on the default flag or post with no flag all the time. Use other flags, preferably the flag most relevant to your specific post, or you may select flags at random. Those who ignore this rule will be occasionally banned and told to switch flags. Do not try to create an identity around constant use of a specific flag.

Anyone who you expect is in violation of this rule you may report and if we see that he has made a great many posts all under the same flag we'll ban him to give him a heads up to change flags.

This applies in the "posting in general" section so it's not just for creating threads but for every post you make.

>>96424

This seems rather harsh. Why not just get rid of flags all together, what valid purpose do they serve? At the very least just us an id system as you can follow someone's posts throughout a thread easier.

>Tripfags will no longer be able to tripfag.

Haven't seen any of them in a while.

>I may turn on IDs as well or I might not. Depends on the demand for it ITT.

on a small community like this I don't think that would do anything

>>96392

>If you're trying to solve namefaggotry and drama, you're going to have to get rid of flags, too.

I think the flags encourages shit posters, also I think it would be better if we got rid of them all together because then people would have to put a little more thought into what school of magic you are coming from.

>>96396

>Zero-content shitposts should be punishable at the minimum by deletion.

There goes every Discordianism post ever.

>>96421

>There is supposed to be a rule against over-use of the default flag which is to encourage people to pick other flags.

I think the flags are dumb because picking a different flag isn't gonna make content go up. It just seems like a dumb way to feed your ego.

>>96424

>banning for not using flags or using default

that seems like a good way to start loosing people.

>Do not create an identity from something that gives you an identity

yet the only things that encourage non identity are the things you want people to stop using.

>>96425

>Why not just get rid of flags all together, what valid purpose do they serve?

>This

The idea of me changing flags for every post I make seems dumb.

>>96423

new rule you gand uze sburdo flag unless you write like him :DDD

http://ebin-benis-wigi-ddd.wikia.com/wiki/Spurdish

>>96425

If flags ought to go then so should images. Flags are very aesthetic and give the board a unique feeling and are there to represent all the different paradigms.

Still thinking about turning on IDs, haven't made up my mind about whether it would be good or not, there might be some sperg outs if they get turned on and some of the people that like to talk to themselves end up being outed.

>>96431

That's a fine price to pay for having the assurance of knowing when a whole thread is the same faggot I bet you 90% of every post with the word "obullshitist" boardwide are the same nigger

>>96427

The only way to stop people from trying to build up identities is to have a formal rule against it. You could have someone build an identity around using capslock, people trying to use signatures, people avatar-fagging, etc.

Removing flags, removing images, removing all these features is not going to stop that.

>that seems like a good way to start loosing people.

The bans are only 10 to 15 minutes you know.

>The idea of me changing flags for every post I make seems dumb.

It wouldn't have to be for every single post but you should vary it up once in awhile.

>>96433

>I bet you 90% of every post with the word "obullshitist" boardwide are the same nigger

You're damned right… it's literally all one guy

Alright, I have been waiting to see objections against turning off names, but it's been well over 24 hours now and I haven't seen a single objection. I am turning them off now.

test

nnnnnnn

Any comments on whether we should have a permanent cyclical questions sticky instead of what we currently do which is create a new thread and archive it when it's done being filled up and point to the previous archived thread?

>>96431

>Flags are very aesthetic and give the board a unique feeling

I agree with you there but they serve no purpose outside of that. We shouldn't need to be told to switch flags if we are using them too much, especially if they represent our paradigm.

>some of the people that like to talk to themselves

A good reason for turning them on. Trolls from other boards will no longer be able to make it seem like there are more of them within a thread.

>>96439

What about having a separate neophyte question sticky for beginner questions. That way questions pertaining to more advanced theory and practice are not lost in the same sea of "Help me learn magic" questions.

>>96440

>I agree with you there but they serve no purpose outside of that. We shouldn't need to be told to switch flags if we are using them too much, especially if they represent our paradigm.

The default flag doesn't represent a paradigm. It is mostly sitting on the default flag that is a concern and building identities. If someone starts using a flag in such a way as to build an identity we may stop them. This isn't going to be a super strict heavily enforced rule, it's going to be more like our thing where we MAY spoiler images at our discretion, if they are a problem.

>A good reason for turning them on. Trolls from other boards will no longer be able to make it seem like there are more of them within a thread.

I don't believe they're trolls. They appear to be Hanz-tier schizophrenics. People like: >>>/fringe/81982

Probably got into the occult through /fringe/ and then lost their mind to some entity and now can't stop ever posting gibberish.

