# Expanding scope: dealing with not-so-lolcows



## Null (Mar 16, 2016)

_A lolcow is a person or group whose eccentric or foolish behavior can be "milked" for amusement and laughs._

We have two very fuzzy sections of content on the forum. People who are lolcows, and people who are dramatic. I have been grappling with how to deal with this problem for years now and I'm still not sure how I want to go about it. I've tried a variety of things to segregate information and I'm not happy with any of their results. I'm presenting what I know so maybe other people can think of some ideas.

The problem is that someone like Alison Rapp will display alongside someone who definitely is a lolcow, like DarkSydePhil.

If you visit this website specifically for lolcows, you won't like a lot of the threads you see. If you visit the forum for general Internet drama, censoring or removing threads on people not deemed "lolcow enough" can be alienating. Further, deciding who is and is not a lolcow can play very subjectively. Most people would not call Andrew Dobson a lolcow (anymore), and the interest in Dobson is routinely criticized on all lolcow / drama communities. Despite that I still find Dobson fascinating and am constantly having to purge the thread of shitposting just so I can read it.


The three main tools I have for dealing with threads are:

1. Deletion. Deciding where to draw a line can retain focus and go for quality over quantity, at the risk of pruning too much and alienating people.

2. Subforums. Organizing threads using a subforum defines a specific scope and completely removes it from another forum's view. People who only check Lolcow, for instance, do not see anything in Tumblr. This can create a good sense of categorization and adds room to grow (that is almost always filled by new users joining), but it also segments the community and isn't a very streamlined approach to organization. If a subforum is too niche or weird, like Loveshy is, then it will languish.

3. Tags. Tags allow threads to be categorized within a single board, but (like with Subforums) it's really hard to tell how we can categorize stuff. Dividing content on this forum is a massive headache. I think our current tags are ineffective (because nobody uses them AFAIK).


I want to expand the scope of the site again to adequately allow general Internet drama to be carried out here since there's an increasingly high demand for it. I'm curious to hear how other people think we might be able to facilitate this while still allowing people to find "true blue" lolcows that might interest them.

_Discuss._


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 16, 2016)

'People of Interest' subforum for internet people we know damn well aren't lolcows but still wanna talk about, with some tags added once we see what kind of cultures/niches keep cropping up. Trying to split it up by niche will juts result in a bunch of dead subforums and a cluttered index.


----------



## Watcher (Mar 16, 2016)

The problem I have with this approach is that this forum is generally antagonistic to things. Like our first instinct is to label something as autistic.

I just see it as easily abusable in the same way that Deep Thoughts is. Someone might make a thread on a controversial person who's not actually a lolcow. Like Richard Dawkins or Donald Trump and constantly bait people.


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 16, 2016)

Watcher said:


> Someone might make a thread on a controversial person who's not actually a lolcow. Like Richard Dawkins or Donald Trump and constantly bait people.



So? Stop being such a liberal atheist whiteknight.


----------



## Null (Mar 16, 2016)

Watcher said:


> I just see it as easily abusable in the same way that Deep Thoughts is. Someone might make a thread on a controversial person who's not actually a lolcow. Like Richard Dawkins or Donald Trump and constantly bait people.


One of the polar opposites of funny is politics. I don't like politisperging, but at the same time I do not want to tell people who they can and can't make fun of.


----------



## SpessCaptain (Mar 16, 2016)

Maybe the "Person of Interests" shouldn't be just some free-for-all and rather must develop from pre-existing conversations on threads, like say we were discussing a lot about Jared Fogle and his arrests - while people aren't considering him a lolcow he is worthy of discussion so into the VIP thread/subforum/whatever they go.


----------



## Watcher (Mar 16, 2016)

Null said:


> One of the polar opposites of funny is politics. I don't like politisperging, but at the same time I do not want to tell people who they can and can't make fun of.


I'm just saying that with lolcows there isn't much nuance to absorb. "Chris chan shits himself, collects welfare and is autistic" is easy to understand and get behind. There's not much debate whether or not he's correct in doing that. There's not much thought process in following and talking about him. A person talking about something that is more nuanced though requires more restraint in order to get an actual conversation started.

I'm just predicting a large amount of bait posts flung in every direction and not much discussion on the individuals at hand. Mostly a lot of people defending that person and being mocked and ridiculed for doing so. It happens every time we have a joke lolcow thread about someone who people actually like.


----------



## Batman VS Tony Danza (Mar 16, 2016)

Null said:


> One of the polar opposites of funny is politics. I don't like politisperging, but at the same time I do not want to tell people who they can and can't make fun of.



A lolcow can be in politics but their political views shouldn't be the draw unless they surpass the norm by a wide margin. It's like Brad. He's really into that religion shit but it's so bizarre that any person, regardless of what religion they follow, could see he's a fucking nutjob.


----------



## Ruin (Mar 16, 2016)

Personally I'm against having threads on random Youtubers/Lets players/politicians simply because based on past experience they all go to shit really quickly. I suppose we could do a trial run and if it turns into a clusterfuck we can nuke it like the entersephere.


----------



## GS 281 (Mar 16, 2016)

Keep it simple. Follow the Dynastia plan.


----------



## Locksnap (Mar 17, 2016)

I don't see the expansion of the sites scope in this direction as a good move at all. I think you'll really struggle to divorce the discussion of these "people of interest" from their politics. 


Null said:


> One of the polar opposites of funny is politics. I don't like politisperging, but at the same time I do not want to tell people who they can and can't make fun of.


This is all very well and good, but you shouldn't be asking yourself whether or not you should be telling people who they can and can't make fun of, but rather whether or not it that funmaking belongs on the forum. I think Internet Aristocrat is a total fag and I'd make fun of him, but its become very clear to everyone that a thread on him does not belong here.


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 17, 2016)

Watcher said:


> I'm just predicting a large amount of bait posts flung in every direction and not much discussion on the individuals at hand. Mostly a lot of people defending that person and being mocked and ridiculed for doing so. It happens every time we have a joke lolcow thread about someone who people actually like.



So?



Ruin said:


> Personally I'm against having threads on random Youtubers/Lets players/politicians simply because based on past experience they all go to shit really quickly. I suppose we could do a trial run and if it turns into a clusterfuck we can nuke it like the entersephere.



