I'm in a bit of a hurry so I'll try to be curt but thorough.
Ok so, I typically would not post with my capcode or name attached, in fact, I reckon this might be the first, maybe second time at best, but I suppose the situation is starting to degenerate to the point it's warranted.
First, let's clear some air: these >>316526 >>316539 posts aren't mine, my capcode shows up as Global Staff, not Board. I literally posted the thread, went to do some other stuff and then went to bed. I only woke up just now to go to work. Also, I've only gotten back from a year long hiatus due to private matters some 2 weeks ago. So, I don't know what kind of ghost people who claim to have been bickering with me have been visited by. Sturgeon gave me a quick brief on how there are some new people in the staff but from my understanding there's currently only one active local mod on /v/, so I can only assume both capcoded posts were made by him, and the ban also issued by him, to himself? Unless there's some context I'm missing, I don't know, don't ask me. Also I didn't make that poll.
Second, regarding the main topic. I reckon there has been a huge conflict of information on both ends, admittedly miscommunication on my part, and possibly misunderstanding on yours, which has led to this blowing way, way out of proportion. Yes, looking back at the OP I'll concede it could've been clearer and some things that seemed obvious to me wouldn't be to everyone. That's on me. At the same time, most criticism seems to stem either from misunderstandings or from assuming the worst possible doomsday scenarios:
>ZOMG THEY'RE NUKING A ZILLION THREADS FOR THE LULZ
No. Nowhere in the OP does it say that, like at all. I can sorta, kinda see how one could maybe misinterpret but I'm telling you now that's not what's happening. What is really happening is that by adjusting the thread post limit, threads which are past that new limit will get locked automatically. Locked mind you, not exterminatus'd from orbit overnight, and not sucked into a black hole, not a blink and you'll miss it thing. I said they would get pruned "sooner" because that's what happens with threads that, over time, slide to the bottom of the catalog and you know, eventually get pruned, normally? Just that it would happen a bit sooner because all newer threads will have a slightly shorter lifespan. Which brings me to the second point.
>ZOMG THIS IS LITERALLY TURNING TO TWITTER ZOOMER ZOOMER 4CUCK & friends
Which sounds very dramatic and all, but that's kind of all it is, and it almost seems silly having to address it. The change is nowhere near as huge as some make it seem. 100 fewer posts per thread is only 22% less than the current limit. If a thread took months to fill up before, it'll still take months with the new limits, it'll just take a little less, and then you can just make a new one. That's literally it.
It's a small adjustment that reflects the current volume of activity. The previous limits made sense when this place had a higher user and post count, and threads filled up at an acceptable and appropriate pace. But now that there are fewer people it's effectively fighting against activity. As someone already pointed out, threads tend to generate more traction earlier in their life. All this does is push a little in that direction, so I quite honestly don't get all the talk about it being the Antichrist 9000.