>>96441

I think that would mean two threads you have to constantly scroll by to see other stuff and would be stupid. This board isn't THAT fast. Practically all questions asked are all beginner questions. More advanced questions would likely be made as their own threads because more advanced users have a lot more to say and present.

I have turned on poster ID's due to great demand and not seeing anyone telling me they shouldn't be added.

I am going to make a board page called "archives" or something also to be a big collection of archived threads including every archived question thread all listed in one big index.

Introducing a new board page: https://8ch.net/fringe/archive.html

Please contribute by sending more lists of archives I should add in there. Currently I have almost all the question thread archives up in there. Archives of other series of threads may also be added.

⊱ Rules ╳ Moderator Log ╳ Library ╳ FAQ ╳ Fringe Guide ╳ Ranks ╳ CSS ╳ /fringe/ ╳ /asatru/ ╳ /edgy/ ╳ /4chon/ ╳ /lel/ ╳ /ask/ ╳ #loosh ╳ Fringechan ⊰

Board Announcement has been changed. The dead boards /lel/ and /edgy/ have been removed and the new board page for archives has been added.

Some wizardry has now been applied to the sticky to customize its appearance.

>>96457

It is taking forever to show up.

>try to discuss how a rule works

>ask questions, using a few people we all know about here, because what I'm saying needs context, to try to discuss the rule's pros and cons

>the new BO bans me for it

>the new BO doesn't even respond to my post

What the fuck is wrong with you? Surely you have the critical thinking skills to realize that using context to discuss a rule is a reasonable thing to do. The fact that I mentioned specific people didn't disrupt the thread, did it? Banning me accomplishes what? Why not discuss it with me?

>>96443

>massive demand

I've seen at most 4 posts about it, and one of them was yours. Like I said above, you didn't reply to my post. I gave a reason not to. I don't care if they're on or not, but my point is that you ignored my post and just banned me. Also, this thread hasn't even been up for 24 hours. A lot of regular posters won't have seen it yet.

>>96424

>banning people for using one flag too often

Jesus, that is so retarded. Why even have flags if you have to build such strict rules about them? I've never changed flag because I think flags are dumb, not because I want some kind of identity. I'm definitely not the only one, considering all the people who use no flag and the V mask flag. Are you going to ban me (again) and them because we don't pay attention to parts of the board functionality that we don't care about? Does not changing your flag enough mean that we aren't constructively discussing occultism? Why not just randomize it for every post, and then, at that point, why even have flags?

>>96434

>The bans are only 10 to 15 minutes you know.

Then why even have bans? You'd have to be constantly refreshing the page every minute 24/7 looking for new people to ban for there to be any reason to do that. This board is slow enough that people reply to all the threads they have something to say in, and then they do something else. That's how pretty much every board here works, from my observation. Banning them for 10 to 15 minutes if they break one of your strict and arbitrary rules will only mean they come back to an expired ban every time. That defeats the purpose of banning them in the first place.

You are officially one of the worst BOs I have ever seen, and you haven't even been one for very long. You really, really need to think over these new rules a lot harder, and actually have a discussion with all your users. If you need help or an outside perspective, I'm the BO of another top 50 board, and I've never had any complaints from the board's users. That said, based on other BOs I've seen who act like you are, it wouldn't surprise me if you banned me because you don't like criticism, in which case I'm not coming back.

>>96466

I read your post and considered carefully what you said. I had to edit it all the same and still ban you.

>I've seen at most 4 posts about it, and one of them was yours. Like I said above, you didn't reply to my post. I gave a reason not to. I don't care if they're on or not, but my point is that you ignored my post and just banned me. Also, this thread hasn't even been up for 24 hours. A lot of regular posters won't have seen it yet.

I can always turn them off later if there's an outcry about it.

>Jesus, that is so retarded. Why even have flags if you have to build such strict rules about them? I've never changed flag because I think flags are dumb, not because I want some kind of identity. I'm definitely not the only one, considering all the people who use no flag and the V mask flag. Are you going to ban me (again) and them because we don't pay attention to parts of the board functionality that we don't care about? Does not changing your flag enough mean that we aren't constructively discussing occultism? Why not just randomize it for every post, and then, at that point, why even have flags?

Why do you all hate flags so much? I don't get it.

/fringe/ historically has had rules requiring people to make use of the various flags. I'm just reviving that rule but in a newish way.

