>>82118 No.

No, SSBBWs are already rare.

That's a good question. Would I like it and participate there? Definitely. Is there sufficient demand for that? I dunno. I definitely think it would be worth trying; maybe USSBBW and then have some immobility threads there, as I really don't think there is going to be room for both.

>>82137 Have you seen the SSBBW board? It is huge! Definitely think trying a USSBBW board is worth it.

>>82118 There isn't enough "bigger than SSBBW" content for an individual board, let alone two

Maybe as a thread in ssbbw. I remember there was a human blob one which was basically the same and perfect but got moved to alt or something

I do agree that /ussbbw/ would be worth trying. /ssbbw/ is already popular and having /ussbbw/ would open that board up to have more threads. >>82165 I enjoyed that thread its a shame that some weirdo uploaded lots of disgusting fucked up legs and feet of fat people and a mod instead of deleting those just moved the thread to alt and then weeks later those photos got deleted anyway.

>>82214 There is absolutely no use for a ussbbw board. There are very few that have ever reached that size. A chubby board would make a hell of a lot more sense in regards to site traffic

no, but I do think /bbfurries/ sould be changed to /fatfur/ since that is the term used everywhere else in the furry fandom

>>82222 No one cares about furry

>>82217 That actually is a good idea. I am into USSBBW end of the spectrum, but I wouldn't mind getting the chubs out of some of the other forums.

>>82217 Thinking about it, there are quite a number of boards that get very little traffic, but are there so their topics have space and are not placed on the faster boards. Mods in /ssbbw/ have moved a few threads of the bigger models who are well in the ussbbw category like Boberry, FatMissT, and FatGinger Bunny as well as just moving the human blob thread to /bbwalt/. Those also where moderately active threads, so there definitely would be traffic for them. Same goes for making a chubby board. But I think the real issue is if the site admins want to deal with server host costs for an additional board and dealing with moderating another board when there are huge issues with low quality posts, schizo posts, subject in name field OPs, death trolls, the average /booty/ user, and of course the ocassional CSAM spammer.

>>82372 I said that. I'm a janny. I moved those threads to gen. They got moved because they are discussion threads not content threads. Blame the turbo autists that surround them. The blob thread is what alt is supposed to be for all the super niche shit.

>>82373 You can say they are "they are discussion threads not content threads" adnasueum. But people are just going to talk if there isn't very much actual content to talk about for a while. Especially considering that USSBBWs in general are either literally too fat to get up and do some things on their own or just too fucking lazy to bother posting for easy OnlyFans money; which only compounds with the fact that these women specifically to the turbo autists. Its not like its just one model's thread either, nearly every model over 600lbs seems to get verge towards being more discussion orientated. It's just going to fucking happen with those threads whether you like that or not. You may just be better off trying to either make it very clear that ussbbws and IRL blobs belong on /bbwalt/, because it is really not clear as end user. The description of /ssbbw/ being "those who like em bigger than big" sort of implies that any woman bigger than a bbw belongs there. Additionally IRL ussbbws seem to slowly becoming more common or at least have a larger online presence in recent years, so it's probably a good idea to make it clear where those threads need to go whether it's /bbwalt/ or a new /ussbbw/ or /blob/ board.

>>82374 Size has absolutely nothing to do with it. Bbw models have been kicked to gen for the same issues. Some threads hit bumplock in weeks and it is all discussion. There ends up being 3 threads for the same model on the board. Bumping actual content threads. Gen is for discussion. You couldn't even fill two pages of the board with all the ussbbw models there are or have been, thats why it doesn't need a board. They are perfectly fine in ssbbw. Stop being so fucking autistic

>>82376 Dude, I am just saying you are going to get discussion in some threads, and certain model sizes absolutely have a correlation with more discussion. You shouldn't get pissy about it and just move them to /bbwgen/. It just makes it harder to find the model people want, and what is inevitably going to happen is that someone isn't going to figure out you moved the thread or just not give a fuck and make a new thread. Also I just checked the Isabella BBW thread, that I am assuming you moved. The discussion is at the very least about the model the thread is about. Is it really warranted when they are talking about her, her content, and issues that may impact it? if I where I janny I would assume that it at least seems on topic. The discussion here is about just making a designated place for those threads, even if by nature they end up becoming wordy. If your issue is people making duplicate threads and having threads end up becoming more discussion than content, then consider this. How about starting with issuing bans for people who put the subject in the name field, making it harder to see what the thread is about in the catalog causing people to not see that a relevant thread already exists, because clearly that is a site wide issue where somehow this specific site in particularly seems to think the name field is for the name of the model or artist you are posting and your alias. That would save you so much work. Because people could actually find what they want faster in the catalog. Secondly, encourage people to not just make a new thread because it hit the bump limit. Threads don't immediately 404 when this happens, but enough users seem to think so and just make a new thread when they really could have waited a week or two before doing so. Causing boards to artificially move much faster than they should. Which hurts the content available on this site. Thirdly, just consider tolerating some threads being full of discussion. If you move it, someone is going to just remake it eventually and the same people will return to it and fill the new thread with that dreaded discussion you hate so much. Most people don't check /bbwgen/ so its literally just making it harder to find the more relevant meta discussion threads on this board. If off topic bullshit like "X model died thats why there is no posts on her feabie in the last 48 hours" or "I know her IRL" or even "please post fartcake again" then you know do your job and delete that bullshit. But relevant discussion shouldn't warrant moderation action on your part.

