>>8458673>Yes but you were also cluttering up the board with more threads. I'm really getting tired of repeating this.I don't know what I have to do to get through to you. We made more threads because your people wouldn't allow us to stick to our singular thread that has been the norm for the last few weeks. You guys are the catalyst for this whole situation. You guys took a thread you know to be created with innocent intentions and forced it to multiply. Why should I have to submit to the heckler's veto when what we're doing is allowed by the board's own rules?
>but this is a really bad food analogy. Like reeeaaalllly bad. Don't do it againIt's an analogy so bad that you can't even explain why it's bad in the first place.
>You can post images using outside sources like catbox.moe if need be. Threads take a while to die here so reply/image limit really don't mean anything. Largest amount of posts in a thread here was like near 2000 I believe? There are ways to work around it and in turn, anger the spammers because you aren't making more threads for them to spam. >Hates spammers and admits that they're the fault of the poor board quality>"Just submit to the spammers, bro. Also it's your fault too for following the rules">I'm not making excuses. I'm just making the point that the people here will spam your thread All you've done is tell me that I should submit to the will of the ones you admit are the propagators of the bad board quality.
>so don't act as if it's foreign. Spam I can deal with. You don't seem to realize that I'm trying to help you and your board out by being open and honest with our intentions here, which would in a sane world be able to settle the paranoia of the spammers.
>I'm sorry the community dislikes you and spams your threads. Don't make it worse by cluttering the catalog. Thanks.>Don't use the board for its intended purpose and submit to the ones I admit bear the brunt of the blame. Thanks. 