>>11771 (You)
>>>11751
>>If you wanted oldfag experience so bad why would you allowed furry, mlp and other deranged shit on /soy/ but not avatarfags
>because identities on the sharty harmed the site's quality by taking away focus from content and putting it towards the users themselves. If you want a site where avatarfags and namefags reigned supreme, see soygem.party. Their userbases all engages in this coalery and they have horrible namefag drama instead of soyjaks, soyquotes, or nasquotes because of it.
>>Are they really that much of a problem compare to the porn on /soy/?
>I do see a rising problem with threads becoming porn dumps, which if continue to fester will just turn this place into nu/b/. I would like to make a /soy/ specific rule about that if it becomes too much of a problem.
>>I have yet to see a single so called "avatarfag" identifying themselves with actual names like w7-890 did.
>that doesn't make them not avatarfags.
>>It's like you are trying to have some sort of quality control but in the most contradicted way imaginable.
>I'm trying to keep this an anonymous imageboard without identities by removing avatarfags.
>>My suggestion is removing rule 2 entirely, it's a kolyma kike rule and basically serves as an excuse to ban "annoying posters".
>This suggestion would permit a terrible kind of poster to arise, one who spams specific images to identify themselves and signs their posts to identify themselves. I might as well enable the namefield at that point. This site would no longer be an anonymous imageboard, and given the absolutely atrocious namefag "culture" that has developed on the sharty and its sister sites, I think that would do long-term harm to posting quality.
>>Apparently you can make nas threads that doesn't participate in "jarty's theme" but necrobumping them to take up page 1 isn't allowed even though jarty users necrobump soyquotes and soytan threads all the time?
>meds? I don't know where you're getting this from.