It's basically a containment board for all the gamergate and clickbait and pedos and minor e-celebrities and atheism+ and sjw faggots that aren't really lolcows but are undeniably interesting to certain people. Moving them to a forum that doesn't say 'Lolcows' on the top will reduce 'BUT IS HE A LOLCOW?' debate and people who just want to focus on pants-shitting autistics will have a less cluttered forum. People who want to get super assmad over Milo Yianoppolous or Arthur Chu or Boxxy or w/e without having to justify them as a 'lolcow' to have a mocking, mean-spirited thread about them will have a place to do so.

It's win-win for everybody and if it turns into a clusterfuck it'll be a clusterfuck in a subforum you don't actually ever have to read.


----------



## Pepsi-Cola (Mar 17, 2016)

I think the "people of interest" subforum is a cool idea but it should consist of Internet people only, allowing normal celebrities or talked about people IRL have their own threads on a subforum like that is just a recipe for shitposts, autism, and just a generally hard to moderate cesspool of a subforum.


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 17, 2016)

Pepsi said:


> I think the "people of interest" subforum is a cool idea but it should consist of Internet people only, allowing normal celebrities or talked about people IRL have their own threads on a subforum like that is just a recipe for shitposts, autism, and just a generally hard to moderate cesspool of a subforum.



Agree, with the caveat that we should allow normal celebrities the internet has an unhealthy level of interest in (ie. Trump, Putin, Ron Paul, Amy with the Baking Company, Viper, etc.) They're basically internet people now whether they want to be or not.


----------



## Null (Mar 17, 2016)

Locksnap said:


> I don't see the expansion of the sites scope in this direction as a good move at all. I think you'll really struggle to divorce the discussion of these "people of interest" from their politics.


A lot of people considered moving away from Chris to be a bad idea too. I think it worked out. It just has to be done correctly.


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 17, 2016)

Null said:


> A lot of people considered moving away from Chris to be a bad idea too.



A lot of people also threw stimming tantrums when you changed the font. Don't forget what your userbase is when you see them react negatively to proposed changes.


----------



## chimpburgers (Mar 17, 2016)

Dynastia's right on this one. It can't hurt to have a trial run of this and see how it goes.


----------



## Zeorus (Mar 17, 2016)

Part of me likes the idea of more subforums or tags to further categorize shit, but the problem would be, as you said, that there isn't really a good way to standardize the definitions of these categories. I concur with Dyn on this one.


----------



## GabeRegan (Mar 17, 2016)

Dynastia said:


> 'People of Interest' subforum for internet people we know damn well aren't lolcows but still wanna talk about, with some tags added once we see what kind of cultures/niches keep cropping up. Trying to split it up by niche will juts result in a bunch of dead subforums and a cluttered index.





Dynastia said:


> So?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Dynastia said:


> Agree, with the caveat that we should allow normal celebrities the internet has an unhealthy level of interest in (ie. Trump, Putin, Ron Paul, Amy with the Baking Company, Viper, etc.) They're basically internet people now whether they want to be or not.



Gotta agree with Dynastia, I think he's got the best idea for this. A "Persons of Interest" board would also be a good place to throw questionable threads that don't generate a lot of content, but are still worth talking about for the people who want to talk about it. 

At the very least, it should cut down on the "Is this person a lolcow?" discussions that seem to dominate most of the newer threads in Lolcow.


----------



## SpessCaptain (Mar 17, 2016)

I'm starting to think a little bit over it... Kiwifarms is about Lolcows.

I don't think that falls into the "People of Interest" Category, pretty much a cow needs to be milk-able or milks itself (produces interesting and lulzy content).

People of Interests kind of don't fall into that same wavelength. Like there would be little to work with and so much content about people and they would unlikely be interested in them. Lolcows produce dozens, hundreds or even thousands of pages worth of content, a Person of Interest is pretty much a shivelled up unlactating lolcow that just has a few moments then phases away, we'll only be interested in the thread for like a day and discard it like a washed up whore. like in internet terms drama that happened over 3 years ago is like ancient history for us.



Dynastia said:


> It's basically a containment board for all the gamergate and clickbait and pedos and minor e-celebrities and atheism+ and sjw faggots that aren't really lolcows but are undeniably interesting to certain people.


 all of these sound like really interesting and quality threads, I will follow every one!

Unless we're desperately wanting to grasp at the audience for eDrama and image board news then we should do it.


----------



## CatParty (Mar 17, 2016)

What @Dynastia said but also with tags. People of interest subcategorized by what field of interest they'd have


----------



## champthom (Mar 17, 2016)

I know I'm rarely active on here but here are my thoughts:

I may be viewing this situation a bit differently than Null, or at least my reasoning may differ from what Null is going for here, so bear with me. 

When I first started the forum, I focused on Chris - it was what I knew but also I felt like there were other places online that covered the general lolcow niche well. Also, I mostly didn't want to deal with repercussions of people dealing with lolcows who aren't Chris (who has a very unique psychology where you can pretty much say what you want about him and he'll never bother to actually read what you wrote online about him). Null wanted to expand this to general lolcows and I was very hesitant - I felt that this niche was covered well and I felt it would attract all sorts of unsavory characters and I was concerned about people using it as a personal army - "I don't like this person, therefore he's a lolcow." But it's always been my philosophy to give people what they want and there was a significant demand for it, not to mention there was a pragmatic reason that it gave people something to talk about other than Chris for when Chris was relatively inactive. In retrospect, I think this was a wise move - sometimes having too narrow a focus limits growth. I always imagined that the forum would eventually evolve into a general interest type forum, with the General forums being the interest because that's essentially what happened with PVCC. I think a Lolcow forum was a wise idea though as it manages to capture a niche that's a bit broader and I think we're unique in that people can discuss lolcows and that we have a really great community. 

I don't see harm in letting people talk about Internet drama on here. I think at that point, the forum would be more of an Internet gossip forum, in the same vein of celebrity gossip. I don't see the harm in that, but it would broaden things even more. My concern is this may make us a bit more tame than we are now and I'm concern it might be a transition like what EncyclopediaDramatica did when it became OhInternet. I don't think it'd necessarily alienate the user base, more or less letting people talk more about what they want. 

