chaddyboi66
E V I S C E M O G G E R
- Joined
- May 3, 2020
- Posts
- 9,492
- Reputation
- 12,186
@Master
I know my threads and posts often tend to sometimes be a bit hard on the eyes but I'll try to separate each and all of my points into distinct sections.
I also don't want to put too many spoilers since people often just simply don't bother clicking to open them, as they probably assume it'll take up most of the page and require too much effort to read.
So I'll leave everything open and without spoilers but organized, separated, and spaced out clearly enough to be both visible and comfortable to read.
First and foremost fuck that gay horsefaced plagiarizing bitch ass nigga SyrianPsycho.
Mods ban his account if he has one here asap, and if he doesn't ban his IP from being able to lurk.
Second, ...
Third, re-implement the 100 rep requirement on BoB for new users until the exposure dies down and you can plan an appropriate course of action.
My Proposed Solution to the Issue of Forum Privatization:
Temporary Rolling Privatization periods for either the forum outright or specific sections critical to its integrity [i.e. BoB and Looksmaxing, or even offtopic if media gets involved and tries to strawman us], akin to "rolling blackouts" or rota load shedding.
This would be a good way to prepare and defend against any incoming threats posed by new trends [involving us], or recent media coverage, or even targeted attack campaigns etc. that seek to jeopardize this forum's future and "expose" our wrongthink.
Ads for users will be turned on to cover the running costs, but if costs are still too high then certain sections may be opened up even during this blackout period.
Selective Privatization of Specific Sections:
That said, certain sections should still remain permanently private to lurkers even outside of these privatized blackout periods when the forum is open like BoB and maybe Looksmaxing, though parts of Looksmaxing may be open to lurkers with some restrictions in order to prevent any potential losses in ad revenue.
BoB and Looksmaxing sections should also both be restricted to users [be they new or otherwise] via a minimum post/rep requirement I'll elaborate more on below, just as had previously been put in place before.
Leaving the offtopic section open or closed depends on how you want the forum to be presented to the outside:
Although it isn't necessarily filled with any critical looks theory or looksmaxing knowledge, it's still very "toxic" and full of spergy aspies [in good fun/just for memes though].
However, this can easily shed a bad light on the forum as a whole in the eyes of normies, perpetuating additional fear and hysteria regarding our very existence which can drive them to try to shut us down just because they [already btw] don't like us or what we say.
That said, Rating section could be a possible example of the opposite, however.
It could shed us in a more positive light:
By showing everyone else outside of the forum how we really are just trying to live up to the true purpose of this forum in helping each other improve.
However, people often post their real faces on there and being associated with this forum even if it's just for a rating might not be a good idea since normies [and their masters telling them where to bark] are more than willing to ostracize us for thoughtcrime.
Then again, people already post their faces here already so it wouldn't really change much to private the Rating Section.
Regarding the looksmaxing section, restrictions should be put in place for lurkers if they're viewing it since it still contains important looksmaxng information.
Although I'm not necessarily in favour of privating it outright since it'll cut into ad revenue, lurkers should only be able see a limited number of pages of the looksmaxxing section, such as more recent threads from within the past month. This would protect essential nigh BoB worthy threads still isolated in Looksmaxing section's archives.
Lurkers can't even use the search bar so they shouldn't be able to see old threads past a certain date either, or rather they shouldn't be able to view a few pages [like 2-3] beyond the first front page itself or earlier than a certain date.
Post vs Rep Requirements for New Users:
I think a FAIR way around newbie greycel users trying shitpost their way to 100 posts would be to simply change the requirement to 100 REP points instead.
You could also put an additional post requirement on top of the 100 rep like 200-500 post minimum, and this will actually make it easier since you wouldn't even need a "perfect" 1:1 post to rep ratio.
Sure, It'll be more difficult to make your way to 100 rep but at the same time it's not exactly impossible per say either, since it can be done in about a week or so if you post consistently.
Also, you wouldn't even necessarily have to post giga high iq/effort guide threads or even any giga aspie Evsicerations to get rep tbh:
Giving basic advice to those who haven't heard it yet, stating [obvious] facts,
Giving personal anecdotes/experience/stories,
Going into blackpill theory,
Non-shitposting memes [with a little effort though since memes are too easy],
or Even just saying things others agree with...
...are all easy ways to get rep tbh.
BoB will be completely restricted until the minimum post/rep requirement mentioned above is met.
Following the onset of the tiktok trend, the Looksmaxing section will still be visible to new greycels registered during this, but access will be limited be it in posting or viewing a certain quota of threads until the minimum post/rep requirement for BoB is achieved.
Additionally, staff needs to ensure these new greycels don't attempt to collaborate with each other to gain rep instead of earning it organically, as being repped by established users is part of the vetting process.
Restriction of Users Past a Certain Date at the Start of TikTok Trend:
Some have suggested the idea of preventing new users from being able to access BoB or even a prevention of registration outright, past the specific date in which this trend first started.
However, I don't support or agree with a broad restriction of access to content or registration based solely on join dates, since new users often provide good content just as they do bad content at times as well.
It's also so broad of an "solution" that it fails to address the key issue of low quality content by only targeting the users themselves instead of correcting their actual content and preventing its prevalence, while also inhibiting new high quality users from joining which can counter the influx of low quality ones.
Ultimately, you also really can't tell for sure who tried to join simply because of tiktok vs who joined organically unless you ask new users on the sign up appeal how they found out about the forum, and even then you'd have to rely on the element of surprise/first guess or them simply not just lying you to begin with.
However, even with all of that said I do still support broad or generalized restrictions on new greycels during their "trial perido", rather than outright prevention of registration or permanent restricted acsess to BoB based solely join date.
