Anonymous is the default choice, but exactly that... a choice

all of them have 0 merit and are just for people with huge egos being attention whores when everyone else is anonymous. fuck them

The vast, vast, VAST majority of people have no experience with them so and it's more of a 'monkey on stepladders' situation of people taught to hate them because others hate them and they were taught to hate them by others who heard they should hate them and so on and so on.
I really don't care. People can even easily filter them, if not with scripts/etc then mentally as soon as they see the identifier

I like most qajp indentifiable posters

they're a bit annoying but I wouldn't say harmful

It depends on the poster. If they are bad posters that are aggressive and start fights all the time then it isn't good and creates drama but if they are cute posters it's fine.

wish i was a cute poster.....

>>102710
There are plenty of them still around. People may not be aware of the tripfag heydays when things were more forum-esque, but they can still see them around and see that they're generally bad posters. The culture of anonymity on imageboards has gotten stronger over time and people who seek to have an identity in that environment are rarely going to fit in well. There are legitimate reasons for using a trip (though not on every single post you make), but most tripfags don't limit themselves to those situations and most good posters prefer to remain anonymous even when there's some call to be identifiable.

I do prefer when those types of posters use names, though, so that they can be filtered. The really annoying ones are avatarfags and the newer breed of people who want everyone to know who they are and are identifiable enough for others to assign them names but refuse to use a name themselves because of the cultural disdain towards the practice.

I think it's a lot of fun to try to figure out if posts displaying X trait or Y quirk of writing style are written by the same guy and build up a private mental catalogue of posters but its ruined if they just go ahead and use names

>>102715
Those without a self-given name come in many shapes and size. There's spammers and serial shitposters on the one end, on the other end there are those who stand out due to a great particular kind of post (often drawfags), and in the middle there's quirky people who're just there that manage to grow on you.
>>102716
Names kill fanfic. It's a painful death.

>>102717
>those who stand out due to a great particular kind of post (often drawfags)
catpicturefags too, love them

>>102718
Next time I visit mom I'll snap a pic of her Russian Blue, back then a stray kitten, now has a thick coat of hair. Lazy bum with an armpit fetish.

>>102719
OMG YASS

>>102717
True, but the good ones typically aren't trying to have an identity. You can identify drawfags because of their artstyle and other good contributors because of their contributions, but it's not like they're doing those in order to build an identity and they go back to being regular posters outside of those contributions. I think there's an important humility there since your opinion isn't elevated above others' just because of unrelated successes. I was referring specifically to the people who manufacture some quirk to tag their posts with for the express purpose of being identifiable to others.

I think tripfriends are great and we should all be nice to them and give them lots of respect!

>>102721
Oh, yeah, filtering attentionwhoring avatarfags is harder, I agree.
But not being elevated, that I'd dispute. It's fairly common for them to pop up when some sort of drama happens, avatarfagging with cropped pics or rough sketches to prove it's them, and in those cases they are definitely given some level of authority due to being an outstanding user.

>>102724
I don't like you

>>102725
I like him

>>102718
Here

>>102725
I like me.

>>102727
epic win of a cat

give that kitty's butt a little shake

I dont know if the avatarfag gripe works here, because I like the kuon guy

the kuon guy seems to have a finger in every pie

the kuon guy sent me a cake once it was alright

>>102727
My favourite Tabby type.

>>102733
surprised he didnt eat it first

>>102735
hes very kind he wouldnt do that

>>102707
The thing that keeps me from making the choice is that I say too much dumb shit that'd backfire on me if I had a name attached to each of my posts.

Hmm. I see a bunch of named people in this thread. How peculiar...

Hmm. I see a bunch of naked people in this thread. How peculiar...

Anonymous
A non mous
a named mouse.

Hmmmm.

The mewkledreamy guy is okish too

>>102737
The only thing that would be backfired upon is the name, not you. You are not the label you give yourself nor are you the distinction such a label gives oneself as an individual poster, it is simply THAT name that is tarnished.

>>102744
personally I prefer the Mairalewder

>>102746
Oh, that's me!

don't hate them nearly as much as i used to unless they're posting with a character i really like
not that i remember that ever happening, just taking a guess here

I was thinking about this topic again. If people supposedly hate tripfags/namefags so much how come there's also a place in people's mind for fond memories of their favorite ones as well from years past? I think on some level there's a connection that people can form with a name that introduces some level of familiarity to posts (also the same with avatars) in that you can have some pre-existing knowledge of what they may think about certain topics. Also it probably helps to have 'familiar faces' around for people to anchor the culture around in a sense since 'atmosphere' is a vague concept that can 'change' at a moments notice.