>Then why even have bans? You'd have to be constantly refreshing the page every minute 24/7 looking for new people to ban for there to be any reason to do that. This board is slow enough that people reply to all the threads they have something to say in, and then they do something else. That's how pretty much every board here works, from my observation. Banning them for 10 to 15 minutes if they break one of your strict and arbitrary rules will only mean they come back to an expired ban every time. That defeats the purpose of banning them in the first place.

I don't consider these rules arbitrary or "strict" at all. They are pretty reasonable and we generally have always let a lot of things just slide, to the point that, most of the time people complain that we ignore rulebreakers and do nothing at all which is pretty much true most of the time.

The bans are to notify them about stuff. There's no point in making them longer in a world of proxies. The red text under their posts is also supposed to show to others what not to do. So if they are scrolling past the frontpage and they see some OP is banned for something, they will know not to do that.

>You are officially one of the worst BOs I have ever seen, and you haven't even been one for very long. You really, really need to think over these new rules a lot harder, and actually have a discussion with all your users. If you need help or an outside perspective, I'm the BO of another top 50 board, and I've never had any complaints from the board's users. That said, based on other BOs I've seen who act like you are, it wouldn't surprise me if you banned me because you don't like criticism, in which case I'm not coming back.

I'm moderating the board similar to how the >>>/tech/ BO moderates. You're already incredibly paranoid and uppity and acting like martial law was just imposed on you or you're about to be rounded up into a FEMA camp or something.

People are lazy idiots and need to be reminded from time to time that we have some basic rules and expectations of them that exist.

If I ban you, it'll be because you're not using a flag right now, not because of criticism.

What did you think of the previous BOs of this board btw?

>>96469

>Why do you all hate flags so much? I don't get it.

I don't hate flags. Read what I said again. I don't use them because I think they're dumb, but I don't care when other people use them. Do I have to start using them in order to use the board? Do I then have to pay attention to them all the time to make sure I'm not using one too much? That's such a dumb rule. At the very least, the rule should be waved for people who use no flag or the V mask flag, since there are a lot more of those people than there are people who use any other flag. A particular flag having 10-20 users is very different to one person using one of the other flags for all their posts, don't you think?

>I don't consider these rules arbitrary or "strict" at all.

I do. Board rules are put in place for the sake of making the board a nice place to be. The reason this board can, at times, not be a nice place to be is because people come here to intentionally cause drama and shit up the place. The way to combat that is to ban people who do that. Banning people for mentioning posters they recognize or for not changing flag often enough doesn't combat it. It gives regular users more things to think about when they post for reasons that will only fix a couple unrelated things. How does me mentioning a specific user in this thread within the context of this conversation constitute taking away my right to post? Do you really not see how dumb that is? Context is very important. I get trying to combat namefagging, but this doesn't seem like a good way to do that to me, and it causes other problems, like my answer to the question at the end of your post.

>The bans are to notify them about stuff.

If you only ban someone for 10 minutes every time they do something wrong, why would they care? They only have to wait 10 minutes to continue to do whatever they were doing that broke the rule. Someone who comes here to annoy people wouldn't be discouraged by 10 minutes.

>You're already incredibly paranoid and uppity

I've been on this website and other ones long enough that I can tell mods that know what they're doing from mods that don't. Maybe you're not a bad enough mod that you ban dissent, which I am happy about, but these are some really dumb rules, and unless I didn't read the thread closely enough, I don't think anyone supported the flag rule.

>What did you think of the previous BOs of this board btw?

He who I'm not allowed to name for fear of being banned even though I wouldn't be naming him based on namefagging drama but I would be banned anyway (see, I can't even answer your question without breaking your new rule) didn't do a great job, considering the current state of the board, but at least he wasn't a massive rulecuck. As far as I could tell, everyone else he appointed just left the rules as they were.

Also, I'm curious; how did you get the board? Claim is still 404, and that person I'm not allowed to name made a thread saying they didn't know who owned the board.

Lots of updates to: https://8ch.net/fringe/archive.html

Check out all the archived threads here. Many go back to the freedomboard days. Haven't found any archives of 5chon stuff though.

>>96470

>Do I have to start using them in order to use the board?

No but you'll maybe get banned from time to time. I don't think you post very much though so probably it doesn't concern you at all. The main objective is to ensure that the majority of posts being made are under flags of various sorts.

>Do I then have to pay attention to them all the time to make sure I'm not using one too much?

It's mostly targeted at people using the default flag or no flag. If at some point though your constant use of one specific flag starts resulting in the formation of an identity for you, yes, you might get a ban.

