>>4814

>in addition to its long established bad quality

I thought that was the point? That it was the shitpost overflow bin of this site?

>>4815
That's incorrect.

>>4815
Have you seen /b/ recently? Today is the first day in a while it hasn't been complete crap.

>>4817 I wouldn't say so, the garish colours and one liner posts disgruntle me. I want my boring, pedantic, newspaper reading /b/ back.

>>4817

I agree. And that being the case, could I please have my ban revoked, purple?

(I was given a week ban for criticising a thread which was subsequently deleted for being of poor quality)

When there is interesting content to be discussed (as now, Digital Britain) then I would like to contribute.

The quality of /b/ has sharply declined since /iq/s .swf enablement.
This is how I've seen it, anyway.

>>4822
Done.

>>4823
I agree, otherwise interesting threads have ended up being derailed by saged bickering and stupidity which has lead to them being heavied by the time they're back on topic.

I'm not sure that locking /iq/ is the answer here, as was said a while back, just because a barrel of toxic waste has stopped bubbling doesn't mean it's time to pour it out all over the room. I suppose only time will tell....

>>4826
There haven't been posters who just stick to /iq/ for a long while.

>>4827

/iq/ was one of the places that genuinely felt like maybe two or three people actually posted in it, which is what put me off. Am I quite near the mark, or is it just that the posts ended up so homogenised that it just appeared as such?

Oh no, now /b/ will be poor! Those two posts per day in /iq/ may just GO EVERYWHERE!

>>4825 Changed poster ID purple?

>>4826
I initially agreed with the person who posted that toxic waste barrel analogy, but now I've come to look at /iq/ as its very presence being an endorsement of shitposting. purple should delete/hide it and complete this successful cystectomy. Yes, we all miss britchan (I think) but it's time to consign it to history and move on.

>>4830
>>4809

So the shitpoststorm that hit /b/ shortly after /iq/ became unusable is just a coincidence, then?

>>4832
As in?

Go on, tell me, I would be really surprised if it wasn't typical /b/ shit.

>>4833
As in all the drama relating the grammar etc. The "one girl I have slept with from facebook" guy would be fine in /iq/. It's not shitposting, it's just less strictly quality posting.
I reckon simply having /iq/ there takes away from the temptation to shitpost in /b/, even if one doesn't subsequently shitpost in iq. It's become a mini-meme to say it's a bad board, but I'm not seeing how it's measurably worse than any others.

So that's my opinion. Now let's look at some numbers.
It's the 11th most posted in board for this week despite having been locked a few days. Not to mention second most posted in of all time.
What about the 9 main boards that are not locked and haven't had a single post in the past 24 hours, or the 3 that have none in the past *week*?

The flash posting in it is shit, sure, but that was allowed (I have been led to believe) because /iq/ was already allegedly a "bad" board. Why the vendetta against it, anyway? Get rid of /uhu/, get rid of /mph/, get rid of /£$€¥/. That, or demonstrate exactly why they deserve to stay, yet /iq/ doesn't.
This is a cringeworthy shot in the foot.

Since /iq/ is on it's way out I request the background to be set to a repeat image of the attached gif.

>>4836
Request whiteLine.png is changed to this.

>>4835
Iq's original intention was not to be a shit posting magnet. It became that and until that attitude changes I think it should be locked.

>>4835
The site needs /mph/. People want to discuss cars and motorbikes and there is no other place to do so.

I haven't ruled out unlocking /iq/ in the future, but it's much harder to try and improve /b/ and /iq/ at once.

>>4839
So you keep saying, but people got that impression at the time of its inception. Either your memory fails you or its purpose was badly communicated.

>>4843
At the time of its conception it was originally supposed to be the britchan refugee camp.
At least I thought it was, I came here after britchan death(well I came after both, the first one the site looked like shit I seem to recall so I forgot it existed) and didn't really go on any other boards for about a month(at the time I considered purple and his mod team fascist dictators, LOL)

>>4844
With all due respect, I wasn't putting it up for debate by the user base. It's well established that many/most people thought of it as a dumping ground for bad content. It was certainly established as a refugee camp for the remainder of Britchan users who remained faithful to the cesspit it had become. It was even called "Britchan" in the frames menu.

>>4845
It wasn't a cesspit at the start until 'gb2/iq/' became the phrase for things which frankly even attracted bans on britchan.

>>4839
That is not what I am saying in the least. Laxer quality posting does not always mean shitposting. It's the difference between the guardian and the sun. which one's doing better?

>>4845
The only people I have ever seen or heard refer to it as a place for shitposting have been people arguing for its deletion.
Surely that tells you something.

Read topic 82 on the moderators' board. It's on page four. Pay particular attention to the comments by pink and turquoise. Also note that the moderators who seemingly disagree with what turquoise said didn't speak up at the time. Ultimately purple can settle this by saying why he created the only board where no moderation was to take place and why he named it after Britchan.

Part of the disagreement may be rooted in defensiveness. When I say /iq/ was created for topics not suited to /b/, not of the quality /b/ demands, I am not saying it had nothing of value to offer.

>>4848
I understand the point you're making, that less intellectual content can be more popular, but would add caution by pointing out that 4chan is far more popular than britfags could ever be.

>>4849
You've not been paying attention.

>>4851
Having enough people posting on here for it not to appear dead to anyone who's just passing through is not going to magically turn the place into 4chan.