In a way having no names at all leaves Anonymous alone as the highest level of exposing yourself to others on that site, which potentially makes it harder to enter into a community when your post itself is all that separates you from the rest. Of course in contrast to that, with an overabundance of names it becomes a much higher ask for a new person to join in a community, since they'd be singling themselves out by being Anonymous. The perfect balance is probably a small amount of names mixed in with the rest of Anonymous so that there's a lower level of personal exposure one needs to go through to post as a new person.

>>102715
I got the perfect thing for you, Anonymous!

>>115733
cannot wait until i get to pripara

>>115734
Just wait until you get to ED5

>>115733
low set mouth with chubby cheeks... >_>

>>115739
Thats pretty racist. Half of Japanese women look like that

>>115733
>your post itself is all that separates you from the rest
That's the entire point of an anonymous site. With your real identity, everything you say comes with the baggage of who you are. All your statements and ideas will be judged in the context of your gender, race, nationality, etc. On forums you can get rid of a lot of that with a pseudonym, but you'll still be subject to having your posts written off/unduly praised based on things like account age, karma score, and the quality/position of your previous posts. Anonymity allows you to free yourself of all that and have each individual post be judged purely on its own merits. Nobody is going to praise your shitposts because you're friends and nobody is going to bash your qualityposts because you were an asshole to them yesterday. Ignoring this foundational tenet of imageboard culture because you expect prejudice to work in your favor is for people more ego than worthwhile ideas like the "btw I'm a gril teehee" posters.

>>115735
This is weirdly sad

They are net characters to me

>>115744
Blatantly untrue Shiite propaganda that ignores the fact that people are capable of remembering things.
Users constantly latch onto recognizable features and cluster them together to take guess at who could be behind a certain post. Look back at >>102716 if you don't believe me. By picking up on this, it's possible for a conversation to continue across discontiguous threads. Here's an exceedingly common example of it happening:
￥oh you're the guy who was talking about X the other day
￥￥yeah here's an update it's going pretty well
￥nice, nice
Conversely:
￥oh you're the retard who can't shut up about X
￥￥fuck off nigger
￥shoot yourself faggot
If these exchanges are highlighted enough, the noteworthy user will be given a name along the lines of "X Anon," even if they never wished for that to be the case. But, and here's the thing, that's the ideal scenario where Anonymous' assumptions about an individual user are correct. A lot of the time they aren't, they're just baseless accusations like replying "samefag" to three different people because they disagree with you, or give way to a fictional character that doesn't actually exist and is only an amalgamation of multiple users.

However, Anonymous doesn't need to limit themselves to making assumptions about a single person. Maybe they saw a bunch of different people associating themselves with X, talking about it, posting pics, agreeing with each other, and is ready to say "hey, look, this is what X posters are like!" Factiogenesis, you could call it. For better or worse, now you can no longer have X in your post without that image being attached to you. Someone will say "oh, of course you'd think that, you're an xfag."

This matches another foundational tenet of imageboard culture: extreme prejudice, which you should understand is no coincidence. I've said this before and I'll say it again: regular forums aren't as nearly as quick to judge, they're not gonna call you a subhuman because you asked where the bathroom was in the wrong thread. They aren't constantly jerking off whoever has the most points either, or looking through people's history like a stereotypical redditor or twitterite.
I don't know what kind of experiences you've had, but Anonymous has always been radically harsher to me than any forum regular, and if I don't have a history he'll fabricate it wholesale nonetheless. (On top of that, he is often quite the dramafag.)

>Nobody is going to praise your shitposts because you're friends and nobody is going to bash your qualityposts because you were an asshole to them yesterday.
Yes, they will. They really, really will. Not because you're actually friends or otherwise, but because they think that's the case. Because you fit the bill. Lemme tell you, whether Anonymous agrees with me or not is one of the major factors determining whether my longposts are labeled as quality or tarded ramblings.

>>115751
¥ now you can no longer have X in your post without that image being attached to you
Sounds like an issue on your end, or you just need to stop caring at all what other posters think.

>>115744
>Anonymity allows you to free yourself of all that and have each individual post be judged purely on its own merits.

Well, yes. That's the primary benefit of Anonymity I think we can all agree on. However, that's a benefit that extends to every Anonymous poster regardless of whether names exist or not. So, unless the entire site's userbase is names/trips, you aren't going to kill off Anonymous' ability to say whatever and not be judged based on their posting history. What I'm trying to find is what the potential benefit of some users adopting an identity could be on an Anonymous site, if it exists. Which I think there's an argument to be made for.

