/operate/ - Endchan Operations

Let us know what's up

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(244.82 KB 728x409 scanner_darkly.jpg)
Administrator requested on /tech/ Anonymous 09/30/2017 (Sat) 23:13:38 [Preview] No. 7122
Hey odili, can you give a position to us on this thread? >>>/tech/11420

I think there's some people trying to subvert the high quality posts on /tech/. The basic questions I do is:
1- Who rules this board?
2- What kind of posts should be allowed?
3- What direction this board should go:
A: quality posts
B: desktop threads
C: other

Your answer there will be appreciated. Thanks.


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 04:14:20 [Preview] No. 7123 del
>>7122
>What kind of posts should be allowed?
It's stated in the board rules, you fucking retard.

You know, instead of continuing to cry about threads you don't like, you could start your own board. You could post whatever you want there, and because you'd be the moderator , if someone dared post a thread about icky nasty technology you don't like, you could just delete it and ban them.

Of course, you won't do that, because you know it would be a dead board. Because most of the half dozen or so people who post on /tech/ don't fall to pieces like a child having a temper tantrum when someone posts a thread about technology that they're not interested in. So there wouldn't be any exodus (of 6 people lol) to your board.

Instead, you'd like the rules of /tech/ to be changed to accommodate your inability to simply skip over or hide a thread you don't like.

Grow up, you fucking child.


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 04:56:20 [Preview] No. 7124 del
>>7123
>you could start your own board.
And split the community even more? Yeah, that would be very smart.
>I argument with logics
>"ur child!!!1111ONE"
Nice rhetorics. But, try harder again.

You guys don't even read anymore. The imageboard culture is completely degenerated. In past, the Poe's law was used in a satiric form. It was never meant to absorb all the postmodernist ideas of deconstructionism.
You guys lost for your own mind, it bended in itself and now you can't go out. Deductive reasoning? Lost. Trying to discuss seriously, using funny analogies? Lost.
You want to understand, but you can't see you're already in a Skinner Box.

Guess I'm the wrong here, indeed, since I'm trying to ressurect something already dead.


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 05:19:35 [Preview] No. 7125 del
>>7123
Also, you can't say we have an anarchist model here (as your image may suggest). There's an administrator here and rules.
>It's stated in the board rules, you fucking retard.
That's exactly the point, I'm questioning these rules.


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 06:12:18 [Preview] No. 7126 del
>>7125
>Also, you can't say we have an anarchist model here
And I didn't. Pic unrelated, Mr. "I argument with logics."


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 08:04:50 [Preview] No. 7129 del
>>7126
>remove my argument from it's context
>think you've defeated the other one
Great:
>"as your image may suggest"
>may
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 08:07:00 [Preview] No. 7130 del
>>7122
>>7122
>I think there's some people trying to subvert the high quality posts on /tech/. The basic questions I do is:
Is this a joke?

>1- Who rules this board?
That's tough to say, you would have to ask in IRC who handles thing atm but from my understanding ring is running the show on endchan or at least doing the work.

>2- What kind of posts should be allowed?
The rules are quite clearly stated, but end/tech has more flexibility in this area as there are fewer users. A little off topic discussion is tolerable where as with a larger user base allowing off topic discussion could get out of hand.

>3- What direction this board should go:
Within the confines of the rules, the users decide that based on what interests them individually and how many others browsing share that interest. It's certainly not up to an individual.

>A: quality posts
By whos' definition?

>B: desktop threads
I never saw anything wrong with this as long as it stays confined to one thread. People have enjoyed sharing desktops for a very long time, quite possibly since the web began. https://www.box-look.org/p/1119047/ Same goes for pictures of peoples' gadgets, build setups and asking advice.

>C: other
I already post what I want, I don't decide the direction of the board.


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 08:38:47 [Preview] No. 7131 del
>>7130
>Is this a joke?
If it is, it's an unfunny and long-running one. The poster to whom you're responding has been sperging out routinely on /tech/ when anyone posts something that does not conform to his idea of a "quality" post. Essentially, if it's not about OpenBSD, seL4, or a few other pet topics he's interested in, he'll get triggered. REEEEEing may or may not follow.

