/meta/ - meta

I hope you get the board anon, whether it's here or elsewhere. 
>No schizos.
How would you define what makes a post or poster 'schizo'? While there are obvious examples of the usual complete nonsense and garbled words, theoretically the definition can apply to anyone who says something that isn't well-received or is perhaps a little out there. How should edge cases and those mistakenly called schizos be handled in your opinion? How should one approach posting as to not be considered a "schizo"?

>>19 (OP) 
Thanks for the interest, but I can't say that I'm a fan of the idea. A board like this has a high chance of ending up either as "blogposting general - board edition" or as nu/pol/.
Also, by advertising you mean this?
https://prolikewoah.com/animu/res/67979.html#68107
Of course, I can't tell you what the fuck you do outside this site, but I'm strongly against advertising it outside the webring. I'm a gatekeeper type, I've seen too many things ruined by the hordes of normalfags.
>meta
If it's not a problem I'd like to keep /meta/ as a site-wide meta & issues board, and keep board-related drama on their respective boards.

>>20
>How would you define what makes a post or poster 'schizo'?
A few ways:
- Strawmans / ad hominem instead of addressing an argument thrown at them
- Cope / Seethe / Dilate mantra or generally single word posts
- Insistence on using namecalling in their posts to undermine a particular target
- Copy and pasted posts (see the "Jesus was a middle eastern kike" post that keeps popping up on /christian/) just to be annoying

Basic trolling or bad faith arguments aren't really made by schizos, because it'd require higher mental faculties than just trying to D&C people with scare and harassment tactics.

しかたがない.jpg
[Hide] (371.2KB, 1591x1338+0+0)

>>20
Generally the lolcow sorts. You know them when you see them.

>>21
That's fine, figured I'd ask. I'm not particularly attached to the idea.
>or as nu/pol/.
Yes that's my primary concern and why I'm not pursuing this very hard. Unfortunately it would almost certainly end up with that sort of reputation as a news aggregate board, but trying to police politics would make the place too much work.
>Also, by advertising you mean this?
Yes.
>I'm a gatekeeper type, I've seen too many things ruined by the hordes of normalfags.
I'm more of the "live and let live" sort but your concerns are understandable.
Thanks for the fast response.

>>21
I'm one of the other anons from the aforementioned threads
While I see where you're coming from with this decision, I'd also like to see some more boards in general on the webring, especially for topics that aren't already being discussed on a specific board. Frankly, it's kind of bothersome that the only few places to talk about current world events is a couple of threads on a gun's and gun'sbrasters board and on an alternative anime board.
As >>24 states I am also fearful of the possibility of attracting /pol/shit or /leftypol/shit, but it's practically part and parcel of dealing with world news. If anything, a moderately populated discussion board is much more defensible from their kind, as the amount of posters that don't fall for niggerpill is significantly higher in places that let them speak more freely.

Speaking of, how is a board that is being held beck by gatekeeping practices supposed to grow in size? I hope I am not coming off as uncouth, I'm just curious about how it can get an userbase by means other than advertising it in the right locations.

1603483109722.png
[Hide] (105.6KB, 1000x1000+0+0)

>>25
> I'd also like to see some more boards in general on the webring, especially for topics that aren't already being discussed on a specific board.


BIZ BIZ BIZ BIZ BIZ BIZ BIZ

degradation_of_a_fanbase.jpg
[Hide] (826.5KB, 2404x1260+0+0)

>>24
>but trying to police politics would make the place too much work.
Also, if you police not enough, anons will be butthurt about why don't you remove that, if you police too much, they will be butthurt about that. Add any kind of /pol/ content, and you just made the problem 1000 times worse. Finding a balance requires a lot of work, if it's possible at all, so if you're not ready for that, it's probably better if we don't have this board.
>I'm more of the "live and let live" sort
I'm too, as long as they're outside and don't bother me. The problem is that they're usually not that kind, so if you let them in, they'll immediately start to force their ideas on you. Also pic related.

>>25
>a moderately populated discussion board is much more defensible from their kind
The less populated the board, the more defensible is, because /cow/tard attention whores generally ignore them. If you want to do this on a board with more than two anons, you need rock solid moderation to remove any derailing /pol/shit attempts on sight, but at that point you're dangerously in rulecucking waters.
>how is a board that is being held beck by gatekeeping practices supposed to grow in size?
I'm not of a muh PPH guy, if I have a sparsely populated but comfy board, that's fine. To get new people, I'd resort to word of mouth, if you know people who would likely fit in, tell them. Good old advertising is good if you want to sell shit to retards, but just look at the shitfest that happened every time Mark advertised /v/ on his twatter.

hj