No. If you're already into SSBBWs it means you like or at least can handle rolls, cellulite, "odd" shaped anatomy and so on. If once in a while there's a model who's past the line and grosses you out, just scroll on by. Otherwise it's gonna devolve into figure types, individual races, ages, etc and we'll have 100 different low-traffic boards.

>>82384 Bingo

>>82377 I'm gonna put this real simply. Bans dont stick for the most part. This ain't the old internet anymore. If people would wait till shit was bumped off the board it wouldnt be such an issue. Generally end up with one or two new threads before it hits bump lock and three after it does. That's 5 threads that get bumped off the board for absolutely no reason. For one broad who has no content. Since they have been in gen it still happens, but doesn't matter since gen has such a high turn over rate anyways. For the most part I try to make sure that threads are named correctly so it is searchable, but sometimes they get missed and are too active to delete. I can't change it either. So they stay until they are finished. Same reason bumps get deleted. So the board can flow naturally. Death notices stay in place till they are proved or disproved. Then it is moved to gen or deleted. It definitely helps when people report shit though.

>>82403 You do too much. Stop micromanaging.

>>82373 I agree with the other guy saying this is a terrible policy. It makes it so that if someone doesn't like a model, they can just spam discussions to get it moved to /gen/. Bans would be more effective if you used ASN bans more. Also on the topic of CSAM, non-sexual images of minors aren't illegal anywhere so your overenforcement of it for legal reasons is retarded. I could see doing that if Barclay just had a moral objection to it, but to do it for legal reasons is illogical. No one is going to break your door down for medical photos or pictures of clothed children photographed in non-sexual environments.

>>82118 yes and no

>>82403 Lets put it in a different way. If you ban someone, or issue a warning that must be viewed before posting. They probably will see the reason and at least think about maybe not doing that the next time. Its not going to stop someone if they are really dedicated, but it is a tool to at least communicate admin's wishes. You'd probably get further with that, even counting pathological ban evaders than just moving every thread that gets not to your liking to /gen/ or /bbwalt/. But in general, as long as any bans issued are not overly long or given out for ridiculous reasons. Users are more likely to respect them. >>82470 This is a porn site, it is a really bad idea to tolerate images of minors being posted even if it is not sexualized. Tolerating jailbait will basically wave green flags for pedos that they are tolerated here and they will come in mass and inevitably make the issue even worse. You cannot be soft on that. If you really want to insist that it isn't non-sexual, then why do you want to post it to a porn site! At the very least it would be off topic on any board here.

>>82470 What an unbelievable bad take holy shit.

Why do mods delete questions about bypassing DRM protection ? Where do you think all the content comes from ?

>>82816 Cause it is littered all over the board. Takes over threads. Take a peek

We used to have an USSBBW board, it was barely used, and IIRC we voted to close it, and add an extra page or two to SSBBW.

>>82118 >>82159 No, because USSBBWs are too rare and too few in number to warrant them having their own board.

>>83100 We need to create a board because of this fact. Their rarity should be celebrated and we should be incentivizing it via ever avenue available.

There should at least be a dedicated thread to posting content and discussion

Because they’re a subsection of ssbbw

>>83152 But aren't SSBBW just a subsection of BBW?

>>83152 >>83197 What about a blueberries? Why can't we have a whole board for blueberry women? They're a sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-subsection of BBWs too.

>>83197 >>83198 All I’m saying is that there’s women who are 600lb+ that make content, and why not dedicate a thread to them since there isn’t already

>>83203 What's stopping you...?

>>82118 Id be happy for one

>>83219 >Why don't you make a thread that the mods have constantly kept moving because people got too talky in the threads.

Either we make this thread the dedicated place for ussbbw or we make a board, the fag mods in the ssbbw board took down a ussbbw thread

>>83636 FR, but here’s a Ssbbw/Ussbbw dump just cuz lol https://gofile.io/d/XamPVd