This was my concern but it's valid but as long as people aren't using the forums to launch personal attacks or using lolcow forums as a personal platform, I don't see the harm. Posts about how North Korea is a lolcow nation irks me because it's not really that North Korea is somehow humorous and dramatic, it's really a politics post in the guise of a lolcow post. I've seen Scientology posts in the same vein - "Scientology is such a lolcow religion" but it'd be mostly a critique of Scientology's practices. Don't get me wrong, I don't like North Korea or Scientology but discussion about these can easily be done elsewhere on the forum but it's really not a lolcow. I understand Null has a broader definition of what a lolcow is, and I disagree with him on that, but I think if you have a broad definition of what a lolcow is, as long as people aren't using it to using the lolcow forum as a personal platform or to make personal army requests (I'd often see posts on /cow/ along the lines of "This guy bullied me in school, he's really a total lolcow and deserves to get trolled"), I don't really see the huge harm if that's what the forum users want.


----------



## Null (Mar 17, 2016)

champthom said:


> This was my concern but it's valid but as long as people aren't using the forums to launch personal attacks or using lolcow forums as a personal platform,


Yeah this basically sums it up. No politics, no anger, no kids.  Everything else is fair game.


----------



## Clown Doll (Mar 17, 2016)

Null said:


> 2. Subforums. Organizing threads using a subforum defines a specific scope and completely removes it from another forum's view. People who only check Lolcow, for instance, do not see anything in Tumblr. This can create a good sense of categorization and adds room to grow (that is almost always filled by new users joining), but it also segments the community and isn't a very streamlined approach to organization.



I think the points you raised are imo in _favour _of the subforum approach. The current problem with borderline lolcow threads(that would fall under the "not-so-lolcow in the current classification) is that people who aren't interested in them or do not consider them lolcows still feel compelled to reply to them and most of that is that they dispute that the person isn't a Lolcow. Now, in many cases I do agree with them, but this clogs up the thread with noncontent meta, like happened with the Sargon thread. When the Tumblr sub hadn't been made yet, people complained endlessly about the Tumblr cows, now they can happily ignore it. Also, the unsavoury posting culture of the Tumblr sub had less chance to infect the Lolcow board due to the separation.

Another issue is that non-lolcows in the same subforum as actual lolcows would also water down the definitions of actual lolcows as people would be used to seeing threads made on people who aren't Lolcows, but are still in the same subforum.



Null said:


> If a subforum is too niche or weird, like Loveshy is, then it will languish.



Then that's a good signal that it can be demolished or reformed. Having it work in a subforum also allows for a mass deletion of all the content in the sub in case it is deemed unfit. Having a separate subforum would also allow us to fine-tune the posting guidelines of the edrama subforum separately from Lolcow.


----------



## chimpburgers (Mar 17, 2016)

I also think that this would be a good compromise all around for the growing diversity of people who come to this site for different reasons, catering to both oldfags and those who really want to talk more about Internet drama like all that Nicole Arbour shit that happened. The thread wasn't bad but the OP got flack because the woman herself wasn't much of a cow. I suggested at the time that it could have been moved to multimedia for instance. It would also make the site easier to market to a wider audience.


----------



## CatParty (Mar 17, 2016)

just throw edrama in news and events


----------



## Clown Doll (Mar 17, 2016)

Valiant said:


> I'm starting to think a little bit over it... Kiwifarms is about Lolcows.
> 
> I don't think that falls into the "People of Interest" Category, pretty much a cow needs to be milk-able or milks itself (produces interesting and lulzy content).
> 
> People of Interests kind of don't fall into that same wavelength. Like there would be little to work with and so much content about people and they would unlikely be interested in them. Lolcows produce dozens, hundreds or even thousands of pages worth of content, a Person of Interest is pretty much a shivelled up unlactating lolcow that just has a few moments then phases away, we'll only be interested in the thread for like a day and discard it like a washed up whore. like in internet terms drama that happened over 3 years ago is like ancient history for us..



I would very much agree if People of Interest weren't currently forced on the forum under the guise of Lolcows. I don't see the idea as much as "introducing a whole new brand of cows" as redirecting the non-lolcow content that's been cluttering up the Lolcow board into it's own section. The way I personally see it is that with the introduction of a new category like this, the standards of what passes as a ~*real*~ Lolcow could be tightened.



Valiant said:


> a Person of Interest is pretty much a shivelled up unlactating lolcow that just has a few moments then phases away, we'll only be interested in the thread for like a day and discard it like a washed up whore. like in internet terms drama that happened over 3 years ago is like ancient history for us.


If the threads don't hold people's interest enough they fall into obscurity, it's an automatic sorting system. Meanwhile people who are interested in actual Lolcows can skip looking at the People of Interest subforum and go straight into Lolcow.


----------



## Vitriol (Mar 17, 2016)

If a new edrama general sub is created it might be worth placing it in the off topic section to try and limit the amount of personal army reqests.


----------



## Cthulu (Mar 17, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> If a new edrama general sub is created it might be worth placing it in the off topic section to try and limit the amount of personal army reqests.


I don't think the PA request will be a huge deal. We've had them before and then laughed them of the forum. It may even provide more amusement and maybe even a chance to discover a new cow.


----------



## Vitriol (Mar 17, 2016)

Cthulhu said:


> I don't think the PA request will be a huge deal. We've had them before and then laughed them of the forum. It may even provide more amusement and maybe even a chance to discover a new cow.


I'm just wary of ending up like certain Reddit subs where initially they focussed on entertaining drama but are now used as brigade fodder and flooded with irrelevant threads every time someone finds someone else who disagrees with them. We don't want to end up like a glorified tumblr call out blog either. I think limiting our discussion on non cows to the private areas of the forum would help avoid this.

I also think as a general rule the OP should never be directly involved in whatever drama or person they are describing.


----------



## chimpburgers (Mar 17, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> I'm just wary of ending up like certain Reddit subs where initially they focussed on entertaining drama but are now used as brigade fodder and flooded with irrelevant threads every time someone finds someone else who disagrees with them. We don't want to end up like a glorified tumblr call out blog either. I think limiting our discussion on non cows to the private areas of the forum would help avoid this.
> 
> I also think as a general rule the OP should never be directly involved in whatever drama or person they are describing.