>A particular flag having 10-20 users is very different to one person using one of the other flags for all their posts, don't you think?

Your point?

>Banning people for mentioning posters they recognize or for not changing flag often enough doesn't combat it.

It does too. I don't want to be a dick to anyone mind you, I want people to follow the rules, and you're not getting any huge bans. Most of the people breaking the rules probably just never pay attention to the rules and don't even know they exist.

>How does me mentioning a specific user in this thread within the context of this conversation constitute taking away my right to post?

You're posting right now aren't you? I had to edit your post and I had to make sure that you know not to do that again so I gave you a really short ban.

>If you only ban someone for 10 minutes every time they do something wrong, why would they care? They only have to wait 10 minutes to continue to do whatever they were doing that broke the rule. Someone who comes here to annoy people wouldn't be discouraged by 10 minutes.

Again, they can just switch proxies. If they wait out 10 minutes for their ban to be over, we're effectively stopping them for longer than if they didn't wait at all, since it takes much less than 10 minutes to switch proxies.

That said, there's provisions in the rules for repeat offenders (have you bothered yet to read the rules page where everything is laid out in more detail?). When someone gets way out of line and is intentionally and repeatedly breaking the rules, we make the bans hours long, and in some cases weeks long. That's only for people who are specifically and only here to sabotage the board though and not for regular posters that want to discuss the occult.

>I've been on this website and other ones long enough that I can tell mods that know what they're doing from mods that don't. Maybe you're not a bad enough mod that you ban dissent, which I am happy about, but these are some really dumb rules, and unless I didn't read the thread closely enough, I don't think anyone supported the flag rule.

We were discussing it before for awhile now in the skype group. It's already been in effect also for almost a month now. It has just been properly formalized now. You really shouldn't worry so much about this, it doesn't make that big of a difference, but we're keeping it here for similar reasons as to why America has a constitution. Some people are obviously going to ignore flags out of principle but a lot of people who'd otherwise not use different flags will use them just to follow the rules. As long as a good majority of posts on here continue to use the various flags, our objective is being achieved. We don't want it to end up like on some boards such as >>>/b/ or >>>/tech/ where there's a ton of flags but you'd never know it because barely anyone ever uses them.

>He who I'm not allowed to name for fear of being banned even though I wouldn't be naming him based on namefagging drama but I would be banned anyway (see, I can't even answer your question without breaking your new rule) didn't do a great job, considering the current state of the board, but at least he wasn't a massive rulecuck. As far as I could tell, everyone else he appointed just left the rules as they were.

You could just have said "He didn't do a great job, considering the current state of the board, but at least he wasn't a massive rulecuck. As far as I could tell, everyone else he appointed just left the rules as they were." and your message would still make sense to me you know. What exactly do you blame on him? An administrative position can only do so much and at the end of the day /fringe/ always grew under him and all the various alternative boards that tried to come up failed.

Btw, if you look at the ban list right now for /fringe/, there isn't a single ban even listed on there; because right now absolutely nobody is banned. You can't say the same about /pol/ or /leftypol/ where there banlists are literally over 300 pages long.

>Also, I'm curious; how did you get the board? Claim is still 404, and that person I'm not allowed to name made a thread saying they didn't know who owned the board.

[classified]

>>96468

The different number color is a nice change. Mixing it up every now and then is nice.

>>96476

The flag rule is honestly retarded, you're forcing people to use flags they don't want to use. I'm 99% sure you're the only one that wants this.

>>96476

>Your point?

You're trying to stop people from being able to identify each other, correct? So if someone uses a flag nobody else uses for an extended period of time, and they talk about the same stuff a lot, it'll be obvious that they're the same person and that they're using that flag in a similar way to an avatarfag uses pictures of a particular person or whatever. On the other hand, if lots of people use a particular flag, it'll be impossible to identify any one of them in particular. Banning people for using no flag or the V mask flag too much makes no sense if the point of the rule is to stop namefag drama. It's impossible to stand out as "that one anon who always uses the V mask flag" if lots of people are using it and saying different things with it. I really don't know how I could simplify this any further.

>Banning people for mentioning posters they recognize or for not changing flag often enough doesn't combat it.

>It does too

How? Do you think all the board's problems are caused by people making fun of you-know-who? My perspective is that all the board's problems are caused by people coming here and making constant shitposts based on calling us all schizophrenics and bullshit occultists and contributing nothing constructive. In the past week or two I'd agree that namefag drama has been a problem. Long term, though, I'd disagree about it being the main problem, and I don't think this rule will help with that aspect of the board in any way.