>having your posts written off/unduly praised based on things like account age, karma score
Are all things that are not entirely clear, at least not immediately, from seeing a pseudonym on an imageboard (assuming posts are ephermal and not all stored on various archives for eternity). People that have been around a while and have engaged in conversation continuously may be quite familiar with a specific pseudonym, but from the new user's perspective one pseudonym means very little comparatively to another's. It doesn't bias them towards treating them any better or worse than any other. Your posts are still judged based on their own merits. Just in a more extreme way if you adopt a pseudonym. Instead of the merit of your post which you can shirk away responsibility for if it's bad, you are also staking the reputation of your name on the post. Of course, this runs contrary to what you call the foundational tenet of imageboard culture since you are now adding a bias for/against whatever you've posted based on other potentially unrelated posts. But even Shii has admitted "the Internet often runs contrary to common sense" (https://shii.bibanon.org/shii.org/knows/Anonymity.html) in regards to whether forced total anonymity is necessarily correspondent to quality. Also you don't need to always use a pseudonym if you choose to adopt one, it's not forced and you can take it off for whatever reason to blend in with the mass once again unlike on forums.

The worst way one could go about it, striving for attention and stroking their own ego as they gain infamy most certainly exists. But just the same do there exist Anonymous that abuse their lack of identity to stir up trouble or be an extremely malicious actor. And 4chan itself serves as a prime example of increased anons vs names not leading to any semblance of quality increasing given its current state. I believe that in a way it can be considered a risk/reward scenario for adopting a pseudonym. You stake your reputation on all of your posts in confidence that as a poster you are on average proper enough to commend more favorability towards the ones you make. At least, that's the best possible way you could interpret one using a pseudonym. I admit it's still somewhat of an ego thing, but who's to say all ego is bad? Is it not simply human to possess some form of ego? Another thing, in case it wasn't already obvious, I reject the idea that believing yourself to be capable of earning a good reputation through the merit of your posts is in any way the same as showing off an immutable characteristic like tits and expecting that to earn you praise.

Also you didn't address it, but I want to reiterate that I believe names can be a form of anchoring in a culture. Given that it's quite common to see people associate "good old days" with names they remember fondly. So in the case that longstanding names exist there's some form of familiarity posters can feel towards a site culture no matter if the tone slightly changes for a bit or some new posters show up and take a bit to be integrated in.

>>115753
>You stake your reputation on all of your posts in confidence that as a poster you are on average proper enough to commend more favorability towards the ones you make. At least, that's the best possible way you could interpret one using a pseudonym.
Ah, I was rewriting this so much I forgot to include that I think this could potentially inspire more quality posts on the basis of one wanting to have a more well-regarded pseudonym or maybe trying a bit harder if they're using a name.

>>115752
What others think matters if it determines how they're going to reply to you, which is commonly the case.
Maybe you haven't seen what happens when someone attaches highly politicized images to their posts, even if it's just reaction a pic.

>>115755
What others think does not matter, and you should be able to post what you feel in your heart is correct.

>>115751
Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that all posts will have identifiable features. This is blatantly untrue. The examples you gave are one-off cases when talking about specific topics and that identity doesn't extend to the person's other posts like they would if a name or avatar were used. Further, a lot of the time those "x anon" labels are just boogeymen used to rebuff dissenting opinions, especially on larger boards where there will naturally be multiple adherents to any given opinion. I've been accused many times of being some named anon who has allegedly been trolling a general for years when it was my first time even opening the thread. Unless a person has extreme idiosyncrasies in their posts (e.g. ACK's schizo spam or bikinifag's bizarre conspiracy) it's impossible to accurately pull individuals out of groups.

>>115757
>a lot of the time those "x anon" labels are just boogeymen used to rebuff dissenting opinions
>I've been accused many times of being some named anon who has allegedly been trolling a general for years when it was my first time even opening the thread
Yes, I very much agree, this frequently happens, and that's why the counterpoint of >>115752 falls flat. You're being assigned an identity based on one or two things you said or even the way you said them and given according replies. I brought up fictional almagamations for this reason, also relevant to rebuffing.

My argument is not predicated on the idea that all posts have salient, identifiable features that allow you to single out an individual, (I explicitly wrote that's an "ideal scenario") but the fact that they have associations, and that these features will factor in when receiving a reply. Posts don't exist in a vacuum, that's simply not true. They are regularly judged based on their context rather than this mythical meritocratic quality, you yourself brought up these examples of your experience, and the consequences are much harsher than what would happen on many forums out there.
As I said, even if you don't have an identity, you will be given one. These aren't one-offs, they're a common and repeating pattern.

