/b/ - Random

Create a Facebook ad campaign that only targets women.

You don't. Anonymity guarantees males. This places is already infested with males anyway, it's no different from any other chan.

>>60147
Tell people IRL about this place.

>>60152
>>60166
Pretty much impossible because for the most part it's still largely connected with r9k/4chan. It alienates newcomers.

The very nature of the internet means that moids can and will go anywhere, even where they're not wanted, unless you're basically running background checks on every user. Trying to stop them from coming at all is a fool's errand.

I think a more likely solution is an enforcement one: having the mods and admin try and cultivate a culture that is generally worthwhile for women and generally alienating to moids, which is pretty much what the admin does anyway: have obvious maleposters reported and banned, look at the posting history of suspected maleposters to see if their general posting style seem moid-esque, like not engaging with women's interests, not understanding women's experiences, and generally speaking on behalf of moidhood in a way that seems personal. Any moids remaining would be either scared into lurking or would end up convincingly sounding and acting like a woman, which then contributes to the general culture being worthwhile for women. It sucks because you'll never know if you're actually talking to a woman or just a feminine moid, but at least you won't have to deal with the obvious culture problems that come from men who feel like they're in a male-friendly space.

>>60179
There's like 50 mommy gf/punish me mommy threads on /b/ alone, this place is already lost. Want to keep men away? Ban all talk of "mommy gf" "femdom" "let's punish moids by making them submissive" and other blatant male shit.

>>60177
This place does not alienate newcomers. There are hardly people here to begin with.

>>60180
This gets to the kinda "have you ever retired a human by mistake" problem that comes with dealing in generalities: there are women out there who really do have moid-esque behaviors in some way like being into femdom or other coomer shit, and so wouldn't pass the "is this poster a woman" Turing test in certain contexts. But ideally, there would be a strong enough board culture with posters that post enough to build a profile that when things start flirting with male-adjacent stuff, we can generally trust that it's just a weird woman and not a normal man.

The best answer I can guess is sorta like you're saying - start out building a clearly female culture by not allowing edge case stuff like porn/fetishes until the site is active enough that you can start loosening the reins a bit. The admin seems to be trying that by hiding the porn board so only longer-time users would know about it.

>>60192
forgot my pic

>>60192
Places like goodreads have plenty women talking sex and porn:

https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/187063-unapologetic-romance-readers

What's the difference between here and there? One, usernames, nobody is anonymous everyone is identifiable. Two, they talk about stuff that is known to be made by women for a female audience. And look, zero femdom or mommy gfs there, tons of dominating men instead. There's NOTHING like that here.

>>60195
Yeah, but this is trying to be an imageboard, not a traditional message board. A traditional message board would be more appealing to normie women like your link has - romance novels are a popular industry for a reason. Imageboard culture at large is more appealing to weirder, non-normie users, which would mean that it would be more prone to having weirder, non-normie perspectives of sexuality, even by its female users.

>>60197
Imageboard culture at large is more appealing to men, which would mean that it would be more prone to having male posters. Fixed that for you.

You want to attract women? Talk about things women at large like.

Femdom will only repel women and attract men.

May I suggest;

Make a new /b/, hide it, let this /b/ become the fake, public /b/ that the males invade. They hardly put effort into their raiding, so they're too stupid to notice.

Moderation on fake/b/ can be loose but more strict on real/b/.

There will always be some "odd" girls that have interests which aren't typically "feminine" (= common among women) but somehow c.c manages to be a nest for gfd, raccoon boys and mommy gf, even though these interests are in the minority.

I believe that it's more productive for women who have "niche/male-like" interests to interact in a space which verifies their identity more, rather than an anonymous board. Imagine, you have, say, a giantess fetish that is dominated by males. You want to discuss it with other women only. Would you rather discuss it anonymously when you can't verify other posters are female like you, OR would you sign up to a forum, pass an interview (not necessarily use your voice or a photo) and talk there?

Wanting to talk about niche lady interests in a space that can't verify female users with accounts is very inefficient. And, why doesn't the nsfw board talk about these niche fetishes?

Due to this reason I believe most fetish talk, if not all, on /b/ is by male interest. Mods are probably suspicious of it so they don't move it off this board.

