>>24834837>Let's go back to doing the same thing that didn't work before>doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different resultsI'm not expecting different results, the old method WORKED, and this one will not.
>You seem to believe the only reason this thread exists is so content can amuse only you>Unlike with previous gardevoir threads, gardevoir general might be slowWhen the Gardevoir threads get slow from lack of content, they fall off from inactivity and people stop making new threads.
I won't be the only one who will get bored of Gardevoir threads, and I know this for a fact, because it's happened before.
How long have you even been here to not know that?
>a gardevoir general hasn't went off the board because there has been a lack of posts or contentYet.
Thanks once again to the surprising amount of OC that only seemed to pop up to support these threads.
Once that flow of OC stops, things will probably start slowing down.
>Your only argument is "We might not have enough content, so let's go back to something where again we might not have enough content!"That's not what I'm saying at all, are you even reading my posts?
When you self moderate the threads, and let some time pass, it gives time for new content to be created and new discussion topics to crop up.
Once again, where you even here for long enough to see the old threads? Because there was a few days to a week between them, there was always something to post and something to talk about.
The threads rarely slowed down to a crawl, or died off from inactivity.
tl;dr
Not only are you completely denying that the old threads worked, and insist on "fixing" what isn't broken, you're still only saying "It hasn't died yet, so let's keep going".