This is something I'd really wanted to emphasize here. I feel that the more neutral someone is about that kind of drama and less involved they are, the better so the thread won't devolve as quickly into a whole "fuck you, I disagree with this I'm gonna make a thread on you lolololol" kind of nonsense.


----------



## GS 281 (Mar 17, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> If a new edrama general sub is created it might be worth placing it in the off topic section to try and limit the amount of personal army reqests.


If it was in off-topic then new users would have no access. Some people join KF just for a single thread. If we had threads in off-topic such as these, then they wouldn't have access. Also, I don't understand the consternation here. A new sub simply a.) shuts up autists like me who balk at non-lolcow material in lolcow and b.) can be closed down if it doesn't work much easier than parsing out threads if it is a failure and left mixed with lolcow. Also, I don't understand this concern with PA. This hasn't happened with lolcow, comm watch, tumblr or loveshy much and when it has there was a rain of shit on the person's head. If something smells like PA request it will be bombed on pretty rigorously.


----------



## Vitriol (Mar 17, 2016)

yawning sneasel said:


> If it was in off-topic then new users would have no access. Some people join KF just for a single thread. If we had threads in off-topic such as these, then they wouldn't have access. Also, I don't understand the consternation here. A new sub simply a.) shuts up autists like me who balk at non-lolcow material in lolcow and b.) can be closed down if it doesn't work much easier than parsing out threads if it is a failure and left mixed with lolcow. Also, I don't understand this concern with PA. This hasn't happened with lolcow, comm watch, tumblr or loveshy much and when it has there was a rain of shit on the person's head. If something smells like PA request it will be bombed on pretty rigorously.


i like the idea of a new sub generally and agree with most of what you put about the benefits of one.

My thinking is that this new sub will probably fill with threads on semi political figures like Sargon, Lacy green, the buzz feed people, tgwtg stuff etc and if in the public section of the forum will, as you say, attract new users. An influx of users coming here for political reasons is imo something to be avoided. This happened to an extent with gg and I do think we've had a problem with pa's relating to that- from both sides. In my opinion we do not want to become a battleground for places like SRS or KIA to try and rally support. 

I don't mind new users having access but I wouldn't want unregistered users to be able to see it. I think there is appetite here for edrama discussion and that appetite should be met, however I think we should be careful in its implementation.


----------



## Clown Doll (Mar 17, 2016)

yawning sneasel said:


> This hasn't happened with lolcow, comm watch, tumblr or loveshy much and when it has there was a rain of shit on the person's head. If something smells like PA request it will be bombed on pretty rigorously.


One of the reasons personal armies fail is because the thread subjects have been established to not be a Lolcow, if there's no requirement for the subject matter to be a lolcow, highlighting them is questioned less.  I think that people of interest should have a degree of notoriety to them, for example if it's just someone from Deviantart who doesn't generate drama, that person is hardly of interest. People who don't generate any buzz on the wider Internet aren't those who in _my personal opinion_ this is about.
People like Jonathan McIntosh/Daniel Keemstar here seem much more like this sort of thing would be intended for :
Basically people involved in internet drama who warrant discussion, but not non-noteworthy benign spergs who don't matter to people other than a really small group of obsessives around them.



CatParty said:


> it's gonna happen however


Depends on what kind of consensus about the possible subforum ends up being built, but it's already what can happen on the current forum setup.


----------



## CatParty (Mar 17, 2016)

Clown Doll said:


> but not non-noteworthy benign spergs who don't matter to people other than a really small group of obsessives around them.




it's gonna happen however


----------



## GS 281 (Mar 17, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> This happened to an extent with gg and I do think we've had a problem with pa's relating to that- from both sides. In my opinion we do not want to become a battleground for places like SRS or KIA to try and rally support.


I agree 100%, however if management feels that these threads have a place here, then putting them far from the lolcow sub is more appropriate. People are whining about the non-lolcows in the lolcow pot, and people are whining about the whining about the non-lolcows in the lolcow pot. The best way to end this is to categorize or admit we aren't a lolcow board.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 17, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> i like the idea of a new sub generally and agree with most of what you put about the benefits of one.



The problem with containment threads/subforums is they encourage the kind of content that isn't welcome in the first place.

Also, some of these marginal characters have the possibility of causing morons who admire/hate them to show up despite having no connection to the general board culture, e.g. the Mr. Enter disaster.


----------



## Vitriol (Mar 17, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> The problem with containment threads/subforums is they encourage the kind of content that isn't welcome in the first place.
> 
> Also, some of these marginal characters have the possibility of causing morons who admire/hate them to show up despite having no connection to the general board culture, e.g. the Mr. Enter disaster.


This is why I would favour an off topic board- it should provide a place for segregating such threads but as it is inaccessible to new members should not attract or encourage a great deal of new members with a focus we do not want.

Kinda like DT functions as a dumping ground for discussion as to what counts as a tranny or CP but no one (except maybe ADK) comes here for that board.


----------



## Clown Doll (Mar 17, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> This is why I would favour an off topic board- it should provide a place for segregating such threads but as it is inaccessible to new members should not attract or encourage a great deal of new members with a focus we do not want.


Off-topic also could set the tone for the threads in a way that even if these people/events/groups generate discussion, you can talk about them without having to adjust your attitude to be that they're _Lolcows_, or that the thread should necessarily be pointed towards being _against _them instead of about them. For example, in the Sargon thread or some of the other Lolcow threads there have been people who were fans of the people who were highlighted, and they were giving their views about how this person isn't a Lolcow and how their work is actually pretty good and so on.

While for a Lolcow thread that can fall under white knighting somewhat, having a neutral environment to discuss people of interest would be good to bring the insight of the people who are their fans or follow them to the table, without them being guilty of "white knighting" or discrupting the flow of the thread. If the people of interest aren't Lolcows, then the threads would benefit from people who aren't seeking to hate them being able to participate in the discussion as well without it being detrimental to the tone of the thread as whiteknighting in most Lolcow threads is.Otherwise people who make the thread could just choose the angle that they're presenting the person in(This guy is a totes non-Lolcow, let's talk about much of a big faggot he is!") while the people who have counterpoints about that person's involvement in whatever drama or the person's merits would be shooed off of the thread for "white knighting" even if they have interesting things to put on the table.