>>115756
It's a key factor, but you can ignore it at will. No contradiction there.

>>115753
There are certainly benefits to having an identity and the existence of the trip system should be used in situations where it is beneficial. Normal discussion is not one of these situations. If you're, say, a fansubber giving official updates on the group or a famous person holding a Q&A then that's when you want to use a trip.

It's true that trips are a very minimal for of identity compared to other forums, but you still invite bias through the name you chose, the fact that you feel your identity is important to the post, and of course any of your previous posts people have been exposed to. In theory, these create hurdles to posting freely because you have to worry about protecting your reputation and can't throw creative shit around to see what sticks or back down from a position you've realized is mistaken without consequences. In practice, however, it mostly just leads to people who make mundane or downright kuso posts all over the place and expect recognizability to carry them.

The decline in 4chan's quality is totally unrelated to the decline in tripfags. The early days had a large number of them due to carryover from the forum culture that the site grew out of and their decline coincides with the development of a unique anonymous imageboard culture. The overwhelming majority of tripfags were hated and any fondness people have looking back is nostalgia for the era they were attached to and the shared experience of wanting them to fuck off rather than for the tripfags themselves. But these are far from the only anchors and defining eras by the shitposters than ran rampant during them isn't something we should strive for.

>fictional almagamations
Actually, I should've specified that means the same as boogeyman.

>>115760
>The decline in 4chan's quality is totally unrelated to the decline in tripfags.
I somewhat agree, my intention was more to point out that 4chan becoming nearly totally anon hasn't made it into the coliseum of ideas one would expect given the logical arguments for total Anonymity. In fact it's become more about subgroup identity than ever over there.

I don't think the worries over throwing around creative funposts are really that much of a valid concern. As I mentioned, a trip isn't something you must have on at all times once you've put it on. Anyone can take off a trip at any time to maybe make a riskier post that they wouldn't want to associate with their name, and I think that's perfectly fine. However I don't think the "not backing down when you realize you're wrong" concern is really that much of an identity thing, and more of a personality thing. Plenty of anons do the same without any identity to protect. It just takes a more noble person to admit when they're wrong. And I wouldn't say that there's never been a good tripfag, I can think of a few from this community that were a positive force for driving the board in a better direction rather than just being typical shitposters. Funnily enough, looking back on one of their posts I found the us sharing a similar sentiment about trips being anchors.
¥In an ideal situation trips wouldn't be needed, but they're nice to confirm that to others that the same people are still here.
While they may not be the most memorable or positive parts of a culture during an era, familiar faces are a nice and concrete means for people to keep from feeling left behind. Other factors are a bit more vague and subject to change by the whims of those perceiving it. I'm not going to fight you on Anonymity's takeover in the early days leading to a more unique and memorable culture, I do think that the conditions of net culture at the time were far different. Now we're in an era where anonymity is much more prevalent, and the ways to abuse it are both common knowledge and widely practiced. In such an environment I think there's good reasons to assume that some form of accountability and ego could lead to bringing more personal and potentially less detached conversation.

>>115759
If you're given an identity, you just roll with it, I don't get why you gotta get all hostile and asshurty writing entire walls of text when you could be concise in what you mean.
Like damn I'm not going to read all that.

>>115763
Andy......
Come on man, you've got your own walls to write.

>>115764
I write walls of text when I need to, but I feel that it is best if one is speaks to the point.

>>115744
This. Names make everything a popularity contest and ruin the anon feel of the board. They shouldn't even exist dunno why kissmin hasn't disabled the field.

>>115771
It doesn't really do anything because people will still find a way to bring up names like >>115764 did. Some people greatly value anonymity while others mostly tolerate it as a limitation.
The namefield is a tool that people can use and it's never been abused here and only ever barely ever been used. It changes most often with CSS events and such.

>>115772
blue's funny faec

>>115772
People who don't value anonymity shouldn't be participating in an anonymous community. I also dislike people assigning names to others, especially when it's drama from another site or a schizophrenic delusion.

>>115788
Choosing to use a name doesn't mean one doesn't value anonymity.

>>115788
The crux of the matter isn't what people should do, it's what they do period.
And what they do is judge. Quite a bit. Don't need any names for that.