The fact shit does get posted in there occasionally doesn't make it indefensible, as when there have been people posting regularly, much of the shit seemed to pushed off the board reasonably fast.

>You've not been paying attention.
With respect, I disagree.

/iq/ was the 'Britchan refugee camp' initially, but since most of Britchan's srs bsns boards were or are now duplacted on .gs, all that was left was shitposting. And I seem to recall on more than one occasion, even the mods said that they wanted /b/ free of shit and to take it to /iq/...and that was in the old days, long before 'gb2/iq/'

tl;dr- /iq/ was always the shitposting board. What's happend recently though is that posting is subject to whether or not the mods find it amusing or worthy - which is not on. The only thing that should be modded in /iq/ is stuff like CP etc that gets through the net. Other than that it needs to be left to its own devices

I think it is the duty of every /iq/fag to show some solidarity and deliberately shitpost the rest of the site until we get /iq/ back.

>>4860
>I think it is the duty of every /iq/fag to show some solidarity and deliberately shitpost the rest of the site until we get /iq/ back.

I predict a lot of bans.

>>4926
I fail to see what that has to do with me.

I miss /iq/. I miss having somewhere to post threads like "take one look at this family and guess their nationality". Shitposting maybe but fuck it, a board with no rules at all (except cp and the like) is what this site needs. I would love to see a new board with no britchan associations. Just a place to make threads that aren't worthy of /b/.

>>4935

German?

>>4936
Correct.

>>4937
No, I meant, are you German?

>>4938
It's extra funny that someone ruined your joke, you pointed that out, they deleted the post that ruined your joke, you then deleted the post that said they had ruined your joke and now I am pointing it all out to ruin it again.

>>4922
You have no idea what you're talking about, please shut up.

>>4942
Well you can't really 'ruin' it if you're the person it was directed at.

>>4943

I personally think they hit it absolutely on the fucking head.

there were memes that were started on /iq/ which I thought were hillarious but were shot down because they didn't meet with mod approval.

And there were memes that were absolute shit imo and just carried on forever because they had mod approval.

>>4945
blah blah blah it's all the mods fault.

>>4945

I understand that you may well be trolling and/or being edgy by posting something vaguely anti-mod, however you may also have a valid point which your vagueness about specific memes only serves to increase. Details lad.

>>4947

memes that were crushed despite being very in the nature of britchan:

searchfag vs storm fag. chanology infighting

memes that were forced to an annoying level and didn't have mod backing

Thirteen! does this hat make me look fly.

memes that were forced to an annoying level and had mod backing:

Mansfield massive, halfpast 2, lpotnl

behonest with yourselves, was spaming of mansfield massive stuff any better then spaming of chanology stuff. I must have filtered though 100s of pictures of chavs in my time the only time it ever became funny was with the take over of britchan.co.uk by the massive, I found far more joy from watching people squabble, and occasionly pretending to be one of the sides to encourage squabbling between chanologists.

Britchan was about 3 things in my opinion, trolling the fuck out of one another and accusing the other person of being someone/ of a special intrest group (yub yub, billbob, search fag, jfp, purple, ect.) and pretending to be one of those groups.

As soon as that kind of behaviour was clamped down on, and petty grudges were no longer alowed to be fought with out banning /iq/ stopped being like britchan.

I'm not trying to be anti mod, but mods actually killed iq by actually taking an active intrest in moding, britchan was basicly an exercise in complete anarchy and trolls trolling trolls.

>>4948
You REALLY don't know where half of those memes came from.

>>4948
>searchfag vs storm fag. chanology infighting

You're wrong. This stuff was tedious on britchan too, it's that nobody gave a fuck at the time - or more perhaps Rage and YubYub were frightened away from the whole idea because of it I think.

I can't believe you're deconstructing memes.

>>4950

>You're wrong. This stuff was tedious on britchan too, it's that nobody gave a fuck at the time - or more perhaps Rage and YubYub were frightened away from the whole idea because of it I think.

What you basically said there is that you didn't actually like britchan as far as I'm concerned, britchan was always a rage inducing and tedious, that was its charm, it was like smashing your head against a wall made of thick racist chav that refuses to lose an argument, then one day you realised that chav was never real in the first place, you were just smashing your head against a wall.

>I can't believe you're deconstructing memes.

Meta posts on a board about the meta, well I be dammed?

It is important for anything I say to have any validity at all to establish that a board has a personality, and part of that is the deconstruction of the attituted and zeitgeist of a board, this is what made /b/ different from /iq/ and britfags /b/ different from any other /b/.

>>4934
Sorry lad, I meant to direct that to >>4922

>>4953
Who's spamming anything at this time?
As for your deconstructed memes, you really have no idea.
I don't disagree that /iq/ was overmodded for its purpose, however.

>>4955
So what you're saying is that the moderators ruined /iq/.

Are there any plans to re-open /iq/ any time soon?

I fucking love that the Theme Hospital theme tune is playing. Top marks from me.

>>4974
I always considered Steady Pulse the theme tune.

That image is turning me sick.

>>4981

I like how when you look at it sometimes it looks like a cancerous growth on the face instead of a jizz plop.

>>4979
We could change it if you like

Doctor needed in inflation clinic

>>4989
I laughed.

>>4988

I think you should.

It would be nice to have one board where we could just be silly if the mood takes us. I like the quality of the /b/ board on here but I miss the fun of random Alan Partridge threads.

>>5036
Everyone misses the Partridge threads, lad.