/his/ Board Suggestion

>>1817300
>Please let me know what you think.

Meta threads are against the rules. Enjoy your ban.

>>1817313
then where can we discuss such things? Offsite?

>>1817300
Wouldn't people just vote for the same/similar topics each time thereby not actually fixing the problem.

>>1817313
I thought Hiro said one meta thread per board at a time was allowed.

>>1817384
/qa/ I belive

>>1817457
people can still make whatever threads they want, it's just an idea to add variety

Hiro did say that but that anons just angry in general, so reality's lost on it

I think it is a good idea.

File: CLqdeKf.jpg (46KB, 580x326px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 580x326px

>>1817516
I think it's harmless one to consider, though I hope I don't get banned for merely trying to add more community and learning

>>1817300
Good idea on paper, unrealistic idea in practice. I'm fairly certain that this board is completely unmoderated. I've seen blatant rule breaking threads posted regularly and nothing is done about it and what you want is going to require some kind of mod involvement. Hard to have mod involvement when you don't have mods to get involved in the first place.

>>1817300
You what we REALLY fucking need?

An alt history general, or /ahis/

Tired of all these niggers asking "what if X did Y" when it's just speculation, NOT history

>>1817576
That seems fair, other boards have various generals, I've yet to see one here and they're not explicitly banned

>>1817560
Yeah I notice the amount of questionable content we have, but I think even discussing mods in a bannable offense so we should stay away from it
But like, imagine one week we had the Topic of Architecture, so many different things we can all learn, like different Mausoleums throughout history, what different people's lived in, I think people who came here would learn a lot

>>1817597
>so many different things we can all learn, like different Mausoleums throughout history, what different people's lived in, I think people who came here would learn a lot
You sincerely overestimate the knowledge of most of those who come here.

>>1817604
well the same with /sci/, smart people discuss academic subjects yes? There's a reason we're here and not on /tv/, not that there's anything wrong with cinema but still

>>1817611
/sci/ is mostly high school kids and undergrad discussing homework as if it's super special hardstuff. Similarly, /his/ is a bunch of pop-his retards, Marxist revisionist children, some /pol/acks, and a very small minority of people who actually read academic historiography.

>>1817611
>There's a reason we're here and not on /tv/

But what is Jerusalem worth?

>>1817486
Honestly I like the idea but I'm still kind of skeptical. Realistically, how many /his/ threads can you remember having interesting, unique, shitpost and bait-free discussion. I can barely think of one or two examples at most. I'm not convinced that any of these topic threads would be free of those.

If it does happen I would want it to work, because having actual discussion on /his/ would be amazing, especially if the topics are not usually discussed here.

>>1817625
Reading actual historical analysis isn't even that hard, it's just that many people don't know where to look, especially when wikipedia is available.


Like the most modern approach to the historicity of the Roman Republic period, SPQR by M. Beard is very easy to get into and we could spend entire threads discussing points she and other historians make or criticize

>>1817629
Nothing

>>1817666
So you're saying even if we did get a Topic of the Week going, the userbase would tear it down? Hm, alright, what about This Day/Week in History threads? I haven't seen any of those and the idea's mostly the same

>>1817743
It's not that it's hard. It's that the people on /his/, people in general really, don't read it for a variety of reasons. They stick to spouting continually debunked myths that they know because it's more correct to them or they find actual historiography boring (and honestly it is compared to the fantasy world that this board usually live in).

>>1817300
First we need to ban /pol/ tards. Make a simple random test to gain access to the board. Have things like
Hitler did:
>coke
>origami
>nothing wrong
>ruined germany
And it's guaranteed that 99% of all /pol/tards will be outed. They are so easily baited.

File: GGpt1.png (2MB, 1484x8729px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1484x8729px

>>1817743
>So you're saying even if we did get a Topic of the Week going, the userbase would tear it down?
Well, kind of. I don't think its impossible, pic related was on /his/ for example. It's just that it would take a lot more work and effort than what it sounds like. Shitposts and bait would fill the threads like most others, and unfortunately for us a lot of people on /his/ fall for that shit easily. I'm 99% sure that this is among the most easily baitable boards on 4chan. If mods. the community, or maybe one very dedicated person were willing to put in the large amounts of work required for this than maybe it would be possible.

I'd also like to mention that one of the reasons for which certain thread topics are more common than others is simply because more people are interested in them. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it means that doing threads on more specific subjects is quite a bit harder.

>Hm, alright, what about This Day/Week in History threads?

I really don't like this idea, as to me it doesn't sound like it will fix the problem of having huge amounts of threads on the same topic.

File: GGpt2.png (2MB, 1484x9710px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1484x9710px

>>1817870

>>1817300
I think it's a good idea but let's be real, humanities fags would just shit the thread up and ruin it.

"& Humanities" was a mistake.

>>1817300
Nope

>>1818172
quality discourse my friend

Bump because interest

>>1819843
maybe it's not the right time, maybe 6 months from now there'll be a bigger interest