>>115788
>especially when it's drama from another site or a schizophrenic delusion.
I agree with this considering I don't know who the fuck this guy is talking about >>115764
The response lurk more doesn't apply here because namefags shouldn't be a part of board culture no matter how much some anons feed their attention whore tendencies.

>>115802
>namefags shouldn't be a part of board culture
That's literally just your opinion

>>115803
No, it's my opinion as well. When you allow namefags into anonymous culture, it turns into a form of forum culture where you don't need to make burner accounts to build yourself up or attack your enemies and less prominent users are further marginalized as members of the nameless swarm orbiting around the prominent personalities.

It doesn't really matter on smaller sites where you can spot individual posters just by the way they type

>>115803
Well it depends on what type of culture you want to have. I remember oldfags on /qa/ mentioning how tripfagging for no reason wasn't seen as a bad thing back then.
You can also alienate new users like >>115733 said.
Even if there are namefags or avatarfags anons might like there are others who are divisive and the ones who are there just to troll.
If those namefags and drama come from other sites it invites doxxing and cyberstalking (namedropping).
Forcing memes and personas on anonymous imageboards is easy. Autistic ritualposting made sakurafish a meme.
I doesn't work for sites like kissu
>>115807
That's fine if they want to remain small. In my experience those sites feel like cliques and there are no "2nd chances". Moot talked about how you can always try again without making an alt when anons tell you to lurk moar.

>>115802
>I agree with this considering I don't know who the fuck this guy is talking about
So you're just a newfag, simple as.

>>115810
You make an impressive counter-argument against the existence of identityfags.

>>115811
But I'm not an identityfag, it's just people out me and I reply.

>>115811
He's an avatarfag.

>>115813
I do no such thing, I just happen to post that.

Confirming an identity is the same type of behavior as assigning them.
Insulting people for not knowing who random, unimportant posters are is clique behavior that runs contrary to the ideals of anonymity and harms the growth and unity of the community to feed the egos of individual members.

assigned andy at birth

We don't do the 'newfag' thing on kissu. New users are more than welcome to talk and offer their opinions, and clique behavior must be squashed without mercy. One of the key values of anonymity is the lack of hierarchy

We do the 'newfriend' thing on kissu. New users get assigned big sisters to help them get along with everyone

>>115820
A newfag that simply lacks knowledge is labeled such until they lurk a little and never get called out again. A shitposter never learns and will eternally be labelled such. I know which type of poster I prefer.

I've decided to write about basically everything I could think of that's relevant here, so please bear with me. You can call it a rant, but there's a narrative here.

To start off, Andy is honestly one of the best examples I could hope for in terms of, let's say, namedfags, in a stereotypical way. He was extremely notorious back on 4/qa/, extremely notorious on Kissu before leaving, and extremely notorious once more after returning a month ago. Here's one of the pics that were made about him back then. I'm not gonna describe his behavior in detail, I'm just going to say he's the particular kind of person that doesn't do it for attention, it's just the way he is. For me, at some point the familiarity bias kicked in, it became more endearing than upsetting. He doesn't give a fuck and I deeply respect that, not in spite of that he can be quite a piece of work.
However, (and this is what sets it apart from a clique) you can criticize him all you want, he's still a fucking faggot, and nobody's going to hound you if you do so. He doesn't have immunity, if anything it's the opposite. You don't need to know who he is, either. He's kind of a walking meme, and I like to interact with him as such every so often. Sometimes it's better to reply "shut up, andy" than to actually engage him. But, I'm not going to proactively namedrop him up out of nowhere, that I do disagree with.

As for myself, in the last few months I've been referred to by four different names, all of which were accurate, not boogeymen in any way, and *predominantly* used in a positive way. I got them not by avatarfagging but by posting things I like. One of them I received over the course of a single thread (with divisive feedback), where someone made a funny edit about our exchanges, another person said he was inspired by my autism, and later on a third guy made a youtube video that was a parody mocking my posts. Shit was hilarious, frankly, I enjoyed it a lot. But I'm never gonna go and parade myself as that one anon from that one time as if that made me a superior poster, that's not the point. I'll just treasure the memory. The point is that I was given names, singled out, and had fun with it, it was by no means a bad thing. It wasn't just me either, others were having fun too.
I've never tripped myself and I don't plan to, never used the name field seriously at all, but it's also worth mentioning people like Catface and jevin which were really just excellent and I find it impossible to say they impacted /qa/ in any way but for the better. >>115808's pic related was nice too. There's been many an identityfag in the past who's put on their clothes for the sake of theatrics, and that's good. It's a unique situation exclusive to imageboards and it shouldn't be ignored or treated as inferior.