His characterization of the content he doesn't like as "desktop threads" is disingenuous. Those are uncommon on /tech/.


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 09:55:57 [Preview] No. 7132 del
>>7129
>think you've defeated the other one
Indeed, I do not respond to your posts point-by-point (here or on /tech/) because so much of what you write is so obviously ridiculous on its face that a refutation would be lost on anyone who can't see it already.

So I trust that most people will be able to see through your puerile attempts at rhetoric without my help.


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 10:10:13 [Preview] No. 7133 del
>>7130
>Is this a joke?
Why would it be?

>The rules are quite clearly stated
Again, that's the point of all this: questioning if these
rules are right.

>It's certainly not up to an individual.
Agreed. So your answer is that the board is not
teleological. That's fine, I don't see a problem, although
I would say that having a goal would make the community
get together more easily.

>>A: quality posts
>By whos' definition?

Here's my arguments. All of the following is based on
generalizations and cannot be viewed as a determined rule.
What I'm trying here is to have a basic foundation (axioms,
if you will), so we can create refutations and get into a
concensus (or not). It's a bit big and complicated, so if
you don't want to read it's fine, I can just leave. But I
think we should thinking about this subject with a serious
view, not just the lulz:

===============

The foundations of the contemporary imageboard culture
scenary can be generalised as:
1 - Against online personal identification (anonymity)
2 - Satirism and Irony (lulz)
3 - Suspension of Belief (disregard about most of the
mainstream media)
4 - Subversion of authority (all mods are always treated as
someone not so important; see point 2)

Although not a rule for all boards, it can also be
generalised that:
5 - Japanese culture is a influence
6 - Most of the people are introverted

Ok, so let's see specifically the boards /g/ or /tech/ (but
not game-specific boards):
A - Scientific method is generally regarded as valid
(scientific realism)
B - General privacy/security concerns about computing
(reinforced by all the foundations, except point 5; the
points 2 and 6 play the most importance for this school of
thought)

Assuming all the above, let's see the threads I'm
personally against of:

- Desktop and Battlestation threads: goes against the
point 2 (identification). Goes against point B, because the
image can be used as a datamining method.
Exposing screenshots and your hardware, has nothing related
about technology specifically, it's a aesthetic (not
functional) view of the computer graphics and design,
respectivelly. If you want to talk about configuration
scripts and things like that, no problem.

- Smartphone threads: goes against point B
(see GSM security and all the clusterfuck that is these
personal tracking devices)

- General personal questions and "Everyday Carry Threads":
obvious datamining. Goes against general foundation point 2
(identification).

- Closed source software threads: if you don't have the
code you cannot of it's security or our privacy while using
it. So all closed source software (including Windows,
Mac OSX, etc) goes against point B.

- Buy recommendations, such as Thinkpads, Headphones and
others: not necessarily bad. But recommending hardware that
has Intel ME, AMD Secure Processor or any technology that
has clearly privacy issues (such as backdoored routers,
sound systems like Ipod, etc), goes against point B.


Of course, all of this is based on the arguments of the
foundations is correct. I'll not get into the matter of
dicussing cognitive science and sociology to explain why
most of the people using imageboards are isolated, or how
the "simulation argument" created a methaphysical view of
the internet, generating artistic movements based on
nostalgia feelings, etc. These "foundations" is mostly
based on empiricism, since I can't test some of it.
Now, the other point is: should freedom be preserved, even
if this means low quality content (coherence with the
above)? Many of the imageboard culture is subversive and
even anarchist in itself. If we take in consideration the
above points and regard coherence as more important than
freedom, then we have to do a moderation of all posts,
that maybe is not feasible in a large community (unless
moderation is distributed, see >>>/tech/11417 ).
It's also a matter of political thinking.
Note also that I'm not a coherentist solely. I don't regard
ci


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 10:12:13 [Preview] No. 7134 del
>>7133
[continuation...]