----------



## Null (Mar 17, 2016)

We could just make new threads in Lolcow / Drama a mod-approval type thing. We have that ability.


----------



## Ponderous Pillock (Mar 17, 2016)

I actually think the best thing to do is not to build yet another subforum. There are some folks which start out as borderline, and then rapidly transform into full blown cows. I think going with a small change would be to include a new tag where they're marked as "Person of Interest" rather than various kids of cows. That way you're playing with tag issue than the need to throw stuff in other forums.


----------



## Vitriol (Mar 17, 2016)

Null said:


> We could just make new threads in Lolcow / Drama a mod-approval type thing. We have that ability.


that would stop PA requests effectively but it wouldn't prevent us from attracting the Wulfgars/rylongs of the internet. Unless we are strict in what topics are allowed to be discussed and reject topics likely to attract enterspergs/mras/ggs/antigger/etc etc but that then defeats the point of expanding discussion imo.


----------



## Null (Mar 17, 2016)

Ponderous Pillock said:


> I actually think the best thing to do is not to build yet another subforum. There are some folks which start out as borderline, and then rapidly transform into full blown cows.


If we made some sort of promotion criteria we could elevate Tumblr / Drama threads into full Lolcow threads.


----------



## Clown Doll (Mar 17, 2016)

Ponderous Pillock said:


> I actually think the best thing to do is not to build yet another subforum. There are some folks which start out as borderline, and then rapidly transform into full blown cows.



Lolcow is getting kind of bloated and then there's edrama that's less about the people involved than the event such as the Finebros drama. Threads can be moved across forums very easily.



Vitriol said:


> reject topics likely to attract enterspergs/mras/ggs/antigger/etc



The call was coming from inside the house. Lolcow already has a lot of these kinds of topics and one of the reasons the topics are having trouble is because the people who want to discuss the gamergate related noncows are frustrated with people coming into their topics to shout them down, and the people who are against them, seem to be frustrated about Lolcow being clogged with GamerGate topics.


----------



## Sanshain (Mar 17, 2016)

I think it would be a great idea to in some way separate out the kind of lolcow thread that deals with eccentric, stupid but ultimately fairly harmless individuals like Chris-Chan and the kind of lolcow that genuinely inspires outrage and disgust, like Alison Rapp.


----------



## FreightTrain (Mar 18, 2016)

Would Null be considered an official lolcow?


----------



## Clown Doll (Mar 18, 2016)

Forever Sunrise said:


> I think it would be a great idea to in some way separate out the kind of lolcow thread that deals with eccentric, stupid but ultimately fairly harmless individuals like Chris-Chan and the kind of lolcow that genuinely inspires outrage and disgust, like Alison Rapp.


We have "Horrorcow" tags.


----------



## CatParty (Mar 18, 2016)

FreightTrain said:


> Would Null be considered an official lolcow?





Clown Doll said:


> We have "Horrorcow" tags.


----------



## Emiya Kiwitsugu (Mar 18, 2016)

There's a fine line between discussing people of interest on the Internet and having the owner of a site specifically pushing their userbase against people in some self-righteous crusade. As long as this means we don't feature what amounts to practically dossiers on the frontpage of suspected pedos, as if it's our duty to be a personal army against the Alison Rapps and other ills of the world, then I guess it could be fine.


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 18, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> The problem with containment threads/subforums is they encourage the kind of content that isn't welcome in the first place.
> 
> Also, some of these marginal characters have the possibility of causing morons who admire/hate them to show up despite having no connection to the general board culture, e.g. the Mr. Enter disaster.



That's why you have hotpockets. Discourage shenanigans when and if they happen instead of worrying about what might conceivably encourage them in the future.



Vitriol said:


> that would stop PA requests effectively but it wouldn't prevent us from attracting the Wulfgars/rylongs of the internet. Unless we are strict in what topics are allowed to be discussed and reject topics likely to attract enterspergs/mras/ggs/antigger/etc etc but that then defeats the point of expanding discussion imo.



How is this a bad thing? Backfired PA requests are fucking _hilarious_. Wulfgars and Ryulongs are fucking _hilarious_. I want more of both.


----------



## Vitriol (Mar 18, 2016)

Dynastia said:


> How is this a bad thing? Backfired PA requests are fucking _hilarious_. Wulfgars and Ryulongs are fucking _hilarious_. I want more of both.


funny when they backfire but the rest of the gamergate thread or indeed the enter subforum is what happens when they don't.


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 18, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> funny when they backfire but the rest of the gamergate thread or indeed the enter subforum is what happens when they don't.



Oh no there's thread on the Kiwi Farms and I don't like what's going on in it!

Use your hotpockets to purge it out if there's a real problem, stay in the cuckcorner and don't read it if there isn't. I think the gamergate thread is loads of fun and I thought the Enter subforum was loads of fun too.


----------



## Vitriol (Mar 18, 2016)

Dynastia said:


> Oh no there's thread on the Kiwi Farms and I don't like what's going on in it!
> 
> Use your hotpockets to purge it out if there's a real problem, stay in the cuckcorner and don't read it if there isn't. I think the gamergate thread is loads of fun and I thought the Enter subforum was loads of fun too.



The nature of those threads isn't the problem, its the crowd they attracted- we were still banning disruptive spergs who came in with enter looking for help picking fights 10 months later and that was a fairly minor 'fanbase'. If we had become a hub for , as an example, pro gg like KIA or 8chan I think we'd have been overrun. While one could just ignore those threads there is no guarantee those users would ignore yours.

  You yourself crashed SC and RW with the help of a relatively small group of other farmers and you have also successfully derailed and retarded discussion of various threads and topics you disapproved of  here over the years. I think it would be extremely optimistic to consider that the kind of person who will be attracted to discussing milo, sargon, green, jones, thunderfoot or any other source of polarising edrama won't do exactly the same thing to defend their position and limit discussion of their sacred cows. They do it on most  other sites.