Moving on to a radically different experience for the sake of perspective, for maybe a year during the pandemic I browsed a forum that was very nice. They didn't treat me any different whether I had made five posts or five hundred, whether I had zero internet points or a thousand. I'm not sure anyone ever bothered to read my post history, it never came up.
The people with really high stats, they had multiple concurrent blog threads where they constantly socialized with each other (shit was super fast), they had fun with in-jokes and memories from several years ago, and knew how to do silly UI stuff. Yet they never weaponised this to show themselves as being superior to others, they constantly contributed to the site's topic, they helped people, and whenever someone came to shit on the place they were invariably some of the first to defend it while understanding its shortcomings. It was a very healthy environment that runs contrary to the usual pro-anonymity rhetoric.

But returning to Anonymous, I'll admit sometimes I wish he was nicer to me.
Every so often I'll say something he doesn't like or even make a genuine mistake, and he'll call me an undesirable, a subhuman, and treat me as responsible for the fall of the site. I mean, if anonymity is supposed to strip away your individual characteristics and free you of identity, then why's he gotta get so personal? I wasn't the one posting about George Floyd, Ukraine, or transexuals. I'm the one who wrote >>>/b/3768, and I still believe all of that! It feels bad, at times it's as if those thousands of posts made on /qa/ over the last five years didn't mean anything. But that's momentary, I know my friends are here.
The greatest irony, however, is that only with a named friend can I have consistent banter, with Anonymous you can't predict when he'll freak out over something. That's definitely a shame.

In general, I'm led to believe that the talking point about constantly orbiting around personalities, obsessing over certain qualities, and the like is in great part projection from Anonymous. Those forum goers weren't the ones talking about how doing this or that made you into an outsider normalfag, or how if you didn't arrive before a certain date then you're bound to be part of an inferior class who will never understand what made the glory days good, they didn't call anyone cancer either. They didn't have a visceral reaction over someone blogging about their day. That's all Anonymous' doing.

In imageboards, people grasp at straws to pin down an identity on others, to imply that you're X or Y, pointing fingers at each other and constantly using this to derail conversations for the worse. Oh, it's tranny this, redditor that, underage newfag over here and an ironic weeb over there, whatever boogeyman you could think of, it's all so tiresome. Even your filename matters, try posting a bunch of images plucked from KYM and see what happens. Identity while anonymous continues to exist, the difference lies in how malleable it is (which is a whole 'nother topic). But it's there, and it has a ridiculous impact on interactions, whether you like it or not. It happens to a degree far beyond that of plenty of forums out there.

If you genuinely believe that anonymity brings out productive truths (like soft seinen and native isekai), that you don't have to keep up appearances (unless you're one of the many kinds of undesirable), or that attention whoring doesn't exist without a name (as if trolls weren't starving for attention), then I regret to tell you that's not the case. I'm not writing about 2008 4chan, I'm talking about how things work in the current year.

Shii was wrong. There's much more to it than "anon good name bad."

Ok so your clique website prefers nuthugging divisive avatarfags/namefags, got it. Even 4chan lets you report anons for doing that.
Going to start avatarfagging myself to fit in. Using hikage for now
>>115816
Bumping for this
>>115830
didnt read lole

>>115833
What the flip is a nuthug.

New thug?

New fug!
Anyways, getting upset over people having a distinctive posting style is dumb and gay. Fucking relax.

>>115836
>New fug!
Ah, the British th-fronted realization, I see.

>>115833
U know what nvm avatarfagging takes too much work and is easier to namefag
>>115836
No1 is upset, we're all passive aggressive frenemies here :)

>>115839
See the issue with namefagging is that people can just filter you, and that won't do if you ask me.

>>115839
Anon Anon!

>>115840
Tru... might as well be shadow banned... we'll see

i ain't idphobic
just never seen a good name avatar tripfug is all

OSRS players were very newprayerphobic

>>115830
it's ok, friend, i read your post, and it was a good post
i don't have anything relevant to add, though, other than that i related heavily to
>But returning to Anonymous, I'll admit sometimes I wish he was nicer to me.
i don't like talking about gemu with anonymous anymore

>>115830
That's fair, although some of that behavior you mention should be reported because it's not supposed to be on kissu. (like the 'subhuman' remark). Aggressive stuff in general shouldn't be here. Part of the acclimation process of people new to kissu should be that they stop treating everyone as their enemy until proven otherwise like they do on other imageboards.

