I sage when it's really off topic or it's a funpost. But not always. I never sage on-topic posts and I think on-topic sagers should feel my bump

>>107188
Same. Only thing I would add is that I often sage when making follow-up posts.

Also, it's nice to see that someone saved the gif that I made.

none of my posts have any value so i sage all of them

I usually only sage when I dislike the thread but still want to reply. Occasionally I will also do it ironically.

Sometimes I sage not because it's a bad post or a bad thread, but because I don't think others will be interested. It does make me an on-topic sager sometimes.
Inversely, in some cases where there's a chain of sage, I may reply with age to show that I think the chain is worth continuing.
>>107189
>>107190
Self-demonstrative eheheheh
But yeah, same.

>>107191
they have value as fertilizer for the gardening kissuer's yard

I don't have any hard-set rules for it, but typically, I bump when I think the post stands on its own and/or I want replies.

I usually sage if it's something non-contributory or if I had too many posts in the thread since I don't want a thread of me talking to myself to be at the top. I'll also sage sometimes if there's good thread(s) at the top that deserves more attention to some whatever thread I'm responding to at the time. (like if someone wrote 10 paragraphs for a reply to a thread 5 minutes earlier I'm not going to bump a 'teehee fart' thread usually)

I've always been a habitual sager unless it was an effortpost that I thought was worth people seeing on page 0. When I first realized what sage did I thought it was pretty sick and all my old vbulletin forums really could have used the feature. I'm trying to reply to people in the thread, you know, not trying to advertise the thread to the rest of the site.
The slower the imageboard the truer the habit. Though it matters less when everyone has an inline catalogue these days.

I don't sage because I never make off topic or worthless posts. The only times I might do that is to save a good thread where sage obviously can't be used.

I only sage if my post is something that's completely off topic and only relevant to the person I am replying too.

I don't like to sage too much because of my memories of older /jp/ spin-offs were everybody saged all the time so you could never tell when a new post was made unless you went through the entire front page but even that only tells you if somebody made a post on the front page.

I bump when I want the post to garner attention and spur further discussion/commentary.
I sage when I don't want the site to see or reply to it because there's nothing meaningful that could follow it up. And sometimes when there are several sage posts in a row and I don't want to undo anon's efforts.

On-topic sagers are seriously starting to get on my nerves...

>>107202
What if I had the option to be sneaky?

>>107202
So that's why sage now goes away after using it once.....

okay but is sage a downvote yes or no
most people across the world use it 99% of the time when telling someone their posts are bad, right?
and when spamming and whatnot

Sage saggers.

>>107202
sage is not a downvote.

>>107209
There's no reason for a post telling someone their post is bad to be sent to the front page for everyone to see and doing so is counterproductive in that it gives the bad post more exposure. That is why it's the most common use-case and why bad posters lash out at people who use it in response to them.

>>107209
>>107211
下げる 【さげる】(sageru).

Meaning:

to lower; to reduce; to bring down​
to demote; to move back; to pull back​

sounds like a downvote to me wwwww

>>107210
fantastic saggers

>>107209
>>107223
At least in terms of its intended use, sage is for when you don't want too many eyes on your post and/or you don't want to be disruptive. i
It's a lot closer to the off-topic posting feature you'd see in certain oldschool forum software (think PhpBB), although even that's not quite an exact analog. It's a very Japanese concept, and one that Westerners tend to have trouble understanding.

>>107210
seij seijers

>>107228
Now that I think about it, are there any examples of non-imageboard forum software that have a sage feature? I don't think I've ever seen one before, but I also don't see any reason for it to be unique to imageboards.

>>107233
guess not

>>107209
Sage has never been a downvote.
The negative association on western imageboards has its origins in gorespam "sagebombs". Even back then though sage was polite, the front page was being spared your distributed collection of dead African paramilitaries (or less generously it was hiding from the notice of the mods). The actual act of bump limiting or disrupting the thread was achieved by the flood of bot made posts.

But the association stuck and the game of telephone changed sage's perception over time, creating images like yours. Particularly on boards that became less weeb people didn't have a clue.

I would it argue it does inherently hold some negative value.