Note also that I'm not a coherentist solely. I don't regard
circular reasoning as coherent (since it's not
falsifiable).

===============

Of course, you all may call all of what I wrote a big
bullshit, but it really makes sense for me.
Sorry for my bad english and all, it's not my mother
language.


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 10:20:39 [Preview] No. 7135 del
>>7132
<so obviously ridiculous
>can't write one single point
Oh, why do I still have hope in anonymous communities? I don't know.
I guess our cyberpunk-ish view of the future society running on completely decentralized, anonymous and encrypted internet, and high quality discussions was just utopia, after all.
Human, all too human.

Also:
>IRC
Why you people still use this? Because it feels like you're such a "hacker"? We have so many better protocols today, can't understand you guys.


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 15:37:31 [Preview] No. 7136 del
>>7135
>>7134
>>7133
>>7125
>>7129
>>7132
>>7124
>>7122
"Me me me me me me"
Your problem that you are stuck in a child's mentality. You don't matter, your ideas don't matter, what you want doesn't matter. Your questions are disingenuous and you're not here to be answered, but start dumb shit. If you do not like how things are going, why do you stay? If you stay, why don't you make a change? Will you answer this without dodging the question with poorly veiled vernacular? Probably not.
>>7135
Lainchan is perfect for you. They are as combatitive and in their head as can be. Why don't you go back?


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 21:49:40 [Preview] No. 7141 del
>>7136
>why do you stay?
Because imageboards is the last place on the internet.
>If you stay, why don't you make a change?
This is what I'm trying here, now.
>Lainchan is perfect for you
No: >>>/r10k/179

And you keep calling me a child, but you can't answer my arguments too. I did a fucking ontological argument and you guys can't even try to refute it. Great.
You know what's very interesting? Imageboards are against identity, but when you go against the herd, everyone goes crazy and don't even read you anymore. The bandwagon mentality is very strong, probably because of the point 6 (isolation).

But, you know, leave it that way. It doesn't matter anymore. Nothing does anymore, it seems.


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 23:52:13 [Preview] No. 7144 del
>>7141
>Ontological argument
More like a dogmatic degree as to what and how you think /tech/ should function.


Anonymous 10/01/2017 (Sun) 23:52:39 [Preview] No. 7145 del
>>7141
Board is not last place. There is IRC, Discord, telnet BBS, nnptchan, i2p chats, tor forums (like intel exchange and road to hell), freenode lists, etc. Maybe you don't look far enough.
>argument
No. That was my first post in this thread and it is not the places you visit that are all shitty smelling, it is just your full diaper. Arguments are worthless, doesn't matter if it's you, Paul the Apostle, or some casanovian death squad pointing a rifle to my head. The logic won't get anything done and is self masturbatory. I recommend you work on a team and see how useful arguments are and learn how to get along with people. Right now you're stuck in the loner kid attitude that you probably grew up with because no one wanted to hang out with a "achktually" ass. I don't care, don't bring your shitty attitude here and shove your nonsense in my face.
>herd
Community. If you want to be a lone wolf go. There are certain customs and ideas that communities share and if you cannot adopt them or have a large enough base of people change them, these communitites don't want you. Go find a place that wants you or change your shitty attitude.
>etc. etc. etc. melodrama
You are acting like a child. You cannot out think yourself from this. Go talk to someone and step off your soap box.

Better yet get a hobby. Like tech? Go do something tech. The only people who has enough time to throw this stupid shit around are people who don't do anything but throw shit in their free time. I know because I was like you before, but now grow as a person and change my attitude.


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 00:33:33 [Preview] No. 7147 del
>7145
>but now grow as a person
Illusion. You're basically falling into the absurdist fallacy. If you stopped thinking about the truth of your existence, then you're already dead. I'm not into metaphysics to talk with the dead, sorry.
If any of you want to use reason to discuss, then I'm damn sure in the wrong place.

>Maybe you don't look far enough.
I looked. All the places you've cited are dead or have people like you.


Idiocracy is real.