Identity works strangely in small anonymous forums with a niche subject matter. You can easily identify the guy that started posting Pretty Rhythm stuff when he posts it since it's unlikely anyone else is currently watching it, but it's not like it should paint any opinion. Someone thought Elle was my avatar when I post her, but I'd love it if other people posted pictures of her more often (at least one other person does).
It's unfortunate that you really can't make lasting relationships with anonymity, but that's the other side of a coin of responsibility-free socializing. I can just choose to not engage with something or disappear for a few days and it's alright.

whoops

second try

fuck

Identifiable posters have a hidden downside regardless of what you think of them. Communities as varied as /k/, /sp/, Tohno and Meguca don't feel the same and lost users after famous users left

>>115846
Cool oc
>>115830
Read until the second paragraph and you sound like a tsundere...

Bit of a mass reply, gomen.
>>115843
Here's one I mentioned, catface:
https://desuarchive.org/qa/search/username/catface/order/asc/
It's genuinely good stuff.
>>115845
>i don't like talking about gemu with anonymous anymore
Yeah, I get that. It's part of why I try to write about stuff I've liked to highlight it, like Kaminaki or to a lesser degree Lv1 Maou.
>>115847
I agree it works weirdly at smaller scales, which is why I'm not really in favor of actively identityfagging on a site like Kissu. I feel like we have enough of that already.
>>115852
>/k/
I remember seeing several in screencaps, like one guy who had a forge and made a buncha weird weapons, right? Or a slav/soviet/something guy writing a bunch of YUO SEE, IVAN.
>>115854
I do like me a good kerfuffle.

do you like my posts

>>115858
yeah

>>115858
Of course!

>>115858
You're on thin ice.

>>115830
First, having a relevant name for one discussion does not make you an identityfag. It only becomes an identity when it follows you around. Temporary identification can be necessary for many types of discussion even on imageboards, but persistent identities are not, with the exception of the admin or occasionally an active moderator.

Second, anonymous communities are obviously not the only or best way to interact with people. A ton of stuff doesn't work without identities and that's why everyone is required by law to have one. You absolutely should use other forms of communication where you build identities. But those have downsides as well and you come to anonymous places to trade in those downsides for a different set of them because some things can only happen when you're all anon.

>at times it's as if those thousands of posts made on /qa/ over the last five years didn't mean anything
They don't. That's the point. If you don't like it, why are you on an anonymous site in the first place? A thousand great ideas doesn't make one stupid idea any less stupid. A professional demeanor at work doesn't make you any less of an annoying asshole when you're stumbling drunk. Learn to dissociate yourself from your posts. Nobody is attacking you as a person because they don't know you as a person, they're attacking the stupid fucking thing you just said. Use the opportunity to wipe out the undesirable faggot parts of yourself without consequence and become an enlightened poster who realizes that every post is a rebirth.

>at times it's as if those thousands of posts made on /qa/ over the last five years didn't mean anything
Haven't read the rest of that super long post but wow, yeah, that's a terrible mindset to have towards your posts. I love how anonymity can make it so I can get into arguments/discussion with the same people over a multitude of topics and not have any more bias towards them in one argument vs the next. Just as well it let me argue in whatever thread without being criticized for my participation in it because of the topic/opener or whatever. All of the posts I made as Anonymous on /qa/ I feel no regret for having done as Anonymous since I know from the fond memories I have of posting and whatever knowledge I gained from discussion still remains with me.

Now in my humble opinion, people do have a certain style and on smaller boards (or hell, generals) it's going to be easy to go "Yeah that's (You)"
I'm not saying namefags should be a thing, but named by the community feels like an honor I guess.

>>115877
>an honor
99% of the time it's because you're an unrepentant shitposter who everyone hates. It's basically a way of telling you "get a trip so I can filter you".

>>115878
Nah that's gay.

>>115869
>It only becomes an identity when it follows you around.
That's an arbitrary distinction. The methods people use to identify you in the short term are the same used in the long term. Whether you're being given a name in a sole thread or across several, it all works the same. I'm also not talking about identity as something a person broadcasts, but as any kind of characteristic attributed to you as an individual. It doesn't even have to be true.

>Nobody is attacking you as a person because they don't know you as a person
You can say that's what happens in theory, but hardly in practice. Someone replying "you stupid fucking faggot neck yourself" is by definition a personal attack. Every time someone tries to discredit you without addressing your points, which is part and parcel of the imageboard experience, they're not attacking what you said. They're attacking you. This hardly ever happens to me when using a pseudonym or IRL, but in imageboards I have to anticipate it and write posts in a certain way or else others may simply reply that I'm trolling/baiting/a retard/etc. and ruin the possibility of an exchange.
It's especially frustrating when someone insults the entire community with comments like "/board/ is dead I hate all of you" and then someone has to jump in to counter that because it affects general perception, something that in turn molds what people are going to post there. People get personal with a collective, which sounds absurd but it keeps happening all the time, and it has consequences. It happened in this very thread.