Visibility is immensely valuable in any medium of communication, that much is obvious. Internet platforms by and large are engineered to notify at least one person when a reply is made, and that's a good thing. Everyone will tell you so. It's also designed to be the default, with forms of deactivating notifications through filters or options as a secondary measure. BBSs' most basic form of notification is a bump.

The negativity of sage is twofold: one, it denies this positive thing, two, it's a conscious choice one has to go out of their way to make, it's not the default and requires purposeful action. Purposefully denying visibility. You wouldn't have to clarify that it's a polite sage and there would be no weight in remarking that it's rude if it was value-neutral from the beginning. A site's culture may consider it to be closer to a neutral value, but it will never purely be so. In >>>/megu/804, it is argued that sage should be used because the posts in that thread (which are off-topic) are worse than on-topic ones and do not deserve visibility. Self-denial is explicitly advised.

In the larger context of the internet, imageboards stand out in lacking mechanics for self-moderation. It's barebones even compared to a button that makes a number go down and nothing else. There's nothing you can do to affect another person's post other than filing a report (which may not do anything), you can set up filters but it's not even possible to block an individual anonymous user. The closest thing anyone has is sage's negativity, it follows that it's paradoxical to bump while attempting to self-moderate, thus you find sage being obligatory because of this negative value, this denial. In a similar vein, LinkedIn and MAL users have retooled the curious reaction as a dislike, making the former remove that option not unlike how 4chan removed visible sage. The thirst for repression is real.

I very much agree with ^ in that the sage part is secondary to the bombing itself, but I don't believe it to be the root cause of all of this.
Also worth noting how it used to be saved in Kissu's options field until very recently, when Vermin changed it to return to age as the default. It appears to have worked.

>>107245
>imageboards stand out in lacking mechanics for self-moderation
Meanwhile futaba has a DELETE THIS button that hides the post from yourself, applies a default hide of the post, and with enough downvotes deletes the post and applies binding bans to kusoposter with zero intervention by their site administration.
Yet they sage at will all the time, clearly not in the cultural context you apply to saging.

>>107265
Well yes, I should've specified western imageboards. Ran into a textboard the other day with votes that affected the literal visiblity of a post, negative points making their text grey and small while highly rated ones were bigger and brigter.
Either way, I don't mean to say sage isn't used for anything else, what I do mean is that regardless of culture if it's optional then it'll always carry a moderately negative value. Japs don't bump kuso threads either, do they?

To be fair even with Japs it depends on the site

>>107268
Was it Hacker News?

>>107270
No, it was girlschannel.net. Not sure how I ended up there, honestly.

>>107268
As they used to say, sage does nothing. You have to ignore what it does to assign it anything but neutral value. To talk about defaults and choices is to sidestep what sage is.

>>107270
The fading on Hacker News seems pointless to me.
A faded comment actually stands out and draws attention to itself all the more since it looks different from everything else, and it makes me wonder why it got downvoted and want to read it.

>>107273
As they used to say, sage is a downvote. Ad populum won't get you anywhere.
Sage is a denial, a rejection of the default visiblity that would be given. To turn sage on is to say that there's a reason for doing so, a reason to deny a bump. I don't understand what the sidestep is when we're talking about the actual mechanic.

>>107276
They never said that...

>>107277
The default is 1. With sage, it's 0. Therefore, sage means -1. Is that equation simple enough for you?

>>107278
They still never said that!

>>107276
It's an appeal to authority at worst, as it was a minority opinion held by well cultured anonymous.
>To turn sage on is to say that there's a reason for doing so
Does one need a reason to do nothing?
Did I do nothing maliciously?

>>107280
Mendokusee.....
Yes, you literally do need a reason to type it. Not doing anything is precisely the opposite of filling in the field. Otherwise, why didn't you bump this thread?

Isn't the "default" not replying at all?

The default for a reply is to bump.

If sage did nothing, if it had no negative connotation, nobody would use it as such. You assume that nothingness is the default, that the void is natural, when it never was.
It doesn't matter what an ancient meme or pasta says, it doesn't make it truer than any other meme.

I don't know about anybody else but sage is the default for me. When I don't sage it's either because I explicitly decided not to or because my userscript broke. I sometimes choose not to post at all based on how I think people will interpret a sage.