Draconian moderation can limit this to a degree but as the Rapp, Sargon and Cox threads show if a decent enough number of users decide to shut down a thread they will normally succeed.

As I said further up- I do support expanding to include discussion of these people as our userbase seems to want to however I think it should be done in off topic so we don't attract a new user base more interested in epolitics and culture war than lolcows-

you said this about deep thoughts


Dynastia said:


> This is the Kiwi Farms, a place dedicated to the ideals of standing next to a retarded manbaby so we all look less pathetic. Kiwi Farms is the chunky girl who takes hambeasts as her wingmen when she wants to pick up some D. Kiwi Farms is the dullard who volunteers to work with drooling mongaloids so they can feel like the smartest person in the room. Kiwi Farms is the weakling who picks fights with cripples.



I believe this sub, if public, would risk attracting the attention of more than just cripples and dullards as you put it and i believe we might well lose.


----------



## Clown Doll (Mar 18, 2016)

Emiya Kiwitsugu said:


> As long as this means we don't feature what amounts to practically dossiers on the frontpage of suspected pedos, as if it's our duty to be a personal army against the Alison Rapps and other ills of the world, then I guess it could be fine.


Well, as I've explained my own view earlier, this is the situation _now. _Or at least, that's the current extreme end of the non-lolcow edrama content we currently have on the Kiwi Farms. Trying to present non-lolcows as Lolcows has lead to a watering down of what's perceived as standards for Lolcows, and this has gotten people understandably upset, especially if they want to find Lolcows on the lolcow board, but are disappointed to see threads on people who don't meet their standards on Lolcows.

At the same time, all the Gamergate and Wiki-centric edrama that isn't necessarily tangible Lolcows but is funny to document and observe is producing laughs with a notable part of the already-existing userbase. The fact that people want to discuss edrama shouldn't be a problem for people who want to play with the Chris-themed legos or follow traditional Lolcows as long as a clear distinction of what's a Lolcow and what's a Person of Interest / Edrama stampede, and the places to discuss them are structured accordingly so we don't have an overly bloated Lolcow board that causes everyone involved to be dissatisfied because they can't find the content they're looking for because the edramas and Lolcows are mixed with each other and it seems that a lot of users have severe hangups with the tag system.



Dynastia said:


> The point of contention was "they're not really" Move them to a subforum that doesn't have 'lolcows' at the top and the point of contention goes away.


The Tumblr sub is a good example of achieving a goal of hiding that sort of content from people who didn't want to have it infect Lolcow, and serving those who were coming to the site only for that sort of threads by concentrating it in one place.


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 18, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> You yourself crashed SC and RW with the help of a relatively small group of other farmers and you have also successfully derailed and retarded discussion of various threads and topics you disapproved of  here over the years.



Only the backbiting passive-aggressive snark thread in supporters, and only because I was literally paid to do it.

I generally don't disapprove of any threads and topics here. I think they're all fun, and the dumber they are the more fun they are to play in.



Vitriol said:


> Draconian moderation can limit this to a degree but as the Rapp, Sargon and Cox threads show if a decent enough number of users decide to shut down a thread they will normally succeed.



The point of contention was "they're not really" Move them to a subforum that doesn't have 'lolcows' at the top and the point of contention goes away.

btw, if you think our moderation is as fragile and inept as SC or RW, that's alarming. Those places only needed the gentlest of pushes. If I tried that shit anywhere that wasn't uniquely vulnerable I'd just get banned by the local hotpockets with no harm done, because that's what your hotpockets are for.


----------



## Vitriol (Mar 18, 2016)

Dynastia said:


> Only the backbiting passive-aggressive snark thread in supporters, and only because I was literally paid to do it.


my point is you were able to do it- and if you can so could others. Admittedly their motive might be different but it doesn't really matter in the end result.



Dynastia said:


> The point of contention was "they're not really" Move them to a subforum that doesn't have 'lolcows' at the top and the point of contention goes away


I agree with you here so any dispute about your previous comment becomes rather null!

Edit: I do think the point stands that while our current userbase which is primarily interested in lolcows shut it down for that reason a new base including a more political element, could, and in my view over time would, use it to do the same to topics they disliked. The current problem will be solved by creating a new sub, but i think we will avoid future problems if that sub is in off topic.


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 18, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> my point is you were able to do it- and if you can so could others. Admittedly their motive might be different but it doesn't really matter in the end result.



What I'm able to do is pretty extraordinary. I doubt it'll come up much in the future.


----------



## Vitriol (Mar 18, 2016)

Dynastia said:


> What I'm able to do is pretty extraordinary. I doubt it'll come up much in the future.


the edf crowd managed it fine, so will others- this is a small pond.


----------



## DuskEngine (Mar 18, 2016)

Null said:


> If we made some sort of promotion criteria we could elevate Tumblr / Drama threads into full Lolcow threads.



The tone of the drama board vs. the lolcow board will be fundamentally different. People will go there for different things, and they will respond to the same content differently on each board. 

I don't think it's a good idea to have lolcows be 'elevated' dramaspergs since it creates a gauntlet that all potential lolcow threads have to pass through, one that isn't necessarily conducive to filtering out political or unfunny content.


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 18, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> the edf crowd managed it fine, so will others- this is a small pond.



They shitposted around a bit, the most obnoxious ones were banned, and the rest either integrated seamlessly and became valued and cherished kiwis, or got bored and left of their own accord. They didn't destroy or curtail any discussion whatsoever. They couldn't if they tried, because we have janitors to deal with that sort of tomfoolery.

If 100 Milo fanboys showed up here one day to post in our Milo thread about how Milo is basically the second coming of Christ, and a whole bunch of people see that and say "Gross, this thread is positive towards Milo, I'm not going to post my negative thoughts on him because it's against the current of the thread", then good. Fucking good. If people aren't willing to say "this is what I think" unless they're sure everyone else thinks so to, then _what they think is even more worthless than the usual worthlessness of things people here think_ and their thoughts don't deserve consideration. Fuck them and fuck the value they think their opinions have if they won't even put them up against disagreement. If the hypothetical Milo fanboys start spilling out of the Milo thread, hotpocket them. That's what your hotpockets are for. They'll either fall into line and learn not to obnoxiously derail non-Milo threads, or they'll get shitcanned. No big deal.