>You're posting right now aren't you? I had to edit your post and I had to make sure that you know not to do that again so I gave you a really short ban.

Way to not answer my question. This is about your rule more than it is about the ban you gave me. If you're having a conversation with someone in this meta thread, and in order for them to make any sense they have to talk about someone specific, why would you take away their right to post? They aren't causing problems on the board. Banning people for mentioning specific people makes sense in certain contexts, like that stuff in the question thread, but when they're talking to the BO about it and they're not causing any drama, banning them seems like a stupid thing to do to them, to me.

>You could just have said "He didn't do a great job, considering the current state of the board, but at least he wasn't a massive rulecuck. As far as I could tell, everyone else he appointed just left the rules as they were." and your message would still make sense to me you know.

But then I would have been "causing namefag drama", because everyone knows who we were talking about. That's why I said it that way.

>What exactly do you blame on him?

Allowing total free speech allows people to flood the board with shitposts, and it happened every so often. That's the only thing I didn't really like about the previous BO's moderation.

>>96483

>>96483

>You're trying to stop people from being able to identify each other, correct?

More like put in place some measures to reduce that happening but mostly to crush out namefag drama. If someone can identify another poster by writing style or whatever else and thinks they know who the poster is, they're not allowed to guess at who it is and call them out by name. Namefag drama has destroyed other boards which became 90% circlejerks around the personas/identities of posters.

>My perspective is that all the board's problems are caused by

As long as they aren't getting away with shitting up the catalog with junk threads they create, they can't be that much disruptive. Now with IDs we can hide all posts made by a given poster in a thread too.

>and in order for them to make any sense they have to talk about someone specific

Wasn't absolute necessary for you to name names. You could have communicated your basic message without doing so and I would still have known what you were talking about.

>But then I would have been "causing namefag drama", because everyone knows who we were talking about. That's why I said it that way.

I would have known from context. You didn't have to add all that blather I removed from your post. I don't want to see names being posted. I don't want this legacy of namefag drama to carry on into the future. I don't want the new people coming on here to get swamped with this stuff. I have to remove it from every thread I see it from now on, even if I'm giving out like 1 second bans. Otherwise if it stays up, someone could come in weeks or months later, and spark up the drama again.

>Allowing total free speech allows people to flood the board with shitposts, and it happened every so often. That's the only thing I didn't really like about the previous BO's moderation.

Well, what would you have preferred instead? I'm still sticking with near total free speech but with enforcement of anonymity now. The anonymity is required to protect people's free speech on here as well as to raise the quality of discussion so we don't have witch-hunting trolls going around through every single thread searching for someone, accusing random anons of being that person, and shitting everything up.

>Namefag drama is shitting up the board lately. This will not be 4chon 2.0. We will not have every thread filled with endless namefag drama bullshit.

Forced anonymity is great. Keep tripfags away for good.

>>96490

I feel like I've explained the same 3 or 4 things over and over and you're still completely missing the point of what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm wasting my time with this anymore. Keep adding more rules that nobody wants and that only solve smaller issues preemptively, I guess. Hopefully other posters like >>96482 can eventually get through to you better than I can.

>>96492

What do you even want from me? What are the supposedly bigger issues? It seems to me you just want me to pass out a bunch of heavy-handed bans to specific individuals as if that will fix anything.

>nobody wants

A lot of people wanted these rules. IDK why they're not presently posting in this thread but we discussed it a long time in the chats.

>>96424

Just get rid of flags, asshole

congratz, you killed a board

>>96676

It was already dead and filled with newfigs treating the place like an /x/ + /pol/ board.

All the shills coming out to pretend the board is kill when it's still running along like usual and trying to get rid of flags even though they've been around since /fringe/ was created back on 5chon.

Newfigs gonna newfig.

>>96680

Proof? 8chan as a whole is going through some problems right now but /fringe/ seems to continue getting activity all the same. Right now we just lost a ton of cached posts too and several threads because of a site error.

>>96755

I mean it's not like anybody's going to stop you…

>>96759

I agree with this anon, IDs need to go

>>96759

>>96755

learn to proxies faggot, I'm already using them

>>96759

I promise I won't read and memorize every single ID in the questions thread.

>>96495

>38 votes

>6 of them support the flag rule

But muh skype circlejerk

>>96839

Looking sharp bro

Is that how peeps on /fringe/ dress?

anti spam bumpanti spam bump beep boop