Whether imageboards attract more "non-normie" women or not, "femdom," "giantess," "mommy gf," are still male dominated fetishes. If imageboard girls were prone to be fetishists I'd imagine we'd talk more about yaoi, which I think is the most common female fetish. Or vampires or whatever.

>>60198
So are you saying that the majority of women who post on imageboards are women who would post in a goodreads board for bodice rippers? Or that it's simply not worth trying to create an imageboard for women because the demographic is too low to justify trying to weed out the men who would come?

>>60202
>So are you saying that the majority of women who post on imageboards are women who would post in a goodreads board for bodice rippers?

Why not? I for one like bodice rippers and I don't see why posting here should stop me from posting anywhere else.

>Or that it's simply not worth trying to create an imageboard for women because the demographic is too low to justify trying to weed out the men who would come?

I believe >>60201 has it correct:

>I believe that it's more productive for women who have "niche/male-like" interests to interact in a space which verifies their identity more, rather than an anonymous board.

>>60203
>>60201
>I believe that it's more productive for women who have "niche/male-like" interests to interact in a space which verifies their identity more, rather than an anonymous board.
You may be right, if only because moids instinctively lunge at even the hint of a woman sharing their interests. It's just a bummer because I believe there are unique, helpful dynamics to anonymity that even having a screen name sorta undermines, like being able to explore parts of yourself that you may be ashamed of or not sure you want to tie yourself to yet, or just talking freely knowing that there aren't social repercussions even within an internet group. It would be nice if that unique psychological space of anonymous posting could be available in a female-only environment.

>>60202
I think it's pretty clear that most people discussing gentle femdom/mommy gf stuff here are males. They almost never talk about what guys can do, never post art of cute guys, pics of cute guys, but they always put women as sexual objects instead. I say it as someone who is into mommy gf fetish - I don't want to discuss it with other moids here.

>>60205
I have no reason not to believe you, because I don't go into those threads. But that's why I feel like just flatly banning almost any fetish talk for at least a long while would be worthwhile. It feels unfair to say "dominant men and romance novel discussion is allowed, but tough shit if you're a woman into GFD," but as long as CC is on the radar of men and there aren't enough women and mods to drive them out, it's probably impossible to really discuss that stuff without having males worm their way in to play "lol and then what??"

>>60206
Why are femdom fetishists such whiny babies. Like, just go to /nsfw/.

The nature of

>anonymous
>female only

is contradictory.

The only way I can see it work is if you have a verification process to make an account but then the posts themselves are anonymous. But having a verification process where you have to prove you're a woman might make the amount of users even lower.

>>60213
That's why I feel like it's more of a culture question than an identity one: we know the kind of discussions and community we want, so report and ban the people who undermine those discussions and don't act like part of the community. There may be male-minded women who just don't click with the space and get drummed out, there may be softboi men who manage to fly under the radar, and there definitely will be men who just lurk and don't post, but the end result is a place where women at least don't have to deal with typical moid behavior.

>>60219
nailed it on the head

OP here.
>>60201
That will only split us even further, lowering the traffic at each /b/ until they both are barely alive. What I wish to accomplish is to make this board more fast-paced, so as to not wait for days until your thread hits 20 replies, at the same time keeping the demographics as they are now.

Maybe we should take a risky path and go shill this website a little bit in other internet communities. Not by making big loud posts blatantly calling people over, but carefully, when talking to other female posters in comments, for example. I know of another female imageboard that could be interested in visiting, the problem is that the said board doesn’t speak English, lol. Nevertheless, I’m pretty positive a certain share of them do understand the language and could actually join us.

I myself first found out about crystal cafe when someone made a thread in 4chan’s /int/. I don’t remember if it led to any flooding here, but some days later everything seemed fine, so I stayed.

>>60234
I figured that's how it was for pretty much everyone here - someone brings it up in passing in another chan or KF or some other internet underbelly and the curious come to see. It's the closest thing to "word of mouth" you can get for a bunch of internet-addicted shut ins.

Say all you want about lolcow.farm but at least they get the scrotes/trannies out. Faggot autistic scrotes have been invading this site all because the admin isn't as active as the lolcow admins

>>60254
Back to your trash hole, trash

>>60234
I found this board from a pol raid, myself.