As a semi-related aside, as much as people mock Asterisk and ADK, I think they're two of the best posters in Deep Thoughts because at least 'other people disagree' isn't the same thing as 'silencing discussion' to them.


----------



## Vitriol (Mar 18, 2016)

Dynastia said:


> If 100 Milo fanboys showed up here one day to post in our Milo thread about how Milo is basically the second coming of Christ, and a whole bunch of people see that and say "Gross, this thread is positive towards Milo, I'm not going to post my negative thoughts on him because it's against the current of the thread", then good. Fucking good. If people aren't willing to say "this is what I think" unless they're sure everyone else thinks so to, then _what they think is even more worthless than the usual worthlessness of things people here think_ and their thoughts don't deserve consideration. Fuck them and fuck the value they think their opinions have if they won't even put them up against disagreement. If the hypothetical Milo fanboys start spilling out of the Milo thread, hotpocket them. That's what your hotpockets are for. They'll either fall into line and learn not to obnoxiously derail non-Milo threads, or they'll get shitcanned. No big deal.


maybe- but that's not how such a thing would typically go down. our hypothetical 100 fanboys might register to discuss say idk whoever milo typically debates. Then a month later someone starts a thread on milo and the thread turns into shit posting and attacks on each other as our 100 fanboys chimp out at the users wanting to discuss milo. The thread becomes heavily modded, tens of posts are deleted, members are threadbanned and its probably locked for a few hours. The thread is reopened and by  this time interest has waned and numerous members won't go near it as they don't want to be caught up in drama. Eventually many of them might be banned  but by then the damage is done. this happens quite often in DT and E&N.

The dobson thing is the same thing from the other side- occasionally people will post a dissenting opinion in there. they they kick up some fuss, there are deletions the odd threadban and then the local threads majority opinion carries on as before.




Dynastia said:


> As a semi-related aside, as much as people mock Asterisk and ADK, I think they're two of the best posters in Deep Thoughts because at least 'other people disagree' isn't the same thing as 'silencing discussion' to them.


I don't disagree- it's why fueher desselar (or whatever his name was) never got a shallow thoughts ban.


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 18, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> maybe- but that's not how such a thing would typically go down. our hypothetical 100 fanboys might register to discuss say idk whoever milo typically debates. Then a month later someone starts a thread on milo and the thread turns into shit posting and attacks on each other as our 100 fanboys chimp out at the users wanting to discuss milo. The thread becomes heavily modded, tens of posts are deleted, members are threadbanned and its probably locked for a few hours. The thread is reopened and by  this time interest has waned and numerous members won't go near it as they don't want to be caught up in drama. Eventually many of them might be banned  but by then the damage is done. this happens quite often in DT and E&N.
> 
> The dobson thing is the same thing from the other side- occasionally people will post a dissenting opinion in there. they they kick up some fuss, there are deletions the odd threadban and then the local threads majority opinion carries on as before.



Ya I love when this happens. Sometimes I jump in without even knowing who people are fighting over and then I forget which side I'm supposed to even be on lol.

So you basically agree with me how great it'd be.


----------



## Vitriol (Mar 18, 2016)

Dynastia said:


> Ya I love when this happens. Sometimes I jump in without even knowing who people are fighting over and then I forget which side I'm supposed to even be on lol.
> 
> So you basically agree with me how great it'd be.


haha I'd forgotten who I was talking to!

We both think the practical outcome would be the same


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Mar 18, 2016)

Honestly, with the amount of "Is he _really_ a Lolcow?" lolcow threads cropping up. I would have said I agreed with this suggestion. And to some extent, I do.

However, the problem lies in just how quickly most of these kinds of threads die out, because there isn't much going for them to begin with (InternetAristocrat, anyone?). Person shares basic information on random internet user, others say "Is he really worthy of attention/lolcow status?" BOOM, instant thread closure. I don't see that changing all that much even if the subforum comes into play.

And while it would clean the messes that plague the main sub-forums. This idea will probably just come crumbling down within a short while. I still remember when the downfall of the Entersphere happened, and I get the feeling something similar _may_ happen here.

I'd say, if we do go through with the sub-forum idea, just do a trial run as @Dynastia suggested. And if it falls flat on its ass, then we don't keep it. Plain and simple.


----------



## LikeicareKF (Mar 20, 2016)

Watcher said:


> I'm just saying that with lolcows there isn't much nuance to absorb. "Chris chan shits himself, collects welfare and is autistic" is easy to understand and get behind. There's not much debate whether or not he's correct in doing that. There's not much thought process in following and talking about him. A person talking about something that is more nuanced though requires more restraint in order to get an actual conversation started.
> 
> I'm just predicting a large amount of bait posts flung in every direction and not much discussion on the individuals at hand. Mostly a lot of people defending that person and being mocked and ridiculed for doing so. It happens every time we have a joke lolcow thread about someone who people actually like.


Bait posts?!? On the internet?!? SAY IT ISNT SO


----------



## CatParty (Mar 20, 2016)

LikeicareKF said:


> Bait posts?!? On the internet?!? SAY IT ISNT SO



@Watcher is the guy who got ruffled the most about the IA thread


----------



## champthom (Mar 24, 2016)

Cthulhu said:


> I don't think the PA request will be a huge deal. We've had them before and then laughed them of the forum. It may even provide more amusement and maybe even a chance to discover a new cow.



My experience on /cow/ was that it eventually reached a point where nearly every post was a thinly disguised PA request. It might not be an obvious "This person has wronged me, he's a total lolcow, so let's troll him" but it may be a subtle of "Check out this lolcow" when it's from someone who has a secret agenda and are smart enough to not make it obvious they're connected to this person. As I said, I have no issue with people talking about weird Internet people, I have an issue with people using the nature of the forum to get a personal army. Likewise, this was kinda why I tended to be strict about "no trolling" - it also served to dissuade people who would engage in personal army activity from being here. Null has a differing opinion on that matter than I do though but ultimately this isn't a place to launch full out personal attacks on people.