>>107286
Yes, in instances where sage's on by default I would not argue that it's a negative, because it's on auto, unconscious. In that case it truly is neutral.

>>107285
Sage does in fact do nothing besides changing the color of Anonymous and giving it some mouseover text if you want to be anal about it.
The choice to do nothing doesn't change the nature of nothing.
Here read this sentence:

By default a thread is bumped to the first position of the first page of its respective board whenever a new post is accepted, unless the accepted post was submitted using the "sage" option, in which case nothing will happen.

For me to be wrong, the use of "nothing" in that sentence must be incorrect.

>>107290
This is just semantics. The difference here is that I say it's 1-1=0, you're saying it's 0+0=0. We only differ on which the default is, which I argue is 1 because that's what it's been throughout most of history.

>>107293
It's not semantics it's conditional logic. If this then this.
That post isn't an argument about the morality of shooting someone, it's a post saying if you pull the trigger the gun will fire.

>>107274
>A faded comment actually stands out and draws attention to itself all the more since it looks different from everything else, and it makes me wonder why it got downvoted and want to read it.
Now you know why I don't like on-topic sagers. "nooooo my post DOESN'T deserve to be read but I made it anyway, so I decided I'm going to make you work harder to find it for no reason, I'm just sooooooooooooo humble teehee"

>>107298
I sage on-topic posts when they're part of a discussion like this. Bumping a thread to the top of the catalog for a post that only makes sense if you've been following the conversation it's a part of is disruptive to say the least.

>so I decided I'm going to make you work harder to find it for no reason
Why not just watch the thread? If you're on a site where that's not an option , just open the thread in a new tab, nokoing your replies if necessary.

>>107321
Alright, guess I'll take on the duty of being the bumper in discussions like this.
Also you think I'm going to watch every damn thread just in case there's a reply?

>>107334
If you care that much, yeah. Otherwise why do you need to see every time a thread gets a reply?

>>107339
'cause I want to. That's reason enough.

>>107298
this

I thought it was polite on slow boards

Alright, today is a new day. I'll admit, I did get buttupset yesterday and I'm sorry for that, it was an embarrassment. But, I want to continue this, so let's do a new take and say that sage is an input. I'll elaborate on that later, for now let's first start off with organ donations.

Countries all around the world have a system where the organs of a recently deceased person (~24hrs) are removed and used to save the life of a nearby living person suffering from organ failure or the like. To apply, the deceased person must be included in a list of donors, and this list may be opt-in or opt-out.
With an opt-in system, you must do some paperwork in order to be added to the list, but with an opt-out system citizens are automatically added to the list, and inversely you have to go out of your way to fill a form in order to stop this donation from taking place. This is an instance of what's called "presumed consent", in contrast to "expressed consent", and it results in exponentially more donations, it's extremely effective. Like https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/presumed-vs-expressed-consent-us-and-internationally/2005-09" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" >this article sums up:
>Moreover, the presumed-consent policy in Spain is cost-effective, saving the National Health Service more than 200 000 euros in medical costs for each kidney transplant preformed on a patient on dialysis.
>After widespread educational efforts and almost 20 years' experience since the policy was implemented, less than 2 percent of the Belgian population has registered an objection to organ donation.
>In Austria, the rate of donation quadrupled within 8 years of a presumed-consent policy's being introduced.
The change from donations being forbidden without an action to being allowed with inaction works because it alters the path of least resistance. This is a crosscultural phenomenon, inaction is simpler than action, period.

Now let's take the case of being subscribed to a mailing list. Once you subscribe, the system presumes you will want to keep receiving its mail, that's what a subscription is. That's the new state of things. If you want to leave, you'll have to send a special email with -leave, or just click a button that says "unsubscribe". It's an action, a proactive one, there is a non-zero amount of effort that was put into telling it to go away. You are then no longer on the list, you will no longer receive those emails, and there is now nothing in its place. But it's a nothing that was created, through an expressed action. This nothingness is not spontaneous, you have to cause the subscription to go away and become nothing.

