forced_anon chat

I know, but hear me out-- seriously.

Imagine this: you load up a 4chan chat page, and you're connected to another user to chat one on one. Completely at random, with no traces of identity whatsoever. That's it. There could be a button to get a new person if you really don't like who you're talking to or you've seen them before, or you could just hit F5. In the true spirit of Anonymous, you could talk about anything in complete freedom.

Someone pick this up and run with it. I'd love to see it happen, but I just don't have the wherewithal.

cool

yes, that does sound awesome.

I know, but hear me out-- seriously.
How many people wouldn't take it seriously? I mean, newfags would make it fail, oldfags would complain. It'd be /b/ on steroids. Not sure if that would be so great.

Although, it would be quite amusing, I must say.

Well played, ol' chap.

This would be impossible without the one-on-one aspect. With this, I think that it's actually a decent idea.
I'd love to see at least a trial run or something.

>>3
Eh, you never know. People just might leave those oldfag and newfag identities behind. I'm honestly more worried that it would just turn into a bunch of pity parties where everyone whines about being a fat virgin with no life. I don't know how to keep it from sliding into ruts like those...

talk to /prog/ about this.  Seems very possible.

>>6
Good idea. Thanks.

This might be one of the worst idea I've ever heard.

>>8
Every time I read this comment it makes me smirk.

Sigh. In all fairness how many of you actually WANT to have to deal with most people here?

>>10
The idea-- the hope, anyway-- is that most people here would NOT be the people they are here when you stripped what last sense of identity they had and got them out of the 'public eye.'

>>11
actually if they were completely anon one on one, how would that make it any different then here.  It would just turn into people badly trying to troll people and cp trading.  bad idea

>>12
It's very different, because you get them away from that group mentality. They no longer feel like they have to regurgitate shitty old memes to prove to the herd that they belong, because there's only 'you' and 'me.' It might-- just might-- provide people a way to be more honest.

>>13
it is still associated with 4chan, unless you were to put it on a different site and stay away from anything hinting that it was from 4chan.  Unless you did that the group mentality would still be there, plus allot of /b/tards regurgitate their memes to people that don't even go to 4chan.... so your thought is flawed.

>>14
>plus allot of /b/tards regurgitate their memes to people that don't even go to 4chan
A lot of memes aren't even confined to 4chan any more, and the only reason they're doing it is still to look like they're part of the cool kids' club. Disassociating it from 4chan might be a good idea, though.

I thought people went to chat rooms for that stuff? But what would I know? I've only been online for barely 2 years, and I've yet to visit a chat room. Or is this meant as a new scheme to pick up underage children by getting them one-on-one with no one else to monitor the two-way conversation?

>>16
More like for the FBI to catch people trying to do exactly that. Anyway, no it wouldn't be like that, because it's completely anonymous and randomized. If you were trying to pick up underaged girls you'd look for a chatroom that had NAMES so you could readily identify the kind of people you're looking for. So just the opposite, really.

In fact, if you think this is supposed to be like a conventional chatroom, then you've missed the entire point-- indeed, the entire point of the anonymous posting system here on 4chan, as well. Perhaps you haven't been around these here internets long enough to see the kind of faggotry that results in an internet community with identities-- the veteran circle jerks, the attention whoring, and so forth. When you strip people of all sense of identity, there's no longer any way to indulge that kind of crap, and it is the hope that they instead do something interesting or real.

>>17
Thanks for the lesson. I think I get the idea: One-on-one dialogue with an anonymous that's different each time you show up, like a masked ball where you dance with a partner at random whose face you can't see.

But what about people who use tripcodes, or who use the same words/phrases over and over, or other repeat behavior-type things? Isn't that a way of establishing an identity? Like identifying a person by a type of joke, because no matter the thread, if you see THAT type of joke, you know it's THAT GUY again?

>>18
Unfortunately, yes, there's only so much you can do to remove identities from a situation. People can still create them if they're so inclined, in the manner you described, but it was my hope that they'd no longer feel compelled to. Though you might think establishing an identity would leave one more open to retaliation, I think it actually has a way of distancing people from the situation entirely. When one has an identity, it's no longer he who's chatting or posting, it's all done through that proxy-- and, by consequence, it's all pretty lame and not very honest.

I don't know why exactly I think a one on one chat system would be different from an imageboard. When one makes a post on an image or discussion board, I think one does take into account that his words are going to be judged by the whole community. Even he isn't worried about preserving some identity, he still identifies with those words and responds to the reactions they get, and I think that ultimately leads to self-censorship and conformity. When there's only one person passing judgment, it doesn't have nearly the same negative impact, and what's more you can hit F5 and dismiss the entire thing, whereas a post still remains.

>>19
Hit the F5? Ouch!! That's gotta hurt as bad or worse than worrying about the group: That's like when you try to talk to girl and she just tells you to get lost or turns her back and walks off while you're still talking!

I guess the difference you're hoping for [with one-on-one chat vs. imageboard] is difference between pandering to the masses (imageboard) vs feeling out and trying to connect with a specific person (one-on-one chat). The general goal of each is the same: positive affirmation of worthiness and acceptance; but one requires a blanket statement(s) based on garnering the mood gathered from multiple statements made by several people while the other requires a more focused appeal made by eliciting and responding to statements from a single person.

You will usually bs the group (read: say what you think they want to hear), because the group usually lets you know where they're at before you speak, but the individual has to be prodded into saying enough to determine a mood or stance before you decide whether or not to spout the bs (or hit the F5 key!).

I guess you're hoping that with one-on-one chat, you won't have to play to the crowd as much and go from a general connection with a bunch of people (however tenuous and contrived the connection) to specific connection with a single person (and hopefully NOT so tenuous and contrived).

See http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1196829427

You were correct in that - even when it was posted on /b/ - the chat server didn't fill up with idiot trolls. There were actually some decent and interesting discussions on there.