Vitriol said:


> I also think as a general rule the OP should never be directly involved in whatever drama or person they are describing.



This is actually a very succinct rule of thumb here. 

I was a bit obtuse in my original post, as I tend to be, but one concern I'd have is so diluting the user base. Not sure if that's the word I'm looking for but e-drama might attract a lot of people who are the type of people who don't realize that there are shady people here who can seriously do wrong against them.


----------



## chimpburgers (Mar 24, 2016)

champthom said:


> My experience on /cow/ was that it eventually reached a point where nearly every post was a thinly disguised PA request. It might not be an obvious "This person has wronged me, he's a total lolcow, so let's troll him" but it may be a subtle of "Check out this lolcow" when it's from someone who has a secret agenda and are smart enough to not make it obvious they're connected to this person. As I said, I have no issue with people talking about weird Internet people, I have an issue with people using the nature of the forum to get a personal army. Likewise, this was kinda why I tended to be strict about "no trolling" - it also served to dissuade people who would engage in personal army activity from being here. Null has a differing opinion on that matter than I do though but ultimately this isn't a place to launch full out personal attacks on people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've been reading /cow/ in its current state and I don't really see much of the whole PA request thing going on. If you make a shit thread over there and it happens to be that kind of nature, they will call you out immediately for it and point out how shitty your thread is. I'm curious to know when you saw any of this happen.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 24, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> I also think as a general rule the OP should never be directly involved in whatever drama or person they are describing.



A lot of times, though, nobody will know about a particular person without some connection to them.  

These often do lead to shitty, pointless threads, though.

I just tend to be suspicious if someone shows up and their first post is an OP on some purported lolcow.  There's a high chance of such threads being PA.


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 24, 2016)

Who cares if it's a PA or not? If the target is a lolcow we get a lolcow. If they're not a lolcow we get to assfuck OP with bullying. It's no big deal.


----------



## Null (Mar 25, 2016)

Dynastia said:


> Who cares if it's a PA or not? If the target is a lolcow we get a lolcow. If they're not a lolcow we get to assfuck OP with bullying. It's no big deal.


I think a good example of this was @Meowthkip. The thread on Vade was basically her experience with Vade on Tumblr and I still hold Vade near and dear to my heart as one of the funniest fucking insane people to ever grace the forum.

And that's really what it amounts to. I don't care who what when where or why as long as it's funny. That's why the Jace obstructionists pissed me off so bad. Just shut up and laugh or don't look. It's not a difficult prospect.


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 25, 2016)

Null said:


> I think a good example of this was @Meowthkip. The thread on Vade was basically her experience with Vade on Tumblr and I still hold Vade near and dear to my heart as one of the funniest fucking insane people to ever grace the forum.
> 
> And that's really what it amounts to. I don't care who what when where or why as long as it's funny. That's why the Jace obstructionists pissed me off so bad. Just shut up and laugh or don't look. It's not a difficult prospect.



We had Jace obstructionists?


----------



## Null (Mar 25, 2016)

Dynastia said:


> We had Jace obstructionists?


There were people who would sit in chat every single time we had a Jace stream and would bitch and moan _ohhh it's so fake i can't believe you can enjoy this ohhh woe is me_. One of the people had even gotten access to a lolcow's forum account and would sign it during Jace streams specifically to pretend to be that person as to try and divert attention to what they considered a more worthy person.


----------



## HG 400 (Mar 25, 2016)

Null said:


> There were people who would sit in chat every single time we had a Jace stream and would bitch and moan _ohhh it's so fake i can't believe you can enjoy this ohhh woe is me_. One of the people had even gotten access to a lolcow's forum account and would sign it during Jace streams specifically to pretend to be that person as to try and divert attention to what they considered a more worthy person.



lol what fags


----------



## Pepsi-Cola (Mar 27, 2016)

I've recently been thinking about this and thought I'd mention it, the h3h3 vs. Leafy thread has shown that there is interest in general e-drama unrelated to lolcows, but I think that there's not really a avenue to discuss it. I suppose you could use the lolcow general, but don't you think a board dedicated to e-drama would be more equipped to deal with something like that? idk, it's just something to think about.


----------



## Cthulu (Mar 27, 2016)

Pepsi said:


> a board dedicated to e-drama would be more equipped to deal with something like that?


Who's more equipped to deal with that than a board dedicated to laughing at pants-shitting tards?


----------



## Pepsi-Cola (Mar 27, 2016)

Cthulhu said:


> Who's more equipped to deal with that than a board dedicated to laughing at pants-shitting tards?


I don't know, I should probably add that I'm not the best with this kind of thing.

As I said, it's just something to think about.


----------



## Cthulu (Mar 27, 2016)

Pepsi said:


> I don't know, I should probably add that I'm not the best with this kind of thing.
> 
> As I said, it's just something to think about.


I just don't think it's going to be kiwi farms apocalypse if dear leader wants to do it. We've handled worse.


----------



## Mr. 0 (Mar 28, 2016)

Cthulhu said:


> I just don't think it's going to be kiwi farms apocalypse if dear leader wants to do it. We've handled worse.



I don't think some of us have exactly bounced back from Chris's "piercing" _just yet._


----------



## norrington (Apr 1, 2016)

I think the concerns about a POI subforum attracting someone other than kiwi's target audience is valid, and whether or not those new members would branch out into the rest of the site without knowing how to blend in would depend largely on how effectively their mod kept them humble and self-aware while still allowing them their own preferred brand of non-/pseudo- lolcow spergery in their own corner of the forum. You'd need another, POI-oriented Meowthkip, I think.

Also, seems to me like so many lolcow threads are prefaced with the OP's trepidation about the validity of the cow/the post, so a POI subforum (or tag) would probably be a welcome option for potential OPs who have some mild stage fright.

 I don't know if you'd need some preset standards for lolcowdom, though. Seems to me like the site generally knows a full-blown cow when it sees one. If a POI thread were to turn into a bona fide cow thread, it'd probably be rare enough to keep it from being that much of a chore, and I also feel like it'd be easy enough to gauge based on the subforum/the larger site's response to the POI/potential cow without requiring some sort of grading scale a POI would have to measure up with, official or otherwise.


----------