Finally, let's return to BBSs. In general, it is presumed that when one replies to a thread they also consent to bumping it. That's what's been expected out of any BBS for the last few decades, hardwired in most of them. Imageboards in particular have two options: age, which is presumed and implicit, and sage, which is expressed and explicit. That's the set input, the thing you write into your options field. Depending on said input, the reply may or may not bump the thread. This is what I meant by "the default", age is the fruit of inaction. Generally, to avoid a bump one must take an action that requires a non-zero amount of effort. I say it's a denial because it willingly goes against what would otherwise happen: if X is Y unless Z, then Z is an interference. In the event of a reply, we have sᴀɢᴇ → ¬ʙᴜᴍᴘ. Even in a vacuum, there's a negative here.

When one says "nothing", we have to specify what kind of nothing: no bump? Yes, there was no bump. No action? No, an action did take place. To say that sage does nothing is to ignore the latter. Sage almost always does something because using the option of sage itself is what's being done. This has its ramifications.
Consider the scenario of a thread that goes past the reply limit and so can no longer be bumped, where neither age nor sage will bring it back up. You will, however, find people going out of their way to take the action of inputting sage into their options field. Why would they, if inaction already does nothing? What purpose does the extra effort serve? Or in the inverse case of our happenings thread, where both age and sage will bump it. In either case, there is no change even when taking that action, sage as an option is mechanically irrelevant. What people do often use it for is to indicate that if they could deny a bump, they would.

The predominant purpose of sage is not so much to increase visibility (as that's commonly rendered pointless by a variety of tools or by already being at the top of the board) but rather to indicate the user's opinion of the thread, their post, or both. You can see this very clearly when reading the criteria listed in this thread: if a post is on-top or off-topic, if it has or lacks value, if they want others to get involved or not, these are all meaningful things, none of them are neutral. And sage is consistently for the negative: it's for the unrelated, the worthless, and the ones that shouldn't be seen. That's what its inherent value is, a negation. The idea of sage as polite is simply a negation that means no harm, but it's still a negation. Age, on the other hand, is actually much closer to being value-neutral because in many cases it doesn't carry any sense of intentionality. A majority of people ask themselves "should I sage" far more than they ask "should I age".


To sum things up in a simple question: what's the point of using sage in a bumplocked thread? Because there's always a reason.

>>107355
>sage is consistently for the negative: it's for the unrelated, the worthless, and the ones that shouldn't be seen.
This a purposeful mischaracterization of user intent to further your argument. Please refer to actual examples rather than conjecture. For sake of example, take these recent saged posts on /jp/:
>>>/jp/54454
>>>/jp/54413
>>>/jp/54399
>>>/jp/54403
>>>/jp/54404
>>>/jp/53548

These examples, in my opinion, quite clearly do not correspond with your interpretation that sage is an expression of negativity.

>>107355
>get buttupset yesterday
i have some cream for that if you want

>>107350
How so?

>>107359
The first one is a throwaway single-word reply, the second one brings up w*rk, the next three are tied up in a controversial thread, and the last one is a simple reaction to a disliked word, these examples agree with what I'm saying. I'm using sage here politely for a reason not unlike what you stated in >>107321, which is about not expecting people to join in. You said it'd be disruptive not to use it, which is a negative.
>>107370
Please, it's still hurting.

>>107373
>not unlike what you stated in >>107321
You're talking to (at least) two different people. I posted >>107228, >>107321, and >>107339. Everything else is someone else.

>>107377
Oh, my bad then. What do you think of >>107359's take?

>>107373
>Please, it's still hurting.
alright let me apply the cream
with my mouth
muah muah muah

>>107380
It's maybe a bit aggressive, but I agree with the overall point.

hey pissmin did you read this

>>107233
textboards came before imageboards so it was already a thing in 2ch that later futaba also used

teenboards

>>107389
Hmmm, oh well. Though there's still the question about saging while bumplocked.

I finally visited futaba and found out that they barely sage. If you don't believe me, here's a bunch of archived instances of a 二次元 board during late 2011:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110903150935/http://dat.2chan.net:80/img2/futaba.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20110926105611/http://dat.2chan.net:80/img2/futaba.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20111029072458/http://dat.2chan.net:80/img2/futaba.htm
Out of 218 posts, only 3 use the option. This is little over 1%. Kissu, on the other hand, has had 33% sage for years, which would make it considerably more Japanese than futaba in that regard. Then there are other examples like pic, which are representative of about half of the non-deleted sage posts I came across. The top two are raging, while the bottom one is more spam, and del is more of a downvote than any 4chan post ever was. This isn't about one's post being bad, it's about the thread being bad, they're rude. The other half, though, those were polite.