Preventing Shitposting and Spam:
Furthermore, greycel users should have to voluntarily enter a "trial phase" in which their first posts to 100 rep, or at the least just threads made by users in during this 100 rep trial period, will be monitored by staff and/or other established users to ensure they don't shitpost their way up.
A distinct marking will be placed on their account to single them out from the rest and denote how they're currently under a "trial period", this will ensure their posts are always held under scrutiny by the userbase while also encouraging other users to help give them reps if they make decent posts.
Posting may also generally be limited to sections where any form of shitposting is banned outright, since it will make the process of vetting your first 100 rep a lot easier for both you and staff- which makes your approval process during this period smoother and more efficient.
I know this might potentially sound "draconian" in some regard but don't worry it's really not though, because there'll be a lot of wiggle room so to speak in that there won't be this overbearing presence constantly looking out for that one time you fuck up.
So you don't have to make sure every post is always 100% high effort.
We're only making sure most of your posts to 100 Rep aren't just dozens of "dnrd" or "Jfl" posts.
Just post normally tbh.
@Lord&Master mentioned something interesting regarding how other forums deal with spam:
The filtering out of both low quality users and content via an automated process would make it a lot easier and realistically feasible, as the only way to monitor spam for new greycels would be to limit the amount coming in and to take a hardline approach to striking out spam to keep up with the amount of posts.
Staff and other users should also be able to easily view the first 100 posts to recieve rep points of every new greycel during their trial period at any time, in order to constantly scan for any potential shitposting or spam and help alleviate some of the effort on part of the staff.
Staff will have free reign and ultimate discretion to strike down any potential spam/shitposting by these new greycel users at any time, and users will be able to report said spam/shitposts of these new greycel users in the "trial period" at any time which will be then be forwarded to staff to investigate.
Punishments can range from anything as simple as not making the post not count for rep, a reduction in rep point(s), or even outright bans for blatant disregard in obeying these very simple rules.
When combined with @Arborist's idea it all really starts to come together quite nicely and seems more realistically manageable.
@Prettyboy also put forth the idea of limiting new greycels posting areas to those where shitposting isn't allowed.
However, Looksmaxing section should still be limited for these new greycels to just the first few pages and not earlier than a month just like it is for normies, this restriction can be lifted when the minimum rep/ratio requirement is met following the end of their "trial period".
Ultimately, these measures are only put in place to protect this forum and the knowledge contained in it we all hold dear, and there may possibly come a time where these measures can maybe be rolled back but until then this is just how it goes.
Privatizing of User Content and Deleting Posts:
Users should be allowed to delete their entire post history when deleting their accounts when considering how many users here [especially early on] chase after rep points, though they ultimately get nothing from them in the end and often post things they regret.
I think it'd be a good incentive for users seeking to delete their accounts and leave the forum after using the advice here.
That said, I also worry about any potential high quality posts/threads being deleted along with it so I think sections of their deleted content from users marked as important ought to be preserved or archived.
Users should also to have the discretion to decide which of their content should to be deleted, especially if it could potentially be harmful to their privacy or easily be taken out of context, but full content deletion should only be reserved for those deleting accounts.
However, an exception to full content deletion will be made for content marked as important knowledge, though said content itself can be modified or censored under certain circumstances such as privacy concerns [via consent of the user if still in contact with staff] while still maintaining the main integrity of the content in its original form.
Additionally, Rep thresholds to only allow users of a certain Rep level to view your threads threads is also another excellent idea, as it not only ensures normies can't view your threads, but it also [ideally anyway] helps control the quality of users who post on it.
@0hMan also put forth a good idea regarding the old hideposts option:
Pay to Enter Sections:
Some have suggest the notion of a payed surgery/harmaxx focused subsection of Looksmaxing section.
This would be a great idea for dedicated users who have the resources available to move onto the next step of seriously improving their looks tbh, and it could potentially end up being another way to help fund the running of this forum.
However, due to the inherently risky nature of the subject matter disclaimers along with measures to vet content on the section need to be put in place to minimize risk and help promote safety.
Although crypto can be pretty secure if you know what you're doing many people still don't trust it, and many more [not just normies btw] can't even figure out how to do it securely themselves either.
Not to mention, most people just simply aren't comfortable with the idea of paying your way in especially for knowledge tbh, and yes before anyone says it- I know you have to go through paywalls sometimes even for scientific publications/journals/databases let alone things like books, documentaries, courses etc.
It's for that reason I think a post/rep requirement for sections of the forum would be a better idea and could work relatively well if done properly, especially if supplemented via other measures such as a monitored "trial period" to filter out low quality users and content.
Stronger Vetting of New User Sign Ups Applications:
A general restriction on the amount of new greycel users [like a certain quota or max threshold for a week] would help slow down the influx of new users to help improve the quality and efficiency of the vetting process as a whole, this would also help staff keep up with the monitoring of these new greycels.
Regarding improved sign up requirements, the entire vetting process must be made more thorough and detailed as it's a basic yet essential preliminary measure necessary to filter out low quality users, since it's the first direct step one takes to becoming a part of this forum.
Prompt length, effort, and quality including grammar will all be taken into consideration following the implementation of more stringent vetting measures. However, primary emphasis will be placed on the quality and effort followed by length of the sign up post rather than only focusing on grammar.
It should then be noted to those trying to sign up that improper grammar may hurt their chances to an extant somewhat, but improper grammar in and of itself won't necessarily cause a rejection of a sign up appeal outright.
Exceptions also ought to be made for users who don't speak English as a first language but are still proficient enough in it [@badg96
], as saying otherwise would actually negate the purpose of even having foreign language sections on this forum in the first place.
Some have suggested the idea of vulgar language being detrimental to one's sign up post but I disagree.
Vulgar language can actually [sometimes at least] help add greater impact to one's pleas when done correctly as it's meant to be from the heart, that said the point I'm making here is that although use of it would be discouraged and/or limited, singling it out just because someone said "fuck" one too many times doesn't really make sense as like I said emphasis needs to be placed on the quality and effort put into it.
You don't have to read these since I already included some of the important parts in my main points above, but I'd still include them since I'm still responding to your concerns after all.
Responses:
I know my threads and posts often tend to sometimes be a bit hard on the eyes but I'll try to separate each and all of my points into distinct sections.
I also don't want to put too many spoilers since people often just simply don't bother clicking to open them, as they probably assume it'll take up most of the page and require too much effort to read.
So I'll leave everything open and without spoilers but organized, separated, and spaced out clearly enough to be both visible and comfortable to read.
Jfl I knew this would happen in fact I've been telling everyone here this, including all staff, for months now because it was only a matter of time tbh.
First and foremost fuck that gay horsefaced plagiarizing bitch ass nigga SyrianPsycho.
Mods ban his account if he has one here asap, and if he doesn't ban his IP from being able to lurk.
Second, ...
Private BoB Immediately.
We can focus on other solutions afterward.
We can focus on other solutions afterward.
Third, re-implement the 100 rep requirement on BoB for new users until the exposure dies down and you can plan an appropriate course of action.
Anyway, here's my plan to fix this...
My Proposed Solution to the Issue of Forum Privatization:
Temporary Rolling Privatization periods for either the forum outright or specific sections critical to its integrity [i.e. BoB and Looksmaxing, or even offtopic if media gets involved and tries to strawman us], akin to "rolling blackouts" or rota load shedding.
This would be a good way to prepare and defend against any incoming threats posed by new trends [involving us], or recent media coverage, or even targeted attack campaigns etc. that seek to jeopardize this forum's future and "expose" our wrongthink.
Ads for users will be turned on to cover the running costs, but if costs are still too high then certain sections may be opened up even during this blackout period.
Selective Privatization of Specific Sections:
That said, certain sections should still remain permanently private to lurkers even outside of these privatized blackout periods when the forum is open like BoB and maybe Looksmaxing, though parts of Looksmaxing may be open to lurkers with some restrictions in order to prevent any potential losses in ad revenue.
BoB and Looksmaxing sections should also both be restricted to users [be they new or otherwise] via a minimum post/rep requirement I'll elaborate more on below, just as had previously been put in place before.
Leaving the offtopic section open or closed depends on how you want the forum to be presented to the outside:
Although it isn't necessarily filled with any critical looks theory or looksmaxing knowledge, it's still very "toxic" and full of spergy aspies [in good fun/just for memes though].
However, this can easily shed a bad light on the forum as a whole in the eyes of normies, perpetuating additional fear and hysteria regarding our very existence which can drive them to try to shut us down just because they [already btw] don't like us or what we say.
That said, Rating section could be a possible example of the opposite, however.
It could shed us in a more positive light:
By showing everyone else outside of the forum how we really are just trying to live up to the true purpose of this forum in helping each other improve.
However, people often post their real faces on there and being associated with this forum even if it's just for a rating might not be a good idea since normies [and their masters telling them where to bark] are more than willing to ostracize us for thoughtcrime.
Then again, people already post their faces here already so it wouldn't really change much to private the Rating Section.
Regarding the looksmaxing section, restrictions should be put in place for lurkers if they're viewing it since it still contains important looksmaxng information.
Although I'm not necessarily in favour of privating it outright since it'll cut into ad revenue, lurkers should only be able see a limited number of pages of the looksmaxxing section, such as more recent threads from within the past month. This would protect essential nigh BoB worthy threads still isolated in Looksmaxing section's archives.
Lurkers can't even use the search bar so they shouldn't be able to see old threads past a certain date either, or rather they shouldn't be able to view a few pages [like 2-3] beyond the first front page itself or earlier than a certain date.
Post vs Rep Requirements for New Users:
I think a FAIR way around newbie greycel users trying shitpost their way to 100 posts would be to simply change the requirement to 100 REP points instead.
You could also put an additional post requirement on top of the 100 rep like 200-500 post minimum, and this will actually make it easier since you wouldn't even need a "perfect" 1:1 post to rep ratio.
Sure, It'll be more difficult to make your way to 100 rep but at the same time it's not exactly impossible per say either, since it can be done in about a week or so if you post consistently.
Also, you wouldn't even necessarily have to post giga high iq/effort guide threads or even any giga aspie Evsicerations to get rep tbh:
Giving basic advice to those who haven't heard it yet, stating [obvious] facts,
Giving personal anecdotes/experience/stories,
Going into blackpill theory,
Non-shitposting memes [with a little effort though since memes are too easy],
or Even just saying things others agree with...
...are all easy ways to get rep tbh.
Following the onset of the tiktok trend, the Looksmaxing section will still be visible to new greycels registered during this, but access will be limited be it in posting or viewing a certain quota of threads until the minimum post/rep requirement for BoB is achieved.
Additionally, staff needs to ensure these new greycels don't attempt to collaborate with each other to gain rep instead of earning it organically, as being repped by established users is part of the vetting process.
Restriction of Users Past a Certain Date at the Start of TikTok Trend:
Some have suggested the idea of preventing new users from being able to access BoB or even a prevention of registration outright, past the specific date in which this trend first started.
However, I don't support or agree with a broad restriction of access to content or registration based solely on join dates, since new users often provide good content just as they do bad content at times as well.
It's also so broad of an "solution" that it fails to address the key issue of low quality content by only targeting the users themselves instead of correcting their actual content and preventing its prevalence, while also inhibiting new high quality users from joining which can counter the influx of low quality ones.
Ultimately, you also really can't tell for sure who tried to join simply because of tiktok vs who joined organically unless you ask new users on the sign up appeal how they found out about the forum, and even then you'd have to rely on the element of surprise/first guess or them simply not just lying you to begin with.
However, even with all of that said I do still support broad or generalized restrictions on new greycels during their "trial perido", rather than outright prevention of registration or permanent restricted acsess to BoB based solely join date.
Preventing Shitposting and Spam:
Furthermore, greycel users should have to voluntarily enter a "trial phase" in which their first posts to 100 rep, or at the least just threads made by users in during this 100 rep trial period, will be monitored by staff and/or other established users to ensure they don't shitpost their way up.
A distinct marking will be placed on their account to single them out from the rest and denote how they're currently under a "trial period", this will ensure their posts are always held under scrutiny by the userbase while also encouraging other users to help give them reps if they make decent posts.
Posting may also generally be limited to sections where any form of shitposting is banned outright, since it will make the process of vetting your first 100 rep a lot easier for both you and staff- which makes your approval process during this period smoother and more efficient.
I know this might potentially sound "draconian" in some regard but don't worry it's really not though, because there'll be a lot of wiggle room so to speak in that there won't be this overbearing presence constantly looking out for that one time you fuck up.
So you don't have to make sure every post is always 100% high effort.
We're only making sure most of your posts to 100 Rep aren't just dozens of "dnrd" or "Jfl" posts.
Just post normally tbh.
@Lord&Master mentioned something interesting regarding how other forums deal with spam:
The filtering out of both low quality users and content via an automated process would make it a lot easier and realistically feasible, as the only way to monitor spam for new greycels would be to limit the amount coming in and to take a hardline approach to striking out spam to keep up with the amount of posts.
Staff and other users should also be able to easily view the first 100 posts to recieve rep points of every new greycel during their trial period at any time, in order to constantly scan for any potential shitposting or spam and help alleviate some of the effort on part of the staff.
Staff will have free reign and ultimate discretion to strike down any potential spam/shitposting by these new greycel users at any time, and users will be able to report said spam/shitposts of these new greycel users in the "trial period" at any time which will be then be forwarded to staff to investigate.
Punishments can range from anything as simple as not making the post not count for rep, a reduction in rep point(s), or even outright bans for blatant disregard in obeying these very simple rules.
When combined with @Arborist's idea it all really starts to come together quite nicely and seems more realistically manageable.
Post limits for new greycels is also a good idea, I'd combine it with a monitored "trial period" to strike out any shitposts/spam and maybe even that spam filter @Lord&Master mentioned.
@Prettyboy also put forth the idea of limiting new greycels posting areas to those where shitposting isn't allowed.
This is a good idea, offtopic can be open for greycels to view but they shouldn't post until they meet a minimum requirement, and I'd also argue for monitoring of their posts to filter out spam/shitposts.
However, Looksmaxing section should still be limited for these new greycels to just the first few pages and not earlier than a month just like it is for normies, this restriction can be lifted when the minimum rep/ratio requirement is met following the end of their "trial period".
Ultimately, these measures are only put in place to protect this forum and the knowledge contained in it we all hold dear, and there may possibly come a time where these measures can maybe be rolled back but until then this is just how it goes.
Privatizing of User Content and Deleting Posts:
Users should be allowed to delete their entire post history when deleting their accounts when considering how many users here [especially early on] chase after rep points, though they ultimately get nothing from them in the end and often post things they regret.
I think it'd be a good incentive for users seeking to delete their accounts and leave the forum after using the advice here.
That said, I also worry about any potential high quality posts/threads being deleted along with it so I think sections of their deleted content from users marked as important ought to be preserved or archived.
Users should also to have the discretion to decide which of their content should to be deleted, especially if it could potentially be harmful to their privacy or easily be taken out of context, but full content deletion should only be reserved for those deleting accounts.
However, an exception to full content deletion will be made for content marked as important knowledge, though said content itself can be modified or censored under certain circumstances such as privacy concerns [via consent of the user if still in contact with staff] while still maintaining the main integrity of the content in its original form.
Additionally, Rep thresholds to only allow users of a certain Rep level to view your threads threads is also another excellent idea, as it not only ensures normies can't view your threads, but it also [ideally anyway] helps control the quality of users who post on it.
@0hMan also put forth a good idea regarding the old hideposts option:
Hideposts based on user rep or even outright denial of access to lurkers would be a good idea, as it wouldn't just cover entire threads but specific individual content within the thread itself.
Pay to Enter Sections:
Some have suggest the notion of a payed surgery/harmaxx focused subsection of Looksmaxing section.
This would be a great idea for dedicated users who have the resources available to move onto the next step of seriously improving their looks tbh, and it could potentially end up being another way to help fund the running of this forum.
However, due to the inherently risky nature of the subject matter disclaimers along with measures to vet content on the section need to be put in place to minimize risk and help promote safety.
Although crypto can be pretty secure if you know what you're doing many people still don't trust it, and many more [not just normies btw] can't even figure out how to do it securely themselves either.
Not to mention, most people just simply aren't comfortable with the idea of paying your way in especially for knowledge tbh, and yes before anyone says it- I know you have to go through paywalls sometimes even for scientific publications/journals/databases let alone things like books, documentaries, courses etc.
It's for that reason I think a post/rep requirement for sections of the forum would be a better idea and could work relatively well if done properly, especially if supplemented via other measures such as a monitored "trial period" to filter out low quality users and content.
Stronger Vetting of New User Sign Ups Applications:
A general restriction on the amount of new greycel users [like a certain quota or max threshold for a week] would help slow down the influx of new users to help improve the quality and efficiency of the vetting process as a whole, this would also help staff keep up with the monitoring of these new greycels.
Regarding improved sign up requirements, the entire vetting process must be made more thorough and detailed as it's a basic yet essential preliminary measure necessary to filter out low quality users, since it's the first direct step one takes to becoming a part of this forum.
Prompt length, effort, and quality including grammar will all be taken into consideration following the implementation of more stringent vetting measures. However, primary emphasis will be placed on the quality and effort followed by length of the sign up post rather than only focusing on grammar.
It should then be noted to those trying to sign up that improper grammar may hurt their chances to an extant somewhat, but improper grammar in and of itself won't necessarily cause a rejection of a sign up appeal outright.
Exceptions also ought to be made for users who don't speak English as a first language but are still proficient enough in it [@badg96
], as saying otherwise would actually negate the purpose of even having foreign language sections on this forum in the first place.Some have suggested the idea of vulgar language being detrimental to one's sign up post but I disagree.
Vulgar language can actually [sometimes at least] help add greater impact to one's pleas when done correctly as it's meant to be from the heart, that said the point I'm making here is that although use of it would be discouraged and/or limited, singling it out just because someone said "fuck" one too many times doesn't really make sense as like I said emphasis needs to be placed on the quality and effort put into it.
Fin.
You don't have to read these since I already included some of the important parts in my main points above, but I'd still include them since I'm still responding to your concerns after all.
Responses:
Privatized periods to wait until recent coverage of the form dies down would be a good idea since it isn't necessarily a hardline measure, and even if it were it's still not permanent either.
100 posts were the old requirement put in place before BoB [regretably] opened up.
However, I don't think shitposting is avoidable when the end goal is just to reach that number, so I think a REP requirement would be a better idea instead.
I also think staff checking for spam or shitposting is still a good idea though.
Posting guides and advice are the best ways to get rep tbh since they provide constructive opinion.
And posting on Rating section is underrated since it's an easy way to do both and establish yourself as a reputable user, it also isn't nearly as bloated with users as offtopic so getting your opinion heard as a greycel newbie isn't nearly as difficult.
Although you very well could be right in that this whole trend will inevitably just pass, you still really can't tell for sure nor can you be sure that doing so [leaving the forum open during this time] won't have any long term detrimental effects by burning this forum and it's memes into their minds long term.
They could very easily just associate the forum with looksmaxing advice and/or just edgy memes, either of which will draw them back here since normies eat that shit up like pigs eating shit.
Not to mention this forum's name isn't even that difficult to remember either, and considering how more centralized thesurface webnormie web is becoming [into a just a handful of sites normie are now clustered around] it'll leave more people potentially seeing this place as another option to interact with people outsider of the [normie] internet monopoly.
Then again, with everything becoming centralized and censored online it may also actually serve to our own benefit by helping to keep us out of the spotlight so much.
Lastly, you say they won't stay but you really can't be so sure, especially when considering how mainstream the blackpill is becoming due to the sheer scope of the loneliness epidemic and hypergamy are getting with each and every passing year.
Besides, how many users here do you think could honestly say they successfully "left" this forum after using the advice looksmax after saying they would?
Jfl it always starts with a "Bye I'm leaving the forum" and then ends with a 'see you tomorrow' posted right under it.
Aside from trying to wait out the recent coverage due to the tiktok trend [which is a good but ultimately temporary solution], a general waiting period for new users to join wouldn't change anything.
It won't stop the influx of low quality greycel shitposting nor will it even curb any of the repeat exposure this forum regularly gets on occasion.
Waiting periods themselves also wouldn't necessarily change or impact how said potential new users might post, and it won't stop normies from discovering this forum or uncovering its looksmaxing secrets.
Again aside from waiting out this tiktok trend, a better solution would be to directly target the manner in which new users both post and join outright via something more permanent like a minimum post or rep requirement.
An old rep requirement was put in place for BoB before but staff removed it for some reason.
Honestly, combining a post requirement along with a monitored trial period for new users would help siphon out any low quality users or potential infiltrators and saboteurs, while also discouraging any lazy normies just trying to steal our shit [advice].
Also, I doubt most users here really mind the ads since they're not that noticeable and most can probably appreciate [or at the very least understand] how they're necessary to keep this forum up and running.
So I think ads should be visible in place for users as well, or at the very least low post/rep users until a certain quota or colour level is reached.
This is a good point brought up tbh, since it was this very problem which had actually diluted the old o.g. [social dominance hierarchy manipulation based] redpill back in the day before the "just be alpha bro" and puas infiltrated it.
Sure, the original redpill might not have necessarily put that great of an importance on looks [assuming it even addressed it to begin with], but it was still [and still is] useful in some regard especially when it comes to managing or dominating your way through social relationships and hierarchies, which is something that goes beyond just being "NT" [bro].
If anything though, I not only think privatization of the forum is necessary now but even for the future as well. However, with that said I'm not necessarily arguing for a permanent privatization but rather rolling privatization periods when necessary to go dark and protect this forum.
There are ways around shitposting and spamming your way to 100 posts can be prevented from something as simple as switching the requirement from 100 posts to 100 Rep instead tbh.
Additionally, things such as a 200-500 post requirement and monitored trial period for new users to watch out for and prevent shitposting would also help prevent its prevalence.
Privatizing the entire forum isn't feasible, at least not permanently that is, as both new users and even lurkers are essential to this forums survival, success and longevity due to running costs covered by advertising and new high quality users filling in the void made by old high quality users leaving.
The 100 rep BoB requirement isn't put in place merely because "it needs to be earned" but also because it's simply a decent way to filter out low quality users from good ones.
Yes, a permanent privatization wouldn't be feasible long term as ad revenue necessary to cover costs to run the forum probably won't be able to keep up with the dip since lurkers make a significant part of the forum even before this new recent trend.
However, a potential way this temporary solution could be made more feasible long term would be to implement a rolling privatization type feature where the forum is privated on occasions when deemed necessary like traffic or exposure getting too high, which could pose a risk to the forum getting down.
I propose a monitored "trial period" up to a certain post/rep rank to ensure they're not bad users.
That was the measure put in place before and it ought to be a more permanent one at that too.
The Rating section doesn't have nearly as much looksmaxing information as say Looksmaxing section let alone BoB, as it's just full of ratings and basic advice given on an individual case by case basis.
Offtopic isn't nearly as valuable [or really even just in general tbh] but it is still full of the worst this forum has to offer in typical autism and spergy "toxicity".
This gives credence to the perception of this forum being nothing but the worst of the Offtopic section, which then validates the preconceived normies already have of us and further perpetuates their hatred and desire to shut us down for wrongthink.
That last point you made about preventing new greycel insider collaboration was also an important point I think we need to watch out for and implement.
Prying eyes can still see and pose a threat especially when hidden in the darkness to where no one can see them or is even aware of their presence.
All it takes are a few prying eyes able to see and take what we say out of context to form an organized witch hunt esque campaign to shut us down for the sin of thoughtcrime, and the more we're unaware of this fact the more likely it is for us to be caught off guard by it assuming we even have a way to prevent [let alone defend] against it.
You bring up a very good point on the worsening quality of not only the quality of information and content available here but also the users posting them here as well.
Many have left and taken the true purpose of this forum [self-improvement] to heart while many have either chosen to stay for some reason or gotten roped up in this forum's addictive nature.
Whatever the case may be, not all of the users still left here are bad since they serve as a means to maintain said quality information and ensure it's properly passed onto new users to perpetuate both it's existence and prevalence amongst all the muddy noise in the background.
However, making the forum private [at least for a little while] can help solve this problem by ensuring no more new low quality users are able to corrupt the established pool of users [along with their knowledge] we already have.
Furthermore, putting in place additional measures such as a monitored "trial period", post/rep requirements for sections etc. can help aid in filtering out poor quality users from high quality ones.
The last point you made about allowing users to delete their entire post history really makes a lot of sense when considering how many users here [especially early on] chase after rep points, though they ultimately get nothing from them in the end and often post things they regret.
I think it'd be a good incentive for users seeking to delete their accounts and leave the forum after using the advice here. That said, I also worry about any potential high quality posts/threads being deleted along with it so I think sections of their deleted content from users marked as important ought to be preserved or archived.
Users also ought to have the discretion to decide which of their content ought to be deleted, especially if it could potentially be harmful to their privacy or easily be taken out of context, but I think full content deletion should only be reserved for those deleting accounts.
However, an exception to full content deletion will be made for content marked as important knowledge, though said content itself can be modified or censored under certain circumstances such as privacy concerns [via consent of the user if still in contact with staff] while still maintaining the main integrity of the content in its original form.
Splitting the looksmaxing section into 2 different sections isn't a bad idea in general.
However, when it specifically comes to this issue in particular [the tiktok trend putting us on blast rn] it honestly won't do much.
The fear everyone has here [whether they realize it or not- let alone even merely admit it to themselves outright] is normies stealing all or any of our looksmaxing advice be they softmaxxing or hard/surgerymaxxing, as any competition from them is bad competition and makes our already overinflated hypergamous dating market even more difficult.
Not to mention, they ultimately don't deserve to know any of this while they willingly stay bluepilled themselves, and gaslight/ostracize us into isolation due to the way we look and/or merely having wrongthink.
So fuck them.
A surgery/harmaxx focused subsection of Looksmaxing section would be a great idea for dedicated users who have the resources available to move onto the next step of seriously improving their looks tbh.
However, due to the inherently risky nature of the subject matter disclaimers along with vetting of content on the section need to be put in place to minimize risk and help promote saftey.
I didn't even know jawsurgeryforum did that tbh but then again the last time I went there was quite a while ago too ngl.
That said, while it would also be a good way to vet the right people, I don't think paying your way into sections would be a very popular idea here for various reasons.
Although crypto can be pretty secure if you know what you're doing many people still don't trust it, and many more [not just normies btw] can't even figure out how to do it securely themselves either.
Not to mention, most people just simply aren't comfortable with the idea of paying your way in especially for knowledge tbh, and yes before anyone says it- I know you have to go through paywalls sometimes even for scientific publishications/journals/datatbases let alone things like books, documentaries, courses etc.
It's for that reason I think a post/rep requirement for sections of the forum would be a better idea and could work relatively well if done properly, especially if supplemented via other measures such as a monitored "trial period" to filter out low quality users and content.
It should be based on post/rep not locked behind a certain date since good new users can still come in tbh.
The latter [date rather than the former/Rep] is so broad of an answer it fails to address the key issue of low quality content by only targeting users themselves instead of correcting their content, while also inhibiting new high quality users from joining which can counter the influx of low quality ones.
We already have a similar requirement established at the moment but I get what you're saying tbh, and I think making the entire process more thorough and detailed will aid in what you're proposing.
Rather than specifically or only focusing on grammar or vulgar language I think primary emphasis needs to be placed on the quality and effort of the sign up post.
It should be noted to those trying to sign up that improper grammar and/or vulgar language may actually hurt their chances to an extant somewhat, but those two things in and of themselves won't necessarily cause a rejection of your appeal outright.
Exceptions also ought to be made for users who don't speak English as a first language but are still proficient enough in it [@badg96
Vulgar language can actually [sometimes at least] help add greater impact to one's pleas when done correctly as it's meant to be from the heart, that said the point I'm making here is that use of it would be discouraged and/or limited, but singling it out just because someone said "fuck" one too many times doesn't really make sense as like I said emphasis needs to be placed on the quality and effort put into it.
Finally, we shouldn't have to private all sections except essential and/or necessary ones like BoB, Looksmaxing, Money & Success tbh.
However, offtopic might need to be closed off to normies since a lot of what's posted on there can very give normies more fuel to take out of context and make us look bad with.
Also, Rating section isn't too essential or too valuable to keep closed compared to BoB or Looksmaxing since a lot of the advice can easily just be construed as mere conjecture or based on anecdote.
BoB access was already rep-based before and it never should've been removed tbh.
However, many are concerned new greycel users will simply try to spam their way to the top when it comes to post requirements [though this is less so the case with rep requirements since they dependent on the discretion of other users] so simply increasing the numerical requirement itself wouldn't be enough on it's own.
What you propose, a combination requirement of both post and rep would be the more feasible solution in my opinion, but an equal 1000 rep and posts would be very unpopular and discourage many users [be the new or old] from being here.
A requirement like necessitates you dedicate hours worth of time posting increasingly higher and higher quality content just to reach that 1000 benchmark like some video game rat race or gambling addict-esque rep chaser/addict, which many would assume to not be worth the effort especially if we're meant to use this forum and it's advice to eventually one day leave it.
I understand the purpose of this is inherently meant to siphon out only the most dedicated of users to grant access of BoB to, but this is still too much and will never go anywhere even assuming if staff themselves were willing to humour the idea.
That said, I think a slight modification of the numbers could [and would] work far better, say a 100 rep requirement combined with a 200-500 post [this is more fair tbh and gives more leeway instead of focusing on a perfect 1:1 post/rep ratio] requirement alongside a monitored "trial period" to make sure new users don't just shitpost or spam their way to the benchmark.
This would solve the problem of low quality users, not the main issue stemming from the recent influx of prying normie eyes on the forum.
That would require outright privatization of the form at least temporarily until the heat dies down a bit.
Regarding improved sign up requirements, I think making the entire process more thorough is a basic necessary measure to filter out low quality users since it's the first direct step one takes to becoming a part of this forum.
However, rather than specifically or only focusing on grammar I think primary emphasis needs to be placed on the quality and effort of the sign up post itself along with the length tbh.
It should then be noted to those trying to sign up that improper grammar may hurt their chances to an extant somewhat, but improper grammar in and of itself won't necessarily cause a rejection of a sign up appeal outright.
Exceptions also ought to be made for users who don't speak English as a first language but are still proficient enough in it [@badg96
mfs gonna post guides online to get in
It might sound funny, and yes I get it's a joke, but users here still might try unironically to do that due to either being coerced, fooled, bribed or guilt tripped by a greycel(s), or even just due to a selfish [yet utterly pointless] pursuit of chasing rep.
However, this brings a good point @emeraldglass just made too:
I think it'd be a good way to prevent it though.
@drop made a very good point here in that he addressed a possible [and probable] solution in a temporary privatization and the flaws of a permanent one:
However, I think a way to improve upon this would be to implement a rolling privatization feature [akin to a "rolling blackout"] when exposure gets too high and puts the forum in jeopardy.
While I don't think either the last two measures you suggested will ever be feasible here, I also think we need to act fast as the longer we wait the worse things will get, as we're constantly running the risk of being subject to any organized campaign set out against us since we're so vulnerable right now.
This is just common sense tbh since BoB is merely an extension of Looksmaxing section's best threads tbh.
This is actually a really good idea tbh.
Lurkers can't even use the search bar so they shouldn't be able to see old threads past a certain date either, or rather they shouldn't be able to view a few pages [like 2-3] beyond the first front page itself.
I propose we implement rolling privatization periods for an indeterminate amount of time every time the forum experiences too much exposure.
I don't see why we can't [or rather shouldn't] do it if even subreddits can do it whenever things get too hot for them tbh.
It's not simply just about new users it's about normies and low quality users infiltrating our ranks, stealing our knowledge, and/or trying to get us shutdown by taking what we say out of context to ostracize and organize witch hunts against us for thoughtcrime.
Oh but there is in the form of better vetting, rolling temporary forum privatization periods, and monitored trial periods for new users to reach a certain post/rep requirement.
I'm not necessarily against paying for certain content access, but I don't think the idea will be very popular even when considering we already have VIP upgrades, as I can only imagine how most users here will react if there's a dedicated VIP section or even if BoB becomes VIP only Jfl.
The feature you mentioned about detecting spam sounds interesting though and would make the filtering out of both low quality users and content [during the "trial period" I mentioned before for new users] a lot easier.
Banning by date would be a drastic and overreaching measure, as it's no replacement for proper vetting of new users and their sign up appeals and filtering out low quality content itself.
There are other more feasible solutions available, but I agree that urgency is our greatest concern at the moment.
A temporary privatization seems to be the common consensus most have here.
Rep thresholds to view threads being under the discretion of users who made the content themselves is an excellent idea as it not only ensures normies can't view your threads, but it also [ideally anyway] helps guarantee that only high quality users post on it.
This next is slightly offtopic and might even be a bit uncomfortable for some to hear since it kind of opens up a can of worms no one's really talked about before [at least not to my knowledge that is] regarding ownership and/or rights of users over their own content while also maybe getting into the realm of potential copyright.
However, with that said I'm not really sure how much of that would really apply here since this isn't exactly a place like YouTube where you upload your own content that you actually own.
I'm not even sure if something like copyright [or something similar too it anyway] would even apply to a forum like Reddit or ours for that matter- regardless of how high quality/effort your content is or how much of a claim you think you have to it, and I'm sure there's probably something either in the terms of service or rules here detailing how we don't actually own any IP's regarding our own generated content here anyway.
In fact I started thinking about this whole thing after reading @Yuno_howitez's Looksmax manga tbh.
THE LOOKSMAX.ORG MANGA CHAPTER 3
READ FROM RIGHT TO LEFT Chapter 2: https://looksmax.org/threads/the-looksmax-org-manga-chapter-2.650601/ Users that appear in this chapter: @Master @curlyheadjames If you are worried that you aren't in the manga yet, just wait. And you can tell me people or things you'd like to see next...looksmax.org
Most people concerned with post requirements and spamming/shitposting would probably find a rep requirement to be a better solution instead tbh, as it's ultimately up to our own discretion to give rep out.
Privatization would have to be temporary as lurkers cover the costs to run the forum via ads, I wouldn't be against adds showing up for users so long as they aren't annoying or noticeable but I'm not sure how most users would react.
I, like many others already, also proposed stronger vetting for new user sign up appeals but I think a general restriction on the amount of new users coming in on top of more vetting could help too tbh.
We're not against the idea of new users joining in general as you yourself are the prime example of why I don't support or agree with a braod restriction of access based solely on join dates, since new users often provide good content just as they do bad content as well.
Exactly, you can't really tell for sure who tried to join simply because of tiktok vs who joined organically unless you ask new users on the sign up appeal how they found about the forum, and even then you'd have to rely on them wanting to be honest with you to begin with.
Rep should be prioritized over mere post count but I'd argue for both as a requirement, say 100 rep during a monitored trial period to prevent or filter out spam/shitposts and at least a 200-500 post minimum.
1000 Reps seems a bit too high and would take too long even for most users, which is why many would be against the idea tbh.
That's just privatization of the forum which staff could very easily do right now if they wanted to.
However, I agree that it should be our first priority until heat dies down for at least critical sections, while also limiting the influx of new users and keeping some sections open until we figure this out.
Why not just a bodybuilding section?
Sounds funny now that I say that considering how it was kind of the opposite on bodybuilding.com back in the day with misc.
I'd also like to see nattymaxxing threads and longevity advice too ngl so you wouldn't need to go on trt to be fit as you age
Assuming most probably don't know the difference, I think rest [myself included] only kept privatizing simply for convenience's sake since everyone else already is.
While I agree that keeping it open, or rather more specifically allowing new users to fill in the forum offers some benefit in the form of fresh perspectives, we are currently under siege and fully exposed to any form of organized attack normies or their masters would try to lobby against us.
We need the heat to die down first before considering the former.
Ads are for lurkers I think, but I'm not sure about low post/repcels though.
Aside from the fact that we're very vulnerable during a time in which we're also very exposed right now, user and content quality is by far the greatest concern regarding this forum's future.
The fact that this is currently happening right now and BoB of all places so exposed for everyone to see is insulting.
It should've at least been closed to lurkers from the start because something like this was bound to happen.
BoB NEEDS TO BE PRIVATED NOW.
While agree with pretty everything you just said and understand how it's an every growing problem on our forum, we need to deal with the immediate issue at hand.
The forum or at the very least BoB needs to be privated to lurkers and new greycels until this trend dies down, then we can focus on other issues like this.
2.0 ratio is insanely difficult
I'd argue for a 100 rep and 200-500 post requirement during a monitored trial period for new users to prevent shitposts/spam combined with stronger vetting.
Post limit for greycels is also a good idea, I'd combine it with a monitored "trial period" to strike out any shitposts/spam and that spam filter @Lord&Master mentioned wasn't a bad idea either.
I propose a saner solution via 100 rep and 200-500 posts excluding shitposts witch won't count and will be strikes against new greycels during a monitored "trial period".
This is a good idea, offtopic can be open for greycels to view but they shouldn't post until they meet a minimum requirement, and I'd also argue for monitoring of their posts to filter out spam/shitposts.
The influx of new greycels should be curbed via more stringent vetting and more detailed applications on the sign up prompt.
Other forums also spam filters for new users too.
True, but we can stop its spread or at the very least slow it down, normies have pretty shitty memories afterall.
The point you just mentioned about keeping a lid on forum info is a good idea but I think it should only extend to the point of promoting forum itself rather than just some basic looksmaxing info.
Alts are already a bannable offense.
More eyes on the forum is bad either way, be it due to normies stealing any of our knowledge [thereby increasing competition/hypergamy] or organized efforts to shut us down for thoughtcrime by misconstruing what we say.
Hideposts based on user rep or even outright denial of access to lurkers would be a good idea too.
You bring up an important issue but we can deal with it once we settle this tiktok trend bullshit first since we're too vulnerable and exposed like this, especially with all of BoB up for anyone to see and grab.
Agree with most if not all
I'd suggest a similar post rep requirement around 100 rep and 200-500 posts while new greycels are monitored and vetted during a trial period, new greycel registration will also be more limited during this time.
I'd suggest privating BoB and Looksmaxing sections, but opening up only Looksmaxing section to lurkers while still limiting it is a good idea too.
I think bringing back ads for users would be a good idea to fight off any dip in ad revenue too.
It's not terrible idea because it merely provides another one of the many roadblocks meant to stop or at the very least slow down normies trying to squirm their way in here.
I agree that a crackdown on spam and shitposts should also apply to both established users and new ones too as that will help improve the worsening quality of the forum.
If we're talking about new users and not necessarily just lurkers, an "invitation" based system may slow down the spread but it poses a slight privacy risk that some users might not be comfortable with.
Also, asking where people came from won't really help since they can just lie, but most probably won't know we'll deny them based on what they say so that might work to our benefit as well.
, live and if you dont like to live rope thats abt it, thats just being a man.