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 00:58:11 [Preview] No. 7148 del
>>7144
You probably haven't read or understood the other comment: >>7133
Or, you don't know the definition of dogma. The principles I've stated was based on deduction. If you have and argument against those, then say it instead of calling it "dogmatic".


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 01:56:08 [Preview] No. 7149 del
>>7148
>>7147
"No it's not me who is wrong, it's everyone else."
Nothing will be gained from this. We will continue shitting on your pseudo-intellectualism in every thread we see you. Don't bother replying.


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 01:58:57 [Preview] No. 7150 del
>>7148
Stating a bunch of axioms that are treated as truths are no different that a church stating a bunch of beliefs in their canon. Also, you believe that if something cannot be proven false is false, which means you've committed intellectual fraud and don't really care to understand if anything's actually real. Kill yourself.


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 02:59:54 [Preview] No. 7151 del
>>7150
>if something cannot be proven false is false
Wrong:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

>no different that a church stating a bunch of beliefs in their canon.
There's a very big difference. One is based on a made up metaphysics. The other is based on deductive reasoning.

>don't really care to understand if anything's actually real.
You're trying to get my argument and bend it in itself. Clever, but will not work.

>>7149
>pseudo-intellectualism
>"I can't understand what you're saying, therefore it's pseudo-[something]"


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 03:46:50 [Preview] No. 7152 del
>>7151
>One is based on a made up metaphysics. The other is based on deductive reasoning.
Who made up deductive reasoning and why do you believe in it? It because it justifies your made up rules while rejecting anyone else that doesn't like to listen to you.
Just like you've made up your bullshit and treat it as law. Make your own damn board.
>Note also that I'm not a coherentist solely. I don't regard circular reasoning as coherent (since it's not falsifiable).
Hypocritically, this requires circular reasoning to claim that circular reasoning is incoherent. Your so called deductions are ultimately circular, unexplained deus ex machina excuses. I'm glad that others understand how stupid you are in trying to subvert multiple boards here. It's not going to work. Make. Your. Own. Board.


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 04:51:26 [Preview] No. 7153 del
>>7151
You know you're pretty passionate about debating and arguments, it'd be pretty constructive to channel that energy into your own place where like minded people can congregate and coalesce. Maybe your own board where people might welcome it, instead of here where no one seems to be receptive to your ideas.


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 05:23:30 [Preview] No. 7154 del
>>7152
>rejecting anyone else that doesn't like to listen to you
I can't reject what doesn't exist. You people ain't trying to refute my arguments, you're trying to refure me.

>unexplained deus ex machina excuses.
W-what? It's not an excuse. It's not unexplained (although I could explain better the psychology behind the isolation issue). It's not an deus ex machina (it's not even called that way in rhetorics, btw).

>>7153
Good point. Although I don't split the community, it's very clear that I don't belong here.


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 05:26:14 [Preview] No. 7155 del


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 06:24:24 [Preview] No. 7157 del
>>7154
>I can't reject what doesn't exist.
>You people ain't trying to refute my arguments, you're trying to refure me.
With your stupid logic, you don't exist because others don't like you and your flawed arguments and flawed explanations based on the flawed arguments. You don't belong here by your own admission. You've already given up. Make your own damn board or just leave this place.


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 06:28:03 [Preview] No. 7158 del
>>7154
>I can't reject what doesn't exist. You people ain't trying to refute my arguments, you're trying to refure me.
For the most part, it would be a waste of time to "refute" what you are referring to as your "arguments". What you are delivering (in broken English which is not 100% decipherable, no matter what you seem to think about your English being good enough for the task at hand) is a series of assumptions, half-truths, personal idiosyncrasies, and autistic tantrums, all wrapped up in Philosophy 101-level bluster about ontology, metaphysics, and a few other buzzwords you've picked up from the glossary of your Phil. 101 textbook. Then, when someone takes issue with one of your so-called arguments, or simply ignores the more incoherent ones, you turn to the chapter of your textbook on argumentative fallacies and start blubbering about those. You misunderstand and misapply them about half of the time, btw.