But don't take my word for it, here's a couple 2008 /jp/ posts corroborating it:
https://warosu.org/jp/thread/S52641#p56369
>fuck this shit, I just went to the yuri board there, there were a few troll posts (prolly some /b/tards did it?) and NO ONE, NO ONE even bothered to sage it. WTF?
https://warosu.org/jp/thread/S160384#p161467
>On 2channel, sage is the norm rather than the exception. On futaba, sage is used exactly like it is on 4chan.
>And EVEN IF the Japs used sage like you said (which they don't, at least not on the board that 4chan is based on) why would it matter that the meaning has evolved?
It's not cherrypicking if it fits the archive.

Sure, 2ch/5ch uses the option a ton, but if it's not the case for futaba then it's wrong to say it's the case for Japs. "Negative" isn't a curse word, it doesn't make it a downvote. There are SO MANY POSTS insisting that it's either "my post isn't worth a bump" or effectively "this thread isn't worth a bump", as if it could only be one of the two. But that's not the case, it covers both. When an altchan adds a feature that says something like "SAGE THIS SHIT!" when using the option, yeah, that's retarded, but there's something to learn from that.
Here's another one from 2008 /jp/:
>Basically: Is the post I am replying to shit? Sage. Is my own post shit? Sage. This is how it should be.
It does use foul language, but you get the point.

Call me whatever you want, I'm not gonna pretend to be an N0 oldfag, but to say it carries no negative value is simply wrong. I'm doubling down on this shit, and I have evidence to back it up.

>>107566
Have you considered the possibility that Kissu's usage of sage could be different from that of the futaba? What does it matter if they barely use it if that has no bearing on the users here?

>>107567
In that case, why bring up the Japanese at all?

I want to state this clearly: a negative isn't a bad thing, and no usage of sage in the last few years has ever bothered me. I actually wrote >>>/b/5008 because I do like its usage on Kissu, but I simply do not agree at all with the idea that it's value-neutral.

Whether it's polite or rude, it's still a negation of the presumed consent of age. The presumed is indeed close to being value-neutral, the expressed, by contrast, is not.

>>107570
So, then, would you say that for someone who sages by default would be value-neutral? Kissu for a long time was that way, but vermin changed it. This seems to me to be a reframing of sage to be purposefully negative, rather than of the same "value" as age.

>>107571
Yes, I do believe remembered sage to be much closer to being value-neutral.
>Age, on the other hand, is actually much closer to being value-neutral because in many cases it doesn't carry any sense of intentionality.
Before the change, it indeed was a special situation. But it no longer is, and now it's the same as the rest of the internet.
Again though, "negative" does not mean bad. It has its role precisely because it's different from age.

just noticed i screwed up the link to the article above lol

Which is also why I asked for Vermin to at least add an optional setting in >>>/b/11421.

If you're going to ask him for things can you at least call him vern

Oh, no, that's unnecessary. The two of us are on great terms.

>>107574
It's a term of endearment.

can i call him vermween

>>107574
How else would you call Verniy the Admin? Admiy?

hibikid
hibisquid

(EC)Hibiki(d)

you will NEVER break my sage spirit

>>114546
i will always bump your sage posts

Sage comes from 下げる (to lower) but where does noko come from? So many years browsing chans and never thought about it.

>>116508
Nokoru/残る, to remain.

>>116508
>>116511
didn't know this lore either

when i dont like the person who made the thread

>>118113
knew on topic sagers were just being rude

>>118113
stalker

>>>/jp/71278
>>>/jp/71279
WHY ARE YOU SAGING A STICKY
ANSWER ME

>>121229
Polite sage.

>>121230
polite sage is a gesture, manners, but not a reason

>>121229
There's no reason to bump a sticky.

>>121232
There is, simultaneously, no reason to sage it either. Unless...

>>121234
Sage does nothing. You don't need a reason to do nothing.

>>121240
I do what I want