>>115875
>I love how anonymity can make it so I can get into arguments/discussion with the same people over a multitude of topics and not have any more bias towards them in one argument vs the next.
If you can't do that without anonymity, then that's a problem on your side of things. You should be aware of your own biases as much as others', they're important pieces of knowledge that can make a conversation flow much more smoothly when taken into account. Or as you wrote yourself:
>I think on some level there's a connection that people can form with a name that introduces some level of familiarity to posts (also the same with avatars) in that you can have some pre-existing knowledge of what they may think about certain topics.

>>115830
>I'm not gonna describe his behavior in detail
What is there to describe, I get belligerent and I don't know what really happens next.

Its almost nostalgic. Reddit is hardly invoked anymore, probably because they all lobotomized themselves with drugs

>>115984
Reddit is still gigantic and relevant, but I'd rather not bring them up if possible.

>>115984
The redditors that were coming on 4chan aren't the same redditors that inhabit reddit now.
The new redditors are just faggots for the establishment. It's all astroturfed to hell. Lots of bots too, unironically.

>>115878
Yeah, it's kind of like school. Teachers remember the troublemakers whereas the good kids blend in and are largely forgotten about. With anonymity people have no need to identify the normal posters that are positive because they're the norm (it's why you would be in a thread to begin with), but quickly identifying a bad one can help people avoid investing their time in responding to trolls or otherwise taking a thread off track.
The other way to become known is to become an unusually beneficial and contributory member of a community, but that's obviously much more rare.

>>115984
I'd like to think that people grew up, but in reality they obsess and derail over different things these days. It's still atrocious.

>>115987
Now those redditors inhabit 4chan and the people who used to inhabit 4chan are scattered to the wind.

My historic view of tripfags has always been that they fucked off to shit up the sfw boards after FORCED_ANON put an end to them and their shenanigans on /b/.
That's not necessarily what a tripfag has to be. It wasn't what they were like on the textboards or early alternative imageboards. But that cultural inertia really dug in on 4chan and they were mostly awful to their core right up until their extinction.

>>115996
And now the people who are coming onto 4chan/the greater imageboard sphere are these people with no respect for the ways of the past.

>>116186
I'd argue most of the new people who come onto non-4chan imageboards have far too much reverence for the past

>>116187
Well a lot of that is because they get dripfed the "best-of" bullshit when in reality the best of imageboard come out in spontaneous things.

Can't hold a trip to save my life

>>116189
Her ass isnt that big

>>116190
but it should be

>>116191
Wasted on those lesbos

>>>/ec/13454
>>>/qa/115758
this namefriend likes butts

>>102706
Unless you have a good reason to identify yourself, you should always be anonymous.

The big advantage that imageboards have over chatrooms and forums, and the main reason they've outlived them, is that identity leads to seniority, and seniority leads to exclusivity. The tighter knit an identity-based community becomes, the harder it is for newcomers to join in and become a proper contributor to the site. Being anonymous, imageboards sidestep that completely, meaning they can stay fresh and continue as if they were new for as long as people are willing to use them and the staff is able to run them.

>>116197
>have over chatrooms and forums, and the main reason they've outlived them
What is Discord for five hundred

>>116197
I like having control over the degree I am perceived. Attachment free, no obligations. Every interaction ends with an Irish goodbye.

>>102706
Sometimes I don't even recognize posts I made a month+ ago.

I'm officially the king of qa

>>116230
I automatically recognize posts I made years ago even if just random throwaway ones

I am a little jelly of posters who can mention where they are from without risking getting labeled as "X country anon".

the friki anon

>>116785
If it makes you feel any better jim2ch users thought I was korean dog because of my middling japanese

>>116785
i don't find it to be much of a problem honestly

>>116785
Saying you're from the USA barely counts as saying where you're from. Even giving your timezone means a bigger region than most countries. The equivalent to your country is probably something like saying you're from South Dakota.

Either way, as long as you only mention it when it's relevant it won't stick to you when you're anon. Just don't narrow it down so much that it counts as personally identifiable information.

I like figuring out who posters are so that I can make better targeted funposts at them when the necessary time comes.