I don't think that it's a good idea to spread news on random imageboards. It's not good to call forth people from 4chan because they are incapable of having normal discussion. Rather, if we want more female users, we should bring up discussion about female-only spaces on the internet, on forums that cover female interests.

Otome games, shoujo/joseimuke related websites, art forums, any website based on subjects that mainly women like. As long as women are recruited from spaces that are inviting to female users, I'm sure there will be some who would speak of more "niche" interests in an anonymous setting.

>>60213
How much anonymity is really needed?
Say, if you had to pass a text interview with the admin to post on an imageboard, or only a specific board of the IB, and you had a username/password (nothing else), would that be enough? The fact that you post with a username/password won't affect the way posts are made, the combination is only for the user to gain authorization.

Think of it like a janitor board.
Admins already see our IPs anyway, so if they wanted I'm sure they could make a log of our behavior, meaning you're not that anonymous to them. But at least other users can't see an identifier.

So if you had to "sign in" with a key, which admins can see, but users cannot identify, is that anon enough?

>>60270
If you have a username and password the site isn't an imageboard anymore. It's a forum.

>>60281
You have a username and password, but no one sees your username. The username is only required to access the page, like 4chan's board /j/.

A forum is different because users have profiles. An imageboard can be passworded without showing usernames, avatars, post count, signatures, profiles, and other things that a bulletin board typically has.

Just an idea for users that want an IB style forum, anonymity on the surface, and confirmation that users are female.

>>60308
>>60270
>>60281
>>60213
etc
Verification can never work. Even if we found a bulletproof way to verify female users, men would still be able to buy verified accounts or pay girls to get them verified. There is simply no way to make sure men can't post on the site. This is something we unfortunately just have to accept.

>>60153
>>60179
>>60192
etc
I'm going on a bit of a rant here, but the main criticism I see when people discuss crystal.cafe (here and elsewhere) is that a female-only rule is unenforceable. This is true and should be obvious to anyone. Making it impossible for men to post or having a 100% ban rate on maleposters isn't achievable no matter what. But I don't think that makes our site pointless. What I aimed for was to give women an imageboard experience without being talked over and invalidated by men, without porn spam and misogyny threads. No matter how much I scrutinize post histories of reported users and err on the side of caution, there will always be men whose tone and ideologies blend in with ours, and there will always be women whose don't. That is just a part of having a user base consisting of a variety of people from different recesses of the internet, who can share genuine feelings and shitposts alike. Part of imageboard culture is the utter insanity that comes with that. I don't expect this site to be a harmonious female-only utopia, I just want to provide a space that doesn't allow harassment and solicitation of female users.

I like seeing all the discussion in here, please keep it going.

>>60346
>But I don't think that makes our site pointless. What I aimed for was to give women an imageboard experience without being talked over and invalidated by men, without porn spam and misogyny threads.

yes this is so precious, I love you admin <3

>>60346
>buying accounts

I didn't think of that at all. You're completely right. Verification is pointless.
And I agree that it's not pointless even if we can't completely, accurately enforce the girls only rule.
Indeed, as you say, having a space in which women can simply talk without getting interrupted or disrespected is good enough.

Personally, there are certain types of threads that I avoid, because they look suspicious and I don't want to contribute to a low quality thread that might attract undesirables. I don't post in or even look at threads that start with one-liners and mostly include slang commonly used by males, or threads that just don't spark any meaningful discussion, just provokes males or is about males. Like the mommy gf thread active now, or the sausage thread. The OP of the mommy gf thread commented that it was supposed to be a different thread, but it still came off as a male fetish thread because it was low effort. No offense to the OP of that thread. Obviously, none of that is grounds to actually ban a user or delete a thread, but this is just how I view threads myself.

>>60368
>Obviously, none of that is grounds to actually ban a user or delete a thread, but this is just how I view threads myself.

The threads you mention are often tough calls for me. I personally know women who have fetishes like that, but I also know that it could be men dangling bait. In those cases, it comes down to what the rest of their posts look like. Just know that I do my best to weed them out, and I totally agree with only responding to threads you want to see more of. The best way to discourage bait is to ignore it.

>>60346
>there will always be men whose tone and ideologies blend in with ours
I think some of them believe that they're actually helping us by posting. It's kinda nice they care about us, but I wish they could understand that this is not the place that, so I'll politely ask them to leave. Even if you are a good poster this is just not the place for you. It's not that we all hate men or whatever, it's just that… the reason for this place to exist is to allow women to talk to other women.

>>60147
>>60180
thats actually a really good idea. every time there's a male here they're always horny posting femdom shit. I don't know any woman that sits around talking about how much they want to sexually dominate men. theyre telling on themselves.

>>60346
and I love that somebody bothered to even do that, even if it isn't foolproof. I grew up using places like 4chan for years before I couldn't take it anymore. I would get talked over by men that were there for LESS time than I was. I really appreciate this place existing at all. thank u.

>>60457
Please don't, I come here and to the femdom thread on lolcow because this is the only place on the internet that I get to talk about men as subjects to be acted upon instead of agents.

I like this place as a place to actually be myself as a woman attracted to men in an atypical way and it was pretty big for me to discover other people like me.

>>60270
We could advertise in places with otome, female dominated sites like spinster.xyz and lipstick alley. Murder story culture has lots of women into edgy stuff. A ton of female centered subreddits were banned recently we could pull from that too (just have to figure out how to not attract tranny attention). r/femaledatingstrategy would be a good place to drop hints.

>>60180
Banning any femdom and my kink shit for a while is a really good call, starve them, without any titillating content they get bored real fast. Some female users may be into that stuff, but I feel like it's a small sacrifice. They can always find some discord group for femdom.

>>60456
I don't think a majority of them are thinking they are helping. They just unironically enjoy posting here.

>>60489
You don't build a site and a culture through advertising, you make a site worth going to and eventually word will go around. Not like the servers could take a huge influx anyway.

And banning fetish shit won't get rid of the moids, only the vocal ones. If you advertise a female only space you've turned it into a voyeuristic experience no matter what. There's no escaping being the sexual object.

>>60491
>If you advertise a female only space you've turned it into a voyeuristic experience no matter what. There's no escaping being the sexual object.

Fuck. Why do men always have to infest everything like cockroaches. I don't know how dealing with this shit doesn't make all women on the internet a manhater.

>>60491
>They just unironically enjoy posting here.
Well, they aren't exclusive, are they?
But I agree that they enjoy here. I believe there's some sort of Gresham's law on imageboards, where the bad poster drives out the good poster and the good poster attracts the bad poster.

Truth is, C.C. is sometimes a victim of its own quality. The average poster here is so better than on most places that bad posters will be attracted to this place you like it or not. That's one of the reasons I don't believe more traffic is good. A slow place with good posters is enough for me.

>>60489
Banning subjects that actual women are talking about just because you don't like the fetish and telling them to go use some platform that isn't anonymous really goes against the spirit of this website doesn't it.

>>60346
>>60458
>I grew up using places like 4chan for years before I couldn't take it anymore.
feel you
just wanted to add my thanks to Admin

Implying that this place isnt all men larping as women

random but i do love that i can post here without pretending to be a man/be certain that i frame x post as coming from a man lest someone reply with something dumb like
>are u a girl? opinion invalidated
and lightly shitpost about my niche interests
hmm
i do wish i could somehow pull the userbase from /jp/'s /blog/ to here, though. pretty sure most people in there are ladies

>>61729
I stopped going to /blog/ but it would be nice to have more weeb traffic in the media board.

>>60147
lolcow, /cgl/ grantees the least moids

Just discovered this place after it was mentioned on /r9k/ and it seems comfy here

>>60346
>What I aimed for was to give women an imageboard experience without being talked over and invalidated by men, without porn spam and misogyny threads.
I like this vision, but it's difficult to apply in practice.
Advertising a board as "for women" attracts gender-based discussion more than anything else, see the front pages of /b/ and /feels/. /media/ is very slow and a complete hodgepodge of stuff. It isn't much of an upgrade from the regular chan experience. Especially when decent threads like /blog/ exist on other chans.
The on-topic discussion of outside interests is the aspect of the imageboard experience that's missing here, to me at least. I drop by here sometimes, but there isn't enough non-gender discussion to visit regularly.

>>60152
This is how you get inundated with trannies, lol.