I'm sure your fellow students in the freshman dorm at Kreplakistan University are very impressed with your intellectual prowess. The fact that we are not does not mean that you are a tortured genius, surrounded by benighted Philistines who would hang on your every brilliant word if only we could *see* and *understand* the unsurpassed beauty of your utterances. You are not nearly as smart, as well-read, or as well-spoken as you seem to think you are.

I hope you do not think that I'm merely being an asshole. I am being an asshole, but not *merely*. I'm also trying to help you. You seem very puzzled as to why people are reacting with such hostility to you, and I hope this will help explain some of it.

You are much harder to understand than you suppose, and it is not because of the sophistication of your thought. It is the language barrier. It's not your fault that you're not a native English speaker, but your blamelessness in that regard doesn't make you any easier to understand.

You are arrogant, to the point of obnoxiousness. You seem to view yourself as some kind of savior (or at least promoter) of imageboard culture, and you lecture us about it, while it's clear that your own grasp on the history of imageboards and what's acceptable on them is tenuous at best. And, as I suggested above, nobody seems to be particularly impressed by your rather modest understanding of philosophy and rhetoric.

A thicker skin and a large dose of humility would go a long way toward improving your experience here, in a lot of ways. Nobody wants low-quality threads on /tech/, but if you're trying to persuade people that *your personal interpretation of what constitutes a good thread* is what should set the standard, you're not doing yourself any favors by the way you're engaging with people in this thread or on /tech/.


Anonymous 10/02/2017 (Mon) 21:44:23 [Preview] No. 7161 del
>>7158
>You are not nearly as smart
>Judging someones intelligence by some posts on random imageboard
Guys, bring the Stanford academics here, we have a new IQ measurement method!


Anonymous 10/03/2017 (Tue) 21:56:09 [Preview] No. 7164 del
Degeneracy threads are stupid, but only because Christians are attracted to them like dung flies to the dung heap.


odilitime Board volunteer 10/07/2017 (Sat) 00:14:07 [Preview] No. 7167 del
>>7122
I skimmed some of that thread and this one. Going to just randomly reply to some of the things I saw.

>Who rules this board?
The BO. It's not a global-run board.

>What kind of posts should be allowed?
That's up to him

>What direction this board should go
If you want "quality control" go to reddit. What sets imageboards aside is the freedom to post whatever.

I guess that's option C, it's not A.

Desktop threads have their place. It's an opportunity to see how other organize their shit, so you can improve yours. (also to brag how much money you spent). But it's the frequency that matters, I don't think it's a good thing to always have a battlestations thread on a tech board imho. Once in a while yea but you don't need a fucking general or sticky.

>>7130
>By whos' definition?
exactly

>>7135
>>IRC
>Why you people still use this?
Its the original social network. It works and you'll find the most talentless and talented people there. There's always discord by megacorp but see AOL IM, that's now dead because mega corp. IRC is an open standard and won't die.

>>7145
>There is IRC, Discord, telnet BBS, nnptchan, i2p chats, tor forums (like intel exchange and road to hell), freenode lists, etc.
there are more people online than ever and web 3.0 is turning every website into a realtime chat room. Web 4.0 will turn everything into a realtime chat room with a video component. I can already fucking see it. So many people online, they'll be plenty of technologies for them to be distributed across.

>>7153
Passion and energy are more important than ideas. Ideas are like assholes, execution is everything.

>>7155
yup


Anonymous 10/22/2017 (Sun) 07:17:13 [Preview] No. 7258 del
>>7167
>IRC is an open standard and won't die.
I hope it does. It's not because it's open that it is secure/private. Freenode is leeching your data all the way along and you guys keep using these shit with the excuse of "it's open" for years now. Do you run your own IRC server? Do you use OTR and Tor? No? Then, stop saying bullshit.
You people just use it because it automatically turns you into a "super hacker boy" and makes you feel cool on your "riced irssi".
>Web 4.0
Wut? What are you talking about?
odili, stop already, enough.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply