/anthro/ - Anthro

>>136325
As far as movie nights go I'll get back to it soonish, probably after Halloween. I have been unimaginably busy for the last few weeks and haven't had time to draw or stream, would like to get back to it once I am free again

>>136324
Oh must’ve changed it. I remember mine not working like a month ago.

I’d like it if there were some more ongoing works rn. I feel like I’m the only one with a live project rn and outside of shitskin freak I haven’t been getting much critique as of late.

>>136334
it's mostly discussion quality,  lack of activity isn't really an issue by itself unless if it's extreme. you have that one site for unsupervised online children who i won't name as a testament for this.
too many repetitive threads and at worst softcore porn. the home page is proof that it's not a personal pet peeve of mine (i wish it was)
even our partner site capybarachan is more interesting to scroll through than this

>>136325
>>136352
damn that sucks
i try to make interesting replies and post art but idk how to start a discussion beyond that. maybe a group worldbuilding thread. i have some ideas that idk how to develop further
also does anyone know what cassandranon was doing with the movie threads? i know that site would only let you stream from a couple select sites but i heard there was also a way to stream from a server i think? is there a guide on that?

>>136378
You're not doing anything wrong and you don't own a website anything anon, use it if you like it and do not feel forced. This goes for all things in life, if someone is forcing you to do something you should instead look inside and do what *you* want.
>does anyone know what cassandranon was doing with the movie threads
Cass anon was using cytube to stream movies, and cytube is only a frontend that synchronizes everyone's play marker so you need to host the video content yourself. I'm not sure what service he is using I think he may answer here if he sees your post

lowkirk drop your steam because you're a chill dude mines 800822041 if you wanna add

>>136378
Cytube lets you stream from any website that allows rtmp streaming, many use file hosting services like litterbox for that, but iirc he had been self-hosting a 8chan dot tv server and linking it to cytube.

>>136378
As the other anon said I stream using 8chan.tv. I followed this guide which was written for a 4chan movie server I follow where a bunch of people stream, so I have a similar setup to them. Ignore anything specific to their Discovery Channel and community, you can just follow the important bits. I stream directly from my computer by having the movie playing on my computer and then streaming that via OBS
https://rentry.org/kino-for-dummies

Cytube does let you embed video files directly, but you'd need a direct link to the file itself, so for example you can't just plug in something like a free movie site or a mega.nz link, it'd need to be something like a catbox link. If you crush the quality of what you're showing to be <1GB, it might be possible to use litterbox to stream it, but that's the only easy option I'm aware of

>>136379
but i do want this
i want to get better at talking
i want to write a story
i want to have the people around me to be happier from being there
i just suck at it all but i want to try more
also whos lowkirk

>>136387
Also to reiterate I'd like to get back to streaming sometime after halloween or so when I have more free Saturdays

>>136389
thats good
i wasnt hoping to replace you

>>136387
thanks for the advice

>>136388
That's fine then anon, make sure you have fun then!

Is there a way I can disable spoilers and just see all images by default

>>136538
No because such use case hasn't even entered the chasteboys' minds for whom not being outer as a furry by a phone-grabbing bully on a lunch break takes priority over users' QoL on an already unwieldly type of website.
Get clicking.

>>136538
>>136540
Porn might actually have atrophied your brains. Holy shit. You guys make a more compelling case against porn than nevergoontroons. Wallahi you are annoying.

>>136542
God forbid people want to interact with posts instead of scrolling past threads full of the same Bully Fox thumbnail.
It's not like 4chanxt has had hotkeys and toggle buttons figured out like a decade ago.
I understand replying to me in such a key but quoting and insulting the other guy for asking an innocent and completely reasonable question is kind of sad.

>>136543
does clicking/tapping a picture take an herculean effort for you
jesus

>>136544
Sometimes it can take a bit for the media to expand especially when it’s like a 8 MB picrel.

Capture18.PNG U A
[Hide] (219.1KB, 1658x1203) Reverse

>>136544
Oh no, please,  I just love popping them like bubblewrap, especially the videos, especially when on a metered or an unstable connection.
I also always sign my work e-mails manually, filling out my contact info and rank, instead of using a pre-written auto-added form.

i'll see what i can do as a QOL measure. maybe some caching so you don't need to click to reveal a spoilered picture over and over again whenever a page updates,  but i'm not adding a "unspoiler everything" button, it defeats the whole purpose of the legislation

>>136547
What IS the purpose again? Right now it reads like driving yet another fraction of an already dwindling population away.

>>136547
I thought the idea is it would be toggled off be default in the settings and you’d have to go in and turn it on yourself. The idea being that if someone’s whining that they’re seeing boobs you tell them off for going out of their way to look at them.

>>136548
the purpose of a system is what it does
intent does not matter

>>136548
I wonder why the population began to dwindle
Totally not the fault of retarded gooners btw

>>136555
I am looking forward to reading your thorough, well-articulated, essay on the matter.

>>136543
I could've sworn there was a setting that automatically unspoilered everything. Sorry.
As for the other guy: I saw that flag and assumed it was the same belligerent kraut that was spamming grotesque garbage in protest last night. I may've been mistaken.
>>136547
Why not simply add that? I'm not opposed to this change, but if someone doesn't care, I don't see why their personal screens should be policed.
>>136548
Not too long ago, it would've served to retain said dwindling population. Now that it's been replaced, I suppose it may just accomplish what you're hinting at, though I presume the intent is to bring back some of those aforementioned users-- however misguided. It's not as though your lot brings much of note to the site anyhow.

>>136558
>Why not simply add that?
It "it defeats the whole purpose of the legislation".
Elaboration has been requested and is pending.

> it would've served to retain said dwindling population.
That is quite possible, yes, assuming the people who can view users' history have been paying attention who's who and have noticed a few valuable content creators leaving after voicing their concerns and it's not just conjecture and wishful thinking.
Pushing buttons randomly may make things worse just as likely as doing the opposite. 
In the general sense and not taking particularities into account ostracizing a chunk of userbase without giving something in return to soften the blow makes the said chunk think less of the place. 

>I presume the intent is to bring back some of those aforementioned users
That's what the proponents have been hinting at. Take >>136332 as an example. What a dashing statement! No further posts, refuses to elaborate and waltzes off. Probably gave himself a pat on the back for it. That only makes sense if the anonymous imageboard is just a front for a 'cord where everyone knows each other because otherwise good luck getting user testimonies on why they left and what it would take for them to return, and a network of connections would then be employed to send out couriers with the news that huzzah, gooner menace has been dealt with! Janitors will now spoiler everything less modest than a children's coloring book! 
Meanwhile, from an outsider's perspective, just like with most other pinned announcements it's yet another PR disaster.

>>136563
I was thinking it’d be an equivalent exchange that if anything favors the sickos. Nothing really changed it’s just there’s a spoiler in the way now. In exchange when the puritans start stimming you can retort by saying if they didn’t want to see the picrel why did they click on it.

>>136566
we could also have two boards if goontards feel like having to click an image to see it is 1984. One sfw and one sfg (safe for gooners meaning what 'cucks consider sfw)

>>136563
You do not know if that user made no further posts. IDs and flags change all the time for some of us.
Like I said, I think to some extent it is a futile and misguided effort. The hypothetical older population that would've been most enthusiastic for these changes has virtually no way of finding out about them-- in theory. I don't personally care nor am offended by porn (I may very well be one of the biggest gooners on the site), but there is a certain unique culture which the less pornographic nature of this site has harbored and it is ultimately that culture and community which must be protected. In that regard, I respect the spirit of these changes. It's not "pushing buttons randomly". Though Frog could probably use some help drafting up the official wording of these posts because everyone seems more than happy to freak out over nothing.
>Janitors will now spoiler everything less modest than a children's coloring book!
Spare me the hyperbole.
<words words words spacing
In short, Frog, it'd probably be best if you just add an option that automatically unspoilers "lewd" images (turned off by default). That should address most every concern and let us all live in gay harmony or whatever.

>>136566
Yes, the SFW (on top of already being SFW but oh well) toggle would have been the carrot to the new rule's stick. There's still potential for drama even then as well as a possibility of the toggle becoming a goon (again that is stretching the definition of the term since the actual stuff should be off-limits as per the older rules) layer of sorts, a double bottom from which the stench would percolate to the goodposters above, but it is what it is. A toggle. The thumbnails of spoilered files are replaced with actual thumbnails and a border is added around them to signify that they are spoilered.

Capture15,PNG.PNG U A
[Hide] (631.3KB, 785x1240) Reverse

Capture9.PNG U A
[Hide] (395.2KB, 741x1135) Reverse

Capture8.PNG U A
[Hide] (284.9KB, 672x1076) Reverse

Capture11.PNG U A
[Hide] (206.5KB, 746x711) Reverse

Capture.PNG U A
[Hide] (165.7KB, 629x715) Reverse

Capture12.PNG U A
[Hide] (1.3MB, 1123x1236) Reverse

Capture.PNG U A
[Hide] (165.7KB, 629x715) Reverse

>>136569
>You do not know if that user made no further posts. 
That would be a reasonable guess anyhow. 
Both changing ID and switching off the geoflag (that was the last of the US flag making such statements in that thread iirc) seems less likely than just hopping off - though not impossible, especially if the user posts from multiple devices. In a discussion like that one would expect the person to not cast their vote more than once, otherwise you'd see me samefag from a dozen different browsers with cookies pre-warmed with a bunch of legitimate-looking posts, through residential proxies. Not believing in democracy has its perks though, that saves some time.

>The hypothetical older population that would've been most enthusiastic for these changes has virtually no way of finding out about them-- in theory.
Potentially yes. Again, if they could find out about those. How would they though?

And let us not pretend that people did not post rather questionable stuff even back then ("back then" being like a year ago and if you go a bit too far back someone would  try to argue that the post was made pre-splintering, oh what ancient lore).
Let us reminisce a bit looking at pic related.

>Spare me the hyperbole.
I am sorry, it is just me taking the pinned post with the red capcode verbatim!
In fact, I am convinced that there has to be a children's coloring book where an animal or an anthro would have toebeans, but would only really set out to search for it if you bank your argument entirely on this not being the case - and once I have free time to humor it.

Capture7.PNG U A
[Hide] (259.3KB, 692x1100) Reverse

>>136569
Attached the wrong #7 my bad.

>>136547
>but i'm not adding a "unspoiler everything" button, it defeats the whole purpose of the legislation
This is a basic feature on most imageboards, i don't see the problem

>>136573
the one from march (pre /trash/pandering) is way different from the rest. I think its clear from where fatfur fetishists started coming
>>136574
also this was just shartybait

skullfoxa.png U A
[Hide] (697.5KB, 800x800) Reverse

anyways this is a good step into making the booey great again, hopefully people come back someday. We have to post more non gooner art so everything doesnt become spoilers

isa10.png U A
[Hide] (166.8KB, 2200x2200) Reverse

Also enforcing media panding anpurr l always for goongoon posts and possible received raids would be cool aswell

Capture.PNG U A
[Hide] (704.7KB, 2331x1232) Reverse

>>136595
Aha, again with the "we had paradise for exactly 1 femtosecond between the split and the invitation of trash also disregard the shitposts they are just bait anyway let's recreate this again at a larger scale even though the novelty wore off and we've already been through the honeymoon phase so now it's just boring life for the rest of eternity" fantasies, you're in for disappointment if you expect to relive anything of the sort.

>>136547
Why not? I don't see any downside to adding it, the people who like such images were going to click the spoilers anyways and those who don't aren't going to click a "unspoiler everything" button, so it's simply a beneficial QOL feature for the subset who like the spoilered images

>mfw floof was killimg the site with his retarded gooning
That nyagga should kill himself lol

>>136573
>Potentially yes. Again, if they could find out about those. How would they though?
Are you just repeating what I said?
>Let us reminisce a bit looking at pic related.
Sure. Let's... dig in (like that one smug soiboi woahjacque says!!1!!)
<picrel 1
Not seeing a problem.
<picrel 2
I would consider the first two provocative, sure.
<picrels 3-6
Nothingburgers.
<picrel 7 (from post below)
sharty kulchaurr classic. It's funny. We started as the furfag gooner rejects but I've seen far viler shit over there. Whatever, let's avoid another tangent.
Your point is we've always been horny fuckers? Sure. I'm not going to argue with that. Even amongst the "puritans" (and particularly amongst them, I'd argue) here, I'm sure we all rub it out to furshit offsite. Very important word in that sentence: offsite. And I'm sure a good chunk of us aren't bothered by the images themselves but by the effect they've had on the more sensitive users herein, driving them out. Not to mention that even though the horny posts were always here, the images rarely equaled them. And I think that's an important part of this: images stand out far more than text and produce a more visceral reaction, causing greater discomfort than someone simply saying "hurr durr i wanna fuck this furry pooch", which is what the case in favor of spoilers is about.
>I am sorry, it is just me taking the pinned post with the red capcode verbatim!
Yet it was clear even by the time this was posted that the verbatim interpretation was inaccurate. Still, you insist upon it. Why? Your idea of some sort of "protest"?

>>136636
>Are you just repeating what I said?
As a matter of fact, is you who repeated what I had said in >>136563.
>Not seeing a problem.
1 Beans.  2 Exaggerated proportions, boob focus. 3 Beans.
1---- 2 Suggestive imagery, naked. 3---
1 Beans, suggestive imagery.
1 Beans
>I would consider the first two provocative, sure.
1. Beans, suggestive imagery.
1. Beans, suggestive imagery
1. Beans, suggestive imagery.

>Nothingburgers.
>3
1.Beans, suggestive imagery, fetishising milk
1. ----
>4
1. Exaggerated proportions.
1. a soyjak
>5
1. suggestive imagery 
1. beans, exagerrated proportions
>6
1. beans 2. beans 3. suggestive imagery, naked, washing. 4. beans, suggestive imagery
1. --- 2 ---
1. suggestive imagery, naked 2, 3. beans (probably), not interested in backtracking. 4 - suggestive imagery, naked
>sharty kulchaurr classic. 
You lot have to make up your mind whether to endorse that or reject it. If I can live the rest of the life without seeing those golems they fetishise that would be nice.
> but I've seen far viler shit over there.
You mean to say that a sfw board that is already closer to the kindergarten in its choice of content has failed to outdo one of the stinkiest deepest cesspools on the web? Thank you for sharing. Shocked.
>Your point is we've always been horny fluffers? Sure.
Whether it is reasonable for a user who (I assume) is not on staff to speak for the rest, so for now I'll treat this as if you were talking solely about yourself.
Either way, that's not what I was saying. What I've been getting at is this nostalgia """oldfags""" (again, less than two years is laughable, yet somehow the adhd generation has already forgotten the details) have for a brief moment when the catalog looked immaculate, is based upon a false memory syndrome. It was never worse. You may keep pretending it was better but web archives won't lie. And I don't believe that going more puritan than even in those 'better days' in a desperate attempt to somehow bring back god-knows-who, who will indubitably set things right and bring about the next golden age is going to accomplish much good here. Would be glad to be proven wrong but based on the past experiences in various communities am fairly certain. Rules alone don't change things for the better. It is upon the users to do so.
> by the effect they've had on the more sensitive users herein, driving them out. 
Again, may I see some case studies proving this to be the case. Where are you getting this from?
>images stand out far more than text and produce a more visceral reaction, causing greater discomfort 
"If (You) don't like something then post what (You) want to see." That was a nice motto to go by. Too bad it's gone now and what there is instead is a zoomer furfag equivalent of white guilt and a cargo cult attempting to summon back the "good people".
> it was clear 
To whom?
> the verbatim interpretation was inaccurate.
Why cannot they make an accurate interpretation? Are they stupid?
>Your idea of some sort of "protest"?
Sure.

aramisHappy.png U A
[Hide] (482.5KB, 681x720) Reverse

>>136642
Can you stop playing dumb about the beans thing? "Playing" might be generous, to be fair. That point has been clarified already and I know you understand because...
>> the verbatim interpretation was inaccurate.
>Why cannot they make an accurate interpretation? Are they stupid?
>>Your idea of some sort of "protest"?
>Sure.
Oh, yeah. Well, carry on but cut it out of your responses here because they clog up the whole message. We get it: you're upset that "toebeans" were ambiguously declared le bad however many hours ago.
Also, it's impossible for anyone to "make an accurate interpretation" for you. That's not how that word works.
All parties have acknowledged the wording was a mistake already, so I'll just start ignoring the reiteration of grievances already resolved.
I skipped over the more substantial middle section because I'm short on time right now but I'll come back to it. Don't worry.

membardefoo.mp4 U A
[Hide] (4MB, 496x480, 01:51)

>>136598
>we had paradise for exactly 1 femtosecond between the split and the invitation of trash also disregard the shitposts they are just bait anyway let's recreate this again at a larger scale even though the novelty wore off and we've already been through the honeymoon phase so now it's just boring life for the rest of eternity

>>136650
I also member you mosqueperros poster

>Eran 1,2 y 3 los valientes mosqueperros y el pequeño dartagnan siempre va con ellos

>>136650
>Can you stop playing dumb about the beans thing?
Why?
>That point has been clarified already
All it took is spamming the board into overdrive. Great job, team.
>Well, carry on
I don't remember asking your permission but okay.
> cut it out of your responses here because they clog up the whole message.
What message are you talking about here exactly?
>We get it: you're upset that "toebeans" were ambiguously declared le bad however many hours ago.
Who's "we"?
> it's impossible for anyone to "make an accurate interpretation" for you. That's not how that word works.
1) Not a word.
2) Citation needed.
>All parties have acknowledged the wording was a mistake already
Unless you count a silent edit of the original post as an acknowledgement of a mistake (I don't), that didn't happen. To me the entire line is a mistake. Hell, the entire pinned thread is a mistake. There are better ways of handling such changes but subtlety and discretion are words lost on the folks in charge. They drop one bomb after another and you have to pull clarifications out of them with tweezers instead. My favorite has been attempting to gain public support to have the place shut down one month into the rebrand. Good lord.
> I'll come back to it. Don't worry.
How exciting. The only thing I would love to hear there is why none of the mentioned images have been spoilered whereas the images that were posted today and were no more risque than those - were. 
I have attached an example pair and would be interested in reading an essay on where the threshold lies and why one has been forcefully spoilered and the other is "Not seeing a problem.".
Sadly, in the absence any semblance of clarification from the mods, you are my only lifeline and a window into the mind of someone who is a part of the nostalgia death cult.


>>136651
That is unironically how it looks, ha.

Is this wall of text all because of >>136538 ?

>>136688
we do a little trolling

aramisContent2.png U A
[Hide] (12.1KB, 330x276) Reverse

>>136642
>this nostalgia """oldfags"""... have for a brief moment when the catalog looked immaculate, is based upon a false memory... It was never worse.
Your screenshots were meant to prove that, right? That the supposed golden age was actually, post for post, worse than what we have now? Eh. Not really. I'll admit there isn't really much change. It was better in the sense that there was more interesting activity, perhaps.
>Again, may I see some case studies proving this to be the case. Where are you getting this from?
No, you're not going to get any peer-reviewed Snopes fact-checked papers on the matter. However, I have an anecdote I've told before. There was a brief window of time a while ago during which nipples were technically allowed. Period. I was in favor of this because-- personally-- I think even full nudity isn't inherently pornographic. So I posted what I deemed a non-pornographic piece that happened to have female nipples to test this (in the previous fitfag thread). I remember the immediate response was negative. Clearly not everyone shared my view on the matter and some threatened to leave should the rules not be reverted. So I conceded (not that I had a say in the matter) because holding on to the community here is more valuable than my personal definition of what constitutes "pornography".
The point being: the userbase would absolutely be shaken were the rules to be "loosened".
>"If (You) don't like something then post what (You) want to see." That was a nice motto to go by...
Sure, but the presence at all of the images which make this portion of the userbase uncomfortable is the problem. This, as Purrgem has noted, can be resolved simply by spoilering them. That was the point of this entire ordeal-- all in an effort to hold on to what Frog seems to perceive as a dwindling userbase. The fact that you are forced to see them is the issue to these people.
>>136661
I apologize. Your whole fixation with the beans shit was pissing me off, hence the passive-aggression in that post. Sorry.
>What message are you talking about here exactly?
The message. As in: the literal post I was responding to. I didn't mean it in the rhetorical sense. lol. soz.
>Unless you count a silent edit...
The administration is not very good with words. You have a point there. Actually, I think we're in agreement on most things but I still think spoilering is for the best so long as a setting is provided, insofar as we share the goal of not losing this community.
>you are my only lifeline and a window into the mind of someone who is a part of the nostalgia death cult.
<3<3<3 Love you man.
But...... I'm not. I do think there was more interesting activity in the past, sure, but I don't think average post quality itself has really changed all that much since.

aramisUnsure.jpg U A
[Hide] (6KB, 130x148) Reverse

>>136653
Were you there in my first thread ever however long ago it was? This was the OP :)
I never did watch the original Spanish. The pun in the title is completely lost in English, though I guess it's made up for with "Dogtanian" instead of "D'Artagnan".